Jack Said

Interesting that those reviewing this negatively seem completely unaware of the original and that any confusion only arises from not knowing this and not having seen the original.

As for unbelievable characters...well that's a first isn't it. No movie has ever had characters that one doesn't come across in real life. (/sarcasm)

I'm not sure it was worth a prequel, although a couple of things from the original were explained so it had its uses, not least seeing the relationship with Erin and having a better understanding of her reaction when 'Peanut' re-entered her life in the first one.

Altogether, not a bad follow up to the original.

I'm keen to see what the third one offers.

The crime films from UK from the nineties till now have always, at ninety percent, deceived me, because of bad directing, bad acting, bad scripts. Forget LONG GOOD FRIDAY, GET CARTER, ROBBERY. Guy Ritchie was one of those who are responsible of this situation; Ritchie himself more or less under Quentin Tarantino's influence. But from time to time, you have tough, rough "faces", such as the likes of Craig Fairbrass, Ray Winstone, characters who enhance the interest of those genuinely lame movies. Here, for this movie, I will be honest, I was bored from the very beginning. However, a dark, gloomy, bleak ending can please me, and let me forget the below average quality of those crime dramas.

Apparently JACK SAID is the middle part of a trilogy, although after watching this misfire I have to say I'm in no hurry to watch the other instalments. This is Cockney gangster film-making at its very worst, a tired mess of a storyline propping up a film chock-full of bad acting and worse.

The lead actor here, Simon Phillips, is undoubtedly the worst thing about this production. Watching this chubby guy wandering around attempting to do 'presence' and 'attitude' is frankly an embarrassment. His supposedly quick-witted humour is even worse, and I was hoping one of the other characters would lamp him before long. Needless to say that they never do.

The narrative is all over the place. Danny Dyer features heavily as a friend of the lead, but is off the screen for long periods of time and doesn't really contribute much when he's on it. Instead we get the usual low-rent gangster hokum nonsense, and whoever decided to put Ashlie Walker as the main villain needs their head examined; an average episode of HOLLYOAKS would be a better fit, I think. At least David O'Hara has the sense to only appear in a scene or two of this nonsense.

While scoring the film a 2 I will say that it does however not stink as much as that score would suggest, its just that having sat through this banal attempt at noir (which is best left to the Americans)I cannot rate it any higher while I still have the pathetically unrealistic female lead characters cartoonish unconvincing nut job still in my head.

The lead character is also a little...no....a lot on the unbelievable side as are all the characters...in fact...maybe this should have been made as a cartoon.

It is cheap, nasty, embarrassingly bad in places, maybe the only redeeming feature is the score.

I am sure that the film will have some appeal with 14 year olds who stumble over it but really the poor acting and ridiculous dialogue coupled with the slap inducing 'acting' of the lead female character means this should be out on DVD very soon......

Maybe I should rate it 1.

I'm sorry but I couldn't enjoy it. The film was far too boring with no value of character development and arc, or interesting story. I'd avoid if I were you!