Bonded by Blood

Im not understanding all the bad reviews here. I think to watch this movie for a start you need to have the acquired taste of east-end London cockney slang and gangster culture (drugs, sex and a lot of the word c**t) I was sceptical about this one... i kind of gave up with anything Tamar Hassan is in due to the disappointing movie releases he has had since The Business by Nick Love. I watched the likes of city Rats for example and was shocked he would take part in such a crap movie after the success of the Business. I feel like Tamar Hassan has been trying to get that 'right movie' of the cockney gangster that works well and has failed until this one! I saw this on Netflix so on a rainy day gave it a go with super low expectations expecting to turn off by the quarter way through mark. I was wrong, i was hooked on this one. Had a good few laughs at the raging scenes which are full of colourful language and i thought the storyline was enough to keep me watching. Stunned at all the bad reviews on here.

There have been a couple of previous films about the Essex Range Rover murders. Both were pretty forgettable but neither are anywhere near as bad as Bonded by Blood. It's quite a rare thing to have a film where every actor on display is no good. You usually get one stand out performance but with this movie everyone stinks. Tamer Hussan plays his usual role as Mokney Cockney Essex wide boy and you wouldn't expect any different from a one trick pony actor like him but it grates on you when there are people trying to out " Essex " him on screen. Terry Stone and Neil Maskell are so over the top with their acting it's laughable. I also have problem with the director of this mess. It must have taken great skill for Sacha Bennett to make a film look such a mess.It has no form or structure and events happen with no explanation while other threads are dropped and forgotten about. The only good thing about Bonded by Blood is that the Essex tosser Danny Dyer isn't in it but that's hardly a reason to watch this trash. Avoid

How many times will low budget tales about these Essex lads need to be told. The film made no effort to show anything other than the tough guy 'gangster' side of Tucker or Tate. They were thoroughly unlikeable, and whilst Hassan gives a decent performance, I still couldn't care less about the fate of his gobby bully. Stone, meanwhile fares less well. Not sure what this guys background is, but he's not a very convincing tough guy. I think he has a slight speech impediment which may have been a character choice, but it didn't seem right for the part. I didn't believe him at all, and he only really seems to have one emotion. Angry swearing. The direction is competent without ever being very imaginative, and the film does seem to have been put together quite well, zipping along at a good old pace. It's not a terrible film, it's just not really very interesting. It's been done better, many times, before. There is a very clear market for these films, and I guess whilst this obsession with cockney geezers remains we can expect more offerings like this one. Shame.

"Bonded by Blood" is yet another movie telling the story that "Essex Boys" immortalised. Many people wondered why we needed another one (it was the third released adaptation of the story, and there are now nine).

So what sets it apart from the pack?

Not a lot, it has to be said. It's really just more of the same for a British gangster flick; this one seems to neglect the real life details to just give you all the c-words, shouting, middle aged British 'hard men' and guys contorting their faces into masks of anger. There's also the usual violence - though nothing on a par with "Rise of a Footsoldier" - and bare breasts.

What's strange about the movie is that it seems to introduce its protagonist early, and then ditches him for other guys. I'm not even sure who the protagonist of the movie is, or if it really has one. It sets you up in the first scenes to see the world through the eyes of a young guy... but then it keeps cutting to other older criminals until it leaves the young guy out, making you wonder what he's there for. It seems likely that he had more scenes, but they were removed in post production, leaving a strangely rudderless movie. The older gangster types are pretty much interchangeable.

The movie is still entertaining enough, and for fans of British gangster flicks, it will give you what you want.

I'm not too sure what to make of this movie to be honest. Let me just start by saying, I have a bias for low budget and Independent movie making. I want to see them do well as I enjoy a fresh perspective from the usual Hollywood viewpoint. Unlike some other reviewers of this title, i'm not all too concerned about how accurately the picture may or may not have represented true events. In fact, I really couldn't care less if a script takes massive liberties so long as it delivers a movie that is enjoyable to watch. So what I review here is purely a movie based on its aesthetic qualities and craft.

For all its weaknesses, this movie did deliver one or two good points which would make me say it is worth looking up if you enjoy your Brit gangster. Firstly, some of the villains were very well depicted, particularly the brutish characters played by Tamer Hassan and Terry Stone.

Secondly, although the movie has a weak start and a poor ending, it really managed to draw me in mid-movie. The build up between the two factions as they prep to go at each other was very engaging and really manages to heighten tension. I enjoyed the fact that the movie centred around just one killing incident. Rather then trivialising gangster life with multiple murders, it highlights what one 'hit' can equate to.

Where the movie fails for me, is with the character Darren Nicholls (Adam Deacon). I don't get why they found it necessary to have such a weak character narrate events. I actually felt I could empathise stronger with some of the more brutal characters who were at least honest about who they were, rather then this shaky character who really seems to do nothing but complain for the entire movie. Nor did I get the point of using flash back to drive the movie. I didn't think it added anything to plot or structure other then it seems to me the director was trying to emanate a 'Goodfellas' vibe.

A weak script in parts really lets the movie down also, which is a shame because the movie did hold promise. There seemed to be a feeling that characters needed to be portrayed in extremely soft regard when the audience was expected to hold sway with them. Again, this is why I ended up resenting the Nicholls character rather then feeling the intended empathy. It's also seen with the character Mickey Steele (Vincent Regan) where he is played as a compassionate man who takes in the lover and not really a drug dealer as he is just the 'delivery man'. In the first half he is overtly portrayed as the 'honest decent criminal'. Then, his character suddenly flips from being 'Mr. Nice Guy' into 'Mr. Hard Ass'. I can perhaps understand the intent -the deepening into criminal life forces itself upon his personality- but the execution of which was by no means subtle. A more honest portrayal from the beginning -showing aspects of the good and the bad throughout- of each character's traits, would have engaged the audience better and created whole rounded characters. There were also some really hammy lines thrown into the love scene on the pier and else where throughout the movie.

But taking the good with the bad, this movie does still throw up some great scenes. It fails by patronising the audience by forcing empathy instead of allowing the audience make up their own minds, but really engages them with some terrific build up. It manages to capture beautifully the exhilaration of criminal life, because as high and as quick as the criminal may rise, their moment at the top may well just be as brief.