Essex Boys: Law of Survival

Law of Survival proved me wrong by showing me that you can re-enact a script on an incredibly low shoestring budget and at least recollect some dignity from an appalling product that was Hooligans At War.

Law of Survival is by no means perfect, far from, there are still problems with the camera work and quality that make me wonder if Poundland are currently having a half-price sale on with a free lighting system!

The film seems to jump between a higher quality camera and a second B camera that looks like a very cheap hand-held or low-end product, this mild annoyance is only exaggerated by choppy, un-explained and amateur editing but it's easily over-looked once you start getting into the story.

To start off I am a big fan of all films old,new,bad and good....But this is just beyond belief. It is so bad I do not know where to start!!??. The acting is horrendous , camera work shocking and directing .. abysmal. I think, reading between the "lines" (lol) it was trying to be a Lock Stock Style film....but what a failure. The accents where a joke. Watch out for the amateur acting as if they are waiting for each others line and not sure whos next....poor director?

The fight scenes are farcical...note the police one at the start in the yard. I have always looked at the rating scores here for films but now I seriously have grave doubts. Every review was about 1 or 2.....one critic put it at 5 stars!...yeh right! How the hell did it get its rating of 5.5+. Lot of false reviews here me thinks. AVOID please.

The majority of the acting was really bad but Chris Bell! He looked and did not act well before he ended up in the hospital, he has about as much acting ability as my goldfish, what an absolute waste of space.

There was no emotion from anyone, the lack of budget (or the look af lack of funds) really lets the film down, the acting is cardboard from start to finish.

Let's line up the bad points about this fiasco.

1. The worst fight scenes ever. I mean ever. Three year old kids playing army are more convincing.

2. A tenuous link to a true story. VERY tenuous.

3. Acting that would shame a town hall amateur dramatics group.

4. An American accent that makes Dick Van Dyke sound like a linguistics expert.

5. Camera work of the lowest quality. Poor framing and poorer lighting. I don't believe any of these idiots have ever held a camera.

6. 90 minutes to tell a ten minute story. This could've been a short and saved us all a lot of grief.

7. Blood. Ketchup might be cheaper than stage blood. Problem is, it looks like ketchup.

Now the good points.

1. It ended.

OK, so I noticed this film and got hooked in by the 5 star blah blah and the (at the time) IMDb rating of 7.0. Usually means it will be of a decent standard even if you don't like the premise or the movie itself. Oh how wrong. I couldn't literally believe how bad ALL of the acting was. Some people mention the performance of the lead actor; well they are clearly his friends because he was the best of a very bad bunch. The guy who played the character "Lee" was so miscast it is untrue. You will never hear an Essex "hard man" talk the way that he does. It was hard enough anyway but from the moment he entered the movie any ounce of seriousness I had had evaporated. Such a poor actor. I would go so far as to say it was a total embarrassment to the British film industry and I hope I never watch a movie as bad ever again. I lasted around 30 minutes and then my girlfriend and I watched "The Martian", then you can see what real actors can actually do. Do not waste your time. It won't be long until this film has a 3/4 rating on here, and even that would be extremely generous.