Fred

All, yes he evades a lot of direct answers but heck, those interview segments are only a small part of the film. Plus in many cases he simply vacillates before giving a form of answer that while legally non-committal, it's still obvious what he is indicating. When he does this it's about as subtle as a house brick through you window so you won't miss it (unless your a little intellectually stunted). To expect anything other than that also indicates a lack of understanding that answering some of these questions directly would put Fred in Jail.... so no he is not going to answer, he was never going to answer and he won't be answering in the future. The documentary makers highlight this when they include information on the repeal of the Double Jeopardy legislation in 2005. So for those that do not understand this, anything he said before 2005 admitting involvement in crimes he was already prosecuted for is inadmissible in a re-trial because he said them before 2005 when the law of double jeopardy protected him. Now it's possible to be re-tried for specific high profile crimes you were already acquitted of he is being a lot more careful what he says. Because after 2005 anything he says about these crimes can be used against him in a court of law again. So he doesn't want to directly answer certain questions and who can blame him. If you understand this properly before watching the documentary then his evasiveness on certain topics is not irritating, if's fascinating, as you can stitch together for yourself from the things he finds it uncomfortable to speak about exactly what he was and wasn't involved in.

Beyond that this documentary has much else to offer providing a strong historically telling of Fred's upbringing, the environment that formed the teenage boy and young man. Additional commentary from Biographers, Crime Writers and close personal friends are all interesting and well edited.

I'm not sure why anyone would mark this down as amateur other than it does not provide the salacious details or new information about old crimes some viewers crave for. However as a complete documentary piece about an old London hard man who ended up involved with some of the most notorious gangsters and crimes of the last 70 years it's pretty darn interesting and totally watchable.

The filmmakers have taking a great subject and made something resembling a student film. Fred Foreman story is great but I don't feel the story really came out here, it was just Fred saying "no I'm not answer that question" over and over again. He obviously didn't have any type of rapport with the interviewer.

Interesting if rather sparse look at one of British gangland's celebrated geezers.

It's not the best made documentary ever made but the subject matter propels it along at a fair pace.

Whilst entertaining to a point it becomes rather sad when we learn about how far down the system this once 'crime king' has fallen. No more do casinos or gyms bring in the dough for this elderly ex-gangster who incidentally was one of the first people to import a Pac-Man video game into the UK. The fact that most of his family want nothing to do with him prompts the saying that crime does not pay, especially in respect from your loved ones.

But respect for someone who only hurt the bad guys ! Nothing wrong with revenge when you have no respect for the law dealing with killers and thugs

It is interesting insight into his life. He is holding back on a lot of information and it gives the impression that he is only doing the documentary for the money, as he mentions and one point that he is uncomfortable with some of the questions. People who know a lot about him, I imagine won't learn much more besides his present circumstances. It is a great example that shows that nothing stays the same and change is inevitable. It also makes you really think though. Is he a good man? Is he a bad man? Is he a good man who made bad decisions? Either way I enjoyed it and I hope you will too.