Bonded by Blood

Didn't know a third film had been made about this subject but whilst stuck indoors waiting on a delivery (DHL late again) I just watched Bonded by Blood. First impressions after having just viewed the film are that it was not very good. Not totally terrible but only really worth watching if you have absolutely nothing better to do and want something to occupy your interest.

As has been picked up by one of the better revues of this film on here my main criticism is that the actor portraying Darren Nicholls (Adam Deacon) is annoying and unconvincing throughout. You spend a lot of the movie wanting to smack the petulant little fake scowl off of his face (the character not the actor) and you certainly don't empathise with him or indeed anyone else in the film.

I also concur that Craig Fairbrass's portrayal of Pat Tate was more convincing and accurate than that of Tamer Hassan. Hassan's Tate seemed too considered (albeit still a bully, steroid using f##k up) at times when the reality is he was far from that. Not a terrible performance just not as good as the one that Fairbrass did where he nailed the character in Rise of the Footsoldier.

The actresses used all seemed out of their depth if they were called upon to do more than be giggling fluff. I don't personally have a problem with that as this is a bloke's film and don't particularly want it ruined with dialogue about the wife's/girlfriends perspective. Suffice to say though the little acting that was required by any of the actresses was poor to awful. The only actress who was convincing at all was the "tart" in the nurse's outfit who was passenger in the car crash with Tate (Hassan).

I liked Neil Maskell's performance as Craig Rolfe, and this was a lot closer to reality than the one portrayed in Rise of the Footsoldier by Roland Manookian, although I don't necessarily think that was down to bad acting by Roland, just that the character was different (inaccurate?) in that script.

Terry Stone rocks up once again to play Tony Tucker and although his first attempt in Rise of the Footsoldier was a bit too cartoon this version seems a little undecided? To be fair I'm not going to criticise the fella as he is still learning his game in the acting world and how many different ways can you portray a one dimensional character like the fictionalised Tony Tucker? I'm sure the script called for more of the same but lose the wig.

Finally the Bernard O'Mahoney character played by Johnny Palmiero seemed totally miscast? It's not that it was a terrible performance by Palmiero but that it bore absolutely no resemblance to the real Bernard O'Mahoney in accent or stature. I much preferred reading Bernard O'Mahoney's books than watching this film.

I give the film 4/10. Just my opinion and I suggest you watch it yourself and make your own mind up. If you have the time spare of course.

Bonded by Blood' has a solid cast of familiar faces from the British mobster/football hooligan genres, which are kind of interchangeable a lot of the time! In addition to Neil Maskell and Tamer Hassan, who both appeared in the classic 'Football Factory', there's 'Footsoldier' alumni Dave Legeno and Terry Stone. Stone again plays Tony Tucker,one of the gunned-down trio, as he did in 'Footsoldier', but it's a toned down,less flamboyant version of the character and also minus the now iconic fright-wig he wears in 'Footsoldier' and its sequels. The weakest link cast-wise is Adam Deacon..who??..who's terrible and laughably unconvincing as a wanna-be tough guy who you don't believe for a minute would earn the respect of bad asses like Hassan and Legeno. Worth a watch for fans of both the genre and the rotating stock company of actors that show up in these films, but for the definitive version of the 'range rover murders' check out 'Rise of the Footsoldier'!

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.

"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 guess the British film industry will never get tired of the Essex Boys affair, or I would say killing, that occurred in 1995, a sort of mini Saint Valentine massacre made in UK. I have never been informed of this killing, except through those movies never released in France. But I am sure that's at least the sixth film speaking of this affair. I am sure they will make films about it fifty years from now. There were not so many movies about the Great Train Robbery which took place in August 1963. I like crime or gangster flicks from over the Channel, although they seem all alike. You have two kinds, the SNATCH kind and the RISE OF THE FOOT SOLDIER one. I have seen dozens of those features, and I prefer the second genre, more brutal and realistic with also less humor. One more thing, about the scene where the young hood is killed with a riot gun in the end; when you get killed with this kind of rifle, your body jumps to the rear, it doesn't stand still...Caliber 12 is not 9mm...