Bonded by Blood

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.

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...

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

This fundamentally pointless gangster flick (the story has been done twice before) gives Tamer Hassan the chance to do his typical gurning, foul mouthed cockney gangster thing as Pat Tate, whilst Terry Stone inexplicably plays the same character he did before, with the likes of Neil Maskell and Adam Deacon for support in this latest attempt to bring the true life story of the 1995 Rottenden Range Rover murders to the screen. It lacks the sappy melodrama of the dismal Rise of the Foot Soldier, but the same problem I had with that film seems to be present here: there seems to be a lack of depth, and the very interesting story just feels really hard to get in to. It just would not appear to translate well to film, surely one it would be better to read about. Great soundtrack, though. **

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.