Rise of the Footsoldier: Part II

I like that they focus the story on Leach, he's the character I was first drawn to, however they take his arc in an unfortunate direction.

Gone is the larrikin turned gangster, Leach has become something else much darker and the film suffers for it.

Disjointed, no story poorly put together cliche fest.

Literally no reason for it to exist just trying to squeeze an extra few quid out of the franchise which was already flagging.

"Rise of the Footsoldier Part II" is a classic case of sequel-itis. It's more of the same: British gangsters shouting the f- and c-words every time they open their mouths, and random on screen sex and violence, though nothing memorable like the first movie's Chelsea grin scene, or even that movie's sex scene.

What's missing is any kind of sense of purpose. The first movie told the story of Carlton Leach's rise from his time as a football hooligan to a proper career criminal. What does this one tell? That he's now got kids, and his wife's sick of his criminal ways? And more miscellaneous criminal goings on?

It's all totally pointless, and a complete waste of time.

Two hours of my life I will never get back rubbish

The original RISE OF THE FOOTSOLDIER was unfortunate in that it arrived very belatedly in an era when most British films seemed inspired by Guy Ritchie . There's only some much mileage you can squeeze out of a formula so by the time RISE OF THE FOOTSOLDIER came out everyone had become bored by mockney gangsters . That said I found Julian Gilbey's true life crime movie to be rather underrated and if there was a British equivalent of GOODFELLAS that might have been it . Crime doesn't pay ? Tell me about it . Despite this the idea of a sequel seems needless and I can see why this continuation of Carlton Leach's life story came and went without the slightest fanfare

In its favour director and star Ricci Harnett concentrates on continuity with the prior film . Some of the cast are resurrected and we have the same look and feel as the 2007 . There is a slight difference and that where Leach became a very peripheral character in the second half of RISE OF THE FOOTSOLDIER here he appears in nearly every scene and is the constant central character of the narrative

This leads to a fundamental problem though . While the lives of Tate , Rolfe and Tucker were unremittingly violent and made the first film compelling here there's considerably less violence which makes for a less compulsive film . Don't get me wrong , you won't confuse this with Walt Disney family fare but this tends to draw your attention to another aspect - self justification . Carlton you see isn't really a bad man and only maims and beats people who deserve it and the understated violence is only inflicted on people who deserve . Perhaps even worse there's an element of redemption running through the narrative subtext but how does a former West Ham ICF thug and gangster redeem himself ? The answer is he probably can't . It's not a bad film but if you need convincing that crime doesn't pay the message has been spelled out in better films without trying to elicit sympathy from the audience