Hard Men

Kristian's comparison to A Clockwork Orange is spot on. This film has far more in common with that than anything Tarantino has done. I'm guessing J K Amalou worships that film because Hard Men (without stealing ideas as some have suggested) is like an impish little brother for the original. Like A Clockwork Orange, it portrays another, detached reality, far away from the bubble world of middleclass complacency and boredom. In this world everyone is messed-up, hostile, alone and paranoic. Like Alex and his droogs, Tone and co wreak havoc on the seedy, corrupt, rotting world around them with sadistic glee. The cartoon style of the violence puts us surely in the realm of the surreal, and the bizarre and colourful costumes fuse retro influences with 90s night life in London. This lends the whole thing a feeling of timelessness. Like A Clockwork Orange, it will probably age well.

The characterisation is good and the acting is great. Vincent Regan portrays Tone with a sensitivity to the paradox of a man who squashes the city lowlife as if they were flies about to defecate on his dinner, but loves his little daughter so much that in one scene he actually glows. I challenge you to decide whether you like or despise this man. Lee Ross is wonderful as Speed, a coke-fuelled, buzzin, cotton-wool-for-brains, obnoxious teenager. He is amazingly irritating, and is clearly about to burn-out or explode with self-loathing. Ross Boatman puts in a solid performance as Bear. He is not as compelling as Regan or Ross, but his character does not have the emotional depth of Regan's, or the high caricature of Ross's.

The dreamlike quality of the film is also supported by some gorgeous cinematography. The bright cartoon colours of cheap clothes, city lights, and mugs in numerous cloned cafes are shocking against the drab, dirty buildings. There is a scene at a deserted docks; it is mesmerisingly beautiful...a perfect setting for the final resolution of events.

Admittedly, I do have the feeling this film has imbedded itself like a hatchet in my psyche, a not entirely pleasant sensation. But, if you're not into facile, candyfloss cinema, and you enjoyed the battering A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club gave you, then you're gonna love this!

Tone, Bear and John are three hard men in the employee of London underworld boss Pops Den. They are collectors of money, threateners of people and removers of competition. However, with the birth of his first child, Tone decides that he has had enough and that he needs to turn his life around, starting with getting out of the life. When Bear tells Pops this, he orders them to kill Tone and bring him his severed hand by nine o'clock the next morning.

It is to be expected that, when one genre suddenly spawns a bit film, that many others will jump on the bandwagon - some being good and some being rubbish. We saw it with Scream when it relaunched the teen horror genre and spawned a tonne of copies. So it was no surprise to anyone (even if it was still depressing) that the success of a few British cockney gangster films with dark comedy spawned a raft of copies - most of which were average at best and ended up flopping.

Hard Men is one of these films and it deserved every penny it failed to get at the box office. The plot is almost none existent and centres on one night in the lives of these three. It would better if the events in the lives of the characters had mattered or been engaging but, because they aren't, then the plot just falls to pieces (not that it was ever really together). Instead it seems to revel in the grim of it's characters - but doesn't have the decency to make them people. One scene sees a prostitute talk about her years of abuse, but even that is just a scene to add shock value rather than depth. The film even has the nerve to look back fondly to the days of `civilised' gangsters (giving a cameo to Frankie Fraser for that reason) as if all the violence on display here is in some way admirable or a curiosity.

The cast are roundly bad but it is not really their fault - they simply have no material to work with. The cameo for a violent criminal is just pure bad taste and adds nothing to the film. As director and writer Amalou seems to have just fluked his way into the job on the basis of seeing better films and ripping them off. Certainly he brings no wit or style to his script even if his direction is actually quite good considering the budget he had to work with.

Overall this is a very poor film that will only appeal to fans of the genre - all others need to avoid it. I was surprised by just how rough I found the whole thing was - it lacked originality, revelled in uninvolving and seemed under the impression that the word `f*ck' is the height of clever writing.

Badly dressed, rubbish brit gangster flick. There is a loopy young buck with different coloured specs to show what mood he is in. Ross "Pretty boy" Boatman is the big name in this, the film is bad. Its before he found hid true calling as a big money poker player. UNDERWORLD AUTHENTICITY is added by Mad Frankie Frazer, a good honest villain. I can't be bothered with the plot, i hate this film. I wanted to watch men in black but my mates got this instead.

Watch this film and then watch Rancid Aluminium, you will be amazed.

Back in the Fifties, many a movie seemed to require one or other of its characters to say: 'hey, let's put on a show!'. In what may have passed for the gestation of this film, someone, perhaps the writer / director, said: 'Hey, let's make a movie!' The result now is much the same as the result way back then, except that in those Fifties disasters the people on each side of the camera had a reasonable idea of what they were doing. No such luck here: if I'd had to sit through this as a graduation piece from young film makers, the most charitable verdict would've been that 'Hard Men' is to movie making what Jeffrey Archer is to English Literature. In other words, no connection.

The movie doesn't so much take to the screen as set up house in a cliche -- guns, shouting, more guns, more shouting, bad language, guns, bad language, guns. As reportage it's dismal. As fiction it's unsustainable. The acting is of a standard to make one wish to hand out Oscars to those responsible for 'Night of the Lepus' ('Attack of The Killer Rabbits') and the direction as consistent as a weathervane in a hurricane.

But that ol' Fifties magic lingers on, for a third of the way through the director finally loses the plot altogether and it's time for 'hey, let's put on a show!' -- whereupon one or other of the mass murderers turns to the camera and sings about his newborn baby.

Come back, Ed Wood. All is forgiven.

Rating: unrateable.

I saw this again on TV tonight for maybe the third or fourth time, and certainly not the last. There is much to like about this little gem, but those looking for a Tarantino-esque experience (because that's all they seem to know), have been disappointed.

These negative reviewers have obviously had a sense of humour bypass, and ought to look up the word "irony" in the dictionary. Comparisons to Tarantino are facile and irrelevant, that world has nothing to do with this.

Another reviewer compared them to the Three Stooges, as if that's a BAD THING!? Although it's certainly more appropriate - three very different yet complimentary characters prone to sudden bursts of comedy violence, I found myself quite liking these guys, as opposed to the non-characters in so many movies where it's difficult to care who lives or dies.

A note on the acting - first-rate, as anyone would realise if they had seen their other work, especially Lee Ross. (The exception of course is Mad Frankie Fraser who plays himself as usual).

Doesn't take itself too seriously - 8/10