London Underworld

Yikes! What a complete and total waste of film. It's a bore fest. I'm not really sure why so many directors these days think that slow means dramatic.

It means borrr-ring!

You know the plot -- tuff guys with a fight club get involved with these businessmen and somehow vampires get involved!

It's an amazingly dumb story line made worse by the slowest exposition on the planet.

I lost major interest about half way through and so will you. Avoid it like the plague.

I do wonder, what the makers of this movie were watching from Dusk til Dawn, to come up with the movie ... Seriously though: You can hate the movie completely (obviously there are quite some flaws, starting from "acting", continuing with a bad script and not necessarily ending with a weak direction) or you can try to enjoy it a bit (which a few people actually did).

I know it didn't go down very well at the Frightfest, so maybe that is saying something. I guess I gave the movie the benefit of the doubt and still wasn't too disappointed. Well not as disappointed as some other movies I have seen. The action scenes are not the best, but not the worst either (from similar movies that is).

I wanted to disbelieve the bad reviews so went ahead and watched it anyway.... Absolutely was a waste of time. Fair to say I stayed awake, but that was only because I kept waiting for the vampire parts to begin. And when they did, they didn't make much sense to me. Maybe because of the accents, maybe the volume was too low, or maybe the movie just sucked but I had a hard time understanding what the heck was going on. Right to the very end.

On a positive note, the acting wasn't bad.... just what they were told to do was. These were some of the strangest behaved vampires I'd ever seen and I often shook my head in disbelief at the storyline. What I felt most during this movie, was annoyed.

When you have a film that casts Craig Fairbrass, Jason Flemyng, Dexter Fletcher, Billy Murray, Danny (Fah-kin) Dyer, Steven Berkoff, and Ricky Grover, to name but a few, you'd probably expect to see a British cult classic. Unfortunately, this isn't one. Directed by Steven Lawson, and written by Jonathan Sothcott, Nick Onsloe, and Ben Sillito, this 'Black & Blue Films' production is just as classy as the production companies other piles of steaming content ("Strippers vs Werewolves" (2012), "Devil's Playground" (2010), "7 Lives" (2011)). This action-horror film was released in 2010, rated 15 and has a runtime of 92 excruciating long minutes.

A cockney hardman who has invested all his money into a club loses it when he backs the wrong fighter. Romanian gangsters take it over, but unbeknown to anyone, they also happen to be vampires. The fight is on - for the club; for survival; and for ratings too as this film is practically a cheap rip-off of "From Dusk till Dawn". There... I said it.

This film takes itself seriously and wants to be a gritty gangster film which crosses genres and touches on horror too. In truth it does neither convincingly well. Split into two parts the first is about the gangsters, while the second is aimed at the vampires - but it takes close to an hour before anything interesting happens - by which time I didn't care about anything or anybody anymore. Sure, it has cockney's in it that elicit buckets of blood (even though it's CGI blood at times), yes there are vampires, there is a bit of female flesh on display (don't get your hopes up, scantily clad, not naked), lots of violence and gore, and plenty of effing and jeffing (bad language)... but that's about it really, barring the occasional famous face appearing and then disappearing this film brings nothing new to the game, and just rehashes tried and tested films.

I was disappointed, but maybe that is because I expected a 'Black & Blue' film to be good. This felt like a waste of talent with good actors not utilised for their ability, but more so for their accent. I would be hard pressed to recommend this and I can't see this film having much future success or cult fame.

A bit like my old school reports, Dead Cert invokes comments such as "Must try harder" or "Can do better" and "Needs to pay more attention."

A London gangster-vampire hybrid, which is a fine idea in itself, Dead Cert is a case of ambition running way ahead of ability in, well, just about every department! So badly do the two concepts fail to meld, or work even on their own individual basis, it makes me wonder what kind of script the film has. Did it even have one or were the cast allowed to busk their way through? There's certainly no sign of firm direction on show here.

Budgetary constraints are obvious, but time and again talent can cover for this if the core elements are present and correct. But where there is no drama or tension, where the characters are so flat as to be thinner than cardboard, then why should the audience care?