London Underworld

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.

Not only does ex-East End wrong 'un turned legit entrepreneur Freddy 'Dead Cert' Frankham (Craig Fairbrass) lose his best friend in a bare-knuckle smack-down with ruthless head-case Yuvesky (Dave Legeno), but he also loses his livelihood, having unwisely staked his business (strip club The Paradise, which somehow boasts one of the best rooftop views in London) in a wager against Romanian gangster Dante Livenko (Billy Murray). More than a little miffed, Freddy and his dodgy mates decide to seek retribution for their pal's demise and take back what was theirs, only to discover that Livenko and his thugs are vampires.

Brit gangster/vampire flick Dead Cert hardly explores new ground, essentially being a fairly low-budget Cockney retread of 90s Tarantino/Rodriguez genre mash-up From Dusk Till Dawn. But despite scoring low in the originality department, the film still manages to be reasonably entertaining enough nonsense for its duration thanks to its colourful collection of criminals performed by a veritable Who's Who of affordable London actors. The film's splendid cast includes Dexter Fletcher and Jason Flemyng, counts no less than three ex-Eastenders stars amongst its number (Murray, Fairbrass, and Ricky Grover), and also features the likes of Steven Berkoff, Perry Benson ('Dad' from Mum & Dad), and Danny-bloody-Dyer, making this film more Cockney than a pearly king and queen eating jellied eels in Bethnal Green. Watching these guys do their thing is a blast.

Where the film doesn't work quite so well is in pulling off the awkward genre switchover from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels style gangster shenanigans to vampire flick: the change comes way too late in the day and is all too sudden, leaving viewers no time to adjust to the shift and giving the film little opportunity to make the most of its horror aspect. Other negatives include a lack of nudity from the busty beauties who work in the Paradise (for a strip club, there ain't much skin on show) and Billy Murray not bothering to adopt a Romanian accent (the makers were obviously so pleased to have him on board they wrote an excuse for this into the script). A few juicy stakings and a unique solution to the vampire problem go some way to compensating for these less than perfect elements in the film's finalé.

For a vampire movie, then the blood within the veins of "Dead Cert" was running awfully thin.

The story is about a group of Romanian thugs who move in on a British club owner, wanting to take over his business. Settling it all with a single fight, the Romanian wins and they take over the club, soon turning everyone within into vampires. However, the British gangsters want their club back and take up the fight against the vampires.

The storyline was fairly simple, and it was a good enough attempt at trying to mix the traditional vampire genre with the gangster genre, however, it took the movie more than halfway of its entire length before it got up in pace and started to become interesting. A sad fact, though, as I am sure many would fall through out of sheer boredom before that even happens. Then when the movie does pick up pace, it is nothing more than a mediocre experience.

Not boasting a super big budget is reflected in the production value, although I will say that I found that aspect of the movie to actually be good. They made what they had work and clearly didn't need a big million dollar (or pound) budget. However, the movie was just weighed down by a slow pace and a fairly uninspiring story.

As for the acting in the movie, well they did have some pretty good names on the cast list. Jason Flemyng (playing Chelsea Steve) had a small role, though his face always brings something great to a movie. Dexter Fletcher (playing Eddie Christian) also did a good job. Billy Murray (playing Dante Livenko) was the centerpiece of the movie, so to speak, with the most impressive role and performance. And lets not forget Steven Berkoff (playing Kenneth Mason) was also in the movie.

For a vampire movie, then "Dead Cert" was below average. It just lacked that motivation, characters that had personalities and weren't just generic characters, and most importantly, it lacked that special dark, romantic feel to it that all good vampire movies have.

So if you enjoy vampire movies, perhaps "Dead Cert" is not the best of choices, but still it did provide adequate entertainment, though I can honestly say that I will never watch it again, it just wasn't that appealing.

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).

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?