Rise of the Footsoldier: Vengeance

I left a very scathing review of Rise of the Footsoldier: Origins, so I feel it is only fair that I should leave one about ROTF: Vengeance.

I am by no means a fan of this franchise and I sat down to watch this film, expecting the usual - constant swearing, misogyny, drug taking, stilted accents and A-level drama quality acting.

I was pleasantly surprised.

The heavy use of the c word (probably 10-15 in this film) and comedic elements have been replaced with a slow-burn storyline, focussing on character development, and the lighting and set pieces were great, which proves that Nick Nevern has really hit his stride with this instalment.

A minor criticism would be that they seemed to bring back one recurring character too many, and the storyline became a touch confusing because of this.

All in all, a very enjoyable watch - the omission of the ghastly Terry Stone character helped immensely.

I am usually not one for the east end, London based, geezer type movie. Most of the actors in the movie would make me close the curtains if they were performing Rise of the Footsoldier Vengence 2 at the bottom of my garden. However I decided to give this a try. And was pleasantly surprised.

As a result, I am now probably going to go back and watch the previous instalments, all thirty seven of them. Lol.

Craig Fairbrass is a decent lead actor in a movie like this and it is surprisingly well made with plenty of gritty action and intrigue along the way.

I didnt understand the ending much because I haven't seen any of the others so don't follow my example and let this be your first venture into the series.

Growing up in Southend-on-Sea in Essex, I am old enough to remember the uneasy feeling surrounding the Rettendon murders. The first Rise of the Footsoldier was completely on point with its general tone and laid out Carlton Leach's (true) story in an enjoyable enough manner. The movie won so much goodwill in my mind, that I have been on board for all of the subsequent sequels.

Now six movies deep and running solely with purely fictional storylines, that goodwill has wained quite a bit, especially after the weaker efforts in Marbella and Origins. Vengeance, however, managed to gross the highest box office of the entire franchise, and I am curious to see exactly why.

In case you are unfamiliar, Pat Tate was gunned down in the first part of the franchise. All of the subsequent movies are prequels to this event, revolving around Pat and his cohorts and their escapades in and around Essex. Craig Fairbrass is getting on a bit now, but it still looks like he could punch the head off of a regular Joe. He's not quite as psychotically frightening as he has been previously, opting here more for a more quiet "say the wrong word and I'll smash ya" type performance. Vengeance is a lot less goofy without the presence of Tony Tucker and Craig Rolfe and the bad wig department (who should be thoroughly flogged in the market square for some of the worst hairpieces in a non-comedy movie).

If you're familiar with UK TV, you'll probably make the obvious comparison with Eastenders. And yes, Vengeance does seem like a long, more violent episode of Eastenders. But a revenge storyline is something that's easy to get behind.

Overall, I would say that Rise of the Footsoldier: Vengeance is one of the franchises' more solid efforts. I was under the impression, however, that this would be the last movie in the franchise, yet the finale sets up another sequel which, judging from the box office take, won't take long to greenlight.

So here's yet another Rise of the Footsoldier movie, and again with archetypal Cockney tough guy, Craig Fairbrass, who played a minor role in the classic first flick.

Here's what the producers don't seem to understand: the first Footsoldier movie was successful not only because of the violence and constant use of the c-word, but also because the movie had a strong sense of character and story. You knew who it was about and what it was about. You could follow it from scene to scene, knowing what was going on.

With all these sequels, it feels like a melange of scenes that weren't good enough to go in the first movie. There's barely any throughline to the story. All I got was Fairbrass asking everybody if they'd seen somebody called Billy.

Why is it so hard to make a movie with a discernible plot and characters?

Ok, this franchise is really silly and most of the characters in it are violent psychopaths. And the real people they're based on must have been vile.

But these are movies, so let's put that to one side.

In this one, the tone is markedly different from before. It's a "proper" film and leaves out the relentless mindless violence and swearing that numbs you that characterised the previous movies.

Here - somehow - is a film that's technically very well put together indeed. The acting is good, the story is ok if a bit too convoluted and the way they keep holding off on a big reveal a few times too many gets annoying.

But the actors in this one are properly acting for the most part, and the camerawork and editing is very very good.

8 "faaaahkin caaaahnts" out of 10.