MovieChat Forums > Rise of the Footsoldier (2008) Discussion > This sums up its target audience:

This sums up its target audience:

posted 17 years ago by yfguitarist
27 replies | jump to latest

Taken from the top rated review on imdb:

Plenty of brutality, nudity, swearing and drug abuse. Sweet!

Seriously, this movie is one of the worst movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. You get to watch some of the ugliest, wig-wearing, obnoxious British scumbags maim innocent people for no reason. The lead scowls through the whole thing and everything about the film begs to be taken seriously, but it's all so ludicrous. In the hands of a talented director like Scorsese, or even Guy Ritchie (both directors this director clearly has a hard-on for) it could've been great but this is just cheap exploitation. The camera lingers on the gratuitously bloody violence with pointless close-ups and slow motion, showing what its true intentions are.

The people saying this is great because it's not Hollywood must be joking - it may be British but it's as "Hollywood" as it gets.

The ending is insulting in that it tries to make you feel sympathy for these people that are impossible to sympathize with, just because they add some melodramatic music and over-the-top acting. If you want to watch a good gangster film, watch Goodfellas again.

[–] njs1999 17 years ago

You've totally missed the plot of the film.

Why on earth would you want a well known director like ritchie or scorsese on this?

Its not a gangster film, its about the rise and fall of one of the most notorious firms throughout the 80s and 90s. Its about drugs, sex, violence and football.

Have you seen Essex Boys? Do you even know these films are linked?

You haven't got a clue.

[–] stuntgirl71 17 years ago

Totally agree with njs1999.

[–] benshki 17 years ago

Regardless, this film is *beep*

[–] punchbear 17 years ago

Probably because they'd, by virtue of their track record, be in a position to produce a coherent, morally cohesive work, not one that glorifies violence the way this one does. You've got a main protagonist whose lifeskills run the gamut from pulping faces, stabbing bumboys up the arse, right through to wife abandonment and drug dealing.
It's not a gangster film? And you accuse yer man above about missing the plot? You must've gotten stuck on the football bit. Remember the other 90 minutes of the film?
Essex Boys? That's like saying "Dragonslayer - have you even seen The Princess Bride?"
I think 'tis you that doesn't have zee clue.

[–] njs1999 17 years ago

Well done, you've managed to work out that the characters go round stabbing people, knocking women about, and generally beating crap out of people.

If you read the words at the beginning of the film: 'based on a true story', this may help you to understand things a little more.

Take the film for what it is, stop trying to turn it in to something it's not.

[–] punchbear 17 years ago

And that's what passes for a retort? It's like saying "here's an insult, one I thought up on my own earlier, that film Jurassic Park? Well done, it's about dinosaurs." At best disingenuous, at worst just *beep* stupid.

The Blair Witch was based on a true story. You can finish the remainder of that extrapolation yourself genius.

So, the film wasn't violent fanboy? Get a *beep* grip muppet.

[–] njs1999 17 years ago

I'm not really on this site to argue with people, merely giving my opinion on the film.

I'm not in the habit of insulting people over cyberspace, kinda grown out of that.

Try not to be so close minded and to call people 'muppet' and 'fanboy' just because they don't agree with your views - shows a distinct lack of intelligence.

I enjoyed the film, alot of it was quite close to where I live and grew up. I couldn't care less whether or not you enjoyed the film.

[–] punchbear 17 years ago

" I couldn't care less whether or not you enjoyed the film"
So why bother answering? Al of the above contradicts your previous tone and posits.
If you can't argue with people about film, then you shouldn't be here, because of the XX million folk using it, someone's bound to see your meanderings as muppetry. Others may find it cogent and of merit. Swings and roundabouts dahlink.
It's not close-minded, it's fun. The words of Father Fintan Stack come to mind. You need either to grow a thicker netskin or just take the whole thing with a pinch of salt.
I, admittedly, also enjoyed the film on a visceral level, but had major problems with some more morally dubious emotional transports. The film paints Leech as a wolf in heros clothing, without taking any moral stance on the reasoning or ethics of his actions. Stabbing a gay bloke up the arse for being gay? Was that cool and alright in 1981? By the same reasoning, does that make it alright for Jack The Ripper to have murdered prostitutes? Should we accept this moral transubstantiation, just because it was the done thing by thugs back then? It's vacuous and if the film expects its audience to make a moral leap of faith in sympathiszing with Leechs losing mates who were sociopaths, as depicted in the film, by staging an archetypal Hollywood scene of loss, then perhaps it should've signposted better, because, as it stands, it glorifies and encourages sympathy for the three gangsters who dies by its inclusion of a grief scene.

[–] njs1999 17 years ago

zzzzzz

[–] punchbear 17 years ago

pooop
poooooop
poop
pooooooooooooooooooop

pooperscooper

poopertron

[–] njs1999 17 years ago

lol@you

[–] yfguitarist 17 years ago

I'm glad someone feels the same way that I do about this movie.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yfguitarist 17 years ago

Wow, thanks for that, I guess I should cheer the brutalizing of random people because no one's perfect!

[–] thunderztorm 14 years ago

Innocent =/= Perfect.

Although it's true that nobody's innocent as well as nobody's perfect..

[–] UberNoodle 17 years ago

It is hilarious that poeple lable movies as "bad" because they didn7t enjoy what was presented to them. It is ok to not like the movie, or even hate it, but a film is not automatically terrible because it wasn't customised for you own needs and definition of acceptable. The fact of the matter is that subject matter of the film ARE "obnoxious British scumbags maim innocent people for no reason". Should they have changed that? Would the reviewers have prefered some some more attractive villains?

I also think it is pointless when reviewers think that they have a personal doorway into the director's head. Apparently THEY know what he was thinking when he chose particular stylistic approaches. Apparently. The problem is that reviewers today seem to be more interested in justifying their position, which is becoming more and more pecarious as the Blogsphere closes in. Every single complaint the reviewer levels at the film is subjective, pure and simple, and I and many other people obviously dissagree.

I never once felt that the film wanted us to sympathise for the criminals. In fact at the end of the film I was glad that they got their just punishments. As for Leach, I think very lowly of him as well, but at least he had the sense to get out and try to attone for his sins.

[–] yfguitarist 17 years ago

What film were you watching? If you can't see that slow-motion close-ups on the brutality isn't exploitative...also, did you miss the grieving scene at the end?

[–] sepsism 16 years ago

I'll definitely be checking this film out now. Thanks guys!

British scumbags maim innocent people for no reason

Sold!

UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH SINCE '1982

[–] ave_roma2004 16 years ago

I'd cut you.

[–] allseeing 16 years ago

In reply to Kil Killion. I think this is a bad film. The costume and make up is cheap. The story, a string of events quickly stapled together and the direction, very much over the top. Although this movie is about scumbags, I prefer the opening of 'Nil By Mouth', to any of this exploitative, non educational, non entertaining rubbish.

[–] doobyus 16 years ago

I didn't find any of the characters sympathetic but at the same time anyone that thought that this glamourised violence or attempted to make them appear like wisecracking, loveable rogues obviously didn't get it. Goodfellas it ain't.

All of the main characters were thoroughly unpleasant, ruthless and impulsive and didn't seem the type you'd want to hang around with. Bit more like the real thing rather than the Hollywood fantasy.

[–] yfguitarist 16 years ago

Again, if you can't see that slow-motion close-ups on the brutality isn't exploitative...also, did you miss the grieving scene at the end? That's clearly meant to evoke sympathy. Just listen to the music. I got it.

[–] Latham_bwfc 14 years ago

As someone pointed out on another thread the scenes at the end of the film where the 3 blokes are shot in the Range Rover are based on photographs taken from the pathologist's report so therefore i'd have thought they would be extremley accurate in their brutality, so its not exploitative its just showing actual events. Also remember they were shot at point blank range with .12 gauge shotgun so the results would be quite gruesome i'd imageine.

If its the football violence scenes you think are brutual, thats because they are/were, I used to be a football hooligan in the late 80's / early 90's and I witnessed and participated in brutual acts of violence. I think the portrayal of the football violence scenes are quite accurate much better than other similar themed films.

Personally I thought the film was ok 6/10, it wasn't the violence / brutality that made it poor just didn't think much of it, only reason I watched it was because it was based on true events rather than a person who has watched one game of football at WHU or MUFC and think they know football as a result because they sung 'I'm forever blowing bubbles'......

That tall drink of water with the silver spoon up his ass.

[–] yfguitarist 14 years ago

It's the slow motion close-up shots that are exploitative and glamorous.

[–] phillycaesar 16 years ago

"You get to watch some of the ugliest, wig-wearing, obnoxious British scumbags maim innocent people for no reason."

God Bless em.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]