That was an excellent one.

Perfect cast and a good story

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

As someone whose taste in cinema does not usually run to much violence, choice language or blood (vampires excepted); I really enjoyed this film! No mere fest of foul language, tough guys, hot chicks, dangerous drugs, big guns, oh, and a Porche for good measure - although it's all there - "Bonded by Blood" has much more going for it. Cleverly directed by Sacha Bennett, this film has excellent touches of visual humour, some very funny lines, and a number of intense performances. There is even a Shakespeare reference - but don't let that put you off! Tamer Hassan as Pat Tate, high on cocaine and drunk on machismo is superbly scary. You have to duck when he starts pumping out the expletives. Altogether a much classier offering than previous efforts in this genre.

"Brutal … even better than Rise of the Footsoldier", said one critic about "Bonded by Blood", no doubt while counting the pound notes inside a vanilla envelope.Lot of critics have shredded „Rise of the Footsoldier", the second film about the infamous Rettendon Range Rover killings: too brutal, too many drugs, too much swearing and a rather inconsistent storyline. However, friends of violent British gangster / hooligan films have declared "Footsoldier" a cult-movie and wondered why there seemed a need to have the story filmed a third time.The main reason why a "Footsoldier"-fan would want to watch "Bonded by Blood" is the return of many actors from the first film: Terry Stone reprises the role of the foul-mouthed Tony Tucker; albeit a somehow polished version, without the ludicrous wig he had to wear in "Footsoldier", replaced with a cheap suit looking like a leftover from "Goodfellas" and a Terry Stone who at all times looked uncomfortable, not sure why he was there in the first place. Neil Maskell, having a minor role as Darren Nicholls in the prior film, plays Craig Rolfe; physically more accurate in "Bounded for Blood", his character pales in comparison to the slimy, malicious Rolfe that Roland Manookian had played.Jack Whomes, in both films the man who fires the first shots into the Range Rover, is played by Dave Legeno, who had a small role as hooligan in "Rise of the Footsoldier". Prior Ben Harper played Whomes as a psychopathic henchman, his final scene giving the viewers chills, but the Whomes of this movie is no more than a robotic hulk with a shotgun. And while we're on the topic of miscasting: whatever gave the producers the impression that Pat Tate was Turkish? A highlight could have been Vincent Regan, whose hawk-like eyes and chiselled features made him one of the more memorable characters in Zack Snyder's "300". Alas, Regan playing the burned out gangster Mickey Steele, is wasted in this role, looking all the while as if he just hadn't slept enough before shooting.If you compare "Rise of the Footsoldier" to a hooligan on steroid-rage, "Bonded by Blood" is more like a backdoor-dealer on tranquilizers: there's plenty of pointless talking, occasional cussing, beatings and shootings, bits of nudity and bits of drug-taking. About midway the viewer stops caring for the one-dimensional characters, waiting for the infamous Range Rover shooting scene, the bloody and very realistic highlight of "Footsoldier". The scene comes, shotguns are emptied (more or less in the off) into the occupants of the Rover and the viewer is left with a distinct sentiment of "so what".In Germany, "Bonded by Blood" has been released under the moniker "Footsoldier 2", hoping to rehash the success of the 2008 film but personally, I hope that the "Footsoldier"-fans won't fall for that promotional gimmick – unlike me, who naturally pulled his wallet when the film hit the shelves.I'll give it a well-meaning three points out of ten but if I had to watch the film again, I'd probably reduce that to two.

Didn't know a third film had been made about this subject but whilst stuck indoors waiting on a delivery (DHL late again) I just watched Bonded by Blood. First impressions after having just viewed the film are that it was not very good. Not totally terrible but only really worth watching if you have absolutely nothing better to do and want something to occupy your interest.As has been picked up by one of the better revues of this film on here my main criticism is that the actor portraying Darren Nicholls (Adam Deacon) is annoying and unconvincing throughout. You spend a lot of the movie wanting to smack the petulant little fake scowl off of his face (the character not the actor) and you certainly don't empathise with him or indeed anyone else in the film.I also concur that Craig Fairbrass's portrayal of Pat Tate was more convincing and accurate than that of Tamer Hassan. Hassan's Tate seemed too considered (albeit still a bully, steroid using f##k up) at times when the reality is he was far from that. Not a terrible performance just not as good as the one that Fairbrass did where he nailed the character in Rise of the Footsoldier.The actresses used all seemed out of their depth if they were called upon to do more than be giggling fluff. I don't personally have a problem with that as this is a bloke's film and don't particularly want it ruined with dialogue about the wife's/girlfriends perspective. Suffice to say though the little acting that was required by any of the actresses was poor to awful. The only actress who was convincing at all was the "tart" in the nurse's outfit who was passenger in the car crash with Tate (Hassan). I liked Neil Maskell's performance as Craig Rolfe, and this was a lot closer to reality than the one portrayed in Rise of the Footsoldier by Roland Manookian, although I don't necessarily think that was down to bad acting by Roland, just that the character was different (inaccurate?) in that script. Terry Stone rocks up once again to play Tony Tucker and although his first attempt in Rise of the Footsoldier was a bit too cartoon this version seems a little undecided? To be fair I'm not going to criticise the fella as he is still learning his game in the acting world and how many different ways can you portray a one dimensional character like the fictionalised Tony Tucker? I'm sure the script called for more of the same but lose the wig.Finally the Bernard O'Mahoney character played by Johnny Palmiero seemed totally miscast? It's not that it was a terrible performance by Palmiero but that it bore absolutely no resemblance to the real Bernard O'Mahoney in accent or stature. I much preferred reading Bernard O'Mahoney's books than watching this film. I give the film 4/10. Just my opinion and I suggest you watch it yourself and make your own mind up. If you have the time spare of course.

I'm not too sure what to make of this movie to be honest. Let me just start by saying, I have a bias for low budget and Independent movie making. I want to see them do well as I enjoy a fresh perspective from the usual Hollywood viewpoint. Unlike some other reviewers of this title, i'm not all too concerned about how accurately the picture may or may not have represented true events. In fact, I really couldn't care less if a script takes massive liberties so long as it delivers a movie that is enjoyable to watch. So what I review here is purely a movie based on its aesthetic qualities and craft. For all its weaknesses, this movie did deliver one or two good points which would make me say it is worth looking up if you enjoy your Brit gangster. Firstly, some of the villains were very well depicted, particularly the brutish characters played by Tamer Hassan and Terry Stone.Secondly, although the movie has a weak start and a poor ending, it really managed to draw me in mid-movie. The build up between the two factions as they prep to go at each other was very engaging and really manages to heighten tension. I enjoyed the fact that the movie centred around just one killing incident. Rather then trivialising gangster life with multiple murders, it highlights what one 'hit' can equate to.Where the movie fails for me, is with the character Darren Nicholls (Adam Deacon). I don't get why they found it necessary to have such a weak character narrate events. I actually felt I could empathise stronger with some of the more brutal characters who were at least honest about who they were, rather then this shaky character who really seems to do nothing but complain for the entire movie. Nor did I get the point of using flash back to drive the movie. I didn't think it added anything to plot or structure other then it seems to me the director was trying to emanate a 'Goodfellas' vibe. A weak script in parts really lets the movie down also, which is a shame because the movie did hold promise. There seemed to be a feeling that characters needed to be portrayed in extremely soft regard when the audience was expected to hold sway with them. Again, this is why I ended up resenting the Nicholls character rather then feeling the intended empathy. It's also seen with the character Mickey Steele (Vincent Regan) where he is played as a compassionate man who takes in the lover and not really a drug dealer as he is just the 'delivery man'. In the first half he is overtly portrayed as the 'honest decent criminal'. Then, his character suddenly flips from being 'Mr. Nice Guy' into 'Mr. Hard Ass'. I can perhaps understand the intent -the deepening into criminal life forces itself upon his personality- but the execution of which was by no means subtle. A more honest portrayal from the beginning -showing aspects of the good and the bad throughout- of each character's traits, would have engaged the audience better and created whole rounded characters. There were also some really hammy lines thrown into the love scene on the pier and else where throughout the movie. But taking the good with the bad, this movie does still throw up some great scenes. It fails by patronising the audience by forcing empathy instead of allowing the audience make up their own minds, but really engages them with some terrific build up. It manages to capture beautifully the exhilaration of criminal life, because as high and as quick as the criminal may rise, their moment at the top may well just be as brief.