Bull

This was a masterfully produced film, maybe largely because the actors are all excellent. I'm not sure how it should've ended, but I think this particular one was a strange choice and, while it was fun because it was unexpected, it didn't fit the rest of the story- at least, not without some sort of evolution. The movie starts with a mad dad and we understand his motivation: he's a gangster out for revenge, and he wants to find his estranged son. Why switch genres at the bitter end? Was that just the cheap trick it felt like?

A well made revenge thriller, with particularly gruesome and graphic retribution acts. I'm not really into it with this level of nastiness. If you want a good feeling in you after a viewing, don't see this.

Though by the end, the aforementioned excessive nastiness can be explained by a story revelation, there's still not much gain from this given the negative prestige we feel for the main character.

The film-craft is in top form here with a high level of art attributed to the script, direction, acting and sound. Unfortunately the main character is an awful person, even before he went evil. It's not easy to sympathise with the guy, for his gruesome acts and short flashback segments which don't display his humane side for long enough. Not possible to get close enough to him.

There's much to like about Bull. Neil Maskell, who you might recognize from Kill List puts in a great performance. David Hayman gives good support. For a budget production it looks OK too although much more akin to a TV movie than a cinematic release. It's a violent crime movie and most of the violence is with knives which is much more gruesome than simply shooting someone. My problem is the disjointed narrative. The eponymous Bull is a small time gangster working for a small time boss of a small time gang in Kent. He's double crossed by the gang only to appear from nowhere a decade later to get his revenge. But instead of a linear narrative the writer/director, Paul Andrew Williams mixes past and present in a ad hock fashion and despite the events occurring 10 years apart all the characters look exactly the same, the wardrobe is identical and the time of year, summer is also the same. There are no visual clues as to what is a flash back and what is present, like the flashback sequences being in black and white or being a bit hazy or even just being lit differently. It makes the narrative difficult to follow despite it not being a particularly complicated plot in the first place. The final payoff comes completely out of the blue and although it's quite a fun twist doesn't fit in with the tone of the movie at all.

Intense thriller, the story slowly unravels, in a violent way, unsympathetic characters that keep you on the tip of the chair nonetheless, with un unexpected ending.

Saw this at the London Film Festival premiere last night. It's a well-made and engaging low-budget crime film, with excellent acting and music. Neil Maskell and David Hayman give dependably good performances. It's very much along the lines of Dead Man's Shoes and Kill List, although lacking the flair, originality and imagination of those classics. Hard geezer seeks revenge, with over-the-top violence and nasty, humourless working-class gangsters. A grim and dour tone. Some nicely choreographed stabbings and gunshots. It's nothing new, but it does it satisfactorily and holds your attention.

It's a great shame then that the film is almost fatally marred by a bizarre and poorly thought-through conclusion that had to make me wonder why not a single person on the team of this production said 'um, hang on a minute, are we really going with this ending..?'.

It's just wrong for the tone of the film.

I can see what they were aiming for, as it's been done before in one of the best crime films ever made, but here they mess it up by not setting it up correctly, and in the process almost wreck a perfectly workable film.

All in all, despite this flaw, this is worth a watch, as it is undeniably entertaining.