User Reviews (22)

Add a Review

  • Unfortunately the grit of the original two movies is well lost in this episode. The main two gangsters/bad men are completely unbelievable characters. One is like a runty cousin of Danny dyer (some Essex warrior who couldn't scare a granny), and the other 'hugs' comes across as a mincing Turkish footballer, who's acting is very wooden. The acting in general (apart from Noel's) is farcical, along with the Americanised story line , which takes things too far from potential reality. Even Curtis, who was pretty demonic in the second film comes across as a theatrical comedy villain. If you are going to attempt to cast in high level gangsters who run large grossing international business's, then please, make the characters believable. Some orange Essex boy in top shop garms just doesn't cut it. The great thing about the first two films was that they were believable to a certain extent, with the plots mirroring how life can be for large swathes of society in urban environments. For some reason Clarke took this one way beyond those parameters, and failed miserably. If parenthood is to happen as the 4th and final part, then please take it back to the original flavour. There is so much good new music and Yoot's (genuine rude boys who hang with well known grime artists) to ensure Clarke could create a realistic and believable film. Unfortunately, this film waters down the first two and comes across as a way to milk the good will built up.
  • seanc-3940729 August 2016
    Caught this today with my girlfriend and some friends. As fans of 'Kidulthood', 'Adulthood' and 'Anuvahood' (if counting), and seeing as it was a bank holiday Monday, we thought we'd go see it. A good, pretty much chavless crowd was there too. I was 14 when the first film came out and I remember the phenomenon it caused. I was 16 when the second arrived, and the reaction was even bigger, because of the first film. Now I'm 24 and the end is here. I feel I have grown up with these and they are special films. This is an entertaining, well-made end, if not a great one. Noel Clarke returns, amongst some other familiar faces. The supporting actors all do a good job but this is certainly Clarke's film. There's some pumping music, stylish edits and camera-work and the odd semi/fully naked woman to keep the lads happy. There's also some dark and repulsive scenes, that make this all the more gritty, as well as some good humour and deep messages too. It does feel like it needs Adam Deacon though, I must admit. I think fans of the first two films won't like it as much but it's a fitting finale. Overall, a decent end to a powerful trilogy that the target audience is sure to embrace.
  • Prismark102 May 2017
    I am a big fan of Noel Clarke, he is a one man dynamo often writing, starring and directing his own movies. He refuses to bow down to his detractors.

    Unfortunately something went awry in the final part of his trilogy, Brotherhood. Instead of being a gritty urban streetwise thriller like his previous two films, it feels more like a joke.

    Sam Peel (Noel Clarke) has done time for killing. He his now living a quiet life with a mundane job with his girlfriend Kayla (Shanika Warren-Markland) and two children.

    Things take a sinister turn as Sam is dragged back to a life he thought he left behind. His younger brother Royston (Daniel Anthony) is shot while performing in a show. Sam himself has been given a come on by a pretty East European lady.

    Pretty soon Sam and his family are being threatened by flash crook Daley (Jason Maza) and his crew but Sam has never done anything to upset him. It turns out that an old enemy is pulling the strings, Uncle Curtis (Cornell John) whose nephew Sam killed and who wants to destroy Sam's life.

    The story just did not walk, it really was a badly written film. If Uncle Curtis wanted Sam dead, he should had just killed him, not drag Sam's brother and mother into a stupid cat and mouse game.

    Still Clarke pulls a nice trick of attracting his fans from Doctor Who. Included in the cast are actors that have appeared in Doctor Who, The Sarah Jane Adventures and Class.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The first two "Hood" films by Noel Clarke were, if not without their problems, genuinely enjoyable and suitably gritty.

    Sadly, it seems somewhere in the eight years since Adulthood (6/10), Clarke has lost his way. He went on to write and direct 4.3.2.1., a movie I personally quite liked, but had lukewarm reviews, and then The Anomaly, one of the most shockingly poor sci-fi movies I've ever seen.

    In September 2016 Clarke appeared on The One Show, comparing his achievements in cinema against those of Sidney Poitier, seemingly without irony, and therein lies the problem. Whereas the original Kidulthood (7/10) was an ensemble movie, this final chapter acts almost as a vanity vehicle, where Noel's Sam Peel (a relatively minor figure in the first movie) is now the sole focal point. Perhaps the sole lack of vanity not on screen is an opening which features Clarke looking at his pot belly in a gym mirror, surrounded by younger, more fit men.

    Clarke's dialogue in the first two movies engaged, even though it often lacked naturalism. This was, after all, a series where the first film had a man shouting out the moral of the story after being hit in the throat by a baseball bat. But the level of "on the nose" dialogue increases here, with clunky lines like "You think you've got power because you've got a hammer? Getting a job... owning your own place... that's power."

    "We don't riot because we want to, we riot because we have to" is one of two completely overt references to the 2011 London riots, something which was covered with rather more topicality and a little more subtlety in Plan B's superior 2012 movie Ill Manors. Finally, a girl talking about guys calling each other "pussies" notes "I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult other men by calling them an albeit now accepted colloquial word referring to the female genitalia."

    Although the title "Brotherhood" obviously has a wider meaning, Sam gets a literal brother here, a previously-unknown sibling called Royston, played by Daniel Anthony. An underdeveloped part, there solely as a catalyst to propel Sam into some rather OTT and unrealistic "violence", it's a role that goes nowhere.

    The humour so rich in the other movies is here absent, with clunky, unconvincing comic dialogue from Henry (Arnold Oceng). Adam Deacon claimed to have had uncredited contributions to the first two movies, and his much-publicised absence from this one is felt. Watching characters talk about crispy creme doughnuts in the middle of otherwise-dramatic scenes make it very believable that Deacon contributed heavily to the previous two entries. Either that or Clarke has completely lost whatever touch he had, delivering up completely unrealistic scenes like Henry deceiving a girlfriend who is the kind of gullible you'd only get in a mainstream sitcom.

    What Clarke does next will be interesting to watch, and this film is not without some moments. But as a final part to a series that didn't require one, it's sadly something of a stain on an otherwise engaging film series. Perhaps someone needed to take Noel Clarke to one side and ask him the title quote?
  • Kidulthood was a dark, exciting, and insightful look into the London youth culture. Adulthood expertly built on that and showed the struggles of those trying to escape the endless cycle of violence that grips the streets. Both combined danger, humour and awesome urban soundtracks to depict perfectly the modern gang scene- but most importantly- did so in a BELIEVABLE manner. Brotherhood did not reach those standards in any way. The cast failed to live up to the performances of the original movies. The plot seemed very far fetched, and often needs saving by the quite random jokes involving "Henry" (from Adulthood). Instead of the sinister threats posed by Sam Peel in the original, or Jay in the sequel, the audience are treated to an absolutely absurd duo of Daley & Hugz, who just weren't menacing enough in comparison. The involvement of Stormzy (along with his relatively polite well spoken posse) don't really accomplish anything in the movie and appear to be there just to balance out the pointless appearance of Curtis, still reeling from his Nephew's murder 20 odd years on. All in all, Anuvahood was probably more believable than this, I would give it a miss and watch reruns of Channel 4's excellent Top Boy instead.
  • Really struggling to believe the other reviews on here are not false. All have very similar patterns. Enjoyed the first two movies and was disappointed didn't get to see this in cinema but so pleased I didn't. Minus a lot of nudity, I would of considered this a 12A film. I only remember one death in the film. The violence was comical. In fact the whole film could not decide if it was a gritty drama or a tongue in cheek comedy. Such awkward attempts at humour. Would have to say the very worse screen bad guys I have ever seen. And the editing was atrocious, the movie jumped all over the place. Truly awful film.
  • Noel Clarke brings us the third and final instalment of his self written London street Drama spanning over ten years with KiDULTHOOD released back in 2006, followed by AdULTHOOD in 2008. I have always considered these films the British answer to Boyz N The Hood and Menace II Society addressing the tragedies of London's youthful generation. 

    I'm a fan of these films by default, purely to having my own fair share of drama with gang fights, drug raids and hospital visits, though don't get me wrong, I'm a good boy I assure you, I was known as 'the sensible one'; it's just my perfect circle of friends have allowed me to witness a life that some people will only see in films like these; I'm more like the Henry's and Ricky's of the street world.

    During my troublesome teens back in the nineties, I wanted to make films myself and this was the subject matter of a lot of my stories with friends still urging me to write a book, so naturally when KiDULTHOOD was released I was both annoyed yet inspired by Clarke beating me to it, it's a story I can certainly relate to. 

    If you haven't seen the previous films, it does help to fully understand who's who though it's not essential. As a brief recap, Sam (Noel Clarke) murders a fellow street hood Trife, serves time and upon release is truly sorry for what has happened, though the past is rarely forgivable and revenge is always lurking around the corner. No matter how much Sam tries to turn his life around, there's always someone haunting him. 

    The deceased Trife's Uncle Curtis, played by Cornell John (he's the sensei in the latest advert for McDonald's chicken sandwiches!) is released from prison and returns to conclude unfinished business with Sam, enlisting the help of some new ruthless faces to make life difficult for Sam and taking things to the extreme. 

    There's some powerful portrayals in this movie, especially liking Leeshon Alexander's character HUGS who looks like the love child of Clive Owen and Tom Hardy; and Shanika Warren- Markland's Kayla who from the previous and Clarke's 4.3.2.1. However wasn't so keen on David Ajala's Det. Des or Jason Maza's crime boss Daley. 

    It's hard-hitting and probably the most emotional of the trilogy whilst still having it's comical elements, mostly provided by a grown-up Henry. (Arnold Oceng) Obviously, revenge is the main topic but there's a great sense of justice and loyalty portrayed here, especially the scene with Hassan (Chris Ryman) in the kebab shop.

    Tom Linden does quite a haunting score, such a nice touch having the ambient hum intensifying dramatic scenes, reminded me of Michael Mann's Heat and of course, the soundtrack that accompanies the film is superb incorporating British rap, hip hop and grime from artists like Stormzy, Asher D, Chip and Lethal Bizzle. It's the perfect soundtrack to represent street life of London and in combination with the locations, it's gives the city the dynamic look it deserves. 

    It's obvious Clarke isn't fan of Michael Bay however, he does something Bay is notoriously disliked for, unnecessary nudity, like, lots of it and full frontals. Whilst pleasing to the eye it isn't essential to the film at all and feels like a push to give the film an 18/R certificate. 

    Regardless of It's low points it's a perfect conclusion to the trilogy so fans of the previous films should enjoy this as I did. Clarke is a great testament for London film making. Maybe we could fast-forward a few years into PaRENTHOOD being about reputation and struggling to keep your kids from the same fate. 

    "R U dizzy blud?" 

    Running Time: 7 The Cast: 7 Performance: 7 Direction: 9 Story: 7 Script: 7 Creativity: 9 Soundtrack: 9 Job Description: 8 The Extra Bonus Point: 10 for being a blinding finish to the trilogy innit. Result.

    80% 8/10
  • i can't stand movies that don't have any sort of music or acting or new ideas or good story,it just depends on some weak actions and some pretty girls, nothing else. i think that kind of movies doesn't respect you or value your knowledge about creative movies.it's such wasting time doing nothing expect watching guys and girls without clothing where's the idea or the main purpose of the movie ?
  • STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday morning

    Sam Peel (Noel Clarke) has settled down with girlfriend Kayla (Shanika Warren-Markland) and two children, and has put his unsavoury past behind him. But he is thrust back into it when his younger brother Royston (Daniel Anthony) is gunned down while performing at a live show. Flash new crook Daley (Jason Maza) wants him to work for him, and has joined forces with Sam's old enemy Uncle Curtis (Cornell John) who has his own agenda. Sam tries to stay on the straight and narrow, until an horrific act plunges him back into the underworld he'd tried so hard to escape.

    Noel Clarke obviously felt, eight years after the last instalment Adulthood, that the series needed to be rounded off a little more than it already was, and so we have this, we are assured, the final part. Some backstage politics, shall we say, have clearly played their hands here, and so we see the Moony character missing altogether, and Sam mysteriously settled down with his girlfriend from the last film?!?, and of course Adam Deacon's Jay completely absent following the well documented real life spat that spewed up between him and Clarke. Personally, I didn't miss his hyper street kid antics this time round.

    While it still packs a powerful emotional punch or two, somehow the raw, gritty, uncompromising nature that characterised the first two films just isn't as evident here. Those films (the first one especially) were from the mind of a young man who had grown up in this unfortunate world, and who gained acclaim by recklessly writing down and screening all the types of stuff he'd seen, and as a result made a film that was 'as potent as a shot of vodka in the morning' as one tabloid review memorably put it. With such a large space of time between this and the last film, the cast (those still in it) and the material with them feel like they've grown up a bit, and this time it all seems to be played more for laughs, even during intense, dramatic scenes, especially from Arnold Oceang's Henry.

    That aside, the story all feels cobbled together without the strongest narrative flow and there's an air of predictability about a lot of it that doesn't go unnoticed. It's still worth seeing, though, a grown up, more seasoned ending that those from this generation will feel they've shared the journey with. ***
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Noel Clarkes hood trilogy reaches its conclusion in Brotherhood, the final story of Sam Peels redemption. The basic premise of the story is that Sam still finds himself defined by the final event in the first film of the trilogy, Kidulthood, where he murdered a boy. Where Adulthood presented him as an outcast trying to reintegrate and survive, Brotherhood shows a more mature Sam who has moved on from his old life. His family and those he has affected have also managed to move on. Unfortunately the uncle of Sams victim, Trife, is a gangster who has vowed vengeance on Sam and he drags Sam back into his old world.

    There are always a lot of expectations with Brotherhood, it must follow the traditions of the past two films, following inner city kids and their lives. Unfortunately I felt this ultimately handicaps a film which had a worthwhile story to tell.

    In Kidulthood, the film and the setting is so beloved because it really does capture the life of an inner city kid. If like me you grew up in this culture, we all knew or were kids like Trife, Moody or Jay and it was great to see our story being told. The problem for the sequels is that those three were very much the heart and soul of the film. Sam was a menacing character, but a very 1 dimensional one. A bully who plays his part in the tragedy of there being no happy endings in this world. Adulthood does a lot to flesh Sams character out but ultimately I felt the story died with Trife. You can tell Clarke lived through the lives of Sam, Trife, Moody and Jay, but not so much the gangster world he delves into in these sequels. So when the story starts to get involved in that world, it feels forced.

    The problem for Clarke and his character Sam, is that his character has no place in the world of the inner city kid anymore, Hes older more mature. The film tells you as much. There are some interesting stories in this film. #spoilers# Sam has reconciled with his mum and brother and has also made up with Alyssa the mother of Trifes child. Sam has made a family for himself and taken a baby from his previous relationship. He struggles to hold down a job because of problems with integrating into society. Sams character has lived his life all macho and bravado which is at odds with his life now. There is a rich story about the rehabilitation of a regretful man trying to make his way in life while being hounded by a psychopath. A man who's one big mistake in life continues to define and pull him back, no matter how much he improves.

    However this is kept bubbling under the surface and the story with Uncle Curtis takes centre stage. Curtis is another 1 dimensional character, a one note violent gangster, who really needs to be a background threat who destablises Sams life rather then a centerpiece. Instead the story involves Curtis and some new gangsters, who happen to have some inner city kids tagging along with them. I understand that a lot of this is to satisfy the trilogy's fanbase. For all the critique on inner city life and the tragedy of it all, the trilogy also made itself famous through scenes portraying the gangster lifestyle, the macho bravado, sex and violence almost glorifying it. To leave this out would be in many ways betraying its audience.

    Its just something which ultimately handicaps the film. Gangsters like Daley and Hugs only seem to complicate the plot, leading to Clarke having to write in other random characters in order to help Sam out of an otherwise inescapable peril. The plot becomes muddled and the gangsters for all their reputation are easily vanquished by Sam and his randomers. The randomers, the gangsters, the women and the kids are all expendable and needless additions to the film.

    Brotherhood does deliver some nice moments. Fans of the previous films do get plenty of nods. The comedy in Sam being out of touch with today's kids is touched upon here and there. Ultimately though Clarke and the hood trilogy finishes on a flat note. By refusing to grow up it ultimately fails to reach its potential.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm a big fan of the other two "Hood" movies; Kidulthood and Adulthood. While they were undoubtedly badly made movies with awful acting and some questionable choices of direction (particularly Kidulthood), they both shared enthralling stories that accurately portrayed what life in Britain is like growing up. Argue that last point as much as you like, but even though I lived in a village growing up, and was never considered a chav, the portrayals of characters, particularly in Kidulthood were so real and relatable to my school experiences. Brotherhood is nothing of the kind, despite being the most technically well-made and polished movie of the trilogy.

    I figured going in that Brotherhood would be, at best, another relatable tale to where I am in life, and it's true that a lot of the ingredients are there. Everyone's grown up, moved out, gotten married, and have kids of their own. That's where I am. But alarm bells started ringing when the movie opened with a complete disregard for the series' continuity. I know it's been ten years since Adulthood (narratively), and I know it's a small world out there, but Sam being married to Moony's uni girlfriend was a bit too much of a coincidence to swallow. Even harder to swallow, despite the ten year gap, is Alissa and Sam being not only on good terms, but welcoming and friendly terms like the past was just something to laugh at.

    So what could Brotherhood possibly be about? I'll give you a clue, it's got nothing to do with brothers. No, I don't get it either. Once again, Sam is pursued by someone who wants him dead. Spoilers; it's that Jamaican gangster Curtis again. Except this time he's not in charge, and so instead there's an over-elaborate plot to get at Sam's family. There's a shooting at a club (because apparently this is America), and a note with an address on the back, to which Sam quite rightly inquires "Why would I go to a strange address?" They also employ a foreign woman to get at Kayla and Sam's mother for no other reason than why not.

    Adulthood was a great look at Sam's redemption, eschewing violence in favour of the search for a more peaceful existence. Sam gets rid of Curtis via tip-offs and police raids, and talks Jay down, persuading him not to ruin his own life in the name of vengeance. While Sam has grown out of the street slang, he doesn't seem to have kept his restraint on violence, kicking and punching his way out of every tight spot he gets into. Of course the police don't like this kind of ruckus, but they let him off because they're old friends, just like the random takeaway owner who joins Sam's ragtag group of masked vigilantes.

    I'll give it to Brotherhood though, the quality of acting is a vast improvement. That's not really saying a lot as the acting quality of both Kidulthood and Adulthood was god- awful. At least in Brotherhood the actors bring more believable performances and don't completely ham it up. Even Red Madrell proves what eight years of experience can do, despite her abysmally small amount of screen time considering she's a crucial character to the trilogy's core narrative. All the new members of the cast are quite enjoyable to watch, including Leeshon Alexander as Hugs (he likes to hug people as he stabs them), Tonia Sotiropoulou as the exotic bait who found herself in deeper than she ever wanted to be, and even Stormzy has one of the younger troupe of henchmen. But of course, this is Noel Clarke's movie, and he places himself front and centre. It's not his best performance, not even his most memorable turn as Sam, but it's good enough to keep the movie hurtling towards it's inevitable, predictable conclusion.

    Another plus in Brotherhood's favour is the comedy. Kidulthood and Adulthood had their tiny, almost satirical moments, but they were altogether very serious affairs. Brotherhood tries to keep the serious tone intact, but also offers some light- heartedness from Henry, who is the comic relief of the whole movie. His lies to his wife about irresistible shopping deals were good fun I will admit, and were what I found most enjoyable about the whole movie.

    I didn't have high hopes for Brotherhood, but it didn't even meet them. While it marks an improvement on a technical basis, particularly on the acting front, it falls way behind in the story department. It's over-the-top, cartoony, nonsensical, and has little regard for continuity. It tried to explore what could've been a very interesting time in these character's lives, but instead it chose to shift tone entirely to it's detriment, and cut out (maybe unavoidably) crucial characters. Sorry Noel, you should've just left it at Adulthood. That's all the closure the series ever needed. I give Brotherhood an unsatisfactory 5/10.
  • Brotherhood is the third in the series of Noel Clarke films set in London and featuring Sam Peel . Sam has grown up and is a different person to the one we saw in Kidulthood but trouble still seems to follow him in the form of an enemy who has come to seek revenge. What I like about these films is they feel very real. Although Brotherhood is more polished than the two previous films it still has that Independent vibe about it. None of the people on show are particularly likable which makes it quite hard to care what happens to them and the language is uncomfortable to hear at times . The main villain's racism seems over the top and unnecessary and kind of spoils what is an interesting film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film doesn't know what it wants to be, inbetween juggling a gritty drama with comedic undertones it all gets lost somewhere and the film comes across as a jumbled mess. Part of the problem comes across by the desperation to give Sam a happy ending which he doesn't deserve, for some reason Sam and Alisha are best of friends now with Sam paying regular visits to her and her daughter to check in and pay her money to help out with the household, with both Alisha and her daughter being very happy to see Sam, whenever he pops around for his weekly chat. What happened to the girl who despised the site of Sam, the girl who was strong enough to face the man who murdered her daughter's father, simply to show him that she was the better person, I found it that unbelievable I didn't even realise it was Alisha untill I read it in another review. Next comes Sam's relationship, it turns out the girl from adulthood died and for some reason he ends up with the girl Mooney was seeing in adulthood despite them never even meeting in adulthood let which makes it even more unbelievable. What makes this relationship even more comical is the fact that Sam cheats on her with the first girl who shows any interest which strikes me as completely out of character for his character ark he went through in adulthood. Next come the antagonists and the plot, instead of following what would have been the logical plot of Sam's brother going of the rails and being brought down to rock bottom as adulthood hinted would happen, we simply have the repeated story of Trevor trying to hunt down Sam for revenge over Trifes murder, I never once saw any hint of love in kidadulthood remember Trevor is the man who thought it would be funny to hold a gun to his nephews head, which for me just makes the two movie vendetta come across as very forced and It all just comes across as very thrown together, the villans are rediculous and instead of the realistic London gangsters from the first two films you have a man called hugs who likes to kill people by stabbing them when he hugs them yes seriously. Then finally is my biggest annoyance with the film where Sam is allowed to run away from the police at the scene of a shooting, purely because one of the police officers knew Sam growing up. That for me underlined how much this film is desperate to give the Sam the happy ending he didn't deserve, adulthood ended his story far far better yes it was bleak and left two damaged people trying to make the best from their ruined lives, but it felt appropriate and realistic for the situation that Sam landed in not the walk off into the sunshine he got in this. a wasted opportunity at best.
  • Leofwine_draca19 December 2018
    Warning: Spoilers
    A disappointing conclusion to Noel Clarke's fine trilogy which started with KIDULTHOOD so long ago. The first two films were very good indeed, gritty, on-the-street thrillers, whereas this one's all over the place. It has a light-hearted feel to it and some performances which feel more at home in one of those indie gangster flicks than a real movie. Once again the vendetta between Sam and Curtis propels the plotline, but there are too many extraneous characters, many of whom have no real reason to exist (such as the Stormzy character). The dialogue veers towards the crude one too many times and generally you feel that there's not much intelligence on offer here. Clarke does try hard and things do pick up for an impressive climax, but until this point you can't help but feel that they're just treading water and going through the motions.
  • Well...I'm disappointed but I still shed light tears at the last scene before the epilogue, and if you're a fan of the first two prequels, you might see why I did. It's the same tears you cry when your kid walks across the stage, or when you finish a video game, or on the last day of summer camp before you get on the bus back home. Just that sad sense that's it's over, after everything. I also feel disappointed that it's nothing like the 1st two.

    (Oh, the film is about a guy all grown up trying to protect his family because he's still in danger with Grim Reapers following him around to avenge something he did in KiDULTHOOD. Watch it instead!)

    Now first of all, this is so unrealistic, as you know. No one in their right mind would remain in the same borough when he's had people all over it try to kill him...It's such a short sighted film, I don't even have space to tell you about it!

    It really hit how different things are this generation during the ending credits; the song that played was a popular British rapper...but nothing is British about it except his voice. The beat and how he raps compared to the ending credits in AdULTHOOD...I don't get the sense that I'm in London. It set sail on this ship away, far away, from the first two films, and then jumped ship, and then sank. If you're new to British films and want a good look at London life on the other side of Hugh Grant's and the queen's tracks, don't look at this film. Look at KiDULTHOOD.

    KiDULTHOOD is a f*cking classic as far as British cinema, and I feel let down with this, and I feel I won't enjoy it as much anymore. It's all Noel's fault. All of his films get WORSE AND WORSE AS TIME GOES ON. I want someone to walk up to him and slap him with facts and reality. YOUR FILMS ARE SH*T, BRUV. Someone say it to him! He's losing it each time. He's trying harder and harder EACH TIME to impress his peers, whilst still thinking he can through bottom feeding.

    This film is mediocre at best. The script? Lmao, Noel Clarke already struggled enough trying to make his characters sound hard but he's much better at that than trying to make them sound prophetic. The monologues of wisdom sprouting during scenes where in reality there would be no talking, like having a gun held to your face, were paradoxical at best. And oh yea, who died and made the little Polly Pocket road girl/female hoodlum Prophet Moses? It just didn't work because no girl in that actual position and lifestyle would even know the word "colloquial" nor be able to speak, much less sermonise. It just didn't fit, though I know Noel Clarke is trying to justify this vapid and kinda boring mess by preaching to the youth...because the youth are the main people in the audience. Which one of them didn't go bonkers when they saw rapper Stormzy in the ads?

    Stormzy was all right. His role is nothing like his rap persona, though (and that's all right unless it undermines his persona instead of building an...acting career...?) He clearly was a fan of the 1st two films like many other 90s kids like he and myself, and so he wanted to be apart of this so I hope he likes it. And hopefully his character in the film walking away from the "thug life" (not that easy to) works for the "mandem and youngers" watching this to do the same, because otherwise it's just point- scoring for the critics, who probably half fell asleep leaning on their hands like, "what's this film for again?" And then, voila: words of wisdom suddenly stream through like a blimp ad in the sky, salvaging the film however they could.

    I feel Noel Clarke abandoned the grit, the underground London life (in a film about gritty, underground London life?) because he's too COWARDLY to bring a film to the table honestly showing it. He's too SCARED to have a film with ACTUAL "roadman" London slang, he's AFRAID of what his industry mates will say. Granted, KiDULTHOOD was 10 years ago. And my have things changed based on this film, and I think Mr. Noel here wants to show he TOO has changed. The film is about SAM'S changes. Not NOEL'S. Even Stormzy's new song says "You're never too big for your boots."

    One of the main things that even brought KiDULTHOOD to the forefront of British cinema (it did, and it made Noel Clarke's career), was the SLANG. The Grime music. The murky settings. The youths. KiDULTHOOD had real London life and music constantly in the backdrops. This...had nothing. I understand the enemies and stakes are on a higher level, so now there's a certain, errr...air of class and quality *gag* But the grime of the life that this film claims to be about was incredibly washed up and out?! Starting with the Rent-A-Roadmen. Who were the Drama School dropouts this film rented?

    I'm so annoyed, I wish I even never knew there was a 3rd one. I can't even remember much of the film and it just finished 5 minutes ago. Yes...it's already happening...I'm already forgetting it!

    OK Noel, try again with good movies about London, like KiDULTHOOD, AdULTHOOD (kind of), London to Brighton, Ill Manors... Someone slid a printout of a good idea at Noel Clarke and he balled it up in his hands and threw it over his shoulder like a used nappy/diaper. Done. *deletes movie off my computer*

    This film took the trilogy from Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing" to Tyler Perry's "Madea Goes to Jail." Now I wonder why Adam Deacon trolled Noel on Twitter....
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Sam, settled down with girlfriend and kids, thought he had left his youthful like of crime and violence behind him. But when his brother is shot just to get his attention, suddenly unwelcome old faces resurface.

    Noel Clarke, as writer, director and star, brings us the third (and final) film in his -hood series and, like the others, it is inherently violent, so you need to be prepared for the fairly uncompromising view it takes of the world in which it is set. It also shows the other side - as these young men get older, they look to settle down into conventional domesticity if they can, but that is at odds with those who wish to drag them back into the area they are trying to escape from. This conflict is at the heart here.

    The story is straightforward but strong. Clarke's writing and direction are good, and he gets worthwhile performances from his largely unknown cast. There are places where he plays out drama, humour, and moments of touching emotion all at the same time. This is a long way from Mickey Smith in Doctor Who!

    There is a moderate amount of nudity in this, and there are those who object to female nudity on the grounds that it is unnecessary. I find this point of view incomprehensible but, just in case you hold this view, please be warned.

    I thought this was pretty good, albeit you may need subtitles if you are not part of black London subculture, innit.
  • nogodnomasters31 December 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    Noel Clarke wrote, directed and starred in his own film as Sam Peel. Sam was part of a gang 10 years ago and we get a brief glimpse of what happened. Now the past has caught up with him as it seeks to kill and destroy everything he loves. With the aide of friends and oddly law enforcement, Sam fights back.

    This urban film takes place in London which means I was able to understand more of the words as compared to the American urban films. You feel me? The film has a me-too revenge plot. There wasn't a great character build-up, but adequate for a crime drama. Noel Clarke likes to keep his face on the screen...not George Clooney bad, but noticeable. Worth a view if you like urban or crime films or Noel Clarke's face.

    Guide: f-word, sex, FF nudity (Tonia Sotiropoulou + extras)
  • OK well firstly I want to start off by saying I rarely, if ever give reviews however I felt that the negative comments for this film are not justified.

    I think that brotherhood outperformed the previous two films by a long stretch and the acting was great.

    Combining occasional humour with a serious storyline have the film a much sharper edge than the previous films and I was gripped from the very start. The solid grime soundtrack gave the film even more depth.

    There have been many big budget, Oscar nominated films that I've watched over the years and been so confused if not annoyed by the hype whilst many of the true quality films go under the radar.

    Don't be a slave to media hyped rubbish, put your efforts into watching a great British film with a solid cast.
  • sholacole-4302320 February 2017
    There was Kidulthood the Adulthood and now we have Brotherhood. The first two films of the trilogy were great films depicting the early 2000's London street life. I watched brotherhood two days ago and we have to take our hats of Noel Clarke for his outstanding directing, writing and acting. The film is well written showing the elements of the London life among teen gangs and the reality of organized crime in the UK - Noel shows the way the gangster life is portrayed as glamorous among the youth whilst showing the reality of gang crime and violence in the inner city. Clarke has shown cleverly the way street life has changed from when he was a teenager to modern day teenage gang involvement. There is excellent directing with fantastic soundtracks from notable, prominent Grime UK artist: Nines,Stormzy,Chip,Fekky,Krept and Konan and Asher D. Whilst other films based on London's inner city are Americanized, Clarke keeps it 100 with the London feel. There is a fantastic cast from other TV dramas such as Waterloo Road, Youngers and other cast member from the previous sequels. Though the film is brilliant, it in a sense glamorizes the organised crime lifestyle and has some graphic scenes with some character. In conclusion the hood trilogy is a well -written trilogy with great directing and acting. Brotherhood is a raw unique film and is good watch.
  • There is no doubt that Noel Clarke is a talented filmmaker, he acts, writes and directs this finale to the Hood story. He also gives unknown acts who can't afford to go to drama school a chance and has uncovered some real talent, His main focus is on the inner city working class youth culture where every day is a struggle to survive. Clarke does not sugar coat the grim life of many inner city issues and is not scared to address them in his movies. But it not totally gritty there is room for hope and redemption. Not the best of the three Hood movies, it is hard hitting, violent and engrossing but ultimately a rewarding watch. Full marks to Noel Clarke who is one of Britain's most talented filmmakers and his bravery in tackling tough social issues head on.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    BrOTHERHOOD demonstrates its strong themes in a thought-provoking, poignant and satisfying conclusion to the grime gang street drama.

    Usually, a third film would either be terrible, showing the lack of character development or a weak plot. But this film has thankfully avoided all of it. Giving us more of the lifestyles and the insides of inner-west London and the choices young youths make. This review won't be long but all I can say is that BrOTHERHOOD has improved dramatically over its predecessors, providing us a much darker and complex tone filled with shocking moments.

    The only thing that I found uncomfortable or unnecessary is the nudity and the sex scenes. It must be really, really lucky that the BBFC gave this film a 15 certificate because most films similar to this would receive a 18 certificate. The nudity scenes were really unnecessary or unneeded, it only just gave us less comfort or giving a awkward moment to the audience.

    Overall, I think BrOTHERHOOD has given the UK a much cynical, well- written film packed with emotional scenes and a strong performance by Noel Clarke, not to mention the pure cinematography!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is the third film in a trilogy, I hadn't seen the first two but that didn't seem to matter. This is an excellent standalone piece of gritty British film-making. The film was tense, violent and gripping with tight direction and fine performances.

    It managed a 15 certificate, but it must have only just scraped it! Cracking script - the writing is genius and comical at times, telling the story of the lead character (Sam), who is trying his best to rebuild his life but cannot escape his past.

    Great soundtrack - I'm not a huge fan of rapping but this fit perfectly and added to the film atmosphere.

    Humour - the humour was pitched just right, especially with the 'gangster' who kept getting beaten up and relationship between Sam and Henry and the conversations between Henry and his girlfriend.

    The only drawback was that the climatic duel at the end wasn't very original and seemed a little cliché Highly recommended British film-making