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?
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?