User Reviews

"Hard men" never really made it and it's one of the greatest crimes in cinema as this movie made by Amalou (he only made 3 movies since now) is one of the rare pearls in today's British cinema. The violence of course refers to Tarantino, but so what?, hundreds of other movies did and it's absolutely funny. We follow the adventures of three maffiosi (their boss is the legendary Mad Frankie Fraser, played by himself) who earn "their" money. They do have their own techniques and as you can guess it's not exactly the most customer-friendly one. But once you're in the mob, there's no escape and one day one of the three becomes a father and want to become a family man he already wrote his testament. "Hard men" is a typical British movie that only will be understand by those who hate Mel Gibson-movies (the dialogue about whether Abba are good or not, is hilarious. Superb and one of the greatest I saw, plus tons better than overrated Tarantino-copies.

A firecracker of a film, except that it was exposed to dampness for too long and fails to ignite. The premise is appealing enough: a 3-man gang of East London thugs do the business for the guvnor, one "sees the light" and wants out, the others get the order to eradicate him for whatever reasons. Tension, action, exploration of a conscience-troubled character would all seem to be laid out against the backbone of the plot to make for riveting viewing. However, what we get is a clumsy, crude, badly reworked mish-mash of other films, mainly plagiarising the Quentin chap. The jokes are frankly not funny and the dialogue so depressingly unimaginative. Bad language may add to authenticity, but (unless you write like Roddy Doyle) is not the key to belly laughs. "Hard Men" wavers between wanting to be uncompromising in its violence and wanting to please all by brightening things with colourful characters. Violent it certainly is, but the attempts at humour derail the carriage, leaving the viewer with a feeling of disappointment at what could have been, given tighter scripting, better actors, an engaging score and greater focus. "Lock, Stock ..." is a long way ahead of this in all stakes.

You get the impression from the other reviews on this page that this is one of those films you love or hate.

Well there has to be someone to spoil it, so I'll put my two pennies worth in. I like the film even though it has many flaws. The three main actors are very watchable and the film passes real quick which is a sign of a well paced effort.

Sure it borrows moments from many other films but then again which film of the last 40 years hasn't?

Cliched, violent and derivative it may be, but I still stayed with it to the end, and it does have a lot of style.

Get Carter it may not be, but a damn fine effort never-the-less.

Back in the Fifties, many a movie seemed to require one or other of its characters to say: 'hey, let's put on a show!'. In what may have passed for the gestation of this film, someone, perhaps the writer / director, said: 'Hey, let's make a movie!' The result now is much the same as the result way back then, except that in those Fifties disasters the people on each side of the camera had a reasonable idea of what they were doing. No such luck here: if I'd had to sit through this as a graduation piece from young film makers, the most charitable verdict would've been that 'Hard Men' is to movie making what Jeffrey Archer is to English Literature. In other words, no connection.

The movie doesn't so much take to the screen as set up house in a cliche -- guns, shouting, more guns, more shouting, bad language, guns, bad language, guns. As reportage it's dismal. As fiction it's unsustainable. The acting is of a standard to make one wish to hand out Oscars to those responsible for 'Night of the Lepus' ('Attack of The Killer Rabbits') and the direction as consistent as a weathervane in a hurricane.

But that ol' Fifties magic lingers on, for a third of the way through the director finally loses the plot altogether and it's time for 'hey, let's put on a show!' -- whereupon one or other of the mass murderers turns to the camera and sings about his newborn baby.

Come back, Ed Wood. All is forgiven.

Rating: unrateable.

No, I am not joking, this truly is an inspiration to all aspiring screenwriters and film-makers. Frankly if someone can be pursuaded to stump up money for this sorry mess of a film then surely you can do better. The most amazing thing about this film is that somebody, presumably having read the script, actually gave it the green light. To list its weaknesses would need more than the 1000 words allowed by the IMDB. Still it did give me the opportunity to stand next to Mad Frankie Fraser at the London Film Festival and notice how small he was. Mind you I would never say that to his face.

A lot of reviews seem to slag of this film because it's Tarantino style, It most certainly is, does that mean it's not great, no certainly not. It's brilliant, it's funny and pathetic, it's comic book , every character is Perfectly cast. Many scenes are quite gruesome but it's all surreal !

There are only two DVD that I watch every year, Hard Men and Ghormenghast.

If you have never seen this treat yourself, you will Not be disappointed.

Just buy the DVD and enjoy you have nothing to lose

BT

Dark, funny, inventive, sly. Loved the style, actors and overall atmosphere. Looks like that viewers who didn't like the film didn't get the very dark, dry sense of humour. Made way before Lock Stock, it's the Godfather of British gangster flicks made in the Cool Britannia era! Watch and enjoy! It's the "business"!

I always try and write encouraging comments on English films, after all, there are many things they have going against them. But this film is appallingly awful. I can't say anything positive for it. The three stooges, sorry, so-called actors, are not hard at all. Three old women would provide more menace. One of the characters is most absurd. He wears different coloured strange shaped glasses every day, hardly what you'd see a tough gangster doing. The acting is extremely amateur as well. This is just so mediocre and unacceptable. Everything about it stinks to high heaven. Don't waste any money watching this film, you will deeply regret it.

Tone, Bear and John are three hard men in the employee of London underworld boss Pops Den. They are collectors of money, threateners of people and removers of competition. However, with the birth of his first child, Tone decides that he has had enough and that he needs to turn his life around, starting with getting out of the life. When Bear tells Pops this, he orders them to kill Tone and bring him his severed hand by nine o'clock the next morning.

It is to be expected that, when one genre suddenly spawns a bit film, that many others will jump on the bandwagon - some being good and some being rubbish. We saw it with Scream when it relaunched the teen horror genre and spawned a tonne of copies. So it was no surprise to anyone (even if it was still depressing) that the success of a few British cockney gangster films with dark comedy spawned a raft of copies - most of which were average at best and ended up flopping.

Hard Men is one of these films and it deserved every penny it failed to get at the box office. The plot is almost none existent and centres on one night in the lives of these three. It would better if the events in the lives of the characters had mattered or been engaging but, because they aren't, then the plot just falls to pieces (not that it was ever really together). Instead it seems to revel in the grim of it's characters - but doesn't have the decency to make them people. One scene sees a prostitute talk about her years of abuse, but even that is just a scene to add shock value rather than depth. The film even has the nerve to look back fondly to the days of `civilised' gangsters (giving a cameo to Frankie Fraser for that reason) as if all the violence on display here is in some way admirable or a curiosity.

The cast are roundly bad but it is not really their fault - they simply have no material to work with. The cameo for a violent criminal is just pure bad taste and adds nothing to the film. As director and writer Amalou seems to have just fluked his way into the job on the basis of seeing better films and ripping them off. Certainly he brings no wit or style to his script even if his direction is actually quite good considering the budget he had to work with.

Overall this is a very poor film that will only appeal to fans of the genre - all others need to avoid it. I was surprised by just how rough I found the whole thing was - it lacked originality, revelled in uninvolving and seemed under the impression that the word `f*ck' is the height of clever writing.

Mate of mine had a DVD of this film. It's dark, funny, surreal. And unlike many British films, it looks gorgeous. What a great film. It's the journey into darkness as lived by Tone (the main bloke) and his two mates. And what a bloody journey it is! Director J.K. (?) Amalou mixes tones and styles effortlessly and keeps up the suspense throughout: just what's going to happen to Tone and his mates?

Loved the dark and dry humour too. Best line? When Tone's mates are told that they've got to kill Tone and bring Tone's hand to their boss (played by scary Mad Frankie Fraser) at 9 o'clock in the morning. Speed's response? "9 o'clock?! It's a bit early, innit?" Brilliant!

Guy Ritchie totally ripped it off. I spotted many similarities. It's a crime it's never been distributed properly.

Can't wait to see J.K. Amalou's next film MAN WHO WOULD BE QUEEN. Wicked title, that.

Kristian's comparison to A Clockwork Orange is spot on. This film has far more in common with that than anything Tarantino has done. I'm guessing J K Amalou worships that film because Hard Men (without stealing ideas as some have suggested) is like an impish little brother for the original. Like A Clockwork Orange, it portrays another, detached reality, far away from the bubble world of middleclass complacency and boredom. In this world everyone is messed-up, hostile, alone and paranoic. Like Alex and his droogs, Tone and co wreak havoc on the seedy, corrupt, rotting world around them with sadistic glee. The cartoon style of the violence puts us surely in the realm of the surreal, and the bizarre and colourful costumes fuse retro influences with 90s night life in London. This lends the whole thing a feeling of timelessness. Like A Clockwork Orange, it will probably age well.

The characterisation is good and the acting is great. Vincent Regan portrays Tone with a sensitivity to the paradox of a man who squashes the city lowlife as if they were flies about to defecate on his dinner, but loves his little daughter so much that in one scene he actually glows. I challenge you to decide whether you like or despise this man. Lee Ross is wonderful as Speed, a coke-fuelled, buzzin, cotton-wool-for-brains, obnoxious teenager. He is amazingly irritating, and is clearly about to burn-out or explode with self-loathing. Ross Boatman puts in a solid performance as Bear. He is not as compelling as Regan or Ross, but his character does not have the emotional depth of Regan's, or the high caricature of Ross's.

The dreamlike quality of the film is also supported by some gorgeous cinematography. The bright cartoon colours of cheap clothes, city lights, and mugs in numerous cloned cafes are shocking against the drab, dirty buildings. There is a scene at a deserted docks; it is mesmerisingly beautiful...a perfect setting for the final resolution of events.

Admittedly, I do have the feeling this film has imbedded itself like a hatchet in my psyche, a not entirely pleasant sensation. But, if you're not into facile, candyfloss cinema, and you enjoyed the battering A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club gave you, then you're gonna love this!

This is a hopeless mistake of a film. The director has taken some elements of "Reservoir Dogs" and "Trainspotting", mixed them up with "Get Carter" and forgotten that all those films were reliant on real creative talent. This film is derivative, pointlessly violent, horribly unfunny and badly acted.

One of the reviewers on the Imdb page was right...you will either love this film or hate it. I loved it.

J K Amalou's directorial debut is a very underrated piece of filmmaking. He pays homage to various similar films of the same genre, and delivers a thought provoking, funny and dark film that, for me, gives hope to the future of British cinema. The main character is Tone, who wants to leave "the life" for domestic tranquility after 15 years of cracking heads and busting jaws for Pops Den, the underworld boss who is "past it". Along for the ride are his two colleagues and friends, Bear and Speed (the latter brilliantly played by the versatile Lee Ross).

Of course, the powers that be decide that Tone should be killed, and it's up to Bear and Speed to do it. As proof, Pops Den wants Tone's severed hand on his desk by 9am the following morning. And so, we are taken on a whirlwind of a night through East London with the boys struggling against their moral consciences, while Tone looks forward to a life with his girlfriend and new baby.

There are pieces of genius in this movie. There is a memorable scene in a brothel where a disillusioned twenty year old prostitute tells her life story with violent consequences, and one can't help but be touched when, in front of his macho colleagues, Tone sings a gentle lullaby to his baby daughter over his mobile phone.

All in all, Hard Men was overlooked and ignored by the British filmgoing public. This is a shame because, while not in the same class as The Long Good Friday, it definitely gives the likes of Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels a good run for its money.

I saw this again on TV tonight for maybe the third or fourth time, and certainly not the last. There is much to like about this little gem, but those looking for a Tarantino-esque experience (because that's all they seem to know), have been disappointed.

These negative reviewers have obviously had a sense of humour bypass, and ought to look up the word "irony" in the dictionary. Comparisons to Tarantino are facile and irrelevant, that world has nothing to do with this.

Another reviewer compared them to the Three Stooges, as if that's a BAD THING!? Although it's certainly more appropriate - three very different yet complimentary characters prone to sudden bursts of comedy violence, I found myself quite liking these guys, as opposed to the non-characters in so many movies where it's difficult to care who lives or dies.

A note on the acting - first-rate, as anyone would realise if they had seen their other work, especially Lee Ross. (The exception of course is Mad Frankie Fraser who plays himself as usual).

Doesn't take itself too seriously - 8/10

I watched this film expecting it to be bad. The title was off putting and I reluctantly let my friend hire it from the video shop.

I have to say, I loved it. For me, Hard Men isn't trying to be like a Tarantino film. It has a dreamlike quality and has the feel of a Sci Fi black comedy rather than a gangster film. The world in this film is definitely not this world.

If you liked Clockwork Orange, Gangster number one, Fight club, Resurrection man, or Twin town, then watch this because you'll either love it or hate it

Badly dressed, rubbish brit gangster flick. There is a loopy young buck with different coloured specs to show what mood he is in. Ross "Pretty boy" Boatman is the big name in this, the film is bad. Its before he found hid true calling as a big money poker player. UNDERWORLD AUTHENTICITY is added by Mad Frankie Frazer, a good honest villain. I can't be bothered with the plot, i hate this film. I wanted to watch men in black but my mates got this instead.

Watch this film and then watch Rancid Aluminium, you will be amazed.