Is it important that you catch this little British ditty? Not really. It's really nothing more than a collegiate flick for a student's final. The acting was poor and could've easily been done by the filmmaker's extended family. This version of 'A Day of Violence' had some colour issues, too. The general hue was de-saturated browns; blood looks black or dark brown and the general lighting was sepia-toned, even black and white in some areas.Yes, the film was uneven, but something about it did grasp my attention. Maybe it was the ultra violence. I believe this is the first time I've seen an upside down man have his nards removed by garden shears. Gruesome, indeed. Kinda looked real, too. It's the scene that was missing from 'Grotesque'. I guess in Japan they have very little prosthetic penises so you have to make do with what's there.This "film" looked like it was shot digitally. I do wish they either improve that medium or get rid of it altogether. It just doesn't work for movies. It makes the presentation look way too amateurish. I do give the movie some points for editing; at least it wasn't slow paced once the action started. Oh, well. It wasn't a total waste. I do enjoy those British accents, eh wot?

I rarely saw a so brutal, sadistic and fierce movie; that is not genuinely a horror movie I mean. Not a slasher but an ordinary British underworld tale, in the line of LONG GOOD Friday, GET CARTER, FREIGHT, RISE OF THE FOOT SOLDIER and I forget many ones. The kind of movies UK gives us so many since twenty years now, especially since the Tarantino style rise.I agree with the other comments which say that is garbage, meaningless and full of gratuitous violence. I admit that I was afraid of what I was about to watch. I was afraid to have spent my money in not the right way. But, what a surprise, I enjoyed that film. Because there is not real hero here. The lead is not a superman after all. On the contrary. He is a hood, OK, but for whom the audience may feel some empathy. The torture sequences, and not gunfights, are not for the squeamish, not for people around the table with the whole family eating poultry for dinner. No folks. It is REALLY a film with unbearable scenes in it. I saw many 70's exploitation and very violent movies, but not like this one. As far as I can remember. But maybe some user is able to say more, a more brutal feature. Why not?Garbage, yes, I respect this critic, but I loved this film.Period.

This is one of the worst films ever made. There are a lot of films on the IMDb that have suffered that accusation but in this case it could actually could be true.The first sign that this is a cut and paste oater made with no care is the casting. Various rent-a-thug types play various rent-a-thugs ...badly.These people always appear doing the same thing in zero budget British trash. They're not actors and they should stop pretending they are.There is no plot, no character and the dialogue is embarrassing. Real actors couldn't say it convincingly let alone the talentless no-hopers here.Despite opening with a sex scene and a couple of very violent and graphic torture scenes this is a very boring film.There are no good points.

Darren Ward directed this extremely violent gangster bloodfest, and he certainly delivers the goods. The story is about Mitchell (Nick Rendell), a money collector dispatched by a gangster boss to find some missing money. Movie begins with a really really hot sex scene, between Mitchell and his Wife, and then moves 24 months ahead with him lying dead on a morgue slab, with a huge hole in his stomach. The story is told by the dead man and recounts what happened to cause his gruesome death. The gangster boss believes he was robbed and when Mitchell goes to the guy they think did it, he finds the money and cuts the guys throat open, with lots of blood spray. Mitchell keeps the money, and then is called upon by an even meaner gangster boss to find his 100K, which Mitchell now has. This starts a rampage of some of the most extremely violent graphic bloody kill scenes you are likely to see in any movie. Ward really sets forth to create a splatterfest of the highest order. He succeeds with some great shootouts and one particular torture scene of a guy hanging by his feet from the ceiling. After beating the guy with clubs, for stealing money from the boss, what follows knocked me out of my chair. I've seen it all, believe me, but what they do to this guy made me flinch and is not easily forgotten, especially by men. Extremely bloody, gory, and Ward makes sure you see it all in nice bright bloody color. Every step of the way Mitchell takes with his psychopath partner leads to more kills, and more graphically detailed blood and guts. After the crime boss finds out it was Mitchell himself that stole his money, everybody goes after him. Big time shootouts, more kills, and I thought I was in heaven. There is NO WAY this cut Mr. Ward sent me will ever see the light of day in an American theater. But he intends on releasing it uncut and unrated, so lucky for everybody that likes this genre, you'll get to see what I saw in the screener. This is a very very brutal movie, but top notch acting by all involved, and great photography, make this a must-see for you fans of excessive violent movies. I didn't notice any CGI, just plain old very well staged practical makeup effects make this one a joy. There's a little Guy Ritchie, some Tarantino (ala Reservoir Dogs), but mostly Darren Ward (Sudden Fury) that creates a very memorable graphic gangster thriller. This movie is NOT to be missed, it scores on all levels. I loved it, and will buy it for sure, just to hear Mr. Wards commentary.