Essex Boys: Law of Survival (2015) User Reviews

Congrat on making the WORST movie EVER

[matthijsalexander · 4/10 · 30 December 2015]

So I am full of hope, the Brits made another awesome hooligan movie.

What the hell, what is this? I have questions, millions of question.

1) Is that chubby lead actor very rich? Did he buy himself a role? It can not be he was casted. Surely? 2) Why, in the opening scene, show a woman with big boobs, and then the whole movie nothing, absolutely nothing? Did they know the movie was so bad that the only way people would sit through this was the promise of massive jugs? 3) Fighting scenes. In 1960 they knew how to make the scenes better.

This movie is an insult to all those great cult movies, is an insult to acting, actors and everything it stands for. Non of these actors should ever be allowed to be on the white-screen again. Isn't there some sort of police for this? I had to create an IMDb account, just to express my disbelieve.

Absolutely tragic (and not in the emotional sense)

[artifexinc · 2/10 · 29 December 2015]

I don't know where to begin... I was a huge fan of the original Essex Boys and Rise of the Foot Soldier movie, and then I watched Essex Boys: Retribution which was totally appalling. I always find it a shame when low budget movies are made only to try and ride on the coat tails of a decent original, so I'm a bit disappointed in myself for getting my hopes up when I saw Essex Boys: Law of Survival.

I found the whole movie very poor, right from the get go we are introduced to the absolutely dire narration. Apparently the fact that the intro was played and narrated by the real character is supposed to be something of a beacon for the movie, but unfortunately it just shows us what we have to put up with for the next hour and a half.

The acting throughout the movie is terrible, and it seems as if the "actors" are all reading the script for the first time on camera. It comes across as more of a cheap football hooligan type movie than a British gangster flick, with incredibly shocking fight scenes which don't give off a whiff of violence or aggression and are far too fluffy to even come close to convincing us that these are supposed to be feared "hard men" that are being depicted.

Won't go into the plot as I'm sure people will still want to watch the movie. At the most it's probably worth having on for the sake of a bit of background noise which you might give an occasional glance, but it certainly isn't worthy of complete concentration for the duration of the movie.

the worst of the Essex boys movies

[daworldismine · 3/10 · 29 September 2015]

The rettendon range rover murders, that brutal gangland slaying that has spawned six movies so far 'Essex boys' 'rise of the footsoldier' 'bonded by blood' 'the fall of the Essex boys 'Essex boys retribution' and now this 'Essex boys law of survival'. Now like the previous movie 'Essex boys retribution', this movie is set after the triple murder and is about the rise to power of the people who have taken over from them, after a pretty decent recreation of the infamous range rover murders in the beginning, we are then introduced to our main characters and it's from there things go downhill fast, now apart from Chris bell who plays the lead Danny and the crooked copper, the acting is atrocious all round. The lead actor Chris bell is actually good and deserves better than this, the revenge storyline could also have served up a decent little British thriller, but instead they decided that they wanted to make it an Essex boys movie, so every now and again there will be some awkward references to the rettendon murders, that are only in it to remind you this is an Essex boys film. Why Carlton leach agreed to introduce this movie is beyond me, and the scene is one of the most cringe inducing of the whole movie, but it isn't the last, we have the worst American accents iv'e ever heard in a movie, a cheesy subplot about a Canadian undercover agent, and trust me i ain't making this up. I forgot to mention the movie looks like it was filmed on an iphone, it's not professional looking at all. i must stress though that the main actor Chris bell comes out of this movie OK, he put in a good performance, he's very likable, and he's sure to go on to good things. i personally think this movie would of been much better without all the Essex boys references and stuff and should of just been a low budget revenge thriller, because all of the forced rettendon stuff comes across as forced. my final words on this is, don't expect an Essex boys film like the others because that's not what your gonna get, this is a poor movie, poor Chris bell, he deserves better than this.

The Daily Sport gives it 5 stars - so it MUST be good.

[orcadiansmeghead · 1/10 · 26 September 2015]

OK, first off, my posting as far as I can see complies with the site rules. I have looked back at the original review I did for this and have decided to edit it slightly.

My original was fair, balanced, constructive and above all else, truthful. I posted a footnote on my original review stating that I'd love to hear other movie buff's opinions on it. I am not so self centred and arrogant as to not actually return to see if anyone else had seen it and that is why I have returned regularly and now see in two days flat hundreds of ratings have suddenly upped the film's average score from 4/10 to 7/10. I bet it goes up even more - very quickly, and I think we all know why and how.

As long as gas stations have bargain bins, people will always make these zero-budget crass films and demand normal people pay them for it. But if you try to manipulate things by offering people sirloin and then serving them pig swill, you will alienate people from anything else you ever do ever again and people will permanently switch off. Careers can be ruined, punters will be annoyed and all signs will point to fail. If anything people should be paid to see this film as it is hard work to watch.

Essex Boys - Law Of Survival is one of the worst films I have ever seen. The 'actors' are clearly not real actors, the story is unbelievable, the script is so bad its almost funny, the direction is non-existent and although I managed to get through it, I doubt most normal people with an IQ over 80 and a lack of an espresso machine will. It's absolutely dreadful. OK, there you have it. I will never watch anything by this director ever again and will purposely avoid any films I come across in the future that have any of these 'actors' in because the way this 'movie' is being portrayed by it's undeservedly high site rating (probably by people involved in it who are alarmed at the amount of negativity it is receiving) is completely and wholly dishonest.

Oh, and putting a 5 star review on the cover of the DVD from the Daily Sport is ridiculous as well. The paper ran an article a while back saying a double decker bus had been found on the moon, so who are you and they trying to kid? Avoid this like the plague, unless you are really drunk, high or just love late night freesat horror-channel films, which is the only station on the planet which would broadcast this tripe, because that channel doesn't care that no-one ever watches it. It's not even entertaining by accident.

Do you really think you can stand this up next to Rise Of The Footsoldier? You can't, and it shouldn't be taking advantage of Carlton Leach's reputation to try to make people think it will be anywhere in the same league. ROTF doesn't even get 7/10 on here for heavens sake.

Oh, check out the reviews on this site for a film called 'Muffin Top - A Love Story' to see a slight variation on how and why individuals manage to post multiple positive reviews for a truly dire film. It only takes a click.

Avoid.

Embarrassing. Makes a mockery of British acting

[ggizmo · 1/10 · 21 December 2015]

I cannot remember watching a movie with such bad acting. With an idiotic plot, this film is a complete embarrassment to the British film industry. Believe me when I say that it is probably the worst I have ever seen. I saw that it had a 7.1 IMDb rating, and thought it might be good. How wrong I was. Hard men who are not hard. Fights that look like they are taking place in a school playground. Blood as thick as ketchup. To sum it up. This is NOT how to make a movie. I find it difficult to believe that a review on this film has to be 10 lines long. There are not enough words to describe how bad it really is. One actor whom I remember from Londons Burning, had the lead bad guy role. He won't get employment in films again. There was also a bloke with a flat cap who was supposed to be hard. He looked totally out of place with his not hard posing. Then there was the bad dying. I thought actors learned how to die on screen. These guys must have been in the pub on the day that acting school was teaching the pupils how to die. Watching this film will make you despair at the waste of money and time used in churning out this complete drivel .

Worst movie ever

[reddog-10928 · 1/10 · 29 December 2015]

oh dear.. This is without doubt the worst movie I have ever had the misfortune to watch. The plot is both unbelievable and shockingly bad. The "acting", and I use that term very loosely, is embarrassing. I swear there was no script and people were simply free styling this drivel. I can only conclude someone has got a bunch of money for this drivel and must be killing themselves laughing. Do yourselves a favor and stay well clear. Don't even watch out of blind curiosity as it is one and half hours of your life you are never getting back. You will honestly thank me for it. Someone is fiddling with the IMDb rating if this is anything above a 1.

this film takes being rubbish serious

[carl-516 · 1/10 · 29 November 2015]

What this lacks in the way of a script, direction, acting, camera work, technical production it makes up for by just being rubbish on an epic scale. I'll be taking this back tomorrow and asking for a refund, it was disappointing on so many levels I don't know how to continue this review.

Well done.....

Really I mean it.....

I'm not just saying it to bring up the word count....

Yup....

really..... all I need is ten lines and this can be posted as a review

just a few more

and here we are.....

Football Factory, without the acting, script or Storyline

[makka-00955 · 1/10 · 21 April 2016]

Shocking dialogue and acting, with no redeeming features whatsoever. The fight scenes are dreadful, the sound is dreadful, the plot is dreadful and the cast are dreadful. Gunfire sounds like firecrackers and the dialogue sounds as if the actors were making it up as they went along. Fight scenes are comedic, in that there is no rehearsed moves and sound effects, so all you get is a few grunts here and there and screwed up noses. The budget for this movie must have been around a hundred quid. Wardrobe looks limited to Sue Ryder, especially the bald 'heavy', who clearly drew the short-straw when it came to attire! It really boils down to a gangster war consisting of about ten people - 'very scary'. Nothing about this film is believable, from the ridiculous opening scenes, where we see two gangs of over the hill thugs, doing everything but FIGHT, despite being six feet apart - just enough room for the 5 or so extras, dressed as riot police to fit in (obviously a tight budget). Only then do we see some pathetic shoving about, resembling a fight in a Thursday morning Post Office pension queue. What is puzzling is that the rogue policeman, despite taking over the protection racket (consisting of one garage) and telling the owner he has to pay 'him' now, then inexplicably shoots him in virtually the next scene, thereby rendering the exercise pointless. It's safe to assume that I hated this movie - low-budget it may be but every single facet of this movie is appalling. With better direction, a better script and a few more quid spent, this might have been redeemable. As it is, it's simply amateurish and embarrassingly bad!

Essex Bores: Yawns of Survival.......

[FlashCallahan · 1/10 · 7 December 2015]

The real (yes folks real!!) Carlton Leach introduces the film by way of an unenthusiastic voice over and a scene of him just enjoying a quiet pint of stout, and then walking off......

And then the film goes gradually downhill from there. From the mess of a narrative, it's about a lad called Danny, who's thrown away the bad boy lifestyle for the love of a lovely lady and a life of poor acting.

The thing is though, he had no idea that one of the blokes from London's Burning (the same one who's trying to cut down on the price of his energy bills in the new advert) is a bent copper, whom just happens to be doing a gangland hit in the same area where Danny's mrs has just told him there's a baby on the way.

To cut a long story short, she gets killed, he gets left for dead, gets better, and goes for revenge once he gets better.

This weeks straight to DVD crime drama with the words 'Essex' and 'Survival' is really hitting a new low for these turgid excuses for films, and you know a film is in trouble when the DVD cover features a five star review from the reputable publication The Daily Sport, the same newspaper that gave us the story about a double decker bus being found on the moon.

Less to say, the film is an ordeal to watch, and makes this years Assassin (the one with the Kemps and Dyer) look like Mean Streets.

The acting is non existent, and when amateurs make TV actors such as Birdsall, and the two blokes from London's Burning look like Pacino and De Niro's finest hour, you know just how poor the quality of the film is.

But you need to watch this film just to appreciate how much Guy Ritchie's first two movies have influenced a sub genre that just will not seem to run out of steam. There are at least twenty or thirty films like these released every year, and once in a while, there are a couple of decent ones released (We Still Kill The Old Way, and Guvnors spring to mind), but in hindsight, I will never watch a film/documentary/TV show with the word Essex in it again.

Special mention to the actor who plays Lee, I've seen more emotion in an out of date Porkpie that's been found in the boot of a really hot car five weeks after being purchased.

Terrible stuff.

The one star is for a nice pair of boobs at the beginning

[paulhawklord · 1/10 · 15 November 2021]

Let's line up the bad points about this fiasco.

1. The worst fight scenes ever. I mean ever. Three year old kids playing army are more convincing.

2. A tenuous link to a true story. VERY tenuous.

3. Acting that would shame a town hall amateur dramatics group.

4. An American accent that makes Dick Van Dyke sound like a linguistics expert.

5. Camera work of the lowest quality. Poor framing and poorer lighting. I don't believe any of these idiots have ever held a camera.

6. 90 minutes to tell a ten minute story. This could've been a short and saved us all a lot of grief.

7. Blood. Ketchup might be cheaper than stage blood. Problem is, it looks like ketchup.

Now the good points.

1. It ended.

Not the worst, not the best

[kris-523-976233 · 6/10 · 26 February 2016]

I have to confess I approached this film with very low expectations having read the one star reviews here on IMBb. I had a mixture of confirmation and surprise. Sure it doesn't have the production values of the Sean Bean film with a similar title but one star is a bit harsh. Sure it was filmed on camcorders with a very small budget but if you have Sean Bean I'm sure you can command a bigger one. Having said that I've always thought SB was a wooden, one dimension actor who adds very little to anything he's in.

There are a couple of faces in Jesse Birdsall, who gives the best performance, and Ross Boatman from 'London's Burning' but special mention should go to Canadian actor Megan Lockhurst who also turned in a good believable performance.

So if you are expecting something similar to the SB film then of course you will be disappointed but if want a slice of Essex, this is maybe not the only way.

Absolutely terrible .

[dagooding · 1/10 · 29 December 2015]

I like a terrible gangster film, this has to be the the worst one I've ever seen. Awful acting, too much swearing, pathetic acting, oh did I mention too much swearing.

Actual Script

"Fu** off mate, fu**off you cun**, oh fu** no, oh fu** off son. Oh who's that bird your seeing, who shes nice, oi oi, don't you worry son." See you tough guy.

Tries to be Football Factory at the start, then someone dies who you give no shits about, then some fu**king copper turns up, but then hes reassigned, who you give no fu*ks about.

If you fancy a laugh then watch this. 1/10

Awful

[Shropslad · 1/10 · 5 February 2016]

To start off I am a big fan of all films old,new,bad and good....But this is just beyond belief. It is so bad I do not know where to start!!??. The acting is horrendous , camera work shocking and directing .. abysmal. I think, reading between the "lines" (lol) it was trying to be a Lock Stock Style film....but what a failure. The accents where a joke. Watch out for the amateur acting as if they are waiting for each others line and not sure whos next....poor director?

The fight scenes are farcical...note the police one at the start in the yard. I have always looked at the rating scores here for films but now I seriously have grave doubts. Every review was about 1 or 2.....one critic put it at 5 stars!...yeh right! How the hell did it get its rating of 5.5+. Lot of false reviews here me thinks. AVOID please.

Absolutely terrible execution of what could've been a decent film.

[donmitchellioni · 2/10 · 24 September 2020]

The majority of the acting was really bad but Chris Bell! He looked and did not act well before he ended up in the hospital, he has about as much acting ability as my goldfish, what an absolute waste of space.

There was no emotion from anyone, the lack of budget (or the look af lack of funds) really lets the film down, the acting is cardboard from start to finish.

Probably the Worst "Movie" I Have Ever Seen

[jtaff99 · 1/10 · 6 January 2016]

OK, so I noticed this film and got hooked in by the 5 star blah blah and the (at the time) IMDb rating of 7.0. Usually means it will be of a decent standard even if you don't like the premise or the movie itself. Oh how wrong. I couldn't literally believe how bad ALL of the acting was. Some people mention the performance of the lead actor; well they are clearly his friends because he was the best of a very bad bunch. The guy who played the character "Lee" was so miscast it is untrue. You will never hear an Essex "hard man" talk the way that he does. It was hard enough anyway but from the moment he entered the movie any ounce of seriousness I had had evaporated. Such a poor actor. I would go so far as to say it was a total embarrassment to the British film industry and I hope I never watch a movie as bad ever again. I lasted around 30 minutes and then my girlfriend and I watched "The Martian", then you can see what real actors can actually do. Do not waste your time. It won't be long until this film has a 3/4 rating on here, and even that would be extremely generous.

What a pile of ****

[raindance89-95-483954 · 1/10 · 30 July 2018]

When I started to watch this I wondered if it was a made for TV film its so bad, its like a real crappy episode of Holby Coty or The Bill but it would be unfair to compare this film to those other shows as they have good actor's and normally good stry liines. The acting in this is just terrible, I'm still asking myself why i sat and watched it all. It has no relevance to the triple Range Rover murders at all, I presume that the avatar for this is the DVD cover or cinema poster and that also is so misleading.

Shockingly bad.

[davidoddie · 1/10 · 27 July 2022]

So badly written it's nearly a comedy. The acting is so bad it defies deactivate. If someone set out to make a truly awful film they would have to be supremely talented to make it this bad. Anyone associated with this film should gang their head in shame.

Absolute tosh

[ecrcrabtree-41231 · 1/10 · 10 April 2023]

The most criminal thing about this film is the acting, but the screenplay and direction are close competitors.

I couldn't get through the whole thing it was that bad.

It's hard to imagine that any self respecting actor would put this on their resume. It's far more likely that they'll have gone into witness protection and taken on new identities to avoid being associated with this rubbish.

I'd only recommend watching this garbage if the only other option was to staple your eyelids to an angry honey badgers scrotum and even then it'd be a close call.

Terrible film on all fronts, one to avoid.

Truly dreadful

[davidgodf · 1/10 · 3 January 2021]

It's hard to know where to start with this film. The title might lead you to think there is a connection with the original Essex Boys film from 2000. If there is a connection, it's very very tenuous, with Carlton Leach appearing as himself at the start of the film, and various random references to the Rettendon Murders. Other than that, the film is simply a confusing mess. No effort is made to explain who the main characters are or what their back story is. It is simply a badly made and terribly acted waste of time. The plot purports to be about an ex-crim having gone straight, having to seek revenge when first his girlfriend and later his friend are killed. It's not really clear why they were killed, nor do we really care at that point. The film then seems to try to pivot to make you think it's going to turn into a Taxi Driver clone, with the lead character meeting up with a black market firearms dealer on a farm (he is, for some reason not explained, American), who talks us through his various wares. Now suitably armed, the lead character begins a campaign of revenge, for about 10 minutes, before the plot pivots yet again. In short, it's totally incoherent stuff. But, worse than the dull, convoluted plot are the production values. The script is one-dimensional stuff, even by the standards of the current crop of Essex gangster films, with liberal C-words thrown around for no good reason. The camera work is amateur, often out of focus, and appears to have been edited together by someone who was in a rush. There were so many tight crops of the actors faces that I started to wonder if I had the picture settings on my TV set incorrectly and I was actually missing something. The few attempts at action set pieces are terrible, either shootings that just appear to have been done using joke shop quality fake blood, or fights that are are stilted and wooden. Most of the acting is woeful, with the exception of Ross Boatman who I can only imagine must be mortified at being associated with this dross.

In short, this is a terrible film, that has no connection whatsoever with the original Essex Boys film nor the Rettendon Murders. It's worth watching only to be astounded at how such a terrible film ever came into being. I'd highly recommend just watching the original Essex Boys again over ever watching this rubbish.

Don't hate me for saying this

[conrad-vienne · 6/10 · 29 May 2020]

I really enjoyed this second collaboration from Bell and Smith. I know that it has flaws in filmmaking but I found it interesting all the way through. It's a shame it's a marketing ploy to sell more by using the name Essex Boys. It could have worked just being called Law of Survival. I liked the sound recording and performances from all the actors.

Moronic

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 19 September 2018]

ESSEX BOYS: LAW OF SURVIVAL is another zero budget and moronic British gangster film. The flimsy plot involves various gurning and cartoonish characters - none of whom are written in an interesting way, or who stand out from the crowd - going up against rivals and ending up shot, beaten or murdered as a result. One sub-plot has a main character attacked in a park after witnessing a random murder, and from that point on he goes gunning for revenge. Expect random scenes of hooliganism tacked on for no reason, an inappropriate library of classical music accompanying the action, gratuitous nude and sex scenes, and terrible acting from the non-performers. It also has the flimiest of links to the real life 'Essex boys' case.

Complete mix of good and bad

[moviemixupup · 5/10 · 10 October 2015]

This is the second film I have now seen from director Steven M Smith. The first being the much commented and criticised Hooligans at War, North vs South. Where lets be honest, there is no direction at all, poorly led from start to finish and what I can only guess was done on a shoe string budget. Before watching this movie, my expectations were very low. However within the first 20 minutes of this film, the difference in improvement was clear to see. Yes, there are still lots of faults and quality issues. But the film flowed and the storyline had thought and meaning. The film was watchable and much better than others are saying in their reviews.

I noticed that there was quite a few of familiar faces in this film. These faces are from Steven M Smiths HAW. I was pleased to see Chris Bell again playing a lead role (Danny) who puts in a well delivered performance and I must mention Ross Boatman (Franks) who as always was fantastic.

On the less positive side James Hodcroft (Lee) was a poor choice for this type of film. I have never met anybody from Essex who talks with such a corrective pronouncing tongue. Seriously, who taught this guy to speak? Stop emphasising every word spoken. I couldn't take this guy seriously and lowered the overall quality of acting within the lead roles. I was also amazed to see that there were other actors used in HAW that we're used again in LOS. Josh played my Mark Windham (also Mickey in HAW) is just awful. A complete mumbling poor excuse for an actor that makes watching paint dry fun. There were several of the hooligans in the early fight scenes duplicated from both films that have no idea what a real fight is and just hoping to get there face on TV.

Although the quality of this film could of been better and at times still appeared to be filmed on a low quality mobile phone, I enjoyed the film. As low budget movies go, the team should be very proud of the end product. Chris Bell and Steven M Smith have written this film very well and brought it from pen and paper to our TV screens. I look forward to seeing what these two come up with next. If they keep improving as they have done here and do without the poor actors and repeat hooligans, things will surely only get better? If you do insist on using the same actors in your films, keep hold of the good ones such as Pat Garner, Alan Lund, Darren Placid and Colin Vidler who can keep the believability of the characters real and perform to high levels.

My eyes will peeled for what you two have for us next.

Keep up the good work.

Watchable

[michaelcrowther-97221 · 4/10 · 18 July 2022]

Not the greatest low budget film but I thought it was watchable. Get the first 30 minutes out of the way and stick with it. It do gets a bit better. The character that plays Danny is pretty decent and there's a couple of other actors I have seen in other stuff that are OK.

The only saving grace is it's less than 90 minutes long.

[robdavek · 1/10 · 31 October 2022]

Like a combination of Brando In the Godfather and De Niro in the Godfather 2, the sheer depth of acting quality on show will take your breath away.

A multi layered plot.

Deep, realistic and relatable characters Believable fight scenes

Just a few things missing from this movie.

I've seen less wooden acting in an episode of Bill and Ben and it's a film that makes you yearn for the days of Terry Stone, Craig Fairbrass and the 47 turns they have done. (Which are Oscar winners compared to this crap)

At the end of the day it's a film about some drug dealers who got shot. Quite why they felt the need to round up the worst set of actors since "Hot and Saucy Pizza Girls Two" to make this - God only knows.

One final word of warning.

I watched this film resolving to drink a shot everytime someone used the word mug. I'm now on the liver transplant list.

Don't make the mistake I made.

Simply Awful

[grahamffc · 1/10 · 1 January 2021]

I've got to say the acting is appalling - very amateur with odd cuts between some scenes.

It actually could've been decent but well it's not