Bull

Revenge thrillers have been a movie staple as long as there have been movies. This one is the same but different. The film-maker makes no attempt to catch the sympathy of the viewer upfront--a very gutsy thing to try--and instead relies on the constant forward motion of the action to win the hearts and minds of the audience. It works, mostly. The end result is more resembles a roller coaster ride than the typical "3 Act" script. And yes it is entertaining. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

This was a masterfully produced film, maybe largely because the actors are all excellent. I'm not sure how it should've ended, but I think this particular one was a strange choice and, while it was fun because it was unexpected, it didn't fit the rest of the story- at least, not without some sort of evolution. The movie starts with a mad dad and we understand his motivation: he's a gangster out for revenge, and he wants to find his estranged son. Why switch genres at the bitter end? Was that just the cheap trick it felt like?

Not bad for a movie that only cost $100,000 and was filmed in three weeks. Bull does not feature epic shootouts or fight scenes, but it does have a magnetic-intimidating lead performance from Neil Maskell and moments of sheer brutality. In my opinion, this is enough to recommend Bull to anyone interested in darker revenge movies. The film is over in less than ninety minutes and depending on your taste you will either love or loathe the ending.

There's much to like about Bull. Neil Maskell, who you might recognize from Kill List puts in a great performance. David Hayman gives good support. For a budget production it looks OK too although much more akin to a TV movie than a cinematic release. It's a violent crime movie and most of the violence is with knives which is much more gruesome than simply shooting someone. My problem is the disjointed narrative. The eponymous Bull is a small time gangster working for a small time boss of a small time gang in Kent. He's double crossed by the gang only to appear from nowhere a decade later to get his revenge. But instead of a linear narrative the writer/director, Paul Andrew Williams mixes past and present in a ad hock fashion and despite the events occurring 10 years apart all the characters look exactly the same, the wardrobe is identical and the time of year, summer is also the same. There are no visual clues as to what is a flash back and what is present, like the flashback sequences being in black and white or being a bit hazy or even just being lit differently. It makes the narrative difficult to follow despite it not being a particularly complicated plot in the first place. The final payoff comes completely out of the blue and although it's quite a fun twist doesn't fit in with the tone of the movie at all.

It's Gruesome! It's a bit much !! But as a story Bull is in highest degree. What an amazing performance by the whole cast. Authentic character interactions and portrayal. It's gore not a bore.