User reviews

In North London, the teacher of the Wittering College Robert Anderson (David Schofield) is hit on the face by a student and is forced to take three months vacation to be not sued by the parents of the kid.

Robert is affected by the incident and a couple of months later, he is emotionally disturbed, alcoholic and separated of his wife Helen (Juliet Aubrey). Their daughter Kate (Eliza Bennett) lives with her mother and has classes with Robert, but she does not respect her father. The principal of Wittering College, Sarah Balham (Ruth Gemmell), loathes Robert and wants to get rid of him, but the Union does not allow her to fire him.

When Robert reads about violence in another school, he sends a memo advising the employees of the school and he is considered paranoid and delusional by everybody. One day after hours, Robert notes some strange movements outside the school and he advises the security guard James (Finlay Robertson) that does not give much attention to the discredited Robert. But sooner Robert realizes that the Wittering College is under siege of a gang of hooligans and he need to find Kate to protect his daughter.

"F" is a film with that had potential to be a great movie. Unfortunately the inconclusive story is shallow and does not develop the characters that are unlikable or the situation, and has a weak ending.

Robert is a looser and emotionally unstable; Kate is a bitch; Sarah is another bitch; Helen is also a bitch; James is coward; Kate's boyfriend Jake is a douchebag. Robert seeks out Kate in the school without any weapon (a piece of wood, a ax or whatever) to defend himself and his daughter from the gang. The conclusion is absolutely disappointing. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Adolescentes em Fúria" ("Teenagers in Rage")

Hey look, a socially relevant and disturbingly accurate horror/thriller! You don't see a lot of those, that's for sure. Well okay, only the basic premise and main themes behind Johannes Roberts' "F" are realistic, while the further events in the film are pure fictional and exaggeratedly sensational… And thank God for that! But as said, the synopsis immediately grabbed my attention. Not a day goes by without hearing depressing reports on the news about chaotic riots or shootouts on school grounds and senseless violence against people who are just doing their jobs, like teachers, bus drivers and train conductors. "F" suitably opens with devoted English literature teacher Mr. Anderson taking a punch in the face from a frustrated student after flunking his exam. The school's board of directors refuses to support Mr. Anderson and even forces him to go on sick leave because the kid's parents threatened with a lawsuit. I don't intend to sound overly embittered and old, but sadly this "fictional" intro gradually turned into a saddening fact! Kids used to answer to their parents regarding bad school grades and unacceptable behavior, but nowadays teachers risk to be held responsible for their disrespectful and uncontrollable attitude. One year later, Mr. Anderson still teaches his class but metamorphosed into a completely different person, struggling with alcoholism, paranoia and a torn apart family situation. One evening, when keeping his daughter in detention, a pack of criminal students (?) hiding their faces underneath hooded caps invade the school's premises and relentlessly begin to terrorize the remaining staff members without apparent motive.

As a social statement, "F" is definitely one of the most remarkable genre movies of the past ten years. The subject matter is relevant and the main characters are identifiable, which automatically puts the film in a league higher than your average and typical slasher movie about a bunch of idiotic teenagers heading out to the remote backwoods and getting butchered by inbred hillbillies, or something. Purely talking in terms of cinematic value and impact, however, "F" unfortunately is too much of a flawed and incoherent accomplishment. Writer/director Roberts does a terrific job generating a tense and involving atmosphere, through detailed character drawings and a terrific use of ominous music, but the movie narrowly collapses as soon as the school invasion truly breaks loose. He wants to intentionally remain vague and distant regarding the hooded hoodlums' identity and motives, presumably in order to keep everything more disturbing, but he overlooks the fact that the viewer expects a minimum of insight. The invasion, clearly influenced by John Carpenter's "Assault on Precinct 13" comes across as too random and implausible. The northern London area obviously suffers from troublesome kids, but there weren't any hints at well-organized criminal gangs to my knowledge. Who are these hoodlums? Exactly how many of them? Are they even students at Mr. Anderson's school? They could be a bunch of circus acrobats gone berserk, for all we know, because their speed and flexibility to move across the hallways and climb atop of school infrastructure is deeply impressive. And also, these assailants aren't just insignificant youthful thugs… Judging by the crimes committed here, they're incurably and dangerously deranged psychopaths! If you see what they do to the principle's head or how they mess up secretary Roxanne McKee's cute face, I sincerely doubt we're dealing with rebellious school kids here. Not even the serial killers on death row are this cruel and sadistic. The film actually contains very little on screen violence, but the suggestive cruelty and imagery is more than enough for sensitive people to avoid watching. The ending is a huge letdown and, like many other reviewers already indicated, it looks as if there are fifteen minutes missing and/or Johannes Roberts completely ran out of budget all of a sudden. I think I understand the deeper meaning behind the open ending, but this simply isn't the type of movie for that. It's a worthwhile attempt, but unfortunately not destined to become a cult gem/classic.

First thoughts : This will going to be something good. No zombies, no aliens, no sadistic crap ... just pure it-could-happen-to-everyone horror movie. Maybe with expected ending, maybe something new, but I thought let's give it a try. And movie continues that way. Each human has some boundaries that either he is kept in them forever, or (if pushed too hard) breaks them and escapes, does something (super)natural or at least ... something. Both ways are good, which is human end of the day. But no. Not this one, not our hero. This movie tries to show something new, some alternative perspective while it enters into a nonsense experimentalism, virtual apparent calmness, which is just not realistic. This movie can even make you nervous as it is that silly. It would be better if movie would continue into direction of psychological internal battle of the main "hero" (whether to do something or do nothing) or deeper character analysis than entering into some very poor horror atmosphere, which at the end leaves you empty as shell. So why even bother to write a short poor review about this poor movie ? Purely for the reason that someone else would not make the same mistake I did by watching it. Actors are good, no doubt, but their performance and story they want to tell is just awful. For the beginning of the movie I give 10, for the ending 0. (if this would exist). Sooo average ... or even below.

Where to start? No on-screen violence. No identities for the hoodies or any real reason why they decided to kill everyone. Not a single likable character. The protagonist is an alcoholic who hits his own 16 year-old daughter! There's no one to root for, I wanted them all to die. It's a disaster.

These 'hoodies', you still can't see any part of their faces even in scenes where there are big fluorescent lights above them! Logic check! If you go by the start, they are also supposed to be 'F' grade students taking revenge (although this isn't clear), but they must have 'A' grades in Athletics because they run about on large bookcases in the library, fall from the ceiling at every opportunity, they act like stealth ninjas from start to finish.

The ending. Well, there isn't one. The few people that had actually stayed in the cinema just muttered "What?". It's all a very confusing and badly put together mess. Avoid.

In "the making of" on the DVD the writer/director claims it took him 2 years to write the script. One can only conclude that he lost most of it and ran out of money before he'd finished shooting it.

The acting and horror are all at "Hollyoaks" level. This mess lasts a pitiful 75 minutes including titles AND HAS NO ENDING.

A school is attacked by hoodies except the hoods are completely pitch black with nobody inside. And you're never going to find out who they were or what their motive was because the film just ends.

Complete dreck and a waste of time. Even the digital grading has been messed up - it's a green/yellow mess.

This is a great independent effort. They really take an old fashioned simple concept and make it entertaining. The only real character to speak of is an alcoholic Teacher who appears to be coming slowly undone more and more. After being attacked by a student one day everything just seems to be going wrong for him. I'll just leave it at that. As the viewers were just kind of watching a regular day at school that goes horribly wrong when menacing faceless(which is also a nice touch) killers start slowly taking out all in their way. The movie works with a lot of camera angles, but has a couple of decent gore shots. The directors seemed to be making a more cerebral approach which worked with the breathing and spooky sound tracks. Also, the movie didn't wear out its welcome at an hour and 15 minutes. I would say this is a very watchable British horror flick indeed.

An alcoholic teacher has to save his estranged daughter when a group of hooded youths attack the school at night....

I liked the idea behind this film, but sadly as written, it doesn't quite work. The characters are largely unappealing so you don't really care what happens to them. For an 18-rated film, there is a surprising lack of on-screen violence. You don't actually see much on-screen, instead usually only seeing the bodies afterwards.

As a result, then the writer/director Johannes Roberts has to rely on his skill with a camera to create tension and any scares he can, and to be fair he does get the building tension as the film progresses just right. There are a couple of scares, but not many.

The cast do their best to look scared or terrified, but as said, the script makes them mostly unappealing people so you have no feelings for them and don't care if they live or die.

Another fault, for me anyway, was the apparent lack of motivation for the attack. Was it revenge for something? Did they attack out of boredom? Something to indicate why they were doing it might have helped I feel.

But Johannes Roberts does managed to partially redeem the film with a truly unsettling ending. I can't recall a recent film with an ending like this, and it actually works brilliantly.

Sadly though it is his writing that lets him down, which is a shame, as potentially this could have been very good indeed.

A missed opportunity.

This is a great little psychological horror/thriller, and I really wish it was tagged as psychological because it seems as though some of the marketing and expectations of other viewers was more geared toward a standard gory splatter film. If that's what you're into then this may not be the film for you, but if tension and filling in the blanks with your own imagination is your thing, then you can't go wrong here.

The film does a great job of creating a realistic atmosphere and then slowly raising the suspense and this trend continues throughout. There is some graphic gore but it's used sparingly and parts of the narrative that would otherwise turn this into a non-thinker are wisely left out, which allows for a far more immersive experience as you draw from your own thoughts to complete the film. That isn't to say that the filmmakers have been lazy or simply ran out of ideas or money; it's all done purposely and it certainly achieves the intended effect. The unknowns are what make this film scary, and fear of the unknown is a far stronger emotion to draw on than fear of blood or gore. Also, the film doesn't fall into the (lazy) trap of using shock scares to make the viewer jump; the film stalks you as the assailants stalk the victims. This, as with most successful psychological horrors, is a more mature take on the genre and I am very glad of the break from formula.

In terms of production values, this doesn't fall into the B-movie category at all. The casting is great on all but one of the characters (I won't mention who, but it's a really very minor role which doesn't damage the experience) and the other actors all manage to realistically convey the fear that comes from being stalked by unknown predators. The video is crisp and the direction doesn't rely on cheap tricks like quick cuts, shaky-cam, or constant extreme close- ups, but goes for a more sedate approach which, again, allows for the tension to rise and rise. Audio production values are also top notch with an unassuming soundtrack peppered with the odd hint of spooky melody. Sound effects aren't over the top and increase the realism of the experience. I would have liked to spend more time in the college during a normal day to get an idea of the size and general layout of the place, as well as to contrast the emptiness of the building at night, but that's a minor gripe.

A lot of people appear not to have liked the ending, but (without spoiling anything) I will say that it fits with the rest of the film. It's largely a set piece production and, with the ending the way it is, there is scope for a sequel to expand on the events that occur in this film or, again, the viewer can draw upon their own thoughts and perspective.

Overall I found this film to be gripping, suspenseful, and with just enough innate malice and hold on reality to create a 'what if' situation where anybody, teacher or not, could see this happening to them at some point. I sincerely hope that a sequel will be made which maintains this level of self control over how much of the gore the viewer needs to see. It's certainly a cut above the formulaic slasher/splatter films that are all too common, and it's a lot more scary too.

Reading some of the reviews about F, it is clear that there are a few misguided and unimaginative people out there. Fair dos to them - they are entitled to their own opinions! For the more open-minded people out there:

This film marries together several different film genres to create quite a unique experience. It relies on the audience being able to envisage in their own mind how the story progresses and ends, giving just enough clues to help them along the way.

If cut and dry endings and 100% gore is what you are after, then this isn't going to be the film for you. While F does have several toe curling scenes, that is not all it's about.

I challenge all avid film buffs and viewers to watch this film and identify all the 'non-horror' influences and techniques that have gone into its making. Appreciation for these qualities will mean appreciation for a very talented film maker - hopefully with plenty more films to come!

F is written and directed by Johannes Roberts and stars David Schofield, Eliza Bennett, Ruth Gemmell, Juliet, Aubrey, Roxanne McKee, Finlay Robertson and Emma Cleasby. Music is by Neil Stemp and cinematography by Tim Sidell-Rodriquez.

Robert Anderson (Schofield) is a teacher at Wittering College, when he is assaulted by a student for giving an F on his paper, it sends his life spiralling into a blur of alcoholism and broken families. 11 months later and back at work, Robert's worst fears about youth violence towards teachers and auxiliary staff comes true as the college comes under night time siege from a gang of faceless hoodies.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, in horror, if you spoon feed your audience solutions and full on gore you get called unoriginal. Flipside of that, if you retain an air of mystery, keep the violence off screen forcing the viewer to fill in the blanks, and offer up a finale that makes you to think as the credits role, then you get called a cheat or ridiculous. What side of the fence you sit will most likely determine how much you like or dislike F. Roberts' movie follows the latter course of action, an acknowledged homage/spin on Assault on Precinct 13, it's the latest British film to tap into the growing adult fear of the "seemingly" lawless spurge of violence perpetrated by the hoodie generation. The generational gap and understanding appearing to be widening by the year.

Coming a but late to the party after Eden Lake, Harry Brown et al, F does carry with it premise unoriginality, more so considering those links with Precinct 13. Yet the director paces his story superbly, keeping the cat and mouse games at its core genuinely nerve shredding. The hoodie assailants are deliberately kept faceless, they are entity like, they move about the school interiors like Panthers, no words spoken, no cussing or street speak. When they attack, we only see them closing in to enact unspeakable crimes. We get aftermath shots, and they are horrific, but our minds have already done the work before that. Roberts also shows a good knack for prop unease, witness a basketball and a floor buffer used for some quality supernatural effects. All this is aided by Stemp's minimalist low plinking score and Rodriguez's stripped back photography.

David Schofield (Gladiator) gives a very compelling performance as Anderson, he is the key to the film's motives and means. Anderson is a broken man, betrayed by what he deems as an unjust system that saw him-the victim-as the guilty party. His paranoia signifying that of many an adult today, his fears and borderline madness are the central plot device, come the end it's at his feet that the questions and answers fall. You the viewer will need to reevaluate what has gone before and piece it together by using your brain. Bennett (Inkheart) is effective in the only youth role of note, Gemmell (Fever Pitch) scores well as the spiky headmistress, Cleasby (Dog Soldiers) does what she can with a small role and Finlay Robertson does a nice line in cowardly creepy as security guard James.

Those who loved the lamentable and unoriginal Scream 4 will hate this with a passion, and judging by internet reaction to it thus far, many went into F expecting a blood letting slasherthon. It isn't that sort of film at all, the creator going for something more to do with suspense, paranoia and using the noggin. Amazingly, in spite of familiarity of set-up and villains, Roberts' movie is a fresh alternative to the ream of boring slashers filling the theatres every other month. B-

I made an appearance at a preview of 'F' in Cambridge recently this year.

Though it wasn't a fantastic horror and yes there were some clichés and repetitive moments, I was still thinking about it when I left.

I was thoroughly surprised at the 18 certificate because you rarely see any of the violence taking place, just the gory aftermath, yet this is where the brilliance lies.

Everything was suggested through the camera work. Tension built, shocks revealed and moods created through the use of one camera. The close-ups became reasonably annoying but it is impossible to deny that it was well filmed, very well filmed. The soundtrack was very good and was consistently played which is reminiscent of John Carpenter's films. 'The Thing' comes to mind.

David Schofield carried the film, especially compared to the rest of the cast. His performance was solid and believable. As has been said before, the rest of the cast members were a bit too bland to empathise with, some even used as cannon fodder.

The lighting was brilliant as well, successfully evoking the tension out of its viewers. Additionally, although there was a trick, the 'Hoodies' were fantastically lit, keeping them faceless. The 'Hoodies' are where I feel a lot of people misunderstood the film.

The 'Hoodies' are faceless forces of evil. They are silent, deadly, malicious. They are a symbol of todays violent youth (take the student protest in London recently as an example). The 'Hoodies' were an enigma, a force within and apart of the school. This is where I had the most fun in the film, watching these things cause chaos. When the 'Hoodies' were looming we would know, and that made them ten times creepier.

The ending, love it or hate it, was different and strangely invigorating.

'F', despite the minor clichés, it's slight dip into repetition and bland characters (apart from a couple), and I suppose the lack of a substantial plot, is a fresh film. It is entertaining with some moments of horror and some genuinely brilliant filming, especially when the 'Hoodies' are looming.

Most importantly, there are horrors churned out by Hollywood these days that are skid marks in comparison to this. So if you're a person that enjoyed those terrible remakes such as 'One Missed Call,' or 'Prom Night,' which this film shouldn't really be associated with, then this is definitely worth a watch, in fact it is utterly fantastic compared with those.

One bit in particular is worth watching if you're a Hollyoaks fan... or hater. 6.5 / 10

I think this movie is getting a lot more flack than it deserves. The plot concerns a school being invaded after hours by a gang of killers, and the only one who realizes something is wrong can't get the others to believe him, but he can't leave himself because his daughter is also at school.

I see most of the complaints are centered around certain areas where the movie leaves things open. People are angry that the gang's motive isn't explained, but it seems clear to me. They were nothing more than a bunch of killers out for a thrill. The film talks about how incidences of violence against school staff are up, so why are people acting like it's so confusing? The second point is the ending. It's true the film ends somewhat ambiguously, but other reviewers are blowing it way out of proportion. Without giving details, the main conflict is wrapped up, and it's pretty easy to guess what's gonna happen after the credits roll. This isn't a "anyone who dislikes this movie is stupid!!" rebuttal, but frankly it seems to me that the people who criticized those aspects were people who couldn't make their own guesses.

As for my own thoughts, I loved it. The hoodie gang, utilizing stealth, Le Parkour and high brutality were a very stylish antagonist. Most of the kills are off screen, but we do see the aftermath and I'm wondering why people question the rating when what we do see is quite grisly. It's true that most of the supporting cast aren't likable, but isn't that to be expected in these types of movies? I do have my own complaints. The film starts out trying to give some social commentary on teen violence and the grade rating system, but that seems to be pretty much forgotten once the killers arrive. While I'm not one to complain about kills in a horror movie, I also feel like they could've done more with the main character's troubles with both his job and his family. It leaves me hoping for a sequel, because I even without the ending I think there's more this story to give.

To conclude, it seems as though whether or not you'll like this movie depends on how much importance you place on everything being explained. I can relate, but I honestly think that the mysteries aren't as big a deal as people make them out to be.

For £150,000 budget this was a good watch. Reading the other reviews, would say it's smart and well shot. The gore scenes were well done and the hoodies, well I didn't feel we needed an explanation unlike other reviewers. The anti hero dad was developed well and the hanging ending was done well, justified the film's brevity given the limitation on budget. My only criticism is the police visit, didn't really add anything to the plot. The Head Teacher was particularly good and immensely dislikeable. Was the story realistic? Hell no What schools can afford two security guards, a fancy gym and a library like that? For me, this film can hold its own within the thriller/horror genre.

But not necessarily without a reason. Although it doesn't really matter and I cannot fully understand why there always has to be a reason. Actually that is the reason (well the absence of one, is the point the movie tries to bring across). That's how I felt about it of course. And the movie has some strong acting power to get that point across.

Our main actor is really good and he holds the movie together. Don't expect the movie to be too gory (well you get to see some nasty bits here and there, so it's not for the faint hearted either, but it's not too exploitative of that notion), because it relies more on what you will imagine happens. Which is almost always more freaky, than actually seeing something happen.

A very good movie, that is filled with suspension from start to finish. And hopefully you won't be disappointed, because you will not get everything handed to you on the silver platter ...

Also known in the US as 'Expelled'. I've become a fan of Johannes Roberts over the last few years with his 47 meters films, other side of the door and the super underrated Strangers Prey at Night. So I've began searching out his earlier work. On Amazon Prime I found this flick and immediately bought it. Plot wise it seemt right up my alley as a group of teachers and a few students are attacked by some psychos in hooded sweaters. The movie is really suspenseful and edge of your seat and the atmosphere is thick with dread. Although it's limited by budgetary constraints and leads up to a realistic but lackluster finale. The movie leading up to it shows the promise of a successful career that he's fulfilled.

3.5/5

Right from the start of "F", you are made very aware that you're watching a British horror/thriller. Despite lacking some of the production/effects aspects of most modern Hollywood gorefests, this doesn't have to be a bad thing; films such as "Hush", and "Wilderness" are prime examples of this British style of film-making at a good standard.

Unfortunately, "F" doesn't follow suit. The storyline, whilst being interesting enough, has many plot holes - which exasperatingly the film never fills in. Staple questions such as "Who are the hooded assailants?", "Why have they chosen to attack the school now?" and "What happens next?" all go annoyingly unanswered, with nothing more than a "hint" included to wet your appetite, and an ending both utterly disappointing yet (interestingly) unsettling. This, contrary to what some others have said, does not add the atmosphere or film itself, it simply ticks the viewer off.

The acting was average at best. Nothing worth raging about, nothing worth complimenting. But the characters themselves were bland, uninteresting and very easy to dislike - especially the films main "protagonists", which is unusual even for a slasher film (which this film rudely masquerades as).

The few redeeming qualities the film had to offer were the unoriginal score, which did a stalwart job at creating tension in places, and the very eerie breathing sounds and mutterings, which I thought were genuinely frightening, (just a pity the film wasn't). The ending was as I've said previously "unsettling", which in my opinion both worked and failed simultaneously.

In conclusion, watch this film if you have NO OTHER options - but don't let the trailer and advertising fool you. Despite having some glimpses of gore it's usually gone and forgotten in a flash, and the frights are sadly very, very rare.

If you're looking for a cheap ridiculous "thriller" about faceless parkour experts with knives, "F" is for you.

If you're looking for a genuine horror/thriller about the youth of today, "Eden Lake" is for you.