Sugarhouse

Sugarhouse is the story of a middle class man trying to buy a firearm in the UK, and all the things that go wrong with that transaction, from the crackhead who is selling it to him, to the psychotic drug dealer who owns the gun, to the reasons he wants the gun in the first place.

This isn't a witty and convoluted Guy Ritchie gangster film, these characters are low-level criminals engaging in their day to day enterprises with the addition of a middle-class gun buyer throwing everything out of kilter.

Andy Serkis played the psychotic drug dealer with his usual flair, you could almost smell the rage he was putting off. The other actors did a fine job of representing their characters, production values were high, dialog was good.

This is an above average crime drama, with a lot of dialog and some action thrown in during the more intense moments. My American ear had some trouble with the accents, but in general it's easy to understand what's going on and why.

Sugarhouse is something that has been done in the past quite a lot in British cinema with the likes of Bullet Boy and Kidulthood, a film centred around the raw realities of life and of course crime. There isn't really anything new with Sugarhouse, but what it does do is revitalise classics like those above and give you a more up to date adaption.

This adaption in question includes the talents of Steven Mackintosh and Andy Serkis, both well known British actors along with new British talent Ashley D. Sugarhouse is dark, compromising and of course brings up questions about morality and human nature. Violent at times but of course this is what makes this specific genre so appealing and riveting! I'd recommend this film to fans of either Rollin' With The Nines or Kidulthood.

There are no scenes in this movie- just mainly ONE SET of a warehouse area. That right away tells you this movie has no budget, and a variety of other moments show you this is a shoe-string budget affair and the storytelling suffers as a result.

This is the story of a man who meets up with a Jamaican crackhead to try and buy something. Unfortunately several other people want to have that something as well and then the conflict begins. The man's unbelievable continual participation in these follies is supposed to be a sign that he is a man on the edge but it is more of a sign that this plot is unrealistic and idiotic to boot. Anyone else would just turn heel and go home- take their business elsewhere.

At various moments during the movie you will be wondering why the man doesn't just go home and cut his losses- this is the failure of the plot. If it was any good we wouldn't be continually groaning - oh god.. just GO HOME! The movie seems like it has some sort of retarded message about how revenge just injures yourself and they are willing to bend the plot in unrealistic directions to try and get that point across.

Extremely unsatisfying and not on par with Snatch, Lock stock and two Smoking barrels or trainspotting- don't let anyone fool you into thinking this play on film is worth seeing- it's a piece of boring one-set crap.

Sugarhouse is an uncomfortable watch, with painful, often ugly violence and dialogue that is more often than not shouted. It turns to become, mainly a two-man show with white middle-class, jacket-wearing Steven Mackintosh who ventures into ghetto-land somewhere in decaying urban London to buy back a gun used in a murder and black, crack-addict Ashley Walters.

Being far nearer in real life to Mackintosh than Walters (by a far margin!) it wouldn't be right for me, myself to say how realistic the dialogue is, or the scenarios. So, I'm not going to try and pretend to say things like it's 'hip' or 'savvy', but looks and sounds really not very nice.

Walters, plus his chums generally give Mackintosh a hard time, over how a privileged a life he has and much angst and verbal ricocheting carries on. When director Gary Love's camera swings back and forth to them, it's an odd duet experience, so chalk and cheese.

Andy Serkis has been accused of overacting in Sugarhouse and we certainly get our money's worth from his psychopathic drug-dealer character. We see him at the start, nude, stretching his muscles and revealing his many tattoos. More revealing than is necessary, some critics have said, but it gives us a very clear indication that here we have a shaven-head bully more akin the Hannibal Lecter than Peter Pan.

As such, as Hoodwink, he is the colour and propulsion in this film. It would be quite dreary without him and who's to say what is over-the-top? It's of a type of person that thankfully I don't know and hopefully never will. His Irish accent seems pretty good too.

The film certainly came under my radar and watching it on BBC2 now, I was surprised that it was made 5 years ago and I'd never heard of it or referred to.

Having seen the play Collision at The Old Red Lion some years ago I was interested and exited to see this film version of one of the best contemporary bits of theatre I have seen in recent years. Where the play was taut, tense, real, funny and ultimately moving the film is flabby, hard to follow and ultimately unbelievable.

The film never makes its mind up if it is a serious drama or an urban caper. Consequently it feels unbalanced. The performances echo this; ranging from 'real' to totally cartoon like. Somehow the simple plot ends up being hard to follow and the tension of the three way confrontation is totally lost.

The play made you laugh but at the same time kept you on the edge of your seat - however the film has no humour at all. Where did all that wonderful, very funny and also poignant dialogue between the crack head and the middle class character that was in the play go to?

Perhaps in the hands of a Ken Loach this film would have worked better than it does. As it stands it feels like a total let down of what it could have been.

What a shame.