User reviews

I didn't really like this movie, but had to admit it was compelling. Sean Bean gives a performance as the evil drug thug that compares favorably (if that's the word I want) with Dennis Hopper's crazed bully in "Blue Velvet." It's outstanding work, but if you're a Sharpe fan (and who isn't?) it may be a bit jarring. I mean, this guy throws acid in faces, beats his wife, laughs at suffering, rapes a teenager and strangles her more or less accidentally. That's in addition to selling the drugs and other criminal activities.

Bean is, in fact, so good at being bad, he almost tips the movie over. Alex Kingston and Jim Wilkinson - versatile, dependable and often outstanding actors themselves, do what they can to take a scene away from him, and never quite manage. Charlie Creed-Miles, as the innocent who gets drawn into all this, is quite convincingly intimidated.

An icy jazz score and crisp direction keep the story moving along at a brisk pace. You may be repulsed, but you probably won't be bored.

This film looks cheap, features cheap low-life people, and is shot in a totally nasty, depressing landscape (around Essex and the Thames estuary, particularly the Dartford Bridge area). Furthermore, it's about drugs and dealers, particularly for the youth market. Yet it is interesting to watch, probably due to a very convincing performance by Sean Bean as the revolting Jason.

Sean Bean is usually quite a suave sort of character (Sharpe, Bond films, etc.) yet is both disgusting and convincing in this film. Plays a good London/Essex accent (considering he's from Sheffield) accompanied by tons of evil, sadistic violence.

This movie was reviewed as the English version of Goodfellas, and although the plot lines are similar in a way, and the insanity is much the same, it felt much grittier and harder-edged. Maybe it's the way they treat their women or something. Although the camraderie amongst the 'boys' appeared much the same superficially, underneath there was no 'club'. Sean Bean was so realistic as a bad-guy, that he was REALLY scary. Really hope it was great acting and not a window into his soul showing here. I was surprised at the quality of acting shown by Alex Kingston too. The supporting cast was fine, and it was interesting to see Essex for those of us who live on the other side of the pond. My interest was actually captured farther on in the film by the quick-paced events and the twisted plot line. Imaginative and surprising writing, although the dialogue wasnt as good as Goodfellas. Overall, i recommend it, but it was a hard one to watch -

For those who remember the actual triple murder in Essex which inspired the film, this carries an added edge of realism. The setting - the mock-tudor nouveau riche houses of the gangsters, the Southend seafront, the freezing marshes where Billy runs for his life, are as evocative, as the true-to-life performances of Sean Bean, Alex Kingston and Tom Wilkinson. It is refreshing to see a film which portrays the underworld in all its vindictive pettiness - the little slights which turn into murderous feuds - dozens poisoned by a rogue batch of E, a young girl, dead from an overdose, casually dumped at sea...

The Hollywood view of Gangland England has been too long focused on the East End - Snatch, Long Good Friday, Lock, Stock... when real Londoners know the East End's good for curry houses, and the gangsters headed out to the Home counties years ago.

Interesting to note that several comments in the reviews of this superlative film concerned the unintelligible accents. I should point out that viewers in the UK (and Holland and most Scandinavian countries) regularly enjoy American films without the aid of subtitles, so how come you find it so hard to understand us? :) We didn't complain that the cast of Donnie Brasco or Goodfellas had New York accents, so why complain that the Essex boys have Essex accents?

Pretty interesting, not bad. More or less shows the evils of getting too greedy for your own good I guess... Alex Kingston was really good, the guy who played Billy was good too, but Sean Bean was the best. He's a very good actor (and very nice to look at too), he more or less had the whole movie in his hands.

It had a very surprising ending (although I got suspicious and then not-so-suspicious numerous times during the whole movie). The story wasn't bad at all, but watch it for the cast. 6/10.

If you want to "see" what a drug induced blank look really looks like Sean Bean's bedroom scene half way through the movie is a must see. He ain't trying to look good or mean or anything other then just be in the character. And he does that to the exclusion of the rest of the world. He's a git and he will make your skin crawl.

This an an ensemble cast and they fit together wonderfully. The ways they come together and come apart are believable. You may even feel compassion for some of them until you remember what everyone is doing.

At the end of viewing it I thought it was a once through but now a few days later I want to see it again and I am thinking seriously about buying th DVD.

"Essex Boys" is a 1999 "gangster" film that takes us into the gritty, dangerous domain of Essex's drug-dealing underworld. The story is narrated in part by a lad named Billy, a lowly (but fairly quick-witted) driver for the self-important kingpins, and though we don't see everything from Billy's vantage point, it is an effective and engaging means of presenting the story. Though the characters and the story are pure fiction, the inspiration for the film came from the murder of three suspected drug dealers whose bodies were found in a Range Rover in Essex in 1995. The story created around this real-life event is highly imaginative, plausible, gripping, and suspenseful. Death and imprisonment lurk in the shadows, and the 'firm' are certainly ruthless and reckless, but in "Essex Boys", the 'firm' never appear quite as menacing as the filmmakers would like. Larry Lamb riding round in a Merc' smoking a cigar accompanied by a long haired Michael McKell and a scenery chewing Sean Bean just doesn't seem true to the realities of top (ok, upper middle) level criminality. But then, most of us wouldn't really know.

The plot revolves around double crossings and drug deals gone wrong, with some romantic intrigue (Alex Kingston on mesmeric form) thrown in for good measure. This is all well and good, if you can follow the plot, but the film's main strengths are - in order of successful execution - atmosphere and acting. This is a world of strip light underpasses flashing by in the early hours, of rendezvous by the estuarine bridge, in the shadow of the oil refinery. Essex has never looked so bleak. Bean, Kingston, Creed miles etc. certainly give it their all, and the acting is strong and committed. Bean's accent is not perfect, but this doesn't detract from the overall success of the film. This is a gritty, violent film that doesn't hold back any punches in its depiction of the drug underworld. It's a good story with a very satisfying ending. It's a first-rate production and is consummately acted by all involved.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

It shouldn't have mattered, but it did. Every time I saw Tom Wilkinson, I thought "Gerald Cooper" (_Full Monty_), not "John Dyke". Just couldn't take him seriously as a hard man. Similarly, Sean Bean, who I normally find very entertaining, was only lukewarm in his portrayal of the psychotic gangster.

I really wanted to like _Essex Boys_, being a big fan of gangster cinema, but it just didn't do it for me. Nothing stands out as particularly bad, but equally nothing stands out as particularly fresh or original either. It seems fairly standard for British crime films to be less manic and slower-paced than their American counterparts, but _Essex Boys_, for whatever reason, didn't have that spark that makes an interesting and memorable film.

A good film on several levels. The unflattering comparisons that some critics have made between it and The Usual Suspects are completely misguided as directorial intent and effect in the two pictures are dissimilar. Winsor's film, it seems to me, brilliantly evokes both the drabness and cruelty of the criminal mindset. It does this partly through the choice of dull, flat Essex landscapes with their coastal marshes, grey motorway links, flash nouveau riche mansions and the tawdry glamour of seafront locations. The characters are both repellent and yet curiously mesmerising. This is not a film in which it is easy to lose interest. Nobody can do psycho-thug better than Sean Bean, and Charlie Creed-Miles has created a dangerously weak character as Billy, whom it is almost possible to feel sorry for without actually liking. The film is very well lit, though I did find sound levels a little dodgy at times It's a film that, despite critics' comments, is not a million miles from Get Carter in quality.

An entertaining work despite trying to do too much.

They are trying to do a story based on an actual event then fictionalize it then try to make it in the stylized version of the U.K. gang films.

There is an abundance of accents and moments that seem very familiar (as if they've been inspired by other movies).

There is no lack of violence, nudity and swerves as required for a gangster picture but in all, I enjoyed watching it.

It's not a classic but it's better than a lot of gangster flicks out there.

I'm glad I gave it a shot.

Having just watched the Rise of the Footsoldier Which was a far more coherent movie, I thought I would give this earlier version. Big mistake.

Where to start. Sean Bean is badly cast, barely holding down his accent, at no point does he come across as a gangster. Neither does Tom Wilkinson.

The writing bad, the direction is TV standard and not cinematic at all. I don't feel that the budget helped at all.

Lastly, the ending was silly. Alex Kingston planned this all along?! Gunfights in muddy fields? Police don't try to find the murdered girl. Or the 3 killed in the Rettenden murders? None of the names matched. Whatever, it was a mess, thrown together at the last minute to make a few quid.

I'm ashamed to admit that I only understood this film the second time I saw it. It is easy to confuse the characters at times as they double cross each other, change camps and generally confuse the viewer to no end.

However, it was worth it for Sean Bean as the psychopathic Jason Locke and Alex Kingston as his femme fatale wife. The guy playing Billy, the narrator, was also very good.

There are very few moments of humour but they certainly work, Lisa's foul mouth, comes to mind as well as the fact that Jason stole the marble lion from his former boss' garden. The plot becomes a bit too confused in the end with Lisa's web of deceit becoming wider and wider.

Moments of violence are very realistic. Jason Locke's treatment of his wife is by far more shocking than anyone flying off a glass window.

As far as the direction is concerned, it is fairly straightforward with some truly excellent editing in the shoot out, near the end as well as in the scene where Mr Dyke (I for one found Tom Wilkinson's gentleman gangster quite believable) is trying to kill Billy.

In all, it is hardly a groundbreaking film but it is very entertaining. I'll give it 7/10.

Like a great many reviewers on this page I liked ESSEX BOYS . Okay maybe it`s not a classic like GET CARTER or THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY but it`s good to see a British gangster film that owes absolutely nothing to Guy Ritchie . Best thing about the film is Sean Bean`s performance as the psycotic bad guy. It`s probably the sort of role that doesn`t need any type of thespian talent but Bean plays these type of bad guys very well and it`s very easy to see why when a Hollywood producer wants a slimey limey villain Bean`s name is top of the list . The only real problem I had with the film is the caption at the start which refers to the real life events which meant I was able to work out the ending of ESSEX BOYS well before it happened

"Essex Boys" is a movie that starts in entirely familiar territory, and then abruptly shifts gears in the final act to give us twists that were unexpected and perhaps even incongruous. It's enough to make me wonder if some kind of jiggery pokery happened behind the scenes to the effect of: one writer was fired and another hired, or producers gave the screenwriter(s) carte blanche at the zero hour to branch off in an unfamiliar direction.

The beginning is about a young man who gets involved with a criminal gang. One of its members, a psychopath played by Sean Bean, has just got out of gaol. "Billy Whizz", as they call the young man, impresses his new cronies but you know sooner or later it's going to be a tale of "you play with fire, you get burnt". I wasn't paying that much attention to these parts, to be honest. We've seen it all before, and it certainly offers nothing new.

And then there's the gear change, with a truly surprising revelation, and the movie gets much darker, not only in dramatic tone, but in colour: most of the last part of the movie is shot at night. It ends with more twists that are impressive in the way they are thought out, if not entirely in the way they are implemented. The beginning and end feel like different movies; I would have liked to see the proper beginning and middle for the final act, rather than the impostors we ended up with.

Based on the triple rettondon murders that shocked England in the mid 1990's this retelling takes liberty with some of the facts and changes the names of the people it's based upon (something Bonded by Blood and Rise of the Footsoldier didn't) Jason Locke, a psychotic ex-convict recently released is driven around his old manor by a young cabbie called Billy Reynolds, he finds that in his absence all of his old friends and associates have got rich and successful, he sets about getting back on top with the help of his crew, Billy, and his long suffering wife.

As the deranged Locke, Sean Bean rises above an underwritten character and gives a (at times) excellent performance, the script holds him back from really digging anything too deep out of his character but he handles the material well, Tom Wilkinson is used sparingly but to great effect and Alex Kingston is great as the wife whose not all she seems.

Direction is straghtforward and doesn't detract, the editing is great and the crisp cinematography captures the seedy underbelly of the Essex underworld to good effect.

Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours, 7/10

If a film is on Sky Moviemax you know that breasts and guns will predominate. So I came with little expectations. But wait it's a half-decent cast, and a true story. Well it is passable, but it's no great shakes.

Do not forget this review was composed by a Hertfordshire snob.

What with this criminal case being quite high profile i was looking forward to seeing this film and seeing how they handled the story of the Range rover murders.Was a let down! First of all the acting stunk up this movie big time, especially Sean Bean(who in my opinion has always been overrated). He constantly struggled with the accent and tried to cover this by pulling stupid faces throughout the film. The script was completely dull. At no time did we feel for any of the people in this film because what they had to say was not interesting enough to care. It also went on for far to long,98 minutes to long!! I'd rather watch David Essex rather than Essex boys! 100% tripe. 4 out of 10.

gritty drama that brings home the underworld drug scene in Essex. would recommend the book Essex boys by Bernard o'mahoney. i was glued to my seat all the way through.highly recommended.Sean bean is superb as Jason Locke and links well with the actual triple murder that the film tries to portray. although the names are fictional,anyone who knows about the rettendon murders will know that the film is based on that event and the rise of the drug barons in Essex and the tragic death of Leah Betts is also touched on. all i can say is that i would certainly recommend this film to anyone and i haven't put the book down for days such is the powerful writing. 10 out 10

In Essex Boys things happen - fighting, car chases, rape, murder, gunplay but despite that it was boring. So very boring.

The screenwriters made no effort to create believable characters with understandable motivations so you simply don't care what happens to them. The characters just did things - while speaking badly written on-the-nose dialogue.

This lazy writing extends to the plot which has more holes than a thing with lots of holes in. Ultimately all you're left with is something for the director to show Hollywood studios as he tries to get the next Police Academy gig. But then that was probably the whole point of this sorry exercise.

I just viewed this video, then have read the reviews and am stunned. Was I watching another movie? Sure the characters are shady, but what do you expect, Scorsese-esque, Soprano-ish likeable lots? This is about the seedy, Darwinian underworld and has a compelling story about how Billy (a more cerebral, physically minute character) gets slowly pulled into the bowels of greed and acrimony. The acting is intense and uncompromising. Alex Kingston is wonderful and the actor who played Billy was smart. Certainly not academy award, but interesting fodder nonetheless. A mixture of Sexy Beast & GoodFellas. 7/10

Found myself skipping through it . Kinda boring and not really very realistic .i'd just watch rise of the foot soldier, much better and a better take on it all .whether true or not ,definitely more believable characters and take on what was going of at the time .