Watch Sugarhouse For Free

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

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.

Sugarhouse is a gritty UK crime thriller set in a very deprived area of London. The plot is based on a middle class man who quickly becomes out of his depth when he tries to buy a gun off a local crack cocaine addict.The actors were extremely well cast with all the characters putting in very believable performances from start to finish. D who is the crack addict owes the local drug dealer a significant amount of money so decides to try and earn the money, by selling the dealers own gun which he has stolen, to a business type white guy who he constantly refers to as "rich man". The dealer is a heavily tattooed well built man with a history of violence and a Northern Irish accent, which adds another level of menace to his already intimidating presence. Naturally he is non too impressed when he finds his weapon missing and sets out to retrieve it.The tense drama unfolds in a very believable and realistic manner and any worries I had of a weak or overly soppy ending were happily unfounded. A very enjoyable watch from the very first minute with a level of grit and reality the Hollywood studios with the big name stars so often struggle to achieve.

So, so tempting to paraphrase the legendary two-word review of Spinal Tap's "Shark Sandwich" here, but such an arch dismissal does something of a disservice to what could have been a strong, idiosyncratic movie. Anyway, this half-baked bunch of Sh*thouse is actually one of the strongest post-Lock Stock crime capers yet, which is praise so faint that these very words are vanishing from my screen as I type them. Once you put aside the fact that the film's mere existence is thoroughly depressing (at this rate, that bone-chilling term 'post-Lock Stock' is going to outlive influenza) you are free to admire its considerable directorial panache, some large stretches of very strong writing, and, most graciously, the way that it goes out of its way to discern itself from its infantile genre brethren.It is an odd and very stagey three-hand chamber piece, featuring lead characters whose dynamic fundamentally doesn't make any sense. A sketchy, homeless crackhead (Walters, way, way OTT) lures a dead-eyed businessman (the ever tedious Steven Macintosh) to an abandoned warehouse in central London (which, rather helpfully, has running water and electricity) in order to sell him a stolen handgun. A deranged, skin-headed drug dealer (Serkis, in a performance clearly discernible from outer space) enters the mix shortly afterwards, after discovering that the weapon in question is the very same one that had been pinched from his bathroom the night before.After a gripping opening, this very early instant is precisely where logic runs and hurls itself out of the nearest window. This is one of those movies that simply wouldn't exist without its main character's constantly inane and illogical behaviour. The calamitous trio's entire encounter is one gigantic assemblage of excellent reasons for each of them to leave the warehouse and never return, but none of them choose to. The tables are turned frequently but to no dramatic avail; in one scene, Walters plans to shoot Macintosh and run away with his money, and in the next he's cowering, gun in hand, in a toilet cubicle whilst Macintoff struts around on the other side of it cursing noisily. And as for the resilient, smirking bond that suddenly (and I do mean suddenly) forms between them in the finale? I've seen richer and more plausible moments of emotional heft in the Naked Gun flicks. Although large chunks of the dialogue are authentic and peppy, playwright Dominic Leyton often tries to invoke profundity and gravitas via some very silly shortcuts. The most extraordinary example of this involves Walters having a very brief, tearful rant about the intricacies of the British class system, which manages to single-handedly convince our businessmen friend not to buy the gun from him at all. Why? Because guns is bad, blud. Its a scene so misjudged and absurd that you can't help feeling terribly sorry for the actors, who all rather admirably treat the material like Chekov. These characters are all utterly shameless archetypes (Serkis is a volatile psychopath that dotes on his family; Macintosh the privileged white wimp, in over his head; and Walters' brash demeanor masks, quelle surprise, a heart of purest gold) but the whole notion of having actual characters in a film of this type, routine or not, is something of a novelty. So yes, this is basically yet another shallow, stupid mockney slap 'em up. But despite the relentless implausibility of it all, if it had just relinquished the pretentious and simplistic posturing, it'd be easily recommendable to fans of this sort of thing as a lazy Sunday afternoon rental.It is, at least, stylish and occasionally interesting.

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.