juliencari Mate of mine had a DVD of this film. It's dark, funny, surreal. And unlike many British films, it looks gorgeous. What a great film. It's the journey into darkness as lived by Tone (the main bloke) and his two mates. And what a bloody journey it is! Director J.K. (?) Amalou mixes tones and styles effortlessly and keeps up the suspense throughout: just what's going to happen to Tone and his mates? Loved the dark and dry humour too. Best line? When Tone's mates are told that they've got to kill Tone and bring Tone's hand to their boss (played by scary Mad Frankie Fraser) at 9 o'clock in the morning. Speed's response? "9 o'clock?! It's a bit early, innit?" Brilliant!Guy Ritchie totally ripped it off. I spotted many similarities. It's a crime it's never been distributed properly.Can't wait to see J.K. Amalou's next film MAN WHO WOULD BE QUEEN. Wicked title, that.

bob the moo Tone, Bear and John are three hard men in the employee of London underworld boss Pops Den. They are collectors of money, threateners of people and removers of competition. However, with the birth of his first child, Tone decides that he has had enough and that he needs to turn his life around, starting with getting out of the life. When Bear tells Pops this, he orders them to kill Tone and bring him his severed hand by nine o'clock the next morning.It is to be expected that, when one genre suddenly spawns a bit film, that many others will jump on the bandwagon - some being good and some being rubbish. We saw it with Scream when it relaunched the teen horror genre and spawned a tonne of copies. So it was no surprise to anyone (even if it was still depressing) that the success of a few British cockney gangster films with dark comedy spawned a raft of copies - most of which were average at best and ended up flopping.Hard Men is one of these films and it deserved every penny it failed to get at the box office. The plot is almost none existent and centres on one night in the lives of these three. It would better if the events in the lives of the characters had mattered or been engaging but, because they aren't, then the plot just falls to pieces (not that it was ever really together). Instead it seems to revel in the grim of it's characters - but doesn't have the decency to make them people. One scene sees a prostitute talk about her years of abuse, but even that is just a scene to add shock value rather than depth. The film even has the nerve to look back fondly to the days of `civilised' gangsters (giving a cameo to Frankie Fraser for that reason) as if all the violence on display here is in some way admirable or a curiosity.The cast are roundly bad but it is not really their fault - they simply have no material to work with. The cameo for a violent criminal is just pure bad taste and adds nothing to the film. As director and writer Amalou seems to have just fluked his way into the job on the basis of seeing better films and ripping them off. Certainly he brings no wit or style to his script even if his direction is actually quite good considering the budget he had to work with.Overall this is a very poor film that will only appeal to fans of the genre - all others need to avoid it. I was surprised by just how rough I found the whole thing was - it lacked originality, revelled in uninvolving and seemed under the impression that the word `f*ck' is the height of clever writing.

dusty-bottoms I saw this again on TV tonight for maybe the third or fourth time, and certainly not the last. There is much to like about this little gem, but those looking for a Tarantino-esque experience (because that's all they seem to know), have been disappointed.These negative reviewers have obviously had a sense of humour bypass, and ought to look up the word "irony" in the dictionary. Comparisons to Tarantino are facile and irrelevant, that world has nothing to do with this.Another reviewer compared them to the Three Stooges, as if that's a BAD THING!? Although it's certainly more appropriate - three very different yet complimentary characters prone to sudden bursts of comedy violence, I found myself quite liking these guys, as opposed to the non-characters in so many movies where it's difficult to care who lives or dies.A note on the acting - first-rate, as anyone would realise if they had seen their other work, especially Lee Ross. (The exception of course is Mad Frankie Fraser who plays himself as usual).Doesn't take itself too seriously - 8/10

kcfan-3 One of the reviewers on the Imdb page was right...you will either love this film or hate it. I loved it.J K Amalou's directorial debut is a very underrated piece of filmmaking. He pays homage to various similar films of the same genre, and delivers a thought provoking, funny and dark film that, for me, gives hope to the future of British cinema. The main character is Tone, who wants to leave "the life" for domestic tranquility after 15 years of cracking heads and busting jaws for Pops Den, the underworld boss who is "past it". Along for the ride are his two colleagues and friends, Bear and Speed (the latter brilliantly played by the versatile Lee Ross).Of course, the powers that be decide that Tone should be killed, and it's up to Bear and Speed to do it. As proof, Pops Den wants Tone's severed hand on his desk by 9am the following morning. And so, we are taken on a whirlwind of a night through East London with the boys struggling against their moral consciences, while Tone looks forward to a life with his girlfriend and new baby.There are pieces of genius in this movie. There is a memorable scene in a brothel where a disillusioned twenty year old prostitute tells her life story with violent consequences, and one can't help but be touched when, in front of his macho colleagues, Tone sings a gentle lullaby to his baby daughter over his mobile phone.All in all, Hard Men was overlooked and ignored by the British filmgoing public. This is a shame because, while not in the same class as The Long Good Friday, it definitely gives the likes of Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels a good run for its money.