ultrasween Tony, written by the director and based on his 2005 short film, is a great example of the disease that "lets the bad guys win", which is plaguing independent films nowadays. In this vain attempt to be edgy, the film follows around socially-inept Tony as he encounters nothing but hostility and gives back nihlistic hate and misdirected retribution. His encounters are far too convenient, although, one would expect someone like Tony to focus solely on moments like these. Tied with the filmmakers' apparent laziness in thinking-through the central character, the film shows an incredibly unrealistic approach to victim struggles. On a similar note, the film claims to be "social realism" yet there is not a shred of human truth in any facet of this film. Furthermore, Tony is peppered with far too many red herrings, which throw the viewer around; leading us in one giant loop of illogic. Shameless-ly (pun on Exec. Producer Paul Abbott intended) exploitative, it provides no answers to so many questions that should have been passing thoughts on the road to a more crafted story. What ever happened to the bad guy going up in a ball of White Heat(1949) making us feel at least a shred of sympathy for them? S

tomgillespie2002 Tony watches action films on video cassette. He lives alone in a vertical street; a tower block in run down Dalston, a suburb of 'Broken Britain's' North London. Tony has not worked for over thirty years, and has no wish to do so. After all, he does have so much to do at home. This is at least what Tony tells his job centre adviser. This scene happens around the middle of the film, where we have already discovered that Tony has a penchant for murdering people in his flat. In protracted sequences throughout the film, we see Tony rigorously separate the body parts into their smallest components; wrapping them in newspaper and placed in corner-shop blue plastic bags for disposal. Whenever we follow Tony as he walks the streets, he is always carrying blue plastic bags. Tony has a lot of body parts to dump in the Thames.Gerard Johnson's feature debut is a gritty serial killer movie, - clearly inspired by real-life British serial killer, Dennis Nilson (the Muswell Hill Murderer) - that follows a man completely alienated from his surroundings. He is Nilson in the early 1980's. He only watches action videos from that decade. Like Nilson, Tony (played with all the sweaty awkwardness needed for the character, by Peter Ferdinando) prefers to keep the bodies for company. He talks to them as they are placed on the sofa, or laid out in bed. Tony's life is a cycle of seconds of murder; hours of company; much time dismembering; and a long, perpetual task of bit-by-bit disposal.Tony picks up men in gay bars. He persuades a couple of smack-heads to go back to his flat. A boy of 10 years goes missing on the estate. A large, stereotypical, aggressive working-class man targets Tony as an obvious target: His appearance could resemble that Daily Mirror image of the bespectacled, moustachiod loner, that so associated with a pederast.Despite the grim, and inescapable bleakness of the film, director Johnson, finds room to add humour. The film resembles, stylistically, that of John McNaughton's excellently unresolved Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986). The same concept carries into this film. The life- goes-on attitude. Tony is a ghost in the narrative. Yes, he is the protagonist. But he only exists in his insular world. The space he has dwelt in for "ages". Outside he drifts through the busy streets unnoticed; he fades into obscurity amongst regular people. Anonymously carrying plastic bags of internal organs.The film is self consciously 1970's in its approach; both stylistically, and thematically. in the latter of those two, '70's horror cinema tended to the ambiguity left by rare conclusions. For the first, this is low budget cinema. However, this is certainly made with style; it is highly competent filmmaking. We know immediately from the start of the film that the filmmakers influences in the golden-years-of-exploitation- cinema are a part of this picture; the typeface of the movie title 'Tony' are reminiscent of the title cards for the American exploitationers this really wants to homage. It is an incredibly well made contribution to the likes of Jeff Gillen and Allan Ormsby's Deranged (1974). However, Tony does not highlight the grotesque, like in much of the films it might be 'riffing' on. Johnson's film looks like it could possibly fit into the working-class visuals of a kitchen sink drama - only through the eyes of a cold- hearted killer. Although, whilst we are repelled by Tony, do we also feel pathos for a character so out of touch with the world, that he will try and persuade a Chinese man selling DVDs on the street to sell him outmoded video cassettes? Tony is entirely disenfranchised. Because of this separation from reality, Tony is able to pass unseen. Or perhaps, like Mary Harron's American Psycho (2000), this is all imagined. (By the way, I don't believe at all that this was all imagined; that's just how I ended it.)www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

jonathanportch This a difficult film to review without giving away too much and other reviewers have already drawn the outline: it's about a killer. An outstanding performance by Peter Fernandino makes it frighteningly believable. It is short, maybe too short; and leaves all sort of questions hanging unanswered.That's also a strength in that it leaves you wondering. If the characters don't remind you, vaguely at least, of people you know, people you've met. or people you've heard about, then you should get out more. Many people go missing - let's hope this isn't what happens to them...

mdnobles19 This so called movie was extremely boring with no action, thrills intriguing story and not even shock value to make it worth a dime. I didn't think the acting was that good at all just very strange and the atmosphere sucked and sometimes I felt like I was watching a documentary. People are saying this is the UK answer to American Psycho and to me it doesn't even come close and at least that one was entertaining but I do think it comes close to Dahmer but not close enough because that movie was more chilling and you had a backstory to make sense of all of it but this film had no good direction. The pace was sluggish as hell and I dozed off a few times and for a serial killer flick it was pretty dry and lifeless and what the hell was up with that ending, it was one of the worst endings I have ever seen and makes me look down on it even more. Overall this is pretty generic material here and it's not a horror movie or even a thriller because it doesn't thrill or scare you or even entertain you it just left you feeling cold and wanting more and didn't bring anything fresh to the table. What a bore! Not recommended!