F (2010)

Admirable film.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Don't believe those reviews saying this is bad in every way – that's just people annoyed by the useless ending. But even more, don't believe those who tell you this is worth watching or a good example of British horror. It starts with dramatic promise: the main character isn't sympathetic, but we can see his problems. It's very low budget, but reasonably acted and put together and the opening may well suck you in. But as things develop, the plot makes less and less sense. Why do people not call for help or leave the building when they have the chance? Why do the police behave so unrealistically at almost every turn? OK, this is horror, and, for those who liked this film anyway, horror is about horror, not having a script that makes sense. Certainly poor plotting is a feature of the genre and movies like Alien, which are perfectly thought through, are quite rare.The huge problem here is the ending. Lots of questions are raised along the way. Will the teacher be able to come to terms with the requirements of his job? – seems unlikely as he seems to care nothing for either the kids or his subject. (His lessons are delivered in a low monotone with back turned to the class.) Will he keep some kind of worthwhile relationship with his daughter – seems unlikely as he hits her, picks on her and he's such a loser. Will he get back together with his estranged wife? – seems unlikely as he's such a ditto. We may or may not care about any of this – his revolting treatment of a pupil in the opening scene is enough to put anyone off him for good. But if we have any interest in the film at all, we will want to know who these mysterious hooded intruders are. The title (F refers to the failing grade, the lowest a kid can receive in the UK) wants to suggest they are pupils or former pupils, let down by the educational system. But this just isn't possible because they operate with the effectiveness and athleticism of highly-trained ninjas. Twice, a single one of them is enough to take out a police officer who has seen them coming. I couldn't think of any convincing explanation, and was looking forward to finding out which unconvincing one would be offered… When the film just ended. Without answering anything at all.I'm not one who wants every little loose end tied up. In fact in some ways, the film could have ended a couple of minutes sooner, as the teacher struggles with the impossible choice between helping his wife or daughter. But some explanation has to be offered for the attack, which is 90% of the whole film. To create an impossible situation and then just stop, is far too easy and utterly pathetic. Don't waste your time on this. If you do enjoy the opening, you'll just end up frustrated and annoyed. Try something like Wilderness, with similar low budget and delinquent youth theme, which really delivers in the UK horror genre.

Being a fan of the original Assault On Precinct 13, I wondered if a similar story would be used in a British film. 'F' comes very close, but more suited to a contemporary environment. Late night. Skeleton staff. Under attack by a well-thought look and action of the intruders. Faceless, even when right in front of you. Silent. Use of parkour excellent, though not over-used. Mixing the paranoia of the main character with a real threat really turns up the tension and frustration of him trying to convince the others. The ambiguous ending of the film works well, leaving us pondering the decisions the character(s) made throughout and at the finish. Personally, I feel this film deserves a sequel, though with different characters, as even when the film was over, the cause of the threat wasn't. I envisioned other scenarios, perhaps happening in other buildings/locations on the same night, meaning the threat was much larger and widespread. A sequel was I think talked about for the original Assault On Precinct 13, but sadly never came to fruition. However, it should happen for this film, else the concept is wasted. I hope the writer of 'F' writes a follow-up film based on the same theme as the first, as the use of a story of people trapped in a location under attack by large numbers always works if done well, as per Dog Soldiers, Night Of The Living Dead, The Day, etc. Hell, if it was okay with those who wrote/made 'F' , I'd have a go writing it myself. I'd hate to see a good idea wasted.

We've all been there haven't we? When we were at school we would fall out with a teacher over talking in class or getting a bad grade and all we could think about was murdering them in cold blood. Controversial? I suppose that was, especially for those teachers out there who will now be worrying about falling out with a student. Well F is about teachers vs. students but not in the classroom but on the battlefield. If you're a teacher maybe this film isn't for you.F opens with a scene we have all seen before. A teacher grading a pupil as a 'F' and the student fighting back, however in this case the student fights back physically and breaks the teacher's nose. Within this class is the teacher's daughter, who rushes to her father's aid as the culprit runs from the premises. This teacher is Robert Anderson (David Schofield) and his daughter Kate (Eliza Bennett). With the summer term soon approaching, the school board choose to not expel the student and instead kindly ask Mr Anderson to take a leave of absence until the student leaves anyway. An unfair compromise you may say and Mr Anderson certainly agrees. Six months later and he finds himself back at school, only now he is frightened of every student, separated from his wife and an embarrassment to his daughter. Things couldn't go much worse for him but in true movie logic they do when he finds himself locked in his school by a gang of murderous kids. What fails to work for the story is that the premise is rather high concept and if given a large budget it could have made a rather good slasher film. Unfortunately for director Johannes Roberts he has failed to receive the budget that would have raised his script a level or two. The film feels very low budget British and not even a handful of well known actors can ultimately save it. This can be seen as quite a shame as Roberts draws some decent performances from his crew, especially Eliza Bennett, and adds a creepy atmosphere to proceedings. However the budget and some rather odd decisions to the story really let it down.An issue with the film is that there is never any explanation to why these 'children' are killing the people trapped in the school. We never see their face, we never know their motives and they appear to be like spider-men running and jumping along walls. What are they supposed to be? If the film established them as children who were fighting back against the teachers who poorly graded their work than this might be understandable but the film loses a level by leaving any reasoning as a mystery. The film should have been more psychological and raised empathy for these students who only want to do better but don't know any other way to do that than through violence. This way it would have raised contemporary themes of under-privileged children and their risk of unemployment. If the film went this way, or in fact as an out and out slasher, than a more enjoyable flick could have emerged but instead it feels like the filmmakers got themselves lost in-between both of these and instead delivered a film that could have been a short film. This is made obvious by the short running time, the low-budget production and the hollow location.Roberts does manage to deliver some tense moments. The antagonists, with their hoods up and awesome free running skills, are creepy and bring an eerie presence to their existence, whilst the film brings a large amount of gore to the forefront with jaws being ripped off and men being burnt alive in wheelie bins. Unfortunately for Roberts though these decent moments fail to save the story.Overall it will remain in the bargain bin of DVD rental stores. It boasts a strong cast for its low budget, including former Hollyoaks actress Roxanne McKee, and has done extremely well to achieve a theatrical release, however looking back when the credits roll you will wonder how it managed to secure these two elements. Rating: 1.5 / 5Directing: Roberts has some nice ideas but the budget holds him back. Acting: Some of the cast have done bigger and better things, however it doesn't always show.Script: Slightly generic in places, with some clichéd dialogue.Cinematography: The best it could be on the budget given. Score: Nothing out of the ordinary and used to deliver jumps.Editing: Keeps the pace alive and mirrors the unusual movements of the antagonists. Overall: Not one to remember despite its best efforts.

This is my first review and I'm literally doing this to save people from this atrocious movie!! I was sucked in by the few decent reviews thinking "maybe it wasn't everyone's cup of tea but it'll appeal to my broad taste in movies" I was WRONG!!!It's just a completely pointless, unrealistic, ridiculous movie.If you watch this movie "I told you so" springs to mind. I don't know how anyone could enjoy this movie - some of the reviews say "fill in the blanks for yourself". Donnie Darko - YES. Great film to fill in the blanks and keep you thinking. This film!? NO. I'd rather watch a blank screen for 76mins or read a book!AVOID AVOID AVOID