The German
13-02-2004, 13:32
Charlie Richardson ruled a lot of South London whilst the Krays ruled the East end. Charlie was clever and hard working whilst the Krays were not and so Charlie was well on his way to being a millionaire in his early 30's through a criminal empire and some fairly honest enterprises. He had gone into buisness with an honest South African buisnessman who need an investment partner and Charlie had the cash..................... well he knew ways of getting it. Sadly it all collapsed in an orgy of violence and murder. Charlies dad played a cruel joke on him as a kid and Charlie never trusted anyone after that........... or perhaps the fact that Charlie was totally untrustworthy himself stopped him trusting others. With a thriving scrap metal empire and illegal drinking clubs and 'protection' Charlie meet Jack Duval an upper class conman wanted by the Mafia in Europe and so working in London. Duval agreed to work some fraud with Charlie and Charlie was full of smiles. Duval always ripped off his partners, including the Mafia but for a man living constantly in fear of being killed he never stopped living a life of fraud. No bill paid was honoured. When Duval opened his mailbox in the block of flats he resided in the live bomb not connected to the flap he opened let him know not to mess with Charlie. Richardson admits this 'warning' in his book. Duval cheated Charlie and got a beating. Charlie view is if you beat a dog enough it cringes to it's master and obeys without question.........a view he regually exercised. Duval cheated him again and fled to Irael as he was Jewish and had run out of hiding places. It is alledged and he was convicted of pulling in Duvals public school conmen associates and torchering them to find out Duvals location. Charles defence is these are all convicted conmen who wanted him put away and so lied to Police to get time off their owned sentances for fraud. Charles has a point but fails to mention one of then did go to a Harley Street doctor who was not a conman who gave evidence of a man beaten from head to toes with a head swollen to twice it's size who was in such terror he would not go to hospital of the Police as he feared the Police would tell Charlie. Eventually a senior Police Officer outside the Met was informed and a case prepared. Charlie admits A.B.H on these men but no torture G.B.H. His South African buisness collapsed when the empire of fraud Charlie built it on collapsed and his partner was murdered by one of Charlies gang...................... although not on Charlies orders accourding to Charlie. Faced with the death penalty he told the South African Police about Charlies empire and British Police went out to interview him. He was spared the death penalty for 'grassing' Charlie but as Charlie points out, that's why he grassed him. AS Charlie desperately tried to salavage something in Spouth Africa, it turns out the right were in his murdered partners name and his solicitors were refusing to represent him due to the massive fraud unveiling around the enterprise. Charlie approached B.O.S.S the South Afican secret service he had assisted by burgleing A.N.C offices in London and send Jean La-Grange, Charlies girlfriend and niece of B.O.S.S.'s boss back and forth with stolen documents. They had helped Charlie with his enterprise but not the crap was hitting the fan they dropped Charlie. As if this was not enough, Eddie, Charlies brother had been arrested for a gun battle at a nightclub leaving one man dead and other with bullet holes. Charlie admits attempts to bribe and threaten the jury and wittnesses claiming anyone would to save their brother. He later got 5 years for this attempt to pervert the course of justice and this was partly to blame for the armed Police protecting wittnesses and jury members at the later 'torture gang' trial. Eddie got 5 years. Later Charlie got over 100 years for G.B.H's and Fraud but some wre concurrent so he ended up with 25 years. Eddie got 10 more years. Frankie Fraser got a not guilty on murder during the gunfight, he later admits it, but 5 years for affray and later 10 years for G.B.H's and shortly afters the total hit 20 after he got 5 more for rioting in prison. Charlie escaped after 16 years when he was put in an open prison and climbed over an unguarded wall after leaving his unlocked room but his driver drove off early so he returned to prison and escaped again the next day. He pent time in Spain and then returned to England and ran buisness from a bookshop in Earls Court. He was grassed up and the Police arrested him and he served 2 more years. The man who grassed him was later murdered. This arrest is totally changed in the film to make Charlie look better so this is not a spoiler.
Charlie has always claimed he was stitched up and his book is a very menaceing arrogant book which shows a lot about him between the lines rather than the stated 'facts'. In the book and film he freely admits violence and is proud of his empire of fraud and fact he was so 'respected' but is seriously EDITED off about 18 years in jail. Previous attempts to make a film fell though after Charlies insistance they would be made showing he was innocense. Now we finally have Charlie a tale of the British Goverment, Police and courts stitch up of Charlie Richardson. Some torture scences are shown to make the film attractive but are instantly denied on screen. Everyone except Charlie are made to look either corrupt or stupid. In his trial Charlie had one on Englands top barristors but he is portrayed as a cringing fool in the film. The barristor cringes and whines with tearfull eyes as Charlie rages at him ................ "But Charlie what can I do? The govenment are afraid of you, your more powerful than the Police!" The Policeman standing in the room starts to speak but Charlie tells him to shut his ****** mouth. Bearing in mind this is a consultation between a defendant and counsel there is no way a Policeman would be standing in the room!!!! This film jumps around with no real story line so these are not spoilers and shows Charlies view of himself. In a scene where he follows a juror on Eddies trial to a pub Charlie is about to approach him to offer money when he is warned by a gang member that the 'old bill' had arrived. As Charlie and our camera film fron 5 yards away one copper sits next to the juror, plain clothes, and whispers. He then takes a fat envelope from his pocket and slids it across the table. The envelope is open and we can see it is full of money. The juror nods and pockets the cash. "how was my brother going to get a fair trial?" says Charlie to the camera. This is one of the scenes ment to show it was a stich up and many are nearly as ridiculous and have never been mentioned before in Charlies book or interviews. Charlie is played as an aggressive arrogant snarling thug which may be true but bearing in mind he's trying to prove his innocence of violence it's a strange way o portray him............ unless you've read his book or seen his interviews and no he is like this and proud of it.
Dirty Den plays an honest South African buisnessman as Dirty Den complete with cockney accent and totting a gun! The 100 seat screen had 15 people counting me and a friend but by halfway there were 8 and I only syayed because my friend wanted to see the end and to be honest was less frustrated than me as she did not know about the Richardsons and so the glaring innacuraces were not annoying her. Don't get me wrong I am not an anorak moaning about a script that is after all made to entertain and I love gangster movies but this is a muddled stupid movie that confusingly jumps back and forth in time and telsl of over a decade of crime and the early days in 90 minutes and fails. If your easy to please this is worth a look on video and if you've read Richardson book it is funny if your in the right mood to see the innacuraces to the book which in inself was written to make make Charlie look hard done by. There is a great film to be made about the Richardsons but this is not it. Like the book Charlie claims to own a gold mine now but it is unlikely he would ever be allowed into South Africa with his past involvement in anti A.N.C activities and the outstanding murder and his criminal past so I thinkit's Charlies ego talking. I woner if Winnie Mandela can sue for the film stating she worked for B.O.S.S in the 60's whilst Nelson was in prison?
Please check the T&C's (http://www.thedvdforums.com) regarding swearing
Charlie has always claimed he was stitched up and his book is a very menaceing arrogant book which shows a lot about him between the lines rather than the stated 'facts'. In the book and film he freely admits violence and is proud of his empire of fraud and fact he was so 'respected' but is seriously EDITED off about 18 years in jail. Previous attempts to make a film fell though after Charlies insistance they would be made showing he was innocense. Now we finally have Charlie a tale of the British Goverment, Police and courts stitch up of Charlie Richardson. Some torture scences are shown to make the film attractive but are instantly denied on screen. Everyone except Charlie are made to look either corrupt or stupid. In his trial Charlie had one on Englands top barristors but he is portrayed as a cringing fool in the film. The barristor cringes and whines with tearfull eyes as Charlie rages at him ................ "But Charlie what can I do? The govenment are afraid of you, your more powerful than the Police!" The Policeman standing in the room starts to speak but Charlie tells him to shut his ****** mouth. Bearing in mind this is a consultation between a defendant and counsel there is no way a Policeman would be standing in the room!!!! This film jumps around with no real story line so these are not spoilers and shows Charlies view of himself. In a scene where he follows a juror on Eddies trial to a pub Charlie is about to approach him to offer money when he is warned by a gang member that the 'old bill' had arrived. As Charlie and our camera film fron 5 yards away one copper sits next to the juror, plain clothes, and whispers. He then takes a fat envelope from his pocket and slids it across the table. The envelope is open and we can see it is full of money. The juror nods and pockets the cash. "how was my brother going to get a fair trial?" says Charlie to the camera. This is one of the scenes ment to show it was a stich up and many are nearly as ridiculous and have never been mentioned before in Charlies book or interviews. Charlie is played as an aggressive arrogant snarling thug which may be true but bearing in mind he's trying to prove his innocence of violence it's a strange way o portray him............ unless you've read his book or seen his interviews and no he is like this and proud of it.
Dirty Den plays an honest South African buisnessman as Dirty Den complete with cockney accent and totting a gun! The 100 seat screen had 15 people counting me and a friend but by halfway there were 8 and I only syayed because my friend wanted to see the end and to be honest was less frustrated than me as she did not know about the Richardsons and so the glaring innacuraces were not annoying her. Don't get me wrong I am not an anorak moaning about a script that is after all made to entertain and I love gangster movies but this is a muddled stupid movie that confusingly jumps back and forth in time and telsl of over a decade of crime and the early days in 90 minutes and fails. If your easy to please this is worth a look on video and if you've read Richardson book it is funny if your in the right mood to see the innacuraces to the book which in inself was written to make make Charlie look hard done by. There is a great film to be made about the Richardsons but this is not it. Like the book Charlie claims to own a gold mine now but it is unlikely he would ever be allowed into South Africa with his past involvement in anti A.N.C activities and the outstanding murder and his criminal past so I thinkit's Charlies ego talking. I woner if Winnie Mandela can sue for the film stating she worked for B.O.S.S in the 60's whilst Nelson was in prison?
Please check the T&C's (http://www.thedvdforums.com) regarding swearing