The Krays, 1960's London, the implosion of Ronald, Reginald and company. So what could go wrong with such a platform to build and craft a wealth of scenes? It would appear much. The Rise of the Krays (albeit lacking in substance) had the ability to keep the viewer (at least) wondering where the next scene might come from. Sadly, The Fall of the Krays comes with no such hook to grab the attention. The acting is mediocre at best. In fact the only consistent character is Frances' Mum played by Clare McGlinn. There seems to be an ongoing and unnecessary need for the actors to try and portray the twins like like they were Phil and Grant Mitchel. Overreacting, overacting and not at all believable; the company they keep much the same. If you're after a quick hit of good old-fashioned violence, mockney accents and loads of shouting after a few pints down the pub, this one's for you. If you want a little more then give Legend a go with Tom Hardy. It's more believable in half the time. If you want to watch a film about the Krays with the Mrs and you're a newby then give the Kemp boys a whirl. Not the best.

THE FALL OF THE KRAYS is the sequel to THE RISE OF THE KRAYS and another low rent slice of British crime. These two films are B-movie retellings of the famous Kray story, released to cash in on the renewed popularity of the storyline following in the wake of the Tom Hardy film LEGEND. These B-movies are huge disappointments, failing to offer up anything new and also failing to convince in the process. There are barely any outdoor sequences because the budget didn't stretch to much in the way of 1960s-era authenticity, and all of the set locations look bare and fake. The no-name cast fail to pass muster and the two actors playing Reggie and Ronnie fail to look like them and fail to give worthwhile performances too. They're also way too young. The script is below par and offers some really embarrassing trite dialogue along the way. For my money, the Martin/Gary Kemp version of the story is still the definitive version to go for.

I never like giving a low score to a film, but after watching this I don't really see how I can possibly grade it any higher then a four. I'll start with the positives, in terms of period detail, it looked really good, the clothes, the cars, I felt they did a fairly good job at capturing the atmosphere of the era.Sadly the film never engaged me, I've read some of the books on The Krays, and at no point did I feel the two leads I was watching in this were the Kray Brothers, firstly appearance, I know you can't expecting a perfect likeness, but they just seemed a little off. In terms of them as characters, that is where I had main issues, possibly it would have worked better as an independent film, nothing to do with the Krays. I felt Simon Cotton did a slightly better job in the role of Ronnie, but only marginally. Compared to Tom Hardy's film, it's quite a pale comparison, overall a poor follow up to an average opener. 4/10

Both of these films were dreadful. In the 2nd film when Cornell got shot by Ron where was the jukebox the sun ain't gonna shine anymore was playing when that happened but not in the film. The boys who played them were awful never looked like the twins at all. I have followed the twins and worked alongside Charlie Kray. I knew the krays through writing to them . I have read the books. Maybe the person who did this film should have done the same. NOT A PATCH ON TOM HARDY'S VERSION WHICH IS THE BEST EVER KRAY FILM. If you think different fair enough but everyone has there right to have an opinion and that is my total opinion. I thought the original Kray film was good but Tom Hardy is the best by far