source: Heartless

In East London, Jamie Morgan (Jim Sturgess) is a disturbed twenty-five year old photographer that misses his deceased father and has a complex due to his birthmark on the left side of his face and shoulder, wearing a hood on the streets to hide his face. In his neighborhood, the gangs have increased violence and there are a series of unresolved brutal murders in the area. One night, Jamie overhears screams on the street and he sees demons around a campfire. Jamie lives a reclusive life with his beloved mother Marion (Ruth Sheen) and works in a studio with his brother Ray (Justin Salinger) and his nephew Lee (Luke Treadaway). When Jamie sees the aspirant model Tia (Clémence Poésy) photographed by Ray and Lee, he has a crush on her and brings one picture of Tia to his home. On the birthday of Marion, Lee gives an expensive jewel to his grandmother. When Jamie visits the tombstone of his father in the cemetery with his mother, they are attacked in the bus stop by a gang of demons and Marion is burned to death and Jamie is battered. Then his neighbor and former gang member A.J. (Noel Clarke) is murdered on the streets. Jamie buys a pistol for self-protection and is ready to commit suicide; however he is summoned by the devil Papa B (Joseph Mawle) in the Cendrillon House, the building where his father lived. When he meets Papa B and his young assistant Belle (Nikita Mistry), the devil proposes a deal to him. Jamie should rebirth as a Phoenix without his birthmark, provided he meets the Weapons Man (Eddie Marsan) and vandalizes and brings chaos to Papa B. Jamie becomes self- confident and when he meets Tia by chance, he dates her. However, the Weapons Man visits him and tells that he must collect a heart and leave it on the stairway of a church. Jamie kills a male hustler and accomplishes his assignment. However, when Papa B demands the heart of Tia, Jamie faces his own demons and discovers the truth about his troubled mind. "Heartless" is the third film of Philip Ridley that I have seen ("The Reflecting Skin" was my first, and "The Passion of Darkly Noon" was the other one). Philip Ridley is a complete artist and for those readers that do not know, he is also a writer of novels and plays for adults and children, painter, photographer, poet and song writer. "Heartless" is dark, complex and as usual, Philip Ridley explores religious symbols along the story. The performances are top-notch and the conclusion explains the bad trip of Jamie; who are the demons; who is Belle indeed; and why he has met and dated Tia. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Marca da Vingança" ("Mark of the Revenge")

on me during the film very early in its stages. But this proved all-too intelligent a move. Having recently met Jim Sturges after a screening of his newest work, I decided to take a look back at some of his filmography. 21--good film until it got TOO "Hollywood." Yet, overall, I'd say that "card counting genius" film is worthy of a repeated viewing. Heartless? This is another matter entirely. Yikes. Being the film auteur I pretentiously scheme to be, I gave the flick a chance. A very, very long and lost chance. Sure, Jimmy did a solid job; kid's a natural, and only improves by the film. Heartless ends up an indy-art-infused, many-genre-confused London slodgefest. The script appears to be written by 5 different people with not one on the same page. Horror? Drama? Roger Corman-ode? Unless your taste in film is bashing ALL that is Hollywood, steer clear. My roommates said enough just walking away.

I have seen a lot worse than Heartless. You could see some thought went into this and its not just a run of the mill US slasher movie where air head boring teenagers have sex then get dispatched in various ways. The first thing that attracted me to the movie was the story - which was described as a group of hoodies going round killing people wearing demon masks but the main character really thinks they really are demons running amok in London! Sounds good to me. However that is a very bare bones watered down version of what turns out to be a complicated film with a few plot threads running all at once. I found this to be a bit much as we basically have a guy born with a huge birth mark across his face finds mixing difficult, is lonely and frustrated with his life. There are also signs he has tried to commit suicide in the past. His father died years back and he lives and seems very close to his mother. There is of course the hoodies with the demon faces, the meeting with the devil to make a deal to rid him of his birthmark, the little girl that helps him and calls him 'dad',the love story with the girl from Harry Potter, the grizzly tasks he is asked to commit as part of the deal, the side story of his brothers son and the drug baron with the claws on his arm ... It felt like it started as one film and ended another which shows the flow wasn't quite there. I will say this - it is really well shot and directed. The guy that plays the 'devil' was really good. The main actor was pretty good and so was the music. However like this review its confusing, patchy and I feel with a little more focus could have been better. Like I said I've seen worse and overall it was satisfying.

The main problem with 'Heartless,' in my opinion, is the script. The actors' lines are so riddled with clichés that it's hard to take any of it seriously. There are hundreds of things that people do and say in films that they never do or say in real life. Many of these stock lines and stock actions make appearances in 'Heartless.' I found it difficult to feel any compassion for any of the characters because of this, and because the actors were working up a storm to fight their way through the clichés. Here is the spoiler: really? A gay hustler? Tired. Oh so very tired. There is some talent here. The camera work is good. The lighting, the color choice are quite nice. But all in all, 'Heartless' is not very good at all.

This is the kind of movie that makes you realize how shallow all of the Hollywood movies are these days. I watched HEARTLESS intently last night, hanging onto every word - it was spellbinding and intellectually thought provoking. The characters were intense...I found myself wanting more.. The range of emotions I felt while watching the lead character was unbelievable - I found myself right there with the lead character - feeling what he must have been feeling. Ridley was terrific. I wanted to watch it again so I recapture all of the subtleties of the plot and could appreciate the mastery of the script. Additionally, the message in the final scene was so beautiful.

I don't normally watch horror movies but this once caught my eye since it was a Brit movie and starred Eddie Marsan and Timothy Spall. But, I was really disappointed. The story was disjointed and I just didn't believe in the characters. At times I found myself laughing out loud; not really the sort of reaction for a horror movie. I'm not even sure that it is a horror movie. I gave it the benefit of the doubt but it really was a chore to watch it right through. I'm more frightened by the time that I've wasted watching this movie than I was about any of the content. It had the potential to be amazing, but failed miserably.

I'll keep this short as i could rant for hours about how awful this film was.If the director had any sense this would have made for a very good short,there was only 15-20 minutes worth of plot padded out with scenes of Jim Sturgess walking slowly around London and showing off his one acting face(its a half grin that he wears for almost the whole runtime). With crap like this still being funded and praised it is small wonder that the British film industry is on its knees. P.S heartless drinking game....take a shot every time someone says "old son"and you will be dead before the credits roll.

The story takes place in a very dark, threatening and violent London, more fantasy than reality but nevertheless, the environment serves its cinematic purpose as it makes the viewer feel unsettled. The photography is excellent with extended shots of the city at night and in the early hours. This fits well given the photography theme that runs through the movie. As others have observed, the key question is what is real and what is in the central characters mind - is he suffering from a terrible mental illness that gives him visions and voices in the head? Some elements of this reminded me of the Clive Barker stories with (possibly?) horrible demons lurking beneath the surface of our lives but the uncertainty ensures the plot has an edge that keeps you guessing to the end. This is an original and unusual film, more thought provoking than is typical of the genre, well made with a cast that all put in quality performances. It held my attention for the duration, neither me nor my partner spoke while we watched, which is always a good sign. Recommended if you're in the mood for a gripping journey to the dark side.

*May be spoilers* Jamie is born with facial/body defects which he feels hampers his life and his chances for love. In a world of escalating violence, which personally affects him when he loses his mother, he is offered the chance for the life he wants at the cost of more violence by a strange character. I wasn't familiar with the director's previous works and watched this film with limited knowledge of what it was about barring the few reviews here on IMDb. This film was quite trippy and definitely a bit insane....but all in a good way. All the way through the film I was trying to guess where it was going, what the conclusion would be, what the twist would be. Every time I felt I'd settled on something the film took another direction. This in itself makes for entertainment when watching something - continuing to watch to see where a film goes and to find out exactly what was going on....I've even come back on here and used google to find other reviews to try and clarify some points in the film which have left me a bit confused. There was a clever mix of genres in this film as it plays mainly as horror but has elements of drama/thriller and comedy - and they all work. 'Heartless' is not without it's flaws and it does begin to feel like it's dragging around the 85 min mark. You may also come away from watching feeling some mild confusion as I do not think everything was explained as clearly as it may have been (or might just be me). This film is certainly different and entertaining to boot....which are 2 things combined that you don't too often find nowadays when watching a film.