Jump to content

Sugarhouse (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Sugarhouse Lane)

Sugarhouse
Promotional movie poster
Directed byGary Love
Written byDominic Leyton
Produced byRachel Connors
Arvind David
Arvind Ethan David
Ben Dixon
Matthew Justice
Oliver Milburn
Michael Riley
StarringAndy Serkis
Ashley Walters
Steven Mackintosh
Adam Deacon[1]
CinematographyDaniel Bronks
Edited byChris Gill
Music byMichael Price
Distributed bySlingshot Studios
Release date
  • 24 August 2007 (2007-08-24)
Running time
90 minutes
CountryUnited Kingdom
LanguageEnglish
Budget£250,000[2]

Sugarhouse is a British urban thriller film directed by Gary Love and starring Steven Mackintosh, Ashley Walters, Andy Serkis and Adam Deacon. The low-budget thriller is based on the stage play Collision. The film was released on 24 August 2007.

Plot

[edit]

Tom (Steven Mackintosh), a middle class working employee, finds himself at rock bottom after he loses his job and his girlfriend in the same week. Believing that he has no choice but to end it all, Tom ventures into a derelict squat in East London, in an attempt to purchase a gun from homeless crack addict D (Ashley Walters). However, D attempts to extort more than the agreed price, in order to pay off his debt to local drug dealer Hoodwink (Andy Serkis), to whom he owes a significant amount of money. However, the gun is not his to sell - it actually belongs to Hoodwink, who will do anything in his power to get it back. Tom's attempts to reason with Hoodwink leave him with more trouble than he bargained for - and trying to buy him off only gets him seriously abused. Despite trying unsuccessfully to shift the blame onto not-so-macho drug dealer Ray (Adam Deacon), Tom and D gradually get to know what makes each other tick - and digress for reasonable life - as they try to find a way out of the situation. However, with Hoodwink still on the warpath, the day soon becomes a cat and mouse game of survival for the pair.[1][3]

Cast

[edit]

Reception

[edit]

The film was poorly reviewed, with Rotten Tomatoes giving it a "rotten" 29%, based on 18 critics (as of January 2013).[4]

[edit]

References

[edit]