In this convoluted myriad of dirty deeds it's hard to really present the script. And maybe it's best not to and just let the story build up itself coming into it from the dark.
London. Cute English accents. A lot of swearing. Some fights. A lot of the criminal underground. Some audacious gags. Fast talkers. Multiple characters, mostly antiheroes and downright dirty criminals. Bad guys and badder guys. Dirty deeds. Classic Guy Ritchie with a robust script and some great performances.
So why didn't it work as well as "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels" or "Snatch"? Maybe the problem was repetitiveness. Not only by Ritchie himself, but also by the fact that a lot of directors for Great Britain and the US have tried to copy the stylish dark comedies he made in the late 90s. Problem is that after a while it's hard to keep ahead of the pack, especially if you just redo what you did last time around. Naturally this is a step up after his total flops "Swept Away" and "Revolver".
Anyway the issue of repetitiveness only scratched my senses for the first 30 minutes, but once I allowed myself to be engulfed by Ritchie's criminal world and thoroughly enjoyed the ride. The script is mostly spot on (although it does seem a bit forced at times, when Ritchie tries to tie in all the loose ends) as is the dialogue (funny, sharp, naughty and... pure ritchie). Definitely directed much better than "Sherlock Holmes", but I guess familiar territory allowed Ritchie to let loose. Enough so that it is one of the funnest movies I have watched this year with a certain slow dance being the highlight of the movie.
The cast is stellar. Not necessarily the names concerned, but the acting itself. Of special mention should be Gerald Butler, Thandie Newton, Toby Kebbell and Mark Strong. Everyone carries the picture perfectly making it at least a great watch.
All in all this movie should serve as a lesson to the director: Never leave England again - you feel the country all too well to waste your time playing make-pretend in Hollywood.
London. Cute English accents. A lot of swearing. Some fights. A lot of the criminal underground. Some audacious gags. Fast talkers. Multiple characters, mostly antiheroes and downright dirty criminals. Bad guys and badder guys. Dirty deeds. Classic Guy Ritchie with a robust script and some great performances.
So why didn't it work as well as "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels" or "Snatch"? Maybe the problem was repetitiveness. Not only by Ritchie himself, but also by the fact that a lot of directors for Great Britain and the US have tried to copy the stylish dark comedies he made in the late 90s. Problem is that after a while it's hard to keep ahead of the pack, especially if you just redo what you did last time around. Naturally this is a step up after his total flops "Swept Away" and "Revolver".
Anyway the issue of repetitiveness only scratched my senses for the first 30 minutes, but once I allowed myself to be engulfed by Ritchie's criminal world and thoroughly enjoyed the ride. The script is mostly spot on (although it does seem a bit forced at times, when Ritchie tries to tie in all the loose ends) as is the dialogue (funny, sharp, naughty and... pure ritchie). Definitely directed much better than "Sherlock Holmes", but I guess familiar territory allowed Ritchie to let loose. Enough so that it is one of the funnest movies I have watched this year with a certain slow dance being the highlight of the movie.
The cast is stellar. Not necessarily the names concerned, but the acting itself. Of special mention should be Gerald Butler, Thandie Newton, Toby Kebbell and Mark Strong. Everyone carries the picture perfectly making it at least a great watch.
All in all this movie should serve as a lesson to the director: Never leave England again - you feel the country all too well to waste your time playing make-pretend in Hollywood.