I just rented this yesterday and thought it was really good. In the mould of Lock, Stock... and Snatch. Doesn't quite get to that level, but a solid London underworld type film, nonetheless.

Makes me want to live in Marylebone or Hampstead or some such. :sigh:

It was OK, not nearly as good as Lock or Snatch IMO.

Ending is kind of a rip off of "Carlito's Way" besides that its a pretty good movie.

I liked the ending.. The guy was gonna get it sooner or later..

It was good, a little hard to follow though.

I watched it on Starz a few days ago and was really surprised how good it was. The ending pissed me off though. The whole "The Duke" and decapitation routine was a bit retro of typical mafia motif.

Fantastic movie. Wasn't this directed by someone who co-wrote or produced Snatch and Lock Stock?

Either way, this movie is about a thousand times better than Revolver, Ritchie's latest shitfest.

i shut it off halfway through becuse i couldnt understand what the fuck they were saying

Meh. So disappointing.

Oops post

This is what subtitles are for.

Well they seem to have opted for this one over the "happy" ending of them riding out into the countryside, and the other one where they ride off but are chased by the Duke's nephew.

It's kind of an absurd choice. He doesn't get killed by the game itself, but something ancillary to it.

While we're in a talkative mood, I'd be interested to hear why.

Perhaps I was looking for something that wasn't there.

The direction was amateur and distracting.
The music was cliche.
It wasn't funny.
It wasn't brutal.
It was derivative.
The color was irritating.
It was convoluted.

I couldn't even really tell what the film wanted to be. It just seemed all over the place.

I guess I just felt that it was very, very obvious this Vaughn's first time behind the camera.

And that ending felt really forced.

I found the direction novel and interesting. Especially the scene where the black dude beats the homeless dude up and you see the whole thing from the perspective of the homeless dude.

The music was actually one of the things I really enjoyed about the movie. I thought they used it really well, and while it wasn't anything groundbreaking, I certainly didn't find it annoying or even cliche.

Funny? I thought they had enough funny moments in there. A movie like that doesn't require too many funny moments, and certainly not any that are too funny. But I had a good chuckle a couple of times through the movie, which was enough to release the pressure from time to time.

Brutal. I'll agree here to some extent... even the scene with the hot iron on top of the dead man wasn't really that brutal looking, but even so, it wasn't disastrous. Like I said, the homeless dude beating was good though.

Derivative? Yes. Very much so. But unsurprising given who is in it behind the scenes.

I didn't find the color irritating at all. In fact I was thankful that it didn't have the EastEnders/Lock Stock sepia vibe to it. London and the docklands looked exactly like it does in real life, and the shots of Amsterdam captures the essence of the scenery too.

Convoluted? Yeah, that it was. I didn't really get it until I watched it a second time, with subtitles. The Scouse accents are difficult to decipher at best of times, but some of this was particularly hard. The plot ctually makes complete sense and there are no gaps in the logic, as I had initially suspected.

The DVD special features includes a number (like a dozen) fully produced deleted scenes. Almost all of them don't contain any new information that doesn't come through in the existing cut, but when the plot is as convoluted as this, it doesn't hurt to repeat certain bits of information here and there. In short, there's a case to be made that the movie was probably edited a little too tightly.

Finally, the ending was bizarre more than anything else, but I can see why they chose it. It gives the plot a little more depth.

I hated the fact that I could not understand half the conversations in this movie

One of the things that bothers me most in film is when a director uses style that doesn't fit with the story. I didn't like the beating being shown from the homeless guy's perspective. I tend to think things should always be shown from the protagonist's perspective. Of course, this rarely happens, but when something goes as over-the-top as showing what someone else is actually seeing, it just bothers me and strikes me as amateur. And that scene toward the beginning where Daniel Craig is talking with another guy in the fancy dining room and every time the camera changes between them, it slowly keeps zooming in and then starting the zoom over next time it shows them. That was the single most distractingly directed scene I have ever seen in my life.

Sounds to me like the kind of judgment people regard as novel and interesting if they like the movie, and amatuerish if they don't.

I liked it merely because I didn't get what was going on with the camera until I saw the kettle.

I disagree that as a rule of some kind, thing should "always be shown from the protagonist's perspective. It depends on whether or not doing it another way would tend to enhance the telling of the story. Until that moment, the movie wasn't clear at all as to how hard the black dude was, and whether he was capable of going to prison for 10 years. Of course the following scenes make it clear that he didn't go to prison for violence of any kind, but for a few minutes, you're left to wonder if the guy is a bit of a psycho. The victim-perspectice seems to enhance this, because it seems to make the beating more brutal, and you as the audience gets a slice of it.



I didn't notice this at all. So it obviously wasn't enough to distract me. Nevertheless, I'll look out for this next time I watch it.

My favorite aspect of the movie was the direction. I liken it to that of a car commercial, but somehow it worked here. Convoluted plot, but very good acting. It's worth seeing solely for the lingerie scene, anyway.