But still OK for the most part. If you like all Guy Ritchie movies, you'll like this too. I didn't think Matt McC was right for the part. The script obviously was written for a Brit. Farrel and Grant were fantastic. Hunnam was hit and miss throughout. The story was serviceable and directing was good.
I rank it near RocknRolla. 5.5/10 Sometimes Ritchie swerves into the shoulder.
This is a really spot on review that almost perfectly encapsulates exactly how I felt about the movie. The only thing I disagree with is if you like all Guy Ritchie movies, you'll like this. I like almost all of GR's films (let's pretend Aladdin never happened), but this really left so much to be desired I can't even say I really liked it all. If Hugh Grant and Colin Farrell weren't in this, there'd be next to nothing there for me. And yeah, Hunnam was like watching paint dry, only less exciting, which was unexpected since I typically enjoy his roles. I was solidly disappointed with this one.
shareOh jeez, I forgot that he did the new Aladdin! I also confess to dragging my feet on seeing his King Arthur movie.
I agree that if Colin and Hugh were absent, this film would dip into thumbs down territory. The usual effortless style that Ritchie employs felt forced more than once in this. Hunnam's speech to the junkies was one of those.
Yeah, I think my eyes actually started to glaze over during that one scene with Hunnam and the junkies. Forced is the best word to describe the majority of the film, though. Even the swearing was overly spoon-fed to the audience to the point where it just started to lose its shine. I feel like Ritchie is an aging director who just doesn't have the same perspective he had when he was a fresh face in the game, so he's relying on old gimmicks and resting on his laurels without any of the actual heart he used to have. He's just been missing that certain magic that's present in his earlier body of work. I think he's stagnating a bit and needs something to shake him up again. I hope he still has a few more hurrahs up his sleeve. The Gentlemen definitely scratched at something greater, but ultimately it just missed the mark.
shareLesser Ritchie in comparison to Snatch? Sure. But a big step up and return to form after King Arthur and Aladdin.
I enjoyed it quite a bit and thought it felt fresh and original. Interesting enough story and a great cast. My only real complaint is that there are a few too many twists at the end.
7.5/10
Isn't that makes a GR movie a GR movie?
But yeah, was decent. But nowhere near Snatch or 2 Smoking Barrels.
yeah I'd agree with OP, on par with rocknrolla, round a 5.something
8.0 is way too high
Not as good as Snatch or Lock, Stock, but I think better than Rock'n'Rolla. Certainly more than 5.5. I'd maybe go 7 or 7 1/2.
Matthew McConaughey was okay. I thought it worked with a Yank since his motivation was partly the class divide and making that outsider status stretch all the way across the Pond was a good idea.
But you've got to give props to Hugh Grant, who stole the show as Fletcher, and Colin Farrell, who did a really top-grade supporting role.