Snatch review.

i havent seen a review of this anywhere on this forum, so if it exists, let me know about it and where i should post this.
anyway, a friend recomended i see 'snatch' not too long ago, and i actually did get around to renting it, and here's what i thought:

Snatch:
2000
synopsis: An illegal boxing match promoter quickly finds himself stuck too deep in a web of parallel, adjacent, and intersecting illegal activities, ranging from gambling to grand theft.

Another entry in a category of gangster stories that seems to be popular lately, slick, violent comic stories about over-the-top thugs with undiscernably thick accents (two personal favorites are 'sexy beast' and 'the limey'.) this one takes the cake for throwing in the most accents, the most personalities, and the most obnoxious music video editing and effects.

It's the kind of style over substance that i enjoy, though, because the characters, as parodies, are witty and vulgar enough to keep the cliches from going sour. stylistically it resembles run lola run, but is a lot funner than that one, relying on more than just 'in-your-face freshness', and a 'blaring techno (in this case indie) soundtrack (intended sarcasm)' to remain interesting. namely, it has a really likeable and large cast, and the two main characters, turkish and tommy, have a good dynamic for letting the plot carry them in harm's way.

At the same time, this movie doesnt have anything new to add to the scene, and hasnt gone beyond other earlier films of the same ilk -notably pulp fiction, or just about any other stylized gangster movie made in the last decade- but just manages to rehash existing material in an amusingly parodic and vaguely new fashion.

okay, now i thought i'd bring it up because it seems to be a popular one among the crowd here. what did you guys think?

i love it...i find brad pitts accent absolutly halirious in it.

-do ya like dags?
-what?!
-do ya like dags?! dags!
-oh dogs...yeah i like dags!

and

-why do you need another caravan?
-its for me ma!
-for who?
-his ma!
*passes around a photo*

__________________
I don't have Parkinson's. I inherited my shaking head from my grandfather Hepburn. I discovered that whisky helps stop the shaking. Problem is, if you're not careful, it stops the rest of you too. My head just shakes, but I promise you, it ain't gonna fall off!

You know, I always accepted the possibility that Snatch [which I saw and loved] was just a carbon copy of Pulp Fiction [which I had seen at that stage]...

...and then I saw Pulp [which I loved] and I realised that everyone saying that they were the same had no idea. The films are polar opposites, crafted in entirely different ways, written in entirely different ways. They are very, very much so different films.

Seems to me that just because they both have gangsters in them they must be the same kettle of fish, when according to some people.

And that's rubbish.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

I liked Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels a lot, but I loved Snatch. Definitely a case of style over substance, but it's a very fun style, helped immesurable by a perfect cast. In addition to all those Brits, some of whom were so good in Lock, Stock, those three key American actors added another level of fun for me: Denis Farina has been a longtime favorite and is hysterical as always, Benicio Del Toro of course is fantastic, and then there's Mr. Pitt who deservedly got much attention for his indecipherable gypsy bare-knuckle boxer.

There's not much new in Snatch, but Guy Ritchie's joy of working with the camera, his ear for dialogue and that droll sense of humor (again, all brought to life by that spot-on cast) make it a damn fun ride. I grade it an A-, it's just THAT much fun and so well executed.


Now while I can't say a re-make of Swept Away is honestly the type of project I was hoping he'd tackle next, Ritchie definitely has potential. As long as he doesn't get stuck making Lock, Stock over and over again (and I don't think he will), I expect bright things from him in the coming years. He's no Scorsese (nobody is), but he could very well be the U.K. answer to Luc Besson anyway.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

now, now, sb, my point wasnt that the movie was a carbon copy of pulp fiction, for if i thought it was, i probably would not have even bothered writing anything on the movie at all. no, my point was merely that it fits rather squarly in the same genre as pulp fiction, has a similar story, roughly the same caricatures, and falls somewhere bellow it, therefor, in terms of originality...i still stand by that.
the major difference that stood out between the two, for me, was that of mentality. snatch was a much more parodic film, much less serious that is, and so came off more as a sort of tribute or maybe even deliberate farce. the fact that it took itself less seriously though, does not qualify it as breaking any mould. the mold breaking, then, was left to stylistic and structural invention, both of which sufficed, but as i tried to allude in my original post, i'm no lover of the new trend in shooting and editing movies like they're music videos, that's simply aesthetic preference against a style i think is much blander than many want to let on.
i'd have to give snatch a 'b'. as said above, i enjoyed it as an excellent example of what the subgenre has to offer, but not quite the best within said subgenre, and not on any greater level than that, and it wont make my top ten list for 2001.

by the way, at first i was totally disgusted to hear anyone was doing a remake of 'swept away', but i guess i've been won over a little bit by snatch. that is, i'll at least go see it now.

edit: must be slipping in my old age, i just checked my top ten list for 2000 (note: not 2001) and was surprised to find 'snatch' at the healthy post of number 8, heh.