The Gentlemen

→ in
Tools    





It was fantastic to see Ritchie's return!



FWIW, here's my review:

The Gentlemen (2019)

Fans of Guy Ritchie's --especially of his earlier Brit crime comedies, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch-- will be delighted that he's returned 20 years later to the formula that really put him on the map. Others without that experience may have a less enthusiastic response to this crispy criminal conspiracy comedy.

Its big name cast includes Matthew McGonaughey, Hugh Grant, Colin Farrell, Charlie Hunnam, Eddie Marsan, and Jeremy Strong. The cinematography by Alan Stewart, and music by Christopher Benstead were both very competent. Ritchie wrote, directed, and was one of the 11 producers.

The story is a bit too complex to outline here, but suffice to say that it's a entangled drug territorial dispute tale, with certain parties wanting to buy the other out. Violence ensues when they can't come to terms, and instead do some double dealing.

Grant's character starts off the dealing to one of the major drug lords, an American who has developed into a major crime figure (McGonaughey) that has become well established in his success. Grant more or less serves as the narrator for the twisty and surprise laden plot-- sort of a criminal Our Town type character who at once describes, but is also involved in, the action.

The whole project seemed to me to be a little tired and shallow; not hackneyed, but familiar. Grant's character put me in mind of the Michael Caine part in Sleuth (1972), although with not nearly the heft.

The detraction from the credibility of the story was in the casting of two key players: McGonaughey as the chief crime boss, and Jeremy Strong as a fabulously wealthy drug boss who was one wanting to take over McGonaughey's business. McGonaughey's Texas drawl seemed too out of place, and therefore his character had believability problems; whereas Strong's mousey demeanor was simply too weak for the part. Also in limited supply were the type of offbeat quirky jokes and speech patterns so evident in Ritchie's earlier works.

The film certainly had some enjoyable portions, yet without the good acting of the name players, the picture would likely have expired as quickly as did some of the bad guys. My guess is that Ritchie was beseeched by his money people to revive his earlier approach, after a couple of semi-stinkers (King Arthur and Aladdin), in order to get his stock back on track. Whether this mediocre film was enough to do it, time will tell. Next up from him is Cash Truck, set in Los Angeles. Fingers crossed...

Doc's rating: 5/10



I actually loved this movie. Probably my favourite of the year thus far, and had sat through it numerous times through it's theatrical run. Just a fun movie, and reminiscent of his early works, such as Snatch and Lock, Stock... IMO his best work in a long time. No idea what American audiences would make of it, but here in UK everyone that I've spoken to who has seen it has thought it was great as well.



I partially agree, I am not comparing with his previous work, although there is indeed a similar tone to what he usually brings into his previous work.
I believe it depends on the prespective to which you look into the story itself, if you don't analyze to thouroughly it's an enjoyable ride, fram from dull experience and of course it's not original in the sense of a narrator telling the story from his prespective while being a player within the plot itself, but it becomes quite nice associated with Ritchie's approach with his non linear story telling

It's not his best work and one might say its not remarkable, but with the expectations considering the more recent feature films directed by him, was breathe of fresh air
__________________
Youíre never going to learn something as profoundly as when itís purely out of curiosity



Welcome to the human race...
As of writing, I consider it the second-worst movie of 2020. It has that problem that certain filmmakers have where they make a name for themselves with quote-unquote edgy movies, do something lighter that's not so well-received, feel the need to prove they've still got that same edge, and make something that plays like an unrefined imitation of their best work (particularly by invoking the worst qualities of their worst work). Ritchie's been doing nothing but PG-13 tentpoles for over a decade and now he's trying to do a typical Ritchie movie again complete with all the usual tropes and a new twist but not only did his formula feel pretty much played out by the time he did RocknRolla but this new one doesn't seem to get what made his best ones that good to begin with (and even then they weren't that good). It's bloated, repetitive, smug, and lacks good characters (Farrell's character is maybe the only one I genuinely liked). All in all, a mess.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



I partially agree, I am not comparing with his previous work, although there is indeed a similar tone to what he usually brings into his previous work.
I believe it depends on the prespective to which you look into the story itself, if you don't analyze to thouroughly it's an enjoyable ride, fram from dull experience and of course it's not original in the sense of a narrator telling the story from his prespective while being a player within the plot itself, but it becomes quite nice associated with Ritchie's approach with his non linear story telling

It's not his best work and one might say its not remarkable, but with the expectations considering the more recent feature films directed by him, was breathe of fresh air
In my review, I mentioned watching this film motivated me to check out Guy Ritchie's earlier work... a few days ago, I tried to watch Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, and was bored to death, turned it off after about 25 minutes.



I've never been a huge fan of Guy Ritchie but I thought this was well fun. It felt more sophisticated than his earlier gangster films without being too overambitious like Revolver was. The whole thing felt less self consciously cool. I was very shocked at how good Hugh Grant was.