Scarlett - Diamond of Revenge

Surely, no Oscar material, or a match to Guy Ritchi's Gentlemen, but this movie gave me a very entertaining two hours with a well told story, massive efforts from not very talented actors (but efforts go a long way) and a consistent use of practical effects.

Surprisingly, the few well-known names (Meany and Pertwee) deliver the films least memorable moments, but Colm Meany's worst is still on par with the lead actors' best. But the lead cast do try to "steal the show" from them. Kirk delivers a solid performance as lead and I do not felt that I ever dropped my attention or got bored of her as the lead.

Altogether, I enjoyed this move and I wouldn't mind seeing it again in a few months' time.

It's a shame Neil Marshall has gone down to this level. After his magnificent start (Dog Soldiers, Descent, Doomsday) it appears he peaked very early in his career.

The dialogue is very predictable. The story been told a million times and much better.

Unconvincing fights and overlong back and forth shoot outs become tiresome.

Tiger pit was hilariously overused.

The lead actress isn't as drop dead gorgeous as the director seems to think she is.

Her accent grates. Her fighting is terrible.

When so many kick ass female characters out there (Atomic Blonde, Red Sparrow, Nikita, Ava. Anna, Salt to name just a few) all done so much better it's kinda been done to death so if going to do it. Do it well and maybe a little different.

Sean Pertwee is always a fun watch, even if okays the same character in every film. He's a regular with Neil since Dog Soldiers.)

Stephanie Beecham is hilarious as "Charlie" the supposed dangerous hhead of a criminal organisation. But was cringe. Maybe they thought this would be her new breakout rolel playing against type (like Hugh Grant in The Gentlemen) of so then big fail.

Ita not all terrible. Just forced and cliché. The narration by the female lead was irritating straight away. Yes. That Snatch Guy Ritchie era narration wasn't good as the less you heard her voice the better.

Credit to the surprise desert death which I didn't see coming. One of only a few good moments.

Oh Neil. What happened?

Just go watch Atomic Blonde again.

Duchess starts off well. The titular heroine, Charlotte Monaghan, falls for a charming, dynamic man who pulls her into his high-flying drug-funded lifestyle. The twist is that she's more than tough enough to make a go of it. Their relationship seems perfect.

From the outset, Marshall uses a variety of visual touches reminiscent of Guy Ritchie movies - freeze-frames, bold text captions, colorful narration in the heroine's distinctive voice (the most shameless over-the-top cockney accent since Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins).

The performances make it work. Charlotte Kirk is not entirely convincing in the lead role, but she's very likable in a deliberately cartoony way. Philip Winchester is effortlessly charming as her crime-boss beau - I'd like to see much more of him in other roles. Sean Pertwee, a Neil Marshall regular, is welcome as always, doing his crusty supporting part. And Colm Meaney is meaner than we've ever seen him, in a single scene as the heroine's low-life father.

So far, so good. But about midway through, Duchess takes a turn for the more conventional and somewhat less enjoyable. What started as a quirky underworld romance morphs into a fairly straightforward revenge yarn. The flavorful characterizations of the first half are de-emphasized, in favor of over violently over-the-top action.

I'm okay with the violence, and with the revenge theme - but not so pleased about the predictability and occasional loose logic. It's still entertaining, with some nice set-piece moments - but not as fresh and original as the romance of the first half, nor as clever as we might expect from a director of Neil Marshall's accomplishments.

Nonetheless, I would definitely recommend Duchess to anyone who enjoys a wacky, ultra-violent crime send-up. It's an entertaining film, worth seeing if only for the off-beat performances.

Good enough for a TV pilot episode.

Camera work, background music, lighting, editing, sets, TV grade. If it were a show, I'd watch it. But, I would not pay to watch it in a theater, but I'd regularly watch this as a show. I swear it seemed like a pilot. Then there was a murder torture scene that shifted the entire tone, it felt out of place, then the tone suddenly lightened up again. Then it shifts and shifts again. Its like the creators couldn't decide what exactly the kind of movie or even TV show they were making. Script is full of cliche's. Expected for a TV, not a movie. Title style location labels pop across the sceen like an 80's action show. There are a unneeded pauses, for emotional reflection. Characters pontificate to spell out motivations and intentions. The script seems like it was written by young out of work would be TV writers.

I read somewhere that this film can be compared to Quentin Tarantino's work, and why not - I immediately got a copy and started watching.

Everything is designed following the template of proven cult classics. The goal of every scene is to shock, to be brutal and comedic. They drink the blood of enemies, and the Colombian necktie is explicitly shown. But...

After the first minute, it becomes clear that this film is just an annoying copy, printed with a faint toner, based on all those films we love and respect. The action is forced. The dialogues are terrible - someone tried to make them good but failed. All the characters are similar - meant to be dangerous but are actually as desperate as the dialogues. The comedic writing of names next to characters who enter the story, after the fifteenth repetition, becomes boring and feels like someone is mocking you to your face.

I think one star is a harsh rating since the actors did at least try to show up for filming. So: two stars.