Fink!

I wouldn't normally take the time and effort to write a review, let alone a negative one, but 'Fink!' calls for special circumstances. Having grown up watching films such as 'Lock, Stock...' and 'Snatch', I'm offended by the comparisons that have been drawn. Whilst the latter films succeeded in mixing the gruesome action and comedy, 'Fink!' failed dismally. The writing was poor and the acting embarrassing; I had to turn it off after 40 minutes and finish watching it the next day, it was that unbearable. I would even go so far as to call the writing lazy, seeing as one of the main premises of the film is based on the story line of Superman 3! It's only saving grace was the performances of Sam Worthington and Steve Bastoni, and even they looked like they didn't want to be there. This film is unoriginal in every sense of the word and is unintentionally funny for all the wrong reasons- I wouldn't recommend it.

"We got the weapons, we got the style, we got the motivation, what could possibly go wrong?" When a guy comes up with a plan to steal money from a bank, (kinda like what they did in Superman 3) he thinks he is gonna be rich by the next morning. After losing $100,000 is a card game he is sure he will have the money. Soon after this, things start going bad, quickly. It seems to me that after "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels" everyone has been trying to make the next one. In 10 years this is the only one that has come close. Like "Lock, Stock" this one has a few groups that have their own story line going on and somehow all converge. This movie is equal parts action and comedy. It was a very fun movie to watch and if you enjoy the "Snatch" type movies, you will love this one. Made before Sam Worthington became a star, (he is the only recognizable person in the movie) but it holds up five years after it was made. The acting and effects are a little lacking, but that does not in any way detract from the experience. This movie is proof that you don't need big name actors and a million dollar budget in order to make a great movie. Very enjoyable to watch. I really liked it. I give it a A-.

Would I watch again? - I absolutely would.

*Also try - Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels & Perrier's Bounty

I heard the budget for Fink was not $300,000 but CONSIDERABLY more. I am told many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Possibly as much as $600,000. The way I heard it the director blew it, got muddled and couldn't finish - which is saying something considering it was shot in HD. It takes a lot to get that messed up. They made a serious mess of a bad script and were bailed out by some good people in the industry, That this version is cogent at all, viewable and sale-able is testament to those who were brought in with some experience. It's amazing that this car crash of a film got out at all. I am not sure this director should ever be allowed to work again. Lets see what "Plex" is like...

What do you get if you re-imagine a Guy Ritchie crime movie as DUMB AND DUMBER? Pretty much this movie, as Sam Worthington and Steve Bastoni carry out a hit for David Wheeler, but kill the wrong man.... over and over again. Nor are the police brighter.

It's a rather mild burlesque of Ritchie's stuff, with the body count remaining high, while the blood remains in small, but reasonable doses. The issue is that Ritchie has a good, if macabre sense of humor, while the people involved with this film seem to think the same thing over and again is hilarious, as we are informed by Michael Lira's 60's-style, horn-dominated score, and the out-takes at the end.

I saw this on television tonight and it was fantastic. Funny, in the mould of Lock Stock and Snatch, it was a very bloody comedy which succeeded at what it set out to do.

It won't win too many awards, but the acting was above par with most Australian movies, which usually blow thanks to appearances of "veteran" actors like the arrogant Bill Hunter, the douchebag Michael Caton and that halfwit Mick Molloy, none of which appear in this, thank God. Instead, it's a cast of people I've never or rarely seen, with the exception of that old bat from the worst medical drama on TV - All Saints. Her performance is, expectedly, the weakest of the lot, but it's a brief one which is made up for by the quick, snappy dialogue of the other characters. The only thing they could have improved on in this aspect was casting Sigrid Thornton into any role in the film, as I think she's gorgeous, but she doesn't make an appearance.

It's rather profane, which I think is a good thing for this kind of comedy. It has some really cool death scenes which, again, are funny, and the way the story plays out - with each part of the chronology shown from 2 perspectives, is a really interesting way of storytelling, and it's done well here.

I look forward to getting a copy on DVD. The movie's worthy of 8 stars. It's a great flick, I fink!