Smoking Guns

Just poor. Mockney bankers only feels like a first year college project with papa paying for a decent budget.

There's something about this indie flick that appeals to me, maybe it's my longing for the good old days when I lived in London and use to know characters just like the ones presented here, off the wall, funny and in your face with a sense of the devil may care attitude. I also get the humour, which helps. But there's also a freshness about the whole approach, the very good acting, especially by the young rising star Tommy O'Neill, the directing, etc. The swearing is a bit strong but then again I've heard worse growing up in North London. I am giving this 10 stars because I appreciate the brilliant effort from the cast and crew and wish them all well going forward.

Absolutely awful.

Terrible acting.

Terrible script.

Terrible plot.

Terrible film.

Why was Dexter Fletcher in it?

Why did someone agree to make it?

The poster. The synopsis. The high user rating. Even a few familiar faces. All signs pointed towards a clever, fun, dryly-comedic English indie crime film in the vein of Layer Cake, In Bruges and Snatch. Needless to say I was in and looking forward to watching this film. And once the credits rolled, I was compelled to write a review.

Compelled isn't the right word... Browbeaten is more accurate. I tried, I truly did, but by the end I was literally angry I had been tricked into finishing this film. The 93 min run-time felt closer to 150, and I was forced several times to pause and double check the 7.9 IMDb rating. Really?

Clearly, young "Writer/Director" Savvas D. Michael's household VCR had a broken eject button, and Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels was the sole VHS trapped inside.. There are worse films to shamelessly steal from... I mean pay "homage" to but you need raw Tarantino-esque talent to make it fresh or even moderately enjoyable. Imagine an accountant who saw a Van Gogh and said, "that's not so hard," proceeding to recreate Starry Night using an algorithm.

And that is what Smoking Guns ultimately is: The worn-out "Lock Stock" VHS trapped inside Michael's VCR. Drained of quality and thread bare. The film misses the mark on so many levels that if you have seen ANY other film in this genre, you find yourself reminiscing during this joyless, heavy-handed trudge. For someone who clearly idolized Ritchie, it's surprising how he managed to remove all the elements that made his films fun and original, and Michael just.. tries.. toooo... haaard.

Frenetic camera movement and frame-rate manipulation is replaced by static shots and the occasional pan. Attempts at nonlinear narratives feel forced with no payoff. The acting ranges from melodrama to wooden to community theater and no one is enjoying themselves; don't expect any Statham off-beat comedic wit. Instead of enhancing visuals and upping the drama, music is used in pedestrian ways. And most importantly, ANY attempt at humor or tension (essential and defining characteristics of the genre) is so contrived that you can practically see flashing arrows reading "Stressful situation here" or "This is funny."

You would be better served revisiting any of the genre films listed above, or if you need a horse racing fix, check out the short-lived but incredible HBO series "Luck." Better still just watch The Sting and pretend they have British accents. Because you're better off with the "idea" of what this movie could be, instead of what it really is.

I liked it. Made me laugh! Reminded me of my local bookies. Fun, simple story, good acting. Thoroughly enjoyable. My only negative comment would be the level of abusive language. One comment literally made me spit out my coffee! And the lack of female actors. Women gamble too, just ask my Mrs :) Asides from those points really worth a watch.