Circus

I think that saying this film has too many is not what makes this film bad. The twists are not the problem of the film. The story is quite clever and could have been very cool if filmed right. The major problems why everyone is complaining about the twists in the film is that the film is just not fascinating enough to make people follow them. The film is badly shot (at least in comparison to its genre brother Lock, Stock). Worse: the characters are (although often well acted) just plain flat. The characters don't have enough time to be introduced well enough to let the viewer get involved with a single one of them, let alone understand them. Oh, and the locations are just terrible: locations-person (I didn't bother to watch the credits for your name) - get another job (maybe still photography or interior design)

If you were expecting a comedy, be prepared to be disappointed. This is not a funny movie. It is often violent, and sometimes more graphic than need be, but... It was interesting, complex, and had a multilayer feel to it. Who is betraying whom? The dialog wasn't bad, the acting somewhat stylized (a la a David Lynch movie) but not to the point of distraction. It has a certain amount of the feel of "Snatch", moving in the parts of English not-so-nice society. And in the end, you're glad that the "good" guy wins (although he is willing to do, and see things done, that would hardly qualify him as a "good" good guy.)

My American Girlfriend and I (2 of the 8 people in the cinema, watched this film after a 2 hour wait, and were impressed with what we saw. The film itself is constructed with the same narrative as Pulp Fiction, with the comedy stylings of Shallow Grave. The comedy within the film are subtle and not the laughing out loud that many expect of a comedy. Twists and turns that evolve into a plot that make the film worth watching from start to end. As for the acting, John Hannah is great as the sneaky Leo, and as for THE Eddie Izzard, the man never fails to make me laugh, even when he is playing a villain. Eddie has taken a lot of flak from this film but he manages to keep a nasty dark edge to his character, and it annoys me that people expect Eddie to make them laugh every time he is in a film, when acting he is NOT a stand-up comic, he is an actor, and whether bad or good should be viewed as that, but I think he was great in this film, as he was in Mystery Men, and The Secret Agent as Vladimir. Overall the film is enjoyable and entertaining, for those who have not seen it yet, indulge yourselves!!!!

If you've seen any other sort of halfway decent crime movie, your patience might be put to the test by "Circus". If you are more than halfway sober or awake, its little derivative winks of 'intelligence' might actually appear half-assed and grating. I'm a fan of both John Hannah and Eddie Izzard, but neither actor can rescue this made-for-TV-grade formulaic crap-pile. And the 'intelligent' bit of that formula is the one that most grates on me: when the films throws out references to Tarantino, musical theatre, The Sweet Smell of Success, etc.(naming a character Elmo Somerset? Good lord), it's insulting. And when the twists are revealed, I hardly feel that the makers of Circus are knowing masterminds. They blindly stumbled through this movie, hoping that they could pull this foolish scam of a movie off.

Circus is a good caper flick. It is as unpretentious as its small-time crook characters, and should be treated as such. It is good fun, with some pretty hilarious dialogue.

Janssen and Hannah make a good couple. I have read some reviews that said they were not believable; I disagree. I actually thought they were a cute couple, and that they shared a kind of playful chemistry. The supporting players were also very good, particularly Stormare and Izzard.

Many people have complained about this movie's numerous twists and turns. However, I do not think the outcome would have been the same without them. Also, personally, I like to be surprised.