Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

I'm not sure whether to call this a black comedy or a comedy-noir. The story is about four working class lads who have each managed to save up 25,000 pounds to spot their card-shark friend for a high-stakes poker game with "Hatchet" Harry, the local gangster.

Unfortunately, Harry's game is rigged and the four end up owing Harry half a million pounds, with just one week to come up with the cash. What ensues is a set of schemes, counter-schemes, rip-offs, and bad/good luck that demand you pay attention. On several occasions I had to pause the video just to take stock of which gang was planning what.

The final thirty minutes of the film, as the plots all collide and overlap, turn set-piece shoot outs into comedic punchlines. The comedy is driven by exploding our expectations of what are otherwise pretty standard scenes from the film-noir genre.

The acting is strong and the script very tight. Although I am not normally a fan of voice overs, this one informs without spoiling the action. And I liked the use of the slow-motion to disrupt the action and keep me paying attention.

While this film may not be for everyone, if you enjoy a darker pallette, this may be right up your alley.

Guy Ritchie's hip, highly stylized 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' is a truly remarkable film, not only for its appropriately pyrotechnic camera work, but also for its seemingly flawless, puzzle-perfect script/screenplay. While the picture's main focus is on a group of lads who invest money in a high-stakes, rigged card game and lose, the broader story concerns approximately eight different groups of criminals whose paths cross (more> than once, in some cases) during various illegal pursuits: money, guns, drugs, even revenge. The film is quite violent, both on and off screen, but it's also uniformly humorous throughout. It's important to note that the four central characters (a cook, a card sharp, and a couple of guys who sell "discounted" items) are interested only in acquiring the money to pay off their enormous debt; they kill no one. The same applies to the laid-back college boys who "grow copious amounts of ganja".

The cast is comprised of mostly young, veteran, male actors. In fact, the only female in the film doesn't even speak, though she handles a machine gun fairly well. Sting appears briefly in several scenes as a bar-owning father figure. While his secondary performance is solid, as usual, it is also unmemorable. The soundtrack is first-rate, from the 60's hits of James Brown to the contemporary beats of London's underground. The groovy, pulsating music and lyrics are often succinctly synchronized with the action and dialogue in the film, creating a theatrical rhythm that is fairly uncommon in cinema (from any period).

Critics and audiences over the years have often dismissed stylized camera work as pretentious and unnecessary, stating that it detracts from the story, bogs it down, or pads it; however, the film medium has the luxury of actually "displaying" a story for its audience, unlike the written word alone. It's what the medium is all about -- it's VISUAL. Hence, one of the reasons a filmmaker chooses such visual displays is to "brand" his or her work, in the same way as writers like Cummings, Hemingway or Joyce did with their medium. It's hard to imagine a cinema without Hitchcock, Kubrick, or Scorsese to represent it. To this end, Ritchie has taken his first step in establishing his own brand. His energetic, ultra-contemporary camera work incorporates (through a fresh perspective) such devices as slow motion, fast motion, and freeze-frame coupled with narration. It is at times reminiscent of (and actually expands upon) Martin Scorsese's patented visual stylistics and camera movements, like those found in 'Mean Streets' and 'Goodfellas'. But the similarities with Scorsese's work end there.

Critics' endless comparisons of Ritchie's film with the works of Quentin Tarantino and Danny Boyle's 'Trainspotting' stand mostly unwarranted, as these comparisons take away from the inventiveness and originality of 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels'. Ritchie's film is a much more involved, complex, layered work than the aforementioned comparisons. While Tarantino's films are very strong on dialogue, screenplay, and editing, they often lack creative camera work and direction. Boyle's 'Trainspotting' does have a resembling "feel" to 'LS&TSB', but aside from its Great Britain origins, there really is no need for comparison. 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' is essential viewing.

I was a total and complete sucker for this film.

If I were to write and direct a movie about gangsters or crime, this would be it. I wouldn't change one damn thing. Not a thing. Everything in this film was, to my eye, perfect - casting, the camerawork, the excellent dialogue ("It's been emotional.")

Now I don't have much to compare this to, and I've heard some criticism that it basically draws quite heavily from older British crime dramas. I've got a bunch of these on my queue to rent, but I doubt you could make a crime film better than this.

This film oozes with style, class, dark humor, plot twists and turns, and doesn't drag one bit. The casting and characterization is perfect, and Ritchie isn't afraid to move the cameras around; no pretense is really made here at "realism" - Ritchie doesn't mask the fact that it's a film and he runs with it.

I really don't think of myself as easily impressed, and I have seen a hell of a lot of films in my time, but this one instantly made my Top 10 after only a single viewing. Yes, I'm raving about it, and while it may not be "spiritually enriching" or contain any deep sociological content (which I actually do look for in films), somehow it still scores as one hell of a film; memorable and entertaining, and stands up well to multiple viewings.

I am a bit dismayed to see some of the marketing of this film comparing it to other things like Quentin Tarantino films or Trainspotting. It really does it a disservice because this film really is its own phenomenon and stands on its own two feet; if anything it is similar to Trainspotting and Tarantino films only because it actually has its own bold style.

Can't recommend it enough.

Guy Ritchie has a skill: the skill to take multi-layered gangster plots, weave them together, and come out with a fabric of the finest quality. I first watched "Snatch", which came after this film. Loved it. Watch this film, which had a similar set-up (the interwoven gangster theme). Loved it. As far as I'm concerned, if Ritchie can maintain this level of creativity, he can keep on making these films until the end of time. His characters are so well scripted and the actors so well chosen, there is a three-dimensional quality to this film, as if you can almost taste the sulfur in the shotgun blasts.

To describe the plot is difficult, unless we choose one character as the hero and the rest as the anti-heroes... but that's hard to do. While certain people seem to be on our side, they're all equally involved in the plot. Kids playing poker, a porn king who cheats at cards, Big Chris the hired thug, the stereotyped black ganja dealer, Barry the Baptist... all great characters.

Another aspect of Ritchie's films is that instead of good vs. evil, he offers us bad versus evil. All the characters do bad things: steal, drink, smoke dope and kill if necessary. But some are simply "bad" (people who would be morally upright in a different setting) and others are "evil" (no moral code at all, black all the way to the core of their heart). This almost non-dichotomy is probably not unique to Ritchie, but is something he excels in. Highest possible recommendation, you nonce!

This is one seriously funny movie. I've probably seen it close to 10 times and it hasn't gotten old yet. Guy Ritchie brings us a hilarious look into the London criminal underground in one of his earliest features. The story revolves around four friends who become indebted to the local crime lord after a card game goes horribly wrong. The humor in this movie is sharp and fast-paced. At times, it becomes a little hard to keep up with the thick British accents and the cockney rhyming slang but overall, it doesn't detract from the movie. The movie keeps you guessing as to the outcome when the story becomes complex with multiple lies and double-crosses but the ending satisfies.

This film marks the debuts of two of England's coolest new actors: Jason Statham (who went on to do 'Transporter', among other movies) and Vinnie Jones (now a familiar cinema tough guy). Jones is especially good as Big Chris, debt collector/family man. The majority of the cast aren't common faces in America (aside from Sting) but they all have the charisma to keep the audience interested. Another plus is the film's soundtrack, ranging from reggae to 70's soul. It adds to the movie's already laid-back feel.

Everyone I've seen the movie with enjoys it (once they get past the thick accents, anyway) so I can say with confidence this is a fun movie. I recommend it to anyone looking for a good comedy and I feel this movie's humor hits more often than it misses. I'd recommend giving this movie a chance at least once and I don't think you'd be disappointed.