The Gentlemen

I thoroughly enjoyed this series, although I acknowledge that I easily cleared two hurdles that viewers with lower ratings might not: I loved Guy Ritchie's style and didn't find it getting old on me; I didn't know about any movie, so I'm seeing these as "fresh" takes from the start.

Every character in this series was fun to get to know and to try to understand. What complexity. What eccentricity along with believable nuance.

Every actor succeeded in pulling off finely crafted individuals that fit perfectly into the sometimes off-the-wall plot.

They lure viewers in, which is a great reason to keep going.

Another great reason, of course, is that plot.

What a ride!

Taking the same path of the movie, this Netflix series follows the adventures of former soldier and recently titled Eddie, who inherits the family estate, and unknowingly, a joint-venture weed empire with a London gang.

And it's this entertaining clash of old-English aristocracy and contemporary London drug gang that makes this series entertaining. Eddies older brother, Freddie, who should have inherited, is errant if well meaning, provides some classic ineptitude for comedy value.

And there's a good balance of romantic tension between Eddie and the daughter of the gang's boss to keep you guessing. The casting is good, production values high and storylines engaging.

Witty, stylish and fun, it's a good addition to the Netflix lineup. Not too serious and gory, but with enough tension and characters to keep you entertained.

If that makes any sense. What I'm trying to say while pointing Aristotle's quote into a mirror, is that this is worth watching simply for all of the outstanding individual performances. There are many other reasons to tune in, but the acting clinic on parade here is a lot of fun.

The Parts:

#1 - The Story

Of course, this story began with the film but has only a very tangential relationship with that work. Every episode has a beginning, middle, and an end, as well as a cliffhanger or something else to propel viewers onward. As with his movies, some of the stories worked for me, others didn't. Some of the conflicts were just way too facile with their resolutions. Eddie was pushed into way too many predicaments as he tried to extract his family from the business, accepting too many dangerous assignments for reasons not adequately explained, not to me.

#2 - The Dialogue

Ritchie seems to have developed his own form of dialogue in which street toughs and lowlifes converse with a sort of modern day Shakespearean banter, well above the vernacular of the average dirtbag, whether in real life or in other movies. While Tarantino was propelled into stardom for the way in which some of his characters lapse into long soliloquys, whether on their own or in a group, Ritchie's creations throw around a lot of word-a-day calendar vocabulary in their speechifying. It comes off affected at times, but more often than not his dialogue is a lot of fun.

#3 - The Characters

Bringing fun-as-hell characters to life on the screen is definitely Ritchie's strong point, or one of them. Eddie, Susie, Jimmy, Bobby, and Geoff could all walk away from this and carry their own series. It helps to have such talented actors reading you lines, and it definitely is important for actors to have great material to spin into the roles they help to create.

Compared to about 99% of what is out there in TV and movie land, this series was positively brilliant. Period.

I was a big fan of both Lock Stock and Snatch when they initially came out and felt fresh and fun, but I haven't enjoyed Guy Ritchie's more recent work nearly as much.

Having seen the trailer I was intrigued by this show. I sat through it all and there were exciting moments, but I didn't love it sadly. It felt hollow to me.

This feels like Guy Ritchie's greatest hits rearranged and presented as a TV show. You will have seen most of the setup used here before, but this time many of the actors are different. Maybe that was my main issue with it, it didn't feel fresh and exciting, as it is a familiar format at this point and there is a risk of boredom setting in.

It's undeniable that Ritchie knows his way around a camera. The show looks and sounds great. He has a great cast - Vinnie Jones is understated and quite excellent, but for me the story feels clunky, occasionally repetitive and surprisingly preposterous. In fact I found some of the dialogue to be cringe inducing. Some of it feels as though it had been intended to land as sophisticated and profound, but much of just sounds bad. This was never the case with some of his initial movies.

I believe there is a much better show that could have been carved out of this with some stricter editing, as all of the pieces are there. For me there is just too much going on, it doesn't all make sense and sadly it seems to lack a genuine sense of irony.

Not terrible, not great. Somewhere in between.

You can tell Guy Ritchie only wrote (co-wrote) and directed the first two episodes as the show starts off with a crack and runs into a muddy and convoluted plot in episodes 5-7 and a fairly uncreative ending in episode 8.

The show shines with the casting - primarily Kaya Scodelario as Susie Glass. Actually everyone is strong except for Theo James who I thought was miscast and would think he is a poor actor given his track record had it not been for White Lotus Season 2. I don't think he has found his acting niche yet but this isn't it.

There are still Guy Ritchie vibes in the rest of the show after episode 2 and a fun and entertaining cast of characters. Messy plot in the back half and a little uncreative for Ritchie standards but a fun and high energy show.