Smoking Guns

No spoilers but the finale of this film just didn't pay off for me. All the worse because pacing is slow. I would have suggested speed watching it to take in the events and the general gist with your finger on the fast forward but the pay off for time invested is just not there even for a quick tour. A shame as some good characters and some good moments hence the four stars. But it's just too thin and slow throughout and the final payoff is poor and cliched.

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 really liked this film. Some of the characters are a little stereotypical but on the whole this story is good. Not an action movie but a good buddy call with a couple of genuine characters. Love that it never moves away from the main scenes and is just engaging.

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.

Absolutely awful.

Terrible acting.

Terrible script.

Terrible plot.

Terrible film.

Why was Dexter Fletcher in it?

Why did someone agree to make it?