VALUTAZIONE IMDb
4,4/10
1750
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Un ladro è coinvolto in un micidiale gioco al gatto col topo tra un poliziotto anticonformista e il boss del crimine londinese.Un ladro è coinvolto in un micidiale gioco al gatto col topo tra un poliziotto anticonformista e il boss del crimine londinese.Un ladro è coinvolto in un micidiale gioco al gatto col topo tra un poliziotto anticonformista e il boss del crimine londinese.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
MC Harvey
- Curtis Carter
- (as Michael Harvey)
Junior Quartey
- Daniel Carter
- (as Junior Nunoo)
Recensioni in evidenza
Very difficult to follow plot. This film is a poor mans British version of LA Confidential. Complete with the overly predictable cryptic reference to convey guilt. Too bad because these are talented actors. The chase scenes in automobiles and on foot are the highlight of the film. Completely nonsensical with clandestine meetings and corrupt cops expected to go undetected in the city that has more closed-circuit cameras than any place on the planet. A serious movie should take into account that follow-up investigations made by law enforcement will look at cell phone records and bank account histories. These criminals behave as if they aren't concerned about getting caught. The director and writer of this film apparently forgot these obvious facts. Cannot recommend this film.
When a movie I see on TV starts with the logo for popcornflix.com, I know that I likely can't count on too much appearing on IMDb, so I watch these movies more carefully to provide IMDb with as much information as I can. In this case it didn't help. I had no idea what was going on. A car blew up and a man in bed with a beautiful woman got a phone call. There were cops in London, some of whom were apparently corrupt, and a rich man who wanted to get his drug dealing son out of trouble. I think one of the cops may have gone undercover, but I'm not sure. I couldn't remember which person was which. There was a car chase which was pretty good. There was a chase on foot that was also somewhat exciting. London was interesting to look at, if that was where the movie was set. There was a fascinating futuristic glass-walled room high in the air that overlooked a river. The Thames?
I saw what looked like that scene from "Mission: Impossible", but if you enjoyed that scene, there's really nothing here. That sequence ends with rappelling down a building, but it's not a big deal. I remember one really good acting performance from Terence Maynard, who ended up being tougher than he looked at first.
Do I have any more to say? Not really.
I saw what looked like that scene from "Mission: Impossible", but if you enjoyed that scene, there's really nothing here. That sequence ends with rappelling down a building, but it's not a big deal. I remember one really good acting performance from Terence Maynard, who ended up being tougher than he looked at first.
Do I have any more to say? Not really.
When I came across the DVD for this movie at my local library, I hadn't even heard of it before. Without looking it up at the IMDb, I decided to give it a chance since it promised to be a crime movie filled with twists and turns. Even before getting to the end of the movie, I was regretting that I hadn't looked up the movie at the IMDb before deciding to watch it. I agree with most of the previous posters here that the movie simply isn't very good. It's filled with little action and suspense, and is instead padded with endless talk - and not very engaging talk. The main problem with the movie is that it is VERY confusing - even though I read the plot description off the back of the DVD case before watching the movie, it didn't take me long to get utterly mystified as to who was who and what was exactly going on. I guess the acting is competent, and the British backdrop does give the movie a different look and feel from Hollywood product. And the movie's production values are okay for what had to have been a small budget. But those things don't save the movie from being an utterly confusing bore.
A.K.A. The Deadly Game. Now and then you find a film with a great cast and wonder why you've never heard of it before. Here we have Gabriel Byrne, Julian Sands, Toby Stephens and Rufus Sewell in a London gangster thriller.
Oh no, not another one!
But wait, this is a well produced, well shot film with a pretty good (if somewhat generic) score. And this is only 81 minutes long, so even if it's bad it'll be mercifully short, right?
Wrong.
I'd been watching 21 minutes when I checked the time, because I thought I must be half way through by now. Groan. So what's wrong with it? Well, the script. The story is completely unintelligible. Which means you feel like you've missed something all the way through, namely, the story. See, the main problem is that we don't know any of the characters in the film, so we don't care about them. Any of them. And there's no clearly definable hero or villain, so you don't know who to root for. And I like grey characters who aren't really good or bad, but you need a general focus or main character in a film, and this film just doesn't have one.
So you keep watching these characters you don't care about in a story you can't really figure out, especially as they keep referring to things you don't see but that appear to be germane to the plot, and pretty soon you are just willing it to all end. Drop a plane on them! Nuke the whole city! Just let it end!
And then it does, and you are left completely nonplussed, empty, devoid of any reaction other than relief that it's over. That's not the way thrillers are supposed to make you feel. You're supposed to be thrilled! You're supposed to have gone through some kind of cathartic emotional journey, with added visceral excitement. You're not supposed to be relieved the mental cruelty of a badly laid out jigsaw puzzle is finally in your cultural out-box. Phew!
I need to watch a great thriller. I might have to go back to my DVD collection.
Oh no, not another one!
But wait, this is a well produced, well shot film with a pretty good (if somewhat generic) score. And this is only 81 minutes long, so even if it's bad it'll be mercifully short, right?
Wrong.
I'd been watching 21 minutes when I checked the time, because I thought I must be half way through by now. Groan. So what's wrong with it? Well, the script. The story is completely unintelligible. Which means you feel like you've missed something all the way through, namely, the story. See, the main problem is that we don't know any of the characters in the film, so we don't care about them. Any of them. And there's no clearly definable hero or villain, so you don't know who to root for. And I like grey characters who aren't really good or bad, but you need a general focus or main character in a film, and this film just doesn't have one.
So you keep watching these characters you don't care about in a story you can't really figure out, especially as they keep referring to things you don't see but that appear to be germane to the plot, and pretty soon you are just willing it to all end. Drop a plane on them! Nuke the whole city! Just let it end!
And then it does, and you are left completely nonplussed, empty, devoid of any reaction other than relief that it's over. That's not the way thrillers are supposed to make you feel. You're supposed to be thrilled! You're supposed to have gone through some kind of cathartic emotional journey, with added visceral excitement. You're not supposed to be relieved the mental cruelty of a badly laid out jigsaw puzzle is finally in your cultural out-box. Phew!
I need to watch a great thriller. I might have to go back to my DVD collection.
It is obvious what George Isaac was trying with this. A story involving crooked cops and a London gangster, a mysterious thief with a heart of gold caught in their game, and (a try at) a twist. A mix between the old film noir and more modern UK gangster/heist films; just from the film's start it seemed quite good and promising.
Yet, it does not work. The script is very weak and unoriginal, without a single great moment; a mere 'copy and paste' of film noir's more usual situations/clichés and character stereotypes (like the crooked cop that is just 'following the system' or the mysterious, often quiet and sometimes cynical main character). The plot gets overly muddled by the middle of the film to the point that the viewer can easily get confused; by the ending, things get resolved in such a ridiculously predictable way that the film becomes overly simplistic in hindsight.
It does not help that the film feels silly. There is not a credible tension like in most heist/gangster films, which is further enhanced by the extreme predictability of it all. There is also no memorable moments at all, nothing that could make this film worthy remembering (for the good or for the bad).
The cast is interesting. Gabriel Byrne and Rufus Sewell stand out and make the most out of their characters; Toby Stephens does feel like a noir protagonist, though the emotionless-ness of his character is overdone; and Terence Maynard and Leo Gregory also do a nice work despite their overly flawed characters.
Overall, while not necessarily a bad movie, 'All Things to All Men'/'The Deadly Game' ends up as a forgettable, overly predictable and silly mess that does not work despite its fine cast.
Yet, it does not work. The script is very weak and unoriginal, without a single great moment; a mere 'copy and paste' of film noir's more usual situations/clichés and character stereotypes (like the crooked cop that is just 'following the system' or the mysterious, often quiet and sometimes cynical main character). The plot gets overly muddled by the middle of the film to the point that the viewer can easily get confused; by the ending, things get resolved in such a ridiculously predictable way that the film becomes overly simplistic in hindsight.
It does not help that the film feels silly. There is not a credible tension like in most heist/gangster films, which is further enhanced by the extreme predictability of it all. There is also no memorable moments at all, nothing that could make this film worthy remembering (for the good or for the bad).
The cast is interesting. Gabriel Byrne and Rufus Sewell stand out and make the most out of their characters; Toby Stephens does feel like a noir protagonist, though the emotionless-ness of his character is overdone; and Terence Maynard and Leo Gregory also do a nice work despite their overly flawed characters.
Overall, while not necessarily a bad movie, 'All Things to All Men'/'The Deadly Game' ends up as a forgettable, overly predictable and silly mess that does not work despite its fine cast.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThis film carries the title 'The Deadly Game' when aired on Sky, not 'All Things To All Men.'
- BlooperWhen Joseph helps Mark with the wound on his neck from the gun shot, his watch changes position during shots.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is All Things to All Men?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- All things to all men
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Londra, Inghilterra, Regno Unito(Exterior)
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 3.000.000 £ (previsto)
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 68.859 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 24 minuti
- Colore
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was The Deadly Game - Gioco pericoloso (2013) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi