Shopping: O Alvo do Crime

A low-budget crime film! This movie marks the first major leading role for actor Jude Law as Billy, who surprisingly just got off jail and with his girlfriend Jo (Sadie Frost), are getting ready for new adventures. Steal cars and ram-raid them into shop windows,However, as time passes, the rush fades with Jo wanting out of their hectic lifestyle. With newcomer Tommy (sean Pertwee) on the scene, Billy is pushed into taking on ever riskier targets which could spell the end of all. The story, about Billy's seething self-hate and unwillingness to love and be loved. This movie has something unique that makes it stand out. The plot line, the pulsating soundtrack ,and the good cast in Jude Law, Sadie Frost ,Sean Pertwee, Jonathan Pryce and Sean Bean. Jude law was a good actor and is easy to identify as a rising star.sadie frost is such a babe but can't act. Shopping is the one movie which directs by Paul Andersons,if you are interested,then check it out.

This film just plain doesn't work. The protagonists are a bunch of losers - just out for thrills, like joyriders are meant to be, yes - but it attempts to glamourise and politicise them - to give them deeper motives - in a way that completely fails to come across.

Meanwhile, you have the Sean Pertwee character, who's meant to be a sell-out, who is violating the spirit of the life they lead by going 'legit' and forming associations with true organised crime. But instead, next to this bunch of anarchistic, narcissistic overgrown children, he appears to be the only responsible, sympathetic, adult character. Meanwhile, Jonathan Pryce's paternal policeman is completely ineffective in what is meant to be the true adult presence of the film.

There's one scene which epitomises the failings of the film - Billy's rebuff of Jo's attempted seduction by saying sex is too dangerous in the 90's. Never mind that he'd already attempted to chat up a stranger in a club! It reinforces one's perception of him as a big kid unwilling to grow up. . . Characters' actions have to be believable, and his aren't. No wonder one TV version I saw cut the scene short, it's almost embarrassing to watch. Hence the title I've chosen for this review!

Released from prison after three months, Billy wastes no time in getting back into his previous life of stealing and joy riding. Night one back on the streets sees him and girlfriend Jo racing through the streets in a stolen BMW pursued by the police. Not long after he is right back into the "crash and carry" habit, essentially ram-raiding a shop and getting away with as much stuff as possible before the police can respond. However a raid on one shop brings him into direction conflict with gang leader Tommy – who had already arranged a big money deal with Venning to hit the same shop.

At the time of release this film benefited from the Daily Mail and other Middle-England tabloids ringing their hands with worry and condemning the film for encouraging youths to replicate the crimes in the film. Over a decade later, stripped of the hype and "controversy", Shopping looks quaintly dated and the portrayal of disaffected youth in a neo-light strobing world of crime and attitude seems old fashioned and a bit silly. This isn't helped by the fact that the script never aspires beyond this basic aim and characters that are never developed beyond the most basic of motivations. The idea that some foreign viewers would watch this and take it to be a realistic portrayal of modern Britain in rather hilarious to me but in fairness, films are under no pressure to be real. This still leaves a fairly simply story with some very poor dialogue and not much material to work with.

Anderson's direction is solid enough in terms of style though – which is really where his strengths continue to lie; but as a result he seems to have a limited interest in depth and his input as writer is to blame for the problems with the material. The cast match this by being pretty and famous but not doing much else. Law is skinny and bland and doesn't do anything other than looking like he is having a teenage strop for the majority of the film. Frost isn't much better and it is left to Pertwee to easily steal the film as a memorable if simple tough guy. James is OK while small roles from Bean, Faithful, Pryce and Walker make the film feel crowded with famous faces – not that any of them add much value outside of this.

Overall this is a stylish film but one that now looks dated and rather empty. Without the controversy not much is left and the story and characters are too simple to engage most viewers I would suggest. Interesting to see as part of looking at early work for several British actors but probably not interesting or engaging enough to be worth a look on its own merits as a film.

This movie is really lacking a point. What kind of story were they trying to tell? Was there even a purpose or message to this all?

Paul W.S. Anderson always has sort of been the king of mediocre movies. I have yet to see a Paul W.S. Anderson movie that is above the level of average. Not that his movies are horrible either, some of them are quite enjoyable but they just fail to make an impact in any way.

All that this story is about are a bunch of rebellious teens being lazy and act as if the police are the biggest scum and villains on the Earth, while they are the ones breaking about ever law and causing mayhem, by stealing and wrecking stuff. It could had been a good or at least interesting story if it tried to make a statement about anything but the movie never does. At least I didn't get anything out of the story at all.

It also doesn't exactly make any of the characters likable or compelling ones to watch and follow throughout this movie, despite that they are being played by some big name actors. Not that they were being big at the time yet. The movie features a still very young Jude Law and Sadie Frost and a supporting cast that among other consist out of Sean Bean, Jonathan Pryce and Jason Isaacs. Most of the characters however also make a pretty redundant impression. It tries to be a simple movie with a simple story but yet in throws in all these many pointless characters.

It's not the worst movie you'll ever see but it's such a pointless and redundant movie to watch that there is no reason why you really should ever watch it in the first place.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Having read all the other reviews on this site, I notice that most people either completely hate the film or completely love it. I take the middle ground. I greatly enjoyed the visual elements, both with regard to the good-looking leads and the stylish camera work. I enjoy a film where I can pick out performers from other films and this one offered a few. I recognized Jason Isaacs (Captain Hook in the recent "Peter Pan" film), for one. That being said I was disappointed that Sean Bean's part was so small. However, I was glad Marianne Faithful's role was only a small cameo. It is painful to me to see her looking so haggard.

I also enjoyed the pulsating soundtrack and believe that, with an inferior effort, the film would be even less appealing.

As others have pointed out, there's not much of a plot, but, beyond that, it was difficult to sympathize with the characters -- other than the police! The law officers in this film were not portrayed as sadistic or even unlikable. Frustrated, yes. The "protagonists" had no redeeming characteristics other than youth, good looks and energy. The film seems to present the viewpoint that the police deserved the treatment they received from the thugs. To me, the film produces a nihilistic, 'who gives a damn' about anything attitude. It made me think about anarchy: after "the system" is demolished, with what will it be replaced?

I'm probably waxing too philosophical about a movie that never even aspired to such musings. The producers probably just wanted to give a youthful audience the smash 'em up, 'wham bam thank you ma'am' form of entertainment many seem to want. (Witness "The Fast and the Furious" and Vin Diesel's "XXX" among others.) I like a bit of action, too, but I prefer to care about someone or something along the line.

Nevertheless, I maintain that I have seen worse films. I confess to an admiration of British films and actors that causes me to overlook aspects of a movie that I don't like in order to focus on what I consider to be redeeming features. For example, I found Sean Pertwee's character in this film interesting, even if the character is what we Americans like to call a "scumbag". The bottom line, to me, is that the positives -- including the soundtrack, visual elements, and interesting cast -- outweigh the negatives. I bought the film at what you British call a jumble sale for $2.00 (American money), so I'm not out a lot of loot in any case. I will keep the film alongside "Love, Honour and Obey", another second-hand bargain I found along the way. It too, has redeeming features.