Rancid Aluminium

I'm often amused, and sometimes amazed, at the negative reviews given for films which I enjoyed, and where I think the reviewers missed the point of the whole thing. This was roundly criticized by several reviewers who evaluated it entirely as an attempt at serious action/drama, and overlooked the satire and tongue-in-cheek nature of the whole thing. The story was not only unbelievable, but fantastic. The characterization were shallow because they are caricatures; the bumbling son and heir, his avaricious and disloyal "friend" and partner who engages in an absurdly elaborate scheme to gain control of his business; the type cast Russian "Mafioso," their "femme fatale," whose bizarre actions go beyond the absurd. I think the scenario where our hero tries to establish an airtight alibi by producing a condom with DNA material from both him and her (despite the fact he could have produced the real thing a few hours earlier) is one of the funniest sequences I've ever seen in a movie. Lighten up out there! You missed a very funny movie.

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Rancid Aliminium,like most gangster type films of it's ilk,did,of course,have the potential to be great.There are some intriguing and exciting new ideas to be explored here,but unfor -tunately,they are mostly squandered by what is mostly the film's biggest downfall,the frenetic and ill-explored pace at which it sets itself into action.It seems like a hodgepodge of ideas from each of the different genres:Comedy,thriller,Gangster Movie,action,all of which are concocted together at various different points to make up for a confusing and too fast paced for it's own good story.Most of the performances were very disappointing too:Rhys Ifans,in the lead role,was the best thing on offer,obviously trying to make his role stand out more than it could have,maybe even taking sympathy on the over zealous screenwriter so that his electric work could not fail ('I was obviously born to mow lawns ,and look after goldfish!')

But Josepth Fiennes emerged as routinely cold as his villainous brother,not really standing out as to why he was any worse than Rhys,whilst Sadie Frost as a russian bad girl babe clearly thought she was starring in the new James Bond film.

The title did'nt make an awful lot of sense,either.

And yet,as ever,any IMDB members who are situated in Britain like me who play the national lottery know exactly who is ultimately responsible for the making of this kind of film:us.**

Where do you begin with a movie as bad as this?

Do you mention the cast of unlikeable heroes? The over-the-top acting? The dreadful script?

No. You just say that anyone who pays money to see a film as poor as this needs their head looking at. I know I do. I respect those poor guys who saw it with little or no advance word from mags like Empire (usually a bad sign if a preview copy isn't available to the quality movie mags). However, cinemas really should start thinking about giving out refunds if the customer isn't happy with the finished product.

I went three days after it opened with two other mates. The only other person in the cinema was one bloke on his own.

And that was on cheap night.

Either the ad campaign had failed dismally or word had spread through most of the country of just what a stinker this is.

Not since the days of The Avengers (1998) have I felt so short changed since watching a movie. If a mate comes round with this on video in a few months make sure he pays your electricity bill while watching it.

Tara Fitzgerald deserves an award for not cracking up - or walking off the set; Keith Allen retains some dignity amid the cinematic carnage; Barry Foster should have been arrested on the set for his performance, Rhys Ifans does his career no favours after the success of Notting Hill and only Dani Behr is halfway likeable as a busty secretary.

Mind you, considering she used to be in The Word, any viewers' expectations of her acting ability had to be pretty low to begin with.

The production values aren't bad considering the obviously limited budget but that script is atrocious. If you want to hear a bunch of unlikeable characters say "Fak!" for a couple of hours then this should be right up your street.

Otherwise, bargepoles required.

it could only be two reasons; 1, you're here because you've seen a single, somewhat dog-eared, copy of rancid alu in your local woolworth's for the last hundred years and you're wondering if, yes, maybe you should buy it. how bad could it be? 2, secondly, you're here because you've seen it (probably on c4 the other night) and, being so utterly bewildered by the following; a, it got released. b, actors read the script and signed up. c, someone, somewhere at a studio gave it the go ahead. d, (AND MAINLY) you were thrown by a plot that made so little sense, a film so badly made and where none of the ideas (it's unjust to call these premises ideas really) made any sense or worked at all. ahem, so being so bewildered, you thought there was a deeper meaning, something you missed or didn't get that made it worthwhile. you didn't, it really was that bad.

This is a film that had a lot to live down to . on the year of its release legendary film critic Barry Norman considered it the worst film of the year and I'd heard nothing but bad things about it especially a plot that was criticised for being too complicated

To be honest the plot is something of a red herring and the film suffers even more when the word " plot " is used because as far as I can see there is no plot as such . There's something involving Russian gangsters , a character called Pete Thompson who's trying to get his wife Sarah pregnant , and an Irish bloke called Sean . How they all fit into something called a " plot " I'm not sure . It's difficult to explain the plots of Guy Ritchie films but if you watch any of his films I'm sure we can all agree that they all posses one no matter how complicated they may seem on first viewing . Likewise a James Bond film though the plots are stretched out with action scenes . You will have a serious problem believing RANCID ALUMINIUM has any type of central plot that can be cogently explained

Taking a look at the cast list will ring enough warning bells as to what sort of film you'll be watching . Sadie Frost has appeared in some of the worst British films made in the last 15 years and she's doing nothing to become inconsistent . Steven Berkoff gives acting a bad name ( and he plays a character called Kant which sums up the wit of this movie ) while one of the supporting characters is played by a TV presenter presumably because no serious actress would be seen dead in this

The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it's utterly forgettable . I saw it a few days ago and immediately after watching I was going to write a very long a critical review warning people what they are letting themselves in for by watching , but by now I've mainly forgotten why . But this doesn't alter the fact that I remember disliking this piece of crap immensely