Circus

I've read with interest everyone's opinions on this movie, and am surprised at the diversity. Some reviews state it is the worst British move in ages, some compare it to the likes of Trainspotting and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. I'm somewhere in between.

'Circus' is very refreshing, I'll give it that. But I feel like Austin Powers, contemplating time-travel, for I too have 'gone cross-eyed.' I rented this (thank God I didn't see it in the theatre) and found myself rewinding because I was so confused! Sure, they really don't want you to guess the ending, but at the same time, they turn you around so many times try understanding it!

The acting is wonderful. I actually thought Eddie Izzard was great, as was everyone else. I cease to be surprised by John Hannah, who does drama and comedy equally wonderfully. Famke Janssen was interesting enough, and her hick boyfriend was entertaining, as was the little nerdy guy, though his character sort of annoyed me.

I think that this film certainly could've been a lot better...this film-maker had the actors, they just needed to work with the story a little more. Had they taken away some of the twists and turns, they might've gotten a better film.

By the way, these are not all English actors. John Hannah is Scottish. And another thing, I certainly wouldn't compare this to Trainspotting, as Trainspotting was pure brilliance, and this is rather blemished.

Circus is a good caper flick. It is as unpretentious as its small-time crook characters, and should be treated as such. It is good fun, with some pretty hilarious dialogue.

Janssen and Hannah make a good couple. I have read some reviews that said they were not believable; I disagree. I actually thought they were a cute couple, and that they shared a kind of playful chemistry. The supporting players were also very good, particularly Stormare and Izzard.

Many people have complained about this movie's numerous twists and turns. However, I do not think the outcome would have been the same without them. Also, personally, I like to be surprised.

Entertaining, but not in the same satisfying way as 'Snatch', 'Lock Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels' or '7ayer Cake'. I love twists, but I can only suspend my disbelief so far.

A hallmark of this genre (invented by Tarrantino?) is to have people with incongruous-to-gangster traits...I guess these connect the audience to otherwise abhorrent killers/thieves. In this regard they were really trying a bit too hard...the bookie Troy who expresses himself with 80s pop songs...the tender yet brutal Moose. To me it seems like these were the result of an engineered effort to create 'Pulp Fiction-' or 'LS&2SB-' like characters.

But I did like Leo's character.

If you've seen any other sort of halfway decent crime movie, your patience might be put to the test by "Circus". If you are more than halfway sober or awake, its little derivative winks of 'intelligence' might actually appear half-assed and grating. I'm a fan of both John Hannah and Eddie Izzard, but neither actor can rescue this made-for-TV-grade formulaic crap-pile. And the 'intelligent' bit of that formula is the one that most grates on me: when the films throws out references to Tarantino, musical theatre, The Sweet Smell of Success, etc.(naming a character Elmo Somerset? Good lord), it's insulting. And when the twists are revealed, I hardly feel that the makers of Circus are knowing masterminds. They blindly stumbled through this movie, hoping that they could pull this foolish scam of a movie off.

I think that saying this film has too many is not what makes this film bad. The twists are not the problem of the film. The story is quite clever and could have been very cool if filmed right. The major problems why everyone is complaining about the twists in the film is that the film is just not fascinating enough to make people follow them. The film is badly shot (at least in comparison to its genre brother Lock, Stock). Worse: the characters are (although often well acted) just plain flat. The characters don't have enough time to be introduced well enough to let the viewer get involved with a single one of them, let alone understand them. Oh, and the locations are just terrible: locations-person (I didn't bother to watch the credits for your name) - get another job (maybe still photography or interior design)