24 Hours in London

this movie is the definition of awful, this movie really sucked. It was a cheap rip off of a Woo film were the main actors put on fake British accents and shoot anything that moves. Now that's no reason to give this movie a one it could still be fun, right? No it can't the action sucked. there is no cool action moves or stylish camera-work just the camera in front of a guy who pulls the trigger on his gun. The only reason i give this film (if you can call it that) one star is because of the movie's case lured me into actually buying it and the beginning credits music, if you are stuck with the movie don't watch it you'll have a better time staring at the case and listening to the beginning credits music. in conclusion, this movie isn't an action flick because the action just will give you a headache, this movie isn't a comedy because it's not funny, and it certainly is not a British gangster movie seeing that the creators of the film probably don't even know the definition of cockney is, to sum it all up, as a good British Gangstar movie would say "stay away from this Brad Pitt". Recomondations: for a good British gangster movies look up Snatch, Lock stock and two smokin barrels, and if you seen those try to find Gangstar no.1. not as good but pretty close

i can't decide what i hate most about this movie, so i'll tell you what i liked. i liked some of the plot ideas; organ thieves, london gangsters, crazy criminals, gore, although none of the ideas were developed at all, they should have taken one of these ideas and went with it. who was the main character of this movie? it was baffling trying to follow the plot. at some point i was hoping it would be funny, but it isn't even remotely funny. it seemed like the dialogue was written by someone with absolutely no imagination. the violence was so out of control it served no purpose-it was more over the top than Rambo. it tries to be like a Pulp Fiction/Lock Stock movie but fails miserably. and what's this rubbish about London? most of the movie is spent in a hotel room. Don't waist your time here, rent Lock Stock again.

I can't believe how many positive comments have been listed for this film. There was nothing original in the entire movie. The dialouge was awful. The acting was horrible and the action was so unbelievable that it took away from it's enjoyment (i.e. 2 people take on entire police force and police miss with every bullet). I wasn't sure who the main character was throughout the film and I still couldn't tell you now. The characters are all paper thin and can be summed up each in less then one line. Don't rent this or buy this. We need to send the message that we're tired of second rate lock stock imitations.

I really don't understand why there are so many excessively positive user comments for this film. The story borrows heavily from lots of other films but never does anything as well as the originals.

As for being funny, I think the viewer would need to be very drunk to find it funny. Sure there are some humourous moments but they are few and far between. I doubt this film was intended to be funny apart from one scene where Christian sends a rival gang to do some of his dirty work, where it turns into farcical slapstick that's completely disjoint from the rest of the film.

Olsen does a surprisingly good job of playing Christian and most of the performances are fine. It's a shame that the script is so poor. It's riddled with clichés and sleep inducing dialog.

When I was staying on holiday in Wales this year, I had the misfortune of being stuck in a house with a VCR player and a video of the cheapo movie 24 Hours In London.

After watching the first ten minutes or so, the acting seemed okay, the plot seemed to have potential, and the cutting on the titles section was first rate.

Then the film plummeted like a goose with no wings. Without giving too much away (The film does enough of that itself with heavily signposted plot elements), 24 Hours In London swings unsteadily between what appears to be an attempt at a cockney gangster flick and outright slapstick comedy.

The latter half of the film is particularly bizarre, with plot holes so large that the entire film seems to be progressing at random.

So why did I bother watching it to the end? Well, I keep asking myself that. Is it because, despite all the shockingly-bad acting, there were a few actors who could actually convey emotion? Is it because the lumbering comedy moments were actually pretty funny, in an oafish way? Or is it that maybe, despite all its glaring errors and hilariously wooden acting, the film's shoestring charm manages to shine through? I honestly couldn't say.