Dealing with criminal activity and gang rivalries (including Chinese gangsters and Russian oligarchs) around cannabis farming and production throughout the U.K. on a huge scale, it centres on a corrupt private investigator, played by Hugh Grant (in above photo, in case you don't recognise him, and as you've never seen, or heard, him before) using blackmail tactics against Charlie Hunnam who works for a powerful mobster (Matthew McConaughey) in order to make a film based on the latter's nefarious activities. Gets very involved and being so fast-paced (and fast spoken) I could follow only part of what was going on, which didn't really matter too much as the film is largely a sequence of set pieces involving confrontations - guns, knives or fists. Colin Farrell (like Grant, quite different in appearance) is also in there, stealing outright the few scenes in which he appears (Grant and Hunnam have, along with McConaughy the most screen time) - as well as Eddie Marsan as a particularly repulsive newspaper owner.
It may be ill-advised to describe the film as 'fun' but it certainly is a white-knuckle ride. Lots of high-energy activity with no real 'slow bits', it should keep you awake for its entire length.
After an extended arid period in which he's made a number of ineffective films (of which I only saw his Sherlock Holmes) director Guy Ritchie - also story originator and co-writer - here returns to territory he's best known for, after some 20 years, and in which he appears to be most comfortable. If the thought of a bucketful of bloody violence doesn't put you off, this gets my clear recommendation...............7.
(IMDb....................8.1 - Rott.Toms [critics only]..........6.3 ).
Another to add to my list. You are going through a high awards stage which is great because it means I can confidently add to my list of must sees.
ReplyDeleteIt's a blast, Carol - and yet my inner voice is chiding me for classing such as 'entertainment' with so many killings, some of the quite grisly. However I feel that in not very long I'll have forgotten all about it.
DeleteIf only there was no McConaughey.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the cast sounds perfect.
I don't share your dislike of M.McC.,though neither do I find him anything special. However I will say that up to now I've found Hugh G. so eminently watchable in, yes, EVERYthing he's ever appeared in (terrific in 'Paddington 2') but for the first time I did think there was just a shade too much time given to him in this. But he does get a lot of delicious lines (some of them his own?) in coarse yet elevated language for his character here, and which suits him down to the ground.
DeleteI love M.McConaughey. I guess it takes all sorts.
DeleteI think this is Hugh grant's best film to date
DeleteYou could well be right, JayGee. He now seems to be getting better every time we see him.
DeleteI've seen the previews, but neither Ritchie or McCon-however it's spelled, do the slightest thing for me. ...and certainly not for $10 or more.
ReplyDeleteGuy Ritchie is one of those directors you just take or leave - and I don't have any argument with those who prefer doing the latter.
DeleteUnlike for Hugh G., I'd not go to see a film just because Matt McC is in it, where as I would consider it for H.G. and indeed, for Colin Farrell as well. Having said that, McC is in no sense BAD in this, quite the contrary in fact.
hew McC hapens to be in it