5/10
A disjointed, uncommitted Guy Ritchie indulgence
6 June 2023
All the elements were here for a great film. Top notch lads as leads, two super hot broads, period music, meticulously well dressed cast and sets, and enough budget for decent effects.

However, what we got was a deranged Guy Ritchie ramble with no joy, chemistry or nuance in any of the scenes, and a consistently inconsistent tone and cinematography from one shot to the next. Booms and steadicams, zooms and pans, whatever Ritchie felt like in the moment, Ritchie got.

The result is a movie with a weak, meandering and uninvolving plot that feels like it was written and directed by a random collection of film school students, that they then desperately tried to save with an insistent, overblown score. It's too random to be taken seriously, but takes itself too seriously to be campy fun. And wherever the budget went, it wasn't on the effects, which consist of model and CGI shots so unintentionally comically cheap and shoddy that they look like they were from the 1960s series.

With the talent to hand, it could have been better, and it should have been better, and audience ratings seem to reflect what we wanted it to be.

But it was only what it was, and it's no wonder that it bombed harder than its nuclear premise, and was quickly relegated to being half-watched as background on streaming services.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed