Thursday, February 10, 2005

"Gimme that fuckin' shooter"

Watched SNATCH last night. What's wrong with it? Why does everyone slag off Guy Ritchie? I know he did a crappy one later (CAST AWAY, was it?), but I'm always hearing people turning their noses up at his first two. I don't get it. I've seen LOCK, STOCK... too and thought it was great. OK, so the London gangster trend is a bit passe, but LSATSB and SNATCH are still great films, in their way.

PROSECUTION: They glamorise violence.
DEFENCE: Bollocks. Muhammed Ali spent his whole life glamorising violence and they made him a saint for it.

P: They contain stereotyped cockney geezer characters.
D: So what? Stereotypes are there to be used. It's how you use them.

P: But why couldn't Guy Ritchie just stay away from Madonna?
D: Hmm...

P: He's just a mockney poseur. Everyone knows he was really brought up in a stately home in the counties.
D: So who's on trial? The work or the creator?

P: Actually I just looked on IMDB and SNATCH has a rating of 7.9, so this entire rant has been a waste of time.
D: But I swear I heard voices slagging it off. I DID. I HEARD THEM. I HEARD THEM. I HEA

3 comments:

Jim Winter said...

The great thing about a movie getting bashed, fairly or not, is that 99% of the time, it's not so bad when you see it.

That said, Paul Verhoven should be drawn and quartered on pay-per-view for SHOWGIRLS, undeniably the single worst movie ever filmed.

Anonymous said...

I'm with you, Charlie. I thought SNATCH was very entertaining.

Victor Gischler

Charlie Williams said...

Jim - never seen SHOWGIRLS. Doesn't it even have any, er, redeeming qualities?

Victor - yes it is. And no lemurs (just the dog).