The Gentlemen
The Gentlemen
The Gentlemen
Reżyseria:
Guy RitchieScenariusz:
Guy RitchieZdjęcia:
Alan StewartMuzyka:
Christopher BensteadObsada:
Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Michelle Dockery, Colin Farrell, Henry Golding, Hugh Grant, Jeremy Strong, Eddie Marsan, Lyne Renee, Tom Wu (więcej)VOD (1)
Opisy(1)
Londyński półświatek obiega plotka, że Mickey Pearson, Amerykanin, który zbudował tu narkotykowe imperium, chce się wycofać z rynku. Może nie służy mu klimat albo obawia się brexitu. Grunt, że rodowici brytyjscy bandyci węszą okazję do przejęcia jego biznesu. Sypią się oferty, groźby, pochlebstwa. Niektórzy próbują szantażu albo przekupstwa. Pearson jednak najwyraźniej nie podjął jeszcze ostatecznej decyzji. By mu w tym pomóc, niektórzy bardziej niecierpliwi sięgają po broń. A pewien cwany i dowcipny dziennikarz szykuje przekręt, który może zmienić reguły gry. Pearson okazuje się jednak mistrzem gangsterskiej wolnej amerykanki. Zaczyna się bardzo kosztowna wojna. Ale dżentelmeni przecież nie rozmawiają o pieniądzach. (Monolith)
(więcej)Recenzje (17)
This is how 2020 is supposed to start! The Gentlemen is Ritchie’s best film since Snatch, i.e. his best in 20 years. The screenplay is great in terms of both the dialogue and the plot with its polished characters, as well as the playful outlining of the narrative as if the script had been written by one of them. And, of course, the use of charismatic actors to make up the whole marvellous gang. I commend how Ritchie’s grown-up entertainment is verbally crude and a lot of people shout in it, but it doesn’t contain any graphic violence and emphasizes the difference between the immorality of the bad guys and the high character of the “good gangsters”. The Gentlemen is a maturely clever gangster film with elegance. McConaughey is the biggest boss in it, but Hunnam is the coolest guy. And, of course, Farrell is the funniest.
()
Four stars, by a hair’s breadth. It’s not as sophisticated as it wants to be, the final twist is rather banal, and the lukewarm and cluttered first half does the film no credit. Ritchie can do better than that and the current 89% rating on this site is completely overblown. All in all, I enjoyed myself: there are a couple of good ideas and you cannot help but root for excessively elegant McConaughey... but I don’t feel like I’ll want to rewatch this. I almost feel compelled to paraphrase the Bard in saying this is much ado about… well, not entirely nothing, but a slightly above-average film.
()
I'm satisfied. Very satisfied, actually, because Guy Ritchie promised to deliver a Guy Ritchie-style gangster movie, and he did. So the only potential problem I have with his new release is that it sticks to the beaten track and makes only minimal attempts to surprise. But it doesn't really matter, because Ritchie knows this genre like nobody else, and once again he manages to make a very brisk film with unexpected twists and even more unexpected directorial ideas, in which all of the actors (probably most notably Hugh Grant and Colin Farrell) clearly enjoy themselves. Ritchie has a way with slow-building tension ending in absurd violence reminiscent of the beginning of Pulp Fiction, but he manages to switch gears to his typical frenetic pace within moments. He manages to be funny and entertaining, and moments later his characters go regular scared. He's just the Ritchie we wanted to see. Nothing more, nothing less. That's good enough for me.
()
Guy Ritchie returns to the genre that made him famous and serves up a pure crime gangster flick that is probably the closest thing to Snatch. The film has a very unorthodox storytelling and at times it can seem confusing. Especially at the beginning I couldn't quite get into it, but somewhere in the middle I was enjoying truly it, and a big thanks goes to the awesome performances by the cast. Matthew McConaughey and Charlie Hunnam are traditionally excellent, Hugh Grant feels like in the role of a lifetime, and Colin Farrell steals all the scenes for himself and rips your diaphragm! Apart from the performances, the film is pulled up by the great black-dry British humour and the unexpected twists. Guy Ritche has made a playful, stylish, funny and unconventional gangster film and people will love it. 7.5/10.
()
A sad and unwelcome moment when one of the best directors puts a group of people I love (Matthew McConaughey, Colin Farrell, Charlie Hunnam) or even adore (Hugh Grant, Michelle Dockery) in front of the camera and creates a new contribution to one of the most beloved genres, and the public reacts more than positively – and I end up sadly shaking my head at the result. The form, the pacing, it's all there. But sticking to drugs, poses, and dialog competitions about who can pee further after the age of fifty seems at least unfortunate to me, in some twists even stagnant. In the details, it's still the same Guy Ritchie from Snatch, but on the whole, for the first time ever, nope.
()
Ritchie’s gangster flicks can be looked at as a genre screen on which the direct projects himself, or rather the current point in his life, career and position in the film industry. At the very beginning of his first film, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, we have a group of self-confidently cheeky youths who have not only talent and ambition, but mainly more luck than sense, when they heedlessly set out into the world of omnipotent old structures. Coincidence plays a much smaller role in Ritchie’s second film, but the director, together with the protagonists, gets into a much bigger game with foreign players in a different weight category, from which he cannot allow himself to escape only with a skinned knee. The already forgotten existentially pessimistic Revolver shows the former wunderkind in his element, which he had been away from for a while, consorting with overly powerful people and now doubting himself, so he tries to kick off a big game that will get him back to the top while simultaneously reassessing his own life. RocknRolla expressed a feeling of newly replenished assuredness and, at the same time, bidding farewell to his island roots while also peculiarly focusing on the position of England/Ritchie between Europe and America. Therefore, The Gentlemen isn’t so much a comeback as an attempt to show others and himself that “the king’s still got it”. He has come a long way and from an untested, clever lout, he has developed into a man of elegance over the years and the owner of a stylish pub and his own hipster brewery, which he does not hesitate to advertise. Though he still sympathises with streetwise hooligans with their online projects, he is far removed from them in his pursuits. He mulls over retirement now that he’s in the company of the cream of society and he’s raking it in with lucrative projects, but this seemingly final money spinner put new vitality into his veins in the end. Predation, courage and cheekiness have been replaced by sophistication (albeit in the snobbish superficial sense rather than true sophistication or ingenuity) and pretentious refinement. Gangster movies have always been founded on the motif of the changing of the guard between generations, or rather the conflict between the young and old schools, so in line with Ritchie's age and self-image, this story from the underworld takes an atypical direction that would not have occurred to him in the early days of his career. The question is how this glorified flaccid middle age will be perceived by today’s young people, who are licking their chops at their own opportunities in the genre world of gangsters – in recent years, francophone productions such as the excellent Les Misérables and the hyper-stylish Gangsta have reigned supreme. However, this in no way diminishes the fun and agility of The Gentlemen, which would have ranked among the most satisfying titles in broad distribution in another, stronger year (at least from the perspective of a boomer viewer).
()
(mniej)
(więcej)
The Gentlemen is a return to Ritchie's beginnings, i.e., frenzied gangster movies full of betrayals and dirty backstage games, filmed with evident irony and with the director's awareness that he wants to entertain his audience first and foremost. As Guy ages, his characters also age and transform. They are no longer bold little players consumed by ambitions, wanting to thrive among established tough guys, but rather powerful underworld figures who move among the social elites and contemplate stepping out of the illegal business so as not to harm their carefully built reputation. However, the big boss attracts the attention of those who would like to take his place in the food chain, and thus the last deal of his career unexpectedly gets complicated. Instead of content gangster retirement, he is forced to defend himself from attacks on all sides. Ritchie is usually able to come up with entertaining and unconventional characters, and this time was no exception. Besides the partly flamboyant, partly casual gang leader, it is primarily the cunningly corrupted tabloid journalist played by Hugh Grant who stands out. He once became famous for playing stereotypical heartthrobs in romantic comedies, but as he has aged, he has shifted to playing noble villains, usually with a subtle ironic twist and characterized by extremely developed vanity. To sum it up, I had a great time with it. I hope Guy Ritchie has not said his last word yet. Overall impression: 90%.
()
The Gentlemen is an outstanding, well-thought-out British gangster movie that Richie designed with a little more sophistication than we are used to seeing from him. The narration by the sleazy homosexual journalist played by Hugh Grant, exaggerated just enough to make it sound more cinematic, highlights the business sense of the protagonists and the importance of having reliable helpers. The acting performances are delightful (McConaughey really needed a role like this) and Colin Farrell gives a crowning performance in the role of the honorable trainer who doesn’t like getting mixed up in “gangster shit", but likes to pay his debts. A wealth of one-lines and a good, honest two hours of British entertainment. I just happen to have a bit of Japanese beef in the freezer.
()
Ritchie is a bit restrained this time and delivers a witty action-comedy with direct, typically British humour, which is not for everyone, but it has a sophisticated script and McConaughey as an alpha-male who is hard not root for. A film about drugs presented in such a way that it makes you believe it’s cool to be in the business. Of course, as long as you don’t complicate things, as is the case here. Among the superb, I would put Hugh Grant on top. After the insane mangling of the classic King Arthur, this is finally a return to waters Ritchie understands and relishes. The result does look accordingly, too.
()
It’s as if Guy Ritchie was sorry about Aladdin and came up with a movie his fans wanted to see. He was obviously enjoying himself. While I’m not one of those who haven’t been satisfied with Ritchie’s work from recent years, I truly enjoyed The Gentleman;it’s an entertaining movie with a smart and funny screenplay (the whole movie is actually an anecdote whose sole punch line is a single, almost the final, scene), excellent actors including Matthew McConaughey in the role of a modern Vito Corleone, go-getting and sure-handed direction... what more could you ask for?
()
A more elegant version of Snatch that does not boast that many entertaining twists and instead makes do with a surprisingly smooth style, but it still relies on brilliant and unpredictable characters and, at least for the first time, a plot that is playfully put together, which develops and changes according the knowledge and the interpretations of one of the protagonists. What’s important is that, right from the start, Ritchie tries to be ahead of the viewer, pushing questions whose answers demand a full (and not quite reliable) reconstruction – as in most of Ritchie’s films, the story crumbles into small episodes that lead to a big outcome, but this time it also undermines itself with several subjective perspectives, with a final act that is not as surprising as it could be expected, whose effect lies on the fact that the story of these elegant, smooth and always ready “gentlemen” is resolved through the intervention of an old, unpredictable and hardened world that sticks to its own codes. It’s entertaining and solid and the protagonists are fun to watch, but I felt that the overall structure of the narration was vague at times and the core conflict too subordinate to the confusing screenwriting jokes that are revealed at the end. In other words, an excellent verbose ride that unlike Snatch, which always keeps the gas pedal on the floor, looses some of its momentum among the episodes and triumphs with an outcome that looks a little forced, but that is still subversive and smart. And with great actors who are really enjoying themselves. 80%
()
The king is back! Well, let's hope so. Guy Ritchie has returned to the sphere of gangster movies which always suited his directing and writing the best. In recent years his movies have left me feeling cold at best, for example, I can't stand his “cool” Sherlock Holmes. But The Gentlemen is indeed, and without exaggeration, riding the wave of his classic masterpieces, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels plus Snatch. The performances of the cast are very successful overall, but Colin Farrell absolutely stands out from the other well-chosen actors. The effectively constructed plot is balanced just so that it does not look artificial, it connects colorful characters and, from one moment to the next, the movie entertains its audience by carefully revealing its cards one by one. I thought it could have had a bit more of a more energetic and surprising ending, but I still quite enjoyed the meta-style framing concerning the movie industry and the overall relaxed and positive atmosphere. Ritchie has definitely needed a return to these familiar waters for years, and I hope it doesn't stop here.
()
How well it works when you want it to! Ritchie has dusted off his well-oiled craft and salted us once again with a raucous gangster tale full of foul language, British humor, excellent acting, and a tangled racing romp, as it should be. Honestly, I couldn't care less that it's not his most original work considering his portfolio of past works, but no one else can make this style of film (McDonagh comes relatively close)! The Gentlemen is indeed more proper compared to Snatch, as befits the title, and there is still a pretty damn dangerous game afoot, but this time with more grace and charisma. The catchphrases aren't quite as Fu-uckin' legendary, but I'd still find more hidden gems here than wasps on a lollipop. McConaughey's performance was as expected, but despite the undeniable quality of the other names, the remaining foursome more than surprised and delighted me: Hunnam crazy solid, Grant masterfully slick and reminiscent of Pacino in his elegance, Farrell maniacally moral, and Dockery rolling in sex appeal. This fit better than a biting insult.
()
The Gentlemen is a film with massive balls and is not afraid to show it! Guy Ritchie has assembled a stellar cast and serves up an appealing and brisk action gangster flick with distinctive storytelling techniques and a script so sharp that it could cut through all the genital terms. It was clear that everyone involved enjoyed their roles a great deal and played their parts convincingly – Hugh Grant was the one who got me the most. Despite the initial confusing plot, I thoroughly enjoyed a cleverly written cat and mouse game – in this case, a game of king of the jungle – in which you didn't really know what direction the whole thing was going to take until the closing credits. Two hours of acceptably bloody and properly gripping entertainment guaranteed. P.S. Gravity kills people!
()
It's as if some gentleman’s store with a men's boutique paid for this movie. All that was missing was free testicle perfume to go with it. It's an insane parade of manicured rich dudes in their 40s, so the target audience goes out the window. And I'm okay with that, because there's nothing like it around here yet. Admittedly, of the four Ritchie gangster flicks, this occupies the fourth/last spot with ease (in the following order: Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels – RocknRolla – Snatch), because it just feels more tired and uncertain compared to the previous ones, it relies more on actors than form, and the plot isn't terribly subtle, just terribly overdistributed. It works seamlessly in the individual vignettes though: I burst out laughing twice, which doesn't happen much to a man at home by himself, there are minor little diversions for fun (beating up six experienced stuntmen who are supposed to be guarding a grow house), it's got momentum, and above all Colin Farrell, who portrays his respectful, intelligent, street-wise, disciplined Irishman (whose Irish is the most fantastic perversion of the language, right up there with Kelly MacDonald and Ardal O'Hanlon) with such glee that he makes the others next to him look like ugly ducklings.
()
A great experience. Guy Ritchie finally returned to what he does best and made a film along the lines of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch. The biggest surprise was Matthew McConaughey, whom I had practically written off, as his ratio of terrible roles to good ones is about 7:1, but he nailed it with this one. Nevertheless, Hugh Grant stole the spotlight. He was simply perfect, and I really enjoyed his performance. And if that wasn’t enough, Michelle Dockery played a part, and she didn't have to play nice. I was highly satisfied.
()
Guy Ritchie, in my opinion, is no longer the dude he once was, but with The Gentlemen he did much to make up for that, even if I got lost in the multitude of characters going through the plot. Of the plethora of big-name actors that the director engaged for his film, to my great surprise, I have to single out Hugh Grant in particular, who plays a smarmy and calculating bastard, something that I haven’t seen in him before as an actor and suddenly there is no sign of the overly handsome guy from those romantic comedies we’re used to. Way to go, Hugh. I like you much better this way. (85%)
()