|
The part of the chemist, so cock-sure of his own
salesmanship abilities, seems to have been written for Samuel L, and
he nails it effortlessly, as he has so nailed so many similar roles in
the past.
Unfortunately, there isn't much else to the movie.
It is designed primarily as a comedy - probably more similar to
Richie's films than Tarantino's - but it walks uneasily on that fine
line between disgusting levels of violence and comical parodies of
violence. Frankly, it never seems to be as funny as it thinks it is.
|
The
Critics Vote
General USA consensus: two
stars, but widely mixed. Ebert 1/4, Berardinelli 3/4,
Entertainment Weekly C,
General UK consensus: same as the states.
Two stars as an average, divided among those who liked it
and those who despised it. Telegraph 3/10, Independent 4/10,
Guardian 2/10, The Times 6/10, The Mirror 8/10, BBC 4/5
|
The People
Vote ...
- IMDB summary.
IMDb voters score it a surprisingly high 6.4/10, in the face
of poor reviews, poor box office, and poor exit interviews.
Yahoo voters say 2.8/5.
-
Box Office Mojo. A bomb. Production budget was $27
million, and marketing costs are estimated at $13 million.
It grossed $5 million in the USA, despite a 1900 screen
rollout. It was relatively more popular in the UK, grossing
about the same in a country with 1/5 the population.
- Exit interviews:
Cinema Score. It did OK with males under 21, but was
roundly panned by females and older men.
|
| The meaning of the IMDb
score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics.
Films rated below five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one
and a half stars from the critics or even less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is. My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but
will be considered excellent by genre fans, while
C- indicates that it we found it to
be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Any film rated C- or better is recommended for
fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is
recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C-
that often, because we like movies and we think that most of
them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know
that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below
C-.
Based on this description, this
film is a
C-. They sure didn't get much back on their $40
million investment. I'm quite weary of these ultraviolent Brit
gangster comedy/dramas. I probably would have hated this one
completely, except for Samuel L, who can make almost anything entertaining
with his characteristic blustering.
|
|
