What ELSE (other than KUNG FU) has everyone been watching?

[Daxtreme]

Twin Peaks

specifically the third season. What’s the craziest thing about Twin Peaks? The shock ending perhaps? Or hmm, is it perhaps Lynch attempting to explain the origins of evil in a black and white nuclear explosion and journey through the cosmos montage? 

In usual Lynchian logic, answering the question isn’t the point.

The pacing in the first half of this season was glacial. Luckily, it picks up in the second half. It’s like Lynch remembered he had an actual semblance of a story to tell eventually.

Watching this series is exhausting. It’s heavy. But fascinating. Think I’m gonna watch something lighter next, and for a while too. 

The boy playing Sonny Jim was adorable, loved him, and the Casino brothers as well.

That Monica Belluci cameo lmaooooo

I think Lynch has the same problem with this season as he had with Fire Walk With Me, that is, he becomes a bit overindulgent in his own style and doesn't stop to consider whether what he's doing helps us understand something about the plot or characters. It becomes a full-on, no holds barred surrealist exercise at some point and I enjoy that less in general. If you do though, you're gonna love this.

I love the main theme also. 

The format combined with the 25 years hiatus and 2 different mediums (TV & movie) combine into a truly weird whole that can’t be replicated easily I feel, if ever. Its own lack of cohesion due to these limitations serves to set itself apart. 

So, what I mean by that is... 

There is nothing quite like Twin Peaks out there, and I admire that about it the most.

4/5

Edited December 22, 2020 by Daxtreme

[Daxtreme]

 

THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT

HBO-Max

 

After I put my mind through a blender with Twin Peaks I needed something light to cool off, and this just came out and I checked it out because guess what, I have some time off, and it also opens with a mysterious murder so I guess that’s something both shows have in common. But the similarities absolutely end right there and then.

So here are the facts: It’s a quirky, fast-paced murder mystery (comedy/thriller) about an alcoholic American flight attendant who wakes up next to the dead body of the man she slept with the night before in Bangkok, and since she’s always black-out drunk, she doesn’t remember anything. 

Cue WTF-ness as she uncovers that there is, of course, more to the story.

 

The Great — So I know Kaley Cuoco is known for playing the “hot girl next door” role in The Big Bang Theory and nothing else but she killed it here. She played a degenerate alcoholic very well. It’s a rather expressive performance but I have a long time friend who’s a hard alcoholic and that’s exactly how it goes. And yes, even when gobbling up humongous amounts of alcohol he can still look relatively normal and yet black-out the day after, so this part of the show felt genuine to me. Great portrayal and performance that essentially makes the show work.

The Good — Michelle Gomez also stands out. I loved her part, the writing of her character, her interactions with the other characters, everything about her. I like the fact that this show has cynical undertones underneath that are fresh to see, and Michelle Gomez brings a lot of that to the forefront.

The Bad — The ending is a bit forced and there’s a scene of social commentary that’s just so in your face it’s actually distracting.

The Ugly — So I have no idea what it’s called but whoever decided that in this show, there would be frequent use of “split screen” images (screen split into multiple images showing multiple scenes at the same time)... it fucking sucks and I’d love it if filmmakers around the world silently agreed never to use this trick again as it’s terrible. Directors who know how to use this competently are basically unicorns. 

So basically, this show is carried hard by great central performances. The storytelling is pretty interesting, and so are some of the character dynamics and dialogue choices. The rest is really, really just utterly standard fare you’ve seen everywhere and it sometimes tries too hard to be quirky and modern, especially the character of Annie. And lastly, if I wanted split screen I’d fire up Halo on the Xbox with a friend not watch a TV show. Thank you for your understanding.

3.3/5 - recommended for fans of the genre. Also, it is widely known that Kaley Cuoco is incredibly attractive (she made a career out of her looks), so if that's your thing...

Edited December 22, 2020 by Daxtreme

[morpheus]

Doctor Who reruns with David Tennant.

[morpheus]

Watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920).  Silent, German expressionist film about a mad hypnotist who puts people "under" and uses them to kill others.  I saw this film once before -a while back while in college.  The remastered version is quite nice and I have a greater appreciation for this 100-year-old film.

Below is a picture of Cesare played by Conrad Veidt -better known as Major Strasser in Casablanca.

Edited December 26, 2020 by morpheus

[massa_yoda]

Fatman (2020)

Okay, this is a fantastic movie. Mel Gibson kills it as Santa, or “Chris” as he’s simply called.  Even though there’s still some “magic” to this world as you’d expect, there’s also much more verisimilitude, with Chris depending on government subsidies and military contracts to make ends meet and keep his shop open.  The main storyline is about a snotty kid wants Santa dead, so he tasks his personal hitman (yes, he has a guy on standby) to take him out, leading to a surprisingly bloody showdown in the finale.  All I have to say is wow, there’s NOT a Christmas movie like this one.  

[DiP]

The Crazies (2010)

There are so many bad horror remakes but then there's also some that are actually good. This remake belong among the good ones. Never saw the original 70s movie with the same title so I can't make comparisons. But putting that aside and merely judging on the actual content alone and for what is sets out to be, it's doing a good job. Set-up, atmosphere, suspense, violence, death, resolutions, outcome, aftermath. Moody and not too much of that overdone "feel-good" stuff going on as the story progresses.

7/10

[Koravec]

On 12/26/2020 at 10:17 PM, massa_yoda said:

Fatman (2020)

hell yeah, glad Im not the only person who loved this. talked with another guy browsing for movies the other day who also thought it was great too. Kept telling me to watch the last dragon which I still havent seen

[Super Ninja]

On 12/27/2020 at 4:17 AM, massa_yoda said:

All I have to say is wow, there’s NOT a Christmas movie like this one.

There's no denying this, action wise however, this was standard fare. Though it was an OK watch, somehow I couldn't help but feeling kinda sad that the Christmas movies of today are about killing Santa.

[wuxiaman]

I watched Wonder Woman 1984. I found it inferior to the first Wonder Woman movie. The cast did a great job, but they can only do so much with a bad script and uneven pacing. At least I watched it for free with a HBO Max trial. 

[masterofoneinchpunch]

They Had to See Paris (1929: Frank Borzage):  

1929 is still my least favorite film year of the 20s. Here is a film that shows several of the technical reasons why. It is a sound film, but using microphones the camera movement is nil. The voice acting is sub-par. Also unfortunately the surviving copy is also a sub-par print (not using this to grade against the film though). I have this in the superb box set Murnau, Borzage and Fox Box Set by 20th Century Fox (good luck getting this cheap now). 

But the biggest issue of the film is that it really is not a good film. It takes, even then, the fish out-of-water scenario of a family who struck it rich and is trying to make better of themselves in Paris. Well really only the Mother, daughter and son. 

Will Rogers as the father is decent, but Borzage does not know how to direct him well like John Ford (Judge Priest is quite a good film) nor Charley Chase (seriously underrated silent/early sound comedian; helped put together Our Gang; directed early Columbia Three Stooges, was the #2 person for Hal Roach for many years; had success in both silent and sound; died way too early of alcoholism). This was billed as a cowboy drama which it really is not. It is an overly didactic film on ultimately being yourself. 

This was the first main talkie for Rogers and surprisingly to me he has a good singing voice (nothing like his speaking voice). It is hard to imagine now how incredibly popular he was. Insanely popular who had the ear of presidents until his demise in a plane crash. He is a little too much the bumpkin, though often the voice of reason. I just wish it was not so obvious in plot and everything else.  

Most likely of interest to only older film fans. 

[masterofoneinchpunch]

Hondo (1953: John Farrow):  

This is a second time watch. I really like this film. Wayne is at best a reactor, often he gets called for playing himself (which is not quite true; just look at his 1930 performances which were him growing as an actor), but it is fair to say in his later half of his career he plays a similar style or like The Searchers he can be pushed into another area. Hondo is more of the former, but it is a solid performance. Also, he is skinnier here, especially compared to his friend Ward Bond. 

This was originally a 3-D film so you have a little bit too much of pointing to the camera, shooting at it, etc... However, the composition of the cinematography is quite good. Robert Burks did Vertigo (an excellent director of photography). 

Based on a Louis L'Amour short story, the writing is quite nice, making a variety of characters and situations beyond a good-and-bad western. Also the sequence of teaching the kid to swim is hilarious. 

Geraldine Page's first main film. She would have a load of success afterwards. She fits well here with Wayne. Her characters attitude to her first husband was certainly interesting. 

[masterofoneinchpunch]

Bad Lieutenant (1992: Abel Ferrara):  

A film I have wanted to see for years since Roger Ebert raved about it https://bit.ly/3q3k85J Not a comfortable film, definitely worth it's NC-17 rating, but has a performance that is absolutely outstanding. Harvey Keitel's is excellent and he is certainly bad. But he is more lost than anything. He's spiraling down in decadence, drugs, gambling -- like Chris Farley in his last few weeks of his life. Is he trying to find meaning? Is he caught in a whirlpool that he has no way of escaping? 

You do wonder if Harvey told Abel, I'll do this film if I can do a nude scene? A film that does handheld justice. Cinéma vérité is such an overused and misused sentence that when you see a film like this that does it justice, you think of different terms. 

Watching this and you can easily see why Nicholas Cage wanted to do it later one (I still need to see it, so I have no idea how similar the two are). 

Some of the gambling scenes skip over some necessary exposition, though I wonder if it was done on purpose (spoilers so I cannot go further). I also wonder about the end. It makes sense and I can see why he did it. I just don't think it will be effective. 

Not an easy watch, both worth watching. 

[DragonClaws]

On 1/8/2021 at 3:19 PM, masterofoneinchpunch said:

Bad Lieutenant (1992: Abel Ferrara):  

A film I have wanted to see for years since Roger Ebert raved about it https://bit.ly/3q3k85J Not a comfortable film, definitely worth it's NC-17 rating, but has a performance that is absolutely outstanding. Harvey Keitel's is excellent and he is certainly bad. But he is more lost than anything. He's spiraling down in decadence, drugs, gambling -- like Chris Farley in his last few weeks of his life. Is he trying to find meaning? Is he caught in a whirlpool that he has no way of escaping? 

 

Nice write-up @masterofoneinchpunch, always enjoy reading your comments/reviews. This is one I need to re-watch, caught a late night screening on T.V many moons ago.

[masterofoneinchpunch]

On 1/10/2021 at 3:06 AM, DragonClaws said:

Nice write-up @masterofoneinchpunch, always enjoy reading your comments/reviews. This is one I need to re-watch, caught a late night screening on T.V many moons ago.

Thank you of course.  These are quick, fun comments.

King of New York (1990: Abel Ferrara):  

Both Roger Ebert and Leonard Maltin gave it a **/**** for the film. I understand both of their points of view (which is basically the same) even if I disagree with the rating. Reading Ebert's review, he is giving the poor rating based on the film script. It is weak and could easily have been fine-tuned or overhauled or rewritten. But a film is not just a script. We have some pretty iconic performances here. Christopher Walken is awesome. Put him dancing in a video and he is awesome. Of course he dances here (which he does in most of his films; like a toilet scene in a Stanley Kubrick film). David Caruso is better than I originally imagined. The cast is freakin' excellent. I liked the dialogue and the cinematography is good. The action scenes are done well. 

You almost have a Robin Hood with Frank White. He carries his own internal logic (which is fine, I like that in characters) of good and bad. But he has the balls to do something, well everything. He could easily have been a politician.  He probably should have been a politician, but he probably has too much integrity. 

He is loyal (I also like that; I love the loyal bad guy). Love the look of this shot:

One of my favorite sunglass shots of all-time. That is Nosferatu:

And Frankenstein was coming up next. I would have stayed. Reminds me of that awesome Drexl Spivey quote in True Romance:**

A fun film actually. Not on the artistic level of Bad Lieutenant, but still a nice ride. And it is Christopher “Freakin’” Walken. 

** "See, if I asked you if you wanted some dinner and you grabbed an egg roll and started to chow down, I'd say to myself, "This motherfucker's carryin' on like he ain't got a care in the world. Who know? Maybe he don't. Maybe this fool's such a bad motherfucker, he don't got to worry about nothin', he just sit down, eat my Chinese, watch my TV.""

[DarthKato]

Lets see:

1- "Iron Wolf(2013)": The movie was kind of a mixed bag. The opening scene of the Germans and the Russians fighting was probably one of the worst war scenes I have ever scene. And the scene where the German scientist fed some Russian Prisoners to the "Iron Wolf" had me laughing so hard I couldn't breath. Let me explain: The premise is that the Nazis are trying to create an army of Werewolves to fight the Allies during WWII, that will also obey the Germans so they don't also get ate. So a German commander shows up for a test, to see if the project is making progress. They decide to give a demonstration for him by taking a German soldier and putting  him in the room with Iron Wolf. To the soldier's surprise the beast stays chill and goes back to his room(See, he is trained not to attack anyone that has a German Uniform on). Then, they take some Russian prisoners and put them in there and he proceeds to tear them apart. Now here is the funny part: they don't actually show the kill. Instead they show the German Soldier that is in there with them looking on in horror and then all of a sudden, what is obviously a bucket full of blood, goes flying in the air and lands on him. Completely drenching him. This happens twice! It looked like something right out of a horror comedy, but I don't think that was their intention. lol 

Also, all the characters in this movie were awful. They weren't even the stereotypical Slasher-type fodder for ole Iron Wolf(That would have been fine). No, this was the most annoying group of braindead morons I have ever seen. I mean, when the, what I can only guess was a reformed Neo-Nazi or maybe he was just interested in Nazis, and a random Hobo are  the most likable characters, you know you done messed up somewhere. That is how bad the rest of that group was. I couldn't wait for them to just  shut up and get eaten.

Not much else to say about the movie. Its basically just a lot of fools getting killed and  there are a few twist near the end that you could see coming from a mile away. Even though I've been crapping on it hard, I've seen worse films(See the next film below).  If you want a good laugh, or are sufficiently drunk, give it a try. 

2- "Pagan Warrior(2019)": The worst film I have ever seen in my life. It was so bad that I turned it off after watching only 15-20 minutes of it. It was so stupid. Basically an invading force of Vikings(that have a grand total of 6 Vikings lol) are going to siege an English(?) castle that has only 4-5 people inside(No guards, knights, or man-at-arms. Nothing). This include the King, his wife and daughter, a random woman, and a traitorous Viking that warned them of the impending invasion. So, instead of staying in the castle and easily defending themselves against the LARPING Vikings, they decided to run into the woods and leave their castle behind. Where they are ambushed anyways by the Vikings and we are forced to endure the worst sword fights in cinema history. That was as far as I made it. I think a demon thing was suppose to show up at some point, but I could care less. 

 

Man, haven't ranted like that in a while. lol 

[masterofoneinchpunch]

The Age of Innocence (1993: Martin Scorsese):  

A beautiful portrait of love and facade for the (as Whit Stillman would say) Untitled Aristocracy in Victorian-era New York especially with the love triangle between Newland Archer, Ellen Olenska and May Welland. 

It may be strange to say but I was not overly taken with Daniel-Day Lewis's performance as Newland Archer. It is solid, but it reminded me how well Anthony Hopkins did the subtle mannerisms in Remains of the Day. Lewis was not subtle enough, he was obvious. 

So obvious that it was no wonder every single person knew his intentions (and beyond what actually happened). In that society, unless one is going to be considered a reprobate, rules are followed to the letter (and that is is exactly how you can get away with something). 

The film is about unrealized love (the love is not unrequited). A difficult subject (I know both too well). The ending works, but I wonder if it is more to hold onto something than to actually be a decent human being. 

I liked that Newland Archer came to love his wife (played by Winona Ryder) giving the story more life. He considered her an empty vessel at one point. He was wrong of course. I was hoping for more Richard E. Grant who fits this milieu so well (In my opinion better than the leading actors; have you seen Withnail & I (1987)?). 

The film is so beautiful. The composition is wonderful. Also, had to show you the cameo of Scorsese. When doing overhead dinner shots: circle tables for academy ratio and elongated tables for widescreen. 

The Garden Murder Case (1936: Edwin L. Marin):  

A strictly OK Philo Vance detective story. So far the worst I have seen of the Philo Vance DVD-R set from Warner Bros. You know a big chunk of the ending from the beginning set-up. That does not help. Edmund Lowe is OK as the detective, but just OK. A better plot would have worked wonders. Just barely over an hour, this is a "B" level effort. One longs for William Powell or Basil Rathbone. Still I am interested in the book series though I will probably get to Charlie Chan or Mr. Moto or more Monk books before. 

[masterofoneinchpunch]

Liliom (1930: Frank Borzage):  

The second sound film I have seen from Borzage is also below average. The camerawork is so much better here though than They Had to See Paris (1929) as well as the composition of shots. 

There is this canard of "all/most" silent actors not making it in sound because of there voice. As soon as I heard Charles Farrell speak, I thought of this. Now his career was not over, but his voice does not match what I think of him. I am not the biggest fan of his acting. 

His body movements are a bit lumbering (which does not fit this role at all; though on a side note pay attention to Clark Gable's walk, WB cartoons made fun of this). His vocal inflections are not good and not in keeping with the scenes. He both overacts and underacts reminding me of The Simpsons line "It both sucks and blows." It is one of those performances where ask yourself: Who could fall for him? (this is very important as the ending is a bit scary). Rose Hobart is OK. The music is typical of 1930 where there is very little non-diegetic. 

I love the sets though. It takes a weird turn (not sure if anyone is going to see this so I will not say what happens). Which I enjoyed until the very ending. 

But by far is the message at the end of the film. It both excuses domestic violence and wants you to root for this really annoying protagonist. "It's possible for someone to beat you, and beat you, and beat you, and it not hurt at all." 

Edited January 13, 2021 by masterofoneinchpunch

[masterofoneinchpunch]

Naked (1993: Mike Leigh):  

This is one of the bigger missing films from my cinematic acumen. I liked Leigh's Secrets & Lies quite a bit, but with this films reputation I wanted to wait until I was melancholy to watch it. 

I am not sure of my feelings on this. I feel David Thewlis did a great job with his character: a bright (but not as bright as he thinks he is) who is great at argumentation and probably not much more else. His sadistic qualities are counterbalanced by and even more sadistic character in "the landlord" which really hurts this film for me as he is a horrible one-dimensional rich guy (so of course he is bad). He makes Johnny seem less worse, but I'm not sure how long you want to be around the sardonic smelly man. 

The brilliance is the meandering existence of someone who really does not want to get better (though he still loves to read; reminds me of the ending of Billy Liar*). He has relationships, they are painful, he is painful to be around. Makes it a difficult film, even though some of the sardonic humour is quite adroit. He is almost too quick for gab, the type of conversation that can be written and read, but much more difficult to do extemporaneously. 

Not a film I want to rewatch anytime soon or ever really. Powerful, definitely. Existential, no. I have the Criterion release of this. 

* I like Billy Liar a whole lot more than this.

[DragonClaws]

22 hours ago, masterofoneinchpunch said:

Naked (1993: Mike Leigh):  

This is one of the bigger missing films from my cinematic acumen. I liked Leigh's Secrets & Lies quite a bit, but with this films reputation I wanted to wait until I was melancholy to watch it. 

 

This one Mike Leigh flick I never watched, High Hopes(1988) was the last movie of his I purchased/viewed.

 

22 hours ago, masterofoneinchpunch said:

(though he still loves to read; reminds me of the ending of Billy Liar*).

 

Classic movie, I grew up with my father quoting this film a lot.

 

22 hours ago, masterofoneinchpunch said:

I am not sure of my feelings on this. I feel David Thewlis did a great job with his character: a bright (but not as bright as he thinks he is) who is great at argumentation and probably not much more else.

 

Always been a big fan of David Thewlis, he's appeared in so many British shows and movies.

[masterofoneinchpunch]

Dirty Dancing (1987: Emile Ardolino):  

OK this was rather bad. I was expecting it to be so-so, but this was just a bit worse than that. The characters have no depth (Is there one human among them?), which I'm OK if the story is not trite and this is tripe. 

I liked The Goldbergs episode based on this more than this film. It wears its politics on its sleeve, which is fine if the story was better. Though it felt like for a film in 1963 (before the assassination of Kennedy), you have a politically astute character from several years in the future. Not a huge issue when you have much more larger problems. Baby's and Johnny's relationship is doomed, but we will ignore that as most romantic comedies/dramas do. 

The dancing was decent. I was expecting more "dirty dancing" but alas I did not care past a certain point. Swayze is quit a good athlete and he moves well. Though I thought the director should have had him redo several scenes -- the acting was atrocious for the most part. 

Needed more Wayne Knight. 

I'm a bit flummoxed on the high IMDB rating and the several critic lists this is on. It was hard to watch. 

Edited January 15, 2021 by masterofoneinchpunch

[masterofoneinchpunch]

25th Hour (2002: Spike Lee):  

This was quite a good film. I know Roger Ebert had it as one of his great movies and Mr. Motto had said it was his most favorite Spike Lee film so I found a copy of it. So far I've like most of Lee's films. He is a movie brat so he will have lots of film references (Cool Hand Luke poster), homages (the mirror scene here is to his own work in Do the Right Thing) and even mentioning movies (Place in the Sun). This is such a mature work that flows so well. 

Edward Norton can be such a good actor and add in Philip Seymour Hoffman, Brian Cox (I played ball with a Brian Cox, not as good as an actor except for his flops), Barry Pepper and Rosario Dawson as friends/relationships you have such a great cast. 

The cinematography of this is quite good. Careful composition and I took some great stills. Love this image of Ground Zero (I love reflection scenes as well as mirror scenes). 

Norton plays a caught drug dealer who has 25 hours before he will be incarcerated. He has to get his affairs in order as well as one last go round before seven years in the clink. All this round a post-911 New York which permeates the atmosphere. 

He is not quite sure who ratted him out. He is not sure what to do. Does he kill himself? Does he take the sentence, where a pretty boy like him (he doesn't seem that pretty, but he is small and is not his American History X self which would survive prison), will he even survive the Russian mobster? Great scene with Nikolai on how to survive prison. A brilliant speech. Do you feel sorry for Kostya? I'm not sure on the ending -- if I liked it. But everything else was so good that I was enthralled throughout. 

Obviously if you are my friend I would beat you up before prison. 

Classic scene: 

[masterofoneinchpunch]

Nana (1926: Jean Renoir):  

A beautifully filmed silent by the great French director. There are two negative attributes of the film: the plot which is a mundane but decent telling of a spoiled beautiful actress who has looks but no talent (stated in the intertitles) and the performance of Catherine Hessling. The plot is sullied by the simplicity of the character: a supposedly uncomparable beauty (which had me wondering why do they think she is beautiful, she's OK I guess, I just have to go with the plot) who fits one particular type of role a harlot or a wicked woman, but fails miserable when a suitor pays for her to play a more sophisticated role. She really has not much talent. But that does not stop lots of high class men for trying to become her next love (or tryst). 

But Catherine Hessling's acting is weird. It is like William Shatner on speed. She has these bizarre movements which makes her look like Fritz Lang would have turned her down for Metropolis for overacting. She looks overcranked while everyone else is at a normal frame rate. It becomes its own life when you watch her. It isn't good, but it isn't wooden either. It really isn't stage acting and it is not film acting. 

But oh such beauty in the cinematography. The camera movement is exquisite. The composition is fantastic. 

You see a much more earlier use of deep focus, way before Citizen Kane (Renoir is hugely influential). Renoir would use this is later films, but this is the earliest large use of it (from this director) that I have seen. Such a beautiful movie. 

But if you are new to Renoir I would suggest starting with La Grande Illusion or Rules of the Game. 

[masterofoneinchpunch]

Charlie Chan in Panama (1940: Norman Foster): 

A decent if all too basic entry in the Charlie Chan series. I just do not like Sidney Toler as much as I did Warner Oland. His #2 son Sen Yung (how would you like to be known as #2) is fun to watch. The pair well just not as well as Keye Luke and Oland. One aspect of this period of films, like with the Sherlock Holmes films, is the increased push of WWII espionage themes. I'm OK with it, I've just seen so many of them. 

The cinematography is great. Virgil Miller (look at his credits) was quite the professional. His quick work looks better than 95 percent of today's cinema work (and I'm probably lowballing that figure. Such professionals in the Golden Age of Hollywood even for B films. 

Apparently this is a remake of Marie Galante (though the plot feels like several past Chan films; the later Chans start taking from older movies much like The Three Stooges did with their Columbia shorts). A film I have not seen. 

[teako170]

Gone streaming of late so been ingesting lots of Netflix, PlutoTV, Disney+, Crackle, and Hulu. Cobra Kai is definitely the hands down winner thus far, but also enjoyed a film different films, such as The Professor and the Madman (2019) with Mel Gibson and Sean Penn, and The Outpost (2019). What in the world were they thinking putting our troops in such a defenseless position?

[masterofoneinchpunch]

Revolver (2005: Guy Ritchie):  

I liked it. I thought the ending (seriously we know who the two guys are) was overthought (he tries to get tricky), obvious and Ritchie's attempt at an art-film, but there are so many scenes and characters I liked that I found it fun. When it is at its best it is irreverent (not irrelevant) with some interesting use of camera movement (sometimes too much shaking) and a playful demeanor (like time to use animation). 

Obviously I would keep this quote: 

I like this, though I don't quite agree with it. You get get smarter by assuaging your faults and/or improving your strengths (but working with better opponents makes you improve quicker). 

I really like Mark Strong's assassin character here. A true badass. Love the last shootout scene he is in: https://youtu.be/e4vyuNY8v1c

The films big weakness is the overabundance of philosophy that does not quite work and it tries to force feed it at the end. Roger Ebert hated this film (only a half-a-star; it seems to well done to get that low of a rating). 

I have not seen two of his full-length films: Swept Away (I did not like the original) and Aladdin (I liked the original). No idea when I'll get to them. They do not scream: watch me or purchase me or think about watching me (I expect lots of screaming in Swept Away). 

It may be just me, but some of the direction reminds of the Kung Fu Panda Holiday Special: