Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: RockNRolla (2008)

This is topic RockNRolla (2008) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001481

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-31-2008, 08:40 AM:

Guy Ritchie has surly made some of the best movies to take place in the London underground. Snatch is brilliant, to take Brad Pitt and put him in the background and make one of the best characters in the movie is amazing. Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels was another masterpiece in the underworld theme. While RockNRolla doesn't hit on all the levels as the above mentioned it does hit a lot of right notes. If your just going to be entertained for two hours then look no further. Ritchie is great at taking an ensemble cast and using everyone to there best. Gerard Butler plays way against character here, I don't think hes really played a crook before. He has great comedic timing and use's it well here.

a solid 3.75/5 [thumbsup]

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 11-01-2008, 08:09 PM:

Like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch before it, RocknRolla revolves around a group of small time crims who become indebted to a local gangster thereby setting in motion an intricate series of interrelated comical events which ultimately wind up in a neat, mortal conclusion. Where the first film had a pair of guns and the second had a diamond, the item of desire here is a painting.

Guy Richie's Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels was fresh, sassy and funny. Snatch followed suit and, being practically the same, was (obviously) less fresh and less sassy and less funny. The script was also less elegant but Brad Pitt was great in it and we enjoyed it nonetheless. Now we have RocknRolla and it's even more of the same but by now it's starting to taste a little stale and the elegant narrative economy of Lock, Stock is largely replaced with a series of interrelated scenes merely clunked together to form basically the same story yet again. The films intrusive use of narration to define each character only serves to further draw comparisons to the former picture. RocknRolla is still an enjoyable movie, however, but like a great joke that's been told for the third time, it inevitably pales in comparison to it's first hearing.

The performances are good but not outstanding, being merely on par with what you'd expect from a cast of this calibre. Mark Strong, for instance, had a much better opportunity to demonstrate his acting chops in Ridley Scott's Body Of Lies and Tom Wilkinson merely rehashes his role from Batman Begins. In Lock, Stock, Richie used performers who were unknown at the time (well, except for Sting and, to a much lesser extent, Vinnie Jones) which also afforded that film a greater level of perceived authenticity than is evident in this film. RocknRolla also suffers for having a dearth of appealing characters - there are no cocky, lovable heroes like those which drew us into Lock, Stock - and it's difficult to relate to any of the characters portrayed here.

While it's clear that Richie has a talent for this type of film, RocknRolla's carbon copy similarity to its forebears gives the overall impression of Guy Richie making a "Guy Richie" film and the promise of sequels implies that there is yet more of the same to come. Lightning may strike the same place twice but three times (or more) is stretching it.

6 out of 10

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-01-2008, 11:10 PM:

CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 1
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Mystery Meat Digital/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Focus slightly soft
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

WARNING: "I'm dead, Pete. Dead people don't like Spoilers."

While the Friday the 13th redux trailer is playing, a long-haired brunette drops into the seat one off from my right. She leans to me and asks "This is the Rock and Roll movie, right? I don't like the horror movies." I assure her she's in the right auditorium and wonder to myself who decided they needed to remake Friday the 13th.

THE PLOT: Cons con other cons while other cons con the original cons. Wackiness ensues.

Long-haired Brunette, who spent most of the movie nervously tapping a cigarette box against her armrest, leaned over and whispered comments to me several times through the movie. I don't know why she didn't just sit next to me. At one point, she said "There isn't any rock and roll OR drugs in this!" Which isn't quite true, but clearly she misunderstood the premise. She was seriously disappointed. I suspect she was also seriously disturbed. She WAS talking to me, after all...

Yeah, pretty formula Guy Ritchie. It's not the easiest movie to follow, it has some funny moments, and it's not a complete waste of time. But we've seen this before from the same guy (no pun intended), and there's nothing new here.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 11-02-2008, 09:21 PM:

This was enjoyable enough as something to pass the time. Pretty coherent and well made, decent soundtrack and good bits of action and comedy throughout. Couldn't fault the cast, they all played their parts as you would expect them to.

The main problem is how ridiculously false and clichéd it all is. The vast majority of the minuscule amount of people like these characters in London are taking their cues from Ritchie's films. I can't tell whether he actually thinks this is what criminals in London are like or not and it's hard to leave that at the back of your mind when watching.