It is a performances centric movie

Good concept, poorly executed.

A Disappointing Continuation

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

I was finally introduced to this film in March of this year by a friend, alongside it's successor film, Snatch. Since then I've viewed the film a total of three times, and I've finally come to point of being able to a compile a critical review. I've taken time to handle it properly, as this is understandably a cult classic and has warranted a lot of good reviews.I believe that Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is a charming movie that achieves a lot despite it's low budget. It contains standout performances and creative cinematography at times, but holds it's failings in both of those departments as well. The movies' strongest attributes are it's tone, plot and pacing, and doesn't actually contain too many issues aside from sound design and one or two plot holes. Overall, I think Lock, Stock is one of the best British comedies I've seen in a while.There are numerous other little issues I also took up with the film, but a great deal of them owed largely to the films low budget. On that note, a lot of the effects and visuals that would disappoint on a higher budget actually work impressively considering the films constraints on money. Considering the debatable aspects surrounding criticizing budgeted effects, I'll opt to leave those criticisms out of my review.Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels was produced in 1998 but largely defies time period in it's cinematography and design. It's rustic color palette and noticeable film grain place it more often in the era of the 1970s. But Cinematography in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels in general is a hit and miss. The film contains some amazing sequences, especially during action scenes and the infamous card game which sets off the entire plot. This is excellent, as the parts of the movie that seriously matter are almost all given a good level of film quality, but the same cannot be said for the scenes in between. Conversations between characters, especially those with shots that go back and forth are at best unoriginal and at worst so awkward that they can detract from the largely superb writing. And with dialogue being a supreme feature in this film (might I mention since it is especially lacking in visual storytelling), not having the cinematographic quality to go hand it hand with the quips often leaves me wanting.Speaking of dialogue, the films plot and script are the greatest aspect it has to offer. At no point in the film does the consistent back and forth between the ensemble cast end or lose it's magic. It's no surprise that the film is ranked as one of the most quotable films to come out of Britain's comedy market. The plot, for the most part, is an easy to understand but still complex web of connecting lines bringing the entire set of characters together through a special and sometimes dubious set of circumstances. It's a rather fun joy ride to sit through and track even through multiple viewings, and even by my third viewing, there were small details in both dialogue and occasionally visual cues that I missed out on. The film also doesn't hold the viewers hand too much, despite an admittedly helpful narration, and plot points that can confound first time viewers are always smoothly resolved by the end of the film. The characters themselves are unique and often relatable, despite being brought down by amateur acting skills at times. They're written with a decent degree of complexity and some little details I only noticed, once again, in re-watches.But on the note of characters and their actors, the acting in this film is much like cinematography as it quite often hits and misses, but on a much more prevalent scale than the former. While the film no doubt contains some all star performances, it is quite often brought down by stale delivery by unemotional actors as well. Jason Statham, Vinnie Jones and Steve Mackintosh all add to the film with great performances, and give the movie a good backbone despite the lacking work from actors with more screen time like Nick Moran and Lenny McLean. Overall the bad performances in the film are largely put in the shade by the aforementioned writing skills of Guy Ritchie. I'm not an expert of music so I haven't take the time to check out the movies soundtrack but nonetheless it is certainly well put together. I found that they were very suitable for the movies subject matter and blended well with the overall finished product. This, however, was brought down by the small issue of sound design in weapons and environments.Some of the other things I enjoyed before concluding: The pace is great, lighting is great and visual effects are notably decent for what they were. One more thing I didn't enjoy is the occasional plot points scattered about, but none are serious enough to hurt my rating.In summary, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is an entertaining crime comedy that accomplishes quite a lot despite it's budget. While it is damaged by acting, cinematography, sound design and plot holes, none of these things are significant enough to damage the overall experience too much. Through multiple watches I found that there was things that I only noticed later on, along with the fact that the comedy still holds strong no matter how many times you ingest the quips. Watch out for my review of Snatch, coming soon. I'm happy leaving the movie with an 8/10.

"Shotguns? What, like guns that fire shot?" "Oh, you must be the brain of the operation!" "What d'you do when you're not buying stereos, Nick? Finance revolutions?"Sorry, didn't know your father." "Never mind son, you just might meet him if you carry on like that." And I could go on and on, mentioning an epiphora-driven monologue involving the act of killing a Greek whose stupidity might be the one saving grace or some snarky remark about Liberia's deficit in a skyrocket. It all comes down to one observation, if there is one deficit Guy Ritchie's "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" doesn't suffer from, is in one-liners. If anything, this is a film that made me aware, in my late teen years, of something called… a screenplay. This is the work of a talented screenwriter, there's no doubt about that.Now, how about the director's perspective? And how about my appreciation, now that I'm twice the age I was when I first saw it? Well, the film still got it, as far as my enjoyment is concerned, but there are a few buts (and I'm not talking of marijuana cigarette butts or the lovely one belonging to that stripper's who caught the attention of Barry the Baptist, before assigning two Northern slobs some theft job involving the two titular barrels).So, "but", I was saying.I don't know if "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" is more about revealing the talent of a British director making his spectacular and stylish debut, or if it more consolidates the status of an American director as the most defining and influential director of his generation, quite a stunt for someone in his mid-30's. While it is obvious that Ritchie has a great way with words and his screenplay features one of the highest ratio of one-liners per minute from any film, it was still Tarantino who exposed that new vision of the underground world, one that would never be afraid to be offensive and raunchy if laughs were the pay-off.It was easier to embrace that form of entertainment once it was done, so let's give QT the credit he deserves and get back to Ritchie. Indeed, it would be unfair to associate his 1998 hit film only to the influence of Tarantino, you can actually spot many influences that cover a wide range of cinematic genre and directors, you have a nod to Sergio Leone's "For a Few Dollars More", Zorba, you have smart-ass lines like the kind Groucho Marx would deliver, and in fact, the whole movie that seems like a kaleidoscope of all the archetypes nourished from years of movies, poker-games, drug trafficking, caper story, shaggy dog stories and other mix-ups, except that Ritchie used to direct ads' clips.This might be the one part where he diverges from Tarantino, one started from scratch, mostly through imitating other directors, Ritchie had his own style. And there are instances where you can tell the film is directed like a video clip, or an ad."Lock, Stock" is like a big, boisterous, joke whose only purpose is to entertain, and I respect that, because entertainment is Guy's strongest suit. He doesn't even need a main protagonist, the leading quartet, Eddie, Tom, Soap and Bacon, whose most notable presence is Jason Statham and to a lesser extent Tom Flemyng (but to play fair with the cast, let's mention Jason Flemyng and Dexter Fletcher), these guys are all down-on-their-luck outcasts, with one toe in the criminal world, and another in traffics, so benign it would never raise the attention of Scotland Yard. These guys are so 'inoffensive' really that they're not even affected by the bloody chain of events they caused.And the whole story relies on the four protagonists' luck when it comes to their mission about getting the money to pay for a debt Harry Hatchet (PH Moriarty), or avoiding to get their fingers cut off by Barry the Baptist (Lenny McLean), or cross the path of Big Chris, convincingly played by former soccer player Vinnie Jones. It is very ironic that the main concerned one don't ever realize what has happened, and no less ironic that Jason Statham, the ultimate tough guy isn't given enough occasion to be the celebrated bad-ass he is. The film is like a private joke between Ritchie and the audience, because what matters is what we see, who cares about the rest. We don't even see the blood, which is a nice touch that keeps this film in a sort of jolly friendly mood.Ritchie knows we're familiar with all these archetypes and what he does is providing a little twist, never wasting a moment for a wisecrack and a smart-ass line, it's almost a signature in his films. And it works, because he's like Tarantino, he belongs to the generation of directors influenced by other directors but who demonstrate how much of fans they are by adding a touch of modernity, and this modernity is made of close-ups, slow-mo, shootouts, every trope of the action genre. You can call it "exercise in style", the term isn't to be used negatively, it's got style, it's fun, energetic and crazy. And it's got a terrific casting, too, but it's mostly for Lenny McLean who died shortly after the film and Vinnie Jones that the film works,, honorable mention too for Van Blackwood who with Nick the Greek, form a nice duo.This is a film that shows a new face for British movies, one that comes right after "Trainspotting", "The Full Monty", a popular British type of movies that completes the work of Tarantino. It's a product of its era that encapsulates the level of creativity reached by directors who didn't have much budget, really one of the gems of the 90's.

Gangster films have never had the same pedigree in Britain that they have long enjoyed in America. Part of the reason is that the formative years of Hollywood in the twenties and early thirties coincided with the growth of organised crime fuelled by Prohibition, a period when the doings of Al Capone and his contemporaries provided a rich source of inspiration for film-makers. Another part of the reason is that during this period the British Board of Film Censors tended to discourage home- made gangster movies. This form of censorship owed little to moral concerns about violence- the BBFC were quite happy to allow cinemas to show American crime flicks- and a good deal to political considerations. British governments, of all political complexions, liked to play down any suggestion that the country had a serious organised crime problem. (And, by American standards, it didn't).There have been a few isolated British gangster films which have achieved classic status- "Brighton Rock", "Get Carter", "The Long Good Friday"- but nothing on the scale of, say, the "Godfather" trilogy or "Road to Perdition". There have also been a few great British films noirs, but they often (as in, say, "It Always Rains on Sunday" or "The Third Man") featured criminals who operated as lone wolves rather than as part of a mob. "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" is another, more recent, British gangster film for which some have claimed classic status. The title is a play on the phrase "lock, stock and barrel", literally referring to three parts of a gun but having the colloquial meaning in British of "everything" or "the whole lot". There is also a reference to the use by criminals of double-barrelled shotguns as weapons, and to a plot by one of the characters in the film to acquire a pair of valuable antique guns.The plot is a complicated one, involving several interconnected sub- plots and several gangs of criminals. The main story involves Eddy, a young member of one of these gangs who loses £500,000 in a rigged poker game. Needing money urgently pay off his debts, he and his friends decide to rob another gang, who operate from the flat next door. This other gang, in turn, are planning to rob a gang of drug dealers. "Hatchet" Harry, the gangster to whom Eddy owes the money, is also the one with his eye on the antique guns, and engages Gary and Dean, a pair of Liverpudlian criminals, to steal them. (The two prove hopelessly incompetent; the film was obviously made from a London viewpoint and Guy Ritchie was using them to make a few digs at Northerners in general, and the people of Liverpool in particular. Gary and Dean habitually call all Southerners "southern fairies", even though those they insult in this way are generally far more ruthlessly efficient than they are). I have found it difficult to take Ritchie seriously as a director ever since I saw his "Swept Away", an appropriately titled vanity project which had the unintended consequence of sweeping away his then wife Madonna's acting career. (She has not dared to make another film since). "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" is certainly not as bad as that steaming pile of trash- very few films in cinematic history ever have been- but on the other hand I find myself unable to acclaim it as the classic which some people regard it as.There are several problems with the film. The first is that the storyline is over-complicated and difficult to follow- it is hard to keep track of who is in which gang, who is planning to rob whom, and how, when and why. The second is that the film never really decides what it wants to be. At times, particularly during the scenes involving Gary and Dean or the effeminate if murderous drug dealer Rory Breaker, it is so far over the top that it seems more like a black comedy than a serious crime drama. At other times, particularly during those scenes that end with a pile of corpses littering the floor, it seems very serious indeed. The third main problem is that there are no characters with whom the viewer can identify. Apart from a young child and a traffic warden who appears briefly, just about every character we see is either a criminal or an associate of criminals. And that's not "criminal" as in "loveable rogue". That's "criminal" as in "homicidal thug". We are invited to identify with Eddy and his friends, largely because they (unlike most of the other characters) never actually kill anybody, but as their activities include drug-dealing and robbery I found such identification difficult to accomplish.The film was rather better on the acting side; there is a very assured performance from Vinnie Jones, as Harry's debt collector Big Chris. The film marked the start of a new career as an actor for Jones, a former Wales international footballer, who has gone on to act in a number of movies and television programmes since. (It also saw the film debut of another international sportsman turned actor, the one-time diver Jason Statham). I also liked P. H. Moriarty as Harry and the late Lenny McLean as his enforcer Barry the Baptist, whose nickname refers not to his religious affiliation but to his habit of drowning people. Nevertheless, I found this a film which is just too blasé and insouciant about needless criminal violence. It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. 4/10

One of the most popular gay Richie"s films for now. After this film you should be watching immediately snatch, and all his other films, no problem. If you enjoy this movie, I ashore you ,that you can watch ,every his next movie, except the last movie man from U: C: L; E. The film can be watched several times. Jason is very good here as opposed to newly baked films. Like the casts who Enforcer. Everything is interfered, dope, gambling, crime, fraud on fraud, and all that so well tangled, actor's both good and bad are very good performances. So, what can i say except to watch this movie if you not All i can say is that i actually love this one maybe the most. cheers and i wish you nice watching enjoy.