User reviews

The writing, directing, acting and the general production are all top notch. I have not had this much fun watching a movie in a long time. This will go down as a cult classic, so do not miss it.

Has there ever been a bad performance in a Guy Ritchie movie? If there has I haven't noticed it. He has an ornate ability to take average actors and make them great, and to take already great actors and get even more out of them. There are a few directors around who specialise in this but Ritchie is right near the top. The cast in 'The Gentlemen' is admittedly fantastic, but it doesn't change the fact that they are an absolute treat to watch. Matthew McConaughey is in his element in a role that he was born to play, Charlie Hunnam plays one of the coolest characters I've seen perfectly, Colin Farrell is hilarious and ridiculously cool as well and then Hugh Grant gives one of the best performances I've ever seen from him. In fact Grant was so good I didn't even recognise his voice and had to wonder if they'd dubbed it. They hadn't, he'd just nailed it.

The style this movie possesses is just so much fun to watch. If you've seen any of Ritchie's previous similar films ('Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels', 'Snatch', 'RocknRolla') then you know what I'm talking about. The pacing moves at lightning speed, the dialogue is quick, clever and deeper than you first realise and the conflict is always multi-layered. This one is actually told in quite a unique way with a couple of characters going over events that have already happened and it works masterfully. It breaks the story up and gives room for creativity in the story-telling process and also humour.

Every time I see that Ritchie has made a movie that isn't a crime-thriller I get a little disappointed. It's not that the other stuff he's doing is bad ('Swept Away' being an obvious exception), it's just that he is so damn good as this style of movie. He's the best in the business and if he only did these for the rest of his career I'd be a very happy man. This is an excellent movie well worth your time and money.

Classic Guy Ritchie movie. Never a dull moment. Slowly eases into the story and takes it to great Crescendo. The plot twists at every turn with few loyalties kept intact all along the movie.

Colin Farrell steals the show. He is the surprise of the movie. Has a role lasting only a few minutes, but outshines entire cast single-handedly.

Matthew Mcconnaughey and Charlie Hunnam give their usual best and look awesome doing so. Hugh Grant exposes new part of his acting repertoire.

Part of the movie is shot in our Arsenal stadium. Special brownie points for that.

Watch it for classic Guy Ritchie stuff.

Aside from a few very marketable films like "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" and "Aladdin", Guy Ritchie is a writer/director who makes incredibly violent films. That is, incredibly violent films which are also brilliantly constructed and near perfect. While I rarely ever watch violent films, I eagerly look for his next dark British crime film, after seeing his "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch"....and so it's not surprising I'd see "The Gentlemen". And, like these other films, it's near perfect...and a film you ought to see if you have the stomach for this sort of story.

So this leads me to a huge warning. This is NOT a family-friendly film nor one you want to show your mother or Father Jenkins if he stops by for a visit. There's ample cursing, loads of violence, vomit galore, and the story is about bad people...very bad people.

The story is complicated...and goes together like a finely crafted puzzle. It concerns a marijuana czar in Britain, Michael Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) and his desire to sell out and retire to a life of ease and sophistication. However, after making an offer to a rival drug kingpin, suddenly everything goes haywire....folks start dying, farms growing the stuff are hit and an all-out war seems inevitable. There's WAY more to the story than this...but since it's so complex, it's best you just see it to appreciate it.

The bottom line is that Guy Ritchie can write and direct amazing films...and this one is truly amazing and entertaining. Apart from his misguided vanity project, "Swept Away", his output has been impressive and I cannot stress enough what a quality product this film is. My only MINOR quibble is what about the Russian mobster.....what happens with him? This isn't really dealt with in the film and seems a bit like a dangling plot point.

It's Guy Ritchies Best since Snatch, it's where he is most playful and comfortable in a film genre he knows well. The Cast is perfectly picked, especially Hugh Grant giving a different but yet so funny performance. Sit back and enjoy 2 hours of a British crime drama, which doesn't take itself too serious If we hadn't had lock stock or snatch then this would possibly looked at in a more classic Ritchie film so don't expect it to be as great as those.

Fun film! I was greatly impressed with Hugh Grant's performance. Had to do a double take when he first appeared on the screen. Colin Farrell was a scene stealer and Michelle Dockery makes a great mob wife.

Yes, I am tempted to say he's back. It's not that he went away or didn't have at least some decent movies over the last few years. I haven't seen Aladdin, but it was succesful sort of. But this is right up his alley! This is pure and enjoyable Guy Ritchie, with timeline cuts and jumps and characters that one may think only he can write.

It's so great to see Matthew McConaughey joining the ranks, being a substitue for Jason Statham I reckon. But also having Hugh Grant in this ... role/character. Genius! Who'd have thunk it, and he kills it (no pun intended). At least a few twists will be easy to spot, but I don't think one can guess everything. Even so, the movie is so well made, it won't really matter. If you like the genre, this is the one to watch. Fun and thrilling to the end ...

This is a typical Guy Ritchie movie, there is a story, it isn't always easy to follow, but style is even more important. Matthew McConaughey is American Mickey Pearson who went to England as a young man on a Rhodes Scholarship. He soon learned that he had a knack for selling drugs to fellow students and that eventually blossomed into his vocation on a very broad scale. Now in middle age has decided to sell his marijuana empire, which included a dozen well-hidden farms, and retire to a leisurely life and maybe have a few rug rats with his beautiful and devoted wife. The price? Just 400 million British Pounds.

As the news of that gets around a number of shady operators want to get their cuts from a number of devious means. So the movie is mainly about that and how Mickey and those loyal to him devise methods to protect him and his investments. The cast includes a number of well-known actors and the roles are uniformly interesting.

This is a good movie for those who appreciate and enjoy this type of British underworld movie, there aren't really any characters who are good people, there are just different degrees of badness.

I watched it at home on BluRay from my public library, my wife skipped, not her kind of movie.

This is a typical Guy Ritchie film. Plenty of action, deaths, bad language and occasional laughs. Some of the scenes are Pulp Fiction-esque. There's not a lot new here, but the film moves along quite nicely. Not overly keen on the storytelling format of the film, and Hugh Grant goes on a bit too much. Matthew Mcconaughey is well cast, Colin Farrell steals the show and will probably win some awards for his performance. Some poor script writing at times, but overall well worth a watch.

After seeing the film at an advanced screening I was left pleasently surprised. It is one of the best crime films I have watched and the best from Guy Ritchie...even better than Snatch and Lock Stock, which is something.

From the acting to the story, cinematography, pacing, dialogue, humour and overall enjoyment I cannot fault it...10/10. Special credit goes to Colin Farrell and his acting.

We dont really get movies like this anymore. Movies these days are cheap money grabbers and superhero films. This is a whole different class of film

Guy Ritchie returned to his early style: multiple clues, multiple characters, excellent rhythm control, various black humor and satire, and addictive violence.

At first I thought it started a little slowly but in hindsight it was just right. A perfect execution of a classic British gangster film epitomised by a charismatic Colin Farrell who stole every scene he entered and left me crying out for a coach spin off. All in all very enjoyable classic guy ritchie film.

Exactly that.

If you like Tarantino films, watch them. If you don't, don't.

If you like Nolan films watch them.... You get the jist.

It's a Guy Ritchie film... Its a good film, lots of laughter, cockney and typical London movie.

Every now and again I go to the cinema and watch a film that grabs my attention straight away and keeps it right to the end. This is one of those films. What entertainment! Better than anything else I have seen for a considerable time.

Matthew McConaughey, who has become one of the major players in the British weed trade through science, paying poor noblemen to let him stash his farms on their property, and a judicious amount of leg-breaking, thinks it's time to retire. He offers to sell his business to a fellow entrepreneur for £400,000,000, but other people in the illegal fun trade have their own agendas.

Guy Ritchie has returned to his early themes of violence, chaos, and rock&roll from his early career, and has scored a definite hit, with some fine performances, including a blank-faced one by Charlie Hunnam and an outsized comedy turn by Colin Farrell. Hugh Grant does well as the unwanted on-screen narrator of events, putting them into some order; I am impressed by his lack of a posh accent, event as I wished Ritchie had been able to think of a better way of telling the audience the story.

Even with that cavil, the unceasing action and insanity kept me more than interested throughout.

This is early Ritchie; unapologetically crypted, woven, streamlined and bolshy. Kant is repetitive & real and feels like an up yours to the 'biz' - any business to that matter but particularly this one.

The breakdown of weed etymologically rise to skunkhood is important. For this, social issues catergory, goes where few reporters have ever gone; that gentry lands of the country grubby hands moulding the youth crime in London. This is the surprise under the sleeves of the top notch suits / clothing - the external layers that identify the whose who in these well-heeled crews.

And, as matter of personal taste. The music element / Grime as a popular culture commodity opens Ritchie's voice to a whole new audience. Outsnading performances by perfectly cast Media loathing Hugh Grant ( perfect), Mr Hearthrob Mathew McConaughey, Henry Golding, Jeremy Strong and the the incredible Cockney Cleopatra Michelle Dockery - who is perfect, raw and her nature on screen has been missed, which just proves that more women characters only increase the value to any 'gangster' genre film - Goodfellas wouldn't be Goodfellas without the women.

Don't miss out watch it on the big screen, it's worth every penny.

'The Gentlemen' is a return to Guy Ritchie's return to form. While no 'Snatch' or 'Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels', it's a mostly fun British gangster romp, with a token American, this time Mickey (McConaughey) as the pot-dealing kingpin. It's ironic in that they are mostly gentlemen in how they dress and how they speak, except or the number of c-bombs dropped! Great cast, but lots of players, so no one gets much of a chance to shine.

Mickey's tale of selling his drug empire to Mathew (Strong) is told via a long discussion between Fletcher (Grant), a journalist, and Raymond (Hunnam), Mickey's right-hand-man. Grant is pretty funny trying to do a possibly Welsh accent. The device of using the discussion to show the narrative, means the film can go back and correct the story when it needs to. There's a few twists and turns and while it's fun watching Grant and Hunnam, the film really picks up in the final act when we're in "real time". Good to see Farrell have fun, as well as Golding and Dockery.

The main problem with the narrative device is that Mickey doesn't seem real and McConaughey's character isn't really fleshed out. Solid ending, but not really enough action or drama to engage throughout. Some funny moments, but not really laugh-out-loud for the most part.

Guy Ritchie's "The Gentlemen" plays like a tall tale, filled with exaggerations and embellishments, where the storyteller expects you to pay his bar tab at the end. The narrator is a conniving private detective named Fletcher (Hugh Grant), who sets out to blackmail everyone with a screenplay he's written. The screenplay is called "BUSH," bush being a euphemism for "marijuana" and is a complicated tale about the "turf war" in the marijuana business. The "bush" double entendre is also present, just for the chuckles factor. Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is an American who sees an opportunity in the languishing English aristocracy. He is married to Roz (Michelle Dockery), a "Cockney cleopatra" who runs an auto body shop with only women mechanics. Mickey loves his wife and is ready to retire from the weed business. Two rivals emerge as potential buyers: an American Jewish billionaire and a Chinese-Cockney gangster named Dry Eye. Colin Farrell's "Coach" is an Irish guy who runs a boxing club. Mickey's right-hand man is Ray (Charlie Hunnan), a mild-mannered man who looks like a desk clerk until you see him in action. The "gentlemen" of the title is clearly meant sarcastically. Hugh Grant gives an extraordinary performance in "The Gentlemen". The script, which Ritchie co-wrote with Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies, plays around with genre tropes, but the overriding structure is Fletcher "pitching" his script to an increasingly horrified Ray. This "pitch" goes on for the entirety of the film, and so as scenes unfold, it is as though the scenes emanate from Fletcher's imagination, when in reality we are seeing what really happened. Guy Ritchie's latest gangster comedy presents itself as a harmless romp, but behind its wink-wink-nudge-nudge humour is a bitter and dated worldview. Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is an American interloper and marijuana dealer who wants out of the game. He hopes to liquidate his weed-farm empire, and interested buyers include Jewish-American billionaire Matthew Berger (Jeremy Strong) and Chinese mobster "Dry Eye" (Crazy Rich Asians' Henry Golding). We learn of Mickey's plans and their inevitable unravelling through a screenplay written by sleazy private investigator and aspiring screenwriter Fletcher (Hugh Grant). The screenplay is, of course, blackmail, with which Fletcher hopes to exploit Mickey. Ritchie's signature sweary patter is enjoyable, except for the racism, which is especially pointed given the racial delineation of the film's heroes and villains. Fletcher is a parasite, one of those tabloid "writers" who loves to be "in" on things, and sees people and their reputations as disposable. The entire script is a script within a script, and this is its ace in the hole: there is always one layer between us and the characters. Hugh Grant has become a formidable character actor in the last couple of years, taking full advantage of his options. The one-two punch of "Paddington 2" and "A Very English Scandal" is a perfect example of this, as Grant is using all of these other acting muscles he normally hadn't been asked to use, and he's thrilling in a role which is mostly exposition. There's one moment where he puts his hand on Hunnam's knee, realizes it's an unwelcome touch, and goes into this wild pop-eyed, "Oopsie #sorrynotsorry" facial expression. It's his favorite kind of humor, character-based, behavior-based, and he acts as his own gravitational force. Mickey Pearson may be the lead, but it's Fletcher who gets the last word.

Whilst there are plenty of enjoyable moments in this film, one can not help getting distracted by the endless quips and witty one liners. It boils down to the law of diminishing returns - too much of anything and it will eventually lose its impact. This could be said about much of the dialogue and plot trajectory. The Gentleman is fun, it's flashy, it's amusing - it's Guy Richie. But it also feels like a rehashed pastiche of a bygone era. An era when he made crime movies that were genuinely funny and gripping. It is with a heavy heart that the same can not be said of this one. It felt hollow and contrived in comparison to his more iconic earlier works.

He does however notably take on the woke brigade; for this, Guy, I doff my cap to you sir.

Read a few reviews that claimed this could be a potential cult classic. This is very far from the truth. Definitely a unique film but no way a 8.1/10 IMDB worthy. Some of these scores are ridiculous. Some people give everything a 8 or 9. I loved how the story was told through the lens of a potential movie script, but at times it was confusing what was going on due to poor character presentation. I will check out other Guy Ritchie films but in my opinion this is no way close to a cult classic. Just my opinion however.

I wanted to like this film. But I just couldn't. It wasn't comedic to me. And it didn't strike a cord of being a real-life engaging thriller to me either. It's very stylized. And although style can work in certain circumstances when the viewer is appropriately brought on-board. I felt like the plane left without me. A style really doesn't work if the characters become too artificial while trying to play-off an essence of reality at the same time.

Much of the story about the main character (McConaughey's) is delivered as investigative conjecture from another character(Grant's). So as the narrator character reveals the main character's story, the narrator can later change the result of events we perceive by just revealing that the conjecture he presented before was inaccurate. This gets old really fast.

Maybe this can work if the conjecture is absurd and funny or if the conjecture rings very true most of the time. That way it surprises the viewer when it's revealed to be wrong. But as I explained before, I didn't overall get a sense of either quality within the story-telling.

Overall the film seemed very ambitious. But all of the pieces didn't seem to quite make sense to me together. And they might have been better off removing a few elements for this particular script.

I wasn't too sympathetic for the characters I was supposed to be sympathetic for. I didn't understand the logic to some of the character decisions. Some of the moments of "big reveals" didn't seem too surprising to me. And a lot of the narration got annoying to me. More often than not it's better to show than tell the viewer what they need to know. I didn't think the voiceover was helpful in showing but telling. To put it simply, I felt it was more style than more substance. And the music didn't seem to help the storytelling to me either.

I hope you like it if you see. But I also hope that if you have similar concerns and inclinations as me, that my review might spare you some time and/or money. I know I wish I had stayed away from this one.