This atrociously written, lazy film may as well be a collection of outtakes from every gangster film ever made, with scenes thought too poor to include as hilarious extras on the DVD. The film itself is a classic morality tale, as most gangster films are. However, where this film differs is that is attempts to take on a daringly controversial topic, without attempting to make any meaningful engagement with it, to the point where it’s almost insulting.
The director Peter Stylianou seems more concerned with trying out every trick in the Guy Ritchie Guide to Gangsters than actually writing a story – a particular favourite of his seemingly being the sped up action shot immediately followed by a slow-motion shot of someone falling, or snorting, or laughing… You get the idea. In fact, most of the film will feel pretty familiar, because there is not a single original idea throughout. There are nods to nearly every British gangster film in the last 20 years, though not in a Tarantino ‘homage’ sort of way, but in an ‘are they not infringing copyright?’ kind of way.
Unfortunately the film cannot be saved by the performances. There is absolutely nothing in terms of character. Ian Pirie, playing an (apparently) ‘good’ guy certainly gives it his best shot, and is easily a standout. However it’s very hard for him, or indeed any of the rest of the cast, to create anything with the dull, archetypal characters they’ve been handed. There’s not a single person in the film to root for, or even to hate, because there is a complete lack of any sort of substance or personality.
As a general rule, it’s not difficult to create something mildly entertaining with the gangster genre – all the ingredients are there; criminals, humour, violence. It’s a real shame that at a time when a good gangster film has the potential to do really well (the Tories are in power), that the first attempt in a while doesn’t have a single redeeming feature to pull in an audience.
[Rating:1/5]
“Atrociously written”…coming from someone who knows a bit about film and screenwriting and has both seen the film and read the script…this woman obviously knows nothing about neither screenwriting or film…not to be taken seriously…
Either that or she was unhappy with the portrayal of women in it, which, to some extent I must agree that the film doesn’t show as much girl-power as the script did. Not sure why so much was cut.
That said, Who Needs Enemies is not a film really for the female demographic to see or review. It’s boys movie for sure.
Hi Timpson – your comments are very presumptive about the reviewers qualifications to critique the film, showing a distrust and disrespect for the site who have asked her to provide this. What are you basing your suspicions about her lack of knowledge on, other than the film itself? (reviewers don’t usually have access to the script)
Also, I’d be really interested to know what demographic of films are suitable for a female to see or review as well? I also review films myself, and this could prove helpful to me in the future. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Timpson, you’ve just lost credibility, you did so by articulately displaying ignorance, well done.
‘…not a film really for the female demographic to see or review.’ What an appalling comment to make. So I can’t see She’s Gotta Have It because I’m white? I shouldn’t be able to watch The Notebook because I’m a man?
Whilst I agree there are certain demographics certain films are particularly leaning towards, to devalue a review based on the gender of the writer is such a silly thing to do. If the film was written and directed by a woman what would your thoughts be?
Well, it’s like what kind of review would a ‘macho-man’ give a film like say Dirty Dancing. It’s going to be a poor review, yes there are exceptions but he is the wrong demographic to review it subjectively. If he can be honestly objective then fine, but this review shows a certain kind of anger, almost upset by the film.
I happen to know the reviewer is a member and administrator for ‘Woman in Film and TV’ so off the bat…she is going to hate this film because it involves abused women who never step up to be more than victims in this film unfortunately which I agree can be upsetting but that means this review is not objectively honest.
‘Atrocious script’ is a scathing comment that, trust me, this film doesn’t deserve – there is some great writing in this so those kind of knee-jerk attacks are not cool for the filmmakers.
“Well, it’s like what kind of review would a ‘macho-man’ give a film like say Dirty Dancing. It’s going to be a poor review, yes there are exceptions but he is the wrong demographic to review it subjectively. If he can be honestly objective then fine, but this review shows a certain kind of anger, almost upset by the film.”
Both of which are fully legitimate responses to the film. How would you define “honestly objective”? And what do you mean by “wrong demographic to review it subjectively”?
If a film is actively catered toward a dumbed-down philistine reactionary demographic, shouldn’t it be called out as dumbed-down, philistine and reactionary? Or are we to rely upon dumbed-down philistine reactionaries to call out the filth in which they themselves are expected to invest?
The genderisation of a film critic’s qualifications to write on or not write on a work is intellectually backward, frankly.
“I happen to know the reviewer is a member and administrator for ‘Woman in Film and TV’ so off the bat…she is going to hate this film because it involves abused women who never step up to be more than
victims in this film unfortunately which I agree can be upsetting but that means this review is not objectively honest.”
Ad hominem!
“‘Atrocious script’ is a scathing comment that, trust me, this film doesn’t deserve – there is some great writing in this so those kind of knee-jerk attacks are not cool for the filmmakers.”
If only we had more macho-men critics to weigh things out, eh?
“In fact I just sat in a cinema screen watching this film and listened to people not only laughing out loud but gasping. ‘Atrocious scripts’ don’t do that to audiences,”
Sure they do.
“…sorry, but as soon as I read that I knew this reviewer was out for blood because the comment is so false her
motives become transparent.”
Sure they do. In fact supposedly descriptive labels such as “tear-jerkers” or “rom-com” have come to carry pejorative meanings. Sometimes entire genres are dismissed because of the apparently inferior emotional responses they aim for. But saying a horror film is innately good because 200 people jumped at a dog barking suddenly in an otherwise silent scene is rubbish.
Hello Timpson. I wrote the article above. You are of course entitled to your opinion, however I would like to make it clear that my reaction was not because I write with a feminist agenda. I am a Film Studies graduate who wrote my dissertation on British gangster films, which I hope means that I know a little bit about them. As my review suggests, I’m a Guy Ritchie fan, who, as far as I can remember, doesn’t write strong female characters at all. I also enjoy other British gangster films that many others would dismiss as awful (Rise of the Footsoldier, Essex Boys to name a couple.) So really, I went in with a far more open mind than most people would. My anger (and you’re right, I was angry, despite the fact I waited a week before I actually wrote the review) came from a place in my heart that is devoted to the genre, not from my ovaries. Thanks.
Well if that’s true then my first original post still stands. ‘Atrociously written’ it is not…trust me people, something is very wrong with that statement when talking about this film. When you see it, you’ll understand.
Hmmmm – are you the writer of the film by any chance?!
learning to accept criticism is a good way to learn and improve.
No I’m not. I’m just a concerned citizen attempting to strike out injustices anywhere I find them!
hahaha – probably your time would be better spent commenting on items on change.org than here then? #justsaying