It only gets more convoluted from there. Between pimps, crime bosses, dirty cops, and politicians caught in all sorts of compromising positions, there are enough double crosses in this movie to keep everybody happy.
One of the things I thought was done well was that the look of the sets and costumes appeared quite historically accurate. I can't say I was around in 1970s London, but all the things in the background (clothing, glasses, furniture, etc.) lent themselves well to what I felt that time period should look like.
One thing I didn't really appreciate (though it served its purpose in the film) were the nude scenes and the S&M scenes. Though it was important to the plot, I had to wonder if it was a bit gratuitous in some places.
But my biggest complaint was the pacing of the movie. At 111 minutes, it seemed to drag in a number of places. Honestly, I can't say that it was the script (there were lots of juicy things to include as plot points), and it might not have been the director. But there had to have been some edits that could have tightened it up a bit.
I am a big fan of Jason Statham. The Transporter series, Crank, and Death Race have all been fast and fun. Statham just chugs through the scenery and looks great doing it. (I'm sure my wife wouldn't mind if I had his physique.) He's turning out to be a bit like Jean Claude and Steven Seagal; they play the same roles in all their films, they just have slightly different names and settings. This movie was a bit out of his normal line of roles, which is probably a good thing for his career.
Somehow, even he couldn't save this movie all the way. However, I think he did a great job in a more ensemble-type film than he's used to.
All of that said, I thought the end of the movie was quite good. All the double-crosses came to a head. The good guys (most of them, anyway) won. The bad guys lost. The Royals' precious honor was preserved. And all was good with the world. I just don't think it should have taken nearly two hours to get there.
The Bank Job had its moments, but they weren't enough to save this movie for me. I'm giving it two stars out of four.







Article comments
1 - Heloise
Are you reviewing the DVD? Because I reviewed the movie a long time ago when it was released.
Heloise
Just asking
2 - Brian Fitzpatrick
Hi Heloise! Yes, this was for the DVD.
I'm not trying to step on toes. This was my "trial run" article for Blogcritics, and a movie I had just recently seen myself.
--Fitz
3 - Jordan Richardson
Don't worry, Brian. There's no limit to the number of movies various reviewers can cover, nor does it matter how "old" the movie is. You can review whatever you like.
:)
4 - Brian Fitzpatrick
Whew! Thanks Jordan! Just getting started on BC and learning the ropes! :)
5 - Lisa McKay
Jordan's absolutely right. We not only allow multiple reviews, we encourage them. Our readers then get the advantage of having more than one viewpoint on any particular film (or CD or TV show, etc).
Welcome, Brian!