I liked King Arthur: Legend of the Sword and I love Snatch. So, on balance, director Guy Ritchie is still in a good place with me. His bombastic adrenaline-fueled storytelling is a real signature. He’s rightly not as revered as Quentin Tarantino, but when he’s at the top of his game, he’s almost in the same league for me, at delivering stylised grit and great popcorn flicks. And if Hugh Grant and Matthew McConaughey now want to join in on the action, all I can think best to do is sit back and enjoy. I know, I’m very late to review The Gentlemen, so I better quit muckin’ about, and give my two-bob before you think I’m having a laugh or taking the mickey.
Fletcher (Hugh Grant) meets with Raymond Smith (Charlie Hunnam) at his lavish home. As a reporter, Fletcher believes he has figured out the business dealings behind the illegal cannabis empire in Britain, run by kingpin Michael ‘Mickey’ Pearson (Matthew McConaughey), and as Mickey’s second-in-command, Fletcher is wondering if Raymond can get Mickey to pay him off to keep his name out of the papers. This sets up a framing device, for the two men to recount the details of what has been going on in the skunk-game the past few weeks; Mickey is looking to retire, and wants to sell his billion dollar enterprise to Matthew Berger (Jeremy Strong), but former representative of the Chinese syndicate, Dry Eye (Henry Golding), is adamant Mickey should consider selling it to him instead. As the men press their desires, it inspires input from Mickey’s wife Rosalind (Michelle Docherty), and a street gang, with a zest for filming their fights for YouTube, headed by disappointed Coach (Colin Farrell), and what a web it weaves.
Dare I be so negative, but I think The Gentlemen adds up to less than the sum of its parts. The Gentlemen is quite fun, with some thoroughly enjoyable scenes, but it lacks a finish to bring this frantic racket to a resounding crescendo. It reminded me somewhat of Burn After Reading, where in the end, the point of that movie is, what’s the bloody point? Fletcher keeps reminding us that his tale is building up to something satisfying, and it becomes a pretty high marker of anticipation. Fletcher should have taken a lesson out of M. Night Shyamalan’s book and known, if an audience comes to expect a big shock ending then you better deliver. Everything Fletcher ends up revealing is apparent, or becomes obvious when you think about it. The story, hinges on Dry Eye going nuts unexpectedly, which is a bit out of character from what we’ve previously been led to believe. From the start, Mickey is proud that the people in his circle recognise him as the king, yet, by the end you realise he isn’t saying that ironically or profoundly – there’s a lot of fortunate intervention that allows him to be the king. Then again, perhaps that’s by design; maybe the movie is prodding us to realise that it’s the perception of Mickey that urges others to protect him, but I don’t know, I think Mickey is lucky and doesn’t acknowledge it.
The script is also thick with homosexual witticisms; too many to be clever and not very kosher for the modern day. I think Fletcher might be gay, so his quips are understandable, and I get that we’re dealing with tough men, using homosexuality to question the other’s integrity, but as a scriptwriter, I think you have to notice if you’re overplaying the balance. The dialogue, in general, should’ve eased up on the swears – sprinkling the c-bomb through the script like confetti, it loses its pop, and if I was writing a movie, I wouldn’t want to weaken the strongest emotive word in the English language. Ah, but Guy Ritchie is the professional, it’s his prerogative, and if he were to read my criticism, he’d be well within his right to say, ‘frankly, you c**t, I don’t give a damn.’ I seem to bagging this movie much more than I expected to, as I genuinely had a good time while watching The Gentlemen, but writing about it, it seems the negatives stand-out like dogs’ balls. Ritchie’s aggressive back-and-forth wordplay still makes for the most enjoyable parts of this movie, with all the characters having their moments to spar with sharp tongues rather than their fists.
On acting, Hugh Grant is certainly having fun, chewing the scenery as Fletcher. Before completely establishing himself as a grubby investigative journalist, he’s a tad menacing, with a streak of what made Brick the best character in Snatch. As with his other crime-based enterprises, Guy Ritchie’s characters are well defined and beautifully acted. I liked Charlie Hunnam in a reserved role – the most replayable scenes for me are his; when he is rescuing Laura (Eliot Sumner) and chasing a hoodlum down the street for his phone. Jeremy Strong took me by surprise, as his character is very flamboyant, and after remembering him best as the gravel-souled financer in The Big Short, it’s a bit of an adjustment. Michelle Docherty is most famous for her role in Downton Abbey, yeah? I’ve seen her on the ads, but I’ve never watched that show myself. I wouldn’t have realised what a steamy temptress she could be if I hadn’t seen this movie! I like an independent type from time to time, and Rosalind keeps McConaughey’s Mickey in line with a confidence I wouldn’t like to mess with. I really like Colin Farrell in this movie too, but goodness gracious, what is he wearing? Is that a thing? It looks like a traditional English fox hunters’ uniform designed as a pantsuit.
The Gentleman is a charming production even if it doesn’t amount to much. I loved the rich and poetic dialogue, although some of it is unappealing. I certainly appreciated Coach’s take on racism, taking a minute to explain how calling someone black isn’t necessarily discriminatory racism if its observational and specific to the individual – that’s not an explanation you expect in a big budget movie, but I think, from a comedic point of view, that’s the theory I subscribe to most of the time, and I’m glad it’s out there. I like the movie including some rapping hoodlums as well; it was an unexpectedly fresh jolt in a Ritchie movie. The Gentleman isn’t as great as Snatch, and perhaps it’s wrong to consider that it should be, but it does make for an entertaining addition to Guy Ritchie’s British crime collection.
3.5
Leave a Reply