London Boulevard (2010) User Reviews

Entertaining if you can look past some of the poor writing & clichés

[Jaime-b · 5/10 · 24 March 2011]

This film was brimming with potential, an adept cast, some stylish directing & gritty yet beautiful set locations. However some of the story & the actions taken by its characters were implausible, & most of its ideas didn't develop effectively on screen.

Recently released gangster Colin Farrell meets a young female friend of reclusive celebrity actor Kiera Knightly & offers him a job protecting her from intrusive paparazzi. He shows up for work & What feels like a scene or two later they have (unconvincingly) fallen in love. parallel to this Farrels character is finding it hard to escape his past & is soon roped into a feud with gangster boss Ray Winstone. He is now faced with the dilemma of either returning to his previous nature or beginning a life of new found love in LA.

All this is played out with some very stylish moments, such as the dialogue between Winstone & Farrel in the restaurant or the artistic but realistic way in which the environment is captured. All the acting is well done & Its accompanied by a great soundtrack, but a huge amount of the script feels rushed & underdeveloped. As a whole it is entertaining if not taken to seriously but may not appeal to any serious film enthusiast.

I also felt that the ending of this film was brave but what I had seen prior to it lacked enough substance or attachment to make it stick & I think I would have been more satisfied with a conventional ending.

Welcome to the disappointment

[mattbaxter72 · 5/10 · 29 November 2010]

In a lot of ways, this is a puzzling movie. Every single element of it is so right, so how does it end up being so completely uninvolving that I ended up nearly falling asleep halfway through? The problem isn't the casting; Colin Farrell makes a hell of a gangster, all smouldering machismo stomping through the streets of London. And with a supporting cast that includes Eddie Marsan (sleazy), David Thewlis (sleazier) and Ben Chaplin (sleaziest, and very, very good), Farrell has some excellent support. Ray Winstone has never been scarier, but of all people it's Anna Friel who takes the acting honours as Farrell's sister, a woman who out-sleazes Marsan, Thewlis and Chaplin combined.

The problem isn't the locations, or how true to life they are. I lived in London for a long time, and I've rarely seen the city depicted better, all back streets and alleyways with nasty bastards lurking around every grubby corner. Considering the film's writer and director William Monahan is from Boston, I was worried that this might be the tourist's eye view of London, but that really isn't the case. The film positively drips with atmosphere, and the expletive-heavy dialogue rings true.

And yet it all sits there, lifeless on the screen, a collection of images and characters that seem only vaguely related to one another. It doesn't help that the main plot - will Farrell become a proper gangster, or will he end up with Keira Knightley's way-too-good-for-him actress - is hardly new. But that doesn't have to be a deal breaker, and there are plenty of interesting minor characters to pass the time.

The problem is really that the film feels rushed. Those minor characters aren't given nearly enough time - Marsan gets three scenes, none of them remotely important to the plot, and even Anna Friel doesn't get a lot to do. She's still better off than Stephen Graham and Sanjeev Bhaskar, great actors who are cast in completely pointless roles that could have been played by anyone. And so much of this movie feels tacked on, from the dozen or so subplots, to Winstone's pointless murder of the wrong man halfway through, to the stalker, obviously based on Mark David Chapman, who makes several ominous appearances and is then dismissed in a single line of dialogue.

If some subplots and characters are pointless, though, the ending made me feel that way about the whole damn film. Without giving too much away, it's a horrible, limp lettuce of an ending, with none of the resonance that the film-makers clearly thought it had achieved. That's the film in a nutshell - it wanted to be profound, but ended up as a giant 'so what?'

I will hurt someone before they hurt me.

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 26 March 2018]

London Boulevard is written and directed by William Monahan. It stars Colin Farrell, David Thewlis, Ray Winstone, Ben Chaplin, Keira Knightley and Anna Friel. Music is by Sergio Pizzorno and cinematography by Chris Menges.

After serving his stretch for GBH, Harry Mitchel (Farrell) returns to his manor and finds gangland boss Rob Gant (Winstone) wants him as one of his charges.

Written and directed by the man who co-wrote The Departed, it's not hard to guess what sort of tone London Boulevard is set at. Which for anyone who follows neo-noir will find plenty to like here, not least the stylish and tonally compliant photography of Menges.

However, falling under the neo-noir banner becomes a curse in a way because there are far greater films of this ilk to liken it too. Pic at least does have the courage to not cop out in resolutions, but again there is no surprise factor for the genre faithfuls.

The narrative often meanders, shoehorning in Knightley's (underused) harassed actress as a love interest in the process, and London accents are choppy. It also is criminal to have Stephen Graham and Eddie Marsan in your movie and barely give them screen time!

On the plus side of things, the violence and dialogue is often taut and tart respectively, backed by a scorching rocky hipster soundtrack. Farrell is good value as a tough guy, Winstone does what he does best, menacing of course, while Thewlis steals the film as a wired cool cat with menace surprisingly lurking in is heart.

As a whole it fails to hit all the right spots, but enough in here for neo-noir fans to feed on as an appetiser to a more fulfilling noir meal. 6/10

Entertaining Crime Drama

[clint-taylor · 7/10 · 14 January 2012]

London Boulevard had many flaws but in the end I think it comes out with more good than bad. The actors give strong performances especially Winston and Farrell, and the plot definitely keeps you interested. This is a crime movie about gangsters, and doesn't offer much more than another story about the intertwining and complications of a certain group of gangsters.

I think some downfalls would be that some of the scenes tended to jump around and not flow into the next as smoothly but even this was not an issue much of the time. It had a strong sense of style which also made up for some weak moments in the plot, specifically around the middle of the film it looses momentum. If you like crime movies than this would surely entertain you on a Friday night but I wouldn't add it to your list of your top ten crime movies of all time.

Good movie, better cast.

[lewiskendell · 7/10 · 25 February 2012]

"That's why nobody wants me to be a gangster. Because I could not stop if I started."

I mainly wanted to see London Boulevard because of the pairing of Keira Knightley and Colin Farrell, and that part of the movie certainly didn't disappoint me. This is definitely Farrel's film, and he carries it well. Knightley is much more a side character, despite her prominent place in the posters and advertisements. And while she's good in her part, Farrell is what makes this interesting. The guy is absolutely ferocious in this movie, and any fans of his will be pleased. 

The story of a man, fresh off of time in the prison, struggling not to be drawn into the violent criminal world that everyone around him seems to think he belongs in, is an average one. It feels a bit haphazard at times, which seems due to the way the plot continued to change as the film was being made. It progresses in leaps and fits and starts, without ever really establishing a steady flow. The scenes with Knightley and Farrell together seem from a completely different flick than the scenes with Farrell in his violent criminal element, due to the drastic differences in tone between the two. That's not a flaw in itself, but it highlights how piecemeal the whole film can feel at times. 

What makes London Boulevard a memorable movie despite its issues is the characters. Beyond Farrell and Knightley's hounded actress, Anna Friel, David Thewlis, and Ray Winstone each help carry the story along with interesting roles that they play just perfectly. 

I recommend London Boulevard if you're a fan of anyone involved, but don't expect a traditional English gangster flick. Or a perfect one.

Going Straight is never as simple as it seems...

[the_rattlesnake25 · 6/10 · 27 November 2010]

You can guarantee if there's one area of the current employment sector which continually flouts the rules of a recession, it's the underworld London East End gangster. William Monahan's (screenplays for 'The Departed' and 'Body of Lies') directorial debut is an adaptation of Ken Bruen's 2001 novel 'London Boulevard' about a criminal who after being released from prison, attempts to go 'straight,' but despite his attempts, he can never truly escape his violent past. It's not a perfect film by any means, but capable direction, and solid performances from a primarily solid British and Irish cast, create a competent directorial debut for Monahan.

Mitchell (Colin Farrell) has just been released from Pentonville after a three year sentence for assault, when he exits the prison he is picked up by long-time partner in crime, and local enforcer, Billy (Ben Chaplin), who takes Mitchell to a party in his honour. Every East End drug dealing gangster is there to shake the hand of one of the most feared men in London, but all Mitchell wants is to get a job, and avoid being restricted to a sixteen by eight cell again. He manages to convince a beautiful, reclusive actress (Keira Knightly) and her pot-smoking-hippy-esquire-father-figure Jordan (David Thewlis) to hire him as a handyman around their paparazzi infested estate. But when the leading figure in the London underworld, Mr Gant (Ray Winstone) comes looking to place Mitchell high up in his crime organization, he must find a way to refuse the advances of such a dangerous man, while also protecting those closest to him.

For the first ten-to-fifteen minutes of the film, Colin Farrell's forced middle-class cockney accent takes centre stage, but once he settles into the role, his performance takes limelight as a sociopathic criminal with somewhat of a heart. His brash use of violence, and utter respect and protection of friends, family and confidants, provides a conflict within Mitchell that he constantly battles throughout the film. The only thing he knows what to do is enforce, and if he was a true gangster he would "kill everyone and take everything they had," but at the same time, the last thing he wants in his life is to return to that desolate hole known as prison. Aside from Farrell, both David Thewlis and Ben Chaplin give great performances as the hippy, wannabe actor and scared, low-level gangster respectively. While Anne Friel also plays the thieving, stubborn, childish sister of Mitchell's very well. Yet while Ray Winstone never puts a foot wrong, his role as the Underworld Godfather has become rather predictable and uninteresting, especially since every other word out of his Landan mouth is either f**k or c**t (or a combination of both). Monahan really missed a trick, by failing to provide Winstone's character with any further depth.

Also beside the main story as Mitchell battles his growing love for the reclusive actress and the life of a straight man alongside that of his violent past, and potential gangster future, is the sub-plot of Mitchell's old homeless friend Joe (Alan Williams) who is killed ruthlessly by a couple of youths and Mitchell's subsequent attempts to find out who is responsible. While it is an adequate underlying story to accompany the main narrative, neither Monahan's direction nor his screenplay seem to follow it to any decisive conclusion. It seems if anything, if this sub-plot is simply included to allow the subversion of the ending and provide a twist or surprise ending, which the film itself certainly does not need. 'London Boulevard' is a proficient first effort for Monahan, and while the film contains flaws, which you expect from a first-time director plying his trade, it is also an engaging gangster drama which is smartly written, and incredibly well-acted by many of the great British and Irish actors at the moment.

London Masquerade

[martin-secker · 4/10 · 29 November 2010]

The movie had promise - directed by The Departed's writer William Monahan and starring an eclectic bunch of British stars Colin Farrell, Keira Knightly, Ray Winstone, David Thewlis and Anna Friel. Even Eddie Marsan, Stephen Graham and Ben Chaplin make appearances.

Unfortunately despite a snazzy score and a stylish flourish, this movie is nothing more than a collection of London gangster movie clichés and stereotypes with an obvious script written by an unauthentic source. The characters can all be labelled with a single word (villain, victim, druggie etc), bereft of any depth or colour.

Farrell plays Mitchell, fresh from prison and determined to go straight, within half-an-hour, he has been offered a choice of two jobs. One working as a debt collector for tough and possibly homosexual (who cares?) gangland boss (Winstone, who else) and the other protecting a damaged & shy actress (Knightly). Needless to say, Winstone doesn't take kindly to being refused and sets his sights on hurting Mitchell as revenge (hasn't he got better things to do?) The movie doesn't ring true at every juncture and the only pleasure the viewer grab, is when watching Thewlis's thinly veiled Withnail impression or with the music on show.

Do yourself a favour and watch Layer Cake instead.

Very engaging and interesting film

[loveagoodstory · 8/10 · 30 August 2013]

Ex-con Colin Farrell is released from prison and take a job as a minder to an actress prowled on by the paparazzi. He also tries to resist the pull back into crime by the local gangster, keen to have him on his payroll.

If this plot was all this film had, it would be run of the mill. Instead, Colin Farrell fills his character out beautifully to counterbalance a reliably excellent Ray Winstone as the slightly-polished savage in his gangster. The performances of Knightley, Thewlis and the brilliant and rarely-seen Chaplin add great flavour to the storytelling. The sum total is a compelling film with depth of character.

It's hard to tell oft-told story elements but the way to success seems to be to tell them well rather than invent twists and turns to try and impress the audience. This film gets that balance of approach right and is a fine watch.

Expected better

[mattquigley1978 · 6/10 · 25 November 2010]

I went into this film expecting a cool,tense,exciting Brit thriller. The trailer looked decent and the acting talent on show made me want to give it a go. Overall though it failed to deliver on the promising looking opening credits. It lacked any real tension or suspense, the story felt underdeveloped with too many subplots and a lot of it just fails to convince. Many parts of the film are just not believable enough.

The acting is fairly strong and there are a couple of elegant visual touches;(Farrell in the car for example).In my opinion,the soundtrack is the best thing about the film. Serge Pizzorno from Kasabian had a hand in the music on this one and he has done a good job with a 60's/70's spaghetti western/French art-house vibe if you can imagine such a thing!

Finally its worth noting that I asked my girlfriend to contribute her thoughts after seeing the film and she gave me a one word reply..........."sh*te"

Could have been so much better

[jamesbrucedarroch · 4/10 · 25 November 2010]

Glimpses of what could have been a far better film appear at regular stages throughout what is essentially another 'Landan' crime flick.

You could be forgiven for assuming the predictable plot is actually a clever ruse, with a huge twist or revelation certain to turn events on their head in the back end of the film. But alas, William Monahan's directorial debut points you in one direction from the start, then follows a fairly straight line for it's 100 minutes run time.

What elevates this movie from Danny Dyer fodder is the rather exciting cast of British and Irish big guns, with David Thewlis perhaps the most interesting character and screen presence. The likable Colin Farrel's posh-boy cockerney accent is consistent enough not to distract, and you certainly root for his reluctant protagonist Mitchell. Ray Winstone is typecast as the (needlessly racist) villain, and Anna Friel is perky and trashy as Farrell's screen Sister.

Ikea Knightley on the other hand, is wooden and unconvincing as the 'Superstar' whom Farrell's Mitchell is hired to protect. A limited screen presence at the best of times, it's hard to tell if Knightley's emaciated Supermodel/Actress is supposed to look so frail or if that's just how Knightley turns up to work... Either way, she makes for a particularly unattractive and unconvincing screen starlet, and when her Charlotte laments that Actresses are merely in films to make the male heroes look good, she struggles to do even that.

The under explored sub-plot regarding Mitchell and a young thug shamelessly bookends the film with a predictable climax 'borrowed' heavily from the far superior Carlito's Way, and left me for one, thinking about the far better film this so-so effort could have been.

You wouldn't believe how underrated this movie really is...

[snookie-6 · 10/10 · 18 March 2011]

It just kills me that once again I had the (un)fortunate chance to trust someone with an answer to a simple "Is it any good?" question. People all around me were bashing this movie before I watched it and I heard so many things. I heard it stole the plot from Carlito's Way, I heard the ending was disappointing, I even read comments like "Keira Knightley has no tits and less talent". The only thing I'm disappointed of is myself for believing all of these s... tuff. Yet I'm kind of glad I read and heard all the negative responses, because it caught me off guard even more than it probably would've if I'd seen it without somebody's thoughts.

The acting and script were superb. Knightley's performances almost made my heart skip a beat, Farrel's teeth grinding and weird expressions got me all worked up about his problems, Winstone was giving me the creeps and Thewlis got me laughing out of my breath. "I'm an actor - I can feel anything about anything". Great script, superb acting - if you're a fan of one of the actors in here, a fan of British cinema, a fan of the crime genre or a fan of quality pictures in general - this is the movie for you. Oh and remember - when it comes to art and judgement - trust ONLY yourself! You owe it to yourself to go see this movie! 10/10

brutal but very original story

[antoniotierno · 7/10 · 13 June 2011]

Colin Farrell is totally credible as a tough guy but the movie features other stunning performances like Keira Knightley and Ray Winstone, who make the film pleasant and interesting. Monahan borrows something from other famous flicks such as Martin Scorsese's The Departed and Carlito's way. The story plays out perfectly and the pleasures are many, including Farrell's reflective smiles when things go wrong and Knightley's depiction of a beautiful woman (with fame and money but always needy and selfish). Not to mention the London perfect locations and the believable depiction of the mob's underworld. The finale leaves a bit a bad taste but the story is wonderful on the whole

Boulevard or Bust

[bartireid · 5/10 · 28 November 2010]

London Boulevard is a big screen adaptation of Ken Bruen's 2001 fictional crime novel of the same name and a directorial debut for William Monahan of Departed (2006) fame, for which he contributed the screen play in Martin Scorcese's seminal Oscar triumph. Monahan manages to assemble a pretty interesting cast for the job matching big name attractions notably Colin Farrell for the lead of Mitchell an ex-con trying to place his life on the straight and narrow who finds complications aplenty but centrally in the shape of Keira Knightley playing Charlotte, a reclusive actress in need of Mitchell's muscle in order to fend off pesky paparazzi, perform some odd jobs around her abode whilst also seeking comfort in his softer side when making use of Mitchell as a confidante.

The strength of the piece is in the supporting cast who mainly transpire as conduits for Mitchells struggle with the temptations of a potential return to his old ways. Leading the second tier is Ray Winstone as crime lord Gant who genuinely creates an atmosphere of dread when on screen as he attempts to lure Farrell back to the dark-side. David Thewlis is equally adept as he plays Jordan a drug induced failed thespian who is Charlotte's business manager. There are also roles for Ben Chaplin as a blundering hood whilst Stephen Graham and Eddie Marsan are shamefully under used in their minor roles.

As you might be thinking there is a lot a going on here and that's sort of where Monahan gets into trouble, the narrative is littered with plot-holes and semi developed ideas and characters such as Anna Friel who pops in and out the story as a Mitchell's troubled sister, this is largely a product of the derivative nature of the project. Monahan seems to be tipping his hat at the types of movie he himself has indulged, for example there is clear a sense of early Guy Ritchie in style of the visuals, soundtrack and occasional attempts at humour. The mood and tone owes more to Scorcese traits such as an angry gratuitous racism and overly proud glorification of the gangster life style. It's a rarity when a film could be said to be too short, but one way London Boulevard could have been improved is an extra 45 minutes or so to pay attention to its many details.

The major task London Boulevard will have is proving it has any substance, it will be interesting to see if William Monahan will be encouraged to take this debut any further and perfect or enhance his directorial style with future work, if so this could be remembered more fondly as part of a bigger picture. If not it will fall through the cracks of irrelevance rather quickly.

The Good, The Bad and The Boulevard

[supah79 · 7/10 · 1 May 2011]

I was lucky enough to see this film without being trampled by either the studio's marketing machine or the bizz-reviewers. This gave me a chance to experience the film without prejudice. It is a film that has me going in opposite directions at once.

This is a not a bad movie. It entertains me more than something like Layer Cake or Rocknrolla. Why? This movie is filled with style-elements and trademarks from the screenwriter/director that do not scream out loud "Look at me being a hip and smart director"(for example the Spaghetti Western elements at the beginning and the end). The characters seem more real to me. Plus the violence is not glorified or funny. It's harsh and pains you even looking at it. At the end of this film, you just want to go back to your boring job: it is a compliment to the filmmaker.

But is it good? I don't know, because it also has you scratching the back of your head too much. Some of the dialogue is so crypted, you miss the next minutes because your still putting the last scenes together. But at the same time I love that. It doesn't try to be pleasing or find the easy way out. But this does have a dangerous effect: people will stamp your movie as riddled with plot holes, while it just needs a bit attention from the viewer. One of the things that stayed with me was the (latent) homosexual feelings Ray Winston's character seemed to have. It is a real clue as to why he reacts the way he does to Colin Farrel's character. And gives a whole other meaning to the sentence: 'You and I would be great together' while Farrel's character is ready to kill him. I also think the homeless guy is Mitch's father. Think about it: all the signs point to this.

Farrel gives his best performance yet. I always was not very convinced about his acting skills. But his performance here, along with Pride and Glory, shows me he can act. If he wants to. For that matter: everyone involved was very well cast.

At 103 minutes, I think it could have used 15 to 20 more minutes to smooth over the final resolution. The set up is great and takes it's time. The movie really isn't about the love between Farrel and Kneightley, but the attempts of Farrel to break free from his criminal past. And with the excellent setup, the ending seems too rushed and that's too bad. Because not too many movies today have sad endings. And this is one of the few that had me really sad.

I give it 7 out of 10.

is a bit of a plot summary so don't look if you want to see it fresh

[stabbo · 7/10 · 10 June 2011]

Wish i'd seen this film years ago (as in before a certain film)... Colin Farrell - surprisingly convincing. Ray Winstone - cracking as always.

Good settings though and the cars and clothes are amazing.

But .... guy wants to get straight, gets embroiled and set up by a high end gangster.. and the ending..

well it would be great unless i'd never seen a film with a yellow range rover.. Stuck that film on straight after - seems same but better story, soundtrack,cameos,twists... much slicker.

Worth watching just for the actors

Solid movie

[Notumforce · 7/10 · 6 May 2012]

Im no expert so I'm not gonna use many words.

But if you like slick crime drama then this is the movie for you. Good actors, solid screenplay , and Keira Knightley And Colin Farrel had a very good chemistry on stage. And i really like David Thewlis more for every movie i have seen him in.

The movie do has some negatives but i truly don't think they will impact so much they could maybe sharpened the story a tiny bit more. And maybe chosen someone other than Ray Winstone for his part. Also the settings was maybe to shallow.

Anyway solid movie for a Sunday afternoon .

Not Bouled Over

[i-rispin · 3/10 · 13 December 2010]

Good points: Ray Winstone is genuinely menacing. David Thewlis does a fun hammy turn. Colin Farrell is sympathetic and credible, as is Anna Friel. However, the plot is unbelievable (in the sense of not suspending disbelief). The contrived way that Farrell gets his job with Knightly is ridiculous, and although the contributions by Thewlis's character are fun to watch, you are not convinced by him. Knightly herself is hopeless. The dialogue is often risible, except when delivered by Winstone. Whilst I enjoyed this film as it ran, the overwhelming impression it leaves is what a piece of work "In Bruges" is. This film is rubbish by comparison, especially considering the pedigree of its scriptwriter. Even Rocknrolla knocks it into a cocked hat. DEEPLY DISAPPOINTING. Ooh, almost forgot! Liked the soundtrack.

entertaining and macho

[jo-savic-222-441942 · 8/10 · 25 November 2011]

I've read many bad reviews about this movie and despite that I decided to give it a shot, and I'm so glad I have. I don't understand what people expect from movies like this other then entertainment and (if possible) some intelligence. This movie has it both, plus a great soundtrack. It kept me entertained from the first minute and made me feel like I'm right there at the scene. Acting is just brilliant: Collin Farell is excellent in being macho man but most credit I would give to Ben Chaplin,who just can't be more convincing as scared and snitchy "accessory gangster", and although I'm not big fan of miss Knightley in this movie I didn't feel weired watching her acting- as I usually do.

All in all please check this movie out

great characters study, great script, great performance, hard not to be hooked

[Moobee · 7/10 · 2 December 2011]

the thing work for this movie, I guess is the layers of each characters, a wonderful writing on almost each character, from the street Big issue seller to the leading roles, all were given a good depth of the investment. The supporting characters are there for its purpose and because of that, you can see the strong structure in script. the layers of each character make this "surreal" world believable otherwise, it is hard to watch for the plots and some of the cliché.

other plus is the well casting and lovely performance from all the casts, though you can tell the directer is trying to set up the tone and style like quentin Tarantino but fail to have the edge of it BUT a promising start for his own style to come. a bit low-rated, so I give 7 out of 10 in hope to balance other way-low ratings.

Trite and Disjointed Gangster Flick

[danew13 · 4/10 · 23 March 2011]

The heavyweight cast for this film might cause one to think he's in-store for an entertaining time...In truth this was a waste of time killing 90 minutes or so watching a tired old formula 60s style ex con can't seem to go straight story. The editing is terrible making you wonder what happened in certain scenes.

Stars Colin Farrell, Keira Knightley and Ray Winstone do good jobs, although I found Keira to be sleepwalking the role..but maybe that was because of the the dope that was everywhere. Still,their roles don't hold together unlike far better films such as Get Carter and Point Blank. Perhaps if Farrell's character stayed more on track with Knightley instead of running around most of the time, yet going nowhere, the film would have had a better feel and focus.

From start to finish there is a hopeless feel about the main characters and there is the rule in the UK that goes back to Shakespeare: Bad guys have to meet with their dramatic resolution. Even that's hard to swallow in this flick. I just wonder if the stars got paid for this turkey.

good movie

[o_marick · 8/10 · 4 March 2011]

I really enjoyed this movie, kept my eyes on the screen till the end. I just couldn't get bored when the movie is full with events and so many interesting characters. These characters are having their own interesting stories, and I think it was a good decision not to develop it more. We see only what's relevant to Farrell's character.

"London Boulevard" is about a man in some troubles, surrounded by people with their problems. It's a mess from which the main character must get out. This movie isn't supposed to be profound, it's intense. it's not about how Farrell makes his decisions and his inner conflicts, we just get to see how he tries to break through.

I enjoyed the storyline and wouldn't even dare to judge its credibility. I just put this in the "inside view" category. It's London the way tourists wont see it probably. Acting was great for all cast! This is the right place for Farrell. I would only object Knightley, but this could be just my taste.

After watching the movie, there was only one thing that disappointed me, and that is - the end. This is not a philosophical movie, the end shouldn't raise questions. And the question raised at the end is not even philosophical... it's just lack of information. Still... I don't think one minute ruined the film.

Trying to do and be a bit too many different things, all at once.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 17 April 2012]

Somewhere, deep down, there still is a great movie hidden here. It had all of the right ingredients in it to become a great crime movie, done in a very typical raw British style but the movie as it turned was still mostly a disappointing one.

Reason why the movie isn't as good as it potential could had been is because it's lacking focus and is trying to do and tell far too many things. The movie features simply far too many different plot lines and characters in it, which are all really fine, if only they were being the basis of a different and separate movie on their own.

The movie is being drama about a guy trying to settle in again, after being released from jail but it's also a crime movie, that features a very crime-like and thriller type of plot in it. And if that wasn't enough already; it also tries to be a romantic movie. There is never really a right balance between any of these different aspects, which makes this a very uneven movie, that also doesn't really work out the way it was supposed to because of all of this.

Especially the romantic plot line suffered from this. In the movie there was absolutely no reason for the Colin Farrell and the Keira Knightley to fall in love with each other. Which was odd, since they still seemed to have some good chemistry together. The movie however never makes it seem believable or logical and you even wonder why it's in the movie at all, since it doesn't even seem to be all that important for the movie and its main story, once you really start thinking back about it.

It still is a great movie with some great actors and acting in it. Keira Knightley plays mostly herself and she actually is hardly in the movie at all, so she doesn't impress all that much but Colin Farrell on the other hand is truly great in this. The movie also has a truly great supporting cast, with actors such as David Thewlis, Ray Winstone and Ben Chaplin all involved.

The thing that also helped to save the movie, was the fact that this remains a very well made film. It has a good style to it and also nothing wrong with its storytelling. It just is the story itself that isn't all that great because it tries too hard to impress, with as many different ideas in it as possible. Still a valiant attempt by writer turned director William Monahan and I'm still very interested in seeing more movies done by him. I'm sure that if he continues to do more movies as a director, he will become more successful at it and has the capability to make some really great crime movies. A genre that obviously suits him well, despite the fact that this movie is still mostly being somewhat of a disappointment and just not entirely successful enough at what it's all trying to achieve.

It really had far more potential in it.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Unbelievably Rubbish

[philliperry · 1/10 · 19 June 2011]

This film is truly awful. Badly acted, Hollyoaks level direction, not even Hollyoaks level editing, but worst of all the script. Lets start with the 'star'. Colin Farrell's cockney accent sounds more South African. Was the director to scared to tell him its sounded wrong? The script feels like its written by a white supremacist who's never actually been to London, and thinks its still like it was in the 60's. So Farrell gets a job looking after a poor millionaire film star who doesn't like being snapped by the paps. Well boo-hoo. How are you supposed to give a toss about that? Ray Winstone says the 'C' word a lot. Wow. How edgy. Anyway, you get the idea. This film makes a Guy Ritchie film look like a masterclass in filmmaking. I guess the director has sucked all the right pricks.

I expected something a lot better

[Gordon-11 · 28 April 2011]

This film is about an man who wants to have a decent life again after spending time in prison.

"London Boulevard" has a stellar cast, and one might think all these top stars wold only star in a good film. Well, they have all made the same mistake. "London Boulevard" has a confusing and hardly engaging plot. It has two main subplots, which has no apparent connection to each other. In fact, there are many smaller subplots (and characters also) that are poorly developed, that I struggle to see why they are shown in the first place. The whole film appears to be a disjointed and confusing collection of scenes, that simply do not make any sense. It is not helped by the dialogs which sounds more like mumbling than speaking. After watching the whole film, I struggle to understand even one bit of the story. And it is very boring, without the excitement or tension that is expected of a gangster film. Basically everything about "London Boulevard" is below standard. I expected something a lot better.

Down and Dirty

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 25 May 2013]

Energetic and thickly plotted British Gangster Movie with some Talent both on and off the Screen. It is an expected violent and scuzzy affair with momentum that keeps one interested if confused at times. There are so many Characters and Subplots that it is better to just strap in and enjoy the Rocking and Rolling.

With its Sixties Soundtrack of fuzz-tone and angst it can't help but remind one of Scorsese because there is so much of it. That's not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing is some ill advised use of undeveloped and mishandled side Stories. A suggestion might be to eliminate or develop the Bodyguard stuff and enhance the Sister's Story, since that seems to be dear to our Anti-Hero's Heart.

Anyway, there is more here than needed and things come off as jigsaw puzzle pieces in the wrong box. But it is engaging with its despicable Thugs (one actually brags he has killed Babies while laughing about it), and a perverted, ruthless Kingpin. This is not airy-fairy-wacky and frivolous like so many Lock and Stock rips, it is a rather serious and downward look at the always interesting crusty Criminal Element.