Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Joe Outwith of the big budget heavily directed cinematic movies that clog up the cinema schedules, you'll find a good line of well produced and engaging films. TV box sets are all the rage, but there are still plenty of good films. The Easy Money trilogy is one of them.I found this set of films by chance on BBC 4, and gave it a go. Each film gave me a good taste for more. What we have is a film centring round the underbelly of Swedish society covering drugs, crime, pimping, immigrants and wealth.It's guns, it's gangsters and it's lowlife. Yet, it's more than that. It's a multi-threaded set of thrillers that leads us on a difficult and uncomfortable journey as we see the leads tip-toe around their peers, before trying to crush them. It's dark, it's grim and frightening, and very cynical in its outlook on humanity. Yet it's really honest and depressingly so, but that look feels like we are seeing a more honest view of the underworld. It's a fresh outlook that doesn't hide the truth.The film is directed and shot in a very frugal manner, and this works. There is no glamour and it's all quite base. That's the hook to this fine trilogy.I really wish there was more, but maybe halting at three films was the correct end for this. I was engrossed in following the characters in this set of films. It's one that I'll revisit, and one that I'd recommend most others to give a try to also.

horatio hufnagel The first two films (while a tad generic, in places) were entertaining and well-executed with some strong performances and impressive set-pieces. This one is diabolically amateurish by comparison. Nothing about it is believable and the dramatic tension dissipates in a jumble of hackneyed 'who-gives-a-shit' plot twists.The main character of pts 1 & 2 finds himself relegated to a flimsy subplot and is given approx 6minutes of screen time and four lines of dialog before disappearing without a trace. Inexplicable.Huge plot contrivances smack of either pure laziness or casual disregard for the viewer's intelligence. In a flashback scene at the climax of the film, Jorge is shown mucking about with his lovely big bag of cash outside an exploded car in which he apparently left a grenade... Except five minutes earlier we clearly saw him hopelessly pinned down in the driver's seat of the same car with machine guns pointed at him, his bag of cash nowhere to be seen...How did he get out of the car without getting shot?? How did he retrieve the bag of cash??? No one knows, no one cares. Including the writers and director, apparently!

andreastornqvist I think the Snabba Cash-trilogy has an undeservedly low rating here on IMDb, it might be just because it's a 'foreign' film to anyone not Swedish or it might be because great crime-thrillers have been made for a long time, just not by Swedes.Anyhow, as it usually is, the first movie is the strongest, with every sequel being a little weaker than the last. And while the second one was really close to the mark of the original Snabba Cash, the third one really wasn't, and here's why.First of all, Jorge, JW and 'Martin' were our main characters this time. I liked all thee of them - a bit too much actually, as I'll explain in a moment. First of all, this was without a doubt Jorges movie. I didn't mind that too much as he's a really good character and when he finally gets to that light at the end of the tunnel, you feel happy for him and kind of relieved that someone made it out of the criminal underworld with scars but alive. Martin's end wasn't bad but a bit too abrupt and without exposition about his future, whether or not he actually strikes down on the Serbian crime family now led by Nata. I also thought Nata's turn to her 'darker' side were a bit sudden and really should have gotten some more time - or realistically - she shouldn't have shunned Martin without demanding some kind of explanation, especially since he clearly went well beyond his authority to help her. The weakest end by far was JW. Yes, it wasn't his movie. Yes, it's just another believable example of what can happen in the criminal world. Yes, his death can be viewed as sort of redeemed by the director since he actually did get his revenge of Radovic. However, this guy was the most interesting character in both first movies, which made his 10 minutes of screen time here a bit... shameful. He shouldn't even be on the cover of the film. Kinnaman does a great job as usual but whenever you see him on screen, you want more, which is denied. I think that's a bit sloppy. They could easily have given him a more interesting ending or more screen time by cutting some from Jorge (did we really have to see him yell at construction workers at Spain or chase that little kid who stole his jacket?).With that said, this movie also had some storytelling flaws compared to the other two. The whole 'it was "minor character in the background" all along!' was a bit predictable and almost a cliché by the year 2013. There were also a bit too many moments that rode on the suspense of disbelief that you can usually lend a movie like this just so the plot can get rolling. Too many deadly situations being turned because the main character somehow managed to 'sneak' or were just damn lucky.So how do I rate this somewhat weaker but still decent end to the trilogy? 7/10! Still a good movie with some really adrenaline pumping scenes. Could've used more JW, less abrupt endings for the main characters (only one out of three got a proper one to be honest) and some smarter writing overall that didn't feel like it needed cop-outs to deliver. See it if you liked the other two!

yaldish I'm going to do this in English even though I'm Swedish.So, the third film of the 'Snabba Cash' trilogy. Before I start, I just want to say that I haven't read any of the books, only talked to a few people who have and the way I understood it was that the films don't follow the books in any particular order.It's pretty clear that the film is not focusing on 'JW', even though he was an important part in it story wise. But as for the film, I think Joel Kinnaman got maybe, 10 minutes of screening time? (Just a wild guess). I had absolutely no problem with this since 'Radovan' & 'Jorge' always interested me very much even in the previous movies. Boy did they step up their game - both character and performance-wise, especially 'Radovan'. Both of them completely steal the show and they do it very good. Swedish actors are very good when it comes to drama. Also worth mentioning, some solid performances by Malin Buska ('Natalie')and Martin Wällström ('Martin') who also had great chemistry.I loved this film and in a way, I would like to say that it's the best one in the trilogy. But the first one is still hard to beat judging by the main performance(s) and Espinosas touch. It feels as if this movie had more ground to cover and I think Jens Jonsson did a great job at doing that even though I did feel that the film was jumping back and forth too much for its own good. I completely understand why that is since the first and the second movie didn't cover much ground at all if you compare it to this one, and they also did not follow the books which I think made it somewhat harder to tie things together for this one. It was beautifully shot with great compositions, sometimes shot too great for the sake of the film (if that makes sense). The shots were sometimes so beautiful and well put together that it felt like they couldn't go on with the scene without "ruining" it aesthetically, as if they didn't know what shot to put in because they just had a great one. There was a dolly-zoom that came absolutely from nowhere and didn't fit in at all, but it was still a great dolly-zoom. Also why I think the robbery-scene was so fantastic because most of it was all in one entire take. Keep in mind that the only reason that I'm mentioning this is because this was a really beautifully shot film, and I mean it in every sense of the word.The robbery-scene was probably one of the best things that have ever happened to Swedish cinema in a very long time. The problem I had with this movie was that whenever there was a great action set-piece, it was great and did what it was supposed to do, but, where there could've been great set-pieces - they just edited them out and jumped ahead of the film. One segment that comes to mind is the scene in which Radovans daughter is going to murder one of his close friends (can't remember his name at the moment). And what they did there was that we just see her stabbing him, and then it's all over - we see her and Martin (the police) just freaking out and some flashbacks of what just happened, in other words what could've been another fantastic set-piece. I personally think that if we would've been shown the whole segment from the beginning to the end it would've added that extra suspense, the same exact suspense that we got during the robbery-scene. Fantastic.A very good and solid finish to the trilogy of 'Snabba Cash' which has become very popular in Sweden. It also makes me proud.