Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

dierregi Take any Tarantino/Ritchie gangsters movie, Carlito's way, Sexy Beast, some fragrance ads, shake well and the result is London Boulevard.Farrell is Mitchel, a gangster released from prison who wants to stay "clean" - major cliché - He has a slutty sister (Friel as Briony, the most annoying character in the movie) and a sleazy business associate (Chaplin as Billy, with greasy long hair and speaking with a thick accent).Very randomly Mitchel gets a job as bodyguard for Charlotte, a millionaire movie star, hunted by paparazzi. At this stage it starts to look like two movies randomly stuck together and unfortunately, random is the key word of this plot development. Knightley - as megastar Charlotte - is terrible. Her delivery is stiff and flat and we get the full Knightley package of quivering lips, beady eyes, thick bangs and fashionable rags that barely cover her emaciated frame Knightley's face plastered around London reminded me she is a perfume-salesperson (I mean "testimonial"). When she was on screen, I expected to see the fragrance she advertises among other product placements. At some stage the random plot introduces Winstone, allegedly a big crime lord, sporting elegant clothes, glasses and a beard to fool us into believing he is not Winstone. I could hardly hear a word he said because - I guess - his voice coach suggested that whispering makes a criminal seem more dangerous.None of the characters is sympathetic: Mitchel is as violent as his associates, Charlotte's problem is that she is too rich and famous, Winstone is a brutal thug, Briony is a silly slut, Billy a coward, etc…Sub-plots and characters (the beggar, the policeman, Charlotte's live-in friend, the doctor…) appear and disappear randomly and way too late the movie reaches its plagiarist ending.PS the soundtrack is good though, very Swinging London

Easygoer10 I loved this film. It is extremely well cast; by that I mean each actor fit their character perfectly. I wouldn't change any of them. It really is more of an ironic black comedy than a "gangster" film. I believe the hardest role is that of Harry Mitchel, played by Colin Farrell (no surprise there). Mitchel is a gangster by nature, but wants to change; and, has the moral fortitude and character to do so. I think one of the best played roles is that of Anna Friel. Her performance as the character Briony (Mitchel's alcoholic sister) is absolutely brilliant. I rolled with laughter at some of her lines and stunts. I think director William Monahan (an absolutely stunning writer/screenwriter) didn't have Mitchel go through with killing the footballer (played by Jamie Blackley; an up and coming young actor) just to upset the audience. It reminds me of the same ironical reason in Joel Schumacher's film "Tigerland" that Private Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell's breakout, star-making role) ends up going to Vietnam, after getting so many people out of the Army. Lastly, in the "Making Of" featurette short on the Blu ray disc for this film, director Monahan mentions that during the scene in which Rob Gant (played perfectly by Ray Winstone) takes the egg sarnie (sandwich) from Det. Bailey (played by the extremely versatile Eddie Marsan), he shot the scene at that very spot for a personal reason, but doesn't say what it was. I believe it is because that is the same exact spot in Stanley Kubrick's film "A Clockwork Orange" where Alex, played by Malcolm McDowell (in the role of a lifetime) is leaning against the railing when the drunk he and his "droogs" (gang) had previously beat up asks him, "Can you spare some cutter me brother?" and recognizes Alex, who is then beaten up by all the other drunks.

cinecephale I am very ambivalent about this film. It is a real pleasure to see so many great actors, all at the top of their game: Colin Farrell, Keira Knightley, Ray Winstone, Thewlis. But the script is all over the place and in the end, deeply unconvincing. It is as if the filmmaker couldn't make up his mind about what story he wanted to tell: a story about celebrity? cinema? gangsters? a love story between a star and a nobody? revenge? redemption? Maybe a better writer could have pulled it, but it is not the case here. Just the duel between Winstone and Farrell would have made a great movie, but why throw in a traumatized movie star, and a nymphomaniac sister and a killer producer and who the hell was Joe that was killed in the beginning?! It is just too much, too many useless characters, to many storie lines, too hard to believe, too much plot holes. Still it is weirdly entertaining, thanks to Winstone and Farrell's wonderful charisma. It is really a case where the actors pleasure and work almost redeem a very, very bad script.

Matt-evans75-810-923388 I'm not sure why I'm seeing so many dubious reviews about this film, as a seasoned gangster film follower I thought it was epic. Understated in a way only the English can do, Colin Farrell is the quintessential calm and collected good (bad) guy. Funny and violent, it has all the essentials. Those that say the plot is hard to understand/follow probably are probably experiencing difficulties with basic tasks! The film seems to be more about the characters to the extent that there really didn't need to be a major story. Was totally unaware of it until this week, but would recommend it to anyone (PS Ray Winstone played a blinder again!)