Huievest
Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.
Fleur
Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.
Cristal
The movie really just wants to entertain people.
Bob Lambert
Aaaaargh! Why do scriptwriters continue to believe that they can have characters do ridiculous things without us noticing?Why did Simpson not set off for the fight until after the bill had started? He was the promoter, he'd want to be there to meet and greet his guests, and for the publicity, not sitting in a packed stretch limo picking up assorted "Gor Blimey" relatives and singing "My Old Man". Him being there early would have made no difference to the plot other than making it plausible, him arriving late made absolutely no sense at all.Why did he take his son to deserted wasteland? Why did his minders wander out of sight? It may have made the plot work, but it made absolutely no sense. He could have had the conversation with his son in one of the many rooms at the venue, with the minders outside. That's what ANY sensible person would have done, even an angry Cockney gangster. After all, he wasn't going to murder his son, so didn't need to be in a deserted goods yard.Why did he want to get rid of the limo? The Police knew his son had been shot, and that Simpson had taken him to the hospital in the limo. He was happy to wander round wearing the blood-soaked shirt, but in any event the limo was irrelevant. Why get rid of it? Another pointless piece of "this is what gangsters do and say" stock script recycling.Why couldn't Simpson get to the hotel for the confrontation with Spedding before Spedding and his team left? A boxer wouldn't plan on an early morning departure the day after a fight, in case he was injured. Why did Simpson have to walk? The only reason was so that they could have the showdown in the car.Why did the woman in the tunnel keep ranting after the men with guns had squared off? Why did she not get straight back into her car when told to by Spedding wielding a gun, as any sensible person would have done? Why did she have to be told twice? Simple - so Spedding would get to shoot his gun into the ceiling to demonstrate his credibility as a hard man, regardless of how ridiculous and contrived the set-up was.Why was the house emptied the day after the fight? Who emptied it? Even the most diligent debt collector couldn't get there that quickly - after all, Simpson hadn't even got round to starting to settle his debts, and the fight could have gone the other way, leaving him a wealthy man. He could also have laid side bets to spread his risk, again obviating the need to liquidate his assets.And then, why was the final scene, where a deserted goods yard would have been far more appropriate, set on the roof of the venue - a Civic Hall with only two exits? Hardly the sort of place a rational person would choose for a showdown, and not relevant to the plot at all. Perhaps it was just cheap to shoot it in the same place as the earlier rooftop scene, even if it meant sacrificing all logic.In the midst of all of this rampant stupidity was a script with no style apart from generic third rate Cockney Gangster, and no discernible characterisation, even at the most trivial level. A pity, because in general the cast are all very good, and capable of far more.Not recommended unless you have no other options on a rainy afternoon.
Theo Robertson
On paper this looks a good film . Michael Caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who's son is up for a title eliminator . The pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . I had hoped we'd be seen emulating his definitive role in GET CARTER and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you'll be confused as to what genre it's trying to fit in to . For example Caine ( Who you can't believe in as Billy " Shiner " Simpson , he's simply Michael Caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as " Hattie Jacques " then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone's arm . Oh how I laughed . I mean it's supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn't it ? But these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out Obviously director John Irvin doesn't know what approach to take with Scott Cherry's screenplay . Irvin isn't a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as THE DOGS OF WAR and HAMBURGER HILL but he's ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can't help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like Caine . Caine does give the impression he's just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like Landua and Cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone
Ralvacast
First off, this movie leaves you in a limbo mood wise. You don't know what to feel. So much so that you don't feel bad for Caines character when his son gets murdered (which was actually mostly due to bad editing). The script was too bland. None of the situations matter as you watch them. The soundtrack, or lack there of (if there was it wasn't good enough to even remember) does not help it one bit. Only good surprise to this movie was Andy Serkis' performance. It was on par if not better than Caine's. The story would have probably gone better off if Serkis would have killed him. Because quite frankly you don't feel any kind of redemption in the climax. Just a feeling of lack of feeling, if ya feel me. Basically this movie massively lacks draw. Leaving the audience alienated throughout the entire thing.
barberoux
`Shiner' was OK. It was a very uneven movie and suffered from an uninspired script. Michael Caine was good in his role and did the best he could with a weak script. The story was simple enough but was stretched out too thin. The ending with the surprise villain was too deus ex machinaish for me. Frank Harper was good as Stoney and Martin Landau played his part well. Some of the accents were a bit hard to understand but that added to the appeal for me, more of an atmosphere thing. An OK movie if you like Cockney gangster flics. It was violent and had lots of cursing but that's typical for these movies. "The Long Good Friday" and "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" are two better representations of the genre.
