Review of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) by Josh G — 31 May 2010

I admit that I got lost early on with regard to exactly what was going on in the plot, but I suppose that that's not really a unique problem to have with these Guy Ritchie films. I was watching with a friend who had already seen the movie, so he was able to kind of keep me up-to-date on the new developments. I don't know whether that initial trouble colored my over-all impression of the film, but by the time the movie was over, I had come to the conclusion that I really liked the film... but more for the way that it was constructed than for what actually happened.

Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels is about the theft of two expensive antique guns. Sort of. The guns trade hands numerous times between several different factions of criminals who are all working toward different goals. I imagine that this would be an incredibly difficult film to write. There are several groups of people all doing different things in different locations at different times, which would be difficult enough to keep track of alone. But in addition to that, each of these groups of characters have different motivations and access to different information regarding what the others are up to. The wires are crossed and re-crossed and double-crossed until you get to the end and you just have to trust that that's where we were headed all along.

Roger Ebert's review of the movie isn't very good. He spends a little bit of time criticizing the movie's "main" characters, including first-timer Jason Statham, for being too young to be traveling in the same circles that some of the older criminals are in. My opinion on that is that part of the concept is that Statham's group is not as business savvy, so to speak, as some of the other people that they get involved with. Their comparative youth isn't a flaw in casting, it's a conscious decision to show that they don't really know what is going on as well as they think they do. Still, Ebert ends his review with a flourish that I think does a magnificent job of summarizing my thoughts on the film:

By the end of it all, as you're reeling while trying to make sense of the plot, ``Lock, Stock, etc.'' seems more like an exercise in style than anything else. And so it is...We realize that the film's style stands outside the material and is lathered on top (there are freeze frames, jokey subtitles, speed-up and slo-mo)...But "Lock, Stock" is fun, in a slapdash way; it has an exuberance, and in a time when movies follow formulas like zombies, it's alive.

That last sentence is what seals the deal, and I think Ebert knew that because he began his Snatch review by referring back to it. But let's get serious here: this film weaves through many separate, seemingly-unrelated plot lines, only to bring them back together at the end. The characters each have their own voice, and it all comes together to form a wonderful dark comedy where the destination is not so important as the journey. Yes, I've heard the Tarantino comparisons (the 'More Like This' section to the right of where I am writing says that I might like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs if I enjoy this movie). The difference between this film and Reservoir Dogs is that we follow every character here. Ritchie may not have Tarantino's ability to hold the drama of a scene in perfect balance, but he seems to excel at mixing it all together. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tarantino seems to work better scene to scene.

I liked Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels quite a bit, and I would definitely enjoy seeing it a second time in the future. I'm sure a lot of the plot points obscured by my inability to understand Cockney accents and multiple story-lines would prove more accessible on a second viewing. But even if I didn't like it as much as I did, it would be hard not to say that the movie was at least expertly crafted. This is an extraordinarily well made film. If nothing else, that makes it worth viewing.