The Gentlemen

Guy Ritchie takes his time developing the action and story of The Gentlemen, but barely manages to keep it fun. For most of the runtime, I was wondering when the conflict was going to start. It is because of the fantastic cast and hilarious dialogue, though, that the meandering story is still entertaining to sit through.

The story is told through the dialogue between two side characters of the conflict after most of it has already taken place. It brings out interesting bits of humor and is a quirky way of unraveling a story with differing points of view, but it only teases what the story might be. To give Guy Ritchie credit—once all the beats are laid out on the table—it is clear that if it was told through a linear, traditional arc, the experience would definitely be underwhelming. But, the plot still does not offer the most exciting rendition of the story. This film has one of Guy Ritchie’s slower plots with a lot less action and centralizes its entertainment more on snappy dialogue, which is only elevated by the performances.

The most memorable part of this film is the all star cast wearing fancy clothes with thick beards and even thicker British accents. Charlie Hunnam and Hugh Grant have amazing chemistry, guiding us through the film scene by scene, and they carry it on their shoulders flawlessly. Colin Farrell brings a lot of fun with the small screen time he has, but his limited involvement highlights how most characters are significantly missing through most of the film. It feels like every actor had scheduling conflicts and could only be on set for a few days. Matthew MaConaughey has a surprisingly brief role that really only amounts to “Cool! Matthew MaConnaughey is in this film!” The most likely reason was that with such an ensemble of characters, the script could only focus on so many at a time and scenes had to get cut out.

Just by watching his films, it is clear that Guy Ritchie loves to find fun ways in telling classic stories. He values style over everything else, but he also wants the audience to know just how smart he is in his execution of story. In this film, especially, he flaunts his clever editing by having characters dissect the writing of the story as if they were breaking the fourth wall. Hugh Grant’s character has written a screenplay inspired by the details of the film, and is constantly trying to heighten its value, which means there are a lot of comments about how great filmmaking is and how amazing this particular story evolves. It is Guy Ritchie using his own character—the one with the most dialogue in the film—to praise himself. There is no subtlety to his self-made altar for his image, and this film seems to bring that reality to the spotlight.

Overall, this film is a lot of fun with the same prevalent issues of a Guy Ritchie film. As always in his films, the quick editing is the core of the writing and filmmaking. The style gained from the choppy cuts and fast paced dialogue is how he excels in his director’s chair. This is definitely not his best work, but there are moments that had me laughing in the theater. The cast is great, the humor is very British, and the sparse action helps keep the story rolling.

Story Rating: 5/10

Character Rating: 7/10