Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

I like Gangster movies, which is to say I like films about gangsters rather than films about cops trying to catch gangsters, which is a completely different genre. I like American gangster movies and I like Japanese gangster movies but I especially like British gangster movies. There have been many really good British gangster movies from the jokey offerings of Guy Ritchie to the grimmest of the grim "40 inch chest" and the sublime "Sexy Beasts" and of course "In Bruges". "Layer Cake" was another really good British gangster movie and it is this film that London Boulevard tries so desperately to emulate. Certain sections of the movie are basically re-shoots of similar scenes, it makes one wonder if Colin Farrell was staking a claim to be the next James Bond. Sorry Collin, if you had made this film 6 years earlier you might have been in with a shout but as it stands it is merely an average effort from a list of talent who should really have done better. David Thewlis is an exception to this, his performance, although a bit generic as the stoner English toff is the best part of the film. This is not to say that there isn't some entertainment to be found here and even the sparrow like Keira Knightley isn't as annoying as she usually is but just don't go getting your hopes up, its nowhere near a classic.

This is one of Collin Farrell's better movies, I would say. He actually plays a man with a complex personality and large emotional range. Unfortunately the plot of the film is somewhat thin. You have this London underground which immediately attacks freshly freed from jail Mitchel. He has it so tough to stay straight, with offers for more or less disreputable jobs and a lot of "gangsta" shenanigans that don't really make any sense if you look at it from afar. The obsession of the gangster boss with Mitchel is as difficult to explain as is Mitchell's inability to use his God given skills to get out of a sticky situation.It's not that the movie is bad, it's that the story is pretty obvious and teaches nothing. There is no humor, Knightley as a love interest was never my cup of tea and by now it's gotten really old, and the London gangsters and their propensity for showing off is not the crowd pleaser that it used to be.So, sorry, an average film with pretty good actors is still an average film.

It's too bad the rest of the film was not as interesting as the graphics used in the opening and closing credits (I don't think talking about the closing credits can be described as a "spoiler"). This is the kind of film I would describe as a British version of the American genre "mumble-corp". It's one of the few times I wished I had set my preferences to show subtitles along with the English version of the film. The greatest crime perpetrated in this film is that good actors capable of so much better actually got paid for the rote performances they all turned in. The British gangster genre is something that stands on its own for the sheer villainy of the bad guys. However, the histrionic levels of punishment meted out by these gangsters is so over the top that you have to ask yourself: "Was that really necessary?". In the words of the late Toronto film critic, John Harkness, "Wait until it comes out in video and then don't rent it."

Now there is violence in the real world - and violence in movies. London Boulevard is clearly a movie written and directed by people who know about the movies, but little of the real world. Farrell's accent is atrocious, Winstone over acts his socks off and Steven Graham & Eddie Marsan are wasted in minor roles. There is nothing in this film that is believable or compelling. I mean what or who is the character played by David Thewlis? And what is eating Knightley's character ? Now I love a good violent B movie with no pretensions other than to entertain- my problem is with films like this that pretend to be something more than they are. And this clearly has pretensions to be some kind of Scorsese knock off - and with a $25 million budget it should be much much better than it is.