In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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

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.

A vehicle for Michael Caine. Its fairly well written and there's some OK acting in it but, really, it's a mess - not funny enough, not frightening enough. It's a flaccid modern cockney thriller.I like the premise - that even in the refracted moral hinterland of East London people do do things for the right reasons. A surprise result to the first proper fight Caine's old-school Billy Shiner has promoted inflames his paranoia. The second half of the film has him chasing shadows to deal with the disappointment of the outcome of the first.MY greatest disappointment was in director John Irvin's failure to make more of the relationship between Shiner and his lieutenant/filial substitute Frank Harper. Harper's, a British Tom Sizemore, understands his role well whilst those around him seem to have ignored it. Pity. 4/10

Michael Caine plays very much to type in this film about a tough East-End boxing promoter. The film, which is not, it quickly becomes apparent, a sports movie (the only fight scene comes early and is deliberately anticlimactic), but it seems to be struggling to decide what exactly it is. In part, it is the story of the death of a dream; but in part, it is a thriller and these two parts don't really get on. The thriller element is weakened by the fact that because we only see the story of Caine's character's decline, we have no way to judge what malign forces may be behind it; but in fact, there is plenty of material to explain his fall without requiring a sinister plot, and so the thriller obscures the portrait of a man. In fact, the resulting hybrid is so anaemic as a whole that it almost feels stylised, I don't think intentionally, but there's a flatness that gives the movie a feel of its own, albeit not a successful one. Yet there are some interesting ideas behind the plot; it's a shame they're so poorly worked out.

`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.