If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

'Snatch (2000)' is an energetically eclectic, hyperactive yet occasionally unfocused comedy of errors in which whatever could go wrong does go wrong. It's a series of eventually intertwining parallel stories each centred around a stolen stone which feature a cast of colourful, mostly inept characters with slightly weird names and a mainly cockney lilt (aside from the Russian, the American and the sort-of-but-not-really Irish thing that Brad Pitt tries to do). It deals in stereotypes and the comedy is pretty broad, but the film isn't so much funny as it is exhaustively coincidental in a strangely compelling way, with the usually dumb-as-bricks characters making a major mistake only to run into someone (sometimes literally) who then fixes that mistake or changes their path entirely. It's not so much a straightforward narrative as one that keeps you guessing as to where it's going to go while simultaneously not mattering at all, as it's the individual situations themselves that entertain. The fact it all ties together in the end is, strangely, kind of a bonus. 7/10

Let's reconstruct a scene from Quentin Tarantino's highly successful "Pulp Fiction (1994)." Samuel L, Jackson and John Travolta are two hit men assigned to wipe out a couple of welshers. In the apartment they shoot two of the kids to death and turn to leave, when a third terrified kid rushes out of the bathroom and empties his pistol at their backs. Jackson and Travolta turn and look at the six bullet holes in the wall behind them -- every shot having missed -- glance quizzically at each other, then wordlessly raise their guns and blow the brains out of the third guy.Now, if that scene was funny, this whole movie is hilarious. It's vastly more stylized, with abundant slow motion, instantaneous cuts, stings on the sound track, and occasional subtitle, as well as a narration by Jason Statham. But, as in "Pulp Fiction," there are multiple narrative threads involving three black thieves, a mock-Jewish conspiracy, a Russian, corrupt boxing matches, and something about a priceless diamond as big as a ping pong ball. For lagniappe, in addition to Quentin Tarantino in excess, we get touches -- or snatches, if you prefer -- of Charlie Chaplin's slapstick, mostly involving a cute sassy mutt with a black patch over one eye. The dog gulps down a squeaky rubber toy and thereafter when barking he also squeaks. Sometimes he only squeaks. Later, after the dog swallows the diamond, the head villain orders him "opened up" but the .50 caliber pistol bearing goon who has killed dozens of men is reluctant to shoot the dog.It's full of wisecracks, F-bombs, fast cuts, action, and assorted mishigas, all of which manage to subsume the plot with less difficulty than the dog had swallowing the squeaky rubber toy. The only time I cared about what happened to any of the characters was when the heavies burned Brad Pitt's Mum alive in the caravan -- a dirty trick if you ask me. It may be that Pitt gives the best performance in the sense that, though I could understand only about one word out of five from the normal characters, I could understand nothing at all said by Pitt's Irish tinker. "Waw may" is actually "Why me?"

"Snatch.", the tale of a stolen diamond, unlicensed boxing games, a promoter with the most peculiar hobby consisting on feeding his pigs with his enemies or debtors and Irish travelers with caravans and accents as impenetrable as the plot that tries to tie all these elements together. Oh, did I forget there's also a little dog that can swallow everything, from a squeaking toy to… a most valuable object. Well, I think this dog is the living metaphor of whatever Guy Ritchie expect from us, viewers: to swallow anything, as long as it is funny. Well, the film is funny actually, with a few outbursts of sheer comedic genius, but it's not as easily digestible as Ritchie's 1998 hit: "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels".Guy Ritchie has been accused of exercising in style with his second film, but he could also give the Hitchcock answer about style being only another name for self-plagiarism. And he wouldn't be totally wrong because "Snatch." can be looked as a plagiarism in tone and story structure of his 1998 hit film, same assortment of characters with colorful nicknames, same intertwined plots, same use of frenetic editing, slow, fast or stop motions, Jason Statham, Vinnie Jones and Tom Ford reprising different roles and a screenplay loaded of one-liners, quirks and wisecracks, though not as memorable as the first. Anyway, accusing Ritchie of the whole "style over substance" shtick isn't just pointless, it's unfair in the way he didn't attend to do anything substantial, his "Snatch." Is as much a joke as "Lock Stock".But he can't get away with this argument either, not totally. I saw the movie again and found myself amused most of the time, but never really riveted to the point that I would miss nothing from the film. It's like the style of Ritchie didn't allow the movie to bloom by itself, everything was more an excuse for a few throwaway gags and the character were the foils of a deliriously intricate plot. A comedy where the focus is the story can afford slower moments, in the case of Ritchie's moves, it depends on who's on the screen and on that level, there are three characters steal the show.Vinnie Jones, as Bullet Tooth Tony, provides a monologue that almost equals Dirty Harry's description of a Magnum, and with the same intimidating effect, Tom Ford as the nasty-looking bespectacled Brick Top is quite convincing as someone to make you curse your mother for giving you birth if you ever owed his money and Brad Pitt overplays his mumbling accent as if he was conscious that the whole thing didn't even need to be clear, a stunt that reminded me of Benicio Del Toro in "The Usual Suspects". That his 'Mickey' would make an accent worst than the cockney slang they used is a great running gag by itself, that with his extraordinary punching skills. Not to mention that Brad Pitt looked great, and you could tell, he still had the 'Fight Club' look.Benicio Del Toro is another asset in the film, making a hilarious entrance as a pseudo Rabbi with an interesting lecture about the Virgin Mary… wait a minute, black-clad men walking together talking about 'Virgin'? A feeling of déjà-vu deepens. Anyway, Del Toro was great as Frank Four Fingers but wasted too soon. I guess he had to work for the movie that would earn him the Oscar the same year, the more serious "Traffic". The film has so many great and inventive characters, Cousin Avi (Dennis Farina) or Boris the Blade that not all of them have a real shining moment. Even Statham who has such amazing lines as "Turkish" in his first scenes becomes the passive observer he was in "Lock". Characters seem like the rather interchangeable elements of a plot too sophisticated for its own good. Even the build-up with unlicensed boxing games doesn't lead to a really satisfying resolution.Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film for the most part of it, but thinking about it again, I'm wondering if it's not the sort of experience you can have as well by watching the best parts on Youtube. Ritchie rearranges all the moments like many clips of a parody series, and while it worked in "Lock, Stock" because it had a common thread, a major story-line, even "Reservoir Dogs" had a plot. In "Snatch." Everyone is important enough for the story but not enough so we care, it's funny and entertaining, but the film lacks structure. It is possible that Ritchie wanted to replicate his formula, with an all-American cast, and that was enough a novelty but maybe the detractors wished it was less than a replica, and more a Desert. Point. Eagle. Type of film.

Interesting movie about diamond's robbery and all kind of crazy situations after that....Russian Mob,Boxing illegal fights,black market...killers...Gypsies anyway a bunch of grubby gangsters...the movie was shooting so fast moving like a video clip style...weird situations.some really original and others not quite...a really good casting either taking the movie in a very pleasant experience,but there's some weak points indeed like the scene that Turkish throw away the milk box that causing a car accident and subsequent trampling,something like that made some damages in the picture itself... an of course a lack of sex women in the cast,the remaining is fine and funny and totally unexpected.....l really love this one!!