That was an excellent one.

Sadly Over-hyped

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Yes, this film was daring, it was a good try for this young director who intended to do in the new movie, new screen playing fashion. You know, this new way of making movies, with a complicated screenplay, a complicated story in the line of PULP FICTION. A kind of story as we see so often in the British and American film industry since nearly twenty years now, especially thrillers. This is a perilous experience, you have to be very caring about thousands of points. Here, he did his best, I guess, what that's a failure to me. Acting is awful, and that erases all the efforts already made for the screenplay. If you are lost in the understanding of all this mess, you get rapidly bored. But, I insist, that's not the only film like this. There was hundreds of movies like this. Hundreds. But it was a daring try.

Summary: A notorious gang of robbers known as "The Cowboys" rob a bank that is already been robbed by someone else.Review: Boy, what a mess! Confusing and erratic back flashes, the same scene in the bank shown over and over from different angles and perspectives and a whole lot of unnecessary or unfinished plot strings. Starring John Simm and Philip Glenister, the great Duo from "Life on Mars" this could have been such a great, funny and entertaining movie. I think this movie is meant to be funny as well, but you don't get much of that. Interesting, how 74 minutes can take that long to pass. Boring.Highlight: The Security GuardNotable Actors: John Simm (Doctor Who), Philip Glenister (Life on Mars)

The core idea of the script has a good and fairly original idea, namely that multiple people attempt to rob the same bank at the same time.Unfortunately, the writer directed his own script and quite simply failed to tell the story in a coherent fashion on the screen. There is nothing particularly to fault about the acting (indeed there's a good cast) or technical aspects of the film, however the jumping back and forwards in the timeline just doesn't work right. Some scenes are repeated with slight variations, unfortunately the variations are so slight that it feels like you're suddenly watching a "+1" TV channel. The director also fails to make us care about (and therefore root for) a particular set of protagonists. The overall feeling at the end of the film is one of 'so what?'.I suspect had the writer allowed someone else to direct his script we might have seen a much, much better movie.

This is a British heist movie. I bought the DVD because I like heist movies, but this one was a disappointment. There is a good, original idea at the heart of it, but the execution lets it down.The direction is of the clunky television variety. I kept thinking I was watching one of those snarly, macho British cop shows, except the robbers got (slightly) more screen time than the cops. The big 'surprise' at the end is clumsily signaled early on.The story leaps about in time and space, with the same tiny slices of story being told over and over again, with incremental increases at each iteration. If you want to see a movie with multiple viewings of the same event, done properly, watch the Stanley Kubrick heist, "The Killing".There is probably less than an hour of actual story-time to the movie. It has been padded out to 79 minutes by the repetitions and an exhausting, irritating and near-impossible-to-read title sequence at the beginning.If you really want to watch "Tu£sday", look for a DVD version with English sub-titles, unless you're fluent in a variety of British accents. I was guessing at much of the dialogue, with frequent recourse to the rewind button for second and third hearings of a line.And if all you want is to see a good British heist movie, try: "A Fish Called Wanda", "The Bank Job", "Daylight Robbery", "The General" or "Sexy Beast".