ViewGuide

Created Jan 28, 2009 02:46AM PST • Edited Jan 28, 2009 02:46AM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   Good 3.0

   Drugs are bad, m’kay? And according to Daniel Craig and ’co, the trading and exchange of them can be just as life-threatening, in a film that for all its shimmer and star power fails to engage as much as it should.

4. Acting

   OK 2.5

   Craig is good here; I’ll grant him that at least. Colm Meaney, Michael Gambon, Jamie Foreman and George Harris are amongst the other good actors on display, but Sienna Miller is hyped beyond imagination in a weak supporting role.

5. Male Stars Very Good 3.5

   Daniel Craig proves here that he has both the emotional range and sharp wit to portray James Bond; his mysterious protagonist sees his life combust in front of his eyes, and the actor’s intensity burns with his hopes. This is actually one of his better performances outside Bond; well worth watching him for.

6. Female Stars Bad 1.0

   I guess Sienna Miller is considered a star now; but in this film she appears for about five minutes, seducing Craig’s character and doing nothing else. How she’s managed to make a career out of this appears to be only as a result of her looks; and this is shameful, considering the impressive performances she’s made in other movies.

7. Female Costars OK 2.5

   The only other woman to make an appearance is Sally Hawkins, who plays the Duke’s girlfriend Sasha, and the actress does a good job of impersonating a truly horrible, common woman, serving as the ultimate presentation of the scum that Duke represents.

8. Male Costars Very Good 3.5

   Kenneth Cranham and Michael Gambon are filthy as Jimmy and Mr. Temple, two of the drug profiteers, whilst Dexter Fletcher and George Harris present the film with some humour as Craig’s cohorts in his drug escapades. Jamie Foreman is the drug Runner ‘Duke’, and alongside the excellent Colm Meaney as Gene, present the best supporting performances, men who have had their lives consumed and taken over by drugs and greed.

10. Film

    Good 3.0

    Matthew Vaughn, director of Stardust, directs this film with style, verve and a biting reality. The dialogue is witty and incisive, and the soundtrack deep in popular music – a more realistic and presentable film than I would have imagined.

11. Direction Very Good 3.5

    Vaughn presents the drug business through the eyes of Craig’s character, and as such (with the film having been adapted for the screen) he does not have much in the way of plot to invent himself. The director again shows his skill with visuals however, and to many this film will appear similar (or perhaps to some an antithesis to) David Fincher’s movies; narration, inventive camera angles and a witty script. Vaughn should make more films like this as opposed to fantasy like Stardust; he’s clearly better at reality.

12. Play Good 3.0

    The dialogue is realistic (mostly in its use of profanity) but in many cases very witty, particularly in the case of Craig’s character, whose every other word appears to be a put-down or insult of some sort.

13. Music Good 3.0

    The use of music here is fantastic, merging a classical soundtrack with popular chillout and dance music, peppering the scenes around London with a reality and naturalism that would bypass other movies.

14. Visuals Very Good 3.5

    From the opening scenes, Vaughn presents vistas and wide open space – the movie is clearly not constricted, and the effects that are used sparingly are to aid camera angles. The director’s hold on capturing one particular fight sequence, and juxtaposing it with another pivotal scene, is masterful whilst also quite incredibly brutal.

15. Content

16. Edge

    Sordid 3.3

    The film deals with drugs, and with such a contentious subject matter it’s perhaps no surprise that the language, sex and violence are stepped up a notch.

17. Sex Erotic 3.0

18. Violence Savage 3.6

19. Rudeness Profane 3.3

21. Reality

    Natural 1.0

    The plot of the film is entirely believable – based around the trafficking of drugs, there would be many situations that would lend themselves to be similar to those on show here.

22. Circumstantial Natural 1.0

23. Biological Natural 1.0

24. Physical Natural 1.0