REVIEW: ‘The Gentlemen’ proves sometimes great actors make horrific choices

Since 2009, director Guy Ritchie has typically made decent crowd-pleasing, high budget films like “Aladdin” and “Sherlock Holmes,” but with “The Gentlemen,” he returns to his roots in British gangster crime dramas. In a film filled with a variety of crimes, the fact this movie exists might possibly be the biggest crime of all.

The film is a jarring depiction of a drug lord (played by Matthew McConaughey) who is in the process of trying to sell his marijuana enterprise to a wealthy buyer (played by Jeremy Strong). The good drug lord has a loyal second-in-command (played by Charlie Hunnam) who also serves as the physical representation of the moviegoer – irritated and mildly confused. 

PHOTO: Charlie Hunnam and Hugh Grant star in Guy Ritchie's "The Gentleman" Photo courtesy of Christopher Raphael.
The scenes with Charlie Hunnam (left) and Hugh Grant (right) are the strongest parts of Guy Ritchie’s “The Gentleman.” Photo courtesy of Christopher Raphael.

Hugh Grant stars as the endearing and hilarious, yet spineless reporter who is trying to blackmail the operation into giving him millions more than his editor would pay him. Female characters are used as objects, so Michelle Dockery is solely there to be McConaughey’s wife. Henry Golding is the film’s token minority and racist stereotype of a Chinese wannabe drug lord nicknamed “The Dragon,” and, in what might be the most useless character ever-created, Colin Farrell stars as a gym coach.  

This movie begs the question – is this a bad satire or an even worse gang film? Ninety percent of the film is framed as a movie pitch, which could have been a visual portrayal of a critical analysis of Hollywood with all ethnicities and minorities played to a frighteningly offensive extreme, but the film is not that clever. It could also be trying to express the idea that the legalization of weed would be beneficial to society, but that idea is lost in the desire to get as many twists and turns in the film as humanly possible.

The film is not a complete waste of time, however. There are some career-making performances from Hunnam and Golding and absolutely stunning portrayals from Farrell and Dockery. However, all performances pale in comparison to Hugh Grant’s flawless turn as the simultaneously terrifying and hilarious Fletcher.

While McConaughey is a generally good actor, this film feels like a setback in his career. This is not as egregious as Strong’s portrayal of Matthew, which is painfully overacted and is completely unenjoyable to watch. It came off as an actor who signed on to do this movie, but realized how terrible it is and could not back out. 

Structurally, there are some great strengths and some confusing choices. The choice to make the movie essentially a mock film pitch is brilliant, but it does make it difficult to understand why the audience should be rooting for McConaughey and against Grant. It is not a great idea for the only character with charisma to tell the story first.

Additionally, the opening scene feels like it was shot in a television commercial style. While the opening credits were fun, it did highlight how the film is painfully male.

However, strong acting performances and an inventive narrative structure cannot completely save the awful dialogue. In addition to the sexist and racist overtones, the script is also homophobic with its weird obsession with gay sex, which is played mostly for humor. 

There comes a time when the amount of profanity and metaphors make the following dialogue too complicated to understand. An audience member should not have to have a degree in rhetoric to understand a lackluster film about drug dealing. The only person that seems to understand any part of the film was McConaughey.

It is not just the dialogue of the scripts that is offensive, but the creation of certain scenes are also confusing and unnecessary.  The film’s one tender moment is between Laura (played by Eliot Sumner) and her parents on the front yard is undercut with a vomit-inducing scene about vices. Additionally, the “fight porn” scene is one of the weirdest scenes Ritchie has ever filmed.

Overall, do not see or support this film. There is no reason a film should be celebrated for being this racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-semitic in 2020. While the acting is generally good, every single major actor has had better roles. Ritchie has written, directed and produced better films about British crime (i.e. “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” and “Snatch”) and there are so many more enjoyable films available to watch in theatres. Just do yourself a favor and do not pay to see this movie.


CORRECTION: 6/11/20 – The film’s title in the headline and opening paragraph was changed from “The Gentleman” to the correct title, “The Gentlemen.”

 

8 Comments
  1. the gentlemen tracksuit says

    The film is quite witty and entertaining! I just landed on your blog today after watching git and got to say it exceeded my expectations! Kudos to it!

  2. Dennis Reynolds says

    I think this may be the first time I’ve read a movie review where the reviewer got the title of the movie wrong! That says it all really.

  3. Samantha May says

    Just to be clear – I’m a queer female, a feminist, and against racism in all its forms. However, I also have a lifelong love of gangster films. I loved this film, I connected with its dark humour immediately. Yes, I could have done with another female lead, but I liked the flare of wit and independence Dockery’s character was given. I also loved the way Fletcher was a gay character that didn’t mind flaunting his sexuality and sleaze in equal measure. When depicting violent worlds dominated by men, gay men are often portrayed as sexless effeminate characters, or as men living in shame. That was subverted with Hugh Grant’s character in every way.

    Many critics just jumped on the bandwagon with this film, without really asking the necessary question – is this how British gangsters really are? In short… yeah, it is.

    DEPICTION IS NOT ENDORSEMENT.

    No one is saying the way these characters think and talk is okay, highlighted by the fact that their racist observations don’t line up with the reality. Henry Golding (who did a great deal of research on Asian gangs in the UK before filming), played Dry Eye, and he summed it up best:

    “If you think gangsters aren’t going to be racist and go down to the lowest derogatory terminologies, I don’t know what kind of world you live in,” Golding said.

    “In this day and age of being PC, do you think that restricts art or creation? Because we have to pander to people who perhaps don’t want racist words to be on screen or projected from someone’s mouth; but in reality, it’s what happens. Are gangsters going to be nice to each other just because they don’t want to hurt each other’s feelings? I don’t think so.

    Golding said that there were boundaries in the movie, and there are boundaries when it comes to using that sort of language, but he never felt they were crossed. Golding said: “I felt as an Asian and as a man, those boundaries were never stepped over and it was always a safe set. If there is ever a time there isn’t a safe set, you know, the hand goes up and a discussion is made.”

    “In this day and age of being PC, do you think that restricts art or creation? Because we have to pander to people who perhaps don’t want racist words to be on screen or projected from someone’s mouth; but in reality, it’s what happens. Are gangsters going to be nice to each other just because they don’t want to hurt each other’s feelings? I don’t think so.“

  4. Ross says

    My goodness one does take oneself a tad seriously, doesn’t one. I am not asking just using it as term of provocative abuse. Do you think real world gangsters are all woke and politically correct all fluffy refusing to indulge in pejorative language to avoid offending the ‘swim in the safety of the shoal’ liberal classes?

    It was great to see two great actors emerging from their comfort zones, Matthew McC and Hugh Grant were excellent as ruthless master villain and sleezebag journalist respectively. Overall the dialogue flowed and the narrative was pretty easy to follow, this was a well thought out dark comedy, not quite a black comedy, but close at times.

    Ritchie knows this scene, it’s his bread and butter, therefore his characterisation and casting are on the money. Contrary to the assertion that there was only one person of colour, I beg to differ, ‘The gym instructors’ crew were all black and played a pivotal role in saving the life of the central character.

    For me this was a clever gangland romp, in typical Ritchie style, character rich, well paced, whilst encompassing some lovely moments of unpredictability. It is not a movie to take seriously, it is not championing a cause or minority, neither is it attempting to attack or insult any margin of society.

    It’s a chilled British gangster fantasy, designed to entertain and send the viewer away marvelling at the irony of arch mass media protagonist Hugh Grant, portraying with some aplomb the epitome of his disdain.

  5. Bob Breaker says

    what a dumbass review..GREAT MOVIE!!!!!!!!! People like this want the world to be completely boring..GET OVER YOURSELF

  6. Terry says

    Pathetic review. Out of my 10 closest friends, 9 found this movie to be exceptional. I would address whoever wrote this by name, but I just don’t care enough to scroll up. Whomever you may be, did you even watch the movie? I believe not. But oh the irony, I see this as an attempt to target a great film to get web visits.

    Suggestion however, I invision you could maybe have a mediocre future as a food critic?

    Good Luck!

  7. James says

    Why am I not surprised that Americans can’t appreciate a funny film when they see one.

  8. Guy RichTea says

    Sounds like this review was written by a lesbian vegan

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.