All I wanted to do this past weekend was go to the theater and be entertained by one of the five or so good movies that were slated to grace the local theaters this month. However, for some reason some jackasses decided that for this particular weekend, the only movies that would be released would be such flawed gems as Friday After Next, Analyze That, and Empire. I was seriously planning to catch a screening of Equilibrium or Adaptation; however, I'm beginning to doubt that we'll get those films with the rapidity and punctuality needed to prevent movie-goers from having to put up with this insipid Ice Cube and Billy Crystal crap while we wait for mainstream films like Two Towers and Gangs of New York to make an appearance. Truly, this is the kind of dull weekend where any yen for cinema must be sated with a good rental or two. Seeing it as such, I sojourned down to the local video store to look for something decent, stumbled upon 24 Hours in London, read the jacket, and thought, "this sounds like a good movie." In retrospect, I should probably consider looking up the word "good" in the dictionary.
I actually expected something from 24 Hours in London. Not a whole lot, but at least something. It is a British action/comedy after all, with a look similar to Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (and Boondock Saints), and I guess I can't fault myself for conjecturing that this movie might be as enjoyable as the other. Well, 24 Hours in London did just about everything the average British action movie does, except it does everything so POORLY. Fifteen minutes into the movie I ejected the tape from the VCR to see if this movie truly was made in 1980. To my horror, I found that it was made in 2000. This movie just looks old as hell, with its outdated special effects, awful plot, unfunny jokes, ridiculous action sequences (not since 3000 Miles to Graceland have SWAT cops been this emphatically stupid), and totally forgettable and unimaginative characters.
And then there's the movie synopsis on the rental box. Whichever marketing liar wrote this steaming paragraph of deceit actually had the chutzpah to describe the action scenes as "Honk Kong style." This usually means a lot of improbable acrobatics with firing guns and swinging swords and all that inanity, and if this film's definition is no different, then 24 Hours in London prevaricates like Bill Clinton caught in the Oval Office with a lipstick-stained cigar in his ass. In short: The action SUCKS GOAT ASS. There's no fancy shooting or aiming, nor is there any martial artistry evident. Trigger pulling is about as "Hong Kong" as this pig gets. In fact, as far as action goes, 24 Hours in London is one of the stalest movies I have witnessed in quite some time. Even Solaris had better-choreographed action scenes (read: George Clooney getting up from a bed).
The characters in 24 Hours in London completely and utterly blow. This is the kind of pathetic movie that I continue to watch not out of grotesque fascination but rather the off chance that every last one of the deplorable characters might die. (Farfetched, but propitious nonetheless). The characters were that awful. I bet I forget them all by tomorrow morning. Hell, I've already forgotten half of them.
Since I've already touched on the action appeal of this movie, I'm going to conclude the review with two of its other aspects. I'll describe one instance by which the movie's sense of humor and writing can be summed up all at once. In this one scene, a character is being introduced to members of a mafia-esque gang. After two of the thugs introduce themselves, the character then meets this prissy, stubble-faced Prince wannabe who shakes his hand and says, "Call me Bubbles." The timing and execution of this "joke" was so pathetic and deadpan, I swear there was a five second period of absolute silence during which I could almost sense the trepidation felt by all the actors about continuing the scene. I don't blame them. They really deserve their paychecks just for that one short glimpse of sanity and brilliance.
Copy and paste the style and delivery of this Bubbles comment about 50 times, and you'll have 75% of the script for 24 Hours in London. And I'm not just talking about the humor here. The plot's awful too. It's big-time awful. Career-ending awful. In fact, if you listen closely near the end of the movie, you can almost hear the off screen scriptwriter hanging himself with the microphone cord.
Upon reflection, this movie plays more like a bad British Pulp Fiction than anything else. You have the multiple storylines running amok; you have the two lethal lovebirds who like to make out before, during, and after blowing some poor schmo's brains out; and you have the excessive violence, which consists of the special FX intern running over and dumping a bucket of maple syrup on a gunshot wound or gluing a paintbrush handle to some guy's eyeglass lens. I would also include the fact that both movies have obscene language, but I am hesitant because, well, honestly I couldn't tell if this movie was supposed to be filthy. The only thing I heard that was even close to an expletive was "tosser". And boy, did I hear it a lot. In just about every scene you find someone calling someone else a tosser. I can only guess at its meaning-maybe like salad tossing??
Perhaps the ubiquitous "tosser" is British slang for "shit idea" because when you think of it that way, 24 Hours in London actually makes sense. I could give it a B just for the honesty. |
