Fountain Of Youth (2025)

There's no real question about what Fountain Of Youth is, but there is a lack of clarity about who it belongs to. Is it the film of director Guy Ritchie? Perhaps writer James Vanderbilt would want to claim some ownership. And star John Krasinski is certainly given a role that makes the film feel like a star vehicle for him. Maybe we should just ignore these people, however, and spend some time instead acknowledging those who gave us the National Treasure movies and (of course) Indiana Jones. 

Krasinski plays Luke Purdue, a man who we first meet escaping pursuers while trying to keep hold of a painting that doesn't belong to him. It may not belong to those pursuing him either, but it's established that Purdue isn't too bothered by pesky things like security measures and legal recriminations as he aims to get his hands on various paintings. This isn't the best news for his sister, Charlotte (Natalie Portman), who happens to have an important role in a large art gallery. One hijink follows another as we learn that Luke and his crew (Patrck and Deb, played by Laz Alonso and Carmen Ejogo, respectively) have been tasked by a mega-rich individual (Domhnall Gleeson) to find a mythical fountain of youth. Some people don't want it found though, and the main one running interception is the dangerous and lovely Esme (Eiza González), allowing for a number of scenes in which both she and Luke fight one another while engaging in surprisingly ill-timed flirty banter. Oh, Charlotte also ends up letting her young son (Benjamin Chivers) tag along, and there's a determined cop (Arian Moayed) also on their tail.

Hugely derivative, tonally odd, and with a level of smarm and predictability that ensures you will know the ending even as the opening credits play out (especially if you've watched any of those Indiana Jones movies . . . and if you watch any of those instead of this then you have chosen wisely), Fountain Of Youth also relies almost completely on the appeal of Krasinski, who is allowed to dance through the events of the film as if wearing some cloak of invulnerability. His character has no depth, he never really takes anything as seriously as he should, and he is as selfish and careless as his sister accuses him of being. BUT, and I'll admit that this was unexpected, I did end up enjoying a lot of his patter, for want of a better word. There are a number of other actors who could have done better in this role, but it feels a bit more fun because of it being a bit of a step away from the other movie roles that Krasinski has had in the past decade.

It may also be a fact that Krasinski seems better in comparison to the rest of the cast. González is also good fun, no complaints there, and young Chivers has a few good moments, but everyone else is pretty bad. Alonso and Ejogo aren't given enough to do, sadly, Moayed is as misplaced as the tone, Gleeson is forced to play someone usually seen in a 1980s cartoon series, and Portman suffers while being forced to play the wet blanket (although, as mentioned above, she's proven to be quite correct in her disapproval of her brother's actions).

Neither the script nor the direction have anything helping to define their creators. Vanderbilt seems to have done no more than watch a pile of better movies that he then threw into a mental blender and poured into a book titled "Dan Brown Plotting For Dummies". The set-pieces generally work well though, and Ritchie helps out there with his handling of all the moving parts, but even those are shaded with a feeling of something just being a bit off, probably due to the light-heartedness of the "antics" while real blades are being swished around and real bullets are being fired at people. This is a movie with a bodycount that tries to make use of the adventuring and charisma of the main character to distract you from the fact that it has a bodycount. 

In case you didn't notice, I have to end this review by saying that I did still manage to enjoy this.  It was a fast food film. I enjoyed it while it was on, as derivative and predictable as it was. I won't ever watch it again, and there's a part of me that thinks I should jump in the shower and scrub myself down after writing this, but it was a perfectly serviceable way to spend part of your evening. Nobody excels, but everyone works together to try and help viewers escape reality and have something to laugh at (intentionally, but also unintentionally) for a couple of hours. 

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Prime Time: The Ministry Of Ungentlemanly Warfare (2024)

I believe I have said this before, and probably quite recently, but Guy Ritchie has moved into a phase of his career where he seems quite accomplished at delivering what can be commonly referred to as "dad films". There's often a central mission at the heart of things, a band of talented individuals are thrown together, and The Ministry Of Gentlemanly Warfare also presents things in the setting of WWII, which immediately calls to mind films like The Dirty Dozen and The Wild Geese, two titles it is definitely happy to sit alongside.

Things are tough, with the German forces looking set to retain the upper hand in the war due to their dominance of the sea, thanks to their many U-boats. It would be good if the U-boats could be taken out of the equation, or at least minimalized, but that's unlikely. The big ship that supplies the U-boats, however, could be a viable target, although it's docked in a harbour that cannot be the target of an officially-sanctioned military mission. But if a team could be assembled and convinced to do something that wasn't official . . . that could be a good chance to strike a blow against the Nazis. Which is why we end up spending a lot of time in the company of Henry Cavill, Alan Ritchson, Alex Pettyfer, Eiza González, Babs Olusanmokun, Hero Fiennes Tiffin, and Henry Golding.

Working this time with writers Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, and Arash Amel, and helping to adapt the book by Damien Lewis, Ritchie cannot really be faulted here for taking the bones of a true story and using it as a frame upon which to hang some enjoyable tension and violence. While it's another Ritchie movie that doesn't really feel like it's full of his style, the argument can be made nowadays that he's simply showing one or more strings that he's added to his bow. Not that any of this is a radical departure, especially in the scenes that have the characters engaging in witty banter with one another as bullets and shells fly around them, but the period setting and the tally-ho spirit of the whole thing helps it to feel a step removed from many other Ritchie films.

Cavill is having a whale of a time, portraying the fearless leader of this merry band of killers with a fine swagger and a readiness to often let out a hearty laugh. Ritchson is savage, killing off people with knives, arrows, and, in one memorable sequence, a fire-axe, and he is also always ready to grin and chuckle while turning his foes into corpses. Eiza González and Babs Olusanmokun are eminently watchable as they work on the ongoing intelligence side of the operation, keeping themselves close to the open jaws of the lion (personified by Heinrich Luhr, played brilliantly by Til Schweiger) in a way that nicely builds the tension in between the scenes of fighting and Nazi bloodshed. While Tiffin, Pettyfer, and Golding are slightly sidelined, they each get at least one moment to make a solid impression, and that also leaves room for enjoyable supporting turns from Danny Sapani, Cary Elwes, Freddie Fox, and Rory Kinnear (the latter two portraying Ian Fleming and Winston Churchill, respectively).

The performances are all good, the music by Christopher Benstead has some key pieces that are fantastic, and the overall look and design of the film makes it feel as if a decent budget has been well-used by everyone involved. This aims to entertain, and it succeeds. It's a bit uneven, especially when the third act fully kicks in, and the action becomes less interesting as it grows in scale, but there are enough great individual moments to satisfy viewers who are prepared for a standard "men on a mission" adventure

Considering that we live in a world where you can now get your social media content flagged for being "inappropriate" or "hatespeech" when you remind people that it's always moral and justifiable to punch a Nazi, The Ministry Of Ungentlemanly Warfare gains a lot of goodwill for unapologetically keeping us onside with characters who want to do just that. Sometimes you may sigh as you watch the news headlines recently, and this might be just what you need to remind you that good people are still out there, willing to get their hands dirty in any battles they need to win to keep themselves on the right side of history. Of course, I know that "the right side of history" is a very subjective thing, but not so much when you're talking about those who helped defeat Hitler and co. in WWII.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: The Covenant (2023)

Guy Ritchie has had a decent run of movies in the past decade, helped by writers Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies. He definitely needs Atkinson and Davies though, which makes it all the more odd to see The Covenant also listed as Guy Ritchie's The Covenant. Okay, Ritchie has a certain style, a sensibility that pervades most of his movies, letting you know that you're watching a Guy Ritchie film, but he can also work on certain projects that don't feel as if they have been given any stamp of authorship. This is one of those movies. It's good, sometimes very good, but it just doesn't feel as if it needs sold on Ritchie's name.

Jake Gyllenhaal is John Kinley, a soldier trying to stay alive during his time serving in Afghanistan. Having lost his interpreter in a bombing, Kinley ends up being assigned a new man, Ahmed (Dar Salim). Ahmed is viewed with mistrust by some, as are many of the interpreters in Afghanistan, but he repeatedly proves himself a valuable asset as he keeps Kinley and his team safe from a number of traps and tricky situations. In fact, Ahmed ends up saving Kinley's life on a daring mission that sees both men struggling to get back to safety while being hunted by Taliban soldiers who view them as top-priority targets. Can Kinley get a chance to return the favour, or will he be safely back in the USA while his interpreter/lifesaver ends up trapped in Afghanistan with a large price on his head.

A modern spin on a boy's own adventure film, although there's a worthwhile point being made about those who helped soldiers in Afghanistan before being left to languish there and suffer the consequences, this is a surprisingly effective and tense action thriller that does well to balance the issues at the heart of the whole thing with the visceral moments of fighting and gunfire. Ritchie works very well in service of the script, which ultimately helps to turn the film into something much better than it could have been. It’s a bit of a tightrope act, and kudos to him for walking it well.

Gyllenhaal is a big plus in the lead role, as expected. He can do well in a military role, being convincingly sharp and fearless, and he does well in showing the emotional toll that is taken as he figures out how to repay a huge debt. Salim is equally good alongside him, and his character is shown to be just as smart and fearless, arguably even more so, despite being initially viewed with suspicion. The supporting cast all hang back, for the most part, but there are decent little moments for Emily Beecham, Jonny Lee Miller, Antony Starr, and Alexander Ludwig.

You can view this with cynicism, especially if you feel that there’s a bit too much jingoism running just below the surface, but I think it avoids the worst potholes it could have stumbled into. Or maybe I should have used a minefield metaphor, if that isn’t in bad taste. Which I guess depends on your view of this being made in the first place.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017)

Yes, I forgot this existed. Yes, I am sure many of you also forgot about it. It certainly hasn’t endured in the way some other cinematic depictions of the King Arthur tale have endured. That’s probably down to it being quite a bad film.

Charlie Hunnam plays Arthur. He isn’t a king, unaware of his destiny, but he is the kind of determined rogue who can lead a group of men in a campaign against the tyranny of the current ruler of the land (played by Jude Law). Hunnam has the loyalty of a group that includes Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen, Neil Maskell, and a few others.

Written by Joby Harold, Lionel Wigram, and director Guy Ritchie, this is a film that could just as easily have been called Geezers Of The Round Table, and your enjoyment of it will depend completely on what you think of that phrase. I rolled my eyes as soon as I realised what I had let myself in for, and the film generally lived up to my painful expectations.

I wouldn’t say that this is a film everyone should avoid. The special effects are pretty good throughout, although there’s a tiresome overuse of CGI throughout, and Ritchie makes some stylistic choices during the action sequences that Zack Snyder would be envious of. He has a vision, whether you like it or not, and he sticks to that vision from start to finish. While that juxtaposition of style and content didn’t work for me at all, others may enjoy what is sold as a fresh take on a classic tale.

I cannot really complain about Hunnam in the lead role, he definitely has a certain charisma that helps to make up for weaknesses elsewhere, but the real fun comes from the supporting cast. Hounsou is great, Gillen and Maskell are fun, and Law makes for a hugely entertaining and irredeemable villain. There are also enjoyable turns from Eric Bana, Geoff Bell, Peter Ferdinando, and a few other familiar faces (including David Beckham in a cameo that he does okay with). The women don’t fare as well, sadly, but that at least allows them to forget this is even on those C.V.

Maybe I would enjoy this more if in a better mood, but I certainly went into it with my usual readiness to be entertained or impressed. This did neither, and I could feel Ritchie and the cast all working harder to ensure that this felt more like a romp than the retelling of Arthurian legend. Unfortunately, feeling that energy so misdirected just made me like it even less. Technically fine, and the cast could have done even better with a script that worked, but this turned out to be a knight I would rather forget.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre (2023)

Guy Ritchie has certainly settled into a new groove in recent years. His output has increased, and he seems to enjoy moving between comedy capers, like this one, and darker fare (such as Wrath Of Man and his upcoming film, The Covenant AKA Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant). Working again with Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies on the screenplay, Ritchie and his cast probably had a lot of fun making this. It’s a shame that viewers don’t get to enjoy themselves quite as much as those onscreen.

Something has been stolen, and it is due to be sold off to the highest bidder. It’s not important to know exactly what the stolen item is. It’s important to know that it is very dangerous. The person most likely to be brokering that deal is the super-rich and super-dodgy Greg (Hugh Grant). A team is assembled to get close to Greg. That team is made up of action man Orson (Jason Statham), tech whizz Sarah (Aubrey Plaza), and a man who can support both, JJ (Bugzy Malone). Cary Elwes plays Nathan, the man trying to remain in charge of this small team, and problems arise when he realises that they aren’t the only ones assigned to this job. But they are the only ones who come up with the idea of getting close to Greg by introducing him to his favourite actor, Danny (Josh Hartnett).

I am not going to use this review to try and pretend that I didn’t enjoy this film (and to hell with typing out that unnecessarily unwieldy title every time I am referring to it). This is a fun time, thanks largely to the cast obviously having fun in their roles, but it’s an insubstantial and lesser fun time than many other films directed by Ritchie.

Timing is a big part of that, especially when the central idea is so close to the plot of The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent (which had the added bonus of letting Nicolas Cage playing a version of Nicolas Cage), but there’s also a script issue. This is an action comedy that doesn’t quite have enough action or comedy in it, and I cannot imagine how people will react to this if they aren’t already fans of the cast.

Statham is on good form in the lead role, doing what he does well (being charming, cocky, and good at punching people in the face), and both Plaza and Malone work well alongside him, the former getting more of the laughs with her constant playfulness and teasing. Elwes has to roll his eyes often as he tries to keep his team in order, and he is subsequently ordered around by Eddie Marsan, fun in an all-too-small role, while Peter Ferdinando does well as the head of the secondary team. Hartnett has a great time portraying a slightly precious actor, roped into a scheme he would rather know nothing about, and Grant delivers yet another hilarious rogue that seems to be his forte nowadays.

A lot of people will enjoy this. There certainly isn’t much here to hate. It just doesn’t do anything as well as expected though, sadly, with the 114-minute runtime feeling overlong, the soundtrack disappointingly sticking very much in the background, no major set-pieces, and a third act that lacks real tension. Nobody ever feels as if they are ever in proper danger, which means that you never get the sense of the stakes being very high. I don’t regret passing some time with this, especially as I like every main player, but I would rewatch either The Gentlemen or Wrath Of Man ahead of it, and I highly recommend both of those films to anyone who hasn’t seen them yet. The former is in line with the tone of this film, the latter is quite a bit darker and more violent.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Prime Time: Wrath Of Man (2021)

Guy Ritchie seems to be on a bit of a roll at a moment, having made use of his blockbuster success with the Sherlock Holmes movies to play around a bit more with projects that feel more in line with his earlier works without just feeling like regurgitated "mix tapes" of his past glories. Wrath Of Man may be a remake of a 2004 movie, Le Convoyeur (sadly, I haven't seen the original yet), but it's also great material for Ritchie to slot one of his favourite stars into.

There's also a great remix of Folsom City Blues, familiar already to anyone who saw the trailer. Yes, it's so good that I am mentioning it here before I forget to mention it at all.

Jason Statham is H, a man who gets himself a job at a cash truck company. The company had a truck robbed some months before, a robbery that resulted in some deaths, but H doesn't seem bothered by the risk inherent in his new role. In fact, he seems to want robbers to try their luck with him. He definitely has his own agenda, and there's a lot more to him than he is revealing to his new work colleagues.

Having worked on the screenplay with Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies (who also worked on The Gentlemen and the upcoming Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre), Ritchie uses a familiar bag of tricks - the friendly faces, a non-chronological approach to the main storyline, a good helping of dry wit - to sugarcoat what may well be his darkest film yet. The film is broken into a number of chapters and one, entitled "Scorched Earth", stands out as being a mix of the cinematically stylish and the incredibly nihilistic. It's a flesh-coloured trip through a circle of hell that shows Statham's character beginning his quest for whatever it is that he's seeking.

Aside from Statham, being as great as ever in the lead role, the rest of the cast includes some fine supporting turns. Holt McCallany enjoys one of his best ever movie roles as Bullet, one of the main company staff members, straight-talking and with the potential key to information that would prove invaluable to H. Josh Hartnett is good fun as the "all mouth, no trousers" Boy Sweat Dave, Eddie Marsan is the depot boss, Jeffrey Donovan is someone who thinks they have a perfect robbery planned, and Scott Eastwood does his best work yet (not saying much though, compared to how bland so many of his other performances have been) as Jan, a robber with the kind of attitude that you just know is going to lead to trouble. There are other people doing good work here - Andy Garcia, Niamh Algar, Alex Ferns, Darrell D'Silva, etc - but they're very much minor moons orbiting the planets at the heart of the big set-pieces, although D'Silva still does enough to make himself an easy highlight.

I'll want to see the original movie at some point, and some people have said that it's a superior work, but this surprised me with how good it was. It's a classic tale of revenge, and the structure of the narrative helps the pacing and increases the tense gathering of thunderclouds and the impact of the storm that you just know is coming along in the third act. It's not one to watch if you want an action thriller grounded in any kind of reality, but it's a perfect choice if you want a superior Statham vehicle that has plenty of bloodshed, fun dialogue, a cause you end up rooting for, and a number of set-ups that are all paid off before the end credits roll.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Aladdin (2019)

As Disney continues to remake/repackage their hits to make more money off them, I end up eventually giving in and watching them. All while wondering how bad things can get. Aladdin is arguably the most egregious example yet of the Disney approach of eating their own tail for the sake of the almighty dollar.

Strangely enough, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed The Jungle Book, mainly because it had familiarity to it without slavishly copying every moment from the animated original (which is a firm favourite of mine). I also enjoyed Dumbo more than many others. I didn't LOVE it, but I didn't hate it, as expected. It was never going to equal the original, but it had a good cast and some nice moments. I've not watched most of the others yet, and I won't take up time and space here to once again rant about why The Lion King is not a live-action remake.

And here's Aladdin, a film I had avoided for some time. The original was, as far as I recall, the film that gave Disney a shot in the arm, and also showed a-list stars who good a career move it could be to get involved with something animated (Robin Williams being the scene-stealing genie). So, despite them already remaking some big names, this always felt like a bigger risk.

And it is absolutely terrible. Terrible. It's one of the worst mainstream blockbusters I have seen in the past decade.

The story is exactly the same. You have Aladdin (Mena Massoud), a streetwise lad who survives thanks to his wit and fast hands, and in some of the early scenes he meets an incognito Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott). Aladdin then ends up in possession of a magical lamp that houses a genie (Will Smith), using it to make him into a prince, much to the suspicion of the cunning Jafar (Marwan Kenzari), the advisor to the Sultan with designs on his own path to ultimate power.

There are a few things that work here. A magic carpet being one, a monkey being the other, and the winning performances of Scott and Nasim Pedrad (playing Dalia, the handmaiden, I guess you could say, to Princess Jasmine). That's about it.

Smith tries hard in the role of the genie, it's just a shame that they kept laying CGI over him, even during some of the smaller moments where it wasn't needed. And, with no offence intended to him, he's just no Robin Williams. Williams brought a manic energy and bottled lunacy to the role that I can't imagine anyone else equalling, and Smith doesn't come close.

He's better than some of the other cast members though. Massoud is about as bland as can be, and Kenzari is terrible in the role of Jafar, not once feeling like a threat until it is required for the last 20 minutes or so.

The direction from Guy Ritchie is probably his worst work to date, which didn't stop this from being a massive financial success, and crediting the script to both him and John August seems to imply enough diversion from the original screenplay that isn't there. You get a different framing device for the main tale, that's about it. The rest is almost exactly as you remember it from the original movie, except not half as good.

If you ever manage to find a magic lamp with a genie in it, just give me one of your wishes, please. And I can wish that I'd never wasted my time on this.

3/10

I also wish for coffee sometimes.

The Gentlemen (2020)

I absolutely understand that Guy Ritchie movies aren't necessarily designed for anyone other than Guy Ritchie fans (and I'm not talking about his studio work here, I am talking about GUY RITCHIE movies), and I also absolutely understand that another crime comedy from him will be about as appealing as a smack on the back of the head from an irate Jason Statham, but The Gentlemen actually ends up being a lot of fun. Ritchie is confident enough in his own abilities, and he seems to relish the chance to get down 'n' dirty with a great cast who will help him create his most blatant homage yet to The Long Good Friday.

Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, the mastermind behind a superbly profitable drug business. It's pot he sells though, which means we can still view him as a good guy compared to other criminal types onscreen. Charlie Hunnam is Ray, Mickey's trusted right hand man. Mickey wants to retire, which sets off a twisted and violent chain of events as people try to nominate themselves as worthy successors. The prime buyer would seem to be a savvy businessman named Matthew (Jeremy Strong), but Dry Eye (Henry Golding) is an up-and-coming boss/thug who wants to get a big piece of the pie. We learn all of this through a lengthy conversation between Ray and a bloodhound journalist named Fletcher (Hugh Grant).

The Gentlemen is a film that does everything well, and is elevated by the cast. From those just mentioned, the only performer I didn't really enjoy was Strong, who delivers a performance that feels just a bit too weak and lacking in confidence for his character (despite his character being the kind of brain who outsources to brawn).McConaughey is his usual cool self, and very laid-back until he has to pounce on someone, Hunnam is the best I have seen him be, Golding is enjoyable in a role that thankfully doesn't have him yet again showing all of us men up as inferior and unromantic souls, and Grant has an absolute ball playing the kind of unscrupulous journo he has often publicly berated while working in support of Hacked Off, a campaign group set up to hold members of the tabloid press to account over their illegal tactics of phone hacking to gain private information that would provide them with juicy tabloid gossip. Michelle Dockery is a fitting queen to McConaughey's king, Eddie Marsan has fun in a small role that leads to a punchline both hilarious and appalling, and Colin Farrell once again proves that he can be relied upon to do his best work when not constrained by the packaging of a mainstream star vehicle.

There are only two main problems, and they're problems you find in most Ritchie movies (although I hadn't realised it before). First of all, every character feels like a character written by Ritchie. Nobody has their own voice here, although Grant almost overcomes this with the strength of his performance. Secondly, the large selection of characters inevitably delivers some that you wish weren't given much screentime (in this case it's a bunch of amateur criminals who upload their exploits to YouTube).

Those with sensitive ears will want to give this a miss, because the word "cunt" is bandied about more than it would be at a Christmas night out with a bunch of gynaecologists, and those who prefer their tales of crooks and crime to be told in a more straightforward fashion may also be a bit peeved, especially during the indulgent moments that allow for some playful unreliable narration from Grant's character. Everyone else should have a great time.

8/10