Is there a slight possibility that -Americans- didn't like this movie?

Though I can’t speak for every American, I can definitely say that I underrated this movie because it was lame – not because it poked a little fun at us “yanks”. Hell the title of the movie is poking fun at England. I think that it’s just that we’re used to seeing Samuel L. Jackson play better rolls in better movies. Whenever I see him in a movie, I always rate his character performance to his roll in Pulp Fiction. Based upon that comparison, this movie just didn’t cut it. Just because a movie has fast-paced action, violence and fast cars does not guarantee its success with American audiences (but it usually does better the odds – especially if you throw in some skin).

To both of the Europeans who posted to this prior to me (and to any others who post afterwards), I would like to clear up a few things for you:

1. Regardless of what you have seen in the movies (or the few American tourists you may have met in your lives), there is just too much cultural diversity within our large country to make a generalized statement as to why the population likes or dislikes a particular movie. You may think that just because the “average” American only speaks one language and doesn’t have 14 political parties to choose from that we are all the same. Quite the opposite is true.

2. Most European movies deal with themes / locations / lifestyles that are difficult for American audiences to identify with. It’s easier to laugh at the familiar than at something you don’t fully understand. After living in Europe for 10 years (and being married to a European for 17), I find that humor doesn’t often translate well across languages (or even regional dialects, for that matter). Hell, we often don’t find the humor from each other’s jokes from different parts of our own country (because of the aforementioned diversity) – how would you expect us to understand “yours”.

3. One of the things that is even more enigmatic to us than European film is certain European tastes in our own. We definitely cannot understand Jerry Lewis’s popularity in France or David Hasselhoff’s popularity in Germany. Hell, I don’t even understand the “average” American’s preference for Jim Carey.

4. Too many “European” films are done on a decidedly smaller budget. That smaller budget is reflected in the film quality in the areas of cinematography and soundtrack. There are quite a few American movies that suffer from the same deficiencies – and they don’t usually fair well with American audiences, either. However, there are quite a few “American” movies that were directed by Europeans or starred European actors that have done quite well. Our Hollywood movie machine pumps out movies by the truckload – some are good (but most are crap). There are more “good” American movies only because there is a greater overall volume of American movies (both good and bad). You will also notice that the Bottom 100 movies are mostly American movies as well. With the possible exception of India, I would be willing to bet that the U.S. produces 10 times more movies than any other country. Face it, people seeking a career in acting don’t go to Fredrikstad, Norway to be discovered. With that being said, I think the this movie’s rating of 6.2 is quite respectable (considering it sucked).

5. I’m sure that if the U.S. was a small country that was surrounded by many other small countries that spoke different languages – the “average American” would speak more than one – but face it, if you don’t have the need to speak a second language or you aren’t exposed to one, then you will find it difficult to learn one. Just because we don’t speak your language doesn’t mean that we’re too shallow to do so, it just means we don’t have the need. From my experiences in Europe, most Europeans only speak their own native language unless they either (a) live near a border or (b) live in an area frequented by tourists from other countries. I lived in neither – therefore, I became fluent in a Spanish and proficient in Italian (and I am just an “average” American).

In summary, don't try to figure out what we like by generalizing about us - Hollywood tries and even they only get it right about 10% of the time.

rafiol

Well, I'm British (and European for that matter) and I thought this movie was awful, particularly given the quality of the lead actors: Sean Pertwee; Rhys Ifans, who was great on stage when I went to see Accidental Death of an Anarchist in London the other year, but who seems to have a habit of getting involved in crap movies (anyone remember Twin Town or Love, Honour and Obey?); Robert Carlyle (probably one of the best actors in the UK over the last decade); and, of course, Samuel L Jackson (who also has had his fair share of bad movies, including the embarrassing Unbreakable).

The film proves that great acting talent does not necessarily make for a great movie.

Admittedly, I joined the movie about 30 mins in, during the scene that had been lifted from Nikita (with the lady sniper shooting up the gangsters in the hotel room). But after about another 50 mins of watching I decided to switch off the telly and go to bed.

What were the problems:

1. Too many characters. This has been a flaw in many British movies over the last few years. Snatch and Lock, Stock... just about got away with it, but here it just revealed how loose the script editing was and the disjointed direction - not only are there drug dealers, the chemist, the sniper, Meatloaf, the police, various gangsters, but why not also throw in a gang of skinheads? I spent 15 years growing up in Liverpool during the Seventies and Eighties (the decades when the National Front/BNP were quite active in Britain) and I just don't remember seeing gangs of skinhead racist thugs in the city!! Liverpool is a cosmopolitan city where these kinds of people are generally not tolerated, so why is this gang in it? (Now if the film was about, say, Oldham, I could understand...) Totally superfluous as far as I could see! But I did notice lots of Liverpudlian ex-soap actors, so maybe it was a "jobs for the boys" thing.

2. Gloomy settings. Some of the shots of Liverpool were embarrassing (most of them looked like they'd been filmed in yucky Bootle). Maybe I missed the good shots of the 'pool (I had only watched about half the movie), but I would have liked to have seen more shots of the Liver Building (and not from some scummy junk barge), Paddy's Wigwam, the Tower Restaurant, Church Street, the Museum, St George's Hall, etc. Also, why not choose a sunny day to do the filming?

Yes, I know drug dealing generally goes on in council estates in Kirby and the like, but it's a movie!!! Why not show off the more glamourous parts of the city? If I saw this movie as a non-native, I would never want to visit Liverpool!!

3. I just couldn't care about the characters! They all seemed to be pretty horrible people as far as I'm concerned. There was no charm about the two "heroes", Robert Carlyle's character and Sam Jackson, since they both seemed highly mercenary to me. Maybe it's the scouser in me, but Thatcherite and Reaganite "entrepreneurialism" just doesn't seem to gel in a film that is set in Liverpool. Anyone who sells drugs (even ones made from purely legal substances) does not deserve sympathy as far as I'm concerned (but Willem Dafoe somehow managed it when he played a likeable drug dealer in Light Sleeper in the early Nineties). But the same does not go for drug users: Trainspotting had a few characters that you could feel empathy with.

Okay, Carlyle's character did want to be at the big footy game against Man U the next day, but is this supposed to show what a great human being he is?

I also couldn't get what John Mortimer's daughter was doing with Carlyle? There just wasn't any real romance between them on the screen as far as I could see.

In fact, Carlyle played a far more sympathetic scouser when he was Albi in the wonderful Cracker TV series (and Albi was into cutting people up with a bayonet!).

4. The general crassness of it. People going "fooking, fook, fook..." all the time does not work, unless it is posh people (who are supposed to be well brought up) and the film is Four Weddings and a Funeral. Lots of car chases and violence just to take up some screen time, etc. also do not make for a good movie.

People who like this movie need their heads examined!

TorahAvenger, I agree with you; I'm an American and I loved the humour in this film. I don't believe it has anything to do with being immature.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"I watched the first 30 minutes of it and turned the channel."

If that is so, Bar-B-Q, then you are not really at liberty to judge the film then, are you?

I'm an American and I loved this movie. As did my wife. And my parakeet. And he's part English.

It's a 90-minute diversion. That's all it is. It's mindless entertainment. Not everything has to be a Bergman film. Lighten up. And nobody - anywhere - does angry like Samuel L. Jackson. And my wife says he looks good in a kilt.

I'm an American as well and I liked this movie a lot. Not because of the oh so talented Sam J., but because of the European cast (Rhys Ifans, Emily Mortimer, and the scene stealing Robert Carlyle).

Whether this has something to do with the fact that I've been to Europe a few times and find it a readily adaptable society, regardless of which country I visit, or that I'm into Brit/ Aussie humor (The excellent movie "The Dish" comes to mind), is irrelevant.

Short answer: Saw it, Liked it, will watch it again.

[deleted]

Im English, and I don't think this film was underated, I think at 6.2 this movie was totally overrated.

The film was over written, far too much un-necessary swearing, and i aint a grandpa, I loved the dialogue in pulp fiction, here though, it just sounded like it was trying to be cool.

How many annoying characters can you fit into one film? Bobby Carlyle's accent was poor. I seen the boom about three times. Meatloaf was so annoying! Ryhs Ifans and his chi was bad. Everyone was shouting for no reason.

I think the film sucked because they was trying too hard to make it cool.