The Gospel According to Bobby Glass

That ending was pretty damn terrible. I liked the show but I keep thinking about how dumb this writing was. Classic: revisit all the characters from the show in one final hurrah where everything comes together spectacularly. I guess this works in Snatch when it's the final 10 minutes but not in an hour long episode. It felt like they did't take their audience seriously at all. I wasn't looking forward to this show at first because of Ritchie's penchant for arrogant violent characters with no redeemable qualities but I actually liked most of the show. Characters were well thought out and brilliantly acted with the obvious witty writing you'd expect. But it all came crashing down in that final episode of dumb plot writing.

The cast is the major incentive to continue to watch this series. Totally. Ingenius casting here. I loved that IMDB did not put how may episodes the actorw were in as to keep you guessing. Unsure who plays Gospel John's .. was it his brother?? WOW

I have to admit that the first episode hooks you and draws you in but then the next few you are wondering if this is a Dramady or a Comedrama ... it is really over the top in so many ways. You are lauging one minute than OMG'ing the next.

I was thinking about stopping but didnt .... I had to finish it fast and be done with it so 3 days later fiinished. Last scene .... predicable and a great ride to get there.

I'm going to review this as being season one of a continuing show, though I'm less than convinced that the ducks will get in a row again for a second run. I'll shift this review to the main page if it's apparent that we aren't going to get any more. It's very much in the style of Guy Ritchie's other work, but its fun and funny and overall, I enjoyed it.

Following the death of his father, Edward Horniman (Theo James) inherits the title of Duke of Halstead, ahead of his older brother Freddy (Daniel Ings). He meets Susie Glass (Kaya Scodelario) at his father's funeral, and she explains to him that his father supplemented his income by allowing her criminal organisation to grow Marijuana on his estate. Though Edward wants to remove his family from this situation, a need to raise money quickly leads him to lean further into Susie's business.

As I say, if you've ever seen anything by Ritchie you'll have to the tone, setting and frankly, most of the plot, of "The Gentlemen" and you'll probably know whether you'll like it or not. It's connections to the movie of the same name are tangential, there are ultimately some plot similarities, but no characters cross over, which has led to the idea of a shared universe. I could see perhaps leaning into that in the future, with Ritchie using the title for an anthology type series, maybe with some minor crossover. We'll see I guess.

Performances are generally good. Theo James is particularly strong and his chemistry with Scodelario is palpable. Daniel Ings continues to play bitter borderline sociopaths and the rest of the cast includes heavyweights like Ray Winstone, Joley Richardson and Giancarlo Esposito and a return to the Ritchie fold for Vinny Jones.

So yes, it's the same song played again, but it's a crowd pleaser and very few play it better.

It is unfair to compare the series with the movie -- so often critics will score low any adaptation that lacks the power of the original. So I will start by saying that my disappointment did not come from there.

Even though Ritchie directed both the movie and the series, the movie is tighter and more cohesive. The series in my opinion is an example of style over substance.

Theo, portrays the lead character whose narrative arc begins as a soldier, lacks any apparent emotional or romantic connections, who drifts along a criminal path and wholeheartedly embraces ruthless murder by the end. Are we meant to cheer when his moral decay leads to the cold-blooded execution of his rivals?

The inclusion of the wonderful Giancarlo Esposito in the plot is wasted, as we are expected to believe that this criminal mastermind happily embraces imprisonment at the end. Really?

Others have commented on the comedrama elements of the series. However, Ritchie employs this technique lazily, and assumes the audience is fully onboard, happily embracing the nudges and winks. When there is no emotional investment in the characters however, no one cares.

I'm sure there are people out there that prefer a big bloodbath at the conclusion of a show where gangsters are at the center. Of course, there was lots of violence, graphic or implied. What we have is our main character, Eddie, coming to realize that the game has gotten into his soul. He starts off as a leader of men, so this is part of his character. For him to spend the rest of his life as "the Duke," would have made him feckless and boring. What he needed to do was make use of all his gifts. Susie is a great adversary/partner. I was glad to see there were no gratuitous romance or sexual encounters between them. What there was was a tightly formed web of sophisticated give and take. Those who are throwing in the low ratings seem to have a baser, more predictable slant on the drama. Good acting and nice pacing work well in this show.