New Blood

Trying to follow all the plot twists made my brain hurt. A day later, I still can't figure out what really happened, with all the lies told along the way by the characters.

I *think* there are some plot holes; if things really happened the way it turns out they did, then some things don't make sense. Either that, or the plot is just too convoluted for most people to follow.

Either way, the film left me feeling a bit puzzled. While the acting was good, the film as a whole was disappointing. I voted it 4 (out of 10) for the IMDB.

Quite how this great little movie has slipped undetected is a mystery. A great cast bring real life to a wonderfully twisty narrative that whilst inevitably drawing comparisons to Tarantino and Guy Richie by the nature of the genre, appears fresh and exciting. Don't be put off by the straight to video title, Hurst's ability as a writer is more than matched by his skill behind the camera and he never loses his grip on a story that in other hands might have become a tedious and confusing mess. This is story telling at its best.

A poor rip-off of Tarantino and Steve Soderbergh. You could see everything coming from a mile away, and all the fancy cinematic tricks, such as flashbacks, looping chronology and those annoying mini-freeze-frames whcih occur throughout the movie don't help it one bit. Worst of all was Nick Moran's acting. I don't know who he is, but he seemed like he was reading his lines from the first time off a cue card. It was like watching him in a fifth-grade play. I'm sure this director could do a lot better, with maybe better material next time. After all, it's only his first movie. I'd give him another chance. But that Nick Moran yahoo, he's better learn how to bus tables or mix drinks. BTW, Carrie-Ann Moss looked superb.

Only some gunfights scenes are worth in this UK crime flick. Directing is so confused, so is the story telling, and acting totally lousy. Sometimes I got bored, sometimes not, it is very difficult to pronounce some opinion, good or bad. This is a first film, and in very fashion in the early 2000's, in the Guy Ritchie mode. It remained more or less this way during the decade, and even further. With lesser results. John Hurt presence doesn't help at all. But you can try.

This was not a terrible film. It was merely a poor execution of current noir film styles. The pacing was slow. The script was melodramatic in places. It is unfortunate that the dramatic pause has become an overused device. The lighting was film school quality at best. Just because the subject matter is "dark" doesn't mean that I should be unable to see the actors. The editor seemed to be overly entertained by nifty but superfluous techniques. Much like a verbal pause, the film pause can become tiresome and overused. I cannot blame the actors for their flat delivery, I have seen them all in other films giving dynamic and believable performances. If the actors were doing what they were told, then we have to blame the director. The plot was very contrived. It took elements from a number of hit movies (Usual Suspects and City on Fire among them) and smothered them. A number of clichés were employed in an attempt to make us care about the characters. They all failed. In a three dimensional world, two dimensional plots get you nowhere.