Guy Ritchie
The Snatch

Guy Ritchie is a director you either love or hate. I know it seems like a rather cliché opening, but for better or worse, he fits this description. "Lock & Stock" was the debut that unexpectedly catapulted him to success, a film I still consider probably the pinnacle of his filmography, with the proviso that I find both "Sherlock Holmes" films mediocre yet enjoyable, and "Revolver" not entirely successful, as it gets lost in Lynchian settings that Ritchie struggles to manage. The senseless and artistically tasteless remake "Swept Away" with his ex-wife Madonna is forgettable. This "Snatch" I place exactly in the middle.

Ritchie creates his own almost comic book-like world, partially emulating Quentin Tarantino's writing style, where the quirky characters revolve around one thing: a diamond. And what works best are indeed the characters: the timing is well-balanced, the jokes land, often sprinkled with gratuitous metaphors that, in their absurdity and simplicity, elicit more than a few laughs. Ritchie stages a story that effortlessly shifts from noir to gangster movie to a British-flavored comedy. The most successful characters are certainly the antagonists: the Russian Boris the Blade, seemingly harmless but revealed to be a sadistic butcher ex-KGB (the corpse scene is borderline grotesque), the English boss Brick Top, with irony confined strictly to dialogues, yet remains the coldest and cruelest, portrayed by Alan Ford (his monologue about pigs is monumental). The American businessman Cousin Avi, portrayed by Dennis Farina, is remarkable in reminding us how much he hates the English ("fog, lousy food, pathetic Mary Poppins"), and Bullet Tooth Tony, played by Ritchie's frequent collaborator Vinnie Jones, a former footballer known for his violent play, who ironically ended up in Hollywood, and Avi's cousin Doug the Head, convinced he's Jewish. The film opens with a superb Benicio Del Toro playing Franky Four-Fingers, who in some ways acts as the glue keeping the characters together throughout the film.

These villains work because each has their own space, albeit not overly explained or expanded, and they almost come across as intentional parodies of classic macho villains in Cinema, evident from the humor that's blatantly over-the-top, managing to carve out a niche of its own. The protagonists Turkish and Tommy (played by Jason Statham, in his second film with Ritchie, and Stephen Graham) are the typical small-time entrepreneurs trying to make money off of bets on underground boxing matches. Graham is perfect in his role and would go on to prove himself an excellent actor (consider the wonderful "This is England" or the recent "The Irishman" by Scorsese), less so for Statham, who, while holding his own, seems somewhat miscast. But at the center of it all, we have Mickey O'Neil, portrayed by a Brad Pitt in excellent form (and to think he settled for a smaller budget), creating this idiotic gypsy character who is also a lethal street boxer. The idea of giving him an invented slang is genius; Pitt enjoys it, and it shows. To wrap it up, we have the three black guys, possibly the most "ignorant" characters in the film, who aspire to nothing compared to the others but find themselves caught in the mix. A young Ewan Bremner (Spud from "Trainspotting") also makes an appearance in a small yet typically Tarantino-esque sequence.

What I believe detracts a bit from the direction is the action. This is because Guy Ritchie is not an action director, and this can be seen in the ring sequences and even in the initial heist. A chaotic, noisy, steroid-fueled direction. Some have considered this trait to be a "signature" of Ritchie's Cinema, while others, like me, find his works enjoyable even without it, where the film seems to lean on gratuitous adrenaline, but the aesthetic taste is almost entirely absent. And putting Oasis in the background isn't enough to make it more "exciting," to use a nerdy jargon. The dialogues, as I’ve already said, work, but in the long run, they risk becoming cumbersome due to the repeated situations throughout the film. The plot twists become too many, and although it only lasts ninety minutes, the pace isn’t always maintained at a high level. This is because Ritchie has good ideas, but a presentation that doesn't always go hand in hand with the screenplay, especially in the middle part where you're just waiting for the final showdown to enjoy a good dose of action, which I believe is the most flawed aspect of the film.

"Snatch", in conclusion, is it a fun film? Certainly. Does it have memorable aspects? Absolutely yes. Taken as an entertainment film, it works. For those who love grotesque comedies of "healthy" ignorance, built on silly characters, functional jokes, and an overall "light" story in its absurdity, it's highly recommended. For anyone who considers it Guy Ritchie’s best film, I suggest first watching (or rewatching) "Lock & Stock" and then we can talk.