I understand that people might have expected something fancier going into this. What with the cast and the title and all those things. But it's grittier and dirtier then that. Is it necessary to be like that? And could it have gone the other way? To the last one: Easily, but the movie opts to go against mainstream and be silent and kind of weird about things. While never reaching heights of recent movies like "Drive", it does pack a punch or two.

K. Knightley is almost phoning this in, her role not really that demanding (for her abilities that is). But while she seems shallow, that is what she is supposed to be. Exactly that and exactly what is "attracting" to some people (or boring to others as I'm sure you'll be able to read in other reviews of her performance). I did like the movie, but it won't reach cult fame, something it was obviously aiming for.

Harry Mitchel (Colin Farrell) just got out of prison. He's a criminal of some notoriety. His old friend Billy Norton (Ben Chaplin) is a low level gangster. Briony (Anna Friel) is his wild sister. Penny (Ophelia Lovibond) has a small job with reclusive somewhat retired actress Charlotte (Keira Knightley). She's holed up in her mansion with friend manager Jordan (David Thewlis) surrounded by the paparazzi. Corrupt detective Bailey (Eddie Marsan) tells Mitchel to avoid Billy but he still follows Billy collecting money. Billy has a proposal from his boss Rob Gant (Ray Winstone) to rob Charlotte's mansion for the car collection. Gant wants to pull Mitchel into his organization but Mitchel resists. In another side story, a couple of kids kill a homeless friend and he feels a need to get revenge.

There are a couple of good performances in this pulpy British gangster movie. Colin Farrell is quite good in a darker moody role. Ray Winstone comes in and blows this movie up. There are quite a few wonderful British actors that I love. There is just too many stories going on. It would be better off concentrating on a few less characters and put more attention to Gant. This has a scatter shoot effect.

It's incredible that a man of William Monahan's (THE DEPARTED, EDGE OF DARKNESS) talents could consider this viable material for a feature film. It's an entirely superfluous and predictable London gangster movie of the kind that were doing the rounds 15 years or so ago, and yet it pretends and acts like it's a unique, fresh and contemporary take on the gangster genre. It's not, and nothing that happens here is a surprise.

The main problem I have with Colin Farrell is a leading man is his inability to craft sympathetic characters, and his one here is no different. I actively disliked the guy from the very start, from when he stepped out of prison, and he does nothing to engage the viewer's empathy as the story progresses. His facile romance with a stiff Keira Knightley does nothing for him, either.

It doesn't help that Monahan's script is chock-full of brain-dead profanity that quickly becomes irritating. It takes a certain calibre of writer to make profanity work - Tarantino finds a natural rhythm in it, for example - but here it's just grating in the extreme. The talents of numerous actors are also wasted in nothing roles; you wonder why Stephen Graham, Lee Boardman, Jamie Campbell Bower and Eddie Marsan even bothered turning up. Ben Chaplin and David Thewlis get more to do in support, but neither are at their best here. Thewlis is on autopilot while Chaplin is slightly uncomfortable and miscast. Ray Winstone is wasted in the most clichéd and predictable gangster imaginable, although Anna Friel is very sexy, I'll give her that.

London BOULEVARD isn't all bad - it's fast-paced and has lots of twists and turns to keep you watching, of course - but at the end of the day it offended me with its glib attitude and refusal to provide originality in any way, shape or form. It even rips off part of CARLITO'S WAY with a certain bare-faced cheek.