If it had been made before "Pulp Fiction" we could've been in business, but unfortunately......

Rating: Null/10 (24 February 2003)

For the umpteenth time the catch that I brought home from a trip to the video store made me appreciate just how good 'Pulp Fiction' really is. Granted, this is one of the better copycats but at the end of the day it is only that - a pretender.
The plot of Tarantino's masterpiece flowed seamlessly. It fit perfectly for every character to be there. Here, the reason for half of the cast's presence in the movie is so that such and such can happen at the end without violating the rules of logic. It really looks like Guy Ritchie figured out the ending first and then started filling in different holes. Similar to a cheap joke where it's obvious that punchline came first and then by working backwards - the unnatural setup was arrived at. Every time plot hits a hurdle another witty gangster pops up to take care of it until there's no one left standing but the four original guys.
Additionally and more importantly in the overall context of this film, QT's characters possessed inherent style and charm whereas Guy tries way too hard to give his lads another dimension by having them spew lines that smack of forced wit. Because of that 'Lock, StockÂ….' at times feels like a TV sitcom (okay, a cable TV sitcom) and that can't be good. For a movie that's, before anything else, an exercise in style it finds its main ingredient in surprisingly short supply.
In the end, I don't really know if Mr. Madonna was out-and-out trying to copy 'Pulp Fiction' or not, but what I do know is that he made a similar movie that pales in comparison. Maybe I'm being unfair to poor old Guy but 'Pulp' set the bar really high. Cockney accent can carry a film only up to a certain point.