Can't agree with all these high scores...

Rating: Null/10 (28 August 2001)

Heartened by the high Imdb scores for this film, I finally caught up with this one on cable.
Managed to watch it all the way through, but with a growing sense of depression. It really is absolute garbage. All the old favourites were here, fourth-rate soap actors, the vicious Mr Big, the wide boy and his dumb mate, the dodgy diamond dealer, all played in one-dimension, all played in that uniquely self-congratulatory way which says: `This is a British gangster film and this is the way to act in a British gangster film', and with loads of smart-ass camera tricks and editing thrown in.
SPOILERS FROM HERE ON!
And of course Vinnie  how this man gets away with it is a mystery to me  the scene where he keeps shooting the Russian bloke who refuses to die is possibly the crassest piece of film ever created.
The main warning sign for me was when for no reason at all someone introduced a cute and lovable dog into the film..imagine the surprise and hilarity when later on, with ideas running out and desperation setting in, the dog runs off with the diamond and swallows it! Surely someone involved in scriptwriting or directing could have said `Come on, we can come up with something better than this..'
And what on earth is Brad Pitt doing in this  doing his `Fight Club' bit of the booze-swilling, chain smoking guy who somehow has a perfect physique!

A few reviewers have compared Snatch favourably with Pulp Fiction  I don't see it  Pulp had Travolta at his coollest, Willis, Keitel, Jackson and Thurman on top form, as well as pace, style and a bit of thought put into it.
Still at least Snatch was better than Lock Stock and two smoking barrels.