"Snatch" is not a good movie, but done in a very entertaining style that many people will enjoy. I laughed a lot.

Rating: Null/10 (10 July 2001)

SPOILERS:: I cannot discuss my reaction to "Snatch" (which I suppose relates to the "snatching" of the large diamond) without commenting on the Imdb ratings. Currently it is #142 with a rating of 8.1, primarily by virtue of most voters being under 29, and I suspect most under 21. Among the "over 30" crowd, the rating is 7.5, which seems to me just about right. In many respects it deserves highest ratings for style, action, witty dialog. But the story, which is a bit convoluted and which involves all bad guys, as in "Lock, Stock...", is a rather poor one. As one professional reviewer said, "Guy Ritchie doesn't really want us to care about the story, it's all about the action."
My main interest in seeing the movie was Brad Pitt. From the trailers, I was intrigued by his gypsy character, a bare-fist fighting champion who only needs one punch. I think his performance is the highlight of the entire film, and again Pitt shows, as he did in "Fight Club" and "Twelve Monkeys", that he is one of the better and more versatile males actors.

James Barardinelli and Roger Ebert have excellent summaries of the film. For highlights, I really thought the dog swallowing the squeek toy, and "squeek-barking" was funny, as was "Something to declare? Yes, don't go to England." Much of the dark humor in "Snatch" arises from the ineptitude of the various crooks. If they were serious, competent crooks, then the film would not be very interesting. "Slapstick Crooks" would be a better name.
The camerawork and editing, as well as the dynamic 5-channel sound, were all first-rate. Ritchie is certainly in a different league there. I will keep watching his films for their entertainment value, but it would be easy to criticize him for all the violence, a la "Pulp Fiction", and pervasive use of foul language. We just have to remind ourselves, "It's only a movie."