bowmanblue I know that not every British gangster flick should be measured against Guy Ritchie's work. And, to be fait, I Against I is nothing like Ritchie's work - in other words it's pretty awful. Whereas as Ritchie can make a complex narrative with numerous characters come together and let the viewer easily make sense out of it, I Against I just seems to want to play around with the narrative structure for the sake of it Basically, it's a jumbled mess. Again, the far superior Pulp Fiction moved beginning to end and vice versa and got away with it. Some films can do that. This one can't. Scenes seem to happen in random order, making it increasingly hard for the viewer to follow what's happening.Then there's the characters - who cares about them? They're not particularly likable and the fact that the story's told out of order makes it hard to keep track of them.A low budget British gangster film without any major names attached to it was always going to be hard work. And indeed it was.

Viktor Vedmak (realvedmak) Let me save you couple hours of your life. Bad guy (BG) has his wife cheat on him with Guy 1. She hires Guy 2 to kill BG. She tells BG's father. His father tells BG what is going on. BG kills his father, for no apparent reason whatsoever. BG goes up to Guy 1 and Guy 2 and tells them to kill each other. Then BG proceeds to play Russian Roulette with his wife, which ends with him killing himself. In meantime two incompetents, Guy 1 and Guy 2, kill each other, again for no reason at all, as they already agreed not to kill each other. There are no actual action scenes, its all left to imagination. Total waste of time. If I want to use my imagination last thing I need is this movie.My summary is lot better than actual movie plays out. Whoever did cuts, positioned them into a jumbled mess, back and forth in time, but to say it was done badly is understatement.For example of movie that actually did it correctly, watch Reservoir Dogs by Tarantino. The only possible reason anybody should watch this movie is to see how NOT to do it.Utter and complete garbage whose only purpose should be to torture people by making them watch it.

Charlie Blanco Not a bad film. It is different to a lot of your usual Brit gangster films . OK there are a few flaws but this film was obviously not made with a Hollywood budget .It is a well crafted fast paced stylishly shot film noir which reminds me of some the old black and white movies from the 50's. The London locations add to the atmosphere and there are some good performances especially Ingvar Sigurdson who's ice cold demeanour is a constant plus throughout the film. This film is different from what I expected and the twist is also unexpected.  So if you like a femme fatal , a dark film with a good twist you should check this out .

Welshy81 This film is by no means perfect, but i still loved the way it is shot in London. No Danny Dyer clichés thankfully and keeps the story moving with lots of flash backs adding twists as to who did it. Similar in style to Reservoir Dogs, i thought it might be just a boys film, but i was pleasantly surprised it was more of a crime thriller. No flash bang gangster nonsense but a thinking film. Far removed from all the Hollywood nonsense they churn out, that you can predict the ending 5 minutes in. If you want something different watch this. This film is very much like Marmite you love it or hate it for what it stands for and the genre. I love it :)