Blitz (2011) Poster

(2011)

User Reviews

Review this title
123 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Good but not great.
Greenzombidog26 May 2011
A cop killing crim is giving the police the run around in old London town.

Blitz is a good movie that finally comes to life about 20 to 30 minutes in when we finally get to the main story. Once the chase is on with the odd couple partnership of tough rule breaking Tom Brant (Jason Statham) and gay straight laced Porter Nash (Paddy Considine) pursuing the cop killing criminal who's hungry for notoriety the Blitz (Aiden Gillen) the movie comes into it's stride. Before that we're inundated with so many characters it's a little confusing. What makes matters worse is that none of these side characters stories are ever really finished and the time wasted on them could have been spent giving a little more screen time to Porter Nash who is sadly underused.

Don't get me wrong though I enjoyed the film. Aiden Gillen is a brilliant bad guy, giving his character a Johnny Rotten swagger. I felt myself enjoying hating the Blitz and couldn't wait to see him get his just deserts but we could have done with getting a little more insight into his behaviour. Statham does a good job showing a little weakness now and then in his usually gruff demeanour. As I have already said Paddy Considine is great but not in it enough for my liking. London looks great and there is an exciting chase through the streets which is one of the high points of the movie.

I enjoyed the movie and would happily watch it again. It's biggest fault was trying to juggle too many story lines at once and unfortunately it dropped a couple of balls.
75 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Competent police thriller, set in London, with some nice cinematography
PhilidorPriestman25 May 2011
I fancied seeing a film on the way home from work today. When I arrived at the cinema this was the next film on. I went in cold, knowing nothing.

Funky title sequence, OK. Opening scene with Statham asleep on a couch – OK, so its one of those Jason Statham films, fine I can go with that; Hollywood action film with a perfectly watchable lead, nothing too challenging, just what I need to unwind after a hard day at the office.

It was at this point that the old memory cells started working and I remembered that I had read something about the film. Oh no, isn't this a British film, set in London? Yes it is. Oh dear. I don't want gritty, low budget, realism, I don't want east end gangsters, mockney accents and all too earnest attempts to be cool.

I was pleasantly surprised to find my fears unfounded. This is really quite a good film.

Someone is killing London police officers, Statham, a cop who doesn't play by the rules (is their any other kind?) is out to get him.

Statham does his Statham thing, and does it very well. The man is no Brando, but this is a very creditable performance. He is believable as his character, he does quietly menacing, he does humorous, There is also a fair bit of charm in his interactions with his boss. There are a few scenes where he enlists the help of a WPC (very well played small part – sorry can't remember the actor) to check computer records. I thought that the interaction between the two was very good and caused me to wish that we would see Statham in a more relationship based drama, rather than his standard action fare.

Aiden Gillen is very good as the deranged killer. He is obviously "not in his right mind" but Gillen's subtle performance and the breadth of emotions and he hints at keep him well clear of a pantomime "Psycho".

Paddy Considine is fine as Stratam's superior. Interesting to see the inclusion of this homosexual character where his sexuality has nothing in particular to do with the plot; he isn't a victim, there is no mincing, no angst he is just a straight (as it were) gay man. Very, very few incidentally gay people on the big screen.

Zawa Ashton was perfectly OK as a cop who became an addict while under cover for the drug squad. David Morrisey doesn't have much to do as the newspaper reporter whom the killer contacts to publicise his activities.

What surprised me about the film was how good it looked. The cinematography is excellent; nothing flashy, but at times quite beautiful. I have never seen London look so good on film. The fact that we were kept away from the usual tourist spots helped; no establishing shot here, sweeping up the Thames, taking in the London Eye, the Houses of parliament etc. No red London Buses (do they still have them?). Also, there was also no attempt to make the place look like America with aerial shots of skyscrapers etc. At the same time the film makers didn't go to the other extreme and have Albert Square, litter and kebab shops.

The action in the film is pretty low key in terms of spectacle, nothing blows up, nobody takes their shirt off. The violence is real rather than comic book stuff. For me, it comes across as real, rather than affected "gritty reality". (Now there's an oxymoron for you)

Now, I am not saying that this is a great film. It is an entertaining enough thriller, decently acting, with some very nice cinematography. I don't imagine that it will will a lot of awards. But, it does the heart good to see a half decent British film, that isn't trying to be American or (defensively) trying too hard to be British. We could do with a lot more.
94 out of 133 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
I Loved This Movie!!
go_titans29 November 2011
Blitz is not getting much respect from reviewers on IMDb, and I'm very surprised by this. I loved it from the first minute to the last and ordered the Blu-Ray on line before the credits had even finished.

Statham plays an aggressive cop with an attitude, and if he's got a weapon in his hands (like a hockey stick) he'll wield it like a pro.

Paddy Considine plays a gay cop who's capable of taking the law into his own hands, and this allows him to work with Statham just beautifully.

Aidan Gillen plays a fabulous psycho with a thing for killing cops, and he's been one of my favourite British actors for the past 10 years anyway, so it would have been hard for him to screw this one up.

The action from the opening scene is great, Statham's lines are terrific stuff and had me laughing hard more than once, the odd-team Statham and Considine create is brilliant, the story doesn't get bogged down in personal problems, there are no annoying girlfriends, wives or kids to pull the actors and audience sideways away from the story (some directors seem to love putting that type of stuff in), the continuity issues others have mentioned are so minor they don't matter, the soundtrack was perfect, and the ending was everything I hoped it would be.

This film is never going to make the 'Greatest Films Ever Made' list, but its sure as hell fun to watch as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't beat around the bush getting started, doesn't waste time during the film, keeps up the fun, and what more do you want from Statham and an action film? To the film's detractors I say 'lighten up'! It's obvious from the first 10 minutes the film's creators weren't chasing Academy Awards, so why knock it so hard? It's meant to entertain for 90 minutes, and it does just that.
33 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Meh
poc-127 May 2011
Some nice camera work, stylish blurring, but pretty clichéd police drama. Jason Statham does what Jason Statham normally does, he's utterly typecast as kind of British Dirty Harry, but it's not new anymore like it was in Snatch/The Transporter.

His sidekick is not nearly as interesting as the little guy in Snatch or the girl in Transporter.

Good work from Aiden Gillen (the guy who played Tommy Carcetti in The Wire) as the bad guy. Zawe Ashton is also interesting as a WPC with a drug problem.

Mainly the plot seemed a bit disjointed and contrived. Overall it felt like a TV police drama. Nothing special.
76 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A good action flick
nishesquire097 September 2011
This movie is an action packed thriller, one that should be enjoyed with a couple of beers in a man cave (with friends, of course). Some scenes are quite violent and gory, including depictions of dismembered body parts and brain splatterings. There are some hilarious moments that are perhaps more funny because the movie is otherwise quite serious. The main actor (Statham) plays his role well and has an edge about him that comes off as real. He had some nice banter with his homosexual boss, but thankfully there wasn't any suggestion of any sexual tension between the two (not because I'm homophobic, but because I think it would distract from the action too much.) The rest of the cast was average. The deranged killer was neither scary nor psychotic and I didn't get the feeling that he was really on a killing spree. I guess the bar of the deranged killer was set by the Joker from Batman. Overall, a good movie to watch once.
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Coppers disconnect
p-stepien20 October 2012
English bobbies never have it easy. Especially in South London, where crime is unfocused and crude. Stress levels escalate, when a serial cop killer starts roaming the streets capping seemingly random coppers to his ever-growing collection. The local Dirty Harry - the crass, foul mouth and incessantly drinking at pubs while on duty DS Tom Brant (Jason Statham) gets recalled to service - after being recently suspended for a bout of vigilantism against a adolescent trio of car thieves. Despite apparent burnout Brant intends to pull through and implement some well-deserved on the murderer - one despondent psycho with severe remorse towards the bobby community Barry Weiss (Aidan Gillen). Together with new super intendant and privately queer Porter Nash (Paddy Considine) the net quickly tightens around the neck of postal Londoner...

Verging on some commentary on violence, which ventures somewhere along the lines of Dirty Harry type justice, director Elliott Lester attempts to instill a more sincere down-to-earth feeling. The criminal is far from brilliant, at times bumbling, but still managing to keep ahead of the even more incompetent London bobbies. Aidan Gillen's character falls to close to the Scorpio Killer, once again inducing a sense of kinship with the aged Eastwood classic. Nonetheless Jason Statham, basically a one role actor, fails to overreach into more dramatic territory, feeling much better in tune with crass one-liners and his general tough guy persona, making all attempts to diverge sound weirdly contrived. Together with a disinterested Considine and rather rough performances by other cast "Blitz" feels overwhelmingly hollow with any potential comment crudely covered by plodding story-build and uninspired writing.

The movie also features some of the worst procedural cop drama on celluloid, but then again maybe this is owed to overly perfect portrayals of criminal persecution in the United States? Having just one suspect the London police fronted by Brant and Nash fail to put him under surveillance or even bring him in for questioning, instead allowing Blitz to strike again. Police folly follows suit when they are unable to keep the suspect locked up due to lack of evidence - despite one police woman seeing the culprit murder a boy with her own eyes. Uneven, unfocused and clearly in search of better scripting "Blitz" attempts to connect a more dramatically induced thriller with a typical Statham adrenaline rush, wholly failing on both counts.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Ignore the ratings - Read the reviews
bfrost-829 May 2011
Having read the reviews, and agreeing with most of them, I'm a little surprised the film scores so highly. Surely it rates mid-range obscurity at best? The comments about unnecessary/unresolved sub-plots, completely unrealistic event turns, and lack of character depth are all absolutely spot on, as is the 'Ronseal' analogy. But the weak, predictable and incredibly rapid ending left us quite empty. It was more suited to an American TV series where an advert break happens just before 'Columbo gets his man'. There were also some terrible continuity gaffs, especially relating to time of day and weather (look especially before, during and at the end of the hotel to trains chase). Come on British cinema, you can do better than this!
72 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Immoral, gritty, strangely compelling
acutler31 May 2011
One of Statham's best. Jason, as usual, plays himself, although this time in perhaps his most realistic settings. No wires, no kung-fu, no sixth sense. Just an unhealthy, alcoholic, total b**stard of a cop.

This film starts out at best amoral, and I can only conclude by the end that it is positively immoral, with many things that are very objectionable. The few characters with hope or any redeeming qualities all get dragged down into the mire, and London has rarely looked so frightening and depressing and worryingly real.

And yet the film is compelling viewing. It won't do well because the action is not the point, and what action there is (and there is plenty) all has a bitter taste rather than the usual cathartic "it's an action flick" joy. Equally, because it is Statham, and the action is so prevalent, it will probably be critically lambasted. But it is really quite a thoughtful film.
60 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Passes The Time
seany_c26 May 2011
As fans of Jason Statham me and my girl saw this yesterday. I'm usually a fan of his over-the-top action films like 'The Transporter's', 'Crank 1 & 2' and 'The Mechanic'. I was surprised to see that this was something a little different from him. Well, a little different. Jason Statham is basically playing Jason Statham which is always good to watch in my opinion but here the film is played as a more grittier, realistic affair with lashings of violence and the occasional funny moment. Paddy Considine does well as the gay copper who teams up with Statham to try and napture a nutty killer who's targeting cops. Giving the films standout performance, Aidan Gillen plays the killer and is totally convincing in the role. It's not mind-blowing stuff but it's enjoyable and Statham fans will lap it up. ***/*****
32 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Solid but lacks real impact and benefits greatly from the stars involved
bob the moo23 January 2012
Brant is a no nonsense copper. Frequently in trouble for violent conduct, he drinks hard, smokes where he likes and can't operate a computer and sees typing to be like cooking – women's work. He is pretty much on his last chance whenever someone start killing police officers. The killers calls himself Blitz and informs a journalist that he intends to kill 8 more officers; meanwhile Brant joins his boss Nash to try and catch the killer before he strikes again.

Bit of an odd film this; it sort of does enough to be entertaining but at the same time it seems to want to pull in a direction that doesn't really fit the material, while also rather fudging the darker drama that it also could have been. The end result is a bit of a muddle but it is solid enough to get by. The film starts with Brant taking on some yobs and then is followed by a scene of him being tough in the face of the department doctor – so far, so much to be expected. Unfortunately for the film, the rest of the plot doesn't really lend itself to this sort of cop – he feels like he would be more at home in more of an action movie. So when Brant is around the film is a little bit cheeky and a little bit tough, but otherwise it keeps taking odd paths. So for example the entire thread with Falls seems wasted – her drug use, her relationship, none of it seems to fit into the rest of the film.

This rather muddled feel also leads to the film not quite delivering in any specific way. It feels like it should be a tough-talking action movie, but yet it never becomes one. It feels like there are character-driven aspects to be had, but yet you never get to the heart of anything. It sort of does a bit of all of this well enough to get by – but this is what it is doing, getting by. The actors help it greatly, even if their presence may also have guiding the film down certain roads. I think this specifically about Statham who is a strength to the film while also being a possible factor for the confused approach. He does "Stratham" and does it well and kudos for a guy getting Hollywood money to be coming back to the UK to make movies. He is a real presence in the film but too much of it seems geared towards his performance when it should have gone other ways – he is still good, but he should have gone with the film, not the other way around. Considine must have signed on to a different script, because he literally does nothing here – such a great actor and he has a role that has so little to it that anyone could have done it. Gillen also seems to have a lack of material – he is OK but the film never lets him be more than who he is the first time we see him. Ashton is good as her struggling addict, but the film does nothing with her so her hard work is wasted. Morrissey has little to do – again I presume the script that he signed to was more intelligent that it turned out to be in the final version? Blitz is an OK film because the main plot is solid enough and Statham is grizzly enough to keep things going. However there is a lot of wasted potential here in the actors and in the various plot threads – it feels like they had more than just a basic police thriller in their script, made a better but more complex film but then ended up cutting it back to be a film that would appeal more to those coming to see a "Jason Statham film", even though bits of the previous film were still included whether they worked or not. Solid enough to fill the time, but somewhere in that editing room there is a much better film than this one.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
"If you pick a fight, choose the right weapon."
rmax30482316 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This may get better as it rolls along and a plot develops. I wouldn't know. I shouldn't really be leaving a comment because I only watched the five-minute opening scene and the credits.

But if I can't tell you how it ends, I can give you some idea of how it begins. Jason Statham is a tall, brawny, bald-shaven brute with a mean expression. He's lying on his couch one night, looking bored, rises and glances out his window to see three hoodlums trying to force open the door of his car in the alley.

Cut. Statham strides slowly towards the thugs, carrying what he describes to them as a "hurling stick." They begin to spit curses at him and pull box cutters on him. They've never seen a dumb action movie or they'd know this is a big mistake.

Statham demolishes them with his stick and when they're on the pavement, groaning in pain, he kicks them and deliberately stabs a hood with his own box cutter. "Next time you pick a fight, choose the right weapon." The credits follow -- white block letters on a black background, spastic, dancing around, jumpy, manically mad.

That was enough for me. I'd already gotten the moral message. From now on, action heroes will have to be practically illiterate -- and very bald and sweaty.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not a bomb
TomMix863 March 2013
The trailers for BLITZ caught my interest, seeming to promise a contemporary, British take on the first DIRTY HARRY movie; a cop thriller with a morally ambiguous anti-hero facing a grandiose, psychopathic villain. And that's more or less what you get, although it's also something an ensemble piece with much of the screen time taken up by a number of sub-plots, somewhat like BROOKLYN'S FINEST.

The early scenes of the film are a little too frantic, and seem to be put together without too much care initially making the film a little unwelcoming; at first seeming uncomfortably redolent of the lower end of of Danny Dyer's filmography. Once things settle down however, it's a fairly predictable but entertaining film with good performances, solid action and rather more interesting characters than you'd expect. I haven't read the source material (a novel of the same name by Ken Bruen), but I suspect it's at least partly responsible for giving the film a grittier, pulpier feel than you'd associate with Statham. The Dubstep soundtrack helps give the film a contemporary vibe appropriate to its South London setting.

It certainly wont be as well remembered as DIRTY HARRY, but BLITZ is one of Statham's strongest vehicles to date.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Darwin In Action
Theo Robertson22 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I almost went to catch BLITZ when it was released at the cinema but was totally snowed under at work . People who had seen it said they weren't keen on it but never seemed able to specify why they didn't like it . By the time I did manage to get time off work it had been and gone from the multiplex in less than the space of two weeks which is never a good sign . Regardless of this I made a point of looking out for it and saw it earlier this evening It gets off to a good start with some tough nut pulling out a hurling stick and giving some knife wielding chavs a violent beating . The problem with this is that they're all actors in a feature film rather than people involved in a fly on the wall documentary . If it had have been a fly on the wall documentary called VIOLENT SCUM GET NUTTED I would have given it 10 out out 10 for the title alone but a drama needs a plot anything involving a plot in BLITZ gets .... well blitzed due to some poor writing .

First of all a gay detective relates a story to his colleague of how despite the greatest effort of his force they couldn't convict a serial paedophile because " we couldn't catch him in the act and the kids were too traumatised to identify them " Hmmmm might it not be a good idea to use forensics for example ? Instead of that the gay detective goes round to the paedos house to give him a good beating to the genitals . Yeah sure you did . Maybe he did and that's why the paedo got off with it - police brutality during an arrest . I guess this scene was included so we'd feel sympathy for the coppers but there's something bizarrely not right with this scene

Next up a policeman gets shot dead by the eponymous Blitz possibly on the grounds that his grammar isn't 100 % Maybe not a good enough reason for killing someone - unless you come on to this site and notice the illiterate scribblings of some people online in which case murder is justified . Interesting that the police are unable to get any leads with this killing . I mean camp bloke wearing yellow sunglasses and a purple jacket shooting a cop in a busy street in broad daylight is rare . So rare you think the police might have asked eye witnesses if they'd seen something ? I mean it's not like Nuremberg where no one heard anything , saw anything or knew what was going on. No the cops confine their identification to looking through CCTV only to conclude " It's like he knows what cameras are working . We can't get an ID on this freak " . Well you could asked the hundred people walking down the street if they'd seen the suspect . They're not even trying . Hardly surprising since at least one of them's a smack-head and the rest have got a drink problem . Hardly surprising that Mr Blitz is the cleverest character in the film . So clever in fact that he knows the address of every police officer in London

It's easy to see why a lot of people were disappointed with BLITZ . Of course if you went in to the cinema wanting to see Stathem blow away villains left right and centre you can understand the disappointment but I doubt if anyone was expecting an action-fest and the top quality cast is what drew me to the film . Considine's gay detective is only gay because the screenplay says he's gay and could be by any slumming journeyman actor rather than Considine . David Morrisey seems cast to make everyone forget he was in BASIC INSTINCT 2 but best performance is by Aidan Gillen which isn't saying much and I do wish he had a bit more screen time , a screen time that is composed of giant plot holes and police procedures so ridiculous you'd think you're watching a film about Darwin in action

Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that BLITZ is close to being a very good cop thriller that Britain rarely makes . Director Elliot Lester shows a lot of competence such as the scene where a policewoman lies in a pool of blood and then the rain splatters on the ground and Stathem is amusing as he dishes out one liners with a wry sense of humour but BLITZ should have been better
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
" I have a memory of the Past, but it's all black . . . . . . like my future "
thinker169111 November 2011
If you get a chance to read the novel written by Ken Bruen upon which this movie " Blitz " is based on, you will miss quite a lot in the transition. Even though the movie is graphic, the book is more so. In addition, the main character Detective Sergeant Tom Brant (Jason Statham) is definitely more violate and his partner DI Craig Stokes (Luke Evans) is revealed to be more incisive and meticulous. Indeed, the suspect called 'The Blitz' (Aidan Gillen) reads more intelligent, clever and evasive. Having read the book and seen the movie, I will say that both are dark and similar to the point of eeriness and memorable. The movie is a black insightful look into the mind of a serial killer and with Statham chasing him through the streets of London, far more exciting. The story is fraught with loose ends and indeed some are not resolved. Still, it is a good attempt of keeping the audience interested. Since Jason Statham is the leading man the finished product can be said to be dramatic enough to be recommended. ****
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not what I expected
stly99925 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I see films by first checking IMDb and avoid those much below 7.0. This usually works well and mostly I am not disappointed. This film scored 7.9 so I felt very confident about it. BUT, when it started I thought I was watching an amateurish TV programme. I disagree with one reviewer; I do think the reason for the serial killings is valid (i.e. these cops had arrested this extremely deranged killer in the past and he wanted revenge). However, I cannot believe that he left no DNA evidence at any crime scene as he wore his normal clothes! It only takes a few fibres, footprints. etc. to gain some DNA. And having identified the possible killer very early on, it seems the cops then did little more until another killing took place. I would have thought that they would have watched a serial cop-killer's every move. And the dope-head PC was a joke .... totally pointless character. Also, surely the newspaper would have noted the serial numbers of the 50K, so the money in the killer's possession (which the cops returned to him without even finding out where he got it from .... have they not heard of the Inland Revenue and how they tear your house apart if you have cash you cannot account for!) would have been traced to the man he killed in the loo (another rather unbelievable character). The only good bit was the ending (for people like me who like to see evil people get their ass kicked and liquidated) .... bit like The Departed (now, that is a GOOD film).
19 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Statham is a 70's stereotype trapped in a modern environment.
the_rattlesnake2531 May 2011
For the second time in eight months, Irish novelist Ken Bruen has seen another one of his hard-boiled crime stories adapted to the big-screen. While 'London Boulevard' contained a down-on-his-luck gangster attempting to go straight, 'Blitz' instead contains a more cinematic anti-hero, as Jason Statham plays a Sergeant who dismisses everyone, plays by nobodies rules and breaks every law under the sun while consuming large quantities of alcohol. It's disjointed, unintentionally hilarious, and more akin to a cinematic parody of the hit television series 'Life on Mars' than a serious British crime-thriller.

Detective Sergeant Tom Brant (Jason Statham) is a police officer with old school procedures and methods; he rules the streets with his fists rather than his head or his badge. But once a serial cop-killer (Aiden Gillen) calling himself the 'Blitz' starts roaming the streets of London, he must partner with acting Detective Inspector Porter Nash (Paddy Considine) to try and apprehend the culprit before the deranged psychopath seriously injures or even kills any more members of the London Police force. Alongside the main narrative stream, there is also a sub-plot involving a young WPC (Zawe Ashton) who must constantly battle her own personal demons.

The combination of a stale, almost laughable script and the rough, one-dimensional lead actor in Jason Statham instantly renders 'Blitz' as a sub-par crime-thriller. Brant is portrayed as a sexist, prehistoric homophobe who prefers to take witness statements in the Pub as he drinks a pint of beer while dismissing any concerns the witness has about his or her statements. Statham adds absolutely nothing to the character except the fact that he is willing to seriously injure or kill any possible (innocent) suspects without a second thought. His lack of emotion, constant drinking and persistent expression of repressed rage become incredibly old after ten minutes. However, if taken accidentally as a comedy, his hilarious one-liners do provide endless (and unintentional) comedic relief. When asked by a witness he is interviewing if he is taking down his statement, Brant casually removes his pint of beer from his lips before articulating the phrase, "does it look like I carry a pencil?" in a condescending manner. Police work at its finest, indeed.

Paddy Considine and Aiden Gillen do attempt to work beyond their restrictive character profiles, but within the confines of the film and its script, their characters aren't given enough creative freedom to truly provide any emotive acting. Gillen's motive behind his rampage of violence is never fully explored, nor is the initial homosexuality of Considine's character. While it is somewhat refreshing to see a homosexual character on-screen in a position of power where he is still seen as overcoming the prejudice exerted by his peers, he starts by flaunting mannerisms that many would find both stereotypical and offensive to many homosexual males. But once this is eventually toned down, his character, his sexuality, and his motives are allowed to be somewhat expressed and he becomes the one solid character in a sea of stereotypes.

Aside from the lack of depth in character, script or main plot, where the film also fails on an incredibly basic level is in the form of a sub-plot which simply provides no conclusion or relief alongside the presiding storyline. The audience is introduced to a young, up-and-coming female Police Officer called Elizabeth Falls who is shown to have had problems with drugs in the past, but the sub-plot simply ends there. During the final act the spectators are waiting for closure offers no explanation or conclusion to a character, yet the film expects the audience to form an emotional bond with the character and her plight.

If you replaced Jason Statham and his poorly crafted one-liners (including one in which he responds to a female police officer's quip in jest that she is surprised he can even navigate his microwave due to his technophobia with "women are there to use the microwave, and do the typing too") and removed the open-ended sub-plot then 'Blitz' would work perfectly as a made for television hour-long crime-drama. However as a theatrical release, this film is nothing more than a Jason Statham action-vehicle which masquerades as an inferior police thriller.
26 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Really?!?
jonmccann30 July 2011
Let me tell you what Jason Statham is good at, so you get what I mean, he does the bad guy, with a heart, and great at action fighting scenes better than anyone today. What he is incapable of doing is good guy.

I really like Statham in the roles he plays as a bad guy, crank and transporter are great film series that have given him some real credance.

Playing an English cop in an English film is not his strongpoint.

That said, its not because of Statham this didn't work (although it doesn't help), I never read the book and have no intention of doing so, but I can only imagine the plot holes in the book are as bad as the film.

It's a film that deserves at best to be an itv feature, not a movie, in fact if they had made it that way it could have worked better.

Most of the acting was appalling, due mainly to the fact that the whole storyline was...A bloke is killing cops. Thats not a bad start, except the filmmaker tried to incorporate different story lines, without introducing a story, for example, we have a black female cop, who mentions early on she was undercver and out of rehab, but thats it, you're left to make your own story up about what happened!!! If I want to make my own story up, I would do so, not watch a 1hr 37 min film with the expectation they will do it for me!! This is very disappointing, because I expect a lot of statham, but him aside, it doesn't deliver anything but a budget bargain bin film. If you buy it for more than a pound, call the police, you have been defrauded!!
41 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Same Same...
lavoie731 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Can this guy act (Jason Statham)? He is always exactly the same. When you know he is in a movie, you know exactly what to expect. It is like watching the same movie over and over again. He is nothing else than a Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van Damme. If you recall, their first movie is always pretty good but you get tired of the same scenario which only provides excuses for (I have to admit) pretty good but similar fighting scenes, and very little more.

What I dislike the most from these "actors"(?) is that they refuse to get in their role in order to maintain their pathetic personality. On this particular movie, Statham goes to a policemen's funeral dress in his street clothes. Who does that? At a police funeral, everyone wear their uniform, period. But that was probably too much asking to Mr Statham. Also, have a look at his unshaven face and how many movies have you seen it like this before? This reminds me of Seagal who was wearing his pony tale with a military uniform in one of his previous film; "hey I will make you the honour of being the star of that movie but don't expect me to change my appearance"! On this particular movie, I thought it was pretty predictable. No surprise here. Who needs a scenario when you have this great fighter? Isn't that enough? Moreover, this stupid heavy metal they add on the action scenes. Annoying, loud as h..., and has really nothing to do with the scene except to make you lose your concentration and lower the volume (where you can...).

I was expecting (hoping?) for much more. This is the last movie I watch with this guy in, unless he is a real low secondary actor in it (which he should always be). This guy belongs in a ring, not in a movie.

Now, pls don't give Jason my address. One thing he could do is kick my a... I can run, but if he can run like he did in that movie without even breathing hard, I am done!
24 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
JASON STRATHAM playing the a-typical cooler than the other side of the PILLOW paint by numbers ROGUE COPS.
yeodawg27 August 2011
This was a god movie tightly written directed and produced with high production values. I recognize a couple actors from (Homicide and the wire) and the script is lifted from (HOMICIDE Life on the street") as a loser takes to wiping out police officers. And this one follows in the path of 39 steps. Anywise Jason STRATHAM plays the cool cop who's just too cool apparently in a police station that holds 200 officers mainly black and swarthy looking he's the only one who can solve crimes or defend themselves in a bar room brawl, the other officers are all overhead just meat bags in white shirts, because only this faulted cop with his ranging alcoholism black out drunk over aggressive violent tendencies can make it through the day without being raped. He plays a rogue tough, hard-boiled cop, but accepts the gay by the book partner even passes out at the guy's apartment. He has a bottle of hard liquor for the alcoholic deputy inspector friend and even accepts the drug addicted black female cop.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Learn from my mistake
falipeysuperman23 May 2011
To put it into context, I have been using IMDb for about 8 years but this is the first time I have felt so passionately about a film that I have created an account and written this review so that others may learn from my mistake and avoid this terrible terrible film.

Jason Statham takes another turn as whispering hardman, this time as a police detective. Although he does no detective work whatsoever throughout the film and is beaten at every turn by Aiden Gilliens 'Blitz' cop killer. Aiden who I am sure was trying to borrow his performance from Gary Oldmans character in Leon came across more of a crack head retard than dangerous killer.

The plot in this film is ridiculous and is still introducing new characters well into an hour of the film when it needs to focus on developing the high number of characters it already has in the film. There is no motivation behind any of the cop killings which would be consistent with any serial killer... ever. I don't want to spoil anything (if its even possible, it would be like spoiling a turd) but the reason given for the killings is nonsense.

The directing, music and acting in this film is terrible but the real kicker and absolute gem in this film is the script writing which appears to be ripped off any third class gangster film from the beginning of time or from any other Jason Statham crapathon. This is honestly worse than a children's TV programme, I have seen deeper and more meaningful episodes of 'come dine with me'.

The entire audience shared this complete lack of effort with the same despise as I did, bemoaning the entire experience of this.

I had really wanted to support this as an English film but Jason Statham has f*cked us again. For every Kings Speech and Harry Brown we manage to make, 6 of these dynamite sticks of d*ck come out. I would actually rather have watched Michael Caine dumping a number 2 for an hour which would have been more interesting than what Elliot Lester has squeezed out.

Please please please, learn from my mistake and do not watch this. Its not about the tenner you will save from the cinema, or the fiver from the Chinese man. Its about the time you will save with your life, please do not watch this and please do not support Jason Statham anymore. Lets give him to America and keep him out of our films, while we are at it, keep Elliot Lester out too.
23 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boring movie out of a poor screenplay
rightwingisevil27 June 2011
Sorry, just couldn't connect with this poorly scripted movie. It's a poor adaptation of the 4.75-star rating on Amazon.com. If the novel was exactly the same as the poor movie, there was nothing to justify it to be adapted into a movie version. The cop killer in this movie was so clueless and meaningless, and the tough guy who played the maverick cop didn't show anything but a tough face from the very beginning to the end. The way how the cops got the cop-slain suspect was so vague and so simplified. The whole storyline of the screenplay was so boring and so disconnected from beginning to the end. The sound track was also so bad that gave you an endless hollow bang.bang.bang.dang.dang.dang tempo, so formulaic and so boring. The whole movie was just a worthless waste of time to watch. There's no reason to make this novel into a 1-dimensional bore-to-death British movie which, in my opinion, is even worse than the worst TV cop series ever made.
28 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good potential not exploited
mbelisle-140-96353622 August 2011
Sometimes I can't understand how good actors and good ideas can not make a good movie. This is the case here. I think that this is all the fault of the director and scripts.

A particular part turn me off at the end of the movie .. I won't tell the punch but just take a look at the gun, 2 different guns in 2 point of view without synchronized movement of the actor :/ What an error !

The rest of the story was not so bad but they try to explain the life of the supporting actors but it have absolutely no link with the intrigue. The movie just seem to be filled out to have the correct length. Imagination is the answer guys !!
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Blitzkrieg Bop.
Spikeopath18 July 2014
Jason Statham stars as Brant, a rugged copper with anger issues. He likes a drink or twelve, likes to beat down on bad guys and is a constant source of PR hassle for his superior. When a serial killer known as Blitz (Aidan Gillen) starts killing police officers, Brant takes it personal.

It is what it is really, just what you would expect from a Statham movie, where the tagline says it all, Cop Killer Vs Killer Cop! There's lots of chases, fighting, quips, brooding menace and with Brant teamed up with Paddy Considine's gay Officer Nash, some room for cheeky devilment. Director Elliott Lester and cinematographer Rob Hardy favour a scuzzy colour palette that befits the London locations, all while Ilan Eshkeri's sound tracking pounds away its feral beats.

One sub-plot involving Zawe Ashton's rehab released copper doesn't serve much of a purpose, and you have to take with a pinch of salt how Blitz goes about his business (he leaves finger prints everywhere!) But it's The Stath kicking butt and that is more often than not good enough for a good time, such is the case here. 6.5/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
So unenthusiastic it hurts.
Matt_Layden22 August 2011
Brant is a rogue cop, like we've never seen one of those before, on the streets of London. He's got a serious attitude problem and he doesn't care. He's partnered up with a homosexual detective, to take down a cop killer.

I should have known Blitz was going to be your run of the mill Jason Statham movie and you know what? It is, but at the same time it manages to be a little different. Different how you might ask? Well, take whatever charismatic skills he had in his other roles, if there ever were any, all the fighting skills, all the chemistry with other characters and all the fun, that is what Blitz delivers and it delivers it in full. Take Statham's Transporter character, or any character for that matter outside of Snatch, give him less to do and more of an attitude and voilà. We have the lead character of a rather dull film that never made it to theatres across the boarder.

Statham isn't used to his obviously typecast potential. I am one for breaking down barriers in acting roles, but Blitz never tries to do this. I'd love to see Statham go the Arnold route and tackle comedy. Having him out of his element would be great, there was enough comedy in Snatch to make me think he could handle his own. Blitz is some kind of other monster all together. It takes this guy and never uses what he's good for. There are no action/fighting scenes. Instead we are treated to one rather lazy and not in the least thrilling chase scene. The biggest problem is how lazy Statham is here, it looks as if he doesn't even want to be in the film. Maybe he did it as a favour to a friend back in England? I would much rather see an unoriginal run of the mill Statham flick than this again.

Paddy Considine is the homosexual detective who partners up with Statham. This relationship is never explored. There is zero chemistry between the two, no conflict, no friendliness and no inner struggle. Zero balance and lots of apathy. The one bright spot is yet another unoriginal performance. At the very least it looks like Aidan Gillen is enjoying himself. He plays the Blitz, a guy running around killing cops. The reason is justified, but in the end it comes off as rather pathetic and not poetic enough. This film should have more broad and not as personal.

The biggest crime is how dull the film is, when is should be entertaining. This is probably the least entertaining Statham flick I've ever seen. It's not dramatic enough to be considered a serious film. It has subplots that have no relevance to the main point of the flick. Characters that come out of nowhere, have a few scenes and disappear again. An abrupt ending that doesn't wrap much up and a bored audience that wants their time back. Blitz is a film that I warn you to miss and stick to Statham more action friendly, Hollywood pictures. At least with those films you know what you're going to get.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Gleefully amoral violence
krachtm30 November 2012
Jason Statham movies are like AC/DC albums. They may all be the same, but that's most of the draw for fans. Thus, complaining that this Jason Statham movie is just like all the others seems like a pointless criticism to me.

Now that we've got that out of the way, I'd like to comment on this movie. It's a Dirty Harry ripoff. Yes, that basically sums up the entirety of the movie, though, if you liked Dirty Harry, you'll probably like this, as well. There are certainly problems, but if you're the type of person who watches Jason Statham movies, you're not terribly likely to care much about plot holes, unrealistic plot devices, or other highbrow film theory.

Much like Dirty Harry, the protagonist is little more than a violent thug with a badge, tempered somewhat by a more sensitive, by-the-book partner. Put into a more realistic setting, instead of the stylized comic book worlds that he usually inhabits, Jason Statham's characteristic violence was highly disturbing and bordered on outright fascism. If this bothers you, I'd recommend you avoid this movie. The gleefully amoral tone of the violence made this movie difficult to watch at times.

If all you want is a violent action movie, this will fit the bill, though.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed