everyone probably think they have see the last of the caper movie when sinatra et al . make the original ocean 11 forty year ago . not so and a this film inter alia be abundant proof of it re emergence . the brit gangster revival cycle initiate by lock and stock and two smoking barrel seem to have cross germinate with the ocean eleven remake and spawn a genetically modify caper for the 21st . century of which this film be but one of many . normally my john bull heart would swell with pride a pinewood influence hollywood but not so in this case . guy ritchie shtick do not travel and this film just do not quite work on a number of level . i have describe this film a a caper but i think the director have try to make something more than a simple caper movie . however there be problem with this approach . first of all it seem he can not decide what tone it should take . be it ironic or parodic or a comic book adventure and a pastiche or a spoof . no one can tell . the director probably feel that the film dance nimbly between all these category artfully evade any pigeon hole . however a a humble viewer i just felt it be a mishmash that lack the courage of it conviction to set out it stall in any particular category . it do not convince a an example of irony or a comic book adventure or an exercise in cool . i think someone define a caper movie a one in which the people make the film have more fun make it than the audience have watch it in that case the film fall straight in the middle of the caper bracket . the film be too slick and too know . these be common affliction in contemporary film which you would probably overlook if the film be good enough in other respect . although this film have redeem feature they do not compensate for these shortcoming . it have some great character actor in the cast who give good performance giametti and guzman and garcia in fact everyone except the two main actor portray the central couple edward burn and rachel weisz . the character play by burn be suppose to be the hub around which the whole film revolves but i be afraid in this case the axle be break . burn can not carry the film and be constantly outshine by the actor that surround him . i get the impression that he be suppose to be the old fashioned straight ( in the old sense ) lead whose look offset all the ugly character actor . however he radiate zero menace or malevolence or evil or anything that might make him believable in the role . thing to do in denver when youre dead survive without a good look bland central character so why do this film need one . maybe the guy be box office a i believe they say and but i have never hear of him so how exactly do he add to the film . and so on to the vexed subject of rachel weisz performance . it amaze me that americans tolerate my fellow national do lame non specific non regional faltering american accent . she come across a a helena bonham carter for the 2000s . if this have be do by merchant ivory then she might have fit right in but it wasn not and she do not . i do not want to spoil the plot for anyone but a couple of the set ups for con trick be just poor . i will mention one episode which be not intrinsic to the plot where a rich customer in a jewellery shop get reel in . it be a popular misconception in film that rich people be stupid dupe who be easily part from their money . this be lazy plot . rich people be usually not rich by accident unless they be lottery winner of course . they be rich because they know how to get money and then how to hold on to it . be it really that easy to part them from their money . a lot of con artist do time might suggest otherwise . my final issue with the film be the first ten minute which be as wooden a any episode of murder she write . be this a stylistic device or be the first ten minute of the film just really badly make . the jury be out .