24 Hours in London

i can't decide what i hate most about this movie, so i'll tell you what i liked. i liked some of the plot ideas; organ thieves, london gangsters, crazy criminals, gore, although none of the ideas were developed at all, they should have taken one of these ideas and went with it. who was the main character of this movie? it was baffling trying to follow the plot. at some point i was hoping it would be funny, but it isn't even remotely funny. it seemed like the dialogue was written by someone with absolutely no imagination. the violence was so out of control it served no purpose-it was more over the top than Rambo. it tries to be like a Pulp Fiction/Lock Stock movie but fails miserably. and what's this rubbish about London? most of the movie is spent in a hotel room. Don't waist your time here, rent Lock Stock again.

I was forced to endure this film a while ago, and can honestly say that it is one of the worst films I have ever seen.

The plot (such as it was) was completely derivative, nicking ideas from just about every gangster film since "Brighton Rock."

The characters make cardboard seem fully rounded, mostly being off-cuts from the Quentin Tarantino "chirpy-arrogant-violent-criminal-with-no-regard-for-anyone-else" block, while the script was abysmal.

The lack of anything good about this film is particularly disappointing, as it was the last film Gary Olsen made. It's a great shame that his last appearance should be as a barely thought-out criminal weirdo with pseudo-mystical characteristics forced upon him in a vain attempt to make the character seem interesting.

This is a heap of rubbish with no redeeming features whatsoever, and should be avoided at all costs.

I can't believe how many positive comments have been listed for this film. There was nothing original in the entire movie. The dialouge was awful. The acting was horrible and the action was so unbelievable that it took away from it's enjoyment (i.e. 2 people take on entire police force and police miss with every bullet). I wasn't sure who the main character was throughout the film and I still couldn't tell you now. The characters are all paper thin and can be summed up each in less then one line. Don't rent this or buy this. We need to send the message that we're tired of second rate lock stock imitations.

This is a movie I picked up on a whim. The cover had to guys with guns and I thought what the hell it's $5. Before I even opened this movie I knew it would be bad. This movie has a good plot line that is carried out horribly. This is a movie you watch if you wanna see stuff shot, laugh at horrible acting and stupid criminals, and some times forget where you are in the movie.

One thing that really bugged me about this movie was that one of the what you could call main characters name was constantly switched between paul and cameron. They "cover this up in the credits by calling him paul cameron, just somethin that bugged me.

This is a movie to rent or buy for really cheap. It is a sad representation on British cinema but god damn it! I laughed till i cried.

When I was staying on holiday in Wales this year, I had the misfortune of being stuck in a house with a VCR player and a video of the cheapo movie 24 Hours In London.

After watching the first ten minutes or so, the acting seemed okay, the plot seemed to have potential, and the cutting on the titles section was first rate.

Then the film plummeted like a goose with no wings. Without giving too much away (The film does enough of that itself with heavily signposted plot elements), 24 Hours In London swings unsteadily between what appears to be an attempt at a cockney gangster flick and outright slapstick comedy.

The latter half of the film is particularly bizarre, with plot holes so large that the entire film seems to be progressing at random.

So why did I bother watching it to the end? Well, I keep asking myself that. Is it because, despite all the shockingly-bad acting, there were a few actors who could actually convey emotion? Is it because the lumbering comedy moments were actually pretty funny, in an oafish way? Or is it that maybe, despite all its glaring errors and hilariously wooden acting, the film's shoestring charm manages to shine through? I honestly couldn't say.