LeonLouisRicci There is Nothing Wrong with wanting to make an Anti-Modernist Crime Movie Void of Overused, cue Guy Ritchie, Stylized Violence and Shoot-Em-Up Excess. But You can go too Far in the Other Direction. There are some Scenes in this Neo-Noir from Britain that seems to be there for no other Reason as if to Say, Hey this is Cerebral and not Visceral, so get with it. The Post Autopsy and Psychiatry Stuff is Informative but Ambiguous. It is not that these Things are Unwelcome, but are there to the Exclusion of some other more Important, more Snappy Items for those that may Require a bit more of the Hard-Boiled and a Little Less of the Scientific.The Under Styling of the Underworld is too much In Your Face as it tries so hard to be Not In Your Face. It ends up Lacking Verve, but does have Enough Intrigue to Recommend, although it does seem too Short, Shallow, and Serene. But there is an Attractive Brood going on and its Melancholy in Place of Mania might be just the Antidote some are Seeking in this Age of Overindulgence from Films on just about Every Level.

Sheldon Dance www.ourfilmreviews.com "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" is an almost good British gangster movie. With such an unusual and ominous title, a solid cast, and relatively good cinematography, the film has a lot of potential, but it is spoiled by an underdeveloped script which attempts to develop a story and characters in a minimalist fashion.The viewer is offered very little background to the characters and their relationships. What is easily discernible from the plot is as follows: Will Graham (Clive Owen) is in self-imposed exile from the city where his past life as a gangster haunts him. His brother Davy (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) still lives in the city and is a part-time drug dealer. We see three men abduct and rape him and shortly thereafter, he kills himself. When Will tries to contact his brother and is unable to, he returns to the city and learns of Davey's death. Will then sets out to find out what exactly happened. People from his past life react differently to his return. Some are relieved and happy, most are just surprised, and a few very frightened. The viewer is left in the dark as to who the majority of these people are or why they feel the way they do concerning Will.The script intentionally leaves the characters and their relationships in the shadows. In his review of the film, Roger Ebert explains it quite well:"…this isn't a matter of keeping us in the dark, but follows simple logic: The characters know who they are and don't have to tell one another, and we are outsiders who will need to fit it together."While this is true and an interesting and intelligent way to approach the narrative, it doesn't succeed in this film. The movie involves too many of these unknown strangers and doesn't develop any of them well enough to warrant our interest in what they do. Ebert also writes,"…given characters who are not clearly labeled and assigned moral categories, we're allowed to make judgments based on their manner and speech."I respect Ebert very much as a man and a writer. His essays, reviews, and blog I read almost daily and he has influenced my own appreciation for the cinema. That being said, I do disagree with him quite often (concerning both politics and movies). His above assessment of "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" is simply not true. The characters are indeed deprived of a background and depth, but because of this the viewer is left with no other option but to assign them simplistic labels in order to fit them into the plot as it tenuously develops. "This man good. That man bad". Without any depth, the characters are nothing more than mob-movie caricatures. The actors, though, are all good and Clive Owen especially does a good job as Will even though his living-in-a-van-down-by-the-river routine in the first half of the film is a bit silly. The script ultimately stifles the acting talent.The script also fails because of its banal plot. Once the film ends, it takes a few minutes to process what has been seen. We must remember who each character is and are required to assign them with motivations that we can only infer from a fews "clues" offered to us by their dialogue. The viewer must connect the dots, but once connected, the plot is nothing exciting or interesting. This connecting of dots is frustrating. Good films can but should not only ask us to guess their plots. They should require us to think and interpret their significance. This film is unable to do that as the plot is so flimsy to begin with. I am reminded of the excellent film "Memento," which succeeds in playing a game with the viewer in asking us to piece together the plot and as we do so, we realize the significance of what are seeing and of what has come before.I kept anticipating an end that would imbue the plot and characters with some significance. I felt as though this could have easily been done, but the script instead offers an unsatisfying and silly end. When Davey's rapist (Malcolm McDowell) gives a mini monologue in the final act explaining his actions, it becomes clear why the script only hints at so many of the characters' backgrounds and motivations: it is easier to leave them in the dark and have the viewers guess at them than to develop them into something interesting and significant. That is two strikes against the film: dull characters and a dull plot.The film, however, does not completely strike out. Dull characters and plot, yes, but through the cinematography and score, the film does do a good job of creating a film-noir- esquire atmosphere of angst. The atmosphere is left hanging as the film's sole merit, but unfortunately, it is not enough to recommend the film. Time better spent sleeping.

rn-704-615045 This film is a bit like a cheap cowboy book. You know the type I mean. The protagonist discovers his sister has been raped and it takes the whole book for him to find the perpetrator and exercise brutal justice. All very raw and predictable . This has a slight twist in that the cowboy is modern day ex villain, and he has a brother rather than a sister who is raped by a man. The raped brother does a Roman bath thing and there are some grizzly explanations for this.The film then pretends to be moody and at the same time slowly tries to develop character. It fails to do this and all the characters are just as superficial at the end as when they started out. In addition, the whole film lacks pace. The only thing that kept my interest was that I kept asking 'why' throughout and eventually the answers were not very satisfactory. The plot was as I predicted.Having said that the DVD cost me a mere £1 brand new - so I can't complain too much.

Joseph Sylvers This would have been a great mystery film if it weren't a revenge film. There's a lot of great atmosphere, tension, and rhythm to the first half of the film, which increases but never really boils over. What connects these characters is power, wanting to be rid of it, loathing it, courting it, defending it trying to manufacture it, and in the end everyone seems only sinking deeper into troubles. It's definitely entertaining to watch and much more well paced and developed than your average gangster film, the problem is this movie feels like it's getting ready to explode or at least have a sequel, and it doesn't capitalize on it's tension. Some good editing, music, performances, and atmosphere, but if your not careful the story can slick it's way by without leaving an impact.