Kirpianuscus in this case, seductive could be the right word. for the nice story, who escapes from old clichés, for performances and for a fresh air who transforms, with subtle art, a predictable show in touching, realistic and interesting, almost fascinating entertainment. this is the fundamental virtue of film. to give the right recipe for a great story in each of its nuances.

carbuff Really fun, really different movie, which is exactly my favorite kind.Excellent acting, excellent costumes, excellent plot, excellent action, excellent production values, and, for a change, it looks like everybody a few hundred years ago was not taking two long hot showers everyday. I honestly hardly noticed the big music thing in this movie that so many people comment on--I guess it was another thing that was really different, but the techno music worked well for me, so I really didn't dwell on it. I have no issues with that sort of poetic license if it fits well into the story, even if it's totally historically inappropriate.Overall, it's strange in a lot of ways, but it's very good entertainment.

Armand fresh, nice, good cast, slices of tension, humor and adventure, Robin Hood in new clothes and tales about love and friendship. fragile Jonny Lee Miller, rude Robert Carlyle and Liv Tyler as reflection of old Amazons. good atmosphere, ridiculous aristocrats, fights, mud, fake jewels, an interesting bad guy and charm of Alan Cummings. a part of childhood novels with heroes, princesses, air of lost age and mysteries. and if it is not a new story - the recipes is yellow - it is a perfect temptation to rediscover bones of dusty world. out of rules, as football play in school yard, far from problems or great artistic expectations. a Iain Robertson is OK solution for create circle of credibility and stop impression of mediocre delight. but this movie is more than a joke or piece of long chain. it is remember of good times. and this fact is very important today.

john_cberry I was disappointed with Plunkett & Macleane. Having studied both the history and literature of 18th century England, I was looking forward to a movie set in that period. It does touch on many aspects of the times: gambling, brothels, prisons, lawlessness, class distinctions, but it also contains many anachronisms particularly in language. The greatest weakness I found was that Jonny Lee Miller, as Macleane, was unconvincing as someone everybody instantly took for a gentleman. Liv Tyler is an asset to any movie but, through no fault of hers, her character was equally unconvincing. Robert Carlyle was much better as Plunkett, but Robert Stott's performance is the best thing in the movie.Possible spoilers: 1)The Robert Stott character really would not have fought a dual with a lower-class person like Plunkett. 2)Why would the movie-makers imagine that wanted criminals could easily escape to the British-controlled American colonies and be safe there?