David Holt (rawiri42) I was given the DVD of "A Deal is A Deal" not knowing much about it at all so I was pleasantly surprised. If anything, this movie left me wondering how much difference the actors selected make to a film's success. Would this movie have rated (both on IMDb and at the box office) a lot higher if, for example, Paul had been played by Hugh Grant or Orlando Bloom and Rosemary by Helen Mirren or Julie Walters and so on? The story is good and the filming is good but the absence of big names seems to have held it back. That is not to say that the actors used don't do a great job - not at all! But how many people look at the advertising and say, "It's got no one famous other than Colm Meaney!" and go into one of the other metroplex cinemas? If they did, they missed out because, dare I say it, this film is way more believable than I suspect an American version would have beenSome reviewers have questioned the categorising of "A Deal Is A Deal" as a comedy and I wonder whether their sense of humour is limited to in- your-face slapstick-type stuff because there are some beautifully subtle (and typically British) comedic bits that I fear have gone right over their heads.Gemma Arterton has, of course, gone on to become a much more major star than she was when this movie was made but her stint in this clearly shows the future that she has since attained (a Bond girl, no less!).My only reservation about the story is that Paul would have had an awful lot of answering to do for running Tommy down because the computerised track records would clearly show that he stopped just a few yards short of the fatal accident site and then restarted his train. Also it would have come out at an inquest that he was a personal friend of Tommy's and that Tommy was terminally ill. How would Paul explain all that without incriminating himself?By the way, is it just me, but if ever a movie gets made about the Beatles, wouldn't Mackenzie Crook make a great Ringo (if he can do the Scouse accent)?

demonchessmaster Firstly, I have to say that the controversy surrounding this film is totally unfounded. I can see why many train drivers and other people would object to a film about suicide (and trying to convince people to commit suicide), but if they actually SAW this film, I think they'd agree that the subject matter is handled very well. It doesn't make a joke about it and it's very heart wrenching as you delve deeper into Tommy's life as he tries to make up for the mistakes he made. In many ways, he see's suicide as a form of redemption to help his family. And just when you think it's going to have a happy ending--you'd be surprised! Overall, while I don't think it's the best British film to come out in recent years, it's certainly not a bad film in general. The acting is brilliant and the story (while a little far fetched) does follow nicely and makes the film easy to watch. If you watch this expecting a laugh out loud comedy, look elsewhere. But if you fancy a emotional, yet slightly depressing, storyline that will tug at your heartstrings... go ahead and give it a go. Don't believe the controversy surrounding this film until you've seen it, it's worth a look.

JoeytheBrit Two strange things about this film that might be connected: first, it was marketed as a comedy but is really a drama with a few mildly funny moments, and second it has a surprisingly low rating on this site (especially considering the generally high rating given by those who have chosen to support their rating with a comment). Perhaps the low rating is a result of the mis-marketing by the film's publicity department and, considering low-budget efforts like this often live or die on the word-of-mouth generated by those prompted to watch the film by its adverts, they might do well to remember this fact in future.The story concerns the efforts of Paul (Mackenzie Crook), a tube driver who, having accidentally run over two people in a short space of time, attempts to entice a third person, would-be suicide Tommy Cassidy (Colm Meaney), into jumping under his train so that he can take advantage of the 'retirement' package of 10 years pay offered by his employers. The film does initially start off as if it is going to be one of those stultifying black comedies that believe the shock-value of its storyline precludes it from having to supply any comedy element but, once Paul has explained his plan to Tommy, it takes a different course, turning more into a sort of road movie and, although Crook enjoys more screen time, expending more effort into getting under the skin of Tommy's character.Meaney is terrific as Tommy. Crook, maybe, isn't so great, meaning that the chemistry between their characters doesn't quite develop as well as it might otherwise have done. Crook's a little too strange looking to play an everyman type, and there is no way that a girl like Frankie (Tommy's daughter, played by future Bond girl Gemma Arterton) would jump into the sack with a geeky looking guy like Paul after a couple of beers.The film doesn't really offer anything new, but it does offer a gently observant treatise about not losing sight of what are the important things in life.

dannyb333 Very funny performances from main characters Mackenzie Crook and Gemma Arterton, along with the rest of the supporting cast.The film is controversial as the plot focuses on a serious issue, but the well written script means that 'Three and Out' is more of a lighthearted comedy.The soundtrack - with its mix of Irish and Rock music is also well suited to the film, fitting with the lighthearted mood.The quality of camera work and photography is good, shot in Cumbria and Liverpool there is lots of superb scenery.Overall, this is a very funny movie well worth going to see!