- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
38First-time writer-director Hunter Richards? London is even worse torture than it sounds. It includes flashbacks that actually demonstrate just how miserable a jerk the main character is.
-
At least London nails the inanity of drug-speak - the bathroom chat quickly devolves from God and ''time horizons'' to coprophilia and a truly dumb confessional tirade by Statham - although perhaps this achievement is unintentional.
-
30Syd's (Chris Evans) emotional tailspin is embarrassingly banal, and his assertion that "everybody here hates me" quickly applies to the audience as well.
-
25Bad movie. Ugly movie.
-
Newbie director Richards shoots all the women like slabs of meat, and his self-seriousness throughout London--some of it tries to be funny, a lot of it is funny by accident--borders on the delusional.
-
Syd is a jerk whose anger does not make him interesting. The only reason to keep watching is because you hope someone will drop a piano on his head.
-
If London were a comedy, it just might work. Instead, it's a dead-serious marathon of angst from cool kids old enough to know they're mouthing cliches.
-
20There's absolutely nothing fantastic or transporting about London, an endlessly ponderous relationship picture that also has zilch to do with the British city.
-
A misfired attempt at provocation and the exploration of philosophical thought, London is little more than an immature display of male bonding on speed.
-
20For those who enjoy fashion-model-looking twentysomethings yelling at each other in bathrooms while doing too much cocaine, voila! Heaven is a place called London.
-
10The awful crank comedy "Spun" (2002) still ranks as the most dehumanizing youth picture of the decade, but this New York drama by first-time director Hunter Richards is a close second.
-
0London is the independent film world's equivalent of a fiasco.
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 6 out of 10
-
Mixed: 0 out of 10
-
Negative: 4 out of 10
-
0
-
[Anonymous]1