The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTrevor Lynch Archive
Guy Ritchie's The Gentlemen
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Guy Ritchie’s The Gentlemen is his best movie since his first two feature films, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000), largely because it is a gentrified return to their crime caper format.

Ritchie at his best is a kind of British Quentin Tarantino, with his underworld settings, non-linear storytelling, colorful and witty dialogue, and gleeful political incorrectness (because criminals don’t think and talk like SJWs would like them to)—but without Tarantino’s sprawling, self-indulgent running times.

Ritchie at his worst? Well, imagine what Tarantino would turn out if he were in indentured servitude to Disney.

The Gentlemen has a great deal of star power. Matthew McConaughey plays the protagonist, Mickey Pearson, an American who ends up at Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship but drops out to become a drug kingpin. Some twenty years later, he has leveraged his Oxford connections into a pot-growing empire, tucked away on the country estates of aristos who are hard up for cash to maintain their stately homes.

Mickey, however, wants to retire and offers to sell his operation for \$400 million to a bland, prissy American Jewish crime lord Matthew Berger, played by Jeremy Strong. But, as he finds out, the underworld is a jungle, and it is dangerous for the king of the jungle to retire, for it signals weakness, and the jackals come running.

Mickey, however, is fortunate in his friends. Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy, The Lost City of Z) plays Raymond, Mickey’s loyal right-hand man. Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey) play’s Mickey’s steely wife Rosalind. Colin Farrell is hilarious as an MMA coach with some obvious small-time gangster connections.

He also lucks out with his enemies. Hugh Grant is brilliant as Fletcher, a sleazy private eye and would-be blackmailer who narrates the whole tale. Then there are Berger and the Chinese narcotics mafia, led by Lord George (Tom Wu).

I won’t say much about the plot, because I actually want you to see The Gentlemen, but I do need to reveal some elements to comment on the controversy it has generated.

Like Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, The Gentlemen has been accused of being “racist” and “anti-Semitic,” both for its language and also for the plot conflicts. For instance, throughout The Gentlemen Jews are characterized as Jews, and this being a crime drama, none of them are good Jews. The Colin Farrell character also explains to a black fighter that he should not take offense at being called a “black bastard” because it happens to be true. The gangster Dry Eye is described as a “Chinese James Bond,” complete with “Ricense to kill.” One of Dry Eye’s henchmen is named “Phuc,” suffers from asthma, and dies hilariously. I saw this film in a packed theater, and the audience laughed heartily in all the “wrong” places.

Beyond that, the main conflicts in the movie break down along racial and ethnic lines—whites vs. Chinese and whites vs. Jews (Berger and his Mossad bodyguards, which he calls “crabs”)—and, boy, do the whites ever win. The whites, moreover, are in the pot business, and pot doesn’t kill anyone, while the reptilian Chinese sell heroin and coke, which are “destroyers of worlds”—something made graphically clear as the film unwinds.

When the Jew, Berger, double-crosses Mickey Pearson—and don’t whine about a spoiler here, because as soon as you see Berger’s face, you know he will be a double-crosser—Mickey tells him that he can go free only after he makes financial restitution then cuts a pound of flesh from his own body. And, unlike Shylock, Mickey Pearson is not going to let himself be stopped by a technicality.

Moreover, there are a number of black bit players, most of them rapping, tumbling buffoons. All of them more or less take orders from whites.

But Ritchie has some plausible deniability on the racism charges. First of all, all the people who say bad things are criminals, so Ritchie can say that he’s just being realistic when he has bad people say bad things. Second, there are also some minor white antagonists, in the form of a Russian oligarch (who is also ex-KGB) and his hired guns.

Beyond that, Guy Ritchie can probably say that some of his best friends are Jews, given that he and ex-wife Madonna were deep into Kabbalah. Furthermore, Ritchie allegedly speaks some Hebrew, and he actually named his three children with Jacqui Ainsley (who does not appear to be Jewish) Rafael, Rivka, and Levi. (Ritchie also adopted an African child, David, while married to Madonna, as well as fathering her son Rocco.) Given these kinds of dues, I think Guy Ritchie is entitled to talk about Jews like they talk about themselves.

I highly recommend The Gentlemen if you are looking for a grown-up, politically incorrect comedy about colorful rogues. There’s a bit of violence but nothing too distasteful. The script is witty, the plot has some surprising twists and turns, the performances are excellent, and the pacing never fails. Although there really aren’t any good guys in this story, at least the white guys win in the end.

• Category: Arts/Letters • Tags: Hollywood, Movies, Political Correctness 
Hide 17 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Laughing out loud.

    I am unaware of any Guy Ritchie film in which the white guys are not lovable rogues and in which the whites guys don’t win.

    In fact, in most films the whites guys win, even when its clear they don’t have a winning hand.

  2. Anonymous[104] • Disclaimer says:

    Alright, you won me over. I’ll go see it. I’ve been waiting for a new Guy Ritchie movie for ages. Lock Stock was one of my favorite films from the 90s. Good to have him back.

  3. Stogumber says:

    It is nice to know that there is still a market for “feel-good-movies” for whites. But let us be realists: Whites are no more in a situation to win against Jews and Chinese at the same time.
    The realist movie of the future will show how whites can support Group A against Group B in order to become part of a winning coalition. There are yet interesting possibilities in this.

  4. The movie was a lot of fun, although I do wish Matthew McConaughey would give up that Hollywood “I’m heterosexual” stubble beard. He looks like the best-looking man in the homeless encampment.

  5. Dumbo says:

    A Tarantino wannabe, and Tarantino sucks. From Ritchie, not even Lock Stock is worth it, pure garbage. It’s funny that alt-righters complain about Hollywood and then watch crap like this and still think it’s somehow positive and pro-white because “the white guys win in the end.”

    Yeah, you’re winning White Man, smile.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  6. I heard Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels is okay, but Ritchie’s body of work looks pretty awful. He did the remake of Swept Away by Wertmuller. What sane person would attempt that? But then, what sane person would marry madonna?

    If Lynch wants to have some fun, he should give Egoyan’s REMEMBER a look. It is the most unintentionally hilarious anti-nazi film. Totally LOL stuff.

    Egoyan used to make interesting movies, EXOTICA being his best. But he’s turned into a slickmeister since. Movies like CHLOE, THE CAPTIVE, and REMEMBER have entertainment value but are pretty soulless exercises in sterile formalism.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  7. bjondo says:

    Lock, Stock and Snatch – excellent.

    Anything by Tarantino would
    finish behind these two.


    • Replies: @Flubber
  8. @Dumbo

    Ah. Very sensible. What you doin on here? I especially liked your aphorism “Tarantino sucks.” So true. So very true.

  9. syonredux says:
    @Priss Factor

    I thought that Ararat was interesting, particularly when viewed as a critique of Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. Cf how Egoyan, in contrast to Spielberg’s pseudo-documentary use of black & white, deliberately depicts the Armenian massacre sequences in a highly theatrical and artificial fashion, effectively driving home the fact that what is being seen is not real…..

  10. @syonredux

    ARARAT was good and thoughtful like Wajda’s KATYN… until it pushed the globo-homo garbage.

    According to Egoyan, we should be THOUGHTFUL about the ambiguities and nuances of historical memory BUT we must totally worship homo stuff as holy schmoly.

    There are some first-rate movies about homos. MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDERETTE and C.R.A.Z.Y come to mind. But I can’t stand homo propaganda.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  11. syonredux says:
    @Priss Factor

    Yeah, the stuff about Plummer and his Gay son was extremely annoying……

  12. I think his idea is that the Old Biblical-judgmental mindset behind ‘homophobia’ has parallels with the eliminationist mentality behind mass killings.

    What total BS. Nazi SA had lots of homos.
    There are tons of homos in US Deep State who work with Zionists to destroy the Middle East.
    Homos are the most narcissistic and vain people on earth.

    Also, if Egoyan is against judgmentalism and reducing people to caricatures, what’s with the crude nazi stereotypes in REMEMBER?

    Egoyan at his best is really good. EXOTICA is a masterpiece but he just jumped on PC bandwagon.

  13. Madonna wasn’t the first Ciccone to have a hit record. Don wrote and sang this for the Critters when Madge was still Little Nonni taking ballet lessons in Pontiac:

  14. Flubber says:

    Snatch is the better film.

    Every line of dialogue is crafted and tight.

    Endlessly quotable.

  15. @syonredux

    Is no one in the alt-right skeptical about the Armenian Genocide? Justin McCarthy is. I guess he could be called a paid shill for the Turks, but his scholarship convinced me to reconsider the one-sidedness of this received narrative. Seems to me WW1’s favorite ethnic bloodletting was a media rehearsal for WW2’s.

  16. roo_ster says:

    By chance my significant other saw “The Gentleman” on a whim and enjoyed it so much she suggested I see it. She noted much of what Mr. Lynch noted. Quite enjoyable film. The aristocratic smack addicts were pitiable despite their money. I did not expect to see a “money isn’t everything” moral, but such is really kind of unavoidable.

    I get the impression that Mr. Lynch and the other commentators are not fond of Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes films. I thoroughly enjoyed them, especially the portrayal of Watson by Jude Law.

  17. “I get the impression that Mr. Lynch and the other commentators are not fond of Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes films. I thoroughly enjoyed them, especially the portrayal of Watson by Jude Law.”

    I enjoyed them as well. though the second was hard to digest. Laugh. Mr. Jude Law was well done and an excellent balance to the more than adept Mr. Robert Downey Jr. (I am still pondering about what to make of Dr. Doolittle. – one of my favorite films)



    So beautifully crafted.

    Great performances . . .

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Trevor Lynch Comments via RSS
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World