User Reviews

"24 Hours in London" is one of those films you have to watch to know you have seen it once. Then you never bother with it again. Gary Olsen plays "Christian" (a misnomer if ever there was one), who is a sadistic crime boss centered in London at the start of the current millennium (he and his second-in-command reminisce at one point about their torturing a rival in 1996 at one point). Christian is in the midst of eliminating his rivals in London, and capping it off with a partnership with Lloyd (again a misnomer - a woman with a man's name played by Lorelie King) who heads an American syndicate. If his plans succeed he will be stronger than ever.

The story somehow is similar to that of the rise and fall of the Kray Brothers back in the 1950s to 1960s, usually at the expense of their rivals the Richardson Brothers. But for all the brutality of the Krays (and they were quite brutal), the Krays never really go to the crazy lengths of Christian. Totally amoral (something not quite true about the Krays - they were critical in their later years at the treatment of elderly people by punks), Christian is willing to spread terror to unconnected third parties as tactics in getting what he wants.

We see from the start the maniacal determination to remove obstacles when a young woman (Martha - Anjela Lauren Smith) stumbles upon the extermination of a rival of Christian (no better description) followed by his leading murder squad (including Sarah Stockbridge and David Sonnenthal). All witnesses are executed, but by an error Martha survives. She is taken to police headquarters and reveals what she knows. The police are happy because they've wanted to get the goods on Christian for years. But they are dealing with a dangerous opponent.

Christian has one officer in the headquarters under control, and is aware of every move made by Scotland Yard. He also is brazen enough to shoot his way into the Yard to get at Martha. Later he is also willing to give the London police a series of bombings (with high casualty rates) to occupy their time. This is not going to be an easy road to a conviction.

The problem is that the unstable nature of his own people work against Christian. Stockbridge and her fellow killer/lover are psychos who get the right mood by their mayhem. They do shoot their ways into the Yard, but Stockbridge's lover gets fatally injured by one of the police (he gets a spike in his eye). It unsettles her when she is alone to carry out her mission, so she goes out of an elevator guns blazing. She faces a lone armed guard (Polly Moore) who has been told to stay there or be shot. As a result of the double pressures on both women they succeed in fatally shooting each other (though a determined Stockbridge does get to the room where the witness is, only to die there).

The film is saved from being a total waste because the acting is okay (no more than that though). Stockbridge is a sexy enough killer, and Olson is threatening - but more should have been showed of his interest in the far east (he has personal judo lessons and Asiatic tattoos, and he likes using a sharp Japanese sword as a weapon). There is also some amusing moments (oddly enough), when Olson uses an annoying rival gang to try to kill the witness. That gang actually makes so many errors that they kill a man who is sleeping in bed (an undercover cop as it turns out), and one of their own members before getting shot by the police. But the film is best appreciated by people who just enjoy mindless violence. The plot actually gets so convoluted with hidden agendas and secrets of the characters, that the viewer finds it impossible to follow the mess. I wish that I could say something more positive, but that is about all I could say.

I was initially sucked in by the cover of this movie. It promised 'gang warfare'. It was apparently somewhat futuristic. There was a review on the cover that described it at 'funny, sexy, clever slice of British action.' 24 Hours in London was neither. The characters were so typical and the acting was so poor I wasn't sure if it was meant to be satire. I guess it was kind-of funny due to the fact that it was so bad.

Not to mention the outrageous story. A bad guy that bombs heaps of other buildings (including the millennium dome) in order to create a police distraction. Why didn't he just bomb the hotel? I guess the story at base level is OK, and there's a semi-OK twist, but it's all let down by poor acting, 2D characters and some failed attempts at humor.

Don't waste your money.

***SLIGHT SPOILERS*** Maybe some spoilers, but it really doesn't matter...

Wow. When you look at the cover of this film, and see that it's a London crime film.... you kind of get high hopes for this movie. Make no mistake, this is really REALLY bad. I've never submitted a comment on a movie before, but I HAD to for this one.... that must say something. First of all, the actors in this movie make the actors in soap operas and pornos look like Oscar winners. The acting is that bad. There isn't one believable, entertaining, interesting character in this thing. Well, the one "tough guy" of the four goons (the short bald one) was mildly entertaining, but he got killed off pretty quickly.... darn. I also read that there were some great "one-liners" in this movie, but I didn't hear any. There's a really lame twist at the end.... big surprise. Oh, it's also a lot of fun when you can see the dead bodies breathing (I haven't seen that blunder in film in quite some time). The whole thing is just really sloppy and uninteresting. It could probably be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I guess it has some decent violence and gunplay in it, but even it is rediculous and unrealistic, with very poor effects (big flashes of light when someone gets shot from point blank range). It also looks like none of these people have ever fired or held a gun before, for that matter. Rent it if you must, but this movie is pretty much just a waste of time.

No, this wasn't the best movie ever, and I have my fair share of criticisms I'll expound on later, but how can so many people say this was the worst movie ever? I mean come on! That is a bold statement. Think of all the stinkers out there, that are universally considered bad...and to put such a label implies that the reviewer wasn't entertained in the least.

Anyway, this is an entertaining flick. It has spectacular gunfights, great characters, tons of double crosses and a great soundtrack. Though the plot is clichéd, the action unrealistic, and the setup ridiculous ***SPOILERS***(the main bad guy Christian, kept sending in his people like lambs to the slaughter...and the same thing kept happening...his right hand man kept calling them and saying, "No Answer...", well duh, you sent them into certain death! Two to four guys are no match for a platoon of swat members. This kept happening until he ran out of guys and he himself had to go in. This made me laugh out loud)***END SPOILERS***

Despite my negative comments, this movie still entertained the hell out of me. Take it for what it is even though it rips off Pulp Fiction, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and of course, The Boondock Saints. The direction and action is what makes this film, and is perfect for a lazy Saturday night. Keep in mind, this is an action flick, it isn't going to win any Oscars by default...it's main purpose is to entertain and it did it quite effectively. I give it 5/10 stars.

The characters are forgettable with the storyline. Set in London, England around 2000, there is a story about stealing kidneys from unsuspected police officers; gang rivalry and a plot to protect a witness from being killed. The storyline is weak. There is a lot of action with violence, sexuality and a story there. The film fails to build characters that we care about instead of one dimensional villains and heroes. I bought it at a discount store because I thought it would be good overall. It's entertaining in some ways that it brings up Scooby Doo in the climax.