I cannot recommend this movie. I am a fan of all the lead actors. All play their parts well but in this case, the sum is far less than the parts! It is a very complicated movie and I soon lost my way. If there was a clever plot to keep me entertained then I'm afraid it went over my head. My main criticism is that I was always aware that I was watching a movie. Not once was I drawn into and absorbed by the action. The dialogue was unoriginal and to some extent the overall outcome was quite predictable. Oh, and I hate it when a man suffers severe gunshot wounds but moves around apparently uninjured a few scenes later; the rest of us mere mortals spend a week or two semi-conscious in hospital! Nothing new in this movie; don't waste your money.
Add a Review
-
helenpeterson36812 April 2014Movie is plodding and predictable. I only found it because I am indulging a Rufus Sewell swoon, saw the title listed in his IMDb credits and located it on Netflix.
The Bad: The "plot" is a pastiche of so many (better) movies from the past 20-30 years. Actually from the beginning of movie-making (smile).
The Good: So many terrific character actors with arresting faces (another reason I love Rufus). So it was worth a watch late on a Friday night. Relaxed with a drink in hand. Linking the faces to other movies and TV series.
Over the past 2 years, I have binge-watched so many Brit and Aussie TV series and movies especially. I favor crime and drama. A long visit to London (and the Cotswolds) is on my bucket list. So while I respect the reviewers who say this movie doesn't present the London they know, the exterior shots sure look inviting to me here in Pennsylvania. Having lived previously in Washington, D.C., and environs, I know the annoyances of seeing exteriors that truly do not represent that city. -
GTeixeira16 December 2013It is obvious what George Isaac was trying with this. A story involving crooked cops and a London gangster, a mysterious thief with a heart of gold caught in their game, and (a try at) a twist. A mix between the old film noir and more modern UK gangster/heist films; just from the film's start it seemed quite good and promising.
Yet, it does not work. The script is very weak and unoriginal, without a single great moment; a mere 'copy and paste' of film noir's more usual situations/clichés and character stereotypes (like the crooked cop that is just 'following the system' or the mysterious, often quiet and sometimes cynical main character). The plot gets overly muddled by the middle of the film to the point that the viewer can easily get confused; by the ending, things get resolved in such a ridiculously predictable way that the film becomes overly simplistic in hindsight.
It does not help that the film feels silly. There is not a credible tension like in most heist/gangster films, which is further enhanced by the extreme predictability of it all. There is also no memorable moments at all, nothing that could make this film worthy remembering (for the good or for the bad).
The cast is interesting. Gabriel Byrne and Rufus Sewell stand out and make the most out of their characters; Toby Stephens does feel like a noir protagonist, though the emotionless-ness of his character is overdone; and Terence Maynard and Leo Gregory also do a nice work despite their overly flawed characters.
Overall, while not necessarily a bad movie, 'All Things to All Men'/'The Deadly Game' ends up as a forgettable, overly predictable and silly mess that does not work despite its fine cast. -
A.K.A. The Deadly Game. Now and then you find a film with a great cast and wonder why you've never heard of it before. Here we have Gabriel Byrne, Julian Sands, Toby Stephens and Rufus Sewell in a London gangster thriller.
Oh no, not another one!
But wait, this is a well produced, well shot film with a pretty good (if somewhat generic) score. And this is only 81 minutes long, so even if it's bad it'll be mercifully short, right?
Wrong.
I'd been watching 21 minutes when I checked the time, because I thought I must be half way through by now. Groan. So what's wrong with it? Well, the script. The story is completely unintelligible. Which means you feel like you've missed something all the way through, namely, the story. See, the main problem is that we don't know any of the characters in the film, so we don't care about them. Any of them. And there's no clearly definable hero or villain, so you don't know who to root for. And I like grey characters who aren't really good or bad, but you need a general focus or main character in a film, and this film just doesn't have one.
So you keep watching these characters you don't care about in a story you can't really figure out, especially as they keep referring to things you don't see but that appear to be germane to the plot, and pretty soon you are just willing it to all end. Drop a plane on them! Nuke the whole city! Just let it end!
And then it does, and you are left completely nonplussed, empty, devoid of any reaction other than relief that it's over. That's not the way thrillers are supposed to make you feel. You're supposed to be thrilled! You're supposed to have gone through some kind of cathartic emotional journey, with added visceral excitement. You're not supposed to be relieved the mental cruelty of a badly laid out jigsaw puzzle is finally in your cultural out-box. Phew!
I need to watch a great thriller. I might have to go back to my DVD collection. -
Aguywatching29 March 2014Very difficult to follow plot. This film is a poor mans British version of LA Confidential. Complete with the overly predictable cryptic reference to convey guilt. Too bad because these are talented actors. The chase scenes in automobiles and on foot are the highlight of the film. Completely nonsensical with clandestine meetings and corrupt cops expected to go undetected in the city that has more closed-circuit cameras than any place on the planet. A serious movie should take into account that follow-up investigations made by law enforcement will look at cell phone records and bank account histories. These criminals behave as if they aren't concerned about getting caught. The director and writer of this film apparently forgot these obvious facts. Cannot recommend this film.
-
Leofwine_draca9 March 2018THE DEADLY GAME is a middling addition to the current wave of British crime thrillers. It has a large cast of interesting characters but also a rather murky storyline lacking in characters to root for. The scripting and directing are strictly pedestrian and the story is never quite as suspenseful as you'd wish for. The main thing it has going for it is an excellent cast of well-chosen actors. Toby Stephens plays a hitman with cold-faced relish. Rufus Sewell is a corrupt cop but nonetheless full of charisma throughout. Gabriel Byrne plays an imposing crime boss and there are more minor roles for James Frain, the underrated Julian Sands, Ralph Brown and Neil Maskell.
-
claudio_carvalho14 February 2021"All Things to All Men" is a film where the viewer has great expectation, based on the names of the veteran actors Gabriel Byrne, Rufus Sewell and Julian Sands. Unfortunately confused screenplay and edition does not help and this film frustrates any expectation. The deleted scenes in the Blu-Ray disc shows important parts that should have been included in the final cut. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "O Jogo Mortal" ("The Deadly Game") -
catmorland3 May 2014I only managed to watch half this film because by that point I had got sick of the inaccuracies.
Two examples: 1) British police do not have badges, they have warrant cards (so no-one talks about taking someone's badge*) and 2) no-one 'makes detective'; they join the CID and then go on to further specialised areas of the police force.
Also, the police in the UK are not allowed to operate like this. I don't deny that corruption exists but no police officer would be allowed this sort of latitude.
I don't know why the director/writer decided to waste the talents of some excellent actors like this when an authentic British take on the storyline would probably have been much more interesting. I can only assume that some idiot in Hollywood holding the cheque book interfered to the extent that this abomination resulted.
*I have no idea what that 'badge' was that one of the detectives showed a suspect. -
petarmatic1 January 2014It is very difficult to write a review about a film one does not like.
This is that type of film.
I told myself that I will review every film I see, so I have to torture myself and yourself.
What a boring film! Acting is poor! Plot is poor! Shots of London are nice, but so they were last night on celebration of New Years 2014.
Fireworks last night in London were more exciting then this film.
You can freely skip it.
If you have nothing better to do, just watch pictures of London.
Nothing else!
To add! -
rex-17010 November 2013I have to disagree with Nick Stones review. Either he wasn't watching it at all or his interpretation was somewhat misguided.
I found this to be a good movie typical of the type of English crime drama i have come to expect over the years.
I thought the plot was well thought out and the twists and turns quite fascinating.
Yes one does have to keep focused on whats going on but that is the whole idea.
It kept me glued to the screen wondering who was going to do what next.
The ending for me was an ending i believe was appropriate. 3/4 of the way through i had a feeling it would end that way.
I was left feeling this was not a waste of my time and, unlike Nick Stone, i would recommend it. -
Well I've been a fan of IMDb for some time but i have never contributed and even if id preferred to make a nice statement for a first timer i couldn't watch this dud and let it get away with it first of all DO not pay too watch this film everything about it is terrible plot ,actors camera-work even the twists are terrible and as a londoner (london being the place the film takes place in ) believe me you don't feel one breath of the city .. its sad too see good actors like gabriel byrne who was brilliant in usual suspects which is too some extent everything this film isn't i kid you not he seems to decay throughout the plot as if he understand what hes getting into .. everything feels bad and nobody is at his place and you just don't get whats happening and especially why ? the storyline seems too have been written by a ten year old at the best terrible too see people make films this bad .
-
Woodyanders11 August 2022Ruthless dirty cop Jonathan Parker (well played to the slimy hilt by Rufus Sewell) blackmails London mob boss Joseph Corso (an excellent Gabriel Byrne) so he can apprehend elusive thief Riley (a fine portrayal by Toby Stephans), only to have his intricate scheme backfire.
Writer/director George Isaac relates the compelling and complex story at a brisk pace, maintains a gritty no-nonsense tone throughout, stages the rousing action with rip-roaring aplomb, and delivers plenty of twists and turns to keep viewers on their toes. This film further benefits from a tip-top cast: Elsa Pataky as the two-fisted Sophie Peters, Lee Gregory as straight arrow copper Dixon, Julian Sands as double-crossing lackey George Cutter, Terence Maynard as tough detective Sands, and Ralph Brown as shrewd fence McDeer. A really neat movie. -
I also disagree with Nick Stones review.
Slow to start - definitely not. I was glued to the screen from the moment the film began.
This was a slick British crime drama that I've come to expect from the Brits. No one writes mystery and crime drama like they do.
And you could not have asked for better actors to play their respective roles; from Rufus Sewell, Gabriel Byrne, to Toby Stephens they all provided excellent performances.
The one thing I love about British crime drama is that many writers fail purposely or not to explain everything, they leave the audience to figure out various parts of the plot line, which I personally like and approve. And this movie had a lot of plot twists and unexpected results that will have your jaw dropping.
I recommend this movie to anyone who appreciates British crime drama. -
blanche-218 December 2015"All Things to All Men" is a 2013 British crime film.
Gabriel Byrne plays London crime boss Joseph Corso. His son, Mark (Pierre Mascolo), is a drug runner, and Corso also has an associate.
On the case are Parker (Rufus Sewell), Dixon (Leo Gregory), and Sands (George Cutter) from New Scotland Yard/Metro Police.
By using Mark and getting him on drug charges, the cops are able to get Corso into trapping Riley (Toby Stephens) who moves stolen diamonds.
Corso insists on seeing his son and also wants him released; Parker wants Riley in prison.
Joseph goes to Riley with one more job, a robbery where they have to move quickly. Parker delivers Corso's son to him. Joseph tells his son that he is planning to retire, but Mark won't be succeeding him due to his record.
It all goes awry, along with this bare-bones film that moves fast and says not much. We have a big car chase, though.
It's hard to tell the good guys from the bad, and I guess that's the point, as they cops acted like criminals.
The acting was good, especially from Byrne, Sewell, and Stephens, but I was not involved in the plot or with any of the actors. Normally I can follow a complicated plot - in fact, I like them - but when they're not well written, they are hard to follow, as this one was. The main reason for that is lack of interest.
Skip it. -
vchimpanzee7 June 2016When a movie I see on TV starts with the logo for popcornflix.com, I know that I likely can't count on too much appearing on IMDb, so I watch these movies more carefully to provide IMDb with as much information as I can. In this case it didn't help. I had no idea what was going on. A car blew up and a man in bed with a beautiful woman got a phone call. There were cops in London, some of whom were apparently corrupt, and a rich man who wanted to get his drug dealing son out of trouble. I think one of the cops may have gone undercover, but I'm not sure. I couldn't remember which person was which. There was a car chase which was pretty good. There was a chase on foot that was also somewhat exciting. London was interesting to look at, if that was where the movie was set. There was a fascinating futuristic glass-walled room high in the air that overlooked a river. The Thames?
I saw what looked like that scene from "Mission: Impossible", but if you enjoyed that scene, there's really nothing here. That sequence ends with rappelling down a building, but it's not a big deal. I remember one really good acting performance from Terence Maynard, who ended up being tougher than he looked at first.
Do I have any more to say? Not really. -
emmalongshanks27 June 2014Why did such a group of brilliant British actors agree to do this film in the first place? I can't help feeling that it must have been a favour for the director. They all turn in excellent performances in a film missing so much detail and a clunky script. Perhaps the director is aiming for film noir but the strong silent types were all a little overdone. The best part of the film was London. Wonderful to see so many landmarks. There is a good film lurking around the skeleton of this film but it is very difficult to understand quite what is happening. I had to watch it in 3 parts as I was so bored but didn't mind watching Rufus Sewell and Toby Stephens. In the end the stand out actor was Leo Gregory.
-
nickgilbert-6724711 August 2018Really excellent but clearly embarrassed caste with a really awful script. So disappointed. Just one cliche after another.
-
kosmasp19 May 2014I'd like to take credit for that summary line, but it wasn't entirely my idea. Actually it was all done by someone else, who "translates" movie titles into the German language. In this instance as with other movies too, an English title gets replaced with another English title. But it makes it sound a lot more interesting than the original title ... maybe that is.
But back to the movie, that has some really good actors in it (check the casting here on IMDb), and all of them do deliver. While this obviously is restraint in its making (budget wise and story wise), it does have a few small punches to add to the mix. Not things that you haven't seen before (you could call the movie predictable), but still things that make it fun to watch. Decent effort then -
Lilith_i22 November 2021I had to go back to the beginning because I thought I missed something, I mean, this couldn't be this bad, could it? I had to have missed some important plop development, had to.
My SO just left me to watch it alone, and he was correct, its not that we missed something at the beginning, its just this bad.
Sad really, which such a cast. Skip it. -
Set in modern day London, UK. The issues are criminal activities versus police responses. Riley moves stolen diamonds. Joseph Corso is a crime boss, the 'Merchant' of London; Cutter is his henchman. Mark Corso (Joseph's son) seems to be running drugs, and doing them as well. Parker, Dixon, and Sands are on the New Scotland Yard/Metropolitan Police side of the issues.
By squeezing Mark on cocaine possession, Parker and friends leverage his father Joseph into trapping Riley, who has been skirting Joseph's rules of order. The plans move forward, glacially. Joseph wants his son safe, well-treated, and preferably free; Parker wants Riley in jail and off the streets. At least that is the first story.
Joseph sets up Riley to do 'one more job' that is a complicated heist that has to be done lightning fast. Parker gets Mark back to Joseph. Joseph tells Mark that he is retiring as the Merchant, but that succession is unlikely since Mark is a known addict. So, the stage is fully set.
Given the complicated arrangements, something is bound to break down. Will the cops keep faith with Joseph on the deal? Will Joseph help Riley just enough to get him caught? Will Mark pull a wild card out? Will Riley diagnose the whole setup and get free of it? Where does the difference start between normal police procedure and straight up corruption? -----Scores-----
Cinematography: 8/10 A bit too dark for me, but presumably done for effect. Focus and framing and the like were just fine.
Sound: 8/10 The tension building from the background music was good, and the actors seemed to be miked OK.
Acting: 6/10 Normally I like Byrne, Sewell, and Sands. They were fairly good here as well, although perhaps the material was not enough of a challenge for them. I like Toby Stephens as a comedian in television (Vexed) and film (Severance), but not so much as a dramatic actor. I kept expecting a flippant remark or seven together with a sneering smile. Terence Maynard was rather good, and I liked Leo Gregory's performance.
Screenplay: 5/10 How does Riley get shot in the abdomen then can keep going with high-stress muscular maneuvers for a good continuous 20 minutes afterward? This seems unlikely. The heist succeeding seemed unlikely. The wrong amount of valuables being in the vault open for inspection seemed ridiculous. Normal police discovery seemed to be almost absent. The ending (and much of the plot) reminded me of LA Confidential. This worked in the year in which LA Confidential was set, but not so much in 2013. Perhaps worst of all, the 84 minute play time felt like 130. -
The film opens with a diamond heist then switches quickly to a cocaine bust. Oh wait. The cocaine bust was just a way for to coerce The Merchant (Gabriel Byrne) to hire the diamond thief (Toby Stephens) by rogue members of Scotland Yard who want to use him for a robbery....I think.
The film consists of a confused mess that is hard to follow. The robbery appears to happen right before the cocaine bust, but in one conversation it was "ago." There are people whose brother was killed, dad was killed, and others seeking revenge having motives that pop out with no clarity. There is a long series of double crosses and relationships that are boring. I don't mind watching a film I have trouble keeping up with, but the film has to have some entertaining scenes along the way. This was filled with a long series of boring scenes of people talking, while robberies, killings, and chase scenes are abbreviated.
There are far better British "thrillers" out there.
Original Title "All Things to All Men."
Parental Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity. -
sberg-73 May 2014"All things to all men", a British film about the underworld and the involvement of corrupt police in it. In the end, almost everyone is dead, both the good and the bad, except one novice policeman who captures the sense of the movie. The closing scene brings a rather disjointed and difficult to follow story together with several notable quotes: "There's no right or wrong, only winners and losers." And the closing dialogue: Police Commissioner: "Can you be trusted?" Attorney General: "He means, 'Are you loyal to the system?'" Dickson: "what I don't understand, if a cop doesn't commit perjury, you'll never get a conviction. The undercovers on the street cause more damage than those they're trying to catch. The only way to take a criminal off the streets is to take away all their cash, because if you don't somewhere down the line they're going to buy their way out. Even now, it feels like I'm lying even when I'm telling the truth." Attorney General: "Something like that." Police Commissioner: (with a smile, acknowledging Dickson's desired promotion) "Detective". The closing dialogue constitutes a stinging critique of the "system," the subtle and dangerous symbiotic interplay between the forces of good and evil, and how the line between them in practice is invisible. The British accent made the dialogue extremely difficult to follow at times. The story slowly builds a plot that comes to a satisfying climax with the final denouement.
-
Wizard-830 July 2015When I came across the DVD for this movie at my local library, I hadn't even heard of it before. Without looking it up at the IMDb, I decided to give it a chance since it promised to be a crime movie filled with twists and turns. Even before getting to the end of the movie, I was regretting that I hadn't looked up the movie at the IMDb before deciding to watch it. I agree with most of the previous posters here that the movie simply isn't very good. It's filled with little action and suspense, and is instead padded with endless talk - and not very engaging talk. The main problem with the movie is that it is VERY confusing - even though I read the plot description off the back of the DVD case before watching the movie, it didn't take me long to get utterly mystified as to who was who and what was exactly going on. I guess the acting is competent, and the British backdrop does give the movie a different look and feel from Hollywood product. And the movie's production values are okay for what had to have been a small budget. But those things don't save the movie from being an utterly confusing bore.