douglasbrewer-74526 Steven Soderberg is a maverick of a filmmaker and this is one instance of his going off the track to get what he deems is the right form of expression. In the limey Terence Hill goes to Los Angeles to avenge his daughter's death- fair and simple. Except the way by which Soderberg shows us the entire ordeal- which includes flashback of a young Stamp taken from actual outtakes of his older films- is what is endearing and makes this film rise above any other revenge action film. Terence Stamp is excellent and a case of choosing an artist rather than a movie star to play a character.

sharky_55 The Limey sees a familiar tale told in an unfamiliar way. The basic plot concerns a hardened, grizzly Englishman named Wilson who has just been release from prison and is seeking vengeance for his daughter's apparent murder. A career criminal, Wilson hasn't exactly been keeping in touch, and as the story unfurls we gradually discover the darker dealings of Jenny's life alongside him. In simple terms, the film is about a father's search for answers and the truth, but much of that search isn't a physical one, but a dive back into forgotten memories and pasts, circling back onto itself. Soderbergh's direction elevates this process into one tinged with bitterness and regret. You can spot this almost immediately with Wilson's first interrogee, Jenny's friend Eduardo. Shot simply this might just be exposition, but Soderbergh and editor Sarah Flack cut up their conversation over three different locations, with the sounds of their voices bridging over the scenes. An encounter with another old friend, Elaine, is similarly fractured, their voices flung over physical locations with seamless transitions. Wilson is dealing with a flurry of new and often contradictory information about the events that lead to his daughter's death, absorbed over many conversations. Fragments of the truth are all that he receives; why should it be relayed in a straightforward way? Nearing the true cause of his mission, Wilson's imagination goes into overdrive, and with it the audience's objective perspective. The camera assumes an omniscient view from which we see all possibilities, overlapping different outcomes. When Wilson sees his target at a party, Soderbergh minimises all background noise into a distant buzz, and slows down the focus on his unfurling pistol. The shot, and subsequent spray of blood, is stylised violence, something out of a music video, and the immediate cut draws us back into reality. Yet Soderbergh gradually strips back the artifice until finally we are convinced that Wilson has really decided to avenge Jenny in the thick of the party, and fools us for a third time by cutting back to Eduardo pulling him away. We can feel his emotions caving in and compressing onto the scene, his desire for revenge filtered through the camera's eye, becoming less fantastical by the second. Terrence Stamp's Wilson is a lean, world-wearied brand of fury, a mind focused solely on one thing. He brushes off glancing blows with the same stony face and piercing blue eyes throughout, as if everything was just a matter of time. And it is. Bundled out of the drug dealer's garage, the camera holds the wide shot, knowing what is to come, and observes Wilson drawing a pistol, and storming back into the room. Bang, and then five or six more. The sequence has the same startling immediacy of an early Scorsese or Tarantino, and none of the later juvenility from the latter. See too how the camera almost selectively ignores later acts of violence in a matter-of-fact way, remaining in shallow focus while Wilson upends a security guard over the railing of Terry Valentine's hilltop manor. Intercut with those harsh blows of gritty violence are flashes of a younger Wilson taken from Ken Loach's directorial debut Poor Cow, a fresher-faced Stamp and a mere petty thief. The entire film drips with 90s malaise, complete with tinkling score and a washed up 60s icon in Peter Fonda, who has 'upgraded' into the higher life but spends much of his time lamenting the loss of his glory days and traversing the endless American roads on a shiny chrome motorcycle. The past worms and burrows itself into Wilson's mind, a never-ending reminder of the life he chose and the impact on those around him. It begins to invade the film form itself; an eye-line match sees Wilson look up at a younger Jenny, footage spliced to mimic the two meeting each other's gaze. These 'flashbacks' seem to resemble generic recollections, faded and grainy, but Wilson is more than just reminiscing. He's investigating the origins of these sins, pondering his own conscience. The bright spotlight fixates on his daughter's face, symbolic of his own search for truth and ultimately forgiveness. Did he find it on that beach? We can only hope so.

johnnyjeremymusic-56956 I have never seen Poor Cow, but based on its synopsis it would be fair to wager that this is an update of that film. I suspect that the young Terence Stamp flashbacks in the Limey are from Poor Cow.The Limey is a fair film. It is an enjoyable film. The directors' style is very much of its time, but in the end the film is very conventional. If you're a fan of Terence Stamp, it is worth the watch but it has little else to offer.

daggersineyes I'm getting to the point now where I'm distrusting the ratings on this site because so many movies with above 7 ratings turn out to be boring pretentious tripe. Honestly, there was nothing in this movie that redeemed it. The acting was almost non-existent, the editing was clumsy and bizarre (possibly in some mis-guided attempt to appear "artsy") and the plot..... well there really wasn't one. There was certainly no action, no suspense, no thrills, no warmth, no likable characters, no intrigue, no message, no interesting dialogue, no gripping relationships or drama .... just a lot of repetition of boring scenes (for what purpose is beyond me), blank stares for long periods of time (possibly an attempt to build drama but all it did was build frustration with how awful the film was) and lots of pointless badly written wooden conversation between characters. I got just over half way through and felt proud of myself for having suffered so long but at that point I started skipping bits of the film. I started carefully, only skipping small sections and soon realised I could easily jump several minutes at a time and miss nothing at all. Finally made a huge skip to the last 10 mins or so. YAY! I thought, a bit of action! Even tho I couldn't care less what happened to anyone. I was just hoping for relief to the tedious boredom. But my hope was short-lived and actually changed to anger because the ending made not one bit of sense in the context of the rest of the movie. It was lame and silly. I fail to see how anyone can give this a score above 2. I might have to start watching movies rated below 5 and maybe I'll have better luck. So dear reviewers, slow, boring and badly written/acted/shot/edited/produced does NOT equal meaningful and artsy. It just equals a waste of everyone's time. Conclusion: Don't' bother. Watch In Bruges instead. That's one of the few movies with a decent rating that actually deserves it.