24 Hours in London (2000)

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Crappy film

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This is a movie I picked up on a whim. The cover had to guys with guns and I thought what the hell it's $5. Before I even opened this movie I knew it would be bad. This movie has a good plot line that is carried out horribly. This is a movie you watch if you wanna see stuff shot, laugh at horrible acting and stupid criminals, and some times forget where you are in the movie.One thing that really bugged me about this movie was that one of the what you could call main characters name was constantly switched between paul and cameron. They "cover this up in the credits by calling him paul cameron, just somethin that bugged me.This is a movie to rent or buy for really cheap. It is a sad representation on British cinema but god damn it! I laughed till i cried.

first and foremost, I'm an American. i live in the united states. yet for some reason I've become slightly obsessed with British culture, movies, literature, music and whatnot. my favorite film would have to be trainspotting, and lock stock blew me away. unfortunately, 24 in London did not. in fact, it had a reverse affect, inducing sleep. horrid horrid horrid everything, from the ridiculous dialouge to the plot that had more holes in it than a mesh t-shirt. there was virtually no plot, and literally no main character. i felt cheated by the end of the movie, cheated by the fact that I've lost a precious two hours of my life i could have spent reading a good book. rubbish, please don't fall victim to this movie, and anyone telling you otherwise needs to seriously reconsider what they are thinking.

When I was staying on holiday in Wales this year, I had the misfortune of being stuck in a house with a VCR player and a video of the cheapo movie 24 Hours In London.After watching the first ten minutes or so, the acting seemed okay, the plot seemed to have potential, and the cutting on the titles section was first rate.Then the film plummeted like a goose with no wings. Without giving too much away (The film does enough of that itself with heavily signposted plot elements), 24 Hours In London swings unsteadily between what appears to be an attempt at a cockney gangster flick and outright slapstick comedy.The latter half of the film is particularly bizarre, with plot holes so large that the entire film seems to be progressing at random.So why did I bother watching it to the end? Well, I keep asking myself that. Is it because, despite all the shockingly-bad acting, there were a few actors who could actually convey emotion? Is it because the lumbering comedy moments were actually pretty funny, in an oafish way? Or is it that maybe, despite all its glaring errors and hilariously wooden acting, the film's shoestring charm manages to shine through? I honestly couldn't say.

Really, it looked like a nice movie with lots of nice killings and nice bloody gore; all that i and my girlfriend love to watch in a Sunday afternoon. But no; this is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, it has bad acting, bad action sequences, bad scripting, awful sense of humor, it's all bad. I have to say that i'm a B Movie fan, i love low budget movies and i can say with every words --- THIS IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF MONEY, TIME, ACTORS AND EQUIPMENT---. With 1/3 of the money that Alexander Finbow had to do this i would be able to do the Portuguese equivalent to "The Lord Of The Rings". I don't know how could anyone be interested in making movies like this one. PANTS!