Snatch 2000

Critics score:
73 / 100

Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes

Ebert & Roeper: Read more

Susan Stark, Detroit News: A pointless exercise in cool by a film maker who needs to grow up. As in: Oh, grow up. Read more

Philip Wuntch, Dallas Morning News: While watching Snatch, you'll sometimes wish the dialogue had subtitles and the movie came equipped with a plot synopsis. But you're bound to leave the theater with a smile. Read more

Elvis Mitchell, New York Times: Spicy comic strip without an ounce of fat. Read more

Lisa Alspector, Chicago Reader: Ritchie may be skilled at generating controlled chaos, but his surprise-a-minute strategy ultimately holds no surprises. Read more

Peter Howell, Toronto Star: Snatch is hard to figure out, but even harder not to laugh at. Read more

Steve Murray, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: It's the actors' conviction, no matter how bloody or ridiculous the plot turns, that gives the movie much of its loony humor. Read more

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: Even if it's not quite as lighter than air as its predecessor, Snatch remains a lethal diversion. Read more

Eric Harrison, Houston Chronicle: Hip and stylish. It's also empty, but that's probably part of the style, which draws inspiration from Quentin Tarantino movies and vintage British gangster films as well as music videos. Read more

Paul Tatara, CNN.com: An empty movie. Read more

Steven Rosen, Denver Post: Fun moments are ultimately slight compensation for Snatch's overall staleness. Read more

Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: It's not a sequel, not a remake; it's reheated Ritchie. Read more

Liam Lacey, Globe and Mail: Bouncing around in a world of bare-knuckle boxing, gypsy swindlers, pretend Jewish diamond merchants, indestructible Russian assassins and a thug who disposes of bodies by feeding them to hungry pigs, Snatch has enough plots for a fair-sized cemetery. Read more

Gene Seymour, Newsday: You'll laugh and have a good old rowdy time watching Snatch. But as soon as you walk out of the theater, you'll ask yourself what it was you were laughing at. Read more

Peter Rainer, New York Magazine/Vulture: This may be one of the hazardous offshoots of the music-video-trained generation of moviemakers; they confuse a diet of eye candy with a full meal. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: Raucous and crude, but never boring or predictable. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: The movie is not boring, but it doesn't build and it doesn't arrive anywhere. Read more

Stephanie Zacharek, Salon.com: It takes a very clever schoolboy to make a movie as elaborately empty as Guy Ritchie's Snatch. Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: Loaded down with too many characters and locations. Read more

Richard Corliss, TIME Magazine: The story motors like a car driven by a chatty maniac who somehow stays on the road. Read more

Wally Hammond, Time Out: Ritchie's follow-up to Lock, Stock is an even more craftily concocted underworld entertainment, helped no end by the casting of Pitt as the bare-knuckle boxer Mickey. Read more

Susan Wloszczyna, USA Today: Snatch will likely grab those who like their movies fast, furious and fun. Read more

Derek Elley, Variety: Manages the trick of keeping the viewer entertained -- and aware of exactly who is where -- even when the movie is going in three directions at the same time. Read more

Amy Taubin, Village Voice: A particularly wearying example of a recent wave of British gangster films. Read more

Desson Thomson, Washington Post: If stories don't happen fast, funny and powerful enough for you in the movies, push your way into the queue. This flick's for you. Read more