What I love about SNATCH--and what it does even a bit more than LOCK, STOCK--is that Ritchie layers his various criminal elements not so much as a hierarchy of crooks, hustlers, thugs, and mobsters where everyone knows their station as well as everyone else. Ritchie's world of society's criminals and riff-raff are moreso circles in a Venn diagram and their overlap is the script of SNATCH.

SNATCH, although a close, dear sibling to Ritchie's first film, also varies a bit insofar as it is a bit deeper and richer in character and setting. Perhaps this is the influence of what must have been a larger budget. Not only do the producers snag Brad Pitt, Benicio Del Toro, and Denis Farina from across the pond, SNATCH features more set locations, and greater polish to the look of the film.

Guy Ritchie's original two scoundrel-filled, criminal-underbelly films are beautifully relentless. SNATCH is every bit the fast-moving, furiously editied, macho film with great dialog and cleverly timed crimes. But SNATCH is not a rip-off of LOCK, STOCK. SNATCH has deeper characters, completely different crimes and motivations. It also ups the ante in its feverish editing. SNATCH steadily feels as if it's being editied like a Bob Fosse transition on speed.

Having just watched one of the most, undiscernible, yet boldly mumbled performances in film with Tom Hardy's gruntulating Al Capone in CAPONE, I'm reminded here of an equally brilliant, unintelligibly articulated performance courtesy of a Brad Pitt's greasey Pikey boxer. Pitt is undeniably a chameleon of a performer. Often his appearance reminds us that he's Brad Pitt, but his performances never feel close to one another. Tom Cruise always feels like Tom Cruise. Al Pacino usually feels like Al Pacino—as brilliant as they may be. But no two Pitt roles feel like you're watching the same player.

This film is as exciting and cerebral as a you'll get from what ultimately is a lightweight crime comedy.
A-