Blitz (2011) Review

director: Elliot Lester

writer: Nathan Parker

starring: Jason Statham, Paddy Considine and Aidan Gillen

genre: Crime

released: 20 May, 2011 (U.K.), 18 August, 2011 (Greece)

based upon the novel: "Blitz" by Ken Bruen

You see a lot of crap in your day, the worst is the kind that try's to be mature and emotional. Jason Statham might be a great action star, but he ain't cut out to do more serious crime dramas. Especially, when the plot is a mess, the subplots are hilariously terrible and it contains a villain that is more ludicrous than a Saturday Morning Cartoon.


We find ourselves in the criminal backyard of the world, London. Where crime is ranging and police are more interested in good publicity than getting the job done. The cop ahead of it all is Tom Brant (Jason Statham), a acknowledged cop with a outstanding arrest record and anger management issues. When all of the London police force go into crazy mode, when the criminal calling himself Blitz (Aidan Gillen) stars killing coppers. It's up to Brant and his new inspector Nash (Paddy Considine) to find out why Blitz is killing cops and if they can catch him.


Before I start, Statham fans should know, that he really dosen't kick ass in this film. No martial arts of any kind will be found in this film. For some reason they thought that he alone could make this film interesting. The man can fight, have intimidating and scary looks and be the ultimate bad-ass. But when you put him in a film where he has to emote and maybe act and most importantly not fight. Then what's the point?

The story is cliched and filled with stupid moments that only exist to continue the plot and for their to be an emotional depth to the film. One is the silly subplot of a female cop. She isn't in the film to care about or because she's interesting nor does she have a story arc. She's there for Statham's character to be and to seem caring. Then the villain has a secret past. Why? Because he has to be connected to the hero. Statham talks about his issues, why? Because we need to see that he has problems and we should care for him. Unnecessary crap in a Statham film. Need I say more?

When your film is ultimately crap, you make do with it by playing it that way. As there are certain moments in the film where Statham is a bad ass and we love it. He can be funny and ruthless tough which are the things you should rely on. So why ins't there more of that? If any film doesn't play to its stars strengths, then why the hell did you make the film? If you have a ludicrous villain and a film with cliches. Play it bad, go overboard and make it fun. Don't go the route of serious crime drama that only makes it worse. Especially when your star isn't known for his great acting chops. Same goes for Seagal, Van Damme and Norris films of past.


By watching this film, you only waste your time at seeing another bad cop film. Statham should stick to the straight up action films and leave the aspired cop dramas or any kind of dramas as a matter of fact alone. Because until now, he really is playing the same characters. With the same looks, glares, accents, voices, mannerisms, tone and emotional state of mind.

Personal Rating:

review by Paul Katsaros

have a opinion, beg to differ, leave a comment