When I sat down in the cinema to see this I was expecting to see a sort of stylish tongue-in-cheek action film, which had been implied by the trailers. However, it very quickly became apparent that this film was trying to be more.

Normally, I don't approve of films that try to entertain in as many ways possible. For instance, this film tries to mix action with comedy, romance, lightheartedness and gritty seriousness all at once. Most of the time this sort of approach doesn't work in films (just look at Batman Forever) but I was was pleasantly surprised to see that in this case, they pulled it off.

The end result is a highly entertaining film that should appeal to most mature cinemagoers. (However, the weak of stomach should really be warned of one or two scenes.) Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller pull of a brilliant double act and Ken Stott does a excellent villain. This mixed in with superb costumes and a few decent action scenes makes for a very enjoyable watch.

However, the big let-down here for me is that in having 'The Gentleman Highwayman' there was a real opportunity for some good dialogue but the script was definitely lacking in punchiness and there were few belly laughs. Okay, so the lines weren't terrible but to me it does highlight a problem with recent British films; ignoring a few notable exceptions the screenplays being written today are still relatively mediocre when compared to some of Hollywood's efforts.

Jake Scott's bizarre late nineties historical folly was much derided and ignored at the time and despite some elements of it dating quite fiercely it maintains a characterful tenacity that I really took to. The biggest draw is the cast, Lee Miller and Carlyle are a great double act and brimming with post-Trainspotting intensity. The magnificent Ken Stott in fantastically creepy form as the odious General Chance and even Liv Tyler's love interest gets a chunk of things to do. Alan Cumming's glorious Rochester is the absolute core of the film for me. There's a lot of grotty historical detail (mashed in with the Ibiza-tinged soundtrack) and a weirdly large amount of British comedians hiding in the background. A very young Noel Fielding, Matt Lucas and even Armstrong & Miller as strangely anachronistic dandies. There's a lot to like here, the very definition of a cult film.

This movie, without doubt is the best I have seen, and really shows what British talent can do. It's effects are exceedingly good considering the movie is set in the mid 18th Century, and all the grittiness and disgusting filth of England at the time, is captured very well. The character's are developed and fleshed out, from MaCleane's whoring antics to his development into highwayman and exhibitionary 'The Gentleman Highwayman' contrast well with Robert Carlyle, who's cynicism and honour show that you can love a thief and a criminal cos I quote: 'He's got more honour in his little finger, than any of you fat bastards!'

Not referring to you of course! But it has arguably the most stirring and emotionally charged scene ever witnessed in a movie, but you'll just have to see it to find out, suffice to say that it involves rope round your neck.

I loved this movie - it had the kind of understated and subtle, intelligent humour that is all too rare these days. Witty, acerbic and thoroughly scurrulous. A titled brat with no brains and a very canny artisan who are both wanted by the law reluctantly join forces as highwaymen. Historically only as accurate as it suits the story at the time, it has a surreal quality that is enchanting. If you like intelligent, funny movies with a twist, this one's worth a look. A bit graphic in places, both sexually and in terms of violence, but what's a bit of the clap between friends!? I don't understand how this movie made so little impact on the movie going public but it deserves cult status as far as I am concerned.

Plunkett & Macleane caught me by surprise. The trailer opened with typical period drama pretentiousness before turning into a punkish, rebellious wild ride. When I went to see it at the cinema (during its extremely limited theatrical run) I hadn't even planned on it that day. I just turned up in time and decided to take a chance. A wise choice indeed, as I was in a bad mood that day and this movie really cheered me up.

It's London, it's 1748, Robert Carlisle and Johnny Lee Miller play the titular highwaymen from opposite ends of the social spectrum. Will Plunkett brings the highway know-how while Captain James Macleane makes the connections to high society. Lord Gibson takes personal offence to their antics after being robbed, but her Niece Lady Rebecca (the lovely Liv Tyler) falls in love with Macleane, and his unusual gentlemanly ways. Ken Stott plays the truly vile Chance, the police inspector determined to see the men hang at any cost, and one of the nastiest villains in recent film history.

Jake Scott (son of Ridley, nephew of Tony) directs with a style that fuses Gothic tones with post-modernism. This is no Pride and Prejudice. Plunkett & Macleane is glam rock on acid while retaining all of the usual gritty, earthy production designs of previous Ridley/Tony films. Amazingly, Jake Scott would not direct another film until 11 years after this got released.

There is a strange rumor persistent on the Internet that Plunkett & Macleane (inspired by true story, don't you know) began life as a completely different film. I recall seeing production stills in magazines in 1996 (three years before its release), and there have been suggestions that it was originally called 'The Lady Highwayman' with Liv Tyler as the lead and Carlisle and Miller merely as supporting characters. The original screenplay by Selwyn Roberts apparently featured bizarre mathematical subtext before being heavily re-written by Bond-scribes Neal Purvis and Robert Wade. I'm not sure if any of the original material made it into the final, 99-minute, cut of the film.

A score by Trevor Jones was also apparently rejected in favor of Craig Armstrong. While I have no idea what Jones may or may not have recorded for this film, there is no doubt that Armstrong's work is utterly amazing, probably his career best.

Plunkett & Macleane seems to have fallen into obscurity since its release. Don't let it pass you by though, it's loads of fun and deserved a wider audience.

"P&M" is a kind of 18th century England Butch & Sundance flick which is done with artistry, flair, verve, and fidelity to the period. Unfortunately the story is somewhat confused and suggests that the auteur did not have a clear vision of what the film was about. A good watch for those into 18th England cops and robbers flicks...mediocre for all else.

The premise is good: in 18th century England a down-on-his-fortune gentleman and a crafty beggar/apothecary/thief team up as highwaymen. The gentleman hob-nobs with the rich and chooses the victims and together they rip them off.

I watched this movie on video while ironing my shirts on a Sunday afternoon. Watching a video helps take my mind off the drudgery of ironing the next week's shirts, and this movie succeeded. Barely.

The thing that turned me off were the anachronisms: torches spitting phosphor like highway patrolmen's flares; a gay gentleman dressed in garish neon pink; techno music (brilliant or merely bad taste?). I kept expecting one of the leading characters to check his Rolex.

The art design and the costumes were excellent (you can depend on the Brits for that) and it was great to see Michael Gambon again. Unfortunately, the movie never gets exciting. There's no dash, no daring escapades. The story isn't very interesting and the characters are likeable enough, but remain two-dimensional. For me, the presence of the utterly delectable Liv Tyler goes far towards making a movie watchable, but her role in this movie was just too small.

It kept me entertained throughout my ironing chore. I couldn't have watched it if I hadn't had something to do with my hands.

Ah, how refreshing to see a vision of 18th century England complete with mud, the pox and gibbets... and accompanied by a delightful techno soundtrack to boot. This is the story of downtrodden highwayman Plunkett (Robert Carlisle) and Gentleman-fallen-on-hard-times Captain Macleane (Jonny Lee Miller), and how they get together and rob the aristo pigs. Plunkett is a hard nut, but MaCleane is far too polite for that, and thus becomes 'the gentleman highwayman'. He falls in love with Lady Rebecca (Liv Tyler), (who to be frank is the only weak part of the whole shebang) and wants to impress her.

The costumes are fantastic. Big, colourful, historically innacurate beautiful togs. Alan Cummings gets all the best threads, and the best lines as Lord Rochester, sporting a very non-18th century eyebrow piercing. The music shifts between swooping glorious choirs and thumping bass-laden techno, which doesn't jarr as you think it should do in a historical film. The script is fast-moving and peppered with modern-day colloquialisms; Merchant Ivory, this is not. There are hilarious parts, disgusting parts, sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat-and-nibble-your-fingernails parts, but the whole thing chugs along and is wonderfully entertaining throughout. This is cheer-in-the-cinema stuff. Unmissable.

PLUNKETT & MACLEANE has a purpose: entertainment. And during a season of rush and deadlines this little film provides enough anachronistic pleasures to fill a relaxing evening.

The story is simple: two social polar opposites with reasons for distaste for society join forces to rob the rich. And all the rest is fantasy and period tongue in cheek humor. Jonny Lee Miller is the cleaner of the two and Robert Carlyle the scruffy intuitive thief. The two fall under different influences piloted by such fine actors as Liv Tyler, Alan Cumming, and Michael Gambon.

This is high rolling farce with a silly but fun musical score and wonderful period costumes and mannerisms. It is not deep, it is not particularly good, but it IS entertaining. This kind of fluff leaves you whistling with a smile. Grady Harp

After thinking about this movie for 18 hours or so, I think I've put my finger on what bothered me about this movie.

Individually, every scene was fine -- the funny scenes were funny, the violent ones were violent and nasty, etc.

But that's exactly the problem. This was either a funny lighthearted romp with some scenes that were too violent and dark, or a violent and dark movie that had scenes that were too funny to make sense.

** HERE BE SPOILERS **

Recap: Macleane (Miller) witnesses a robbery by Plunkett (Carlyle) that goes wrong. Plunkett's partner get shot (and killed) but not until after he has swallowed a great ruby. Plunkett and Macleane then meet at the cemetery when both try to get hold of the ruby. Unfortunately they are caught as grave robbers and sent to jail, but not until Plunkett has swallowed the ruby. The ruby is their key to freedom, and once they're free, they form a partnership in robbery. Macleane is to pose as a gentleman and find out who is worth robbing, and then simply they rob him (and rob them in style). But Macleane falls in love with the niece/daughter (?) of their first victim, lady Rebecca Gibson (Tyler). And a Mr Chance (Stott) is out to catch them, and his methods are not very nice...

Comments: A good action flavoured by comedy and adventure. Carlyle and Miller form a good team, with a lot of friction and friendship. And then there is the relationship between Macleane and Rebecca Gibson. The scene with the ball is very good, especially the (anachronistic) use of the music. In addition to these interesting characters Cumming play the best of them all, Lord Rochester. Both the character and the acting are stellar and among the best in the movie. In total, the movie works very well, a nice balance between story and special effects, action and comedy. Very entertaining.

8/10

A very watchable film, and one which was eagerly awaited having seen the trailer a number of times.

The whole thing looks superb, from the ludicrous efforts of the effete upper class to distance themselves from the mediocrity, to the lower class scum just trying to keep their heads above the filth, the film captures the spirit of the 18th century brilliantly.

Jonny Lee Miller plays Maclean extremely well, though the part does not exactly stretch him, and Robert Carlyle seems a little wasted on Plunkett, Miller's highwayman colleague.

The real star of the show was undoubtedly Ken Stott, who plays Mr Chance (a kind of 1740's chief of police) with an evil glee that set him out from the rest of the cast.

A great film, and anyone that enjoys the colour and style of Peter Greenaway's films will love the look of this, although the thinness of the plot becomes apparent before the 2 hours are up.

Well worth a viewing.

Seeing this film was one of the worst decisions of my life. I was persuaded to see by a friend who's main reason for going was to see Johnny Lee Miller which should have been warning enough of what to expect.

I knew little about the film before I saw it but was expecting at least a good performance from the leading actors and at worst an acceptable action film. It was neither. The plot was dull, the performances were uninspired and flat and even Robert Carlyle couldn't save the script.

Basically the film is about two highwaymen, who steal stuff and try not to get caught. I'd like to be able to say there was more to it but there wasn't. There is the obligatory love interest (Liv Tyler) but her part seems to have been crow-barred in at the last minute with no consideration as to where or how it integrates into the film as a whole.

The 1000 word limit on reviews prevents me from listing the grotesque historical inaccuracies of the film but I will mention that it revived the old Hollywood beliefs that flint-locks and muskets were accurate at any distance, had automatic mechanisms and reloaded in seconds not minutes. This was certainly not the only daft idea in the film but it was one of the most annoying.

In it's favour I would say that the sets were well made, if often inappropriate, and that the production quality was above average.

This however did not change the fact that the film as a whole was dire, as demonstrated by the outbreaks of laughter in the theatre during some of the supposedly serious scenes.

In short my advice to anyone who is thinking about seeing this film is don't, go and see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

Far from being historically naive, Plunkett and Macleane is a very cheeky comedy which uses modern touches to bring humour and vibrance to the story. In one hilarious scene modern music is used to turn a ball into a kind of rave. This picture probably conveys more of the spirit of England at that time than any of the tightly corseted period dramas that we see on our small screens. In those days London would no doubt have been (not much different than today) a hive of grime, guts, violence and sex. The best thing to do is to sit back and enjoy the energy,comedy and damn fine performances in this great little britflick. It's not exactly accurate but then this is not what was intended. Give it a go!

Plunkett and Maclean is nothing if not original. It would appear that some bright spark thought it would be a great idea to create a period caper movie in a modern style and then developed a story to fit. Unfortunately it would appear that this bright spark thought the originality of the initial concept was enough to carry the movie...it wasn't.

The basic synopsis of the film is fairly promising - a common criminal teams up with a more gentlemanly rogue to form a highway robbery partnership in 18th Century England. The reasoning for this collaboration is that the gentleman, Maclean (Jonny Lee Miller), can use his more aristicratic demeanor to target rich victims and the more experienced thief Plunkett (Robert Carlyle) can lead the robberies. Of course, at the start of the film, Plunkett is the more hardened criminal with little morality and little care for anyone but himself, whilst Maclean is the aristocrat who more than likes a drink and a healthier diet of gambling and women. That is pretty much were the characterisation begins and ends for the leads and despite the inevitable shift in their attitudes during the film they both remain fairly one-dimensional. Carlyle and Miller perform about as well as can be expected with the script they have been given and at times lift the film above its shortcomings. The supporting cast also outperform the script, particularly Alan Cumming as the foppish Rochester, who despite being a bit of a stereotype provides some well-needed entertainment. Liv Tyler does not have a massive amount to do in the film, but what she does do is passable, if a little lazy. The bad guy, Mr Chance, is played by Ken Stott and although his acting is fine, I never really took him that seriously...he seemed to have something missing.

This film manages to waste almost all of the potential of the basic storyline and fails to develop the characters in an interesting way. Plunkett and Maclean begin by disliking each other and only team up for mutual benefit. Inevitably however, the begin to warm to each other, but the viewer is not really given a solid reason why this is the case. The dialogue is extremely limited and the effing and blinding that appears rife in British films post 'Lock Stock...' is present.

As for the production design, its an admirable attempt to bring a period film into the 21st Century and at least it is not another tired period drama. The costume and set design works quite well, if a little artificial and although it is hardly realistic to 18th Century London, its certainly refreshing. On the other hand, the musical style does not appear to work - somehow the MTV score appears disjointed against the action and will probably date extremely quickly.

In summary, this is not an appalling film. It lacks depth, but there is enough action to prevent you nodding off, and its sufficiently different to warrant a viewing when you have little else to do. If you do not expect too much you will not be disappointed.

The picture was well done and overall well acted, but it was so dark and dreary. I thought several times that is was going to end, but to my dismay it just went on and on. I do not know what the directors or writers have in mind when they plan these films, but I guess with the cost of a ticket they want to give you a lot of time in the theater.

I was very impressed with the trailer for this film, starring Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller as two highwaymen robbing the rich... and keeping it for themselves. By setting you up for just another costume drama, and then proceeding to blast the corsets apart in a riotous mix of imagery and sound.

However, when I got to see the film, I began to see the flaws. The opening section is very dark and sets the scene well, but drags on too much. The middle part is perhaps the best, with some great set piece scenes - an extravagant ballroom dancing scene played out like a Friday nightclub, the raid on the dinner party. Then the final part falls into the usual hackneyed formulaic conclusion.

It's a pity because there are a lot of things I do like about the film. The use of music (by Craig Armstrong, strings arranger to the stars) is extremely good and the support lent by Alan Cumming and Alan Stott as, respectively an over-the-top dandy and a dour "thief-taker" rounds out the film a bit more.

Unfortunately, Liv Tyler, as the love interest (who actually gets to wield some guns), has a pretty underwritten part. The locations are suitably dirty but I can't help feeling I've seen it before. And despite their best efforts Carlyle and Miller never quite lift the script above the "mildly engrossing" level.

Basically, for a film which advertises itself as being about action and characters, it doesn't have enough of either. All it has is the promise of a better movie, and a catchy tagline: "They rob the rich - and that's it". Director Jake Scott will probably do a lot better in the future.

Plunkett & Macleane is ultimately a film that, despite trying its hardest, fails to deliver the goods. And that's it.

This movie stole my money, and that's it!!

The only thing that could possibly have saved this movie was Jonny Lee Miller, and he couldn't do it.

The idea had potential at the beginning, but lost it's way towards the end. I was excited to watch a period piece with modern language, I thought it was an interesting twist. But I wound up not caring about the characters at all.

This is definitely a movie where the soundtrack upstages it.

Wow! I picked this off the rental shelf because I loved Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller in 'Trainspotting.' This is a phenomenal movie; it has action, romance, suspense, intrigue and wit. When I wasn't laughing, I was at the edge of my seat. This is definitely a film I would recommend to people with an appreciation for intelligent dialogue and a fresh perspective of the 18th century. This film has everything to keep ME happy!

Plunkett and Macleane rob from the rich and... well... they keep it. A working class apothecary and a genteel upper class vicar's son team up to get rich, and find beautiful women along the way.

Nothing new there, but what makes it special is the irreverant style - anachronisms are everywhere, but intentionally, never more so than with the highly innovative score by Craig Armstrong which really adds to the film. Mention must be made of the Earl of Rochester; Alan Cumming is hilarious as the ridiculously camp society fop.

In a few places, it seems weakly directed with a few choppy scene/style changes, but overall an enjoyable film. It won't win any Oscars, but not bad for a first attempt by Jake Scott.

Sorry this was a woeful excuse for a film.. a plot line so holey it resembled a block of swiss cheese and a butch of characters who seemed to me to be utterly devoid of inter-personal relations.. Well except of course for Carlyle and Lee-Miller who i could have sworn were meant to be in love.. Unlike the union of Tyler and Miller who were for the most part, like the rest of the film, utterly unconvincing.. although the end product was uncaptivating and amusing for all the wrong reasons, the production values were high and deserve some acknowledgement..but unfortunately the end result was rubbish..what was everyone involved thinking..? they definitely should have packed up early on this one..

... because while I thoroughly enjoyed this film, it seems from other user comments that I'm in the minority. Maybe not one for the philosopher (eek), there are some wonderful scenes here (- particularly the techno), and the great life adventure story originally portrayed. Go see for yourself!

This movie could almost have taken place at any time in history, and in any place-- and I don't mean that in a good way. The movie's scenery was disconnected from its spirit. Even though the filth and grime and "everydayness' of 200 years ago felt very real-- all of that existed independent of, and unconnected with, the essence of the story.

Obviously the PLOT points were woven into the surroundings, but nothing else was. It was almost as if we were being shown a "visual aid" in the background (albeit well done), while someone read aloud from a book. Things "sort of" went with other things, but nothing existed together as parts of a complete whole. This is really a simple story that we see a lot of on TV: rogue heros, corrupt politicians, bad cop, hot yet vulnerable babe who "sees all," etc. Yawn.

Maybe some film school honor student could explain the significance of the foppy man's purple hat, and the washed out and way too blue dinge of the film stock. Otherwise, this is standard fare-- you've seen it a thousand times before.

One last note-- Liv Tyler, daughter of Steven "Aerosmith" Tyler, is growing up to be a beautiful woman. She seems to be at least a competent actress-- and maybe she has it in her to be a great one (we'll have to see what she does with it in the upcoming years). So, perhaps this role with her first foreign accent was a step in her career plans-- to Gwyneth-a-tize herself with some apprenticeship turns in the Old Country. If that was her plan-- then this movie wasn't exactly a stumble, and it might have been good practice-- but it wasn't a huge step forward either. No harm done, Liv-- a paycheck, another year older, some interesting experience. So maybe next year?

All around, this was only a tad better than average, so I gave it a "6."

Plunkett and MaCleane are two highwaymen that rob from the rich in order to give to ... well, the rich; comparatively, they ARE the rich. But we know they're the good guys because the chap behind the forces of law and order, a Mr. Chance, is just so evil. He rapes women - or tries to. He beats up his underlings. He commits murder. He has bad breath. He doesn't shave properly. He has no fashion sense. He tortures puppy dogs. That last one is just an inference of mine: we don't actually SEE him torture puppy dogs. But I'm sure he does. Little of Chance's villainy has much to do with his pursuit of Plunkett and MaCleane. It's just something he does in his spare time, a kind of a hobby he takes up to make absolutely certain that we don't like him. He needn't have tried so hard. No-one in this film is likeable.

Let's take stock. Appealing characters? There aren't any: I believe we've covered that. Swashbuckling? Not a swash. Instead we have a kind of grimy heavy-breathing. Dash? Sparkle? Vigour? All gone the way of swashbuckling, I'm afraid. Realism? None of that, either. I think they were TRYING for realism, since everyone was so filthy, but the characters and action had all the plausibility of Errol Flynn - with no sense of exhilaration to back them up. Beauty? Nope. Fine camera work? For a TV crew, perhaps. Humour? You might giggle once or twice if you're in a benevolent mood. Then again, you might not. Dialogue? See `humour', above. Music? Don't even get me STARTED on the music. The music in `Ladyhawk' was, by comparison, uncannily apt; and at least the misguided aesthetic of that score was a consistent one.

Ugh. I apologise to `Ladyhawk' for even THINKING about it in this context.

To sum up: there's much positive badness here and NOTHING good - unless you count Liv Tyler, which I'm in two minds about doing.

I feel as though I've just written a review of the pox. `Not very good,' the review says. It would be much more interesting if I could somehow DEFEND the pox, to claim that critics of the pox have got it all wrong - but I don't know how I'd go about doing that.