My conundrum regarding this movie is that while I dislike its premise and altogether too-casual violence, I actually feel the writing and acting is quite effective.  Modern crime films like this, or Guns Up or anything Guy Ritchie puts together or Jason Stratham stars in, for instance, mix their deceptively serious crime stories with way too much carnage and huge dollops of humor (dry, dark, ironic or otherwise), concocting these bloody confections that minimize morality and defer consequences in favor of catty witticisms and very muddy justification for it all.  I suppose that’s not necessarily bad for cinema, except that it is so prevalent, even in films like Deadpool and Justice League.  Unless one just stops watching modern movies these things are very difficult to avoid.

Phillip Noyce’s story at least has a fresh setting — Mississippi — where an aging gangster Stan Mullen (James Chan) finds his empire threatened by a younger, ambitious, very ruthless rival, Beggar (Gbenga Akinnagbe).  Stan’s right-hand man, Charlie Swift (Pierce Brosnan), takes issue with Beggar’s betrayal and sets out for vengeance.  Along the way he meets and then protects a young widow (Morena Baccarin), who proves to be just as resourceful as he.  Who can be trusted and who will survive?

While this genre of story exploded in the early 1970s with the success of The Godfather (I and II) and has been popular ever since, it seems to me that the biggest change has been in the area of humor.  In the wake of The Godfather gangster movies were excessively bloody (still relatively new in American cinema following the institution of the ratings system in 1968), but they were mostly serious as hell; they retained the moral or legal repercussions that the Hays Code has demanded for the previous thirty-four years; or at least they implied that gangsters and ruffians would receive comeuppance in some form.  This changed as caper movies turned crime into light entertainment and audiences began to root for the bad guys to get away with their capers — although these movies generally eschewed violence.  Now it seems like capers and crime films are one, characters (usually henchmen or bystanders) are killed in bunches and people joke about it.  When I think about that too much, knowing what real crime is like and does to its victims, this tendency sickens me.

But . . . I also appreciate when a movie of any kind tells a good story, and Phillip Royce is a good filmmaker.  The leads of Fast Charlie are excellent in their roles, the writing is droll and there are some admittedly funny shenanigans in between the ambushes and executions (which are not as bloody as they might be under other hands).  Brosnan, a former James Bond, is a pro at this type of thing and is very easy to root for, given his character’s allegiances and genuinely good heart.  The film is witty (especially involving taxidermy!) and, dare I say it, rather fun.  If you are fans of irreverent crime and unusual action, definitely check this one out.  I don’t really understand why this type of filmmaking is so popular now, but this is a solid example of it.  ☆ ☆ 1/2.  16 August 2026.