It's amazing that Paul WS Anderson, out of all those big budget Hollywood sci-fi action junk, his best film could be this much smaller scale, rather fascinating tale of London suffering from youth crime gone amok, with Brit street punks, aimless and violence-prone, many either hooked on, or selling, drugs, destroying cop cars(and the police themselves), driving stolen vehicles through store windows, pelting the police with whatever they can get their hands on. It's absolute anarchy, and we see that the 90's punk culture has served not the most model citizens of society, as they seem to have no career goals, no future, living a life of crime either for kicks or underground business. Billy(Jude Law)has just been released from yet another stint in prison, rejoining his gal pal, Jo(Sadie Frost), as they steal cars and cause general mischief. Billy's "nemesis" is Tommy(Sean Pertwee), someone who has made a little street "enterprize" for himself using footsoldiers to rob stores for merchandise to sell on his "black market". Tommy doesn't like Billy's gung-ho, "adrenaline junkie" ways and warns Jo she should abandon him before he leads her into trouble. Billy likes to live recklessly, on the wild side, and has gained quite a reputation for doing so, a sort of hero to the punks on the streets. Tommy, however, considers himself quite a businessman, peddling his goods at much cheaper prices for those with the money to pay him(his customers normally wish to pay less than he demands, but they know his goods is of a legitimate quality), and sees Billy as a threat to everything he holds dear. There's an inevitable confrontation, but Billy underestimates his rival, with severe consequences. A mall is both men's desired target, and there's an ace up Tommy's sleeve which might just cost Billy dearly. Jo is in love with Billy and has went out of her way to reveal this to him, pleading with him to leave London and run away with her..but, Billy is a stubborn young man who has a problem with Tommy's "takeover" of "his city". I think Anderson effectively shows a London in ruin, with tired, exhausted police(under the command of Jonathan Pryce's saddened, weary Conway)unable to control the youth revolt. We see streets as if war had broken out, with filth and poverty very alive, along with graffiti walls, damaged cars, and trash in abundance. The overwhelming populace of self-destructive, unruly, and unyielding young criminals, with seemingly nothing else to live for but raising hell, are presented in a surprisingly non judgmental way, although, I never felt Anderson was condoning their behavior..I think he was merely showing us a lifestyle outside the norm, following a lost generation fallen under the cracks(..and, we can see that there were a lot of them, too). We can see that Billy's need for kicks and thrills are bound to lead down a path of destruction, and the ultimate crime is that he'll take Jo with him since she's just too in love to get away while the going was good.

The trouble with most films like these is the predictability of them. While studies have been made on the noir genre and the American gangster genre featuring the rise of the anti-hero and the eventual demise of said role, they really just open up the reader's mind to the possible predictability of any film that falls into these genres. Way back in the classical Hollywood age, it was impossible to show any anti-hero or murderer actually get away with killing someone because it would glorify their actions in the sense they became successful because of it. Shopping falls into the crime genre but is a contemporary British effort although it revolves around criminal activity and that specific activity is carjacking and ram-raiding. It treads close to glorifying it before delivering an ending few would predict incorrectly.So if after the first thirty minutes we cannot see which way this film is heading then it's quite clear we're not familiar with the genre. It takes a brave director to pull off an effective crime film and have the lead anti-hero get away with it all in the end but Paul W. S. Anderson is not that individual. In Shopping, recently released convict Billy (Law) defies his superegos and goes out on a binge of crime and law breaking with girlfriend Jo (Frost); they steal cars, avoid the police and smash shop windows with the film generally avoiding a clear cut plot until much later when it suddenly realises it needs one to see it through to its conclusion.Principally, Anderson is cutting his teeth with this film and there is no way he is going to ignore the law that dictates what should happen to criminal anti-heroes. The only thing with this is, if you're going to go down that familiar route at least make it a fun ride along the way. Shopping does not make it an enjoyable ride but rather refrains from story telling until absolutely necessary. Billy, the film's lead, does not have a specific goal and whenever this is the case the film will not have a clear cut narrative. I'm all for films to expand from the monotony of formula and typical stories but for a film to open with two kids racing through a tunnel yelling at the top of their voice as the police chase them and then not really go on from there, is just disappointing.Along with the lack of a goal, Billy does not have anything at stake bar a re-arrest from policeman Conway (Pryce) but that's never going to happen because if it did, Billy would be locked up for another month or so and the film would end (or become a prison drama, something equally unlikely). The film takes place in an odd place; a dystopian England that could be mistaken for the then near future; a world in which people of a specific culture meet in packs showing off their latest 'steal' much like cavemen huddling around displaying their latest kill. But these people are more like Hell's Angels, only with automobiles instead of motorcycles. The grim buildings and bizarre white lighting during the night scenes complete an odd setting, feeling like something straight out of Blade Runner.More on the foils for Billy; initially, Conway stands between Billy and his 'goal'; his goal being to go out, commit crime, drive really fast and..........acquire a kettle. I find the antagonism with Conway quite sad because he is really just trying to help this young individual stick to the straight and narrow. Billy can only refuse the aid. Then the film realises it needs a plot to track through to the final third and changes its principal antagonism to a character named Tommy (Pertwee). Tommy is the closest thing you get in the film resembling a gangster, a sort of hard-nut caricature with a jacket and a shaved head. He answers to Venning (Bean), a man who he is indebted to and whose debt will become more complicated when Billy interferes.So the film all boils down to one massive heist at a retail shop named 'Alaska'. Before we get there, we get some blatant product placement as characters state all the benefits of owning a BMW; the fact that Budweiser is the 'king of beers' and Billy goes out of his way to emphasise Ellesse kettles. There are some daft scenes early on when a police chopper makes itself known alerting everyone to run away before the police arrive and other pursuing police cars seems to disappear when an ambush scene at some garages arrives. But you cannot fault the film for effort and a rather impressive opening scene sees Jo cast away the young woman clichés she should embody when she chucks cassette tapes of current pop music out the back of a stolen car – she will not be a part of that culture, as we will learn; she's 'in' with the car obsessed Hell's Angels-type crowd.While Shopping never falls below that level that makes it a genuinely bad film, it isn't anything spectacular. Whilst deeply flawed, it is interesting to see a low budget; low-key British film trying to shoot car chases and attempting to make some sort of crime saga. But the story is left wanting and the film revolves around absolutely nothing for most of the time. While this isn't a bad thing, it takes a skilled director to deliver that approach and while the intentions were there, director Anderson falls just short.

hmm, 'Proof that British Cinema needs to grow up'. i don't think so. Maybe as someone from Britain, you find it a dis-honest depiction for Britain.But, The fact is that its just a movies, fiction, like most movies, and thats all it is. With that said, it's very far from the worst movie i have ever seen. Shopping may be a little slow in some parts, but over-all, it's not a bad movie. I did enjoy it, as did all my house mates, and 99 percent of my friends.Whether the British underground exists or not, does not effect me, nor does it effect most movies viewers around the world. There for thats irrelevant. It's annoying when checking IMDb for info on a movie, and finding the main user comment to be only 10 percent description about the movie, and 90 percent complaining about irrelevant things, or talking about the actor's other movies rather than the one at hand. If your comment is more of a gripe/complaint. then please don't review the movie. Leave the review for someone who will remain focused on what they should be doing. Anyways, I have never been interested in watching most British movies, as i don't find them to have the same flair/feeling as U.S movies. BUT, shopping was one that did keep me watching, and fascinated at times, i enjoyed the sound track, and loved the ending. So people, please remember, peoples opinions are just that. Please do not use 1 or 2 peoples comments to judge if a movie is worth watching. l8r epic.

Having read all the other reviews on this site, I notice that most people either completely hate the film or completely love it. I take the middle ground. I greatly enjoyed the visual elements, both with regard to the good-looking leads and the stylish camera work. I enjoy a film where I can pick out performers from other films and this one offered a few. I recognized Jason Isaacs (Captain Hook in the recent "Peter Pan" film), for one. That being said I was disappointed that Sean Bean's part was so small. However, I was glad Marianne Faithful's role was only a small cameo. It is painful to me to see her looking so haggard. I also enjoyed the pulsating soundtrack and believe that, with an inferior effort, the film would be even less appealing.As others have pointed out, there's not much of a plot, but, beyond that, it was difficult to sympathize with the characters -- other than the police! The law officers in this film were not portrayed as sadistic or even unlikable. Frustrated, yes. The "protagonists" had no redeeming characteristics other than youth, good looks and energy. The film seems to present the viewpoint that the police deserved the treatment they received from the thugs. To me, the film produces a nihilistic, 'who gives a damn' about anything attitude. It made me think about anarchy: after "the system" is demolished, with what will it be replaced?I'm probably waxing too philosophical about a movie that never even aspired to such musings. The producers probably just wanted to give a youthful audience the smash 'em up, 'wham bam thank you ma'am' form of entertainment many seem to want. (Witness "The Fast and the Furious" and Vin Diesel's "XXX" among others.) I like a bit of action, too, but I prefer to care about someone or something along the line.Nevertheless, I maintain that I have seen worse films. I confess to an admiration of British films and actors that causes me to overlook aspects of a movie that I don't like in order to focus on what I consider to be redeeming features. For example, I found Sean Pertwee's character in this film interesting, even if the character is what we Americans like to call a "scumbag". The bottom line, to me, is that the positives -- including the soundtrack, visual elements, and interesting cast -- outweigh the negatives. I bought the film at what you British call a jumble sale for $2.00 (American money), so I'm not out a lot of loot in any case. I will keep the film alongside "Love, Honour and Obey", another second-hand bargain I found along the way. It too, has redeeming features.