Gun

I only gave this one a shot because of Val Kilmer, I can't pinpoint the reason why I like him, but I do. He's making it very hard to like him these days with crap like this floating around. GUN is a predictable, poorly acted and poorly shot film that throws no punches and plays it completely by the book. Curtis '50 Cent' Jackson wrote it, which tells me one thing and one thing only. He loves guns.

The film could have and should have given us some insight on the gun running trade, but no, instead it is more focused on a lame story that involves Jackson running guns for some hot bimbo, who works for someone else, while he gets in her pants. Val Kilmer enters the story when he is released from prison and is looking for some work. He goes and meets Jackson because they met once before a long time ago and Kilmer helped him escape a sticky situation.

They act as if they are best friends after they run into each other. I can't tell is Jackson is acting or not, he seems to be playing himself. Kilmer looks rather bored with the work and doesn't try in the least. We finally get to see him act at the very end, but it's way too late in the game for that. Jackson decides to make Kilmer is second in command at one point. Which to me seems odd, why make a guy you've just met your second in command and totally ignore two guys you've known from childhood? It doesn't help that Jackson knows there is a rat in his crew...his crew of like 4 guys, one of which is a new addition. A new white guy addition. Hmm, lets put two and two together here folks.

Kilmer is in fact working for the cops, this shouldn't come as a surprise because it's in the trailer. The film tries to surprise us with this fact, but even if we never saw the trailer, anyone who has seen a movie before can tell. There is nothing exciting, fresh or interesting about this film. Even the sex scene is boring. I think Kilmer did this film as a favour to Jackson, when they became friends on the set of another crappy film they did. Not that Kilmer is making the best of movie choices right now, but this is really pushing it.

Though I have no clue how the gun trade works on the streets, and I have no real insight in the world of this kind of crime, the movie proved somewhat interesting.

The movie did, however, move forward in a somewhat slow pace. There wasn't a lot of drive to the movie, but it was bearable. And the moments that there was action, it was direct and to the point.

As for the cast, well I am not a fan of musicians turning to acting, and I believe this is actually the first movie I have seen with that '50 cents' guy in it, and I wasn't impressed with his acting. However, Val Kilmer put on a really good performance in this movie. He was very well casted for his role, and he carried this movie, though he had some help by James Remar who played the lead detective.

The ending part of the movie with Val Kilmer was actually quite good, not predictable and it was sort of a good way to close off the movie.

The movie had a lot of really nice camera angles, and I liked the way that it showed off a lot of really good city shots, where you got to see the alleys, worn down houses and such everyday stuff from the street-life.

However, now that I have watched the movie, I sit here with a somewhat empty feeling and the thought "was that really it?". There was something missing from the movie to make it grand and unique. It came off as an ordinary run of the mill semi-action movie, which was sort of a shame, because I think it could have been much more. I guess that I wasn't perhaps in the target audience for this particular type of movie. Perhaps you need to be from a certain aspect of society and life? Who knows...

All I can say about this film is I really hoped it was better.

But unfortunately, I felt as if I was watching a long sequence of cheap tied together 80's and 90's crime drama/action films.

The dialogue was so run of the mill it was comedic.

Even the deals took place in abandoned warehouses where every crime lord must do business in Hollywood.

And there's even the villain reveling in his proverbs and monologues that are supposed to be far-reaching tests and messages to his minions.

This film was so formulaic it makes you wonder what the hell happened when they test screened it.

Do they just aim for low socio-economic teenagers who revel in slickly produced violence and crime?

Chock full of African American gangster caricatures and dialogue?

I remember when I was a teenager I loved ninja films, regardless of the quality.

So perhaps the target audience is similar - young men who care less about the finer points of film-making and are only impressed by the most violent, uncompromising, bloodthirsty and cold-hearted characters who display a ruthlessness in making money and a blithe attitude towards life and death.

The question is: Is this art? I say if the intention is to create art then yes it is; whether it's worthy of Kudos is another matter.

Lastly, one gets the feeling Curtis Jackson is attempting to make a living from telling his life story in different ways.

Is his life imitating art or is art imitating his life? I suspect the latter.

well i guess i did it again, wasted another hour and so of my life, i probably would have gotten more out of it by just "beeing", no seriously i'm not going to glorify how awful i thought this movie was, and to be honest i really hoped it would be somewhat watchable but no,, i really hope 50 will stick to music and let people with movies as a profession do what they know best, or at least with all that money get a proper storyline, the acting wasn't bad, and ever washed-up Val did a good job..

but then again if it wasn't for poorly made movies like this one wouldn't appreciate good movies so,, thank you?!?!

The remaining divisiveness in this country. The reviews say it all. There is condescension from some critics about who they think this movie is for. They may have been offended by some of the scenes. Kudos to the actors as they try to erase that divisiveness.