Gun

Wow, what is up with Val Kilmer? His performance is as dead as they come. I mean, he's supposed to be the best actor in this movie, right? ..and he is by far the worst.

Val Kilmer is totally lifeless, it's like an alien is using his body as a suit. An alien with no acting skills.

Val Kilmer acts like this is the first time he acts. Like he's to shy to open his mouth.

Val Kilmers performance is so flat that the corpses in this movie has more charisma.

Val Kilmers face is so wide, that I had to connect two screens side- by-side to see his whole face in one shot.

Val Kilmer's face is so wide, it's like he Stewies father.

OK, enough of that. But he totally sucks here.

50 Cent on the other hand, is pretty good in this,. I mean he actually acts, you know. He's pretty believable too.

This is a short, straight forward movie. Some acting here and there, shooting, some violence, it's alright.

The movie is called Gun, and it does have a lot to do with guns. Looks like they have real guns here. Not a lot of cg muzzle flashes. Also, they use squibs it seems. That's nice. In a movie about guns, titled gun, the gun-stuff should be good, and it is.

With that said, this is not a movie you'll remember forever, perhaps except Val Kilmers wide, uninterested face. It does not stand out in any way, but it's not horrible.

I can not believe that these films are still made. Probably when there is a special kind of audience, but unfortunately, these will continue to exist. I do not know where the idea of famous people who have at least a little good in some aspect of art that will be good in the other, but it's probably a trend that if you have no movie, album, perfume, clothes that simply did not succeed in show business. Acting does not exist, the meaning does not exist, the action does not exist. From this it can only follow that the film does not exist, but unfortunately this is not the case. This movie is so bad that I believe that the only review of this film was written by someone who has worked on this film and this is a true picture of how bad this movie. If you want to beautify the day or at least not to spoil the day I advise you not to watch this movie.

Val Kilmer and 50 Cent have been cranking out a lot of direct to video gems these days. They did "Streets of Blood", which I actually really enjoyed, and then did "Blood Out", which got worse. "Gun" seems to be the nail on the coffin in a strange relationship.

Val Kilmer plays Angel (what kind of name is that for Val Kilmer?!), a man released from prison after taking the rap for his gun-running friend played by 50 Cent. Angel immediately goes back to his old ways, and helps 50's rising ring come to glory in battle-scarred Detroit, despite the efforts of a relentless detective (James Remar).

An interesting plot that covers many bases, ie the gun-control problem in the U.S. (particularly Detroit) as well as the violence guns ultimately cause from their simple existence. I took "Gun" to be a film lightly promoting Gun Control, which is an admirable message from the film's screenwriter 50 Cent.

The script is well-written, which is a definite plus. Several of the scenes are very compelling and concerning, especially those with James Remar and John Larroquette. But several other scenes seem thrown in, without any sort of analysis or reason for them being there. One such scene is where 50 tells Val of how guns killed both his parents as a child. The irony is something that I suppose is obvious, but it's not covered well in the film. The scene seems shaky, and doesn't represent all that it could, or is really supposed to.

The acting really lacks. Val Kilmer has put on weight, his eyes are lifeless, and his performance here seems forced. He seems to read his lines from a poster behind the camera. But 50 Cent is just awful here. Whatever acting talent briefly blossomed in Streets of Blood had gone under for this performance. I hope he gets better, because 50 has a lot of potential. Though James Remar really makes up for both of them, he's very good and turns in a great role. John Larroquette has a fantastic couple of scenes at the end, and by the end of the film he's the light at the end of the tunnel. Danny Trejo has a small cameo as well.

"Gun" is a film with a lot of potential but few gears that get the machine moving. If you're willing to look past glaring errors and some wooden acting, you might enjoy it as much as I did.

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.

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...