Rues de sang

This movie left me bewildered and frustrated as all hell! The story had all the makings of a great corrupt cop picture. In the hands of a worthwhile director it might have even been worthy of a theatrical release. The talent was all there. The location and story were there as well. The director of photography should be charged with a crime for making the picture look like an eight year old with ADHD and a handycam shot it! This absolutely ruined everything from the start, and was distracting and throughout. Surprisingly, about half-way in, everything starts to click, the imagery is less annoying, and the story comes together. The director is horribly inept, but somehow they completed the picture. I feel bad for everyone involved watching the finished product. They also must have seen a vision in a worthwhile script, which was ultimately devastated by the hacks at Millennium Films, and the talentless director. So frustrating.

I saw this movie because I was interested in the plot and the cast. The "dirty cops" premise is lately becoming an exploitation, to mind come "Training day", "Dark blue", "Narc", and "Dirty". Unfortunately all these are far superior than this mess. The cinematography is nothing special, sometimes OK, sometimes awful. The story is quasi-complicated and fails to bring any tension whatsoever. The acting is not bad, but nothing special either. Val Kilmer, Sharon Stone and Barry Shabaka Hennley have little to work with. Biehn is pretty enjoyable. To me the biggest surprise was 50 cent - he wouldn't win any award for his acting here, but let's be honest, if I didn't knew he wasn't an actor but a gangsta-rapper I would have never guessed it. His character is supposed to be torn apart between right and wrong, but we don't really feel for him or never do we really see his inner struggle. This is however due to bad writing and is not Jackson's fault. He is not worse than any of the other actors in the movie, this could be due to the thin story, but still he does OK, no complaints here. Of course to all who know something about 50 cent, fans or haters, it is hilarious to hysterical to watch him run around dressed as a patrol cop. The dialogue is average. Now the action on the other hand, if not on par with films as "Heat", "Ronin", or even Michael Bay's flicks is actually quite well executed. The viewer is never confused who is shooting at whom and why, no guns firing 100000000 bullets without reloading either. The ending doesn't make much sense. The editing is good, no MTV-style quick cuts. Overall it is just a movie to kill some time with, but don't expect anything above average. If You are interested in the cast feel free to watch it.

Gee, I'm gonna have to play the devil's advocate with this film, shamelessly called as being the worst movie ever or things close to such remark. If "Streets of Blood" is the worst thing people are seeing lately then it's better they stay away from movies. It's just another direct-to-video flick that is filled with poor moments and some average acting but it overcomes some of those obstacles and becomes something watchable, easy to digest. Good and that's it.

The plot goes to show that corruption is everywhere, no one is safe but some corrupt cops are better than the others. It follows Val Kilmer and Curtis Jackson (50 Cent) as two cops investigating the deaths of several criminals in the New Orleans post-Katrina, a place now devastated, trying to recover from its problems. They're not 100% honest but they're better than their strange partners (played by Brian Presley and Jose Pablo Cantillo), also cops, but with no discipline whatsoever, committing crimes on several occasions, and in one of those they've killed an undercover agent. Parallel to the deaths and the cops routine, there's the Internal Affairs investigation made by Sharon Stone's character trying to figure out if there's dirty cops in the police force when she's positive that there is.

Action scenes are okay, nothing so outstanding. The drama was very problematic with flashbacks that were badly presented, hard to put in order and they diluted the possible chance of suspense. However, the biggest problem is that it tries too hard to impress with its scenes (like the shooting in the drug dealer's house with a horny couple that couldn't stop with the sex while bullets were flying next to them; or when the cops are trying to get information from the hookers.) without making any relevant statement about New Orleans problems after the Hurricane Katrina. To the writers it's far more interesting to say that the crime got worse after the natural disaster but let's show this on a action generic picture than to make dramatic and real statements. But it's so much better than "Hard Luck" whose premise is very similar (in dealing with the tragedy in New Orleans) but that was a pretty bad movie with no chance of redemption. And Hollywood still hasn't made one decent movie about this issue, it's about time.

When it comes the acting department, well, Kilmer and Stone are not on their best form; Jackson goes okay so does Presley playing the redneck cop who always accidentally fires at somebody; Barry Shabaka Henley saved the day playing the only good cop in town; Michael Biehn already tired me out countless times while playing villains.

Really, this is not that bad as viewers tend to say. It offers some good entertainment, a distraction and some good scenes like the repeated exchange between Jackson and a lawyer one cursing each other. I've seen worst things than this film and I trust that some of you as well. 6/10

Instead of watching this film I could go out and do something better like jogging,playing football... but instead of doing that I wasted almost two hours on this film.First of all I liked the music and nothing else.They tried to copy Training Day and Street Kings but they didn't succeed in that.Story is really confusing,there is no real hero in the film,everything is spoiled with corruption-I don't like that.And actors...50 Cent looked like a frightened girl,he has a poor performance in this film and what to say about Sharon Stone,I couldn't recognize her at first.She has lost all her sexuality and I don't know what happened with her acting maybe she forgot how to act.I love Val Kilmer but here-average performance.And in the end,I tried to find out on Box Office Mojo how much money they earned with this film and I found nothing,the film is not even listed there.That speaks for itself!

I am really disappointed in this film. Seeing the premise in it's description it sounded like it had a lot of potential. Val Kilmer is generally a good actor and he is not horrible in this however the plot is so confusing that it really doesn't do him justice as an actor. Sharon Stone's accent is so bad, it upstages her performance which really could have been anyone. That part didn't even warrant star billing. I don't have a problem with 50 cent. I think for who he is, playing this part was a stretch and it shows that maybe he is developing some range as an actor.

Overall the plot is just too confusing and the story seems to roam around finding itself. I still do not understand the end in that it didn't seem to be set up well in the earlier stages of the film. As I said, lot's of potential.. obviously a poorly written script.