Angel est libéré de prison et retrouve son ami Rich qui l'aide à faire de la contrebande d'armes dans un réseau de trafic d'armes. Mais la police de Detroit et le FBI ont déclaré la guerre à... Tout lireAngel est libéré de prison et retrouve son ami Rich qui l'aide à faire de la contrebande d'armes dans un réseau de trafic d'armes. Mais la police de Detroit et le FBI ont déclaré la guerre à la contrebande d'armes.Angel est libéré de prison et retrouve son ami Rich qui l'aide à faire de la contrebande d'armes dans un réseau de trafic d'armes. Mais la police de Detroit et le FBI ont déclaré la guerre à la contrebande d'armes.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
La La Anthony
- Mona
- (as LaLa Vazquez)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
Well I can't say it was really so bad. The images and sounds are entertaining enough and the story is simple enough, just one bullet is more than enough.
Interesting how the dealer here is so quick to turn against his own crew and stick a new guy (who he met once in the past and was saved by him) and promote him to be number one guy, without knowing anything about him.
I'd say the reality is that these guys got to hang out, and get to know each other pretty well.
Val Kilmer was just so sulky and suspicious looking that he wouldn't have made it further than the first meeting.
Interesting how the dealer here is so quick to turn against his own crew and stick a new guy (who he met once in the past and was saved by him) and promote him to be number one guy, without knowing anything about him.
I'd say the reality is that these guys got to hang out, and get to know each other pretty well.
Val Kilmer was just so sulky and suspicious looking that he wouldn't have made it further than the first meeting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesJackson routinely showed up not knowing any of his lines, nor knowing how to act. Other actors had to teach him blocking.
- Citations
Sam Boedecker: [on Rich] The ni**er is always the expendable part of the process
- ConnexionsReferenced in Bad Movie Beatdown: Set Up (2013)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Gun?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 10 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée
- 1h 22min(82 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant