Arma micidiale

50 Cent's movies tend to have very low ratings, but I tend to enjoy a lot of them still (for instance 'GET RICH OR DIE Trying' is IMO really good and 'SETUP (2011)' plus 'STREETS OF BLOOD (2009)' provides fairly good entertainment despite their flaws).

So even though this had a 3.8/10 I thought it could still be decent.

But no, this one actually deserves it.

Poor writing (by 50 Cent himself) and unfocused story with too many scenes of the police (which wouldn't be a problem if 50 knew how to write for cops, which he clearly doesn't and gives them extremely redundant dialog to work with) and the acting is not very good.

AnnaLynne McCord I usually like but her role is fairly pointless (basically in it just to be a girl for 50 to seduce), but then I suppose most characters in it are, none of the characters feel real and it just doesn't really quite work on any level.

Danny Trejo is in it for just one scene, but that's something I've come to get used to when his name is attached to something.

James Remar has a fairly big role, and he doesn't pull a bad performance but he's just not given much to work with.

And Val Kilmer... I don't feel like kicking someone who's already lying down.

Not much more to say about it really. I mean the end does show that their were some decent intentions with the script but it just got lost in the way of trying to make 50 look as gangsta as possible.

Even 'BEFORE I SELF DESTRUCT (2009)' was better than this.

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.

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.

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.

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.