Gun

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.

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.

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.

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?!?!