El arte de matar

The casting was remarkable, luring viewers in with excessive temptation from the start. As the story unfolds, you'll discover that the narrative and plot are indeed worth investing your time in. However, as the movie progresses, it loses momentum and ultimately, the execution falls disappointingly short.

The film explores the concept of selling something you don't desire but end up purchasing because everyone else is doing so. In essence, it delves into the notion that if you have an abundance of wealth, you become a pawn in one way or another. Uma Thurman dominates the screen throughout, delivering a performance in line with her character. Regrettably, the movie's conclusion is so devoid of meaning that it extinguishes any remaining excitement.

Whether you choose to watch it or not, hardly any difference.

The movie is not great, the critics are right about that. But you cannot understate what the actors gave us with the little they had. Samuel l jackson is as always giving out a very believable performance as crook gone art fraud, uma thurman was less believable as she stuttered at every businesslike word that was supposed to paint her as a serious art gallery owner. It was kind of hard to watch how played eccentricity can backfire . The side cast was doing a stellar job as well. I felt completely immersed in this bizarre and backwards underground art world. It just never came together, there was no real plot, awkward dialogue and a dissappointing ending. So not as bad as people would want you to believe but not good either.

Was not too ardous and partially entertaining, relatively funny in parts. Not being a lover of fine art I felt the 1 hour 40ish aperture into the world of the high brow art industry to be reassuringly confirmational of my previous understanding of the type of people who inhabit that world. Pretentious and somewhat pathetically obsessed with one upmanship. So nothing new there. The Movie itself was slightly farcical which may have been the intent. But I found it hard to believe the ease at which certain characters took their introduction to the world of organised crime. Overall I didn't feel as if my time had been stolen. But its only ever going to be experienced once as there is absolutely nothing that merits a revisit. Mediocre without being Awful.

Patrice (Uma Thurman) owns a struggling art gallery in the superficial moneyed New York City high art scene. She's approached by neighbor store owner Gordon (Samuel L. Jackson) to launder his money. She reluctantly accepts, but she still needs real paintings for the sales. Gordon assigns the painting chore to his assassin Reggie (Joe Manganiello).

I love the skewering of the high art crowd. I like this premise. I like these actors. It's all working great until Reggie shows up at the gallery. I thought the whole point of Bagman is that he remains anonymous like Banksy. The writing needs some subtlety and more smarts. I get where the premise is trying to go with the story. It goes on the wrong track a bit.

Reading through these reviews I am once again fascinated how some people can drill down to the slightest detail and pick a movie apart. I, on the other hand, tend to watch something and rate it on my level of enjoyment.

This was OK. It didn't blow me out of the water, but it also wasn't as bad as some of these reviews either.

One thing that disappointed me a bit, was that Reggie's identity was revealed to the public so early, especially given his profession. I thought more could have been done with that. How did he think it was going to be kept a secret from his "bosses"?

Otherwise, it was a good send up of the world of the uber wealthy, all of whom seem to be arrogant and pretty thick. Not only in this movie by the way.