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
Though I have no clue how the gun trade works on the streets, and I have no real insight in the world of this kind of crime, the movie proved somewhat interesting.
The movie did, however, move forward in a somewhat slow pace. There wasn't a lot of drive to the movie, but it was bearable. And the moments that there was action, it was direct and to the point.
As for the cast, well I am not a fan of musicians turning to acting, and I believe this is actually the first movie I have seen with that '50 cents' guy in it, and I wasn't impressed with his acting. However, Val Kilmer put on a really good performance in this movie. He was very well casted for his role, and he carried this movie, though he had some help by James Remar who played the lead detective.
The ending part of the movie with Val Kilmer was actually quite good, not predictable and it was sort of a good way to close off the movie.
The movie had a lot of really nice camera angles, and I liked the way that it showed off a lot of really good city shots, where you got to see the alleys, worn down houses and such everyday stuff from the street-life.
However, now that I have watched the movie, I sit here with a somewhat empty feeling and the thought "was that really it?". There was something missing from the movie to make it grand and unique. It came off as an ordinary run of the mill semi-action movie, which was sort of a shame, because I think it could have been much more. I guess that I wasn't perhaps in the target audience for this particular type of movie. Perhaps you need to be from a certain aspect of society and life? Who knows...
The movie did, however, move forward in a somewhat slow pace. There wasn't a lot of drive to the movie, but it was bearable. And the moments that there was action, it was direct and to the point.
As for the cast, well I am not a fan of musicians turning to acting, and I believe this is actually the first movie I have seen with that '50 cents' guy in it, and I wasn't impressed with his acting. However, Val Kilmer put on a really good performance in this movie. He was very well casted for his role, and he carried this movie, though he had some help by James Remar who played the lead detective.
The ending part of the movie with Val Kilmer was actually quite good, not predictable and it was sort of a good way to close off the movie.
The movie had a lot of really nice camera angles, and I liked the way that it showed off a lot of really good city shots, where you got to see the alleys, worn down houses and such everyday stuff from the street-life.
However, now that I have watched the movie, I sit here with a somewhat empty feeling and the thought "was that really it?". There was something missing from the movie to make it grand and unique. It came off as an ordinary run of the mill semi-action movie, which was sort of a shame, because I think it could have been much more. I guess that I wasn't perhaps in the target audience for this particular type of movie. Perhaps you need to be from a certain aspect of society and life? Who knows...
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.
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.
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.
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 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)
- Durée1 heure 22 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant