The Death and Life of Bobby Z

I don't know if the story was intended like that but for half a movie things are vaygly explained to the point one would think the movie is bad, even dough everything is explained I believe they could have done that differently. There are some scenes where Director, John Herzfeld, was careless and it shows for example the relationship between the main character and the boy progress very unrealistic and rushed. More love could have gone in the script.

What can we say about the actors, legends. Paul Walker is right at home with the character, Laurence Fishburne is a bit out of his usual role here, but he manages it just fine and Olivia Wilde my God that Olivia Wilde's beauty is simply unmatched back in those days, she fits the role greatly and is not just show and no go, she does great.

There are very little special effects here and are all practical effects so that's a plus, but the camera work is average at best, some poor angle choices and camera stills, there are a couple of "that will do's" here and there.

This is a pizza movie in any day of the week, I don't think it's a weekend movie.

Enjoy!!

Let me just start off by saying that i am quite an admirer of Paul Walker even thou he is not such a good actor i kinda like his style, this particular film had in my opinion a horrible script and a lot of pieces that didn't fit at all but it was really entertaining at least for my part. I gave it a 7, even thou i think i might have over rated it,the actress thou that played Elizabeth, i don't know her name yet but i will check it out after i post this comment, is a complete knock - out and i would see this film again just for another glimpse at her beauty-full face.

In an other of business i was quite surprised by the distribution of Lawrance Fishbourne in a secondary part like the one he had, i consider him a pretty good actor, a lot better than "macho man" Paul Walker.

In the end i'm just gonna say that i think they casted P. Walker just because he is a good "moaner" seeing him doing almost the same "battle sounds" in every film he had played in GrrrAAaarRRr (watch and listen closely). Cya

For a seemingly low budget film, Bobby Z wasn't too bad. Moves pretty quickly, but with a weak storyline and plot, it is clear why it was a straight to DVD feature. Paul Walker does a decent job with a character that an Actor won't be able to do much with, except go with the flow. No real surprises, or twists and turns, just straight to the point B rated action. Actually has some pretty good fighting sequences and shoot outs. Laurence Fishburne is surprisingly cast as a supporting with a weak performance, mainly due to the script and content and possibly direction as well. Bobby Z is definitely a good B movie, with a rating of 5 overall considering everything listed above. All in all, this film is definitely worth watching if you're just chillin' with 97 minutes to spare. And Paul Walker is not nearly as bad an Actor as everyone tries to make him out to be. Have fun.

The plot: Kearny, a loser convict,is pushed into impersonating Bobby Z, a larger-than-life drug dealer, in a hostage trade, only to find both his own and Bobby Z's enemies trying to kill him.

Herzfeld previously directed 2 Days in the Valley, a Tarantino ripoff if ever there was one. However, unlike most people, I actually kind of liked it. This movie is another attempt to clone Tarantino's style, heavy on flashbacks, stylized violence, and witty anti-heroes. Unfortunately, it's not all that great, but it did manage to keep my interest for the runtime.

Bobby Z is built up as a small-time celebrity in the local surfer scene, as well as a rising star in drug distribution. Kearney, on the other hand, is a three time loser with a price on his head. The movie compares and contrasts their personalities many times, with Bobby Z being revealed as a manipulative, egocentric jerk, while Kearney shows many admirable qualities despite his impulsive violence.

After a somewhat grim opening, the movie becomes quite lighthearted. In fact, I'm really at a loss as to why they even opened the movie with such a dark and disturbing bit of character development if they were just going to completely ignore it for the rest of the film. Oh well. Much of the movie is like this, however. Whenever anything shocking and dramatic happens, it's instantly forgotten by the next scene, where everyone pretends that it never happened. Even being shot seems to be glossed over rather quickly with some cursory first aid. It reminded me of a video game, where picking up a first aid kit heals your character of all wounds.

The acting was passable. It was certainly better than many direct-to-video movies, but nobody really stood out. I guess the script didn't really allow anyone to shine, though I was probably most disappointed that Laurence Fishburne was given such a bland role. Still, it's always fun to see him, even if it's in such a small and clichéd role.

If you're looking for an action movie, this will probably satisfy you, but I'd be surprised if you remembered it later or recommended it to your friends.

There is nothing much to be too excited of at this movie, but still entertaining. I wonder why it made its way to the silver screen because it's not better than dozens of Straight to Video productions. Storywise, you will get nothing more than you'd also get if you rent a Jean-Claude Van Damme Film. Same goes for "character development". There are some nice shootouts and fights, but nothing remarkable. It sometimes feels as if you were watching a film from the seventies: there is nothing really stylish or spectacular in the action scenes. Although it feels good to see movie that doesn't use the much common and enough-seen style of today's action flicks, the way this film shows the action seems out-dated. Also the film's pace should be higher, again it feels 70s-ish. As usual these days, there are some nice twists and turns in the story. Paul Walker does a decent job, but not as convincing as in "Running Scared". Laurence Fishburne he fails to put any life in his bad guy role. I am not impressed of Olivia Wilde in the leading female role. At least she tries hard to be more than decorative. 5/10