User Reviews (139)

  • mistoppi27 April 2017
    5/10
    Like Res Dogs but worse
    Free Fire starts off well. Music is amazing and it gets you excited about the movie, and the dialogue works amazingly well. It's the perfect kind of dialogue. If you're an aspiring screenwriter it might make you think oh right, that's how you're supposed to do it.

    The beginning may feel a bit stretched out, but when s##t hit the fan, I almost started to miss that slow, dialogue-heavy beginning of the movie. Mostly because after that, most of the movie seemed more like just shooting without any kind of actual point to it. It desperately needs something more story driven there.

    The entirety reminds me of Reservoir Dogs, but like a weird, simpler version missing the charm Tarantino put in his work - apart from the dialogue of course. The set-up is good, but the story isn't close to as great as it could be. There's so much potential that seems to be wasted since it comes to the weird part where the film is mostly shooting and throwing in bits of great dialogue every here and there. It's hard to keep track of, especially when most of the characters look the same and the names are thrown in there so casually you barely remember three of them. Also the structure makes the movie feel way longer than it is.

    Free Fire has potential, but it needs some better way to wrap things up, and better way to keep the audience invested in the characters. This way it's just watching and wondering who's going down next and what the hell is even happening.
  • tenshinhan_san3 June 2017
    2/10
    Free Crawling
    That is what they should have called this film.

    Some action and a lot of crawling, like watching paint dry.

    I wanted to like it but it was just too ridiculous and tedious.

    No likable characters really, I wasted my time watching this and I urge you not to do the same.

    Shame really, with such a great cast and a good performance it still wasn't enough to save it.
  • bob-the-movie-man6 April 2017
    8/10
    A movie with more than a whiff of cordite about it.
    As I write this, I'm really struggling to evaluate whether the latest film of Ben Wheatley ("High Rise") is a masterpiece or just pulp trash. It's certainly a brave and highly distinctive venture, with that you can't argue.

    Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, "Room") an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, "The World's End") with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, "Inception", "Batman Begins") are on the buying side. As 'roadies' they've brought with them a couple of crack- head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, "Brighton Rock", "Maleficent") and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, "The Martian") who are far from stable.

    On the selling side is South African dealer and "international a-hole" Vern (Sharlto Copley, "Elysium"), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Arnie Hammer, "The Man From Uncle") and Vern's right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, "Eye in the Sky"). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.

    Unfortunately, one of Vern's van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, "Sing Street") who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman's Ron Burgundy, "That escalated quickly"!

    And, for a 90 minute film, that's basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer "there must be more to the film than this".... you're wrong!

    However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Armie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the 'lost at sea' brother in the delightful "Sing Street" and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission... this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo - - and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.

    A cracking 70' soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70's classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it's hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that - for my old ears at least - it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.

    As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger's "Running Man" put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a "Tom and Jerry" cartoon, or "Home Alone", everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the "over the top" variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson's scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.

    But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it's one- dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it's a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.

    Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I doubt you will be bored.

    (For the graphical version of this review, please visit bob-the-movie- man.com. Thanks).
  • cameronspencer9424 May 2017
    3/10
    An unbelievably boring display of gun violence and not much else
    When I first saw the trailer for this film a few months ago, I was very intrigued considering I am a fan of Brie Larson and the trailer actually made it look like a fun time. Not to mention I am a huge fan of A24 films.

    However, after finally seeing it, I can say that this movie is a snooze. If you enjoy watching a group of terrible people shooting at each other for an hour and a half without any depth or conclusion, then this is the movie for you.

    I wanted to like this film, but it honestly would have worked so much better as a short film. Watching people curse and shoot at each other for 90 minutes gets very boring and tedious after a while. Save your money on this one. I would only recommend this if you are a die-hard fan of shootout movies or if you're able to see it for free on the Internet.

    Otherwise, avoid at all costs!
  • Stootomlin16 March 2017
    8/10
    A wonderful example of a guilty pleasure movie
    I watched this at a Cineworld Unlimited showing. Before it played, there was a little intro from Ben Wheatley the director. He described the movie as a fun action film, with lots of violence and lots of swearing, and that it was mercifully short. I'm not sure I can characterise it much better than that. So I'm not going to try.

    When I saw the trailers for this film, I turned to my wife and said "I really hope this whole film is contained in the one room, if they do that, then it will have to stand and fall on the script, the characters and the acting, rather than just rely on some special effects and the action". I am pleased to report, I got my wish.

    The setup is simple. We're in 1978, a group of Irish men (presumably IRA) are trying to buy guns in American, Boston to be precise, so they ship them back to Ireland, and use them to shoot the British. The 'brains' of the outfit are Chris and Frank played by Cillian Murphy and Michael Smiley respectively. The (and I'm using this next word in the loosest possible way) 'muscle' (but in all fairness, they certainly don't seem to have any brains) are Stevo and Bernie.

    On the other side, we have the sellers, headed up by Vern, played by Sharlto Copley, and Ord played by Armie Hammer.

    Both parties seem to have been brought together by the only woman in the film, Justine played by Brie Larson.

    So, we have a briefcase full of cash, and a van full of guns, all we have to do is swap one for the other. What could go wrong?

    Let's just say that there is a disagreement over someone's actions, and things quickly spiral out of control.

    I'm not going to get into details, because to be honest, there aren't very many, and if you've read any of my other reviews I don't like to spoil. We can just say that bullets start flying, left, right and centre, and we have a film.

    The films hangs on the humour of the situation. The one liners, the insanely inappropriate comments, the wonderful character interactions.

    The exchanges between Frank and Ord are wonderful.

    Vern is hilarious, and his reactions to Chris chatting up Justine are a great running joke. It really will make you giggle, often at things you'd wish didn't make you laugh. Watching people get shot shouldn't be funny, but in this context, it just is.

    This is the ultimate Mexican standoff. Luckily none of the characters have a particularly good aim, so the ridiculousness lasts exactly 90 minutes, and that feels just about right. There is only so much chaos, bursts of gunfire interlinked with witty banter that an audience can take.

    This isn't a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a wonderful example of a guilty pleasure movie. Lots of action, lots of jokes, and a little more intrigue then you originally expect. Oh, didn't I say it doesn't play out quite as simply as you'd assume? No? Well it doesn't, it actually keeps you on your toes, that is when you're not rolling around on the floor.

    Remember to listen carefully, because some of the best jokes come in the middle of gunshots, or are said in a ridiculously over the top South African accent.

    Well worth 90 minutes of anyone's time.
  • GODZILLA_Alpha_Predator9 September 2016
    8/10
    One hell of a bang at TIFF
    Boston, 1973. Members of the IRA and an arms dealer come to an abandoned warehouse to make a deal to buy some machine guns. Everything is supposed to go smoothly until one member from the one group draws out a gun and shoots the other because of a previous incident. And all hell breaks.

    Ben Wheatley's previous film, High Rise, I was not a fan of. High Rise felt too disturbing with heavy-handed messaging while lacking a coherent plot. Free Fire is by far a major improvement with hilarious dialogue, fun and well-written characters and non-stop action. I saw the movie at TIFF today and was pleasantly surprised. Wheatley turns this empty warehouse into a war zone with each of these character taking cover behind various objects and firing blindly. Unlike a lot of generic action movies where characters seem to magically dodge bullets, no one is safe and everyone eventually gets scraped or hit by bullets. This leads to some fun sequences of characters crawling on the ground to get from one cover to the next.

    Surprisingly the two standouts are Cillian Murphy and Armie Hammer. Both were surprisingly funny in subtle ways. Sharlto Copley once again plays another weird but yet still hilarious and fun character. I also give strong shout-outs to Sam Riley and Jack Reynor. And Brie Larson is bad-ass as she holds her own weight against her male co- stars.

    If I can say one negative it's that this isn't a movie with a lot of depth. It's not flat but don't expect this to be too much of a complex film. It is just simply about the these 2 trigger-happy groups trying either to kill or survive. It is more of a black comedy/thriller.

    Free Fire is definitely one of the most fun and exciting action movies you will see so it is definitely worth a shot to watch once it releases in theatres.
  • muneeb65822 April 2017
    6/10
    Slightly above average, but boring, boring, boring
    I have never written a review on IMDb, but I decided to because I was so annoyed while watching this movie last night after reading the featured glowing user review.

    I don't need a fantastic action movie to make me happy. I just need a good movie. Drama, thriller, comedy, action, you name it: so long as it's good.

    This movie is only slightly above average. It failed to make me care about any of the characters, and I'd probably need two hands to count the number of times I sat in the theater thinking to myself "pick up the pace!", "Hurry up!", "oh, they missed AGAIN?", and "WHEN is something going to HAPPEN?"

    I honestly went in quite excited for a quirky, norm-defying flick based around the interactions of several characters. You have a star- studded cast: Cilian Murphy, Brie Larson, Sharlto Copley; it will be DECENT at least, right?

    No. The characters have no depth. The actors play their characters well, but it doesn't feel like these are people that could actually exist. It just feels like you're looking at a drawing an artist put together of imaginary characters, who only exist on that paper. Most of the time the characters simply yell at each other from different positions in the room and then fire shots that fail to hit anything from their seemingly endless reserves of ammo. If they're gun dealers/criminals, why can't they shoot? Why do they fire with wild abandon instead of aiming?

    Even the setup for the situation is illogical, which is another thing that irritated me. No one can accomplish anything unless it serves the plot. Everyone can fire bullets everywhere BUT their target, until it serves the plot. It's exasperating.

    If you're a fan of movies which are paced far too slow, leave obvious logical holes in order to advance the plot, have exasperatingly stupid and drawn-out gunfights, and leave you feeling unfulfilled, irritated, and wondering why you wasted 90 minutes of your time when you could have been watching something better, this is the movie for you. If not, then avoid it.
  • OneEightNine Media25 May 2017
    3/10
    Direct-To-Video at best.
    Overall this is a very weak film thanks to the directing and lack of a storyline or even a script. I would not be surprised if you told me this film took two days to film and a week to edit, it is just that poorly done. Don't be fooled by the gun action in the trailer, the actors are literally crawling around on their hands and knees for the whole second half of the film. I wanted to like this movie, I really did. Most of the actors in this film are usually great. And the guy who directed this did Kill List, which is freaking brilliant so yeah.. I'm not sure how this film turned into a joke but sh!t happens I guess. Final score, skip it.
  • tango-034526 April 2017
    Shoot me now, it would be more enjoyable
    Warning: Spoilers
    Firstly, let me make it clear that the only reason we saw this film was that it filled some time we had to kill and finished at a convenient time for us to catch a cross channel ferry. If I were stranded on a desert island, with the only way out being to write a positive and glowing review of this film, I guess I would have to develop a liking for coconuts, sand and raw crabs. This has to be one of the most tedious films ever made - right up there with Aguirre, Wrath of God - and can best be described as 90 minutes of my life I will never get back. The plot? That question is more complex than the plot itself, which is basically, bunch of misfits, criminal deal, one insult and then 80 minutes of people shooting recklessly and all ending up in a bad way. The whole thing could have been over and done with in 5 minutes and saved an awful lot of celluloid. The fact that two of us were alone in a three hundred seat theatre for this debacle says quite enough. Funny? FUNNY? Are you kidding? If you think that was amusing or entertaining, good luck over summer, you'll have an absolute scream watching the grass grow.
  • Harrison Tweed (Top Dawg)23 May 2017
    1/10
    The dumbest attempt of a film of all time!
    Warning: Spoilers
    There is no spoiler alert here. There is nothing that can be spoiled more than the time I wasted to watch this lame excuse of a film! Truly one of the worst I have ever seen!

    We've all heard of a Mexican stand-off... this 90 minute waste was about an Idiot stand-off!

    This is rated Action-Comedy-Crime. No action, unless dragging your bullet riddled body from A to B to C back to A counts. Comedy? I didn't even smile let alone laugh unless having bad aim when you shoot is funny! Crime? The only crime was the making of this film and the fake positive reviews!

    At best, it's a wanna-be poor attempt at Reservoir Dogs. There's more plot holes than the bullets shot! For starters, everyone gets searched for guns, yet everyone has one. Then the endless amount of ammo that randomly appear for reloading is ridiculous. How many times does one get shot but keeps going? But the guy with his brains blown out is still alive?!? Then who's alliance is with who's, and why does it keep on changing? And of course the police show up right at the end after hundreds of rounds over the maybe 1-2 hour shoot-out smh.

    Stupid stupid stupid and a total waste of time! If you have someone you hate and want to get even with them, tell them to watch this but be patient and wait until the very end for the 'big finale' (of which clearly there isn't), and you just got even with them.

    I can't believe Brie Larson agreed to do this garbage nor that Scorsese attached his name to this.

    If I could give this a 0/10, I would!
  • sir-montag22 April 2017
    1/10
    The worst film I've seen in my entire life
    I've seen some stinkers - The Room, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Ryan Reynolds's Green Lantern - and they all pale before this movie.

    Rarely has such a capable, talented cast been wasted on a script this bad, with a director this bad. I'm not sure what they were paid, but I hope it was Jaws III level money, otherwise it's an utter embarrassment to otherwise good careers.

    Where to begin... An arms deal gone bad. That's a fantastic opening to work from, which many other films have taken and done well with - Lord of War, etc, etc.

    But this? This is just... Milquetoast pablum. People yell and shoot at each other for over an hour and nothing changes, nothing advances, no truths are uncovered. Other than the amazing potential for actors to sustain flesh wounds, and guns to have Hollywood-level magazine counts.

    There is little more to this than actors yelling and shooting. I wish there was, I do. And so will you, if you have the misfortune to see this steaming pile. But it's not bad enough to be funny, or campy enough for drunken laughs with friends. It's just... Bad.

    Don't see this film. Do anything else. Do your taxes. Sort your socks. Mop your floors, clean out your dryer lint trap. All of these things will provide you with more entertainment than this film could ever hope to.
  • Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki24 April 2017
    4/10
    I was the only one in the cinema at the Thursday night preview screening.
    In 1970s Boston, an illegal arms deal goes from bad to worse, leaving a group of low lifes with guns drawn, for an hour long shootout in an abandoned warehouse.

    The problem with this seemingly never ending shootout, complete with guns which hold about 96 bullets, and characters who are shot multiple times, only to show no ill affects, is that it never looks real.

    The problem with an entire film peopled with one dimensional characters is that we don't care if they survive or not.

    The problem with the comic relief is that it isn't funny. Only about a half dozen lines made me laugh, and Armie Hammer is the only one to put in a memorable performance, with the remainder of the cast just simply * there *, occupying space.

    According to Boxofficemojo, this $10.000.000 budgeted film only took in a horrifying $994,430 from 1070 cinemas in its opening weekend, placing it at number 17 for its first week. So, apparently, I wasn't the only person to see it in an empty cinema.
  • kaefab5 May 2017
    2/10
    Scroll to the end to get the real reviews not the fake ones
    Got to see this in pre release and i found myself bored to death after 10 minutes, i must have left the theater after 40 minutes out of boredom, takes place in the 70 a deal gone bad from what i understood after that its all boring scene after boring scene i give it a strong 2

    Its kind of sad that lots of people post fake reviews on movies raving how amazing they are when there is not much to talk about anyways.
  • Kapten Video7 May 2017
    4/10
    Charmless witless effort to capture some of that early Tarantino greatness
    A meeting in a deserted warehouse between two gangs turns into a shootout and a game of survival. Starring... quite a cool bunch of young-ish actors like Brie Larson, Cillian Murphy, Amie Hammer, Noah Taylor, Sam Riley. Too bad the movie can't match their potential. It only reminds us how boring indie crime comedies can be. „Free Fire" is a charmless witless effort to capture some of that pre-Madonna Guy Ritchie or early Tarantino greatness – only without the humor, sense of style, energy or anything to justify its existence, really. Co-screenwriter/director Ben Wheatley has managed to create little if any of the fun or adrenalin he surely surely must've been imagining while planning all this. There's literally almost nothing to feel excited about, no humor, snappy lines, stylish action scenes, nothing… AND this surely must be one of the dullest gunplay movies in modern cinema history. Only the sound-effects of bullets hitting stuff are noteworthy. Even the plot is almost non-existent consisting mostly of some guys and this one woman yelling, cursing and shooting at each other, mostly lying or crawling on the floor and half-unable to move. There's little dialogue or spoken lines and everybody looks like having stepped out of vintage denim commercial or something, covered in sweat, dirt, and dust. Maybe because the events take place in 1978 Detroit. „Free Fire" must have been semi-interesting exercise for the cast and crew – how to make most events happen in one big room and without anybody moving much. But the result feels more like a bunch of deleted scenes than a proper movie. It doesn't get better in the end. Watch the trailer and you have had an experience much better than the movie itself.
  • v-ley1 August 2017
    5/10
    A lot of nothing
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is one of the single most boring ones I've seen in years. The cast was great but the movie was just awful. You really can't tell who is who or why. So many things go wrong that just don't add up, nor are there any answers given. A total waste of time. If I wanted to watch people getting shot and crawling for all their worth, the entire movie, I'd have rented "Reservoir Dogs", at least that was a great movie. Don't waste your time on this movie because of the cast, it is not worth it.
  • ashleybmeyer28 April 2017
    5/10
    flat-lining, sparse action flop with no scene changes
    Nine people with terrible aim shoot at concrete without expressing emotion for 90 minutes. You might call this an arthaus gore shootout but with too much john Denver. Mind-numbingly boring cinematography and editing, and as far as I can tell the only lens they used was mid-century misogyny. Great cast, but bad enough to be a cult classic in 10 years maybe?
  • Theo Robertson30 April 2017
    6/10
    Average Velocity
    In 1970s Boston a contingent of IRA men schedule a meeting with arms sellers in a derelict factory only to become embroiled in an argument that finishes in a shoot-out

    One constantly thinks that director Ben Wheatley is on the brink of great things. With FREE FIRE you might have thought he'd hit the international target. Set in America ( Though amazingly it's shot in Brighton. England ) and classed as a blackly comical thriller in the style of Tarantino you'd have thought it might have done better at the box office but fails slightly on two levels

    Firstly Tarantino is a brand name and unless your name is Quentin Tarantino it's a mistake with hindsight to emulate this style of film making because you're just going to slip in to parody. In fact even Tarantino parodies Quentin Tarantino these days with very mediocre results. You want to pitch a film ? Then please don't use the initials QT

    !!!! SUGGESTIVE SPOILERS !!!!

    Secondly there's very little story at all . I was very surprised as to how soon things kicked off. I was expecting an hour of insults and plot turns involving double cross and triple cross followed by lots of shooting. The reality is more than two thirds of the run time is taken up by the gun battle which intermittently stops for characters to throw insults at one another before reloading again. The fact that so many of the characters get shot multiple times and they continue to shout insults does become both boring too incredible to be taken seriously , so much so that's it's a surprise when anyone is shot dead

    That said FREE FIRE isn't really a film to take seriously . You might enjoy with a bag of pop corn and will probably enjoy it more round lads flats with a six pack which might explain why it has underperformed at the box office. One might have also expected more when one of the executive producers is Martin Scorsese
  • RforFilm26 April 2017
    4/10
    Free Fire tries hard to replicate Tarantino, but dull dialogue makes the film misfire
    There's a lot of respect to give when someone decides to set the entirety of a story within one location. Some would argue that it prevents the world it's set in from establishing itself as big along with not much personality. A lot of that is made up with making the characters interesting with charisma and dialogue. Good examples of this have included My Dinner with Andre, which is all just one dinner, The Breakfast Club, which was set in a high school, and some Quentin Tarantino films like Reservoir Dogs and The Hateful Eight.

    What about the action genre? Oddly, I mostly associate most action in one-location stories to the horror genre. While we do have action movies like Die Hard and Dredd which were technically set in one location, they had a large scope didn't truly feel confined. Hateful Eight seemed more terrifying when there was only one room within the cabin where hiding wasn't really an option. Today's movie is not only set within a warehouse, but is full of trigger-happy people that are ready to aim. So can a shoot-em-up work when it's all in one place? Let's see if Free Fire can work.

    Sometime during the 1970's in Boston, a group of people are meeting in a warehouse to purchase several arms. Two guys, Stevo (played by Sam Riely) and Bernie (played by Enzo Cilenti) first come in an RV. They then meet up with two IRA members Chris (played by Cillian Murphy) and Frank (played by Michael Smiley). While waiting for a representative, Justine (played by Brie Larson) comes in to take up on the deal. Just as their getting to know each other, Ord (played by Armie Hammer) comes to bring them inside.

    It's here their buying some high-class weapons from a dealer Vernon (played by Sharlto Copley). Things go smoothly until one of the goons working for Vernon recognizes Stevo as the man who raped his cousin. Rather then apologize, Stevo instead insults him more leading the two fighting each other. It escalates into a bullet being fired at one of the parties. This makes everyone grab a weapon or two as the go to their corner and pretty much battle to the death or until police arrive.

    I have to give Free Fire a lot of credit for trying to emulate the Quentin Tarantino style with similar dirty dialogue, a nostalgia-fueled soundtrack, and an uncertainty of who will make it out alive. In fact, I was on board for the first twenty minutes before they start shooting when we get an idea of who everyone is. It's not to say that good banter couldn't have happened as they were shooting each other, but I was board the majority of the time. That has to do with the fact that neither the acting nor characters were that interesting. Sharlto Copley, Armie Hammer, and Cillian Murphy seemed to be the only ones I was invested in. Everyone else seemed very bland, including Brie Larson. This goes to show that you need a juicy script in order to make these situations work. The other thing I will comment on is the action, while is not spectacular, does allow for some inventive situations given their claustrophobic location.

    I thought about The Belko Experiment, which had a similar premise, but I remember that and it's costars more then I do for Free Fire. Along with a better script that took advantage of it's over-the- top scenario, it had memorable characters that you wanted to follow to the end. I expected Free Fire to be a lot funnier and for a movie that was produced by Martin Scorsese, I was let down.

    I'll give this four bad looking RVs out of ten. Free Fire has a great idea of a tense action comedy, but it fails to live up to the premise. Despite some good moments, they are not enough to recover from a botched execution. Free Fire is a misfire.
  • Josh Barton19 March 2017
    8/10
    Fun action comedy peppered with hilarious characters and plenty of quips
    Ben Wheatley certainly has a twisted sense of humour, evident in films such as Sightseers and High-Rise, and he brings it to proceedings once again in Free Fire, a relentlessly entertaining action comedy. Featuring an impressive ensemble cast, Free Fire was a film that had been on my radar for a while.

    Boston, 1978, and two gangs set a meeting in an abandoned warehouse for an arms deal. It doesn't all exactly go to plan and it's not long before a full on shootout between the two gangs occurs, leading to bullets flying all over the place and a game of survival for everyone involved.

    Free Fire wastes no time in getting into things and when the entire cast are together, the film really does fire on all cylinders. Ben Wheatley's film is by no means the best film I'll ever see but it is the perfect choice for an entertaining time at the cinema, making sure it doesn't overstay its welcome with a swift ninety minute runtime.

    Wheatley collaborates once again with Amy Jump to write the film and the result is a quick screenplay that delivers plenty of wit and humour, as well as a shootout that the films builds itself around, which becomes farcical due to the sheer amount of incompetent characters the film plays host to.

    A screenplay like this deserves a cast to do it justice and Free Fire has exactly that in the shape of an ensemble cast to get excited about. Cillian Murphy has one of the more prominent roles and he manages to bring the coldness we are so used to seeing from him to the role of Chris. Brie Larson gives the film its singular female character and she's certainly no pushover, Larson playing Justine with a sense of grit and superior intellect over her male counterparts. Then there is Armie Hammer, who shines as the overly sarcastic and suave Ord.

    The man who steals the film from everyone else though is Sharlto Copley as Vernon, an arms dealer who runs his mouth a little too much. Sure, his South African accent makes him sound funnier but there is no doubt that Copley's Vernon gets the majority of the film's quips., and he absolutely revels in them. There's some fine support from Jack Reynor and Sam Riley on show too as a couple of warring members from their respective gangs.

    For a fun night at the cinema, I can't recommend Free Fire enough. If you're someone who is easily offended by foul language or doesn't like loud noises though, I feel as if you'd take an instant dislike to this film, which would certainly be your loss.
  • rway-14 May 2017
    1/10
    Public Service Announcement (general spoilers)
    Warning: Spoilers
    I'm writing this review as a public service on behalf of Otologists. You may need one if you are unfortunate enough to see this. Just don't go! This movie has absolutely no redeeming or artistic value. It starts off with about 30 minutes of nonsensical dialogue followed by an hour of incessant and very loud eardrum busting gunfire in an abandoned warehouse with people just yards apart from one another. (Did I say incessant and loud? I want to make sure you get that.) Just a handful of people, yet each seemingly having 10,000 rounds, maybe more. They came only for a gun buying transaction but evidently brought enough personal ammunition to supply the U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division. They used more rounds than they were planning on buying. Out of the million or so shots fired, only a few found their mark with none being initially fatal. You could easier suspend belief in a Bugs Bunny cartoon shootout with Yosemite Sam than this farce. I should have left 30 minutes in because it only got worse and then you were insulted by having no payoff at the end. My ears are still ringing.

    Postscript: Incidentally, as I seated myself in the theater I realized I was the only in there. This is a megaplex 16 screen cinema. This showing was down a big hall, turning right at the end, then down the very end of that hall. If I didn't know the number screen I'd be out of luck because the management didn't even bother to list the movie title above the door. I should have taken all this as a bad harbinger and run to exchange my ticket for another movie, any movie.
  • Bob_Harris_UK3 June 2017
    1/10
    Boring beyond belief - One Scene Warehouse Shootout for 90 mins
    This has to be one of the most boring films ever made. apart from the first couple of minutes, the entire film is shot (excuse irony) inside an abandoned factory/warehouse, And everybody shoots at everybody. I am surprised that it lasted so long, but even more surprising is the number of exaggerated high score votes for this film, which looks like vote rigging to the extreme. My vote score of 1 is too high. I would have rated this a zero if that were an option
  • Mat Schofield21 April 2017
    1/10
    What we did for a laugh one Friday night...
    Another vanity project for Wheatley ("Field in England" anybody?). Let's all have a few, dress up and make it up on the spot. Plot? Cinema doesn't always need one, particularly when you're IN. We can just knock this out and watch the critics snap it up. But if you're doing low- budget you need hunger to pull it off. It's all about hunger. "Down Terrace" was the work of a ravenous group. This is a fat and flatulent affair.( How I wish Tarantino would listen to someone outside of HIS inner circle). And worse - this is a thin-line to Guy Ritchie.
  • Bouke Kramer22 May 2017
    1/10
    Not what you thought it was
    This is one of these movies that utterly suck but got many good votes from IMDb paid interns. Stay away - I'm not even going to go into the plot. This movie sucks. IMDb ratings are fake. Wait at least 3 weeks until people put in some actual votes. This movie sucks balls. Balls. balls. Did I use enough characters? Balls. Don't believe any IMDb rating until at least 2 months in.
  • mike_sharples28 March 2017
    9/10
    An absolute blast from start to finish.
    Warning: Spoilers
    Free Fire is an absolute laugh riot from start to finish and some of the most fun I've had at the cinema in... ever. The pace is established from the get go as once we are introduced to the characters things goes haywire almost immediately. As the film continues some character motivations are made clearer which may lead one to question who's side anyone is actually on, as it turns out, they're all in it for themselves. Whereas some are left in the dark to let the audience ponder at their own freewill. Shooting starts due to past events that resurface after two gang members come face to face leaving a road of destruction in their wake.

    Featuring some of the best sound design I've heard so far this year Wheatley gives his audience a sense of space within the confined environment in which I feel he purposely neglects in his visual representations. The action on screen is messy and convoluted to a point that fits the narrative of what comes to be every man for himself. It's impossible to determine who is where and therefore who's side anybody is actually on. At first I found this to be a problem when watching but giving it some afterthought I came to realise what Ben was aiming for. Using direction of sound to determine each players position on the board. It's quite an ambitious directing choice but I believe Wheatley more than pays off.

    I've had this argument among friends and those I converse with in Facebook groups and it's about how you don't need your characters to be richly detailed and well developed to make them interesting or memorable. The film in question was Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. The argument which was presented to me is that of - you know they're all going to die anyway so spending time developing characters would hurt the pace of the film. It's a film used to bridge the gaps between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope. And that's fine but the writing still has to be good enough to make those characters stand out regardless of their outcome. This is a film that understands this completely and something Ben Wheatley and wife/co-writer Amy Jump seem to have the most control in.

    I've had my reservations about Armie Hammer for while but Free Fire once again goes to show that anyone can give a good performance when they have the right script behind them. By far the strongest element to this film is the chemistry all of our actors have and the distinct personality each and every person uniquely has, Sharlto Copley, Jack Reynor, and Sam Riley especially and the pairing of Armie and Michael Smiley make for some quite hilarious back and forth one liners. Having such life in their performances and such fluidity in the screenplay is what make so congenial. Marvel could learn a thing or two when it comes to using jokes in your action scenes.

    In the end, Free Fire is a thrilling, hilarious, action packed ball of insanity that is not without it's flaws, mostly with Brie Larson's character as I feel she was kind of sidelined without much to do, she was certainly left too much in the shadows, I would have liked to see more of her. Of course the moments she had on screen were definitely benefiting. But my willingness to look past them as they're not too major is my sheer enjoyment of the movies denouement which had me smiling from ear to ear so much that my jaw started hurting. So far the only Ben Wheatley film that I've actually enjoyed, I hope he can keep a hot streak alive.
  • nkolokoltsov11 February 2017
    9/10
    If this film doesn't become one of those movies that is quoted by everyone, I will be majorly surprised!
    I absolutely loved this movie, from the witty dialogue to the very inventive action sequences to the superb cast performances, what's not to love? I got to see this film at a special pre-screening which was followed by a Q&A session with the director himself Ben Wheatley, and you could just see how passionate he felt about this project. He's still one of the only directors who demands to have as much control over a film's production as possible without a studio's interference.

    And Wheatley delivers to the full here. As he himself said along the lines of that the movie is pretty much 90 minutes of swearing, gun showdowns, profanity, violence, provocative imagery etc. etc. And yes, that is pretty much it. But somehow, it works! And it doesn't hurt that this film has an executive producer who is this little known fella named Martin Scorsese. Also, Sharlto Copley in this film - steals the show. That's all I'll say, he steals the show.
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.