Gun (I) (2010) User Reviews

Shooting at what?

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 20 December 2010]

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...

Realistic realism

[bentalk · 3/10 · 19 December 2010]

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.

Waow

[Thick85 · 3/10 · 13 January 2011]

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?!?!

I don't know what to say

[ganguro76 · 1/10 · 11 December 2010]

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.

Kilmer keeps going downhill.

[Matt_Layden · 2/10 · 15 March 2011]

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.

Terrible

[jaded_t · 1/10 · 28 December 2010]

This movie was very hard to watch. This plot has been done time and again. It is shocking that such good actors chose to be in a movie with such a bad script. The cinematography and direction were beyond cliché in terms of the sequencing of scenes, flashbacks and angles. Fifty Cent may be good at writing rap tunes but he is certainly not a screen play writer. While it is good to want to expand one's repertoire, perhaps he should take some classes before attempting to do something like this again. I terms of the acting, it is squeamish to have to watch good actors deliver bad lines (with straight faces). I often wondered if they wanted to burst out laughing at certain parts. I suppose that is what they are paid for but it is still hard to watch. I don't recommend this movie at all. Waste of time that you will never get back in your life.

The only good thing is that it's short.

[Achyut_Prashast_Singh · 2/10 · 9 June 2020]

The length was one of my top reasons to pick this film for a casual viewing on Netflix. Man, this is one of the worst action movies I've ever seen. I am a big fan of the genre and don't care about critic/audience ratings at all, but this movie was so dull that I had no idea why I even thought of giving it a watch.

The action was decent, but couldn't save the movie. Performance wise, a strictly average one. Story wise, a complete disappointment. There's no intrigue and the movie is thoroughly dull. Again, aside from a few action scenes, the story is merely humdrum and boring. It saves the best part for some last 10 minutes or something, but it's too late to make that count.

All in all, Gun is a bad action movie. Fans of the genre won't be the only ones disappointed. Those expecting just a fine watch seeing Val Kilmer in the cast would be too. Giving it 1/5 only because of some action.

What kind of alien is wearing Val Kilmer!? A not acting one, that's what kind.

[Finfrosk86 · 5/10 · 18 May 2016]

Wow, what is up with Val Kilmer? His performance is as dead as they come. I mean, he's supposed to be the best actor in this movie, right? ..and he is by far the worst.

Val Kilmer is totally lifeless, it's like an alien is using his body as a suit. An alien with no acting skills.

Val Kilmer acts like this is the first time he acts. Like he's to shy to open his mouth.

Val Kilmers performance is so flat that the corpses in this movie has more charisma.

Val Kilmers face is so wide, that I had to connect two screens side- by-side to see his whole face in one shot.

Val Kilmer's face is so wide, it's like he Stewies father.

OK, enough of that. But he totally sucks here.

50 Cent on the other hand, is pretty good in this,. I mean he actually acts, you know. He's pretty believable too.

This is a short, straight forward movie. Some acting here and there, shooting, some violence, it's alright.

The movie is called Gun, and it does have a lot to do with guns. Looks like they have real guns here. Not a lot of cg muzzle flashes. Also, they use squibs it seems. That's nice. In a movie about guns, titled gun, the gun-stuff should be good, and it is.

With that said, this is not a movie you'll remember forever, perhaps except Val Kilmers wide, uninterested face. It does not stand out in any way, but it's not horrible.

NOT THAT BAD

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 4 May 2019]

The movie was written, produced, and starred Curtis 50 cents Jackson as a Detroit gun dealer. In the first scene there is a strip joint with pole dancers who keep their clothes on. A hit is done outside the joint as Jackson kills his competition in the drug trade. The Mexican Cartels need lots of high powered guns, which Jackson claims he will provide. His connection is the pretty Annalynne McCord who also has sex with Jackson, the author of the script. Meanwhile Val Kilmer is being released from prison and goes to work for Jackson, a man who he once saved in a street shoot out. Danny Trejo is on the screen for about 3 minutes, nothing to write home about.

The cops along with their rival, the ATF are after the gun dealers. Their role was done rather poorly while the thugs was done well, a reflection of what 50 cents really knows well. Hip-hop background music, no surprise. No nudity, quick sex scene, multiple MF and F bombs.

Worthy of it's low rating

[Seth_Rogue_One · 4/10 · 16 August 2016]

50 Cent's movies tend to have very low ratings, but I tend to enjoy a lot of them still (for instance 'GET RICH OR DIE Trying' is IMO really good and 'SETUP (2011)' plus 'STREETS OF BLOOD (2009)' provides fairly good entertainment despite their flaws).

So even though this had a 3.8/10 I thought it could still be decent.

But no, this one actually deserves it.

Poor writing (by 50 Cent himself) and unfocused story with too many scenes of the police (which wouldn't be a problem if 50 knew how to write for cops, which he clearly doesn't and gives them extremely redundant dialog to work with) and the acting is not very good.

AnnaLynne McCord I usually like but her role is fairly pointless (basically in it just to be a girl for 50 to seduce), but then I suppose most characters in it are, none of the characters feel real and it just doesn't really quite work on any level.

Danny Trejo is in it for just one scene, but that's something I've come to get used to when his name is attached to something.

James Remar has a fairly big role, and he doesn't pull a bad performance but he's just not given much to work with.

And Val Kilmer... I don't feel like kicking someone who's already lying down.

Not much more to say about it really. I mean the end does show that their were some decent intentions with the script but it just got lost in the way of trying to make 50 look as gangsta as possible.

Even 'BEFORE I SELF DESTRUCT (2009)' was better than this.

Not a Fan of 50 Cent acting ability, but....

[nacarver · 8/10 · 23 December 2010]

First, let me start by saying I have watched a lot of movies with 50 Cent either starring in or having a supporting role, in the last five years; beginning with "Get Rich or Die Trying'" (2005). Always hoping he would get better or quit. Surprisingly, "Gun" kept me in my seat until the end. That's what I look for in a good movie. And what's even more surprising is the fact that the story was written by 50 Cent. I would recommend this movie. Definitely not Oscar material, but more than watchable. The twist, which is somewhat predictable, was well played out and would have come as more of a treat if it wasn't given away in almost every description of Val Kilmer's role in the movie. Almost didn't watch this because 50 Cent is on the cover, but glad I did.

Good Intentions but Failed Execution

[Bob_the_Hobo · 6/10 · 2 April 2011]

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.

Not the worst, but still not worth the time

[Shattered_Wake · 5/10 · 22 February 2011]

'Gun,' which was written by Curtis '50 Cent' Jackson and directed by the guy who did 'Soul Plane' (need I say more?), tells the story the city of Detroit's crackdown on a gun-running organization run by the criminal Rich (Fitty Cent). Rich then teams up with his friend Angel (Val Kilmer) to expand business. This leads to even more problems beyond his business. . .

First things first, most people will be drawn to this film based on the supporting cast. While Val Kilmer is on a serious run of crap movies (joining the ranks of formerly talented stars like Cuba Gooding, Jr.), he still maintains at least a mild following, even if his last solid flick was 'Déjà Vu' a half-decade ago (okay, 'Felon' was also pretty good, so I'll let that pass as well). Alongside Kilmer, 'Gun' also includes a few other well known actors like John Larroquette, James Remar, & Danny Trejo (though Remar is the only one of the bunch who is featured enough throughout). Regardless of the reasonably notable cast, 'Gun' doesn't have a lot to offer. Now, it's not the total disaster that one would expect from the writer/director combination. Keep in mind, 50 Cent grew up in a life of crime with a teenage coke dealer for a mother (who was murdered when 50 was only twelve), and his own time as a dealer in both guns & drugs before he became a rapper. Therefore, he's pretty well versed in street crime, so he knows how to set up a realistic story about it. Unfortunately, even though the story does have the gritty realism of the Detroit crime world. . . it's just not implemented well by director Jessy Terrero at all. Not to mention that the overall story is completely overdone and the "twists" are anything but shocking from the early parts of the film. This makes for a bit of a lag in the thrills of the crime, and a total lack of surprise by the end.

Overall, the film isn't a complete & utter disaster. The story is interesting enough to maintain interest, but the director's failure to fully exploit the dark themes forced the film to fail. To be honest, a story chronicling 50 Cent's ridiculous life story seems like it'd be a hell of a lot more interesting than any of the movies he stars in.

Final Verdict: 5/10.

-AP3-

Not Terrible but not great. Acting and plot are pretty lame.

[cosmo_tiger · 6 January 2011]

Police in Detroit are looking for a stolen revolver used in a murder a few years ago. Rich (Jackson) and Angel (Kilmer) are crime partners involved with the distribution of arms. Overall better then I expected it to be, (50 Cent wrote it). We find out pretty early that Rich is the one with the revolver and from then on it gets pretty predictable. For the type of movie it is, I will give it a 6 out of 10, but don't let that deceive you, it's better then Streets of Blood (the last Jackson and Kilmer movie) but thats not saying a whole lot. If you are looking for a top notch, exciting action flick I'd go with A-Team over this one. I will say that this is Kilmer's best movie in awhile, which again isn't saying a whole lot. I give it a C+.

Whoever shot this film should be shot

[ajfurness · 1/10 · 22 March 2011]

I thought wow, Val Kilmer, an aggressive rapper playing the gangster, a gritty Detroit story line... this looks great... but to put it simply there are TV shows that are produced better than this, and i'm not even talking about Mad Men quality either.

Shame. Could have been on the Training Day level, even with a smaller budget. But no, it's boring, lame, poorly casted and ironically lacks any "bang" for the buck. The group of detectives are the worst.

Fair play to fifty cent for exploring the acting game. With a real production crew and proper budget the two of them could have killed it. But i'm sorry 'fiddy' I want my five dollars back for renting it. This was horrible.

Great example of why people say don't do things by half.

A Potboiler with Firepower and a Strong Cast

[zardoz-13 · 5/10 · 11 May 2014]

The generically entitled African-American actioneer "Gun" qualifies as a potboiler at best, boasting a solid cast, some tolerable gunfights, profane dialogue exchanges, and atmospheric shots of Detroit. The surprises are few and far between, but "Freelancers" director Jessy Terrero doesn't linger needlessly on the obvious. Payback is indeed a bitch, and nobody can say that "Gun" doesn't punish its perpetrators and reward its heroes. A paunchy Val Kilmer plays Angel, an ex-con whose wife died in a strip club during a shoot-out instigated by Rich (Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson), so Angel turns into a confidential informant for veteran Motor City Detective Rogers (James Remar of "The Warriors") who is trying to bust him. Detective Jenkins (Paul Calderon of "Pulp Fiction") is at Rogers' side trying to take care of business despite budget cuts that the city imposes on the men in blue. Initially, Angel proves his worth to Rich during a night-time deal with an Hispanic gangster, Frankie Makina (Danny Trejo of "Machete"), who tries to pull a double-cross during a deal. Lurking in the background is a big-time mobster, Sam Boedecker John Larroquette of "Blind Date") who is searching for an arms dealer. One of the best scenes has Rich describing an arsenal of hardware to a criminal. The guns that he shows off are pretty impressive, particularly the weapon that fires slug that can penetrate Kelvar as if it were tin-foil. Nothing special but a good way to blow 82 minutes.

a collection of cringeworthy cliche's

[kiowhatta · 4/10 · 20 October 2017]

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.

Very poor straight to DVD actioner

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 2/10 · 14 June 2011]

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

'Rich' (50 Cent) is a ruthless street gangster, intent on wiping out the competition and striking up a weapons deal with some other gangsters. Angel (Val Kilmer) has just been released from prison and has been placed undercover in Rich's organisation to square a deal with the police and assist in an investigation, building up to an explosive final confrontation.

'A drama set in the world of drug dealing', is the simplistic summary of this film on the rental sleeve. And, indeed, it's hard to decipher any more of it than that, simply because there isn't any plot to it. It's barely seventy five minutes worth of style over substance, seeming like just an excuse for 'Fiddy cent' to plug some new tracks on his latest album. His acting is as flat as you'd expect, and ditto the now grossly puffy and out of shape Kilmer, a real 'what happened to them?' case.

This looks promising on the cover, but the reality is a very sloppy and messed up affair indeed. One to avoid. *

Trash

[nikkiramirez-95630 · 1/10 · 12 February 2022]

Don't waste your time it's a very low budget same plot regurgitated like so many others like it. Huge disappointment. Typical unnecessary strip club scenes typical unnecessary excessive sex scene. This movie is a reminder that our society sincerely has zero respect for women because in every movie depicted in Detroit or a gangster type movie has nothing but women is a sex object and nothing more it's disgusting and people wonder why they get a bad name because they do it to themselves and trashy movies like this one.

Gun, not a lot of kick, but it hits its target

[travthompson · 7/10 · 15 December 2010]

I didn't expect to enjoy this film as much as I did, I actually expected it to be terrible, but I left the theater thinking wow that was pretty good (Put that on the box). Curtis Jackson (50 cent) delivers a strong performance along side James Remar and Val Kilmer. Curtis' character, Rich, was deeper than expected showing believable wit and banter along side his entourage. Kilmer and Remar are also great, no one phones it in. The story starts out by the numbers, but then it evolves into a more complex plot that keeps you guessing. There were scenes with real tension. The ending was the only thing holding this film back from being great. The characters evolve complex arcs, but then the ending extinguishes those arcs before they feel completed. Overall this film is a good gritty cops chase robbers crime drama, you will not be disappointed. Full disclosure, I saw this film on Dec. 15th for its premier in Grand Rapids, MI where it was filmed. The atmosphere was obviously positive. Jackson introduced the film stating "remember I am a work in progress, I will be better tomorrow than I am today". It was great to see someone with such a large perceived ego to be humble, and honestly not give himself enough credit for this movie. He was great in it, and the screenplay he wrote was great.

Gun; a must see

[fotobiz · 8/10 · 7 December 2010]

I thought the chemistry between Val Kilmer and Curtis "50 cent" Jackson was dynamic. The action and acting was spot on. I believe this film was filmed in Grand Rapids Michigan. The actors in this film are Val Kilmer, John Larroquette, Hassan Johnson, Anna Lynne McCord, LaLa Vazquez, 50 Cent, Elise Neal, Paul Calderon, Mark Famiglietti, James Remar, Christa Campbell. This film pretty much documents the real world in gun trading on the today's streets showing the relationship between street thugs and police officers. Anna Lynn McCord looked fantastic in this film staring next to 50 Cent. Val Kilmer and 50 Cent really pulls this one off.

Movie for a Certain Genre of Audiences

[marke-hockeyman · 6/10 · 20 August 2015]

Let's be clear about what this movie is not: It's not intended to appeal to a wide diverse audience spanning across all age-brackets whereby a family might all harmoniously view together, it won't be released to a Red Carpet opening lit up by hordes of media cameras, or a film intended to garner critical acclaim for an Oscars run.

No, on the contrary it's a very realistic portrayal of the criminal element plaguing our cities today. Surprisingly, the script was written by Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson and one would be hard-pressed to mock his effort here as the movie simply "works" for its intended purpose, namely, to illustrate the very difficult environment cities face like Detroit which is depicted in this film.

Bottom line, if you are a "man-cave" like guy, interested in the dynamic that is the gun-running underground-world and or just looking for a drama that speaks to many of the troubling different variables that add up to today's beleaguered urban America, then this film is one to definitely check out.

If there was a movie here, I missed it.

[doom1701 · 20 August 2011]

Being from Grand Rapids, MI (where most of the film was shot) I figured I'd see how good of a product Mr. Jackson and his crew turned out.

First, a minor gripe about location. Understandably, just because it was filmed in Grand Rapids doesn't mean that it's set in Grand Rapids-- but at times the movie seems to think it is. "Rich" talks about money and guns coming from the east side of the state (Detroit) to the west (Grand Rapids), and also talks about a proximity to Chicago. That's all GR, along with every street named in the movie (heck, the "44th street slums" would be near my office...if there were any slums on 44th). But then the ending seems to take place in Detroit, with no mention about a police force from one side of the state going to the other side. It's only a gripe because of where I live, but it just showcases a level of confusion on the part of the film.

That confusion runs everywhere else, though. Is "Rich" a good guy or bad? What exactly are the cops trying to do? Is "Angel" good or bad? He goes free at the end, even though he killed just as many people in the movie as "Rich". Ultimately, I'm just left trying to figure out if there was much of a story here at all.

On the plus side, the acting is decent (although it sounded like Mr. Jackson had cotton balls in his mouth the entire time), and it really is shot beautifully. It's just too bad such a nice looking film had nothing else going for it.

These movies reveal

[willraye · 4 June 2021]

The remaining divisiveness in this country. The reviews say it all. There is condescension from some critics about who they think this movie is for. They may have been offended by some of the scenes. Kudos to the actors as they try to erase that divisiveness.