The movie "Gamer"... would you reccommend it?
- Thread starter niennumb1
- Start date
firesprite
Master Member
I would say no more than any other story about a man who's being forced to participate in something against his will. It's nothing like the short story as I recall it.
Deathstalker II
Well-Known Member
I like Gamer a lot. Saw it theatrically, own the Blu. This whole "turn your brain off" assessment of the film doesn't work for me at all, because I think the film is loaded with ideas about culture and class struggle - but it offers no easy answers or pat resolution. I think a lot of people who hate the film are the people it has squarly in its targets - socially inept video game geeks, narcissistic social networking junkies, reality TV nuts...
Now I'm not saying the people here who didn't like it fall into those groups - as the film is stylistically jarring, over-the-top violent, and pretty vulgar (but nowhere near as jarring, violent, or vulgar as the Crank films - the previous work from Gamer duo Neveldine/Taylor) - and those attributes may not sit well with some of the gentler members of an audience, but if you're interested in a bit of smart/smart-ass, hyperactive "not-too-distant-future" speculative fiction (that, like all good sci-fi, says more about who we are as a culture now than where we might be as a culture decades from now) - you could do far worse.
Gamer plays like Idiocracy with automatic weapons fire.
Indy Trooper - you drop a bomb like that, you best be prepeared to answer some questions. What did you do on the film? Are the duo as awesome as they seem to be? What did you steal from the set?
Now I'm not saying the people here who didn't like it fall into those groups - as the film is stylistically jarring, over-the-top violent, and pretty vulgar (but nowhere near as jarring, violent, or vulgar as the Crank films - the previous work from Gamer duo Neveldine/Taylor) - and those attributes may not sit well with some of the gentler members of an audience, but if you're interested in a bit of smart/smart-ass, hyperactive "not-too-distant-future" speculative fiction (that, like all good sci-fi, says more about who we are as a culture now than where we might be as a culture decades from now) - you could do far worse.
Gamer plays like Idiocracy with automatic weapons fire.
Indy Trooper - you drop a bomb like that, you best be prepeared to answer some questions. What did you do on the film? Are the duo as awesome as they seem to be? What did you steal from the set?
Deathstalker II
Well-Known Member
And Art Andrews is quite right - Gamer is pretty depressing.
clancampbell
Sr Member
It was a mixed up, no identity mess of a film. Confusing, uninspired crap.
In short, one of the biggest bags of poop i've ever seen.
In short, one of the biggest bags of poop i've ever seen.
Solo4114
Master Member
I watched this and wrote up a review of it on another site a while back. There may be some spoilers in here. Here's what I thought:
** for what you expect.
*** for what I think it is.
My two-star review here is more for those who are expecting a sort of thrilling re-tread of The Running Man or that recent movie with Steve Austin that might as well have been titled "The Running Man Part 2: Stonecold Boogaloo." If you're looking for a fun, escapist film with maybe a smidge of social commentary, keep looking.
After thinking about it for a bit, I think that Gamer is an act of subversive filmmaking, and in that respect it's quite clever. Gamer lures the viewer in with the promise of Gerard "THIS IS SPARTA" Butler kicking ass in a live-action video game, and maybe a suggestion of evil corporations being overthrown by self-actualizing humans who will no longer consent to being slaves to the machine. Or whatever.
But then Gamer pulls a fast one on you.
Rather than giving you thrilling action-packed visuals, the action sequences are all filmed in a featureless, boring "arena" with no clear goals except to get from one end to the other. There's never any point except running around and shooting stuff, but it's not even that clear-cut. It's never entirely clear why Butler's character is shooting at anyone, but there sure are a lot of tracer rounds and explosions going off around him. And there's the occasional "HEADSHOT" that kills someone who only two seconds ago told you her name (which really isn't a spoiler at all, since as soon as she says "My name is..." you know she's going to get snuffed in the next action sequence). So, right off the bat, Gamer is trying to tell its audience "Your games are idiotic and pointless." If, like me, you play various video games from time to time, this is actually somewhat clever commentary on the whole phenomenon. I mean, let's be honest here. Is there really any point to Deathmatch?
As far as the "characters" are concerned, everyone is fairly loathsome. Butler's character is the least obnoxious, but that's because aside from wanting to escape the game and get back to his family, you never really know anything about him. there's some suggestion that he's a former war hero, the film gradually explains why he's been incarcerated, and there's some minor subplot involving his daughter having been adopted. His wife, on the other hand, seems to be a walking personification of despair. She has willingly enslaved herself to be the puppet of a truly disgusting human being in another "game" world. The villain, played by Michael C. Hall (a.k.a. Dexter), is less a villain and more a colossal annoyance. His manner of speaking seems designed precisely to irritate, and he succeeds mightily. Kyra Sedgwick as a media personality is equally annoying. John Leguizamo, as usual, is annoying enough that you want to punch him. (But give the devil his due -- the man plays annoying profoundly well.) So, throughout the film, you don't really like anyone involved. This is not one of those "root for the good guy, hate the bad guy" kind of action flicks. Nobody here is appealing.
Visually, the film is jarring, almost to the point of nausea. Constant jump cuts, flashed frames, chopped and repeated dialogue (those of you older than thirty can think of Max Headroom as an ex-ex-example), a washed out color palette, etc. all make the film visually irritating and bland. Again, perhaps as a commentary on "virtual" existence. When the lines between reality and a virtual existence have become this blurred, it's as if the life has been bled from the world as a whole, and the color palette reflects this.
The inevitable defeat of the bad guy is not at all satisfying either. It's surprisingly lame, and again, perhaps that is the point. The viewer expects a thrilling showdown, and instead gets a ten second kung fu sequence followed by a bit of cheesy dialogue.
In this respect, I can't help but give Gamer positive marks, although I question its effectiveness at getting its message across.
Gamer seems to try to take the style of Paul Veerhoven and make it intentionally less entertaining. It's as if they wanted to take the social satire of Robocop, but strip it of its "cool action flick" elements so you wouldn't get distracted. It seems to criticize its intended audience so much that they will likely either become bored, or simply not get it. And really, who likes being told "Go outside and play in the sun, or read a book, or something" by an action film? My one criticism of Gamer is its rather blatant "homages." You've got the more obvious ones (The Running Man, The Matrix), as well as someone more obscure references (Enter the Dragon, the end sequence of one of the versions of Blade Runner).
Anyway, if you're looking for a mindless action flick, keep looking. If you can handle art being simultaneously unappealing, Gamer might actually be worth it.
** for what you expect.
*** for what I think it is.
My two-star review here is more for those who are expecting a sort of thrilling re-tread of The Running Man or that recent movie with Steve Austin that might as well have been titled "The Running Man Part 2: Stonecold Boogaloo." If you're looking for a fun, escapist film with maybe a smidge of social commentary, keep looking.
After thinking about it for a bit, I think that Gamer is an act of subversive filmmaking, and in that respect it's quite clever. Gamer lures the viewer in with the promise of Gerard "THIS IS SPARTA" Butler kicking ass in a live-action video game, and maybe a suggestion of evil corporations being overthrown by self-actualizing humans who will no longer consent to being slaves to the machine. Or whatever.
But then Gamer pulls a fast one on you.
Rather than giving you thrilling action-packed visuals, the action sequences are all filmed in a featureless, boring "arena" with no clear goals except to get from one end to the other. There's never any point except running around and shooting stuff, but it's not even that clear-cut. It's never entirely clear why Butler's character is shooting at anyone, but there sure are a lot of tracer rounds and explosions going off around him. And there's the occasional "HEADSHOT" that kills someone who only two seconds ago told you her name (which really isn't a spoiler at all, since as soon as she says "My name is..." you know she's going to get snuffed in the next action sequence). So, right off the bat, Gamer is trying to tell its audience "Your games are idiotic and pointless." If, like me, you play various video games from time to time, this is actually somewhat clever commentary on the whole phenomenon. I mean, let's be honest here. Is there really any point to Deathmatch?
As far as the "characters" are concerned, everyone is fairly loathsome. Butler's character is the least obnoxious, but that's because aside from wanting to escape the game and get back to his family, you never really know anything about him. there's some suggestion that he's a former war hero, the film gradually explains why he's been incarcerated, and there's some minor subplot involving his daughter having been adopted. His wife, on the other hand, seems to be a walking personification of despair. She has willingly enslaved herself to be the puppet of a truly disgusting human being in another "game" world. The villain, played by Michael C. Hall (a.k.a. Dexter), is less a villain and more a colossal annoyance. His manner of speaking seems designed precisely to irritate, and he succeeds mightily. Kyra Sedgwick as a media personality is equally annoying. John Leguizamo, as usual, is annoying enough that you want to punch him. (But give the devil his due -- the man plays annoying profoundly well.) So, throughout the film, you don't really like anyone involved. This is not one of those "root for the good guy, hate the bad guy" kind of action flicks. Nobody here is appealing.
Visually, the film is jarring, almost to the point of nausea. Constant jump cuts, flashed frames, chopped and repeated dialogue (those of you older than thirty can think of Max Headroom as an ex-ex-example), a washed out color palette, etc. all make the film visually irritating and bland. Again, perhaps as a commentary on "virtual" existence. When the lines between reality and a virtual existence have become this blurred, it's as if the life has been bled from the world as a whole, and the color palette reflects this.
The inevitable defeat of the bad guy is not at all satisfying either. It's surprisingly lame, and again, perhaps that is the point. The viewer expects a thrilling showdown, and instead gets a ten second kung fu sequence followed by a bit of cheesy dialogue.
In this respect, I can't help but give Gamer positive marks, although I question its effectiveness at getting its message across.
Gamer seems to try to take the style of Paul Veerhoven and make it intentionally less entertaining. It's as if they wanted to take the social satire of Robocop, but strip it of its "cool action flick" elements so you wouldn't get distracted. It seems to criticize its intended audience so much that they will likely either become bored, or simply not get it. And really, who likes being told "Go outside and play in the sun, or read a book, or something" by an action film? My one criticism of Gamer is its rather blatant "homages." You've got the more obvious ones (The Running Man, The Matrix), as well as someone more obscure references (Enter the Dragon, the end sequence of one of the versions of Blade Runner).
Anyway, if you're looking for a mindless action flick, keep looking. If you can handle art being simultaneously unappealing, Gamer might actually be worth it.
Last edited:
abritinthebay
New Member
Simply put - it's a really no-brainer of a movie.
Sit back, laugh with and at it, enjoy the action scenes and watch as Michael C Hall hams it up wonderfully.
It's edited and shot like a Tony Scott movie after he drank too much red bull. This is not a bad thing if you don't mind music video style jump cuts and shaky cam.
It's dumb, but fun.
Sit back, laugh with and at it, enjoy the action scenes and watch as Michael C Hall hams it up wonderfully.
It's edited and shot like a Tony Scott movie after he drank too much red bull. This is not a bad thing if you don't mind music video style jump cuts and shaky cam.
It's dumb, but fun.
CTF
Sr Member
Two things: 1) Transformers is a movie, not a film (and there is a difference) and 2) it's a bad one, for sure.
Since our buddy, the Stig, is no longer with us, I thought I better point that out.
Similar threads
