|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||18 reviews in total|
Shooters might have been condemned to be a mediocre movie if not for a few
telling items. The atmosphere, scenery, and outstanding actors redeem
film. Shooters isn't a movie to go to, if you're looking for something
flashy. Instead Shooters gives a dreary look into the life of two
gangsters. The atmosphere is exactly what it should be. It carries you
with J (Andrew Howard) and Gilly (Louis Dempsey), forcing you to the
building sense of everything losing control. The gritty, true-to-life
is somewhat lost at the end--leaving a feeling of shock or anti-climax.
Still, it is a much better film than many give it credit
As previously stated, the actors are superb. Particularly, Andrew Howard as J was a powerful character. Howard is what really propels the story along. Poor Dempsey (Gilly) seems dull and lack-luster compared to Howard's dynamic acting. Also noteworthy would be Gerard Butler (Jackie Jr), Matthew Rhys (Eddie), and Adrian Dunbar (Max Dunbar).
Shooters is worth your time, if you're looking for something that doesn't rely on special effects to keep hold of it's audience's attention. Andrew Howard is definitely an actor to keep an eye on.
A Brittish gangster movie. The actors chew scenery and the
amazing locations help the mood achieve the tone it hopes for. Its
a dark and dreary tale told with a kinetic sense of energy. Despite
the lacking budget you feel like this is actually happening. Its
probably the performances that truly hold it together. Great small
role by Gerard Butler as the f**ing nuts supplier. Dempsey is
great as well and he plays the role as if its not even acting. Its just
Dempsey playing Dempsey.
Anyway. The film follows a man recently out of jail who gets back
in with his shady friends. his friend j immediately gets him
involved in a guns deal and as expected nothing is as it seems.
The movie is great and it just does well at what you expect. Well
made and likable characters. 7/10
This movie was very strange in some ways, but generally pretty good. The relationship between J and Gilly (and the things Gilly seemed to allow) was quite believable. Dunbar was quite chilling (he's almost always good). Prepare to shake your head at some of the more extreme directing choices but pay attention to the performances for some small, but key players: Jamie Sweeney as J's kid brother, Gerard Butler as a psycho bad guy (his first) and Melanie Lynskey as J's wife are all among the best things in the movie. It is well worth watching if you enjoy the British style of violence and humor from such movies as The Krays or Snatch.
OK, I admit: I am a fan girl. I will watch any movie with Ioan Gruffodd
and/or Gerard Butler in it, even if it is a dark, low budget,
depressing indie flick.
So when I sat down to watch this, I solely intended to ogle my two boys and leave the rest of the movie to the elitist film critics.
But the end of it, I was transfixed by the reality of it all. Unlike so many American films, there are no heroes with chiseled jaws who are impenetrable to bullets. Everyone is equally flawed, and everyone is equally endangered.
I know, I'm a stupid American fan girl, and as such, not a reliable source, but it ranks on my top list films overall. Not just Brit films.
Lock Stock isn't close.
Shooters is one of many pure British gangster films that are flooding today's movie channels on TV. It is a dark, twisted film that should be taken seriously, even if the movie itself is not to your ideal taste. It is accurate at portraying examples of particular events that might occur if the desperate underground life of English, Welsh and Irish mobsters were revealed to the world. Shooters follows a 'coke-snorting' Welsh gangster who is undergoing a series of different pressures from different aspects of his life including his wife, police and of course the gang leaders... I advise anyone who is interested in this genre of film to watch and understand, so one can form their own views on the state of British life on the 'other' side...
I saw SHOOTERS at my local video store and saw a comment along the lines of, "comparable to Lock, Stock, & Two Smoking Barrels". Well, I can now say that it is not. Though, I did find it to be a very interesting movie overall. A very different taste and nothing like Lock, Stock.
I purchased this film under the impression it was in the mould of Lock Stock or Snatch, i.e. a British gangster film with comedic undertones. I was misled. I was confronted by a low budget film trying to be something good but failing drastically. The film seemed to contain violence and swearing merely in an attempt to try and look cool. Shooters also contained practically no humour at all (well none that appeared intentional). The only thing that stopped me giving this film 1/10 was the opening scene which I found ever so slightly amusing. After which I proceeded to get frustrated by the impossibly thick accents combined with a cheap DVD with no subtitles which meant i had very little to no idea what was going on throughout most of the film! I have only watched the film once (and it has since been banished from my DVD collection) so perhaps it gets better the more you watch it, who knows? Perhaps my high expectations prior to watching the film have led to me underestimating it and you may find it more entertaining than i did. I would not discourage people from watching it if you have nothing better to do, just don't pay to do so.
Shooters was made at around about a time people desperately needed to
cease with whatever post-"Lock, Stock" gangster surge there was which
had embedded itself within the British crime genre. Where Ritchie's
quite wonderful 1998 crime-comedy was, in hindsight, driven by a quite
wondrous screenplay full of cracking dialogue and effectively balanced
the plights of several groups of low-level gangsters quite effortlessly
and rather maturely; 2002 effort Shooters is a deathfully droll;
haplessly dull; dreary; badly plotted; poorly made film with nothing to
say about ugly characters we do not care for. The film is an overly
ambitious effort, an overly stylised piece which makes use of its lens
filters and slow motion more than it does its observations on anything
remotely interesting; a confused and misjudged film unsure as to which
direction to head and uncertain as to which light in which to present
The film follows the pratfalls of a certain Gilly (Dempsey), an Irishman based in London who has just been released from a six year stretch in prison over which time he has been reformed; a walk down a corridor to some rap music in slow motion his final steps as a man on the inside having the film seem glad he's out so that now all the nonsense may commence. His release signals a criminal buddy of his from years back, in Jay (Howard), to meet and greet him before gradually threaten to rope our Gilly back into the life of low-level underworld crime. The film likes Jay more than Gilly, enjoys what it is Jay does and the life he leads; even beginning with Jay in the form of a trunk-shot, which instantly calls to mind the works of Tarantino from which you do not need much in the way of clues so as to realise where this the film is grossly inspired from; he's a fast-talking arms-dealer clad in an anorak which comes with a black hood having him look like the figure of death as he dishes out implements made to hasten the purpose of such. But it is Gilly whom guides us through the film, his voice-overs sombre and regretful as he desperately attempts to keep away from falling back into his old habits; unashamed to inform us precisely how he feels on the evils and sinful natures of criminal life, a message of which is delivered to us by way of such sombre and downcast tones by the film when it isn't highly stylising a shootout in a neon lit message parlour or trying to engross us in a sequence in which characters are either hoovering up heavy drugs or needlessly engrossed in a lap-dance.
For all the sombre talk of gangster-dom, and besides how its interests appear to lie elsewhere, Shooters is disturbingly more interested in the character of Jay; his life, lifestyle and the struggles he has with his wife named Marie (Lynskey). Marie wants out of the relationship with their baby son and we persistently root for her to do so; but where Jay ought to be playing the unhinged and sociopathic support to lead Gilly alá something like Pesci was to Liotta in 1990's Goodfellas, he is the lead; the predominant figure driving the film and persistently the perpetrator of the crass and uninteresting sequences which do not advance story nor explore ideas but maintain Jay with which we're provided. The film appears to, ultimately, want to be about how the criminal life those lead within tears apart friendships; marriage; relationships and general well-being, it is a shame the film gets to that point in the slowest of fashions; a monotonous trudge through territory the film actually rather enjoys for the most part despite the prominent lingerings of pseudo-regretful tones and hushed advice. The film is rife with violence, casual drug use and swearing; none of it amounting to a single thing as crude one-liners and torture sequence are lumped on to seemingly compliment what the film thinks it has going on in the form of whispered observational voice-overs speaking of how terrible and how depraved this whole world is.
As a marker, Shooters often resembles the 2006 French film Paris Lockdown; a disgracefully adolescent display of gangsterism which more often than not resembled something a room full of fifteen year old boys, of which narrative telling eludes, cobbled together in which every single scene needs to be peppered with either a topless woman; a gun of some description going off, usually shooting somebody, or a character undertaking the odd intake of cocaine. While it probably isn't as bad as said example, Shooters commits too many cardinal sins within the genre to even remotely take to; muddling its aims, confusing itself to the point that it introduces a main character for the first time thirty minutes to the end, fetishising shoot outs and gangster activity and failing to tell a story of a man trying to reform as those around them do what they do. Shooters sets out its stall rather early on as a piece aiming for large things; Gilly's mentioning of Jay as a man not beset by evil or especially a gangster but just somebody doing what he does because it's what he's able to do inferring a deconstruction or revision of what it is that makes a man a criminal; further talk of how gangster life has evolved over the decades since Thatcher additionally suggests a film looking to explore deeper themes and content. In the end, we're left with badly played material and just an overwhelming feeling of boredom as lots is thrown at the screen but with very little actually happening.
I rented this film because of the tagline stating it was in tradition
of Lock Stock and Two Smoking barrels. The acting was superb, story
well done, and direction, cinematography....everything just amazing.
I have never seen or heard of any of the actors until I have seen this movie and I must say they did a phenomenal job.
While all the actors were good the role of the kid who plays J's brother stands out. Even in a minor role his character really packed a punch.
I definitely recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys "gangster" type films....there's hardly a dull moment and it keeps you watching and guessing. A+
Go rent it!
I think this movie is good but, it is kinda crappy at the same time. Perhaps it is the low budgets that makes the "finish" of the movie seem cheap. The actors are great, but the story never reaches higher than average. But the ride is still enjoyable to a degree. See it if u like english movies, like snatch and lock, stock ...
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Ratings||External reviews||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|