|Page 1 of 14:||          |
|Index||135 reviews in total|
Bo Laramie (Cole Hauser) is living "The American Dream". Money, fame,
fortune beyond his wildest dreams. But unfortunate for Laramie, fame
comes with a price, by the name of the Paparazzi. The persistence of
the paparazzi leaves Laramie in the hospital, and his son in a coma.
The press will clearly do anything to get the perfect shot. Laramie
decides that the only to stop his problems is to take them out one by
A team of four relentless paparazzi soon are the ones who become the victims. The ringleader of the gang, Rex Harper (Tom Sizemore) soon realizes that he and his gang are the ones in danger. Wendell Stokes (Daniel Baldwin), Leonard Clark (Tom Hollander) and Kevin Rosner (Kevin Gage) make up the four paparazzi that Laramie is bend on destroying.
One of the highlights of my summer was "Paparazzi". I wanted to see this since I first saw the trailer for it. Looked like a pretty interesting take on the action/thriller genres. The lead roles Cole Hauser and Tom Sizemore are quite impressive. In my opinion, Sizemore owns this movie. While it's not the role he was born to play, I can't see many others playing the role of Harper.
One thing I found interesting is that Mel Gibson along with other producers of Paparazzi were inspired to make this film upon reading articles of paparazzi attacks. Not as serious as the one in the film, but nevertheless.
The film is one of the first of its kind. That I've seen anyways. Exploiting the paparazzi. It just sounds like a fun movie to me. One that I haven't seen before. Paparazzi is other all, a very fun, enjoyable and a very entertaining flick. Check it out. You won't be disappointed. I wasn't.
This movie was actually okay. Cole Hauser is always awesome and
everyone else's acting was good as well. The plot might seem
far-fetched to us ordinary citizens but stuff like this actually
happens and it was an original idea as well...not some crap remake or
endless sequels that have plagued us these past 2 years. The action was
adequate and not over-done and it really got me hyped into making sure
he obtained his revenge. I also liked the ending a lot and I left the
theater completely satisfied.
Movies - Yes (but probably could wait for on rental)
DVD - A strong possibility
Rental - Absolutely!
This is Hollywood's revenge movie against the Paparazzi, those goon
photographers obsessed with getting celebrities' pictures at all costs,
totally invading their privacy and often using the pictures in a
dishonest way to invent gossipy stories for the tabloids.
This was an easy call for Hollywood because who was going to side against them in this film? If there was any doubt about any shred of decency concerning those photographers, this film quickly dispelled that with Tom Sizemore's character, a representative of that famous "press corps." They made Sizemore as sleazy and unethical as they could.
So what you wind you up with a basic revenge story, nothing new or earthshaking but almost always entertaining in whatever form. In this film, the photo guys mess up and the victim - an actor (Cole Hauser) - takes revenge by going after them. In the process, we see how he does it and along the way are treated to some amusing cameos by Mel Gibson, Chris Rock and Matthew McConaughey. Yeah, it's kind of a low-brow revenge flick, but it works. By the way, this is yet another film that should be rated R, not PG-13. That's as ludicrous as the paparazzi.
I just saw Paparazzi this evening. Considering that the studio did not
have an advanced screening for the press I was not expecting very much,
trust me I have seen far worse this summer - Exorcist the Beginning
comes to mind! I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised; it was a
pretty decent movie. I was entertained for the full 90 minutes. Tom
Sizemore nailed the role of a true scumbag.
Keep an eye open for Chris Rock, the coolest Pizza Guy you are likely going to see any time soon.
If you are looking for an entertaining end of summer movie this certainly might be worth your while to check out.
In Beverly Hills, the Montana family-man actor Bo Laramie (Cole Hauser)
becomes a superstar with the franchise of his action movie "Adrenaline
Force". His family and he lose their privacy with the success, being
stalked by four tabloid paparazzi leaded by the despicable Rex Harper
(Tom Sizemore). When the photographers provoke a tragic traffic
accident with Bo and his family, his wife Abby Laramie (Robin Tunney)
is seriously injured and his son Zach Laramie (Blake Bryan) enters in
coma. When Bo unintentionally causes a fatal accident with Kevin Rosner
(Kevin Gage), he decides to plot revenge against the other three
scumbags to protect his family.
"Paparazzi" is flawed, but is also an entertaining tale of revenge. Tom Sizemore is amazing in his performance of a nasty guy, and there are the uncredited participations of many VIPs, such as Vince Vaughn, Mel Gibson, Chris Rock and Matthew McConaughey among others. It is funny to see the evolution (?) of the naive character Paparazzo, performed by Walter Santesso in Federico Fellini's "La Dolce Vita" to the present days. Do not think too much about the flaws, and you will certainly see an enjoyable film. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Paparazzi"
I found the movie hearkening back to the revenge thrillers of the '70s
It moves from point A to point B with little to no surprises, but it's still an enjoyable film. The film actually lived up to the trailer, which made me want to see it.
Cole Hauser carried his role of Bo Laramie well.
Tom Sizemore oozed the right amount of SCUMBAG for the role, but that comes as no surprise to me.
My only real problem was the rather blatant lobotomy they gave Dennis Farina's character. Any detective worth his salt would've instantly made Laramie the prime suspect when the photographers who nearly killed his wife and son turn up dead.
Probably wouldn't buy it on DVD, but I'd definitely see it again.
I saw it last night. I think this movie is misunderstood.
I want to believe that the reasons behind this movie's dismal reviews in the main have to do with the fact that certain people with certain political leanings WANT to hate it and hate Gibson for the sheer and utter sole reason that he made THE PASSION OF THE Christ, that it has a so-called (and totally off-the-wall -- and wrong!) message of anti-Semitism... and that he made the movie anyway, despite protests from the political Left of Hollywood. Have you noticed that Mel Gibson actually placed his name in the credits of this movie as its producer? I can't think of any other Icon Productions film in which his name is placed at all. Granted, Mel doesn't need the money. As far as money goes, he's set for the rest of his life and the rest of his kids' lives. But he has a passion (no pun intended) for making movies, and he's proving that you can't keep him out of Hollywood, by placing his name in the forefront of the credits of this particular Icon Productions project.
It's a fun movie. First and foremost. That's the point of having so many uncredited cameos, most prominently Mel Gibson as an Anger Management patient sitting in the doctor's office scribbling away in the 5 workbooks piled up in his lap.
Secondly, this is a western set in modern society. Whatever you might think of westerns as a genre, PAPARAZZI is for the most part Gregory Peck's THE BRAVADOS with a Hollywood film-making setting. Westerns have long been a staple of the family for Hollywood film-makers since its beginnings. Also, Gibson has himself stated that in prepping BRAVEHEART for filming, he watched -- among other movies -- Gregory Peck's THE BIG COUNTRY. I think Gibson is a fan of Peck's as well as a huge movie buff in his own right; and PAPARAZZI is a tip of the hat to westerns in general. Also, add to the fact that the main character of PAPARAZZI hails from Montana.
Lastly, believe it or not, I think this movie is oriented to the family. Not only does this movie have Mel Gibson in a cameo, but also Vince Vaughan and Matthew McConaughey. It also features Chris Rock who appeared with Gibson in LETHAL WEAPON 4, as well as Fay Masterson who was in Gibson's directorial debut THE MAN WITHOUT A FACE.
This movie isn't on the scale of BEN-HUR or THE BIG COUNTRY. This movie is what it is... fun. I applaud Mel Gibson and crew for delivering the goods.
One of those movies that your not expecting a whole lot from, but you
go because the trailer is cool.
We enjoyed the movie because it didn't have any down time and stayed as close to being an "action" movie as the plot allowed. A nice little twist at the end moved the ranking up a notch.
The bad guys were believable , but a little more "Baldwin" would have been nice.... Not an award winner by any means. You do leave feeling good because the movie was fast paced and no dull moments. Pretty good value for your dollar, a long as you don't spend $20.
Better to wait for the DVD Rental or watch as part of a Drive -In "3-Pack).
Don't expect too much, the main characters acting ... well, lets call
it medium. I liked the cameo of Chris Rock and I also enjoyed the
Peter-Falk-Columbo-Detective snooping around and investigating. The
no-1 bad guy (Tom Sizemore) did the best job being nasty, antisocial,
all up for the money and ... scared. The story is good and entertaining
but could go a little deeper, some twists here and there would have
spiced it up a little ... it's too linear. The ending is OK, I don't
think there will be a Paparazzi 2, but you never know these days :)
All in all a good, enjoyable movie you can watch without overpowering your brain.
I hate tabloid press as much as the next person. But I will be honest
to you about how I feel about movie stars. It is a dishonest
profession. I don't believe in actors getting paid $20 million for a
single film and living in multiple mansions when harder working folks
get nothing. But then you have to consider what the character of Bo
Laramie says in this film. Perhaps every time someone takes your
picture you lose a bit of your soul. Maybe the constant hassling of the
press is only worth $20 million. Celebrities do rub it in our faces a
bit too much about how much money they have. We are the ones that see
their movies and buy their CDs. It's because of us that they have what
they have right? And when we want a little bit of them back, when we
want a little insight into their lives that ultimately, we, have helped
create for them, they often bite back with attitude.
There is a line that is not to be crossed though. The odd picture here and there is more than enough. But as there are so many, many tabloid magazines out there, all with the same kind of single-word single-syllable title, the business has become very diluted and all of them are willing to buy the most mundane photos of celebs doing uninteresting things. Not only this, but they take it to rather perverted extremes and it baffles me that anyone could be at all interested in it. I've seen long-shots of celebs hanging around like any person ought to but with massive close-ups of sweaty armpits, circled for the benefit of anyone not enlightened to the point of the picture. Morbid close-ups of some celebrity's blouse revealing some milkshake she spilled a few hours earlier is just plain creepy. Sadly, there are thousands of parasites out there who are willing to fork over their hard-earned cash for such rags. I'll never understand the fascination.
Celebs are made out to be Gods of some kind. Something we all want to be but never can. Their teeth are perfect, their wives/husbands beautiful, their children beautiful, their homes are palaces and their lifestyles enviable. Most of us live our whole lives in jealousy of celebs. This is why we just want a little bit more back from them. They can afford it right? With all that money and 'power' a few pics here and there won't hurt will they? Well, I can't imagine myself liking it very much. And, considering the crap I've seen some celebs take, I personally don't think any of it's worth $20 million. Punching a Paparazzo in the face with my fist going through his camera first sounds like the best image of all in my opinion. Since a union of celebs is actually quite powerful, I do believe their wills be much, much tighter laws in the near future to curb Paparazzi. There's always some story of some actor taking a weaselly photographer to court.
Or you could do it the way Bo Laramie does.
Laramie (Cole Hauser) is a former Montana carpenter who has, by pure chance, become a star in Hollywood through various xXx-style action movies. The public loves him and wants more than he is willing to offer. His private life is constantly being invaded by those peeking in. But they are taking pictures too. Rex Harper (the very cool, but sadly self-destructive, Tom Sizemore) is one of those pesky photographers. And Laramie doesn't take too kindly to Harper taking pics of his son playing football. He responds by punching out Harper, only a group of his Paparazzi pals (including Danny-the best Baldwin, the psycho killer from Heat, and some highly annoying English guy you can't wait to see hanging from a tree) catch the whole thing on film and whore out their footage to the highest bidder.
Now with a personal vendetta between them a childish game is promptly brought to an end (or only just beginning) when they involve Laramie and his family in a Princess Diana-style car wreck. And instead of calling an ambulance, they take pictures of their bloody bodies. Sadly, it's not sounding far-fetched yet.
Having not learned from other's mistake Laramie is still hassled by the photographers and press and they continue to fabricate stories and bend (read utterly distort) the truth to line their own pockets. Little do they know Laramie is planning a Punisher-style revenge on the 4 dolts responsible for his tragedy.
Click on my reviews to find a coninuation of this criticism in another film of the same name as the IMDb only allows 1000 words.
|Page 1 of 14:||          |
|Plot summary||Ratings||Newsgroup reviews|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|