|Page 1 of 8:||       |
|Index||78 reviews in total|
I really don't understand how movies like this get made. Step one, half
ass a cast together of "big names" and provide a silly premise.
Step two, give someone top billing even though their role is the lesser part of 5 minutes.
Step three, find a rapper that has no talent so that your culturally bereft urban youth have a reason to see the movie.
Step four,rely upon arty cinematography as the culturalification of the movie, legitimizing that its no better than a bottom shelf rental.
Alright, get the idea? movies these days suck, no wonder I won't pay to see one.
First of all, if you could handle Tzameti 13 you'll be sorely
disappointed in 13.
This Hollywood "rehash" resembles more closely, the Hostel series but with more jump scares, or "Saw", but with guns.
Jason Stratham, Ray Winstone, Mickey Rourke, and David Zayas are wasted and merely have what amounts to brief cameos among a cast of unknowns who do little to move the story along. Sadly, it wasn't the thriller or mind-f*&% film audiences would have hoped for. When the movie is over, it leaves you with a feeling as you just had a meal that wasn't satisfying. Some parts of the dialog were so bad that it made me wince. I had to back it up a bit to see if they actually said what I thought they said and it was even more painful to watch the second time.
I rented it from a Redbox DVD dispensing machine and I still want my dollar back.
I don't know what Géla Babluani was thinking. 13 Tzameti was a cool
movie made on a shoestring budget and was ingratiating in its
presentation. This newer version is completely watered down, soft
around the edges, and bereft of all the charm of the original.
Everything from the wide angle tracking shots to the roofing opposed to
electricity (the whole in the roof was a nice device), the death in the
bath as opposed to the chair, the globe hiding spot, the little sister
of the protagonist in the original had a more authentic cuteness about
her than the WASPY mainstream girl in this one. The protagonist steals
the papers instead of finding them outside. All the minor differences
favor the original. Surprisingly, even the acting was much better in
the original, despite being paid a fraction of this all-star cast. The
main reason I wanted to see the remake was because of the cast, but it
was a total let-down.
The original was good, but it was good to the point where it was a cool idea and they were able to make it with the budget they had and it worked. It wasn't so brilliant that it deserved a big money remake which in fact hurt the credibility of the film, and in my opinion, the reputation of the director. He had his breakthrough movie, and then he could have followed up with a similarly creative idea. He may have ruined his career with this terrible remake.
All in all this movie just seemed incredibly lazy and it didn't seem like anyone working on the movie cared about the final product. Rourke is entertaining as always, but you can tell it's just another shtick role for him, nobody was making much of an effort here. As a viewer I felt like I was investing more energy into watching it than anybody put into making it, so i started to doze about halfway through.
Skip this movie, it's just not worth your time. Life is too short. If you haven't seen this, then watch the original. But if you have seen this, I think the original is spoilt for you.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This film is about an underground "game". It a game of pure random
chance. You have a 78% chance of being killed, 17% chance of surviving,
and 5% chance of walking out with a little under two million dollars.
Rich people dress up in tuxedos, act all high-class, and bet on which participant will win. The bookies offer odds. How can they offer odds on a game of pure random chance? It doesn't make sense. It's a dumb excuse for voyeuristic sadism.
Jason Stretham enters his brother into the game three times in a row, giving him a 99% chance of dying. Why would the brother do this? Why would Stretham? Why would he act all surprised when his brother dies? Okay, so the plot is particularly stupid. The characters in it are preposterous. Also the pacing is ponderous. This film has no redeeming qualities.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Apparently an impressive film in the original 2005 French-Georgian version, but this remake doesn't cut it. The tension is there in the Russian roulette and duel scenes, and there are competent or even very good actors involved (Mickey Rourke is becoming a specialist at playing the down and out loser with a heart; he's terrific here), but even they can't save this from a bad script. It looks like director-writer Gela Babluani wanted to Hollywoodise his original small budget foreign-film festival winner style film not by special effects but by introducing Rain Man style back stories, in particular an illogical one between Jason Statham as a tout who, inexplicably, can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to bet on human lives yet keeps his brother (Ray Winstone) in an asylum (Rain Man!) and takes him out (Rain Man!) to compete in these scenarios (apparently, this one is his fourth). Mommy and daddy left money to take care of him (Rain Man!) but Statham inexplicably feels the need to make his brother flirt with death and bring him wealth (Rain Man!). In the end, we are left to wonder if he kills the main character (well played by Sam Riley) for his accidental winnings or to avenge the death of his brother. There are other back stories that are just as much rip offs or, worse, just thrown in to humanise (I guess) the characters. The problem is that nearly every one has a back story, and so there is no time or place to develop any of them (except the Statham-Winstone one, with disastrous, unmotivated and unexplained results). This is a typical example where well-known and competent actors can't save a bad script. Just because we are all able and willing to suspend our disbelief and accept Wookies and vampires for an hour and half doesn't mean we suspend our disbelief in basic emotions and psychology. It's really a shame, because the premise is good, the initial set up explaining how an ordinary young man (Riley) gets involved in a life and death game is handled well, good casting (except for getting names to play bit parts and hopefully revitalise their careers, which seems a little Love Boat style to me), good lighting and camera work (I'm not sure if it was just my version, but I thought the flat lighting that made everyone's face a little lifeless and that transformed sweat into grease was well done, if intentional), but then it all falls apart from the ridiculous attempts to humanise the players. Not horrible, but a waste of talent.
This film had so much potential, how did the director mess this up so
You have a decent number of awesome, very good and very famous actors and a starting point of an amazing story of underground gambling, the chance to make something artistic and maybe even original, but no, you go ahead and produce this film.
Hardly any character or proper story development, some bad acting and awful camera direction with weird and unnecessary camera angles. Did the director just graduate from a one year course in directing? No, probably not. A person who just did a one year course would have made a better film.
There was no proper feeling to this film and it seemed quite rushed. I was somewhat bored throughout the film. The actual gun scenes were decent, but with a little effort, they could have been amazing.
"All players, eyes on the bulb, when it lights up you shoot." After a
impulse decision to steal a man's identity, Vince (Riley) becomes a
contestant in a game of Russian roulette. The winner gets a little more
then a million, the loser...dies. Never having seen the original I
wasn't sure what to expect, and honestly I watched this because of
Statham. The beginning was a little slow, but when the game started it
really picked up and was interesting and very disturbing at the same
time. Comparing this to "Death Race" I think is acceptable as it
involves people doing their best to survive in a grotesque game. While
"Death Race" was about cars and you had more of a separation from the
killing, this one is in your face. Spin the chamber, cock the hammer,
point at someone's head, while someone does the same to you, then
shoot. Either you live for next round or you don't. This is a pretty
good movie with a good cast (not counting 50 Cent) and is a neat idea.
I just think it was missing something. I think it was making you feel
for the characters. You just don't seem to care who lives or dies, and
that hurts the movie. Overall, an entertaining movie that is worth
watching, if for no other reason then morbid curiosity. I give it a B-.
Would I watch again? - I don't think so.
*Also try - Death Race 1 & 2
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I've never written a movie review before BUT I had to review this movie
because I felt so cheated with the ending. The guy is lying on the
train, is he dead or alive?
What happened to the shooter running with the bag of convenience store goodies?(would've loved to see his face when he opened the bag)
Did the money reach #13 family safely? NONE of those questions were answered.
I wanted to see the final result of everything number 13 went through. This was a complete waste of time,50 cent was appropriately cast because that's about all the movie is worth. Don't waste your time!!!
This was a great action thriller movie. I found myself sitting on the
edge of my seat multiple times during the movie and I thought that it
was overall nicely executed. I feel that the ending could have been
handled differently, as I was not expecting the film to end so
I recommend this movie to anybody that enjoys a great action movie, however, my advice to you is not to dwell on the many possibilities and paths that the movie COULD have taken, as there are plenty of things that could have happened in reality.
Overall, I rate this movie an 8/10.
Georgian writer Géla Babluani found such success in his film 13 Tzameti
n 2005 that he decided to recreated the story, this time placing it in
the United States. Co-writing this version with Gregory Pruss is the
only aspect of this adaptation he shared. The story is a tough one to
watch, not unlike 'Fight Club', but with higher stakes. It share how
far gambling men will go to get their thrills, making cock fights seem
very tame. The game at hand is based on gathering quasi-desperate men
(prisoners, men deeply in debt, criminals who have little to lose,
etc), placing them in a room with tee shirts bearing numbers, giving
them guns, placing them in a circle, and on the command of the master
of ceremonies they are to fire their gun into the head of the person in
front of them. A smarmy form of Russian roulette, at first each man's
gun has one bullet in the chamber, but as the game goes on more bullets
are placed and the game continues until there is one man left alive.
The gamblers place bets on the various numbered men and the stakes are
high. This process is performed in a isolated meeting space and is
closely scrutinized by detectives who seek to uncover the scheme and
Vince (Sam M. Riley of 'Control' and 'Brighton Rock') is a young electrician whose father has been in an accident resulting in sever injuries that require multiple surgeries. Vince's family must put their house up for sale to pay the expenses unless Vince can find a quicker way to make big money to pay the hospital and surgeons. Quite by accident while doing an electrical job he over hears the house owner discuss a 'job' that promises to pay a lot of money. The man plans on doing the job, receives an envelope with instructions, but then shoots up heroin and dies of an overdose. Vince helps the police who investigate, but before leaving the house Vince takes the envelope that contains instructions and a cell phone and a piece of bark with the number 13 printed on it. Vince follows the instructions and ends up in a complex scheme - the ultimate result of which is the fact that he becomes #13 in the gambling game. Others sequestered for the killer game include Mickey Rourke, Ray Winstone, and among those involved in the offensive debacle are Alexander Skarsgard, Ben Gazzara, and emcee Michael Shannon. The ending of the film is a complete surprise and revealing even part of it would ruin the impact of the film.
This is definitely not a film for the fainthearted. That such a gruesome gambling scheme could exist is terrifying. But the production and the acting and the grisly atmosphere is well worth the moviegoer's attention.
|Page 1 of 8:||       |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|