Tuesday, 6 July 2010

REVIEW: Killers

My favorite Ashton Kutcher movie ever. Could this be the most backhanded compliment of all time?

I felt the tremble in my fingers. The involuntary jerk of my leg. The Sweat creeping down my forehead. They all came together to tell me one thing. That it was over. All I'd worked for, all that I'd slaved for, all the life I'd pissed away at a hundred bad movies was for nothing. Because I was watching Killers. And I wasn't hating it. Which means you may as well stop reading now whoever you are, because put me out to pasture, put a bullet in my brain and take a chainsaw to my face. I'm done. I embrace my own irrelevancy and suggest you do to.

OK Jokes. I'm still awesome. But for a while there I thought I was in trouble, because I would say there's about thirty to thirty-five minutes of Killers that I actually enjoyed, even with the words of a thousand movie critics ringing in my ears. Here's the thing. Killers begins as you would expect it to, a laughless, charmless wooden action/romantic comedy with two stars who can't really act all that well and a director who seems to have learned his skills at directing action from re-runs of the A-Team. In other words. Shit sucked. And sucked comfortingly. But the film's premise of the out of the spy game Kutcher being the subject of a bounty, and all his friends and neighbours sleeper agents in a mad rush to kill him. It's not Christopher Nolan or anything, but the film was enjoyably violent and occasionally grisly in its deaths, and frankly I was not expecting a teenage girl to get impaled with a decapitated deer's antlers, but it happened and the movie went a lot closer to semi-darkness then I was expected. Even Kutcher and Heigl were OK, or at least not actively making me seek my own death. Thankfully the film saved me from having to bestow it the heady heights of 5/10 by having a crap and ridiculous ending, which was implausible as it was entirely retarded. That's the film I came to see I said, as the world was set straight again.

I'm not defending this film. It's a bad film. But its not an awful one, as much as my critical integrity prayed it would be, and fuck I can't lie can I, that would be bad critiquing. So yes, for 30 to 35 minutes I was having a good time, for the other hour or so it was balls. But when you're expectations were as low as mine, you appreciate anything you can and this film is no Leap Year. So there's that. It's still a 4/10 movie, but those expecting a 2/10, I truly apologise. Please don't stop coming here, I usually like good films I promise.

Rating: 4/10

No comments: