Customer Reviews

Gamer

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(21)
3 star:		(19)
2 star:		(21)
1 star:		(29)

 

 

Gerard Butler with dirty muscles and a machine gun, need I say more? Seriously though, I think people are overthinking the premise of what is largely total fiction. If you take it for what it is which is 90 minutes of light entertainment where there is eye candy and things get blown up, alot, it is not a bad movie! I have never understood people who look too deeply into what is essentially an action movie..... What more do you want from it?

I could give a synopsis of the film but there are plenty so far. So I'll fill in where the other reviews seem to lack.

Gamer is filmed in basically 3 different settings: SLAYERS game world (think call of duty style first person shooter, very dark), SOCIETY game world (The Sims/Second Life type world, very colorful), and reality (which is nowhere near as dark or bright as the gamer world, no suprise).

In my own opinion, I think this was a gamer's game. Why? Because, first and formost, this is like the future wave of gaming, true 3 dimensional gaming (don't believe me, go look at Project Natal by Microsoft or the type of gaming Xbox envisions in the future-- THE ISLAND quite blatantly shows xbox's projections)
Yes, you had the "gratuitous violence" of SLAYERS that you would expect if it was real humans participating in the game, because that's what it is. You have the perversity in SOCIETY that is rampant in SIMS and SECOND LIFE if they could get away with it (come on, who doesn't try to get the Sims to make WooHoo at least once, be honest!) and the creepy 500lb guy pretending to be a hot young chick that EVERYONE hears about on the online world.

You have a genius human being who is a little power mad and more than just a little crazy and self absorbed. Which isn't bad until you try taking over the world. You have a hard yet loving hero who was wrongly accused. A wife from who everything was ripped away from her and lives a life of destitution and prostitution. There's even a small group of people who rebel and fight the system, trying to overthrow "the man". And there's the gamers, from the kid controlling the hero to the really creepy fat guy who play games for different reasons: fun, control, getting their kicks. But all are desensitized to the games and the fact that these are real actual people they controlling and forcing to do what they (the gamers) wish while (the gamers) themselves are safe and comfortable at home. And yes, there were some cliche moments and the side stories weren't ever really gone into exhaustive detail about. Much like cut-scenes in a video game actually. It was furthering one story line, one hero, one main plotline, to defeat one mega-boss at the very end. Try not to kill too many civilians on the way there.

It was horrifying at points. I'm not going to lie, I was seriously disturbed by SOCIETY. But isn't that what humans do? I'm not saying everyone or even a majority, but some people in society are obsessed with situations of a sexual nature and it's represented in video games (often rated M for Mature, but some slide under the radar or be easily perverted) and in real life as well (the booming porn industry). And the violence in society was that much more horrifying because the actors couldn't even protect themselves from it and the gamers controlling them didn't even bother protecting them. SLAYERS? It was pretty gory and gruesome, but the horrifying part there wasn't the slayers themselves, it was all the non-fighters who only had to survive one game for freedom. They didn't have a player to control them, couldn't defend themselves or break away from their programming. None of them ever survived or made it.

This was filmed in with RED ONE cameras, which are just freakishly amazing in the fine details (digital stills instead of 35mm, ). So visually, content aside, the shots were so detailed and amazing. One reviewer did mention about the tatoo on his arm at the beginning of the film which you couldn't read until nearer the end, but it seemed more of an intentional focus issue, as when they defocused on John Leguizamo's face severely in the jail, because he was a dead man. When the tatoo was next really shown on, it was focused on severely so that you could see and appreciate the message later on. Yes, the fact that the makers of CRANK is evidenced clearly in some scenes, so if you suffer from seizures or epilesy or anything like that, do not suggest.

And the dance scene was perfect for the character who did it by the way! Because all of it truly WAS a game to him. He didn't care about anything but seeing things happen that he wanted to see happen. (sorry, had to mention it)

If you refuse to play violent video games, avoid morally disturbing images, or wondering if this is something you want your 15 year old to see, don't. Just NO, don't watch it, don't rent it, have nothing to do with it because you will end up back at this review page leaving a bad review and you are not the intended audience (no offense).

I don't like morally disturbing images (I was kinda doing the horrified peeking-through-fingers before ducking behind my hoodie at some parts), don't really play uber violent games (I like multiplayer First Person Shooters but don't really play the campaigns or the GTA series), and I haven't been 18 for quite some time.

Who was it that said you could judge a society by the games we play? Isn't it true, at least to some degree? Or by the internet sites we visit, the people we interact with in life, and what we choose to do with the knowledge we have? Does that not have any bearing on that judgement?

I think it was an excellent movie. Not because I agreed with everything that happened in it or thought the characters/acting was superb (though the actors did a very good job in this video game of a movie). But this movie actually makes one, especially the intelligent gamers out there, think for a moment about how far we are willing to go for our entertainment. Definately worth watching.

The true test of any work of satire is how many people it upsets at a fundamental level. In that regard, "Gamer" is glorious! I can't remember the last time I saw a sci-fi movie that seemed like such an accurate prediction of our future, warts and all. The "game" worlds displayed -- Society and Slayers -- are ridiculously over the top while still feeling very possible. In the future, we will not only be enslaved by a digital totalitarianism, we'll gleefully slap on the chains ourselves.

What really makes this film work is that the writer/director team of Neveldine/Taylor clearly did their homework. Anyone familiar with online first-person shooters will recognize everything from camera angles to teabagging in the Slayers world. Similarly, even a passing familiarity with Second Life (a hive of perversion that they actually toned down for the film) makes the grotesque free for all of Society that much more plausible. This is where the satircal edge of the film comes in -- and it's a razor. You'll never win any friends on the internet by speaking the simple truth -- "Why yes, screwing off for hours on end with virtual sex and ultraviolence IS a disgusting way to go through life," -- so I say God bless anyone who does!

In the future, society creates the interactive version of the at-least-rated R version of the Sims and it becomes a monster hit. This creates a billionaire overnight and makes the public crave more. Their solution - Slayers. In Slayers, you control a real live person as they engage in real live battles where they normally don't really stay alive. The people - death row inmates. The players - ordinary folks with ordinary lives. The objective get to the save point. If you make it through thirty battles, you live. Seems simple enough.

When I watched The Gamer, I felt like I was watching two movies. The first part dealt with the two games and their ramifications on society. The second dealt with the life of the one player to make it through almost 30 games and the things that happen when you hit that plateau. As far as the first part was concern, I was interested and then some. The way the technology worked was enough for a Sci-fi answer, the additions to the game were interesting (like the people who walk around with limited functionality, trying to live through one game), and the horror of it was brought home. We also saw the way that the game used control, how people and killer were one lovely unit, and how that impacted the life of two individuals. There was also the group that didn't like this approach because it wrecked some social fabrics and "would eventually make us all slaves," and because of the not-so-humane portions of blowing chunks of people all over the screen.
I liked that part.

I also like Michael C. Hall because he was funny as our lovely creator, and I liked a lot of the performances. What I didn't like was the way the game ended, the way the story bled out, or the way Hall ended up explaining everything. The movie also made me want to know something. (Spoiler if you are reading ending of the paragraph) When our killer thriller was given a picture of his family by one of the resistance, he had a flashback that took him back to being with his wife. It was the same scene as the ending, where his wife was holding his arm. So, does that mean the game could have possibly been everything happening? I honestly would have liked that better than Michael C. Hall going all Professor X on us at the end.

So, should you watch it? Well, i liked part of it a lot and part of it a little. It had a stellar cast and they do a great job, so maybe you will enjoy enough of it to watch. I personally would say rent it, if for nothing more than the conceptual basis it floats upon. Still, it will have a lot of holes in it - yes, the moths will be out tonight.

Already making names for themselves with their ridiculously over the top, video game fueled Crank films, co-writers/directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor bring us Gamer (which was actually filmed before Crank: High Voltage, but sat on the shelf for quite a while); an action film set in a not too distant future where death row inmates can be controlled by players in a multiplayer death match. The creator of the game is Ken Castle (Dexter star Michael C. Hall), a brilliant technology mogul who has even bigger plans up his sleeve, including ones involving the star attraction of his game, a former soldier called Kable (Gerard Butler), who is close to fulfilling his obligation to get set free and return to his wife (Amber Valletta) and young daughter. While Gamer is jam packed with violent bursts of bloody action and carnage, buried underneath are some thought provoking ideas that could be otherwise used as cautionary tale. Getting there however may prove somewhat difficult, considering most of the action sequences are almost incomprehensible due to the constant cuts, flashy edits, and other elements that are just cliche now for the whole dystopian future genre. Assembled here is a surprising cast though, including Kyra Sedgwick, Alison Lohman, Ludacris, and Terry Crews, along with small roles for John Leguizamo and Milo Ventimiglia. All in all, Gamer is a decent action film with some surprisingly thought provoking ideas that should be checked out for that reason alone, and you could definitely do a whole lot worse than what you find here as well.

Written and directed by Neveldine/Taylor, the pair responsible for the highly entertaining "Crank", "Gamer" does not bring anything new to the table. It is basically a repeat of the "Crank" action-sequence delivery style, though stripped of its humour and set amidst a very thin, re-fried plot:

In the near future, an evil computer genius Castle (nicely cast Michael C. Hall of the "Dexter" fame), hell bent on taking over the World via mind control, can only be stopped by a father (Gerard Butler of "300", as Kable) on a quest to free himself and his family from the false persecution by the aforementioned evil computer genius. Kable is rotting in prison for a murder that was not of his doing. Like many other men and women on death row, he chooses to become an avatar in an uber violent, interactive, multiplayer game called "Slayers", Castle's brain child. Should he manage to go the full 30 rounds, he'll win a pardon and his freedom. So far, Kable has survived thru 27 rounds, the only prisoner to live that long. Both he and the teenage boy controlling the human avatar, have become international cult icons. Of course, that is not something Castle can allow to continue...

Well, shame we don't care!

The characters are unsympathetic and stereotypical (all gamers are amoral, geniuses are evil), the dialog is cut short beyond bare bones to allow for maximum saturation with the endless "run-point-shoot" sequences. So, unless you have read reviews prior to viewing, you spend the first hour uncertain which one of the characters is actually deserving of your empathy. Further eschewing the plot and character development, the directors devote long stretches of time to naked female body parts: the butt of Amber Valetta (the hero's wife) gets more screen time then the model's face. You begin to believe the Butt is written as a separate character, with its own make up, trailer, and a stunt double (you'll be relieved to know the part is non-speaking...). Furthermore, the assortment of mangled body parts freshly separated from their owners and flying thru the air every few seconds fails to tantalize. The unfolding blood bath, adequate for a computer game, is too monotonous for an action flick. "Boring" and "repetitive" are words that quickly sneak into one's mind when pondering "Gamer"'s action scenes. Yawn...

For me, the most shocking part of the film is its reported budget. At a paltry $12 million, it does not seem nearly enough to have afforded the producers the too many to mention appearances by rather well known entertainers. Shame this is not an actor's film. The imposing Terry Crews is reduced to cracking his neck menacingly while staring down the hero. Ludacris has more dialogue, but still not enough to create a memorable character. Kyra Sedwick benefits from a push up bra while delivering her lines with breathless urgency and no hopes of making a serious contribution to the plot.

On a weekend night, in an otherwise busy, large city multiplex, I was THE ONLY person seeing "Gamer". Still, based on the low budget, "Gamer" is bound to make its studio a healthy profit, especially with Gerard Butler's name attached to the project. However, this is a film that wants to be a game and sadly, that just does not work on screen...

After seeing this film, I looked it up and found that it was from the same duo that made Crank (Widescreen Edition) and Crank 2: High Voltage. If you've seen either one of those movies, you'll have a pretty good idea of what to expect: lots of violence with a plot put together by a 3-year-old. When it was clear that this movie was going nowhere, I found myself wondering what the actors saw in the script that made them want to do it.

A perfect metaphor for this film I take directly from it: in order to fuel up an empty vehicle, Gerard Butler uses his own vomit and urine to fuel it (those aren't typos). All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.

But as in every pile of crap there is one thing that stands out, and in this film that one thing is a fight set to "I've Got You Under My Skin". But that is nowhere near to making up for the rest of this cinematic abomination.

In some dystopian society, death row inmates join an online "kill-or-be-killed" game "Slayers" run by an eccentric billionaire Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall of TV series "Dexter"). To the idea of public execution turned entertainment, already used before in "The Running Man," writer/director team Mark Neveldine / Brian Taylor added another "game" element; each "solider" of the multiplayer game is remote controlled by a gamer with an advanced online video game technology.

Gerard Butler's character "Kable" has only three rounds to go before he is free. Actually, Kable, or John Tillman, is controlled by a teenage gamer Simon (Logan Lerman). The film also introduces another kind of game "Society," where gamers (represented an old man and a fat guy) can move the "actors" as they wish - including Angie (Amber Valletta) hired for the game with the nano-cells implanted in her brains.

Neveldine and Taylor, the minds behind the adrenaline-pumping "Crank," take the silly premise seriously. A knowingly jokey tone of Jason Statham action movie, which looked like a live-action video game, is gone in "Gamer." And sadly the film is a mess. I don't want character development or great acting; I just want some decent action, which is not here.

Yes, there are lots of flying bullets, big explosions and dead bodies, but the stunts are all ruined by shaky camera, hectic editing and an incoherent narrative with long expository dialogue. Filmmakers' intended social satire, as seen in Kyra Sedgwick's character, a popular TV talk show host, is unnecessary. Also, I should add that the underwhelming conclusion is a huge letdown.

The idea of a live-action survival game has a lot of potential, but with its underdeveloped concept "Gamer" fails to deliver the goods.

I don't understand all the negative reviews of this movie. Much along the lines of Matrix, 13th floor and eXistenZ before it is a thought provoking look into a future that might not be as far off as we would like to think.

Don't let the bad reviews put you off, judge for yourself. I believe this will become a cult classic.

There seems to be developing a trend in recent years with these films being critical of society and the way it looks to be going. Films such as Live!, Surrogates and now this all seem to enjoy saying the same thing; "This is an image of you society and we don't like it". Ken Clarke's one of the originators of this type of film with his collection of films featuring teenagers getting down and dirty under the sheets. Clarke's films were quite deep, clever and had a serious message to send. "Gamer" - on the other hand - said "we don't like this blood thirsty society, phwoar look at that man's head explode, that was so testosterone pumpingly awesome; now here's a pair of breasts for you to enjoy". I usually like these types of films, as they usually have something quite serious to say, whilst at the same time still managing to be entertaining. "Gamer" was just confusing from this stand-point because, on the one hand it tries to be critical of a blood thirsty society, whilst at the same time being a film that caters to exactly that type of audience.

In the year of the future a maniac by the name of Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall) has invented self replicating nanites which allow people to remotely control the movements of others. This technology led to the creation of the game "Society" where fat, spotty, disgusting teenagers would pay to control other people who are paid to be controlled and have them have sex with each other or just be downright depraved without leaving the comfort of your own sofa. It's also led to the creation of convict slaying computer game "Slayer" which allows gamers to control death row convicts in a call of duty deathmatch type game where, if the controlled player, in this instance "Kable" (Gerrard "KING LEONIDAS" Butler), wins 30 rounds they are set free. He just has to rely on the skills of his controller and a computer hacking pro-humanity group aptly called, "Humanz" to get good old "Kable" free to get his revenge on that madman Castle.

It's got enough blood spattered walls and breasts to please any 13 year old, or every adult with the IQ of a goldfish. Let's look at "Gamer" in the context of a relationship. "Gamer" is the dominant one while its audience are the naive loved up puppy just wanting to see someone be blown apart by a grenade. Now and again "Gamer" will give its audience the love and affection it deserves by showing enough nudity and gore to give any red-blooded male a semi; but then "Gamer" has the dark, hidden personality that rears its ugly head in the odd scene and starts abusing its audience. "Look, see this fat greasy scumbag teenager. This is you. I hate you. You're disgusting" but will then realise the harshness of what it's just done, apologise to its loved up audience and promises never to hurt it again, and proceeds with the blood and nudity.

If you look past the self loathing, violent relationship between the film and its viewers, you will be mildly entertained by the mindless action and the - sort of - twist. Michael C. Hall makes me want to watch this film as he's just truly magnificent for every moment he's on screen. You're never sure whether he's, just all of a sudden, going to go slightly mental and start dancing around a sombrero singing la cucaracha while punching a small animal just for the hell of it, as he comes across as that unbalanced. King Leonidas does what he does best which is violently mutilating people while looking intensely into the camera making to worried about whether he's going to punch you just for watching the film. The supporting cast members are forgettable to say the least, as they're merely there to try and give the films plot more purpose and meaning, but just winds up becoming too cliché to bare.

If you do decide to watch this at some point, then you should probably drink a lot before hand.