Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Finfrosk86 Wow, what is up with Val Kilmer? His performance is as dead as they come. I mean, he's supposed to be the best actor in this movie, right? ..and he is by far the worst.Val Kilmer is totally lifeless, it's like an alien is using his body as a suit. An alien with no acting skills.Val Kilmer acts like this is the first time he acts. Like he's to shy to open his mouth. Val Kilmers performance is so flat that the corpses in this movie has more charisma.Val Kilmers face is so wide, that I had to connect two screens side- by-side to see his whole face in one shot. Val Kilmer's face is so wide, it's like he Stewies father.OK, enough of that. But he totally sucks here.50 Cent on the other hand, is pretty good in this,. I mean he actually acts, you know. He's pretty believable too.This is a short, straight forward movie. Some acting here and there, shooting, some violence, it's alright. The movie is called Gun, and it does have a lot to do with guns. Looks like they have real guns here. Not a lot of cg muzzle flashes. Also, they use squibs it seems. That's nice. In a movie about guns, titled gun, the gun-stuff should be good, and it is. With that said, this is not a movie you'll remember forever, perhaps except Val Kilmers wide, uninterested face. It does not stand out in any way, but it's not horrible.

Matt_Layden I only gave this one a shot because of Val Kilmer, I can't pinpoint the reason why I like him, but I do. He's making it very hard to like him these days with crap like this floating around. GUN is a predictable, poorly acted and poorly shot film that throws no punches and plays it completely by the book. Curtis '50 Cent' Jackson wrote it, which tells me one thing and one thing only. He loves guns. The film could have and should have given us some insight on the gun running trade, but no, instead it is more focused on a lame story that involves Jackson running guns for some hot bimbo, who works for someone else, while he gets in her pants. Val Kilmer enters the story when he is released from prison and is looking for some work. He goes and meets Jackson because they met once before a long time ago and Kilmer helped him escape a sticky situation. They act as if they are best friends after they run into each other. I can't tell is Jackson is acting or not, he seems to be playing himself. Kilmer looks rather bored with the work and doesn't try in the least. We finally get to see him act at the very end, but it's way too late in the game for that. Jackson decides to make Kilmer is second in command at one point. Which to me seems odd, why make a guy you've just met your second in command and totally ignore two guys you've known from childhood? It doesn't help that Jackson knows there is a rat in his crew...his crew of like 4 guys, one of which is a new addition. A new white guy addition. Hmm, lets put two and two together here folks. Kilmer is in fact working for the cops, this shouldn't come as a surprise because it's in the trailer. The film tries to surprise us with this fact, but even if we never saw the trailer, anyone who has seen a movie before can tell. There is nothing exciting, fresh or interesting about this film. Even the sex scene is boring. I think Kilmer did this film as a favour to Jackson, when they became friends on the set of another crappy film they did. Not that Kilmer is making the best of movie choices right now, but this is really pushing it.

Tony Heck Police in Detroit are looking for a stolen revolver used in a murder a few years ago. Rich (Jackson) and Angel (Kilmer) are crime partners involved with the distribution of arms. Overall better then I expected it to be, (50 Cent wrote it). We find out pretty early that Rich is the one with the revolver and from then on it gets pretty predictable. For the type of movie it is, I will give it a 6 out of 10, but don't let that deceive you, it's better then Streets of Blood (the last Jackson and Kilmer movie) but thats not saying a whole lot. If you are looking for a top notch, exciting action flick I'd go with A-Team over this one. I will say that this is Kilmer's best movie in awhile, which again isn't saying a whole lot. I give it a C+.

bentalk Well I can't say it was really so bad. The images and sounds are entertaining enough and the story is simple enough, just one bullet is more than enough.Interesting how the dealer here is so quick to turn against his own crew and stick a new guy (who he met once in the past and was saved by him) and promote him to be number one guy, without knowing anything about him.I'd say the reality is that these guys got to hang out, and get to know each other pretty well.Val Kilmer was just so sulky and suspicious looking that he wouldn't have made it further than the first meeting.