Year: 2009

Director: Mark Neveldine/Brian Taylor

you know how some video games come with a warning that playing the game "may cause seizures"? well  this film should come with one as well. Gamer is a definite visual experience - to the max (as the kids like to say). and i will fully admit that i enjoyed that aspect of it for the first, maybe half of the movie. however, after that point, when the script had still not given my anything or developed anything story or character wise i just spent the last half of the film pretty uninterested.

the film was made by the same directing team behind the Crank series - which is ironic (okay, it probably isn't really ironic) because all jason statham would have had to do in those films to keep his heart rate up and stay alive was watch Gamer. as far as creating a style and visual appeal, these guys are like tony scott but without the talent (Man On Fire: visually brilliant and original and visceral... and a really good film as well)

its like these guys had the basic idea for the story and then decided all the standard points they would have to hit (main character is in jail but he really is a good guy, he has a family on the outside, etc...) and it hits each point but it feels just really deliberate in doing so.

so once we get past the fun of the in-your-face visuals and the description of the world we now live in (all "future" films spend the first part explaining how they work. basically giving us the "rules" in which the film will play out) there really is nothing there and it is all downhill.

speaking of jason statham, many people are comparing Gamer to Death Race, which on the surface makes sense given that both films are about a future where death row inmates play a violent game fighting for their freedom as the whole world watches... however, they differ in one very big way:  Death Race was good and Gamer is not. So, if you are in the mood for this type of film, go watch Death Race  or just have fun playing your own video games instead of going to see Gamer.