Comments on: Gamer Review

By: darock_maine

darock_maine — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:32:58 +0000

The movie Gamer follows a convict’s struggle to free himself from the control of a video games technology. The player of the game, a young boy from outside the system, is specifically connected to a gamer he controls, the convict. The realistic features of the movie’s video game are what attracts players to participate, however they do not grasp the concept of death that playing may cause.
In response to Gamer’s dramatic plot of player and gamer interactions, it was clear that a societies obsession with making games more realistic could turn into a spiraling downfall. Even though Gamer was an unrealistic story line, it displayed how our modern programs at a smaller scale are constantly working on creating a more realistic and interactive game for future costumers. Ideally, the success and popularity of a game depends entirely on how realistic its features are. The gamer world is based on new up and coming programs that will ultimately allow complete control, essentially allowing players to get lost in the game. The drive for more interaction and gamer accessories has reached a global consumption base. Gamers now communicate with other players across countries while participating on the same program levels. The skills for these programs have reached extraordinary highs, and gaming competitions have become nationally popular. Technology is an ongoing exploration of new ideas and desires. Gamer revealed how gaming interactions capture and warp a world’s reality.
It was a great movie!!

By: Rodney

Rodney — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:35:24 +0000

Richard, you might want to watch Tron again… or at least WATCH Gamer… there is no comparison between the two. Not at all.

By: Richard Virchow

Richard Virchow — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:07:38 +0000

Gamer is just a warmed up leftover, rehash of the 1982 Disney film “TRON” with a new wardrobe and guns instead of frisbees.

By: Kyle retter

Kyle retter — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:17:38 +0000

Good review. The first 15 was just what I expected, very typical. I didnt think the story was really that strong, unless of course you have never seen any of the movies Gamer took from. The dance sequence was killer. Check out http://www.ihatemoviereview.blogspot.com too!

By: Lilly

Lilly — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:39:58 +0000

John, I have agreed with about 90% of your reviews since TMB started up, but this isn’t one of those times. :-)

I didn’t mind Ludacris. I didn’t. I normally hate rappers turned actors, but in this genre, he worked on a certain level.

The dance and soundtrack were great. Loved them both. But, then again, I’m a Mason fan. Each were used as great plot devices to drive the lack of story forward to points where the actors could… well, I don’t know what. They really didn’t do much in this movie. It seems to have lacked an agenda for some strange reason.

What I didn’t like was the fact that this movie – a movie clearly meant to be as vacuous as a video game is as you play it at home – didn’t go the extra bit and develop characters we could find something to like or care about. The characters in this movie were just as one or two dimensional as they would be in a real video game. I was hoping for a bit more. I was disappointed. That’s my fault. I expected too much I guess. :-)

The action was fairly good, not intense enough to warrant the feeling that the title character was fighting for his life in the games, but good nonetheless. Also, the flashbacks were a bit distracting. Having said that, Joe maintains the best part of this movie is the chick who lost her head. *snort*

The abrupt ending, the lack of emotion from the minions, the lackluster of care with the characters – all of it adds up to a hollow flick for me.

The upsides to this one: Kira Sedgwick finally gets a meaty role as the ballzy broad, Gerald Butler as an action hero getting to flex his muscles and the use of the main competition in the game (sorry, forget his name).

I love Michael C. Hall. He’s a gifted, brilliant, inventive actor, but some of his scenes (the last few especially) were grating. Dunno why, but they just were. I adore him as an actor. I really, really do, and he was the main reason I wanted to see this movie. Perhaps it was the lack of substance in the script that made me not like his portrayal?

Anyway, Joe and I walked out of the flick not really caring much about it. We were almost indifferent to it. And we thanks the dogs we used some Air Miles points to get the tickets because we would have hated to plunk down money for this obvious video rental wannabe.

Overall, Gamer isn’t the worst movie of the year – or even ever – but nor is it worthy of accolades upon accolades.

By: James

James — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:25:03 +0000

Hhahaha you guys, i didnt mean he was like Pitt or Depp, i said that one day hell be on their level

Cmon… lol

By: Price

Price — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:27:02 +0000

I would have to agree with John’s review; Gamer is a solid movie with some moments that will make you cringe. As a gamer, I would have to disagree with his observation of the first 15 min. I though that the filming was spot on for how things would feel if games like Halo, Rainbow 6, or Medal of Honor were actually real. Above all else though, I think that this movie was a very sharp criticism of our societies dependence on technology for everything from interaction to stimulation. It honestly felt like I was watching the internet in live action, and some of it was REALLY disturbing. Milo’s character (for example) came off as more of a sexual predator lurking around chat rooms than a humorous fixture meant to entertain. Either way, I really enjoyed the film.

By: thematticus

thematticus — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:12:49 +0000

He doesn’t have that feminine kind of handsome like them. He is more of a Russell Crowe.

By: riggs

riggs — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:50:36 +0000

where have u been the last 4 years bjon??!?

By: mykrantz

mykrantz — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:55:02 +0000

I disagree completely with John, big surprise…

This is quite possibly the worst movie I have seen this year, and I loved Crank 1 and 2.

The movie is only an hour and 30 minutes and it still somehow found a way to drag. The movie is very nihilistic in how it tells the story by showing humans becoming more and more depraved, but then comes out with a happy ending.

The story is just plain bad and 100% predictable.

Terry Crews and Gerard Butler do solid in their roles, but Gerard Butler only has about 10 lines in the whole flick.

When the highlight of an action movie is a song and dance by the villian, your movie has issues…