I'd wanted to see this movie from the first time I saw the first trailer. I totally loved the concept, and it looked like excellent fun. But did it live up to its potential? Well, let's start off with the story. In the near future, a man named Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall) invents Nanex, a collection of nanobytes that are injected into your brain and allow others to control you. It first spawns a game called Society, the ultimate Sims (kind of like a real-life iLife). But then it extended into the prison program for death row inmates, to where if they can win 30 games, they're set free. It's called Slayers. Kable (Gerard Butler), with his player Simon (Logan Lerman), is the closest person to get to the 30 wins, and all he wants to do is get home to his wife (Amber Valleta) and daughter. But Castle won't have it, though he has to contend with a group of hackers (Ludacris, Aaron Yoo, and Alison Lohman). And then there's the media woman, Gina (Kyra Sedgwyk). And... hell, there's a whole lot of stuff going on, with little actually happening. The movie also includes John Leguizamo, Zoe Bell, and Milo Ventimiglia.The movie is completely style over substance, though it tries to throw in some substance in the latter half of the film (I'll get to that later). But its stylistic nature is still pretty cool. However, I'm not sure that the Slayers stuff was done to its fullest potential, and it's really only in the first half of the film. And because the movie is more style than substance, it brings us to the film's biggest downfall: it's chaotic feel.
Especially the first half of the film, we get a whole lot of nothing. There's literally almost no story, as well as any character development or... well, anything but violence and style. Eventually, we start getting some semblance of a story, but then it doesn't really take it all to its fullest potential, either. I saw so many great places the story could have gone, but it didn't. It stayed at about as basic of a level as possible story-wise (though I suppose the bad guy motivations revealed at the end are pretty cool).
I would also have liked more out of the characters. They're all so one-dimensional, it's--dare I say--ludicrous (sorry, I couldn't help myself). The acting is fine, of course, and Michael C. Hall gives one heck of a performance for a character that could have been so boring otherwise. Though Terry Crews' Hackman was way over-the-top, though that was probably purposeful. Anyway, some characters were just a complete waste, like John Leguizamo's. He didn't really have much of a point except to extend on one portion (or type of character) of "Slayers" that is hardly mentioned or expanded on to begin with. Milo Ventimiglia must have just been desperate for a paycheck, because he just has some weird-ass role for only a couple minutes of screen time. And Kyra Sedgwick, while a key player, basically walks around cussing the whole time. There was no background to any character, no home lives, no anything. I would have liked to at least see maybe Simon's character delved into a little more, maybe add some psychology or something to it. It was just all so... flat.
Don't get me wrong, though. The movie is still quite a bit of fun. I especially like it around the middle of the movie where, essentially, Slayers meets Society. I really don't have too much to say about the movie. It was total style over substance, but a little more substance would have made the film so much better. It's entertaining for what it is, and the premise is still great (as are the last few twists of the story... which I still feel could have been delved into deeper). Oh, and be warned those of you who have a dislike for shaky cam. There's a good bit of it in the movie... and unfortunately, a lot of it during the Slayers bits, so you can hardly see what's going on half the time, anyway (those scenes should have decreased some shaky cam and added more time to make them longer and more fun). Overall, it was fun, but it could have been better.
I Am McLovin!
