Killers Movie Review

I have a great fondness for movies that let me know right where I am just by naming their director. Robert Luketic may have been hard to nail down when he hit the scene with Legally Blonde, but after Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!, and Monster-in-Law we knew where we were. Then came last year's The Ugly Truth, and though it was met with critical disdain, I came to believe I was getting a sense for the real Luketic. Sprinkling in 21, I think I've got a good feel for every film he'll ever do, and I probably mean something different than you might think.

Killers, Luketic's recent effort that keeps Katherine Heigl, but adds in Ashton Kutcher, is a film destined to be called stupid in ways too numerous to mention, and I predict many of them will be fabulously inventive. The truth is, the film really is incredibly stupid, but there's stupid and then there's stupid, and once the film isn't being remotely serious, you shouldn't be either.

Rather than give away plot points which render the film immune to intellectual attack, I'll simply point out a film that Luketic is conveniently remaking, Romancing the Stone. I won't claim that Killers comes close to living up to that film, but they are vaguely in the same genre. Killers doesn't have the chemistry, and the writing isn't as funny, but they are equally stupid.

As I said, there's stupid and then there's stupid. Notice Luketic didn't hang around for Legally Blonde 2.

Your Ad Here

In case we weren't certain, Killers' opening credits let us know where we're going, because while they hint at James Bond, there's a certain Pink Panther quality to them as well. Witness the poster.

We meet Spencer (Kutcher) as he zips along a winding road in a Ferrari, apparently on the lookout for a helicopter. The scene is so overloaded with early Bond look and feel that we expect him to drive into the sea and launch those mini-SAMS from his car-sub transformer. We flash over to recently dumped "Just Jen" (Heigl) and her overbearing parents (Catherine O'Hara and Tom Selleck) as they embarrassingly fight with a hotel clerk about their rooms. Heigl's Maalox-crunching, shy, socially awkward damsel should clue us in to the borderline cartoon adventure that awaits.

If you weren't convinced by the "awesomely hot woman with great body obviously grows up to be shy, inept, with piles of self-doubt" setup, the film barely introduces the characters before flashing forward three years. Spencer quit his life as a spy (or whatever) to marry Jen, and she is naturally oblivious to his past. We get a cursory introduction in the beginning, before moving on to a cursory introduction to their new life as a settled couple, because none of it makes a damn bit of difference.

Unfortunately, Spencer's old boss contacts him again, and then the happy home life starts blowing up around them. Spencer has some splainin to do, and he'd better do it quick if he wants to stay alive.

Things become progressively more ludicrous as we go on, and there is a certain "sign on for a quick check and a vacation" theory that is hard to get out of your mind, but a film that can't avoid the term "spy-jinx" (and certainly doesn't want to) isn't playing at your serious side.

The problem with Killers is that so many films get thrown at you that have no merit to their stupidity that not many people are around who will bother to attempt discerning the difference. Much about this film marks it as a sort of throwback to days long gone when a decent bit of ridiculousness could be appreciated, and a film critic's stock in trade was not haughtily outsmarting films that aren't trying to smart. By the time we near the end the thing is practically slapstick, and describing it as stupid is really the same as not saying anything.

While lacking the kind of charm that might have made garnered an actual recommendation, as opposed to simply a willingness to champion it against the hopelessly stuffy, Killers is rather fun, and you won't be disappointed if you can play along.

Rating: ★★★☆☆ 

Check some videos and images below.








RU?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

© 2010, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Follow us on Twitter

About Marc Eastman

Marc Eastman is the owner and operator of Are You Screening? and has been writing film reviews for over a decade, and several branches of the internet's film review world have seen his name. His reviews have brought him personal praise from the director of a major motion picture, and have been used as required reading in a course at a major University. These priceless rewards, along with just bags of cash, keep him from straying from freelance writing. He is also a member of The Broadcast Film Critics Association and The Broadcast Television Journalists Association.

Twitter | Facebook | More Posts (1450)
  • http://www.mbt-outlet-store.com walking shoes

    Hhe article’s content rich variety which make us move for our mood after reading this article. surprise, here you will find what you want! Recently, I found some wedsites which commodity is colorful of fashion. Such as http://www.always11.net that worth you to see. Believe me these websites won’t let you down.

  • maggy

    Yeah it was extremely stupid…absolutely not worth the time!!!

  • happyjimmychina

    anyone else noticed in the begining where they pan over the Ferrari racing on the road there's a guy tucked on the side of the road like he's hiding from car cameras?

    Exept there's a helicopter camera filming from the opposite angle? And they included that exact scene in the movie? I laughed when I spotted him, it's a pretty big directing mistake.. and to leave it un-edited like that?! sigh.

    The scene is where Tom Selleck is credited in the begining in case you missed it.

  • Damicol

    As a critic he has no idea at all and plays it safe. 3 out of 5…you just have to be kidding, or actually must have slept through half of it not to point out how lame everything from the script to the direction to the flat delivery with any comical attempts. 1 out of 5 would be generous. And the trailer also gives you the wrong impression that she becomes a willing partner in crime so to speak. What a fake. For mindless teenagers only.

    • areyouscreening

      Really I think you didn’t read the review, and just jumped to the rating, which leads me to suspect you are on some internet quest to leave comments on every review that rated this even remotely high.

      Playing it safe would really be to rate this very low, so I’m not sure what you mean by that.

      Beyond that, I think you’re just having a go, and “as a critic” aren’t on particularly solid ground yourself frankly. Generally, the movie certainly got bad reviews, and I pretty well addressed that idea in the review. Even so, I am not in a group alone among critics that rated it better than 1 out of 5. In fact, the vast majority of critics rated it better than 1 out of 5.

      The script is goofy by design, but the direction? What exactly was it about this film that leads you to the idea that the direction was bad? I’d really like to know, because frankly I have the impression (based on the actual merits of the direction of this film) that you are working from the theory (as a great many do) that “I don’t like this movie” somehow equals “the director did not do a good job.”

      Seriously, give me a few points where you call the directing abilities into question here.