Tuesday 22 June 2010

Killers

It may interest you to know that this is, in fact, my 25th film review. Is that the silver one? Or the bronze one? Or the something shiny one? No matter, I'll ignore that, I have a film to review, he said excitedly.

Killers. The title makes it sound promising. When you read the title, you immediately think action epic starring some buff actor, probably Jason Statham. Sadly, you're mistaken. This epically titled film stars heart throb Ashton Kutcher and the gorgeous Katherine Heigl. So there we go, that's the female audience covered in Kutcher and the male audience covered in Heigl. But, sadly, the film doesn't quite live up to expectations. In short, the film is very good looking, but lacking in any real substance.

Kutcher is, we learn quickly, some sort of James Bond/Jason Bourne super spy. He has the looks, the gadgets, the skills, everything. Plus, he has the power to pull anyone he wants, namely, Katherine Heigl. Now the beginning is, quite frankly, shit. There's no two ways about it, it's just how the two meet, and nothing happens. Cut to a shot of a quaint suburban village, and the words "Three Years Later". For the lads in the cinema, this is the best scene of the film, because Heigl is in her bra. Excellent. But anyway, this is finally where the film kicks into action. We find out that Kutcher has a bounty of like $20,000,000 or something on his head, and that's the story - Kutcher and Heigl go on the run, with pretty decent action scenes in between them and the end of the film. That's, literally, it. So then you sit back, relax and enjoy, because after the Three Years Later bit, it is quite enjoyable. The explosions are pretty awesome and, though Kutcher's character seems pretty useless at it, the fight scenes aren't half bad either.

Apologies for the below-par review, there really isn't much to go into great detail about! But it's worth the £7 I had to pay to ogle Katherine Heigl all film. Good times.

I'd give it a 6/10. Alright, I suppose.