Dares to be a little more dangerous and different, darting from black comedy to action to romance with a smooth hand. Madcap and surprising in a lot of ways.
"This is a major summer tentpole release with A list movie stars". Lmfao. You're not serious with that are you? Since when are either of them A list movie stars?
Jun 4 - 05:00 AM
If an actor regularly toplines major studio films, I'd consider that A-list.
Jun 4 - 05:24 AM
Jun 4 - 05:49 AM
nobody else does
Jun 4 - 02:50 PM
speak for yourself. also, you did not write the review so your idea of an A-lister is really unimportant.
Jun 4 - 04:06 PM
When was the last time Ashton Kutcher "Toplines a major studio film?"
Jun 4 - 04:55 PM
Look Katherine Heigl may be cute, but she is hardly and A-List actress. She has never been nominated for anything outside of popularity contest awards. True on Television she was nominated for Emmy Awards and Golden Globe, but, that does not = A List actress. Ashton Kutcher... NO NO NO lord no he is lucky to be a B actor in a supposed A movie. He has only had the lead role 3 times and one of those films was Direct-to-Video. I don't buy your A-List comment at all.
Jun 4 - 10:45 AM
I agree Carl...A Listers??? Granted the term is somewhat subjective Dustin, but that is like a football fan saying Eli Manning is a soon to be Hall of Famer. He does a lot of commercials, he had one good year, and a lot of people know him, but is he upper-echelon good.
Kutcher is famous for Tweeting, Marrying another Celebrity, Producing such shows as Beauty and the Geek, and Punk'd, (Which a sixth grader with a bankroll could have done.), and a few movies that never really took off.
Heigl has had success on TV, and she played her role well in Knocked-up, but her other movies failed to gain any kind of critical success.
Calling them A-Listers broaden's the list so much that it degrades the term. In my opinion A-Listers are reserved for bankable stars who's talent can not only draw people in, but make a tired formula seem fresh. Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Meryl Streep...To compare Ashton to any of those talented actors is a stretch.
I am off my soap box, but one last point...This is why our entertainment industry is producing more crap than good, because mediocre actors can tweet their way to being considered bankable. At least Keanu did it without the help of social networking and tabloids...
Jun 4 - 12:15 PM
Ashton Kutcher has been a lead in more then 3 movies.
Jun 4 - 11:16 AM
Christian Slater, Keanu Reeves, even Dane Cook have been leads in at least three movies apiece, but none of them were ever "A-listers." A-listing refers to bankable stars, not ones who are simply in the public eye. To be bankable, their films have to be consistently well-received by critics, consistently successful at the box office, and consistently praised by their peers. Kutcher is none of these things, and neither is Heigl. Both are B-listers. For A-listers, you have to go to Clooney, Pitt, Julia Roberts, Will Smith and other stars who are famous more for their work rather than their teen idol status.Also, the film is a blatant rip-off of Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
Jun 4 - 02:29 PM
Sorry, but Keanu Reeves IS an A-List - the guy has been bankable for 20 years now.
Jun 5 - 12:28 PM
A fresh review for this? lolwut?
Considering that I rarely agree with Dustin's final verdicts, I guess this isn't a surprise.
Jun 4 - 11:59 AM
One question Dustin....how much?
Jun 4 - 01:22 PM
VERY FUNNY-I was going to ask that too-
He's the only one saying the movie is good
Even given the fact that the movie was not shown to critics-which guarantees it is horrible-Dustin still sells his ass to give it a good review. I hope he got something besides a Killers T shirt...
Jun 4 - 01:43 PM
To Carl H, Charlie A, and other dissenters of my "A-List" terminology -- to me, the use of "A-List" to describe Kutcher and Heigl was not a comment on whether or not they are good actors, but of their status as actors. Sure, they are not yet on the same level as a Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, or Tom Hanks, but they also are younger and haven't been around as long. Whether or not they have staying power isn't the question; for now, in 2010, they headline major studio motion pictures and have had a certain level of success doing it from a financial point-of-view (let's face it, Hollywood cares little about quality).As for everyone else's suggestion that I was somehow paid for my positive review, that is laughable and clearly shows how little you know about me. All the other rotten reviews that surround mine on the "Killers" RT page are as legitimate as mine, but I also suspect many of them went into the film with a negative opinion already in place, based upon the bad press the movie has received because of the studio not showing it in advance to critics. For me, I walk into every movie with a positive frame-of-mind and a hope that I will like it. True, the majority of film's dash this outlook the moment they start (like this week's terrible "Marmaduke"), but "Killers" was not one of them. In fact, it surprised me, and I adamantly disagree with a lot of the negative comments being made by my fellow critics. That doesn't make their reviews any less just than mine, it only means that we each have our respective opinions. Instead of taking the time to criticize my genuine opinion (which I thoroughly explained in my review), perhaps you should withhold judgments until you have physically sat down and watched "Killers" for yourself. Otherwise, your negative thoughts hold very little validity.
Jun 4 - 02:35 PM
I have seen it and had positive expectations going into it. Warning couple plot spoilers below....When is a twist not a twist? When it happens every 5 minutes. How about a ridiculous scene where the "Killer" trained Ashton Kutcher gets thrown around the room by a 120 pound women without an once of muscle. The same line used over and over "don't step around the corner/into the aisle/etc. how am I supposed to protect you" Why are all his neighbors suddenly trying to kill him from afar when they could have just killed him the night before at the party. The car chase scenes feel like you're watching a staged movie shot not a real chase. This movie is so terrible, maybe 3 or 4 laughs off the start then downhill from there at increasing speed.
Jun 4 - 02:44 PM
Dustin: why do you bother arguing with people? Don't let anonymous, faceless people push your buttons. If Ebert took the time to answer all his critics, he'd never have time to watch or write about movies! You don't have to justify your opinion. If taste in movies was objective instead of subjective, you guys would be out of a business, and we'd just look at the charts & empirical data. Until then, all you guys can do is offer your opinions, and all we can do is weigh those opinions and make our own decision.
Jun 4 - 02:45 PM
Anecdote: The one time I wrote a comment on Ebert's blog--and a snarky one at that--he wrote me back. And he was super nice about it.
Jun 4 - 03:57 PM
I won't call your definition of A-list actor wrong, but look at Kutcher's filmography. The guy is box office poison.
Jun 4 - 06:50 PM
checking and responding to the comments of your own review, eh, Dusty m'boy?hm, almost as uncool as your sincere usage of the word 'madcap'...
Jun 4 - 02:49 PM
Yes, Will S., I do enjoy carrying on a dialogue/discussion with my readers. I certainly don't spend my time commenting on other critics' pages about movies I haven't even seen.
Jun 4 - 03:00 PM
hey, some advice from one amateur reviewer to another:spend less time writing defensive rebuttals and more time explaining your review, like how in the world this movie is daring and different?if you can't handle the hate, you're in the wrong business.
Jun 5 - 01:46 PM
I registered on this site just to tell you that you are a douchebag. You have horrible taste in movies, and really are clueless in being a critic. Good Job, you are a failure.
Jun 4 - 03:08 PM
How do you explain other people telling me my taste is right in line with theirs? It's called an opinion, and believe it or not, yours isn't the be-all end-all.
Jun 4 - 03:14 PM
Why do people feel the need to insult critics? I don't get it. E.g. Armond White, is, in my opinion, the most arrogant, ideologically biased critic I've ever seen, and he sometimes appears to go against the majority out of pure spite, justifying it with a pretentiously worded, lengthy review that substantially says very little. However, it has never once occurred to me to comment in one of his reviews to call him vulgar names or sling insults at him. I simply don't give credence to, or take the time to read, his reviews anymore. Why on earth would an emotionally balanced person want to sling insults at somebody who didn't share their opinion of a movie or who went against the majority opinion? Why not just shrug them off as having bad taste or an agenda & ignore their opinion? It's asinine and the sign of a weak and unstable mind.
Jun 4 - 03:16 PM
the answer to your question is a simple one: no life.
Jun 4 - 04:13 PM
Dustin I applaud you for reading these comments and actually responding to them ... if Armond White did that then this would have been a much more entertaining forum I might see this and I certainly don't expect to like it ( which might help it actually ) but there's nothing wrong with liking a movie others may not For example I liked The Ugly Truth while majority thought it was crap
Jun 4 - 04:39 PM
John Blaze, why in the world would you take time and money to go see a movie you don't expect to like??? That's beyond baffling. Objectively speaking (which is to say don't take this personal), that is a really stupid process of decision making. In case you are offended by my saying that, I'll offer some helpful and benevolent advice: Go see movies that intrigue and interest you and, to the point at hand, movies that you expect to like. I can't get my mind around that- deliberately seeing a movie you expect to be unenjoyable...
Jun 10 - 10:29 AM
1. Thanks for reading and responding to comments.2. I haven't seen this movie but the premise reminds me a lot of Gigli. Add to that the studio allowed no advanced screenings (thus Dustin was not "paid off") but that is always a very bad sign.3. Dustin you have to remain objective. Just because you like a movie doesn't mean it's good; and vice versa people don't have to like good movies. But your review seems to be skewed towards what you personally like rather than a set of standards.4. The argument over who or who isn't an A-lister is retarded. Who cares if they are A-listers or not, it doesn't affect their performance at all how popular they are. Talk about making mountains out of mole-hills.
Jun 4 - 05:18 PM
this is the contact portion of this idiothttp://www.dustinputman.com/contact.htm
Jun 4 - 09:13 PM
wtf man. just wtf.
Jun 4 - 10:55 PM
Hey Putman:if you liked "Killers", here's some other flicks you're sure to enjoy:Battlefield EarthPlan 9 from Outer SpaceGigliGlitter
Jun 5 - 12:30 AM
scum t., I have reviews on my site for three out of the four movies you mention. "Battlefield Earth" and "Glitter" are as bad as people say, but, yes, I was one of the few critics that gave positive notices to "Gigli." I proudly stand by this opinion after having seen the film multiple times over the years. Like "Killers," "Gigli" was a victim of bad press. By the time it opened, people were predisposed to hate it and couldn't wait to knock it down, no matter what the picture held. I, on the other hand, like to judge a movie based on the movie itself, not on what I'm "supposed" to think. Do I care that I am in the minority on my opinion? Not a chance, as long as I know I am being honest about my true feelings and clearly explaining my reasons for why I liked or disliked a film. That is all that a critic can hope to do.
Jun 5 - 02:53 AM
WOW you just confirmed how idiotic you truly are by defending a HORRIFIC film like Gigli by saying it was due to "bad press"The next Armond White we have here people.
Jun 5 - 04:01 PM
I guess he doesn't realize that the four movies I listed were from the worse of the worst movies of all time list.
Jun 5 - 08:28 PM
Again, you put your own personal feelings above any sort of set standards amongst movie goers or the industry; the sign a reviewer that is not objective and thus can't be trusted.
Jun 8 - 11:05 AM
"...inconsequential but entertaining summer escapism with, it should be noted, far more involving, technically proficient action scenes than the rest of this summer's so far lackluster crop of bigger-budgeted would-be blockbusters (i.e., "Iron Man 2," "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time"). I'm sure killers is much more 'technically proficient' than a bunch of robots flying around shooting missiles, lasers, and bullets.
Jun 5 - 12:54 AM
Now this was truely a dumb statement.
No matter how much you want to like this movie, I am sure more techincal savy was put into a single action sequence in IronMan 2 than they put into this entire movie.
Get some perspective man...lol.
Jun 7 - 01:12 AM
TodB, your declaration that he should ignore his critics is WAY off base here. It's reasonable to pay them no mind when you have a dissenting review and the meter's at 40%...hell, even 30%. But when you rise above a din of boos and hisses to recommend people pay money to see a film, you should be ready and willing to justify yourself to the peanut gallery.
Most (intelligent) RT regulars see a couple lone wolves touting some piece of **** film (or ripping on a masterpiece) and think 'here's a studio shill' or 'what an Armond White-like troll'. Both are vile, disgusting things, a cancer to the Tomatometer, and a disgrace to humanity and all those who associate with them.
Mr. Putman may have been off-base with this one, or he may just be completely off his nut crazy, but at least he isn't one of the above-mentioned unforgivables. In fact, I have a lot of respect for the fact that he actually made an effort to banter with commenters here and (sort of) justify his thinking in the review. He salvaged his reputation as a legitimate critic (at least in my book), and RT would be an infinitely better place if all its contributors could say as much.
Jun 7 - 09:28 PM