Guns Akimbo

Saban Films | Release Date: February 28, 2020

6.2	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 128 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

WillarMar 1, 2020

Easily one of the worst films I have sat through recently. It is fairly entertaining but it is also, at times, ridiculously irritating and obnoxious.

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

Qgal5kapMar 5, 2020

Seems like a kind of career killing movie. Might not be worth it posting this on your CV.

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

utenteFeb 29, 2020

no sense, so many errors, no connection, the story has not a message or doesn't make sense, just sell it for the actors?! come on guys

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

hnestlyontheslyMar 2, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. "What is it about?" Wife asked. "Harry Potter with Gun Hands in a Social Media Battle Royale." The wide release for this movie was this weekend, so there's always a chance it will go through a Cats-like recall where the director will try to salvage his movie after pulling the trigger (ahem) on a poorly executed (hemhemhem) movie. Absent that, there's not that much to say. Despite the fact that Harry Potter, Samara Weaving (Ready or Not, but made to look like a traumatized albino), and the venerable Ned Dennehy (whom I know best from the Good Omens miniseries as a Duke of Hell) act the hell out of trashy script, they lack the ability to put a new spin on some tired social media battle royale commentary genre tropes (how did this become a genre so quickly?). As you already know, dear reader, I'm still pretty uncertain about how to feel about Assassination Nation, whose premise was also a critique on doxxing and social media culture at large along with the sexualization of teen girls, because I haven't been able to have a sit down with anyone older than sixteen to talk about the movie, but I do have pretty firm feelings about 2016's Nerve and last year's Escape Room. I consider Nerve (and maybe Assassination Nation???) to be the high water mark of social media adventure films of this decade. If we can't agree about that, we're not going to agree about anything below, because Harry Potter and the Night of Two Hundred Bullets feels highly derivative of Nerve in its premise and delivery, with maybe even less to say about social media than Escape Room, which just goes to show how little thought went into the plot of this movie. Nerve shares some important similarities in that it 1) has some young adult star power, 2) its premise relies on the idea of a wildly popular social media fight club type organization set in the near future, and 3) the protagonists find a way to turn the tables on the organization in the end. The difference is Nerve slowly ratchets up the tension by making the dares go from being innocuous voyeuristic challenges to nasty, violent conundrums. HP and the Third Person Shooter starts at an 11 and stays there. We don't have a sense that the director has any subtle views about the public's interaction with violence in media. Viewers of "Skizm"'s show are an omnipresent Greek chorus, possibly (Friend suggested) a heavy-handed audience surrogate that doesn't add much to the pleasure of watching, but definitely makes you think that the director would've been busy reading poetry during gladiatorial games in Rome. In fact, the one note performance by everyone in that chorus has kind of the opposite of its intended effect, because it makes the critique of social media nastiness feel like hand wringing. Without being able to see our surrogates using social media passively, actively, and then ruthlessly, it doesn't feel nuanced. When Radcliffe's character self-deprecatingly describes his relationship with social media (while dropping trow in an office bathroom) as endless cycling through "three apps" on his phone, its at once over-simplistic and unhelpfully accurate. He's right, but Miles isn't (only) creeping on Instagram and scrolling through Reddit, he's also secretly obsessed with some pretty filthy internet subcultures, so to say that he's One of Us, an everyman internet denizen, doesn't quite ring true. It's not the only place Harry Potter and the Free Fire Fiesta with Worse Aim actively undermines itself.The fantasy sequences feel oddly counterproductive since they're almost entirely critiques of anti-feminist tropes of women as reward (thank you, Anita Sarkeesian and B* Magazine--everything you touch is gold), but in the act of drawing our attention the movie's attempt to move away from the trope, it perpetuates the stereotype. The movie tries to come off as clever and twee about making progressive plot choices, but also attempts to get away with showing its audience the wish-fulfillment it thinks they might want to see. The inability to let a definitive choice stand without observation and voice over navel-gazing pervades the film and gives it a unfinished quality.

Lastly, Harry Potter and the Gun Fight With Witty Banter is confused about its tone. Obviously, the premise of the movie is shooting (cough cough cough) for absurdist comedy, but there are moments, particularly concerning the objectivity of violence, that come into conflict with that tone. Miles's first and inglorious kill--which, by the by, is reminiscent of Rhythm Section's first kill in the field (!)--features an unhelpful voice over, "No one ups, no extra lives, I just killed that guy." Instead of giving us the chance to watch Radcliffe show his trauma, we're fed a milquetoast and feeble thought bubble. Similarly, there's no retrospection when it comes to the point blank assassination of Miles's friend or Nix's father or even the off-brand M&M policeman giving off Charlie Day vibes toward the end.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

joehonestJul 23, 2021

It's quite fun in places, but honestly, you can't help but want Miles to get ended. He's extraordinarily unlikeable. The film plays as some kind of woke power fantasy (of which there are lots of little social critiques in there, if you look),It's quite fun in places, but honestly, you can't help but want Miles to get ended. He's extraordinarily unlikeable. The film plays as some kind of woke power fantasy (of which there are lots of little social critiques in there, if you look), and by the end he's somehow gained professional gunfighting skills in about 100 bullets.

Nix goes from a crackshot that can take out an entire room for fun, to missing Miles consistently with automatic weaponry, from about 15 metres. The characters skills go to the level where they are required for the plot to progress.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

zvfJul 27, 2020

The premise might be interesting in a Kafkaesque way, but it's shot like a film student's first film. Clichés abound, from the spinning camera to the slow motion bullet animation. My suspension of disbelief can stretch a good long way, but itThe premise might be interesting in a Kafkaesque way, but it's shot like a film student's first film. Clichés abound, from the spinning camera to the slow motion bullet animation. My suspension of disbelief can stretch a good long way, but it broke the third time a villain didn't take an easy shot that would have unceremoniously put both Miles and the audience out of their misery.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

YabaniJun 8, 2021

Feminist Feminist Feminist Feminist ...........................................................................

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

areketsukuJun 23, 2020

La premisa es buena, pero mal ejecutada. El exceso de cambios de plano rapidos en las escenas de acción sirve para ocultar la falta de realismo en las peleas y tiroteos. Lo cual no seria un problema si no fuera por que la pelicula intentaLa premisa es buena, pero mal ejecutada. El exceso de cambios de plano rapidos en las escenas de acción sirve para ocultar la falta de realismo en las peleas y tiroteos. Lo cual no seria un problema si no fuera por que la pelicula intenta transmitir un mensaje critico con la sociedad i la tecnologia. La indecisión entre seriedad y comicidad junto con un argumento flojo con momentos de grima a lo largo de la pelicula (escenas, dialogo, musica,...), dejan con un mal sabor de boca. Por lo menos nos deja el meme de Radcliffe con albornoz, calzoncillos, pistolas y cara de recien salido de una rave. No repetiria.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Elorta02359Dec 27, 2022

The only reason the reviews are at a 6 is because of Daniel Radcliffe, without them it would be a 2. This movie exploits them for their fame and tarnishes their name. The writing is astoundingly, ridiculously awful. I can't even say theThe only reason the reviews are at a 6 is because of Daniel Radcliffe, without them it would be a 2. This movie exploits them for their fame and tarnishes their name. The writing is astoundingly, ridiculously awful. I can't even say the realism is bad, because at this point that would be a compliment. This movie plays like the writer never wrote a script or dialogue before, and the producers didn't know what they're doing. All of the fault is on the writer/director, producers, and possibly the other companies involved for somehow mutually approving this. None of them are doing their job well. There's only so much the actors in this movie can do to stop the head honchos from making a bad movie.

It would be cool if The Critical Drinker did a 30 minute review on this and say everything I wanted to and more.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews