Wordiezett So much average

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

FreedomWatchTower .:Not a native English speaker:. After having seen the Movie for the first time after years of ignoring it, i finally gave in and bought myself the Film as Blu Ray, as for the shallow reason of the Cover and mention of Congo. When i first heard of the Movie it was said to be a possible Franchise starter and Sean Penn's take on the Old man taking back whats his, Taken/96 Hours formula. Boy was i on a ride of awkward disappointment of not having any expectations at all. When i bought the film it took about two months until i popped in the Disc and take on a ride where i never would have thought to speak this out loud, on what was an inconsistent near fatal mess with some rare great moments. Before i get to what was for me the personal, but undercooked highlight, i am going to talk about what on paper (depends on how you stand on Penn's political views, i guess) seems like a sure Win. The Cast surely is great, you have 6 great Actors forming the main protagonists consisting of Sean Penn, who has surely some great scenes and moments, Javier Bardem who again plays a great role as some kind of an ex best friend and colleague, Jasmine Trinca, who also plays her role really good and brings some interesting moments (even if there are few), Ray Winstone who, well he is Ray Winstone and has some fun dialogue to, even if his role is a bit of a cliche, Idris Elba which has some good acting but rather forgetable scenes (to be exact, a day passed since i saw the Movie and i cant remember any of his scenes), & Mark Rylance, who might be a great actor but in this Movie he has an awkward way of taling in a calm and rather quiet voice which makes especially later on an essential scene really awkward (Confrontation scene between him and Penn's character). The Film has some great Cinematography and beautiful colors from start to finish, especially the scenes that play in Spain and Congo. There are some cool Action scenes but some of them feel forced taked on the film, as for the reason of their context being rather, lets just say bizzare. Now to what where the two personal highlights that also show the two weakest links in the Film. The first is that the Film deals with the Political climate and corruption of the Congo, which sadly is of rare bread in our World, especially in Movies/TV Shows/Video Games. The film doesn't delve far enough into that field in my gusto, which makes the whole point or glue that holds the plot together more or less shallow. The second highlight and shortcoming is The Love Story, Love triangle between Penn, Bardem and Trinca, this is exacly the part where i thought and told a friend of that Film something like this "I never ever would have thought that i would see a Movie where the Love Story is far more interesting than the Action parts of this Action Thriller flick". I would watch in a heartbeat if there would be some form of reinterpretation of this Film with an emphasis on the Love part (im sure there already exists this Movie in some capacity), the personal surprise for me is that normally i do not like romantic Movies (with rare exceptions), but here it presented itself with best, most dramatic and engaging story of this lost opportunity. It deals with grief, broken promises, broken friendship, redemption, loss, giving up, anger and more. I guarantee you that most of you will agree with me. To be fair, one of the Action scenes that is the best and most inventive i have seen in a long time was after a tragedy that occurs after a dramatic firefight of emotions, which results into an actual firefight, to spoil as little as possible, it is a scene involving a shower, a Burning house and how to escape it the best way while being hunted by mercenary's. So long story short, half arsed mess with some exceptional parts that get drown by its weight

adonis98-743-186503 A sniper on a mercenary assassination team, kills the minister of mines of the Congo. Terrier's successful kill shot forces him into hiding. Returning to the Congo years later, he becomes the target of a hit squad himself. The Gunman is without one of the most boring action movies of all time and although it does have some good action sequences and the acting isn't that bad it's still a huge mess of a film with a lot of talking and maybe a 20 to 25 minutes of action, suspense and shooting it's not as bad as maybe some people made it out to be but it's still a pretty dumb action movie that offers nothing new to the viewer except getting bored to death and that's why i'll give the film a much better title such as "The Gunman: Boredom" much better now.

Reno Rangan It was not bad, but the same old stuff that we'd seen in so many other films. It was actually based on the book and directed by the 'Taken' filmmaker. An international project, takes place in three different countries, but opens and ends in Congo. It centres on an assassin who had successfully executed a high-profile job in Africa. But a few years later, after giving up those kind of work, all the sudden it comes back to haunt him when some unknown men comes looking for him. So he decides to find who's behind it and why.Even though it is a familiar theme, very much enjoyable. But the problem is the hero remains unhurt and somebody else dies for him which so cliché. The acting was good, and obviously that is Sean Penn in the lead. The action sequences were okay, but the pace of the film was the reason for me to sit on-board for over 100 minutes.So if you are not expecting a good story and the stunts, it will do okay, particularly for the time pass. Yes, it had a chance to become a better film, but I think it wanted to replicate the book which is a couple of decades old and in the meantime pieces from it was used in the different films, hence this one looked so old. The critics did not like it, but it is much better than they say, as well as not good as some people claim.6.5/10

dansview Sean Penn did not age well. But I suppose you could say that an old assassin would look weathered. Also, the character is dealing with stuff that took place many years ago when he was younger.Having said that, it was awkward to watch a guy that old and gray portray an indestructible super hero. After all, that's what these type characters are. The Bourne guy, the Taken guy, etc. They know how to do everything and they can't be beaten. Unrealistic yes, but generally fun.There was plenty of action here. It wasn't boring from that standpoint. But like other reviewers said, there simply was not enough of a back story. Who was this guy? We didn't know, and even his girlfriend didn't know. At least show us a scene of them taking a romantic walk somewhere and talking about life. Otherwise we don't see any substance to their relationship. Who was the girl? Where was she from and what motivated her to be a volunteer doctor? Searching the globe for answers to why you are being targeted for assassination, and then beating everyone up along the way, is a tired plot by now. You can keep doing it for lack of better ideas, but at least infuse it with real emotion and history.How many times can Ray Winstone play essentially the same character? Let's get some new faces in these spy flicks. He was the same guy in the remake of Point Break.I turned it off about three quarters of the way through, so I guess for whatever reasons, it couldn't hold my attention. Probably because I felt that the rest was going to be more of the same and I had enough. I really had no feeling for the characters and couldn't care less what happened to them.I will give some credit to Penn for portraying the character as genuinely remorseful for the events that his work triggered.Good pacing, photography, and choreography.