ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Brett Hernan Val Kilmer's own production company was somehow responsible for this film. It is supposedly some kind of drama synthesized with an action film but misses the mark due to the dramatic elements being the most over-used clichés of the 'redeemed con turned family man' genre. Important to note, here in Australia, (where they must take us for idiots), this film has on its cover a picture of Val standing tall against a blood red background and holding two .45 pistols and beside the phrase, 'A Game of Life and Death'. Which bit was of the film was that? Was it the part where the man feeds the ducks? Or was it the fact that the majority of the 'action', (if you can call someone making 28 phone calls 'action') occurring beside a lake which the characters could perilously fall into and perhaps drown? Maybe they might catch something from all the pollution in the water? That might be fatal and constitute elements of 'life and death'. Who knows? The 'action' in this film substantiates to about 15% of the total, if that. I don't mind it being a drama, but it's downright dishonest to palm this off as a gritty edge of your seat 'action' film and then have the majority of the story center around a day in the park, which is what it really is. There were no .45 caliber guns of the type shown on the cover used at any point in this film by the character Val portrays. Perhaps they substituted this imaginatively suggestive cover because they realized pretty quickly after putting it in front of a test audience that if they used a shot of the man feeding the ducks on the cover with Val together with his eight year old on-again-off-again pal smiling in the distance whilst peddle boating across the lake in the sunshine then people might get a whiff and not rent it. Here in Australia that fake cover fully constitutes false advertising as per the 1972 Trade Practises Act section 40 and on Monday I'm going to personally call the Office of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and make a complaint about that as it breaches the law. At one point in the film the blood smudge on Val's cheek switches sides (and during a close up, if you can believe they would miss such a glaring error). (Don't think the blood smear indicates any type of 'action' having occurred either.) They even spelled 'gangster' on the cover with two 'n's! To me this indicates that the production crew and or anyone else involved with this film weren't looking too closely at the final edit. Maybe they couldn't wait to get rid of it. I'm pretty sure no one was looking too closely, and after watching it I will advise anyone, neither should you.

fomccollum I'm with llanderson - I really signed up today on IMDb just to leave a comment on this movie. I was surprised to someone else had the same thought, and within 24 hours of me.I'm a Val Kilmer fan - I saw this in RedBox and was surprised I hadn't seen it, and expected something along the lines of Spartan or Heat, or even that movie where he's like 1/32nd Indian and he's an FBI agent out on some reservation. He literally walks around in a park the ENTIRE movie, makes a gazillion phone calls to three cute actresses you recognize but probably don't know their names and Fez from that 70's show. Fez tells him at one point that his colleagues buddy probably has his nuts in a vice somewhere and is giving him up, so you really expect to see some hardcore torture or gruesome action coming up, but instead Val pays some guy feeding pigeons to take care of the unusually short kid who's been following him around all day. That really is it.

zaroblan I do not know what the other reviewers with reviews posted here were watching, but it obviously was not the same movie I saw! The first 5 to 10 minutes were the best of the movie.On the whole the acting was terrible, the direction was terrible, the story line was boring and they couldn't even give us something like a decent soundtrack.Echo Park, numerous telephone calls and some touchy-feely feel good moments with a young boy. That's all there was. No suspense, no intrigue and no twists in the tail. Terrible, just plain terrible! This movie rates right up there with some of the worst movies I have ever seen.

felixcalpe Val Kilmer runs around in a park for a whole day. Sorry I just told you the whole movie.Not the best I've seen but not even close to the worst. There is really nothing wrong with the acting. The story is just so boring. Endless phonecalls here and there to persons that are not introduced so you have to guess who it may be and that just makes it more confusing. Sudden laps in time back and forward but without indication on whats past and what is present.The filming is very nice but would fit better to a romantic comedy. Endless panoramics over the park and closeups on people doing parkthings is nice for so many seconds but not througe a whole movie.Sorry to say I couldn't watch it to the end. Still I give it a 5 because the movie makers has potential to become better. I hope this was low budget because it would explain a lot.See the movie for yourselves and remember taste is different. You might love it who knows.