Takers
- 2010
- Tous publics
- 1h 47min
NOTE IMDb
6,2/10
67 k
MA NOTE
Le plan à plusieurs millions de dollars d'un groupe de braqueurs de banque est interrompu par un détective dur à cuire.Le plan à plusieurs millions de dollars d'un groupe de braqueurs de banque est interrompu par un détective dur à cuire.Le plan à plusieurs millions de dollars d'un groupe de braqueurs de banque est interrompu par un détective dur à cuire.
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires et 7 nominations au total
Nicholas Turturro
- Franco Dalia
- (as Nick Turturro)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWas originally titled Bone Deep. The director liked the "We're takers, gents" line from Idris Elba's character so much he changed the name to Takers.
- GaffesIdris Elba's character is named Gordon Cozier, but he is listed in the end credits as playing "Gordon Jennings".
- Citations
Gordon Jennings: We're takers, gents. That's what we do for a living. We take.
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Rotten Tomatoes Show: Zombieland/A Serious Man/Whip It (2009)
Commentaire à la une
This movie is fast-paced and the cinematography (specifically the shaky camera thing) is clever and interesting when it's not irritating. Also, there is some eye candy for the ladies and some of the cast is full of interesting and appealing characters, some who actually do decent acting jobs ("some" is the operative word.) Those are the good points.
Now the other side. I like T.I. as a rapper and even thought he did an okay acting job in ATL a few years ago, but his acting here was just downright criminal. There was one scene in which he dominated the dialog that I actually said out loud, "his acting is so bad, it's offensive." You're actually offended that that is being pushed off as something you should buy as a viewer. You're wondering how no one in the director's booth was offended by it. In fairness, the fast action of the bulk of the movie shields the poor acting a bit, so the blow is blunted a bit. But between his poor acting and Chris Brown's sometimey acting, it was just a lot being asked of the viewer. Speaking of characters, the lack of character development is also a low point of the film. I agree with another commenter that you're asked to feel something for a character who dies, but you feel nothing because you really haven't been given anything to know or care about. And finally as others have stated, the plot is clichéd to the point that you're wondering if it's supposed to be a satire of some sort. But no, no satire. They're seriously trying to wrap Heat and Set it Off and Dead Presidents up in a big bow and pass it off as a new present. Just not a good thing to do.
I rate it a 5 on a 10-point scale because while it's not a great movie, it does hold your attention and as bad as some parts are, it's not the worst movie I've ever seen. So I say giving it about half credit is pretty accurate. In that vain, I won't say you should pay to see this or you shouldn't pay to see it. I say do the 50/50 thing--flip a coin. Either way, the earth won't shatter. This movie is just not that significant either way. It will probably be forgotten pretty soon.
Now the other side. I like T.I. as a rapper and even thought he did an okay acting job in ATL a few years ago, but his acting here was just downright criminal. There was one scene in which he dominated the dialog that I actually said out loud, "his acting is so bad, it's offensive." You're actually offended that that is being pushed off as something you should buy as a viewer. You're wondering how no one in the director's booth was offended by it. In fairness, the fast action of the bulk of the movie shields the poor acting a bit, so the blow is blunted a bit. But between his poor acting and Chris Brown's sometimey acting, it was just a lot being asked of the viewer. Speaking of characters, the lack of character development is also a low point of the film. I agree with another commenter that you're asked to feel something for a character who dies, but you feel nothing because you really haven't been given anything to know or care about. And finally as others have stated, the plot is clichéd to the point that you're wondering if it's supposed to be a satire of some sort. But no, no satire. They're seriously trying to wrap Heat and Set it Off and Dead Presidents up in a big bow and pass it off as a new present. Just not a good thing to do.
I rate it a 5 on a 10-point scale because while it's not a great movie, it does hold your attention and as bad as some parts are, it's not the worst movie I've ever seen. So I say giving it about half credit is pretty accurate. In that vain, I won't say you should pay to see this or you shouldn't pay to see it. I say do the 50/50 thing--flip a coin. Either way, the earth won't shatter. This movie is just not that significant either way. It will probably be forgotten pretty soon.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Takers?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Bone Deep
- Lieux de tournage
- 410 Boyd St, Los Angeles, Californie, États-Unis(Jake says goodby to Lilli on street just before big job.)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 32 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 57 744 720 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 20 512 304 $US
- 29 août 2010
- Montant brut mondial
- 80 205 382 $US
- Durée1 heure 47 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant