gavin6942
Tasked with destroying each other, an FBI agent and a rogue DIA agent soon discover that there's a much bigger enemy at work.The film has been called one of the worst movies ever made. At the box office, the film made $19.9 million on a $70 million budget. With a total of 116 reviews, the highest for a film with a 0% score, "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" is the worst reviewed film in the history of Rotten Tomatoes.The first thing wrong, really, is the title. Not knowing who Ecks or Sever are, why do I care if they are versus each other? Just call the film "Ballistic" so it doesn't sound like a sequel to a movie nobody saw. I'm guessing some ticket sales were lost because of the misconception of it being a sequel.Of course, that would not make it a better movie, but it would at least be less confusing.
pistolaro_amigo
With all of the harsh and negative criticisms of this film let's look at what is good... Sorry, my mind was still left on dumb because this movie has about as much intelligence as my 3 year old. But does it take a genius to realize the crew took the pay day and revealed their inner latex S&M fetish? Antonio Banderas and Lucy Liu look terrific and are pure eye candy, as is the cinematography. If only more attention was spent on the script as the detail and focus on the rain drops, then we would talking about a genre definer. Gregg Henry still can chew a scene like it was Body Double again. Ray Park proves he can butcher an accent like anybody else can but at least he puts forth an effort to stretch the limitations of the script and make something unique. Best of all is the shoot out in the Mall which can be placed amongst any popcorn flick and excel, and that scene should actually be studied and broken down to the blue print because I wouldn't have minded 2 hours of that instead of a thing called PLOT intruding itself in this movie. To save yourself some headache, turn down the volume and put on your favorite techno music mix and watch the movie that way, trust me it still makes sense.
brahmana
The acting of both Lucy Liu and Antonio Banderas is very low-key - same as you would expect from main roles in a Western; very simplistic and sparse, seemingly shallow were it not for the implicit references to shared knowledge, which the audience is only let in on through flash-backs or from other characters. This way of acting suits them both excellently, and creates an attractive ambient atmosphere, energized by their martial encounters and growing mutual sympathy.The bad guys (Gregg Henry as Gant and Ray Park as his right hand Ross) do not contribute a whole lot to this movie. Gant is the sinister/smug/self-absorbed crook which Gregg also embodied as Val Resnick in Payback, and Ross' vocabulary is annoyingly redundant, particularly his constant use of the euphemism 'cancel' (one might be inclined to blame this on the script, but more subtle acting could have pulled it off by not emphasizing 'cancel' each time).Perhaps what I like most about this movie is that Lucy has a major role. In her other movies she is mostly spice to the plot, although Lucky Number Slevin does allow her personality to surface. To me, Ballistic is the best Lucy-movie. She makes a very lovely femme fatale, even agonizingly crisp in a catsuit.Do not watch this movie if you consider lack of dialog synonymous with shallow acting, or if you are just not a fan of low-key acting. If, on the other hand, you enjoy good atmosphere in a movie, Ballistic may be one of those you want to return to from time to time.I give it a low 7, and would have gone higher if the feel of the movie were not occasionally fractured by the Gant and Ross characters.
Howlin Wolf
... It's no different to films like "Commando" in the '80's - pure action cheese!!!! Imagine "Assassins", with Lucy Liu instead of Sly; and instead of a BAD script, this time not even an attempt at one, and you're almost there.I don't really know what else to say as it has to be at least three years since I watched this movie, and its detractors have a point when they say nothing about it really sticks in the memory except pyrotechnics and good looking, inexpressive stars. The audience is only given bare bones, but to be fair, I remember being impressed with the way the action sequences were put together. They're adrenalin-inducing, and in such a giddy rush of a mood it becomes simple to overlook any logical gaps or lack of characterisation. It's easy to knock such macho enterprises. It doesn't do very much, but even with only mayhem as its stock-in-trade, it delivers. That has to be better than any so-called action films where there isn't even any hint of spectacle, at all.
AD
