The only good thing about Vice was the idea and that's about it. It's just too bad the script was so terrible because they could have done so much better with this movie. There are so many bad clichés in this movie it makes it almost comical. You have the highly trained guys with super modern machine guns that shoot about 100000 bullets and manage to hit one guy once at the end, and then you have the smart-ass cop with a toothpick in the corner of his mouth to make him look cool that has a stupid normal gun and that hits about everything he's shooting at. You have the usual bimbo's that have to lure more viewers. You have the well known actor (Bruce Willis in this case) that has to lure more viewers as well. But in Vice Bruce Willis just proves us he's not that of a great actor. Never was, never will be, just good enough for action movies a la Die Hard. The further you go in the story the more irritating it gets. It's just too bad the acting and the script were terrible otherwise you could have done something nice with the idea.
116 Reviews
Amateur film school sci fi
mark-deckard-196717 January 2015
I'm learning something. Anytime DirecTv says this movie is available same day as it comes out in theaters...it's going to suck royally. Watched Vice on PPV on demand and found myself rolling my eyes a lot. This movie could have been one of those quiet noir flicks that says very little in the way of dialogue, just let the shots tell the story. Instead some two bit writer tried to be way too clever. Bad attempts at humor and in one case an insensitive punch line inserted at one of the possibly heart tugging points in the movie. It's west world it's bladerunner its i robot all thrown in a blender and submitted as a script to the film school professor. It got a F- and a 10 million dollar budget. Welcome to Hollywood. Everyone in the movie except the cop seemed like an "artificial".
Vice: Put your head in it.
TheReviewMaster6 May 2015
The premise is fresh and exciting, but what exactly happened to this movie is beyond me. Every time I watch a movie that has potential, star power, and a great central idea which then sinks slowly into a bog of stench, I immediately point fingers at the unimaginative types of Hollywood, namely the executives who think their ideas are cool, hip, fresh, exciting, and deserve to be in what was possibly a great script that got passed around the executives toilets on a rainy day when their lunch with Ray Liotta got cancelled.
One name I call these executives is, "The Scriptinators".
Whether or not they were responsible here, I do not know, all I know is the central idea of this movie needs to be lifted and planted into another movie that could utilise its full potential, because Vice had something going for it, and then stuck its head In the title.
One name I call these executives is, "The Scriptinators".
Whether or not they were responsible here, I do not know, all I know is the central idea of this movie needs to be lifted and planted into another movie that could utilise its full potential, because Vice had something going for it, and then stuck its head In the title.
Top Candidate for Mystery 3000 Revival
jackbaumel16 January 2015
Porno quality acting, porno quality actresses, porno quality dialog. gigantic plot holes, zero internal logic, ridiculous overuse of automatic weapons, bad science and disrespect for the laws of physics, poor CGI, rotten set design, bad lighting, yada, yada.
Oddly enough, the sound,editing,and cinematography were professionally acceptable.
The makers of this film have no respect for science fiction and were just attempting to make a cheap comic book movie. Unfortunately, they didn't have the funds or imagination. The result compares unfavorably with the average movie made for the syfi channel.
Thomas Jayne was obviously embarrassed to be in this since he obscured his looks in shambling meth addict wardrobe and makeup. Bruce Willis didn't have that luxury so he was forced to show his disdain by delivering his lines deadpan like a first table reading of the script.
Oddly enough, the sound,editing,and cinematography were professionally acceptable.
The makers of this film have no respect for science fiction and were just attempting to make a cheap comic book movie. Unfortunately, they didn't have the funds or imagination. The result compares unfavorably with the average movie made for the syfi channel.
Thomas Jayne was obviously embarrassed to be in this since he obscured his looks in shambling meth addict wardrobe and makeup. Bruce Willis didn't have that luxury so he was forced to show his disdain by delivering his lines deadpan like a first table reading of the script.
A very bad B movie
trikztar16 January 2015
When I watched this movie it had a 4.7 rating. I thought it couldn't be that bad - it starred Bruce Willis after all. Turns out Willis must have owed someone a big favor, because this movie is really terrible. Poor acting, poor script and poor directing.
And what's up with the artificial smoke? It's everywhere. This movie is everything Blade Runner wasn't and I mean that in the worst possible way.
I rate it 2 because Willis doesn't act quite as bad as the rest of the lead cast.
In short, this movie was a major disappointment and I wonder what it was that made Willis say yes to play a part in it.
And what's up with the artificial smoke? It's everywhere. This movie is everything Blade Runner wasn't and I mean that in the worst possible way.
I rate it 2 because Willis doesn't act quite as bad as the rest of the lead cast.
In short, this movie was a major disappointment and I wonder what it was that made Willis say yes to play a part in it.
Someone owes me my money back!
bcoday24 January 2015
I've been around a long time and have seen A lot of movies. I would have to say that this "movie" is easily in my top 5 of Worst Movies EVER. All the negative reviews are spot on. I would imagine that anyone rating this over 5 is either fake or is possibly listed somewhere on the credits...which, by the way, were more enjoyable to watch than the movie itself.
I watched this movie for free but for the first time in my life I feel compelled to ask someone for my money back. Yes, it's THAT BAD!
PS. I have never posted a movie review before so it took forever for me to find a way to post one on IMDb. I was first using my iPhone. Spent 15 minutes and couldn't find it so I fired up my laptop, spent 4 minutes locating the right link to push. I mention this because I needed to add more lines of text for my review to be posted AND I wanted you to understand how serious I was about finding a way to post this review. It is that bad of a movie!
I watched this movie for free but for the first time in my life I feel compelled to ask someone for my money back. Yes, it's THAT BAD!
PS. I have never posted a movie review before so it took forever for me to find a way to post one on IMDb. I was first using my iPhone. Spent 15 minutes and couldn't find it so I fired up my laptop, spent 4 minutes locating the right link to push. I mention this because I needed to add more lines of text for my review to be posted AND I wanted you to understand how serious I was about finding a way to post this review. It is that bad of a movie!
Waste of time
johnzappulla18 January 2015
It seemed to have all the ingredients for something interesting. But someone lost the script on the way to production. I guess Bruce Willis needed some quick cash and put this absolutely useless waste of time on the market. This will do great with the 12-16 year old boys due to lots of suggestive sexual scenes with the typical bimbo looking girls that appeal to this age group. Plot was super weak and could have been done in 1/2 hour. Loads of shooting and not hitting anything which got really annoying. Matter of fact, to watch a line of men shooting automatic weapons behind others clearly in their line of fire and no one getting hit just reinforced how amateur this production really is. I originally thought it would be a remake of WestWorld, but I can honestly say the Yule Brenner is not turning over in his grave.
Kinda like a "starter hill" for reviewers...
A_Different_Drummer21 January 2015
If you are an IMDb "reviewer in training," this is a great place to start. It is sorta like a "starter hill" in skiing, just a nice gentle downhill slope to start your review on, and then your own momentum will take you safely to the bottom, err, end.
These are my notes, to get you going
* I can claim to have seen Westworld when released in a real theatre. However in a world where today's viewers have the attention span of a bumblebee, that was a long long time ago. Hollywood can remake or re-imagine it if they like. In point of fact, the core idea (seen only in the first 20 minutes, before the film seems to run out of creativity) of redoing it from the POV of the robots (oops, "artificials") is bloody clever and deserved much more traction than it got.
* did you know Bruce Willis is 60 years old? He has been the backbone of the industry for decades (seems like just yesterday he jumped from MOONLIGHTING to DIE HARD) but he is not getting the plum roles anymore. The real bitter and ugly irony here is that Jane is doing the Willis role and not very well. If you are an alert reviewer, in every scene where Jane and Willis face off (not many) you ache to hit the pause button and imagine what the film would be like if they reversed roles.
* Childers is gorgeous. But you knew that. One of the requirements to get the role is that you had to be gorgeous. And if you get trapped in a theatre on a rainy afternoon in Cleveland, there are worse ways to pass the time than to watch a gorgeous actress trying to bootstrap her career to the next level.
Those are your starter notes for your review, young scribe. Good luck.
These are my notes, to get you going
* I can claim to have seen Westworld when released in a real theatre. However in a world where today's viewers have the attention span of a bumblebee, that was a long long time ago. Hollywood can remake or re-imagine it if they like. In point of fact, the core idea (seen only in the first 20 minutes, before the film seems to run out of creativity) of redoing it from the POV of the robots (oops, "artificials") is bloody clever and deserved much more traction than it got.
* did you know Bruce Willis is 60 years old? He has been the backbone of the industry for decades (seems like just yesterday he jumped from MOONLIGHTING to DIE HARD) but he is not getting the plum roles anymore. The real bitter and ugly irony here is that Jane is doing the Willis role and not very well. If you are an alert reviewer, in every scene where Jane and Willis face off (not many) you ache to hit the pause button and imagine what the film would be like if they reversed roles.
* Childers is gorgeous. But you knew that. One of the requirements to get the role is that you had to be gorgeous. And if you get trapped in a theatre on a rainy afternoon in Cleveland, there are worse ways to pass the time than to watch a gorgeous actress trying to bootstrap her career to the next level.
Those are your starter notes for your review, young scribe. Good luck.
like one big extended cut scene from a well produced porno
hotbuns8517 January 2015
Should be more accurately called 'rape city; also Bruce Willis is there... God knows why, he must be broke'
the acting was awful, the storyline flawed, and the general themes of the film in general should never have been considered, mediocre trash
also is the main detective character someone's brother because i don't know how else he would have received a role like that, it was so bad i had to confirm he wasn't the director of the film, making a self puff piece to show off how great an actor he could be
I've never written a review on here before but i was prompted to merely to get the overall rating of this film down in order to benefit future generations
the acting was awful, the storyline flawed, and the general themes of the film in general should never have been considered, mediocre trash
also is the main detective character someone's brother because i don't know how else he would have received a role like that, it was so bad i had to confirm he wasn't the director of the film, making a self puff piece to show off how great an actor he could be
I've never written a review on here before but i was prompted to merely to get the overall rating of this film down in order to benefit future generations
Good, very good...
RosanaBotafogo2 July 2022
I love it, futuristic enough, dystopian enough, adorable... It just confused me all the time, since everyone "looks" like everyone there, excellent technological cloning plot, Bruce Willis, good cat and mouse chase, basic, light plot twist, captivating enough, but enough aggravating...
Don't believe the good reviews
zubinster17 January 2015
***Don't believe any of the positive 5-star reviews for this horrible "movie." It is clear that they are either fake or being put up by friends or family members of the people involved in the making of this movie.***
Bruce Willis has done a few movies lately where he shows up for about three short scenes, often shot in one location. It is clear that he was hired for a single day's work for a lot of money. This is one of those movies. His name and face is being used to sell, what is otherwise, a film without any hope of recouping whatever little money that was spent on it.
Where to start? Awful acting. Any acting student from a local community college drama class could act better than all the leads in this film. The woman lead was awful. The man playing the cop was awful. Every actor was sleepwalking through the film. The movie has no plot. It is done on a super low budget (most of the money went to Bruce, I am sure.)
What was disappointing was that this is a Lionsgate film. Lionsgate makes really good movies. But it was clear from the credits that this movie was hacked together by a conglomerate of foreign financing and production.
Complete waste of time.
Bruce Willis has done a few movies lately where he shows up for about three short scenes, often shot in one location. It is clear that he was hired for a single day's work for a lot of money. This is one of those movies. His name and face is being used to sell, what is otherwise, a film without any hope of recouping whatever little money that was spent on it.
Where to start? Awful acting. Any acting student from a local community college drama class could act better than all the leads in this film. The woman lead was awful. The man playing the cop was awful. Every actor was sleepwalking through the film. The movie has no plot. It is done on a super low budget (most of the money went to Bruce, I am sure.)
What was disappointing was that this is a Lionsgate film. Lionsgate makes really good movies. But it was clear from the credits that this movie was hacked together by a conglomerate of foreign financing and production.
Complete waste of time.
Typical fare of a "under $ 5 DVD bin at Walmart"
trans_mauro16 January 2015
But it is worth no more than 50 cents.
Dumb artsy-fartsy sci-fi with a feeble attempt at some sort of social commentary.
I am not sure whether "Vice" suggests that all men are potential murderers of defenseless women, whether it criticizes the virtual reality of video game and that these games lead to a violent society or whether men are misogynistic monsters. The story is a messy, sticky mix of many other stories...
Anyways, it is one of those films that fails in all fronts, from poor acting (Bruce Willis seems to be in a trance), wasted talent (T. Jane is lost), plot, direction. Visually it is bland, dull.
Vice will for sure be one contender for a Golden Raspberry Award in all categories.
Do yourself a favor and avoid it. It is horrid.
Dumb artsy-fartsy sci-fi with a feeble attempt at some sort of social commentary.
I am not sure whether "Vice" suggests that all men are potential murderers of defenseless women, whether it criticizes the virtual reality of video game and that these games lead to a violent society or whether men are misogynistic monsters. The story is a messy, sticky mix of many other stories...
Anyways, it is one of those films that fails in all fronts, from poor acting (Bruce Willis seems to be in a trance), wasted talent (T. Jane is lost), plot, direction. Visually it is bland, dull.
Vice will for sure be one contender for a Golden Raspberry Award in all categories.
Do yourself a favor and avoid it. It is horrid.
Great idea worse movie
abisio18 January 2015
The original idea was interesting. A theme park for adults were people can do whatever they want. With some imagination it could become a serious study of human conduct; an action movie, a moral tale or at least a very interesting movie. Well thanks to really bad and lazy writer, a not better director and a few good actors trying only to get their checks and run out, this is one of the worse movie of the year (assuming it is the worst would be a compliment this movie really do not deserve).
Making a list of errors would be endless and not worth reading; simply avoid it at any cost.
Making a list of errors would be endless and not worth reading; simply avoid it at any cost.
Could've used more work
breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com9 June 2015
When it comes to lower budget film releases, the movie genre to probably have the most trouble looking anywhere near authentic is in the realm of science fiction. Most science fiction films today require a lot of heavy CGI and high tech gadgetry in order to look somewhat presentable for its genre and the audience viewing it. However, people tend to forget how ambitious their plans may be and the error of their ways ends up showing up in the end product. For this particular feature though, this is only one of a number of issues that is noticeable. Directed by Brian A. Miller, this would-be sci-fi thriller has a tough time throwing out any original ideas to the table that haven't already been used. Writers Andre Fabrizio and Jeremy Passmore (both San Andreas (2015)) don't seem to have a full grasp on what exactly they wanted the movie get across.
The story takes place in some undated future where a new society arises called Vice. Established by a man named Julian (Bruce Willis), Vice was created as an outlet for the public, so that for any fantasy they wanted to make for themselves was possible. That meant no laws, no government, no responsibilities and no consequences. Making sure that any acts of violence were performed humanely, the company made A.I. units who looked, acted and lived like normal human beings but underneath there was software and electronics. After one A.I. unit named Kelly (Ambyr Childers) begins having repeated flashbacks of past events, she flees with Vice security on her tail hoping that Kelly won't reveal to the public a unit became self aware. Also following closely behind is Roy Tadeski (Thomas Jane), a lone cop who's not too fond of Vice for generic reasons pertaining to the attitudes people end up adopting after leaving the facility.
Writing wise, it isn't the absolute worst but it isn't well thought out either. The screenplay tries to tackle a number of social and idealistic issues by borrowing ideas from older films like Westworld (1973), RoboCop (1987) and even The Purge (2013), but much of it is just underdeveloped and underplayed. The actors themselves are okay at best but you would figure, both Thomas Jane and Bruce Willis, who both have enough experience to act would make some kind of an impression. Thomas Jane has a couple of humorous moments in the film but much of it is just him mumbling through a toothpick. Willis is even more disappointing because his role really just feels like a call in. It would actually be more appropriate to say that Ambyr Childers as the rogue unit and Bryan Greenberg, who plays an important character in the plot, are far more interesting to watch than the two veterans previously mentioned. The story itself is not new but it can be tolerated. What isn't tolerated is how it was executed like a standard cat and mouse chase.
Because the majority of characters are quite predictable, there isn't much tension to be found among the scenes that have time constraining ordeals. Another aspect to this movie that isn't exploited properly are the sci-fi elements. Of everything described previously involving A.I. units and software, there is only one scene that looks remotely scientific. This involves rewiring a fuse inside a unit. The rest of the would-be science fiction like A.I. scenes are all done indirectly. An example of this is when Kelly receives an upgrade, which is done off screen. How disappointing - that's really trying to stretch the audiences' gullibility. The other major component that is sorely lacking any exploration is the paradise of Vice itself. The only thing audiences get to see in Vice are acts of murder, drinking and sex. Yeah these are pretty much the kinds of things most people would want to get away with, but with no laws wouldn't there be more to that? Surely someone would be more creative do something crazier than that, of which isn't it kind of the whole point?
Also how does a visitor to Vice know the difference between a human and a unit? There really wasn't any explanation given. The only science fiction like credit that can be given is the set production to the film. At least that looked somewhat apocalyptic in some respects and they didn't look cheap either. The shootouts are alright but nothing inventive. The part that worked against that however was the cinematography shot by Yaron Levy. There were two things Levy kept doing that will probably annoy the viewers. First, there are two many shots with dutch and other cockeyed angles. The second is that when Levy's camera is lateral, the camera keeps doing rotating 360 circumference shots. This is better than shaky camera by far but still frustrating at times. The film score however was better than expected. Composed by a trio of artists who call themselves Hybrid did an okay job. There was no main theme but they did have a number of tracks that worked, especially the ones involving Ambyr Childers and Bryan Greenberg. The thing I can't believe is that the filmmakers actually thought that this movie would get a sequel with an extremely obvious cliffhanger.
Its set production and music display decent quality with okay acting by the main cast but it's more of a time waster than it is worth a watch. The writing is below average, the camera-work is frustrating at best, the action is too standard and the science fiction elements are barely used for a story based on it.
The story takes place in some undated future where a new society arises called Vice. Established by a man named Julian (Bruce Willis), Vice was created as an outlet for the public, so that for any fantasy they wanted to make for themselves was possible. That meant no laws, no government, no responsibilities and no consequences. Making sure that any acts of violence were performed humanely, the company made A.I. units who looked, acted and lived like normal human beings but underneath there was software and electronics. After one A.I. unit named Kelly (Ambyr Childers) begins having repeated flashbacks of past events, she flees with Vice security on her tail hoping that Kelly won't reveal to the public a unit became self aware. Also following closely behind is Roy Tadeski (Thomas Jane), a lone cop who's not too fond of Vice for generic reasons pertaining to the attitudes people end up adopting after leaving the facility.
Writing wise, it isn't the absolute worst but it isn't well thought out either. The screenplay tries to tackle a number of social and idealistic issues by borrowing ideas from older films like Westworld (1973), RoboCop (1987) and even The Purge (2013), but much of it is just underdeveloped and underplayed. The actors themselves are okay at best but you would figure, both Thomas Jane and Bruce Willis, who both have enough experience to act would make some kind of an impression. Thomas Jane has a couple of humorous moments in the film but much of it is just him mumbling through a toothpick. Willis is even more disappointing because his role really just feels like a call in. It would actually be more appropriate to say that Ambyr Childers as the rogue unit and Bryan Greenberg, who plays an important character in the plot, are far more interesting to watch than the two veterans previously mentioned. The story itself is not new but it can be tolerated. What isn't tolerated is how it was executed like a standard cat and mouse chase.
Because the majority of characters are quite predictable, there isn't much tension to be found among the scenes that have time constraining ordeals. Another aspect to this movie that isn't exploited properly are the sci-fi elements. Of everything described previously involving A.I. units and software, there is only one scene that looks remotely scientific. This involves rewiring a fuse inside a unit. The rest of the would-be science fiction like A.I. scenes are all done indirectly. An example of this is when Kelly receives an upgrade, which is done off screen. How disappointing - that's really trying to stretch the audiences' gullibility. The other major component that is sorely lacking any exploration is the paradise of Vice itself. The only thing audiences get to see in Vice are acts of murder, drinking and sex. Yeah these are pretty much the kinds of things most people would want to get away with, but with no laws wouldn't there be more to that? Surely someone would be more creative do something crazier than that, of which isn't it kind of the whole point?
Also how does a visitor to Vice know the difference between a human and a unit? There really wasn't any explanation given. The only science fiction like credit that can be given is the set production to the film. At least that looked somewhat apocalyptic in some respects and they didn't look cheap either. The shootouts are alright but nothing inventive. The part that worked against that however was the cinematography shot by Yaron Levy. There were two things Levy kept doing that will probably annoy the viewers. First, there are two many shots with dutch and other cockeyed angles. The second is that when Levy's camera is lateral, the camera keeps doing rotating 360 circumference shots. This is better than shaky camera by far but still frustrating at times. The film score however was better than expected. Composed by a trio of artists who call themselves Hybrid did an okay job. There was no main theme but they did have a number of tracks that worked, especially the ones involving Ambyr Childers and Bryan Greenberg. The thing I can't believe is that the filmmakers actually thought that this movie would get a sequel with an extremely obvious cliffhanger.
Its set production and music display decent quality with okay acting by the main cast but it's more of a time waster than it is worth a watch. The writing is below average, the camera-work is frustrating at best, the action is too standard and the science fiction elements are barely used for a story based on it.
Another "doing it for the paycheck" cameo movie by Bruce
dirtbiking19 January 2015
Bruce has gotten into the practice of lending his name to crappy B-movie efforts, giving up 5 minutes of screen time, then cashing his check. He doesn't even try any more. There's nothing more to say about this movie other than its not worth the electricity consumed to project it on the screen.
Bruce has gotten into the practice of lending his name to crappy B-movie efforts, giving up 5 minutes of screen time, then cashing his check. He doesn't even try any more. There's nothing more to say about this movie other than its not worth the electricity consumed to project it on the screen.
Bruce has gotten into the practice of lending his name to crappy B-movie efforts, giving up 5 minutes of screen time, then cashing his check. He doesn't even try any more. There's nothing more to say about this movie other than its not worth the electricity consumed to project it on the screen.
A great time-passer!
joeyfrats21 May 2019
Ok, starting off with the fact this has not won any Major Red Carpet accolades, I feel this movie may have the core values of "entertainment".
Albeit, more nudity could have peaked a higher interest; the action scenes did not disappoint!
Side-note: for "trained" armed security, I believe they couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat. Why is that??? Most action movies could end with a few well placed shots by "trained" security...
Plot line: decent. Stretching, but could be worse. Actors: Willis, can't ever do wrong! Jane, batting .500, but always a fan. Childers, new fresh face. Should try and stick to movies with minimal lines.
All in all, say thru it and wasn't highly disappointed! Give it a go!
Plot line: decent. Stretching, but could be worse. Actors: Willis, can't ever do wrong! Jane, batting .500, but always a fan. Childers, new fresh face. Should try and stick to movies with minimal lines.
All in all, say thru it and wasn't highly disappointed! Give it a go!
Don't waste your time.
soniaquebec6 May 2021
This movie looks old. Like it was made in the 90's. The colors are weird (all those blue lights), the acting is terrible, the plot is mediocre... For a supposedly high tech company they were really stupid.
Does Bruce Willis really need that money because I can't believe he would associate his name to this mess. Or he's getting blackmailed because it doesn't make any sense.
Does Bruce Willis really need that money because I can't believe he would associate his name to this mess. Or he's getting blackmailed because it doesn't make any sense.
Great Movie
caligrkgrl6 January 2015
I've seen good movies, bad movies and then movies gone horribly wrong. I've read and heard critics say the WORST movie and actually LOVED IT and then have heard critics that say the BEST movie ever and wanted a refund on wasting my time! VICE was NOT a waste of my time. Always a fan of Bruce and this film is definitely not a boring moment. I am a huge action and science fiction fan and loved the suspense. It's a great movie that combines science fiction and adventure, marvelously. Brian Miller is a fresh new talent that Hollywood is in need of. I will be eager to view what he has in store in the coming future. VICE is a movie I will enjoy watching again and again.
Did Bruce Willis Help a College Film Stutent ?? ( * Spoiler * )
kbarnett201726 April 2015
Wow, it is still on Pause I cant take it any more !! Bruce is good , but wow - My kid can fire guns and not miss too - Yikes ! Simply bad stereo typed detective role for what's his name ?? Wow I can say much maybe I spent to much money on this at Target - yikes - REFUND , to the 1.00 bin -- Wow - I honestly think Bruce did this to help someone .... I don't think he would take on this film ... unless he was trying to help a student and or an up coming actor .... Maybe he can shed light on why he took this role .... anyone know ?? -- Some scenes just do not make sense , the weapons hit NOTHING and that tracker ?? He should have known they were coming like duh .... Many Many Duh moments and , what ? Moments and or Wow they are bad shooters .... Yikes -- Bruce can I have my 10 bucks back please.....
Highly derivative of better films
ginocox-206-3369687 March 2015
"Vice" is not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. It's derivative of several movies, including "Westworld," "The Long Kiss Goodnight," "Blade Runner," "The Matrix" and "Strange Days." The script offers some interesting notions, but fails to develop them in an interesting fashion and relies on a deus ex machina plot device. Technical elements are not bad, but the project relies on a lot of action sequences that aren't executed very well, apparently due to budget limitations. The production values are adequate to suggest what the film could have been but not sufficient to deliver on the promise of the premise.
That premise involves an exclusive resort staffed by genetically engineered androids where guests can enact their wildest fantasies without repercussions. The dramatic question is whether this provides a safe outlet for antisocial impulses or encourages amplified behavior in the parallel real world. But that dramatic question is muddled by complications that arise when one of the androids becomes sentient.
The script, penned by the writing team of Andre Fabrizio and Jeremy Passmore, who also wrote "The Prince," another mediocre Bruce Willis vehicle, would need a six-week Charles Atlas course to beef up to a status that might charitably be termed weak and lame. If you're looking for character development, inner conflict, ambiguity, dialogue that isn't on-the-nose or expository, subtext, allegory, memorable lines, a hero's journey, or just about anything else of quality in screen writing, you would be well advised to look elsewhere.
The acting is not bad. Ambyr Childers does a decent job with the material she's given, including the action scenes. Bruce Willis plays an unimaginative role that seems written expressly for him, but does as well as can be expected with what he's given. Thomas Jane gives his performance a lot of energy, but again seems limited by his material.
The guests at this resort are free to indulge whatever fantasy they want without fear of repercussions. But they all gravitate toward either crimes against women or crimes against society, after warming up with a little hedonistic partying at an upscale discothèque where they indulge in the fantasy of being on the list. None of them seems to have any fantasy that seems remotely positive or psychologically normal, such as being a fireman or astronaut. None of them seems to suffer from any physical disabilities, such as being old, overweight or female. And none seems inclined to indulge in any of the other deadly sins, such as gluttony, sloth, envy or pride. It's all lust, anger or greed. They all seem to be loners, as none seems to come with a friend or significant other.
The androids suffer from the L-shaped sheet syndrome, a mocking reference to Hollywood films and television programs from the 1950s-60s where bed sheets covered females to the bosom but only covered men to the waist. Their abilities seem contrived to fit the immediate exigencies of the script rather than any cohesive vision of near-future technology.
It would have made sense to give the androids extraordinary strength. They are subject to extraordinary wear and tear and are on call 24/7. It would also have made sense to make the guards androids so that when they become cannon fodder for the shoot-outs, the audience doesn't lose empathy for the protagonist. I would think that such a resort would charge the customers for the amount of damage they cause. Why should the client who wants an orgy with seven Ethiopian ostrich fan girls pay the same price as the guy who wants to blow up a building in a terrorist attack (not that either fantasy is depicted)? If the guests begin to escalate their violent behavior when they return to the outside world, wouldn't they also escalate their behavior within the resort and become more of a problem for its management? In a lot of ways, the script seems superficial and not fully developed.
As mindless diversion, the movie isn't bad. It has a few good ideas that could have been developed into a much more compelling screenplay. Instead it rehashes familiar notions from prior films without expanding or enriching them. It doesn't have much of a moral, if any at all. What is the moral? It's bad to try to realize your fantasies? Androids are human also with real feelings? Given their freedom, humans will become callous, while androids will become empathetic?
I haven't the faintest notion of what the filmmakers are trying to say about technology, violence and human empathy.
The film falls into that nebulous zone between being a waste of time and enriching. It's not particularly exciting, suspenseful, cathartic, meaningful, thought provoking, sexy, erotic, violent, dramatic or anything else. It's a little of this and a little of that without distinguishing itself on any front. It looks and feels like a made for television movie that's trying to represent itself as a theatrical release.
That premise involves an exclusive resort staffed by genetically engineered androids where guests can enact their wildest fantasies without repercussions. The dramatic question is whether this provides a safe outlet for antisocial impulses or encourages amplified behavior in the parallel real world. But that dramatic question is muddled by complications that arise when one of the androids becomes sentient.
The script, penned by the writing team of Andre Fabrizio and Jeremy Passmore, who also wrote "The Prince," another mediocre Bruce Willis vehicle, would need a six-week Charles Atlas course to beef up to a status that might charitably be termed weak and lame. If you're looking for character development, inner conflict, ambiguity, dialogue that isn't on-the-nose or expository, subtext, allegory, memorable lines, a hero's journey, or just about anything else of quality in screen writing, you would be well advised to look elsewhere.
The acting is not bad. Ambyr Childers does a decent job with the material she's given, including the action scenes. Bruce Willis plays an unimaginative role that seems written expressly for him, but does as well as can be expected with what he's given. Thomas Jane gives his performance a lot of energy, but again seems limited by his material.
The guests at this resort are free to indulge whatever fantasy they want without fear of repercussions. But they all gravitate toward either crimes against women or crimes against society, after warming up with a little hedonistic partying at an upscale discothèque where they indulge in the fantasy of being on the list. None of them seems to have any fantasy that seems remotely positive or psychologically normal, such as being a fireman or astronaut. None of them seems to suffer from any physical disabilities, such as being old, overweight or female. And none seems inclined to indulge in any of the other deadly sins, such as gluttony, sloth, envy or pride. It's all lust, anger or greed. They all seem to be loners, as none seems to come with a friend or significant other.
The androids suffer from the L-shaped sheet syndrome, a mocking reference to Hollywood films and television programs from the 1950s-60s where bed sheets covered females to the bosom but only covered men to the waist. Their abilities seem contrived to fit the immediate exigencies of the script rather than any cohesive vision of near-future technology.
It would have made sense to give the androids extraordinary strength. They are subject to extraordinary wear and tear and are on call 24/7. It would also have made sense to make the guards androids so that when they become cannon fodder for the shoot-outs, the audience doesn't lose empathy for the protagonist. I would think that such a resort would charge the customers for the amount of damage they cause. Why should the client who wants an orgy with seven Ethiopian ostrich fan girls pay the same price as the guy who wants to blow up a building in a terrorist attack (not that either fantasy is depicted)? If the guests begin to escalate their violent behavior when they return to the outside world, wouldn't they also escalate their behavior within the resort and become more of a problem for its management? In a lot of ways, the script seems superficial and not fully developed.
As mindless diversion, the movie isn't bad. It has a few good ideas that could have been developed into a much more compelling screenplay. Instead it rehashes familiar notions from prior films without expanding or enriching them. It doesn't have much of a moral, if any at all. What is the moral? It's bad to try to realize your fantasies? Androids are human also with real feelings? Given their freedom, humans will become callous, while androids will become empathetic?
I haven't the faintest notion of what the filmmakers are trying to say about technology, violence and human empathy.
The film falls into that nebulous zone between being a waste of time and enriching. It's not particularly exciting, suspenseful, cathartic, meaningful, thought provoking, sexy, erotic, violent, dramatic or anything else. It's a little of this and a little of that without distinguishing itself on any front. It looks and feels like a made for television movie that's trying to represent itself as a theatrical release.
More artificial than wild
TheLittleSongbird23 October 2018
Saw 'Vice' because Bruce Willis has done good films and given good performances in the past and the idea for the story sounded interesting. Expectations were not high though, because Willis has been past prime for a while (several bad films and has looked tired and disengaged a lot) and having disliked his other outings with director Brian A.Miller, especially 'Reprisal'.
'Vice' is not a good representation of him, as a film it is down there as one of his worst and his own performance likewise. It fails dismally, faring very unfavourably in relation to other films seen in the genre, and while the idea was great 'Vice' manages to portray it with no thrills or imagination, complete with dull pacing, lots of silliness and endless predictability. Not hating it with pleasure, it's my honest opinion and my negative feelings towards it are regrettable.
Willis is used poorly, looks tired and like he didn't want to be there. Jonathan Schaech is stuck in a one-dimensional role that he overdoes in some places and underacts in others. They are nothing though next to a completely charisma free Thomas Jane spending the whole time looking completely disinterested and like he had not slept in days.
Visually, 'Vice' looks amateurish, the photography here some of the most disorganised, least stylish and self-indulgent for any film seen recently and the editing lacks cohesion. The music is too loud, should have been used far less and some of the placement is inappropriate. Brian A. Miller's direction is similar to that of an inexperienced rookie to the job, no personality and a lot of chaos and dullness.
Dialogue from the very start to the contrived climax is riddled with clichés and cheese and what little there is of the story has no surprises, fun or tension, is very pedestrian in pace and fails to make sense or have signs of maturity. It is good that it didn't take itself too seriously but 'Vice' goes overboard on the ridiculousness and lack of plausibility. The action is clumsily choreographed, sloppily edited and not exciting or suspenseful at all, as well as looking at least twenty years out of date. The characters are not compelling or easy to get behind. Do not expect every character in every film to be likeable when characters in numerous films purposefully aren't, but it is an issue if there are characters meant to be rootable and 'Vice' has that problem.
On the whole, awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox
'Vice' is not a good representation of him, as a film it is down there as one of his worst and his own performance likewise. It fails dismally, faring very unfavourably in relation to other films seen in the genre, and while the idea was great 'Vice' manages to portray it with no thrills or imagination, complete with dull pacing, lots of silliness and endless predictability. Not hating it with pleasure, it's my honest opinion and my negative feelings towards it are regrettable.
Willis is used poorly, looks tired and like he didn't want to be there. Jonathan Schaech is stuck in a one-dimensional role that he overdoes in some places and underacts in others. They are nothing though next to a completely charisma free Thomas Jane spending the whole time looking completely disinterested and like he had not slept in days.
Visually, 'Vice' looks amateurish, the photography here some of the most disorganised, least stylish and self-indulgent for any film seen recently and the editing lacks cohesion. The music is too loud, should have been used far less and some of the placement is inappropriate. Brian A. Miller's direction is similar to that of an inexperienced rookie to the job, no personality and a lot of chaos and dullness.
Dialogue from the very start to the contrived climax is riddled with clichés and cheese and what little there is of the story has no surprises, fun or tension, is very pedestrian in pace and fails to make sense or have signs of maturity. It is good that it didn't take itself too seriously but 'Vice' goes overboard on the ridiculousness and lack of plausibility. The action is clumsily choreographed, sloppily edited and not exciting or suspenseful at all, as well as looking at least twenty years out of date. The characters are not compelling or easy to get behind. Do not expect every character in every film to be likeable when characters in numerous films purposefully aren't, but it is an issue if there are characters meant to be rootable and 'Vice' has that problem.
On the whole, awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox
Waste of a good plot.
captain_freon8 April 2018
There needs to be a framework with somewhat believable events to make pretend Hollywood movies worth watching. That was this movie's main fail, a classic example of lazy.
Perhaps it would help if villains could actually hit what they shoot hundreds of rounds at. These villains should have been on villain unemployment. A good villain wouild get the rabbit in one or two shots. The rabbit would most assuredly have been taken down on the first grenade strike, they all actually hit close enough to be lethal or near lethal, though she got away just fine.
Perhaps it would help if people died like they really would in real life (more on that later). Getting hit multiple times from full auto does not facilitate the villain dancing-jittering on his feet in place as the dozen or so rounds strike him. There is momentum, the round's momentum striking a solid object drives it back (not counting solid bone breaking). But then like magic and only after the last round ques him to fall down dead, he does so with no apparent exist holes with blood and bone-flesh fragments.
We all know Hollywood is the world of fake. But at least it should try to be entertaining and true to life. Fake is the problem in real life, fake dulls some in the public to think shooting people isn't that bad.
I feel Hollywood and entertainment is a very real contributor to the festering component of violence and death in real life on our city's streets. The actors who portray gun violence to millions of our youth then climb onto the anti-2nd bandwagon in real life are an odorous seething pile, a stench. One actor is now in the process of moving his family to Australia because he feels all butt hurt who the POSTUS is. Wow, what a childish mind. Yet blood is on his hands by him killing many people on the silver screen. Blood money is in his pocket, blood money spent on his family.... Yet he fights the 2nd amendment.... That is Hollywood ilk for ya.
Perhaps it would help if villains could actually hit what they shoot hundreds of rounds at. These villains should have been on villain unemployment. A good villain wouild get the rabbit in one or two shots. The rabbit would most assuredly have been taken down on the first grenade strike, they all actually hit close enough to be lethal or near lethal, though she got away just fine.
Perhaps it would help if people died like they really would in real life (more on that later). Getting hit multiple times from full auto does not facilitate the villain dancing-jittering on his feet in place as the dozen or so rounds strike him. There is momentum, the round's momentum striking a solid object drives it back (not counting solid bone breaking). But then like magic and only after the last round ques him to fall down dead, he does so with no apparent exist holes with blood and bone-flesh fragments.
We all know Hollywood is the world of fake. But at least it should try to be entertaining and true to life. Fake is the problem in real life, fake dulls some in the public to think shooting people isn't that bad.
I feel Hollywood and entertainment is a very real contributor to the festering component of violence and death in real life on our city's streets. The actors who portray gun violence to millions of our youth then climb onto the anti-2nd bandwagon in real life are an odorous seething pile, a stench. One actor is now in the process of moving his family to Australia because he feels all butt hurt who the POSTUS is. Wow, what a childish mind. Yet blood is on his hands by him killing many people on the silver screen. Blood money is in his pocket, blood money spent on his family.... Yet he fights the 2nd amendment.... That is Hollywood ilk for ya.
RIP: "Bruce Willis - The Actor" (1985-2012)
85122217 July 2015
Greetings from Lithuania.
Although this is supposed to be review of the movie "Vice" (2015) - the movie itself is so bad, uninvolving, not interesting, terribly acted (except for Thomas Jane) / directed bad that i will not even want to talk about it - just don't wast your time on it like i just did. Shame on my. I want to share my thoughts on something different. Bruce Willis.
Bruce Willis.
Back in 1985 he was a struggling actor, hungry for big roles. That is when his first at the time big role in "Moonlighting" began. He was funny in that one. In 1988 everything has changed for him, as well as for action movies forever - "Die Hard" was born. Amazing, unforgettable, thrilling - these word perfectly described movie itself and performance of Bruce Willis - my favorite action movie character Officer John McClane was born. Along with 3 great sequels (yes, i loved "Die Hard 4.0") he enlisted himself as a action movie face for decades.
"The Last Boy Scout"; "Death becomes her"; "Pulp Fiction"; "Twelve Monkeys"; "The Fifth Element"; "Armageddon"; "The Sixth Sense" and so on - whether action movie, science fiction, drama - Bruce Willis could do anything, and he always was a thing to look at, even when he stared at the deepest emptiness of screenplay, he was a terrific screen presence, which could act - these were times when i called him one of the very few my favorite actors.
Starting from 2012, Bruce Willis started to make roles, where he was just a name and face, but there wasn't acting anymore. More and more direct to DVD movies started to appear. I started to asking myself, what happened? If these were just couple of movies, you could say "no problem, it happens", but now in 2015 i see that it will probably won't end. He became so lazy, so uninvolving in every "role", if appearance for 15-20 min you can call a role at all. He total sold himself. He is just a "paycheck" actor now. Looking at his resume in IMDb post 2012 you won't find a descent film (except for "Looper", which probably was made a bit earlier). No wonder Sylvester Stallone said "lazy and greedy" about him publicly, you can clearly see it on screen. Don't know what personal problems he could have had in personal life for making movie only for paycheck - he should be ashamed of himself if he is doing it only for $.
Overall, skip this pile of garbage "Vice", and you can probably forget about Bruce Willis - it's just a well know name of a man who once was known as a terrific cinema entertainer.
Although this is supposed to be review of the movie "Vice" (2015) - the movie itself is so bad, uninvolving, not interesting, terribly acted (except for Thomas Jane) / directed bad that i will not even want to talk about it - just don't wast your time on it like i just did. Shame on my. I want to share my thoughts on something different. Bruce Willis.
Bruce Willis.
Back in 1985 he was a struggling actor, hungry for big roles. That is when his first at the time big role in "Moonlighting" began. He was funny in that one. In 1988 everything has changed for him, as well as for action movies forever - "Die Hard" was born. Amazing, unforgettable, thrilling - these word perfectly described movie itself and performance of Bruce Willis - my favorite action movie character Officer John McClane was born. Along with 3 great sequels (yes, i loved "Die Hard 4.0") he enlisted himself as a action movie face for decades.
"The Last Boy Scout"; "Death becomes her"; "Pulp Fiction"; "Twelve Monkeys"; "The Fifth Element"; "Armageddon"; "The Sixth Sense" and so on - whether action movie, science fiction, drama - Bruce Willis could do anything, and he always was a thing to look at, even when he stared at the deepest emptiness of screenplay, he was a terrific screen presence, which could act - these were times when i called him one of the very few my favorite actors.
Starting from 2012, Bruce Willis started to make roles, where he was just a name and face, but there wasn't acting anymore. More and more direct to DVD movies started to appear. I started to asking myself, what happened? If these were just couple of movies, you could say "no problem, it happens", but now in 2015 i see that it will probably won't end. He became so lazy, so uninvolving in every "role", if appearance for 15-20 min you can call a role at all. He total sold himself. He is just a "paycheck" actor now. Looking at his resume in IMDb post 2012 you won't find a descent film (except for "Looper", which probably was made a bit earlier). No wonder Sylvester Stallone said "lazy and greedy" about him publicly, you can clearly see it on screen. Don't know what personal problems he could have had in personal life for making movie only for paycheck - he should be ashamed of himself if he is doing it only for $.
Overall, skip this pile of garbage "Vice", and you can probably forget about Bruce Willis - it's just a well know name of a man who once was known as a terrific cinema entertainer.
Interesting premise that wasn't really explored.
draciron16 May 2017
This is not a West world remake. It brings up several interesting topics such as whether sentient AI is alive or merely a very good imitation of life. The idea of being unleashed in a world where one can do anything and everything is another element brought up, but none of these are really explored. The action is believable generally though not exceptional. The acting mostly solid. It's not a B flick, but not a blockbuster either. Entertaining but this movie missed it's potential to be deep or interesting. Far too much screen time was spent on trivia and not enough exploring the ideas. Not enough action to make it a mindless action flick. The biggest liability was the typical Hollywood clichés. If Willis had been unleashed as a character rather than a 2D villain it'd made for a much more interesting movie. The detective just comes off as annoying and PC in a really odd way. There is some mild preaching going on that just distracts rather than enhances the movie and takes away from the plot exploration. It is also psychologically unsound, as psychology studies have shown that violent outlets such as video games actually decrease rather than increase violent tendencies and serve as a healthy outlet for preexisting drives rather than inspiring them. Overall this is a movie worth watching but not one to write home about. It could have been a really great movie and that is the real shame.
Real cool movie based on interesting concept!!!
yuzukd19 January 2015
This is the type of movie I like to watch. There's no waiting with long boring back story the movie starts right into the action. I'm a big fan of the way the movie was also shot. Very clean and fast. It looks like it's probably been shot in built Hollywood studios. Bruce Willis is as cool and engaging as usual. I didn't know much about Thomas Jane but he also did a solid job. Jane was never too over the top and the dialogue was quick and tight. The action and stunts are real tight there's no crappy CGI crazy car chases it all looks like the stunts were done for real. The movie starts with Bruce Willis explaining the whole concept of how and why the futuristic city of Vice was built. Although the movie was futuristic it didn't feel too un organic the new technology seems well blended into existing technology. The plot was easy to follow and therefore allowed you to just sit back and enjoy the ride. The music and sound effects were also on point and I never noticed any problems like spikes or dialogue thats too low. All in all I definitely recommend fans of this genre to watch and enjoy it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
