Paparazzi

Faux "thriller d'action" cool pour les téléspectateurs peu exigeants. Pour les habitués du cinéma avec une pincée de goût, seulement cliché de série B, logiquement troué et adaptant la réalité selon ses propres règles, une vengeance haineuse contre les paparazzis. Un divertissement simple dans l'esprit des films d'action des années 80, situé dans un environnement plus esthétique du showbiz cinématographique. La rock qui marche au moins ne prétendait à rien, n'était pas produit par Mel Gibson et n'y apparaissent aucunes stars... **1/2 (13/04/2005)

I'm not that disappointed. But that doesn't change the fact that this movie is just an average thriller. It should be taken with a grain of salt, because it certainly wouldn't have ended up so stupidly. An uncomplicated film for when I don't want to think. (10/05/2011)

The acting stars, led by Mel Gibson, seemed to have run out of patience and decided to settle their differences with their number one enemies through the closest available means - a film - instead of endless legal battles. Whatever producer Mel Gibson wanted from writer Forrest Smith and director Paul Abascal, the result is rather sheepish. An unrestrained thriller, spiced up with a touch of action, and wrapped in an atmosphere of dense moralizing on the topic of how much one can afford to give up their privacy. Smith's story is terrible, but that's to be expected. However, there is something else I don’t understand. That is the fact that the paparazzi are portrayed as the biggest scoundrels in the world, who only make the lives of honest, moral, and well-intentioned celebrities miserable, destroying their hard-earned achievements. Bo Laramie embodies all the ideals of a Hollywood actor that we won't find on the pages of the (real) tabloids. He's got a decent family life, and his job as an action hero is going well, so when he turns into a ruthless god of vengeance in the second half of the film, why not root for him? He has little need to justify his behavior, which takes the bloody path of a fierce duel with the malicious paparazzi. After all, it's about the welfare of his family. I wouldn't mind that. I see violence in movies every day, so why suddenly blame Paparazzi? It’s because if Smith and Abascal suddenly want to fervently moralize about the (for actors so significant) topic of their privacy, they should form a coherent opinion on the matter and discuss it from all sides, including the "other" side. This left a great idea lying under a layer of mud called bias. What the stars probably don't realize is that these people are the reason they have gained much of their fame and popularity. Excuse me, but the paparazzi are still divided into the good ones and the bad ones, right? (15/06/2005)