Paparazzi (2004)

Truly Dreadful Film

Too many fans seem to be blown away

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

1st watched 3/5/2009 – 3 out of 10(Dir-Paul Abascal): Confusing revenge-laden film about a rising star being hounded by a group of paparazzi that cause an accident where the star's son is put in a coma. Cole Hauser is the star in the film and he does an OK job, but the movie wavers and appears to be just an opportunity for this actor to be a main star in a movie. Bit parts by "A" actors are thrown in and it just appears to be a chance for them to support the project. This doesn't do anything for the movie, though. One of the paparazzi involved in the accident runs into the star character's car with his motorcycle and as he's hanging off a cliff Houser's character decides to not do his best to save him and lets him fall down the cliff. From this point on, he decides to plot to get the other paparazzi taken care of thru his own methods. Initially his revenge tactics are suttle; like framing the other involved people, but then he starts getting more and more on the offensive. A detective played by Dennis Farina, initially hired to protect Hauser, starts suspecting his involvement and sneakily starts putting together the pieces of the puzzle The problem is he never really follows thru with it and we get a good ending for Hauser's character despite the filmmakers winking that it might go a different direction. Overall this was just a movie without any kind of substance to make it worth much of anything and without any real point for or against the problem initially presented. Just a revenge movie, in the end, and nothing else despite the caliber of those involved in the production.

This is a cheesy revenge flick produced by Mel Gibson. The film shows nasty paparazzi hounding an upright, decent family man (Cole Hauser) who's just become a major movie star. He fights back after his family is assaulted by these lowlife journalists. Mel Gibson clearly has some issues with the media, and this film feels like vicarious wish fulfillment. Unfortunately, it isn't very good. The PG-13 rating limits the violence making the whole thing feel rather lame. The acting is mediocre and the characters all one-note. Cheesy but not enjoyable. Watch only if bored.Overall 3/10

This time, the critics have opened their trench coats to expose their hypocrisies! When a film this good—that is, better than average—gets panned so badly by so many Hollywood critics, you have to wonder what made the critics sulk. Critics, like paparazzi, are parasites: few of them have ever created anything; instead, they live off the inspiration of others. But, as sophisticated readers and movie lovers know, the relationship between critics and artists is extremely complex: the artists need critics to expose their work and, sometimes, even interpret it.But in this case, perhaps understandably (because murder is involved), the real critics working for US media (see Rotten Tomatoes) have responded to having the spotlight shone on their own profession by trying to bury this movie under piles of negative rhetoric.Celebrity photographers and the tabloids they supply are our visual age's personality critics. Using photo essays and headlines, they can either tear down or glorify a star, just as print critics can alter our perceptions of written, painted, or performed art.The Hollywood critics and the paparazzi walk, philosophically, hand and hand, so perhaps they feel protective of each other. And here, in PAPARAZZI, is some evidence of a mutual-protection society in action: a film that is competently acted, written, and directed, is demonized. Suddenly, in this age of senselessly violent movies that get called "artistic," "bold," etc., a movie in which parasitic photographers get a little more than what's coming to them is persecuted for violating a point of the old Hays Code (i.e. "Revenge (by murder) in modern times shall not be justified.") This movie is sharply satiric, exciting, and satisfying, and there is very little graphic violence. How could it fairly be given 1 or even 0 stars unless the issuing critic is angry about the spotlight being swung in his or her direction? There have been plenty of gory films and revenge movies. When the "victims" of the "hero/vigilante" are sexually twisted stalkers or evil government agents, do critics get so high-minded about the "message" violence in cinema sends to the audience? (Maybe a better question is: how dare a Hollywood insider, such as Mr. Gibson, laughingly throw a little hot sand in the out of control publicity machine?) By trashing this generally entertaining film, the community of critics have made it a must-see for the controversial questions they and the film raise.(Note: key elements of this movie's plot and themes can also be seen in the 1969 film, THEATER OF BLOOD, starring Vincent Price. I wonder how that was received by critics of its time.)

CONTAINS SPOILERSAh, Paparazzi - where to start? So bad it's good. Entertainment in the form of Hollywood whining over it's lot in life - to be forever dogged by photographers - O NOEZ!!! Even I, a non-celebrity got the point of this celluloid tale: "Paparazzi bad! Movie stars picked on! Kill all the photographers!"As bad as the paparazzi are, not every stinking one of them are the bloodsuckers that this film portrays them to be. These photographers were CRIMINALS. Just because a man carries a camera for a living does not mean that he's got a warrant for his arrest out for illegal possession of weapons, rape, etc. Give me a break. And if they're earning so much from their ambulance-chasing, why do they still all live like pigs in squalor? BECAUSE PAPARAZZI ARE EVIL CHILD KILLERS, REMEMBER?The movie star (handsome-enough and little else Cole Hauser) is portrayed as a fresh-scrubbed, corn-fed farm-boy who had just made it big and is suddenly, mercilessly hounded by the press. The photographers apparently are willing to do anything to get a picture, even kill the source of their income, said maligned film star. A number of little details were there to make us sympathize with the celebrity. 1) He comes from the mid-west, and he's just made it big. 2) He's a family man with strong values. 3) He drives a modest car and lives in a modest home. 4) He's super nice to almost everyone, including the coach of his son's soccer team and the young grocery store clerk.This film is basically Hollywood's revenge - everything bad about the paparazzi is magnified (because yes, I agree, they certainly are bad) and everything decent about the film stars is thrown up in our face (he just wants to watch his son's soccer game! The photographer is threatening his cherub-faced boy! O woe!) I liked the celebrity character until he began plotting or allowing the death's of the paparazzi. Yes, they were scumbags. Yes, they deserved to be behind bars - maybe even dead. But since when does a movie star have the right to take justice into his own hands? Bo goes a little crazy, starts making like Rambo in real life and before we know it, every one of the shutter-bugs is sleeping with the fishes. The last shot of the movie shows our noble hero smiling away at the flashing cameras, reveling in his fame - content now that all the OMGEVIL!photographers have been done away with. There's no business like show business...