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.
165 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.
Why?? Too many questions regarding the terrible plot.
namster2-k11 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The plot was terrible and had so many holes. Just too much didn't make sense. The story just wasn't convincing at all.
Here are 12 terrible plot points about the movie:
1. If Vice is so expensive to get in, how do all these low-life criminals afford to get in, and yet the locals in the city never seem to have been inside? And why are all the men rapists?
2. If Vice is a city (within a city), then why is there only one entrance? And where are the fences or walls? Why not build the place in the middle of the desert like Las Vegas or something? Why build it within an existing city?
3. When Kelly goes to the bar, why did she leave right after watching the news? She's lost and confused. Shouldn't she be sticking around to ask for questions? Why did she even go to the bar in the first place??
4. When the Vice men first approach Kelly in the parking garage with the rapist from the bar, why didn't they even talk to the rapist guy? You know, tell him to stand back or get away or something. They just ignored him and then shot him afterwards. And why did the rapist even try to attack the Vice guy with a knife? With 2 armed men standing behind him? Seriously?
5. The warehouse scene made absolutely no sense. They chased her there, she hid behind a pillar, and instead of walking to the end to look for her, they just started shooting randomly after counting down. Why were they even chasing Kelly with guns? She was unarmed!! Nor does she have any super powers! Just run after her and grab her!
6. At the church when Kelly meets Evan, he isn't even surprised to see her. It's like he was expecting her. Again, how and why?
7. Why wasn't Vice able to track her GPS to the church? And the tracking device was in the bracelet as opposed to being implanted in her? Really? Even after the bracelet was disabled, they could have at least tracked her last GPS location.
8. The armed men from Vice are wearing protective gear, and yet they can be taken down with a pistol? WTF?
9. At the pier, the cargo ship is leaving in less than 20 minutes. And yet when they get there, they're standing around and waiting. What kind of cargo ship isn't there 20 minutes before departure??? Just whom are they waiting for? Also how the hell do you make a reservation for a cargo ship?
10. Why did she need an upgrade? What did she even upgrade? All she did was karate chop a security guard and take his gun. Then she shot another security guard. Awesome upgrade, right? And how was none of that caught on surveillance?
11. When entering the control room of Vice, nobody even saw her? The room was full of people! And again, nothing was caught on surveillance? They should have had an army waiting for her!
12. And just what was the whole reason for taking down Vice? Roy's supposed to be a cop. And yet he runs around like Rambo killing all the security guards inside as if Vice were a terrorist organization. Vice is a private company! Regardless of your ethics, you don't run around shooting the employees of a company just because you don't like it. I don't buy it.
Don't bother watching this movie, unless you already have and are just re-watching it to compare my questions to the movie.
Here are 12 terrible plot points about the movie:
1. If Vice is so expensive to get in, how do all these low-life criminals afford to get in, and yet the locals in the city never seem to have been inside? And why are all the men rapists?
2. If Vice is a city (within a city), then why is there only one entrance? And where are the fences or walls? Why not build the place in the middle of the desert like Las Vegas or something? Why build it within an existing city?
3. When Kelly goes to the bar, why did she leave right after watching the news? She's lost and confused. Shouldn't she be sticking around to ask for questions? Why did she even go to the bar in the first place??
4. When the Vice men first approach Kelly in the parking garage with the rapist from the bar, why didn't they even talk to the rapist guy? You know, tell him to stand back or get away or something. They just ignored him and then shot him afterwards. And why did the rapist even try to attack the Vice guy with a knife? With 2 armed men standing behind him? Seriously?
5. The warehouse scene made absolutely no sense. They chased her there, she hid behind a pillar, and instead of walking to the end to look for her, they just started shooting randomly after counting down. Why were they even chasing Kelly with guns? She was unarmed!! Nor does she have any super powers! Just run after her and grab her!
6. At the church when Kelly meets Evan, he isn't even surprised to see her. It's like he was expecting her. Again, how and why?
7. Why wasn't Vice able to track her GPS to the church? And the tracking device was in the bracelet as opposed to being implanted in her? Really? Even after the bracelet was disabled, they could have at least tracked her last GPS location.
8. The armed men from Vice are wearing protective gear, and yet they can be taken down with a pistol? WTF?
9. At the pier, the cargo ship is leaving in less than 20 minutes. And yet when they get there, they're standing around and waiting. What kind of cargo ship isn't there 20 minutes before departure??? Just whom are they waiting for? Also how the hell do you make a reservation for a cargo ship?
10. Why did she need an upgrade? What did she even upgrade? All she did was karate chop a security guard and take his gun. Then she shot another security guard. Awesome upgrade, right? And how was none of that caught on surveillance?
11. When entering the control room of Vice, nobody even saw her? The room was full of people! And again, nothing was caught on surveillance? They should have had an army waiting for her!
12. And just what was the whole reason for taking down Vice? Roy's supposed to be a cop. And yet he runs around like Rambo killing all the security guards inside as if Vice were a terrorist organization. Vice is a private company! Regardless of your ethics, you don't run around shooting the employees of a company just because you don't like it. I don't buy it.
Don't bother watching this movie, unless you already have and are just re-watching it to compare my questions to the movie.
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!
Worst Movie of The Year.
salieri_214 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
On 1/1, the first day of 2015, I saw the worst movie of the year. And probably one of the worst ever made.
I have no idea how this movie got green lit by a studio executive! 1 1/2 hours of a boring chase after chase in which everyone gets shot except the leading actress. She just runs in zigzag and avoids every single bullet coming at her!
If you see this movie. Keep notice of how the music is being used to heighten the suspense of many awful scenes. Absolutely hurried/horrid in every aspect. Directing, story, acting, editing, screenplay, music, and stunts/action. Avoid at all costs. Even for free!
I have no idea how this movie got green lit by a studio executive! 1 1/2 hours of a boring chase after chase in which everyone gets shot except the leading actress. She just runs in zigzag and avoids every single bullet coming at her!
If you see this movie. Keep notice of how the music is being used to heighten the suspense of many awful scenes. Absolutely hurried/horrid in every aspect. Directing, story, acting, editing, screenplay, music, and stunts/action. Avoid at all costs. Even for free!
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...
Routine Sci-Fi Thriller with Some Intrigue
zardoz-1319 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The people who made "Vice" must have watched movies like: "Blade Runner," "Westworld," "Universal Soldier," "Groundhog Day," "The Matrix," and "Dark City." "Prince" director Brian Miller and "San Andreas" scenarists Jeremy Passmore of & Andre Fabrizio have cobbled together these epics to create a provocative premise. A sleazy entrepreneur has designed an enclosed complex with cyborgs where humans can live out their wicked dreams. You can rob a bank with impunity. You can rape and murder with impunity. There is no limit to what you can do to live out your mad fantasies. Julian Michaels (Bruce Willis of "Surrogates") markets this asylum of decadence, while a disheveled detective, Metro Police Detective Roy Tedeschi (Thomas Jane of "The Punisher"), wants to shut him down. During their first conversation together, Michaels and Tedeschi explore an interesting theory. Michaels operates the place so people can exorcise their depravity, but Tedeschi argues that it serves only to enable them carry it on out into the real world. The controversy over media violence, whether in movies or videogames, fuels the plot of this interesting but lackluster thriller that threatens to hoist itself on its own petard. Naturally, since this slick sci-fi fantasy takes place in a futuristic society, "Vice" is appropriately dystopian in nature. Kelly (Ambyr Childers of "Gangster Squad") is an android in Michaels' fantasy land. Basically, what Michaels has conjured up is like "Westworld." Kelly is a bar tender who wakes up every morning and lives the same day all over like the people in "Groundhog Day." She is tending bar for the last day before she goes out and experiences the life outside. Before she can start anew, she is strangled by a customer who is enacting a fantasy that involves rape and murder. After each encounter, these androids are reprogrammed for the next day to perform the same routine. While the technician is reprogramming Kelly, something goes awry and he discovers that she has managed to retain memories like the soldiers in "Universal Soldiers." Remember, in "Universal Soldiers," the elite combat team consisted of dead Vietnam G.I.s who were reanimated and revamped, but the Jean Claude Van Damme soldier keep some of his human memories. Detective Tedeschi is on the trail of Kelly after she escapes from the Vice facility, but he doesn't have a clue what he has gotten himself into because he does know that Kelly is a reborn version of an actual world. The engineer who created her, James (Bryan Greenberg of "Bride Wars"), helps her escape, but Tedeschi tracks them down. As it turns out, Kelly is changing herself with each new experience. At one point, Evan explains, "The human experience—it's really the only thing that separates us from machine." Predictably, every move that Tedeschi makes is monitored by the sinister Julian and his machine-gun wielding minions.
"Vice" is a polished potboiler at best with above-average production values that Miller invests in all his films. The cast is good and they aren't required to do much heavy lifting. Thomas Jane differentiates himself from everybody else with his scruffy coiffure. He is an iconoclastic "Dirty Harry" clone. Ambyr Childers is easy on the eyes. Altogether, "Vice" is a painless experience, except for Michael's henchman who couldn't hit the side of a barn with their fully automatic weapons if they were inside the barn!
"Vice" is a polished potboiler at best with above-average production values that Miller invests in all his films. The cast is good and they aren't required to do much heavy lifting. Thomas Jane differentiates himself from everybody else with his scruffy coiffure. He is an iconoclastic "Dirty Harry" clone. Ambyr Childers is easy on the eyes. Altogether, "Vice" is a painless experience, except for Michael's henchman who couldn't hit the side of a barn with their fully automatic weapons if they were inside the barn!
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.
viciously bad
nereidon16 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie about androids made of steel, recycled human tissue and cloned cells that one day become awake. Unfortunately the later can't be said about the film itself although or rather because it shows similar qualities as the creatures it portrays. We have lots of recycled lines in the script, cloned characters and the acting might not be called made of steel but is certainly to be considered wooden. And as said the whole thing never really comes to life.
Don't get me wrong, it would not necessarily be a bad thing to have dialogs that quote several classics, show well known archetypes facing well known struggles and overcoming them by heroism, but what this movie gives us is just a bad hush hush version of said things. It almost seems they just wanted to make a movie with Willis in it and something with science fiction (surrogates was not so bad either, was it?).
I only pity the actors in it (and everyone who actually pays to see it). The script is so weak and the directing so bad, that even a slightly interesting plot cant make up for it and so all we do is watch a not so bad cast suffer through the lines. I find that no matter how good an actress or an actor is, if they are left with bad dialog in awkward situations without any help from the director they are doomed to fail. And that is the case here in my view.
What i would have liked to see here is a focus right from the start on the main character = the girl and make it a bit of a mystery so the viewer has to find out what is going on while relating more and more to her. Then it wouldn't even be so bad to have the usual hero that helps the damsel in distress. and i think it would have provided a lot more interesting situations and a better story-arc.
What we really get is a sledgehammer version where the writer found it necessary to explain everything to the audience (as you (should) know ....) alongside with over the top acting just to make a point (like that the bad guy is really really bad).
Anyways, not enough to make it a good experience and even a mediocre movie: 3 out of 10 (any decent movie gets at least a 5 with me, and for every remarkable feature like e.g. the acting, photography, dialog, etc. one point extra. vice versa if the movie is severely lacking in these departments i subtract one point. so i will add one point to 5 for the plot (which could have made for a better movie i feel) and subtract one point each for the acting, the dialog and the directing)
Don't get me wrong, it would not necessarily be a bad thing to have dialogs that quote several classics, show well known archetypes facing well known struggles and overcoming them by heroism, but what this movie gives us is just a bad hush hush version of said things. It almost seems they just wanted to make a movie with Willis in it and something with science fiction (surrogates was not so bad either, was it?).
I only pity the actors in it (and everyone who actually pays to see it). The script is so weak and the directing so bad, that even a slightly interesting plot cant make up for it and so all we do is watch a not so bad cast suffer through the lines. I find that no matter how good an actress or an actor is, if they are left with bad dialog in awkward situations without any help from the director they are doomed to fail. And that is the case here in my view.
What i would have liked to see here is a focus right from the start on the main character = the girl and make it a bit of a mystery so the viewer has to find out what is going on while relating more and more to her. Then it wouldn't even be so bad to have the usual hero that helps the damsel in distress. and i think it would have provided a lot more interesting situations and a better story-arc.
What we really get is a sledgehammer version where the writer found it necessary to explain everything to the audience (as you (should) know ....) alongside with over the top acting just to make a point (like that the bad guy is really really bad).
Anyways, not enough to make it a good experience and even a mediocre movie: 3 out of 10 (any decent movie gets at least a 5 with me, and for every remarkable feature like e.g. the acting, photography, dialog, etc. one point extra. vice versa if the movie is severely lacking in these departments i subtract one point. so i will add one point to 5 for the plot (which could have made for a better movie i feel) and subtract one point each for the acting, the dialog and the directing)
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.
Great idea, but lacks substance
tony_pop_117 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The concept of A.I is interesting due to our fast pace technological advancement in the 21th century. Vice reintroduces the idea of humanoid robots much like Will Smith's 2004 film, IRobot. Vice on the most part lacks story substance, but the idea alone deserves a watch in my opinion. This film has a few smart twists which made the lack of story a less of an issue. But one can also argue that because of the dullness in the storyline, one might perceive the twists as more interesting since the movie has very little to offer.
The two best twists I found are the defense mechanism that Julian made for his robots and then the ending where Julian opens his eyes which leaves a nice trail of mystery for the viewers.
I built the foundations to the rating of 6 on the basis of the A.I concept alone. Apart from the concept, there are many questionable parts in the film. I will attempt to list them below.
1. Evan's character really had no purpose other than to add the whole "sob" aspect to the story. His death was very awkward (watch to see why)
2. Kelly is like Keanu Reeves from the matrix, dodging bullets left and right.
3. Probably the best part yet (sarcasm): Supposed genius Evan leaves with Kelly to their next destination, but LEAVES 1 million clues for the enemy to find! Bulletin board full of details to their destination.
4. So the whole point is to shut down the Vice operations as safely as possible, but they unleash a deadly slaughter by the robots during the reboot process?
5. So what will happen to the human robots after this whole ordeal?
The two best twists I found are the defense mechanism that Julian made for his robots and then the ending where Julian opens his eyes which leaves a nice trail of mystery for the viewers.
I built the foundations to the rating of 6 on the basis of the A.I concept alone. Apart from the concept, there are many questionable parts in the film. I will attempt to list them below.
1. Evan's character really had no purpose other than to add the whole "sob" aspect to the story. His death was very awkward (watch to see why)
2. Kelly is like Keanu Reeves from the matrix, dodging bullets left and right.
3. Probably the best part yet (sarcasm): Supposed genius Evan leaves with Kelly to their next destination, but LEAVES 1 million clues for the enemy to find! Bulletin board full of details to their destination.
4. So the whole point is to shut down the Vice operations as safely as possible, but they unleash a deadly slaughter by the robots during the reboot process?
5. So what will happen to the human robots after this whole ordeal?
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.....
Did they forget Westworld?
Thomas-McSweeney17 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Having read the other reviews, I will have to agree with them - Bruce Willis must have really owed someone a big favor to sign off on this one. The plot is almost exactly like an updated Westworld. Do you remember that 1973 film with Yul Brynner? At least that one had a good director with Michael Crichton who wrote and directed that film (as well as the Jurassic dinosaur series of films, novels, and video games) . This one could have used a better writer to give it more depth and a better director to get more out of the actors. One criticism that would be obvious is that all the security guards needed many, many more hours on the target range as they could not hit the broad side of a barn at 20 meters.
Some reviewers called Bruce Willis' performance too wooden or stone-like, but that is understandable given the 'surprise' ending that he was just another robot all along. Bruce was just being a method actor playing the part of a robot the entire time on this film. He wasn't stiff, he was a robot! Now I really want to see Bruce Willis in more Science Fiction films - when given the chance to really act, he does a tremendous job and is a credit to the project. I only suggest you watch this film - for free - to see Bruce work. I am only sorry he didn't have something better to work with. My apologizes to Brian Miller and the writers Andre Fabrizio and Jeremy Passmore, although it is true I have not directed nor written a better Science Fiction than "Vice", I honestly believe if I could get the funding, even I could do a better job. Sorry, I gave this film a sore of 4 and that is pretty generous.
Some reviewers called Bruce Willis' performance too wooden or stone-like, but that is understandable given the 'surprise' ending that he was just another robot all along. Bruce was just being a method actor playing the part of a robot the entire time on this film. He wasn't stiff, he was a robot! Now I really want to see Bruce Willis in more Science Fiction films - when given the chance to really act, he does a tremendous job and is a credit to the project. I only suggest you watch this film - for free - to see Bruce work. I am only sorry he didn't have something better to work with. My apologizes to Brian Miller and the writers Andre Fabrizio and Jeremy Passmore, although it is true I have not directed nor written a better Science Fiction than "Vice", I honestly believe if I could get the funding, even I could do a better job. Sorry, I gave this film a sore of 4 and that is pretty generous.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
