I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

I really don't know what the training program is for directors, but doing Mel Gibson's hair must be on the career path. Director Paul Abascal has more experience as a hair stylist than a director, and it shows. The film doesn't appear to flow smoothly, and you never knew where it was going.I get a kick out of revenge flicks, so I give it a recommendation, but only if you catch it on cable.Dennis Farina had a "Columbo" part in the film, and was the best thing going.Tom Sizemore was the one you kept waiting to get his.

Out of all the new movies that producer Mel Gibson could have made to follow up his triumphant "Passion of the Christ," the "Lethal Weapon" superstar selected "Paparazzi" (*1/2 out of ****), a shoddy, sadistic, inconsequential, melodramatic revenge thriller about a film star's tribulations with a gang of tawdry tabloid photographers. Casting Cole Hauser against type as a hero after his villainous roles in "Pitch Black" and "2 Fast 2 Furious" seems almost inspired. Indeed, when Hauser embraces vigilantism in the finest tradition of the best known screen vigilantes (anybody remember Charles Bronson in "Death Wish" or "Mr. Majestyk"?), you believe that he not only can kill without remorse, but also he can get away with homicide because his reasons justify his actions. Nevertheless, effective casting cannot overcome the cynicism and mean-spirited violence in freshman writer Forrest Smith's formulaic screenplay. "Paparazzi" recycles every cliché that audiences have come to expect in a movie about retribution. Reportedly, Gibson concocted the idea for "Paparazzi," and he makes a cameo appearance as himself about 30 minutes into the plot as a patient at an anger management clinic. Yes, Gibson has had his share of close encounters with the paparazzi, so it doesn't take much imagination to figure out that the "Paparazzi" hero may be based loosely on Gibson. Back in 1990, Gibson destroyed a shutter bug's camera outside a Modesto, California, nightclub. Casting closer to the bone, the filmmakers take advantage of "Saving Private Ryan's" Tom Sizemore, whose own destructive real-life antics must have given him certain insights into making the sleazy villain that he plays seem as morally repugnant as possible. Although Hauser looks right for his role and Sizemore indulges himself with hammy 'big bad wolf' histrionics, "Law & Order's" Dennis Farina as a suspicious "Columbo" type detective delivers the best performance and steals the show. Ambiguity makes Farina's character look compelling. Is he a conscientious cop or a lowdown blackmailer? Sadly, "Paparazzi" lacks the artistic ambiguity of the Farina cop character. Furthermore, this predictable potboiler endorses vigilantism. As "Paparazzi" opens, we're introduced to rugged Montana-born actor Bo Laramie (Cole Hauser) who has just become Hollywood's hottest celebrity hunk as well as prime prey for the paparazzi. The paparazzi--for the uninitiated--consist of unethical photographers who take morally compromising pictures of celebrities when the stars aren't looking or struggle to avoid being caught-on-camera. These troublemakers stalk their prey, sometimes climbing trees to obtain stills of celebrities sun-bathing in the nude. Naked photos of Bo and his wife Abby (Robin Tunney of "Vertical Limit") show up on the front page of a national tabloid, and bottom-feeding photog Rex Harper (Tom Sizemore of "True Romance") resolves to get even more sordid pictures of our clean-cut hero. At a soccer game, Rex snaps pictures of Bo's young son Zach (Blake Michael Bryan of "Jurassic Park III") and Bo warns Rex to stop. The obnoxious, low-life Rex eggs Bo into hitting him. When Bo punches Rex, the van behind Rex pops open to reveal more shutter-bugs taking pictures and videotape of Rex and Bo. Bo settles out of court with Harper, paying the scoundrel over $100-thousand. Moreover, the judge orders Bo to enter anger-management therapy. Bo has little use for psychotherapy, especially after the paparazzi assail him in traffic with a barrage of camera bulbs flashing all around him like strobes. Rex and his low-lifers, including actor Daniel Baldwin as Wendell Stokes, race up alongside Bo on either side and virtually blind him with their camera lights. Bo stomps the brakes to elude them. No sooner has Bo gotten away from the paparazzi than out of nowhere a truck slams into him! The truck driver dies instantly from the impact of the collision. Abby and Bo lay unconscious in their wrecked car, while Zach in the back seat suffers from what we later learn is a coma. After they call 911 to report the wreck, Rex and his cronies have a field day clicking photos of the accident. Later, after this near death experience, Bo decides to exact a little Montana style vigilante justice from the paparazzi. Nosy Detective Burton (Dennis Farina of ''Snatch''), the cop assigned to investigate the car crash, complicates matters, because Bo wants to get his revenge without incriminating himself to the police.Hair stylist-turned-movie director Paul Abascal curbed the on-screen violence so that "Paparazzi" could acquire a family-friendly PG-13 rating, just as he reins in the running time to a scant 85 minutes. Unfortunately, "Paparazzi" looks like it has been hacked to the marrow. The film lurches along unevenly in fits and starts with important information withheld to maintain momentum. "Paparazzi" wallows in cynicism and violence, too. The hero has no room to negotiate with the villains. It's all or nothing. You know from the get- go that the villains are going to burn. They commit the worst sin of movie villains: they put a child in peril. Anybody who harms a kid in a movie usually dies a horrible death. Although the violence itself isn't basted in blood and gore, the ease with which the hero resorts to it and our complicity as vicarious eavesdroppers who sympathize with him makes the violence doubly immoral. Scenarist Forrest Smith contrives one improbable plot point after another to draw out this forgettable fodder. After having his wife and himself photographed in the nude on a beach, our hero should have had enough sense not to put themselves on display again. Incredibly, they leave themselves wide open to the villains throughout the film. Surprisingly, the Los Angeles Police Department has not protested about the way that the movie makers portray the LAPD as trigger-happy. Watching "Paparazzi" is like rubbernecking at the scene of an accident after the bodies have been removed.

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.)

This film was quite entertaining, i have watched 10 films on sky in the past 4 days and this was one of the better ones, the story wasn't fully true but the paparazzi do hassle celebrities and in this film where the paparazzi harm Bo Laramie's family he wants revenge and does this extremely cleverly, this film was not totally true to life but is beleiveable, the killings/accidents are realistic. The acting in this film is very good and you even get to see Bo doing a scene in a movie that was made up for the film which looked extremely real and very convincing. All in all if you want a family film with some suspense this is a film for you, i really enjoyed it and after watching the first half an hour did not want to turn it off.Entertaining = 7/10, Interesting = 7/10