Excerpt: While on vacation with her overbearing parents, Jen Kornfeldt (Katherine Heigl) meets the good-looking Spencer (Ashton Kutcher). One thing leads to another and three years after getting married, Jen learns that there's more to Spencer than he seems - he's an assassin! And though he retired to be with her, a $20 million bounty has been put on his head forcing them both on the run from all the killers trying to collect it.
Excerpt: "He's tall, dark and handsome with a hint of mystery. What more does Jen (Katherine Heigl) need to know about Spencer (Ashton Kutcher), the man who's just swept her off her feet down in the French Riviera? Well, maybe that he's a professional spy whose special talent is assassination.
Summary: It's a truism that there isn't an original idea to be found in Hollywood. That phenomenon evidently extends to film titles as well, as there are no fewer than eight films or television productions which carry the moniker Killers (sometimes with a definite article). Of course, that really doesn't mean much, when you consider the actual Killer productions are everything from adaptations of Hemingway's short story to, sadly, this lamentable 2010 enterprise which rehashes...
Excerpt: Imagine if dating worked like Killers . You start with the meet cute, the spunky girl opening a door to reveal the hunky buff guy. They hit it off at dinner, and you’re into a whirlwind romance. It’s the montage, showing the couple in various locales, apparently having a great time amidst the sunsets and beaches. Then they’re married. No, seriously.
Conclusion: I still don't buy the sight of Ashton Kutcher holding a gun, let alone shooting it, but 'Killers' doesn't appreciate the fact that I dared even use my brain for a minute while watching the film. Turning off the ol' thinker led to a much more enjoyable experience, one that I'd recommend going into this film.
Excerpt: There’s not a lot about Killers that makes any sense, which is bizarre considering the idea makes so much sense on paper. Maybe not from an artistic standpoint, or when viewed with any shred of logic, but in terms of extorting the public out of nine dollars and fifty cents a ticket, there hasn’t been a non sequel released in the last year which makes more sense.
Excerpt: Over the last few years, Katherine Heigl has faltered mightily picking romantic comedies. With "27 Dresses" and "The Ugly Truth," the actress submerged herself into pure stupidity, slapping feminism across the face by playing a chain of subservient female characters who set aside self-worth for the chance to seize a man. With "Killers," Heigl stares down Ashton Kutcher, another vapid thespian with limited acting mobility.
Excerpt: Katherine Heigl would like you to know that she really disapproves of that fun thing you’re doing. Stop it right now, or she’s going to lose it. She’s been putting up with your shenanigans for too long, and unless you do something sensible—or disarm her with a little light banter—this relationship is over. The baby she’s carrying might not know its father. Ball’s in your court, mister.
Summary: One thing you couldn’t accuse Killers of is false advertising – the bland poster perfectly encapsulates everything this film has to offer. First-billed Katherine Heigl is gingerly holding a gun and looking surprised – all she really does in the movie is get flustered by guns and gunfire. Kutcher stands there looking pretty with an exasperated facial expression that seems to say “Come on!”, which is all he really does in the movie as well.