September 17, 2007
Shoot 'Em Up
Why? Really. Why? Three great actors in a pretty worthless movie. Other critics are correct in that the title accurately describes the movie; for all intents and purposes this flick is nothing more than a string of improbable and frivolously violent action scenes. Shoot 'Em Up is rated "R" and certainly earns that rating. This movie encompasses everything from carrot killings to non-traditional "houses of ill repute" and the fondling of corpses. Once again I ask: Why? The three main actors are all wonderfully talented, but the script demeans their ability. I think they may have lost a bet, or owed someone some money. That is the only reason I can think that these people would be involved in production of this kind. There were a few light moments and some funny lines, but not enough to redeem the film. Don't waste your time. Wait for video, or better yet, wait until it comes on television and don't waste your money. (I have much better hopes for Clive Owen in Elizabeth: The Golden Age.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I will have to agree with Lunanshee on this one, at least for the most part. Dear Readers, I think she is really good and mad at me for dragging her to this one.
I knew from the out-set that this movie would be "gonzo"; the title makes that clear, plus the jumps-cuts in the trailer of Clive Owen's free-falling gunfight. You know that when a helicopter is used to lethal effect, you are in for an action-lovers-only level of suspension of disbelief. We are both pretty good at taking a far-fetched idea and running with it, but carrots as weapons? Seriously; you've pretty much lost me, and that was in the first 7 minutes of the "plot".
I love watching Clive Owen. I trust him to make a good movie, even though I didn't particularly care for I'll Sleep When I'm Dead. So I was going to see this movie, no matter how ridiculous it looked. From the trailer, I knew that it would be Children of Men+Matrix's action-all seriousness.
Some reviews labeled it a parody, but I don't even think that was the intent. I can't tell you what it was, but I don't think "parody" was it; the writers would have had inserted at least a little commentary, social or otherwise, and there was none. I take that back, and can do so without any spoilers, since it is in the trailer. Paul Giamatti delivers the line with the disbelieving sarcasm that we have come to love him for, "My god. Do we really suck or is this guy really that good?" Now I often tend to over-analyze movies (comes from too many Honors English classes), but this is the only proof that the writers had any idea how over-the-top their film would be.
I will disagree with my writing partner on one thing; I don't think that anyone lost a bet and appearing in the film was the cost. Rather, I suspect that there was some languishing in development that caused this movie to be released after Children of Men, a film to which it must be compared. I do admit to having no idea why any of the actors thought they would have to participate in this movie--it's not like this has been shelved for the past 6 or 7 years, only to be trotted out now.
And really, how many "baby-saving" movies are out there? I can only think of two, and I cannot come up with an excuse as to why Clive Owen would even touch this one. I don't think that Children of Men is as great as many of my acquaintances do, but there is no comparison here.
So, here are the nice things I have to say about the movie:
1) It was fun to get to see Clive Owen and Monica Bellucci.
2) Their (very brief) sex scene definitely put a new 'spin' on things
3) At least it was better than Crank! That was the only movie I have EVER in my life been tempted to walk out of (and that is saying a lot). At least Shoot 'Em Up doesn't fall under the category of "Time that I will never get back", but it is a narrow thing.
Post a Comment