Shoot 'Em Up = crap

**sftc** · 06-25-2008, 06:58 PM

Wow, I normally wouldn't start a thread just to bag on a movie, but Shoot 'Em Up is one of the worst I've seen in a long, long time, so this is a PSA so that no one else wastes 90 minutes of their life.

Yeah, I should have known better, but Clive Owens is usually kinda entertaining and I figured the fat guy from "Sideways" wouldn't get involved with a total dog, but this has to be the low point in both of their careers.

Even if you ignore the fact that the story is impossibly absurd, and just watch it as action film eye candy, it still sucks donkey balls. The only redeeming thing on the whole DVD was the "making of" extras- it was interesting to see how this stinking pile of shit was conceived from a series of story board ideas for the action scenes with no real story to connect everything together. The pompous remarks of the producers and director talking about how great the film is were actually funny, in a mockumentary kind of way.

Thankfully I used a redbox promo code to rent the movie for free, but I'm still pissed I used the gas in my car to rent it and return and that I wasted 90 minutes of my life waiting for some redeeming thing to come out of it- it is that bad.

**belgian** · 06-26-2008, 02:17 AM

WHOA WHOA WHOOOOOOOA! Slow down there cowboy. It was a satire. You know, making fun of all those stupid movies that go WAY over the top by going WAY over the top itself. How could you watch it and not laugh your ass off the whole way through? I thought it was hilarious. NOT meant to be taken seriously, didn't you get that from the Bugs Bunny - Elmer Fudd theme what with the carrots and all?

And even if that escaped you, seriously, there was an epic fight sequence while Clive Owen is pounding a chick.

Lighten up. That movie was pretty awesome. And it got more unbelievable and stupid the further along it went. The skydiving scene is a crowning achievement in B-movie creation in and of itself. Cinematic gold. Oh and the baby on the carousel scene? Come on. Priceless.

You went at it with the wrong angle is all. If it were trying to take itself seriously at all, then yes, it would have been terrible. But it didn't. And neither should you. Try again.

**sftc** · 06-26-2008, 01:52 PM

Yeah, I got the campy B-movie, Hong Kong action flick part of it, but that wasn't even done that well. The carrot thing and the running joke about dogs were probably the only funny parts of the movie.

But as I said, if you watch the "making of" clips on the DVD the people who made the movie seriously thought they were creating something really good, not a satire. That is unless they got everyone who worked on the movie to play along with the joke.

**Jax** · 06-26-2008, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by sftc

...action film eye candy...

mmmmmmm......Clive Owen......mmmmmmmmm

**dookeyXXX** · 06-26-2008, 03:14 PM

actually if you were REALLY astute you would have realized that it was a brilliant marriage of Fritz Freling era Looney Tunes and vintage (The Killer/Hardboiled) era John Woo (which was really just the Hong Kong reinterpretation of the vintage work of Sam Pekinpah).

i loved this movie because it was an over-the-top piss take on the over-the-top action genre that has spiraled out of control in the wake of Woo's classic HK fare.

that and the blatant homage to Bugs, Yosemite, and Daffy made it an enoyable lark.

if you took it too seriously then you really need to take a time-out, have some Capt'n Crunch, and watch some old cartoons and re-acquaint yourself with your inner child.

**Tunco** · 06-26-2008, 03:51 PM

I liked it, thought it was a lark.

**Jer** · 06-26-2008, 06:01 PM

I watched it from "the right angle" and still thought it was absolutely horrible.

**Huckin eh?** · 06-26-2008, 06:37 PM

Im confused now.
Is it good , or does it suck?
Is mary jane a necessary accomplice?

**Jer** · 06-26-2008, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Huckin eh?

Is mary jane a necessary accomplice?

Seriously - you could slam heroin and pass out and this movie would still suck. What I'm trying to say is that there isn't enough bud on the planet to make this film worthwhile.

**Tippster** · 06-26-2008, 07:32 PM

I thought it was fun as hell... and yes, I was safe.

**Huckin eh?** · 06-26-2008, 07:51 PM

Peeeerrrrrfect.
I hardly smoke or watch movies anymore so it shouldnt be hard to give this one a miss.

**belgian** · 06-26-2008, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Huckin eh?

Peeeerrrrrfect.
I hardly smoke or watch movies anymore so it shouldnt be hard to give this one a miss.

You just took Jer's advice over our resident critic...?

**Nathan Explosion** · 06-26-2008, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Jer

Seriously - you could slam heroin and pass out and this movie would still suck. What I'm trying to say is that there isn't enough bud on the planet to make this film worthwhile.

Way to blow my weekend.

**sftc** · 06-27-2008, 12:34 AM

Here's a good summary:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../DDN7RSGPN.DTL

Review: 'Shoot 'Em Up' a bloodbath without guilty fun to redeem it
Ruthe Stein, Chronicle Senior Movie Writer
Friday, September 7, 2007

"Shoot 'Em Up" is not only the title of Hollywood's latest descent into nonsensical mayhem but pretty much sums up the entire inane plot as well. A mysterious loner named Smith (Clive Owen) uses 18 guns to protect a newborn whom a gang of thugs want dead. The thugs shoot at the apparently bulletproof Smith, and he shoots back with far greater success. Bang, bang, they're all dead. Roll closing credits.
There are signs that writer-director Michael Davis intended this movie to be a spoof along the lines of "Grindhouse" - upbeat music accompanying the sound of gunshots, for example, and death by insertion of a carrot. Announcing that he doesn't like old guys wearing ponytails, Smith takes aim at one and blows it away.
But Davis is no Quentin Tarantino. Gallons of blood spurt during "Shoot 'Em Up." Being bloody, however, is not the same as pulpy, and Davis lacks the winking eye that makes pulp movie fiction such a guilty pleasure. You never get the urge to laugh inappropriately at torture scenes such as a character's fingers being methodically broken one by one.
You might, however, want to cry at the waste of talent that went into this mindless bloodbath, including Peter Pau, Oscar-winning director of photography for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," and Colin Chilvers, whose visual effects in the first "Superman" won a special achievement Oscar.
Even more distressing is the presence of Owen and Paul Giamatti. I understand the concept of working as much as possible while you're hot, but it's a slippery slope. Sean Penn once said his former friend Nicolas Cage "has become a performer, not an actor." If the supremely gifted Owen and Giamatti don't want that said of them, they need to realize that the movies actors say yes to are revealing and can and will come back to haunt them.
Giamatti appears as Hertz (what, not Avis?), a former FBI profiler gone over to the dark side as the gang's ring leader. Giamatti looked far more comfortable lifting a glass of wine in "Sideways" than a pistol. Gunfights just aren't his thing, which is a good thing.
Owen's deadpan portrayal of Smith is initially amusing. He's first seen sitting on a bench, Forrest Gump-like, waiting for a bus, when a very pregnant woman dashes by. He winds up delivering her baby by C-section during a barrage of bullets that kills her.
Smith's awkward relationship with this quickly orphaned kid is the only part of the movie with even a whiff of humanity. He makes himself the gang's target by appearing to still have the infant, whom he has pawned off on a prostitute (Monica Bellucci, not given anything to do except look beautiful), while he investigates the evil plotters.
The reason the baby must die slowly seeps out and makes about as much sense as everything else in "Shoot 'Em Up." The reason the movie got made remains a mystery too.