Rating out of 5 stars:
Director:
Michael Davis
Producer:
Susan Montford, Don Murphy, Rick Benattar
Screenwriter:
Michael Davis
Stars:
Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti, Monica Bellucci, Stephen McHattie, Greg Bryk,
Daniel Pilon
MPAA Rating:
R
Released:
2007
Shoot'em Up
"What to go see Shoot 'Em Up?" I asked a friend.
"What's it about?" They responded.
"Well, I don't know…It's got Clive Owen and he…shoots 'em up."
"Who is 'em, and why is he shooting?"
"To tell you the truth…I don't know."
Judging by my conversation prior to seeing Shoot 'Em Up, I suspect with great clarity that it's a film that won't be for everyone, And like it's high octane, attention deficient counterparts Domino and Running Sacred, it just might not be for anyone. It's a film that promises violence and delivers it; at lot of it; which, in a peculiar kind of way is sort of satisfying. There's nothing worse than broken promises.
But for those who wish to accept it, Shoot 'Em Up is a fierce and undeniable success: I can't say I liked it, but to strip it so easily of what it works so hard to achieve would be utter negligence on my part. It is shocking that, despite the fact that the majority of the film is all surface: all adrenaline and excitement; all gunplay and bloodshed, still, at a mere 87 minutes, manages to capture ones interest.
Despite the lack of a coherent story, the film unfolds in a backwards manner, which is interesting. Most action films separate drama from pyrotechnics, but Shoot 'Em Up reveals itself to us slowly: starting with a random man in a random situation and revealing details about both of them one at a time over the entire time span. Through some sort of insane logic, the film justifies its endless violence by making it seem as though the story is always advancing. It's a fantastic display of sleight-of-hand.
Then there's the action. The film constantly attaches itself to the tried and true conventions of the action film: how can hundreds of bad guys fire thousands of bullets and never hit the hero who can pick them all off without setback? But at the same time, writer/director Michael Davis goes to great, illogical pains to show us things we've never seen before. Here we see a hero who impales a man's skull with a carrot, delivers a baby during a shoot-out, cuts the umbilical cord by shooting it off, jumps onto a oil slick and dispatches a dozen villains all while sliding on his back, etc. And that's just the first 10 minutes.
The plot, like my opening discussion would suggest, is simple. A stranger named Smith (Clive Owen) performs a birth for a woman who is being chased by the henchmen of Hertz (Paul Giamatti who snarls through scenes the way Dennis Hopper once would have). Why Smith decides to protect this woman and why Hertz wants her dead is one of the many secrets that reveal itself with time. I dare not give it away here.
The reason though, allows the film to make for some insignificant social commentary on gun related violence in America, which is awkward and unsuccessful. How can a film talk down to its audience about the horror of gun related violence while physically making it about as romantic as it has ever been this side of James Bond? Shoot 'Em Up sometimes plays like its own self-fulfilling prophecy.
There's not much more to be said for Shoot 'Em Up. I like the way Owen has the ability to enter scenes of incredible impossibility and violence while seeming completely detached from them; it's just another day's work. I like how Giamatti as the villain is able to go over-the-top in just the right controlled amounts. It's not uncommon for an actor to sneer and growl and yell as a villain, but Giamatti never loses control of the character, playing him seriously in that unserious sort of way that action movie villains always are. Just look at how he handles the film's single best line after Owen saves the baby from a merry-go-round while Giamatti is trying to pick it off with a sniper rifle. It's a staple of classic villianry.
Shoot 'Em Up is the kind of film that critics like to use as a scapegoat for the downfall of Hollywood. It is loud, vulgar, obnoxious, and in overall bad taste. It also has no story, no well defined characters and is simply a succession of over-the-top bursts of action for kids whose minds hold the attention of a fly. Maybe critics therefore have a point: for every one good film of this nature (Running Scared) you get at least two terrible ones (Domino, Resident Evil Apocolypse). Yet when watching a film like Shoot 'Em Up one realizes that there is a distinct charm to this sort of thing. It's a film of great energy, great excitement, great stupidity and great entertainment, and besides: If you find shooting and violence and explosions to be redundant, why bother going to a film called Shoot 'Em Up in the first place?
"What's it about?" They responded.
"Well, I don't know…It's got Clive Owen and he…shoots 'em up."
"Who is 'em, and why is he shooting?"
"To tell you the truth…I don't know."
Judging by my conversation prior to seeing Shoot 'Em Up, I suspect with great clarity that it's a film that won't be for everyone, And like it's high octane, attention deficient counterparts Domino and Running Sacred, it just might not be for anyone. It's a film that promises violence and delivers it; at lot of it; which, in a peculiar kind of way is sort of satisfying. There's nothing worse than broken promises.
But for those who wish to accept it, Shoot 'Em Up is a fierce and undeniable success: I can't say I liked it, but to strip it so easily of what it works so hard to achieve would be utter negligence on my part. It is shocking that, despite the fact that the majority of the film is all surface: all adrenaline and excitement; all gunplay and bloodshed, still, at a mere 87 minutes, manages to capture ones interest.
Despite the lack of a coherent story, the film unfolds in a backwards manner, which is interesting. Most action films separate drama from pyrotechnics, but Shoot 'Em Up reveals itself to us slowly: starting with a random man in a random situation and revealing details about both of them one at a time over the entire time span. Through some sort of insane logic, the film justifies its endless violence by making it seem as though the story is always advancing. It's a fantastic display of sleight-of-hand.
Then there's the action. The film constantly attaches itself to the tried and true conventions of the action film: how can hundreds of bad guys fire thousands of bullets and never hit the hero who can pick them all off without setback? But at the same time, writer/director Michael Davis goes to great, illogical pains to show us things we've never seen before. Here we see a hero who impales a man's skull with a carrot, delivers a baby during a shoot-out, cuts the umbilical cord by shooting it off, jumps onto a oil slick and dispatches a dozen villains all while sliding on his back, etc. And that's just the first 10 minutes.
The plot, like my opening discussion would suggest, is simple. A stranger named Smith (Clive Owen) performs a birth for a woman who is being chased by the henchmen of Hertz (Paul Giamatti who snarls through scenes the way Dennis Hopper once would have). Why Smith decides to protect this woman and why Hertz wants her dead is one of the many secrets that reveal itself with time. I dare not give it away here.
The reason though, allows the film to make for some insignificant social commentary on gun related violence in America, which is awkward and unsuccessful. How can a film talk down to its audience about the horror of gun related violence while physically making it about as romantic as it has ever been this side of James Bond? Shoot 'Em Up sometimes plays like its own self-fulfilling prophecy.
There's not much more to be said for Shoot 'Em Up. I like the way Owen has the ability to enter scenes of incredible impossibility and violence while seeming completely detached from them; it's just another day's work. I like how Giamatti as the villain is able to go over-the-top in just the right controlled amounts. It's not uncommon for an actor to sneer and growl and yell as a villain, but Giamatti never loses control of the character, playing him seriously in that unserious sort of way that action movie villains always are. Just look at how he handles the film's single best line after Owen saves the baby from a merry-go-round while Giamatti is trying to pick it off with a sniper rifle. It's a staple of classic villianry.
Shoot 'Em Up is the kind of film that critics like to use as a scapegoat for the downfall of Hollywood. It is loud, vulgar, obnoxious, and in overall bad taste. It also has no story, no well defined characters and is simply a succession of over-the-top bursts of action for kids whose minds hold the attention of a fly. Maybe critics therefore have a point: for every one good film of this nature (Running Scared) you get at least two terrible ones (Domino, Resident Evil Apocolypse). Yet when watching a film like Shoot 'Em Up one realizes that there is a distinct charm to this sort of thing. It's a film of great energy, great excitement, great stupidity and great entertainment, and besides: If you find shooting and violence and explosions to be redundant, why bother going to a film called Shoot 'Em Up in the first place?
Copyright © Greg Roberts
