Monty Python's Life of Brian

After watching this movie again, it struck me how funny it is that Monty Python's Life of Brian is not heretical. When you hear the premise, you naturally assume it is going to be offensive; it tells the story of Brian, who --- while born on the same day as Jesus (so remember his birthday this year!) --- is mistaken for the messiah, but wants nothing to do with it.  The film is actually very nice to Jesus, instead making fun of Biblical movies and organized religion.  Still, the subject matter was controversial enough for the original production company to back out only days before production began.  Luckily, George Harrison opted to nearly bankrupt himself to produce the film, just because it sounded like the only way he would get to see the movie.  Just further proof that the Beatles were awesome.

Normally, I would write a brief plot synopsis and note who played who in the movie, but it's not terribly useful with Monty Python movies.  Even assuming that the plot needs explaining (Brian, the not-messiah, follows a similar story arc to Jesus), what am I going to tell you?  That I found Graham Chapman convincing as Brian, but not as Biggus Dickus?  Or that I liked the proto-feminism of Eric Idle in his Stan/Loretta role?  No, I think I'll pass on all that.  Let me just say that this is the most linear plot of any Python movie, and the one that has the least amount of where-the-hell-did-that-come-from randomness.  That might sound odd, considering that this is a Biblical parody that has an alien UFO, but it is the truth.  Also, this movie had their best production values, thanks largely to their recycling of sets from Jesus of Nazareth.

This movie is notable for the best Python acting to date.  Graham Chapman, an alcoholic, actually stopped drinking for his role as the title character, which helped his comedic timing immeasurably.  While Chapman certainly was not a great actor, he was the most honest actor in the group and (in my humble opinion) also the group's best straight man.  That is not to say that John Cleese is anything but brilliant here (I suspect he handled a lot of the writing), but those two seemed to have the biggest personalities in Monty Python and I think the movie was better served with Chapman playing the relatively straight role and Cleese doing whatever madness popped into his head.  This is one of Eric Idle's better movies, too, with several memorable characters, not the least of whom is the one that sings "Always Look On the Bright Side of Life" while crucified at the end of the film.  Michael Palin is also good, as usual, and both Terry Gilliam (who had shockingly little to animate in this movie) and Terry Jones have their moments, too.  As usual, with the Pythons playing multiple roles of either gender, there are precious few non-Python actors, with only Sue Jones-Davies deserving recognition for her unexpected (and a bit uncomfortable) full frontal nudity scene.

Beyond that, the only important question is whether this movie is funny or not.  Simply put, the answer is "yes, very."  This movie appeals to the traditional Python fanatic, the casual dabbler in English wit, and even clueless fans of broad American humor.  After all, just because the movie is pretty smart doesn't mean that the jokes aren't really stupid.  If you have never seen this movie, I would categorize the humor as such:

• Funnier than most Mel Brooks movies (particularly History of the World, Part 1)
• Less random than Family Guy
• Better than a Lisa or Marge episode of The Simpsons
• Less depressing than Judd Apataw movies
• Smarter than Adam Sandler movies, but not as smart as his producers
• Slightly less funny than National Treasure

Comedies don't usually age well, but there is something timeless about Monty Python's silliness that shows us just how funny movies can be.  And, when thinking about this film, please bear in mind that Brian is not the messiah; he is a very naughty boy.

From Paris With Love

John Travolta has been nominated for two Oscars for Best Actor; these nominations accompanied his biggest successes, Saturday Night Fever and Pulp Fiction.  I mention this because I appreciate Travolta in those movies.  At his best, Travolta exudes a casual cool that makes even a disco movie fun to watch.  I also mention this because it is hard to recognize that talent in most of his movies.  Travolta has a tendency to split his acting chops; either he is trying too hard to be serious, or he chews on scenery like a bad dog when he is trying to play a bad-ass.  From Paris With Love is definitely one of the latter occasions, and spraying him with water won't help.


James Reece (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is the personal aide to the US Ambassador in France, but he is secretly a low-level gopher for the CIA.  After several menial jobs, he is given a serious one; he is to help Charlie Wax (John Travolta) with whatever his mission is.  The mission never really gets much clearer than that, I'm afraid.  This is partly due to a poor script, and partly because Wax tends to lie to Reece.  At first, it appears to be a politically motivated series of drug busts, but Wax later claims that it has everything to do with terrorists.  I'm sure many terrorists get their money from drugs, but I doubt that the Asian mobs have many dealings with Islamic terrorists.  It assumes a level of cooperation between secretive brotherhoods that I find unlikely at best and insulting to my intelligence at worst.  Reece doesn't do a whole lot except react to Wax's bad-assery.  There are many instances of this, as Wax kills about thirty people in this movie, without pondering repercussions or worrying about innocents.  Wax isn't really a good guy so much as he is a weapon that has been sicced on his enemies.  As the movie progresses, Reece becomes more involved in the action and more confident in his life-or-death choices.  Eventually, he follows his own instincts instead of Wax's, and is proved right; that means that he is the only person between a group of people and death by terrorists.

If the story sounds vaguely familiar, it should.  This is just another slight tweak on the traditional buddy cop flick formula; as best exemplified in Lethal Weapon, there is one crazy-dangerous guy and one by-the-book type, only here the by-the-books type is also completely inexperienced.  Changing just that small experiential dynamic hurts this movie a lot.  Reece is relegated to doing next to nothing but complain for about an hour of the movie, while Wax does his thing.  If they had similar levels of experience (although, doesn't the boring cop usually have more experience?), then Reece could justify arguing with Wax, but he just keeps taking the craziness with a passivity that is similar to fraternity hazing.  Reece may not like what Wax is doing to/with him, but he's got to deal with it or else he'll never be part of the club.  This also has the side effect of making Wax's decisions seem like the only correct decisions.  There is a brief scene involving the French police and a bomb that tries to balance that a little, but it is nowhere near effective enough.

It's sad that this movie came from such excellent action movie stock.  Luc Besson is a great action movie writer, with credits ranging from Leon: The Professional to The Transporter, to Taken, to the best French language action movie ever, District 13.  Director Pierre Morel has only two other movie credits, but they are the excellent District 13 and Taken.  Given that information, I would assume this movie would be completely awesome.

Instead, we end up with a fairly generic template and John Travolta overacting.  I'm not complaining about that, mind you.  I actually enjoyed a decent amount of Travolta in this film.  If you paired him up with a suitable villain, like a drugged up Nicholas Cage or a 1990s Gary Oldman role, this movie could be a guilty pleasure.  Instead, nobody tries to match Travolta's energy and the story ends up feeling limp.  A big part of this is the fault of Jonathan Rhys Meyers.  He underacts in a movie that has absolutely zero use for subtlety, and his character's cleverness fails to jibe with his character's naivety.  That is partially the writer's fault, but his acting is so distinct between his clever self and his over-his-head-in-trouble self that it just detracts from the film as a whole.

There is, not surprisingly, a lot of action in this movie.  Some of it looks pretty good, I'll admit.  Most of it apparently caters to Travolta's age and fitness level, though.  I'm almost 100% certain that he does not have more than three seconds of continuous action footage in this movie.  It's edited well and looks pretty good, but after a while I noticed that there were no establishing shots or zoom outs to show that the actors actually worked out for their roles.  That's not a huge problem for me, but it stands in stark contrast with the parcour-crazy Besson/Morel collaboration, District 13.  That may be an unfair comparison, but I am very surprised that the same creative team was involved in both.

The advertisements for this DVD claim that this is the "coolest Travolta since Pulp Fiction."  That's a blatant lie.  His character in From Paris... is clearly more derivative of his "Yeah, ain't it cool" character from Broken Arrow than his Jackrabbit Slims-loving character from Pulp Fiction.  The sad thing is that Travolta is by far the best thing about this movie, despite some pretty lame lines and less than legit action sequences.  The plot here is poor and unnecessarily convoluted (I didn't even bother discussing that mess), but Travolta is entertaining enough to make it watchable.

Leap Year

I would like to take the time to point out the colorization of this movie poster.  If you can't get a good look at the actors' eyes, check it out the next time you're at Best Buy or Target or wherever.  Their eyes are glowing.  Seriously, zoom in to the picture.  This guy's eyes look either completely photoshopped, or he is about to ask where the Keymaster is.  Either way, it is bad news for this movie; either it is cheap enough to use terrible photo editing, or it is trying to draw comparisons to Ghostbusters.  It's a lose-lose situation.

The title Leap Year refers to the Irish tradition that allows women to propose marriage to men on February 29th.  So, I suppose that this movie should have been called February 29th or Leap Year Day.  Fun fact: the actual Leap Year marriage tradition in the English-speaking world isn't necessarily limited to Ireland or that particular day; the whole year is wide open for proposals.  That way, desperate women have a whole year to impose their will upon their unwilling boyfriends.

Anna (Amy Adams) is super successful and is enjoying a high class Boston lifestyle, with fancy clothes, rich friends, and a cardiologist boyfriend, Jeremy (Adam Scott).  It doesn't matter that her job has less redeeming social value than a crack dealer, her friends are bitter and shallow, or that her boyfriend is self-centered and shows off heart surgery pictures during dinner.  You're supposed to like Anna and sympathize with her problem.  What problem, you ask?  Well, Jeremy was spotted leaving a fancy jewelry shop, so Anna and her friend (Kaitlin Olson) freak out like those commercials where they say "He went to JARED!"  Well, Jeremy and Anna have a special dinner date planned for the night before he has to leave for Dublin, Ireland for a cardiologist conference; Anna assumes that he will propose, but instead, he gives her really nice diamond earrings.  Bastard.  After he has left for Dublin, Anna reflects on something her father told her (John Lithgow, whose two or three minute performance earned him fourth billing in the credits); in Ireland, women can propose to men on February 29th.  And, as you might have guessed, this film takes place during a Leap Year.  The next Leap Year is in 2012, so I suppose that this movie could be seen as a glimpse into our future.  I'm afraid it's neither a romantic nor comedic future.

Anna decides to fly to Dublin right away, but her flight is diverted to Wales because of poor weather conditions.  No planes are flying, and she has to get to Dublin by tomorrow (more on that later), so she charters a small fishing boat.  I didn't notice her trying to rent a car, though.  The ocean waters are too rough to reach Dublin, so Anna is dropped off in Quaint Irish Town, Ireland, which has only one restaurant, one hotel and one taxi service, all of which are run by Declan (Matthew Goode).  Declan is a little ornery, but who wouldn't be?  Anna comes in, is cranky about her whole Leap Year situation, and basically insults his town, tavern, and hotel within minutes of meeting him.  After some hilarious hijinks (it turns out that Anna --- get this --- is a little clumsy and doesn't respect other people's property!  Guffaw!), Declan agrees to take Anna to Dublin for a fee (his tavern is in financial trouble).  Again, hijinks ensue, and Anna accidentally causes Declan's car to crash into a shallow lake.  It will take a day for the tow truck to get the car out, so Anna decides to find another modes of transportation.  Declan follows because, somehow, that qualifies as taking her to Dublin.  Along the way, the two squabble constantly.  You have never seen such a poorly matched couple..unless you're married!  Bada-BING!  And yet...Declan gets in a fight for Anna and expresses sympathy for the fact that her dad is unreliable.  And Anna, in a moment of true mutual understanding, pukes on Declan's shoes.  It's a romantic comedy, so this odd couple will obviously fall in love, but what will happen when Anna finally gets to Dublin and sees Jeremy again?

I disguise this fact pretty well, I know, but I am not a huge romantic comedy fan.  That doesn't mean that I can't like them, I just tend not to because I find them insulting to my intelligence and incredibly not funny.  In all fairness, Leap Year is not god awful.  Amy Adams is able to pull off naive and bubbly any day of the week, and having her as the main character makes sense for a rom-com.  I wouldn't say that her comedic talents are fantastic, but she does play a good straight woman for others to joke around.  She's a likable actress and, when given the right character, she can be fun to watch.  Matthew Goode has some leading man potential; he's reasonably handsome and has an Irish brogue, which the ladies tend to like.  His emotional scenes are subtle, which is nice (although repeated: close your eyes and sigh...now!).  He doesn't immediately appear to be a romantic good guy, so he can get away with playing a bit of a scoundrel, which is a nice change for this genre.

...And that's all the good I can say about this movie.  The premise is ridiculous.  Let's just ignore the accuracy of the tradition this movie describes.  What we are left with is a female lead that is desperate enough to commit to a trans-Atlantic flight to propose to her man.  If the character was portrayed as strong-willed and independent, that would work.  Anna, unfortunately, defines herself by her possessions; she has so many things, but nothing is really important to her.  She doesn't have much of a backstory because she's a fairly shallow character.  A character that is driven by the desire to possess is not romantic or funny; they are desperate and sad.  Do you want a hint that this is a bad premise?  Both Amy Adams and Matthew Goode have lines where they ridicule the Leap Day tradition.  When you have a stupid idea for a movie, you need to be pretty damn funny to make fun of yourself, otherwise you are just pointing out the flaws in your movie. 

Worse than the stupid premise are the Bostonian characters.  We are clearly meant to connect to Anna, to feel her pain throughout.  When she doesn't get proposed to, the audience is expected to feel sorry for her.  Maybe I'm just a guy, but getting nice jewelry doesn't elicit sympathy from me.  I understand that she was let down, but they made this out to be as bad as if her fiance slept with her twin sister.  Her fiance, Jeremy, is supposed to be annoying (so we can root for Matthew Goode), but he's really obnoxious.  Obnoxious to the point of me not liking Anna for dating him.  Everyone is Boston is shown to be petty, selfish and shallow.  Yes, this makes it important for her to go to Ireland --- I get it--- but it's boring, lazy writing that is without the benefit of charm.  Why should I care about Anna, a shallow, somewhat ditzy, desperate woman with nothing of value except a charming smile?  Leap Year doesn't ever give you a reason.

I don't even want to bother with the Irish characters.  It turns out that most of them have been trapped in a limerick for a few decades and are just now getting out and about.  On the bright side, there were no leprechauns.  Although Warwick Davis could have added a much needed twist to this story...hmm...I smell sequel!  And what was with the time frame in this movie?  Anna has to get to Dublin today when she's in the airport, but she spends one night a Declan's inn, one night at a bed and breakfast, and hangs out at a wedding for an entire day.  Oh, and it's still in time for Leap Year Day.  If she's this uptight, Anna is a stone cold bitch.  I don't think that's what the writers mean to convey; I think they just assumed that the audience's frontal lobe would have turned to tapioca halfway through the film and they could get away with minor problems like time being an important plot device for this movie.

In a word: ugh.  I'll give credit where it's due to the two leads (despite Adams' terrible character), but it's nowhere near enough to make this watchable.  Director Anand Tucker deserves some credit for their chemistry (and lack thereof), but he undoubtedly should get the majority of the blame for the horrible supporting roles and predictable story.  Then again, I'm a guy, so take this with a grain of well-argued salt.

The Silence of the Lambs

Anthony Hopkins holds the record for least amount of screen time in an Academy Award-winning Best Actor role for his part as Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs.  That's not a terribly obscure factoid, but it's worth pointing out because Hopkins really steals the show in his sixteen minutes on screen.  Why do I bring this up?  Well, despite Hopkins' scene-stealing performance, the movie isn't about Hannibal Lecter.  It's not even about chasing down serial killers.  It's about Clarice Starling.  "What?  A girl?"  No, really.

Clarice (Jodie Foster) is an FBI agent-in-training that gets the opportunity to tag along with one of her instructors, Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn), as part of an FBI task force.  The task force is focusing on an ongoing hunt for a serial killer that the FBI has nicknamed Buffalo Bill because he skins his victims.  Using it-takes-a-thief logic, Crawford sends Clarice to a maximum security mental facility to pick the brain of the incarcerated serial killer, Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter, hoping that she can persuade Lecter to give his undoubtedly intelligent input on the case.  The film spends some time checking up on Buffalo Bill and his latest soon-to-be victim, but the bulk of the film is spent on Clarice decoding Lecter's input and investigating those leads.  Once she is assigned to Lecter duty, Clarice's time in the big leagues with the task force seems done.  Of course, that is only until her intelligence (and Lecter's help) leads her to the killer without any back-up.

In some ways, this film is a common horror/thriller.  The climax is essentially a cat-and-mouse game, one not terribly different from what has come before it.  Buffalo Bill's tendencies are taken from real-life serial killer M.O.'s (Ted Bundy and Ed Gein, most notably), so his horrific work is also somewhat familiar.  Heck, this isn't even the first movie to feature Hannibal Lecter, although the role was played by Brian Cox in Manhunter.  So what makes this movie so special?  It is only the third movie to have swept the major Academy Award categories (Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director - Jonathan Demme, Best Actor - Anthony Hopkins, and Best Actress - Jodie Foster), so there is clearly something that separates this film from the many others that it superficially resembles.

One of the primary differences is the story's focus.  So often, movies of this type boil down the story to one cop and one criminal gunning for each other.  Here, more so than in Thomas Harris' novel of the same name, the focus is on Clarice's experience on the case.  It is not about how she solves the case, but her complete experience.  Yes, her experience is surrounded by one major case, but her experience is so much more than just the case; I cannot think of another movie where an officer of the law character is not completely defined by their case, which makes this a very unique approach.  You can notice this from the clever use of the cameras (it often assumes her point-of-view), but the script is just as responsible for this.  The opening credits have Clarice running through a training obstacle course; this course is not important to the story, so the only reason to show it is to let the audience learn something about her character.  First off, she's a woman surrounded by men that smirk as they see her struggle.  More importantly, though, she works through her troubles and appears to be succeeding.  Instead of treating this as an ensemble cast, the choice to stick with Clarice is really what makes it stand out.  That choice is why the relationship between Clarice and Hannibal is so compelling and that is why the climactic scenes are effective and creepy.  Following Clarice around so closely makes her readily identifiable, likable, and impressive.  This almost never happens with female leads in these genres, and her gender plays a part in what makes this movie so noteworthy.  Jodie Foster does a great job with this unique role; she is understated an earnest, both of which are essential for making this character work.

Demme's direction is fantastic here, as well.  There are a lot of good uses of music and lighting and there are ongoing themes and symbols (I can't be the only one who keeps noticing red, white and blue all over the place in this film) and there are clear parallels between Clarice's journey to meet Hannibal and when she chases Buffalo Bill.  As someone who notices (or, at least, tries to notice) the subtle things that directors do, I cannot express how much of a treat it is to see so much done so well here.  That is enough to deserve acclaim, but that doesn't even cover his work with the actors.  Do you know how easily the first Hannibal scene could have been overacted?  Yes, the actor is ultimately the one doing the heavy lifting with the part, but the director decides what a good idea is and what makes the final cut.  Sometimes that means just getting out of the actors' way.  Whatever the case in this movie, Demme did a great job of getting the best work from his cast and using it well.

The supporting cast is good here, despite most of the roles being cameos.  Scott Glenn is decent in his role as Clarice's superior; he comes off as condescending and confident, which are probably the right traits for his character to exude.  Ted Levine is frightening and a little funny as Buffalo Bill.  Levine has a deep voice, but it seems to croak out of him here, making his disturbing acts seem all the more unnatural.  I have always believed that Levine gets short changed when people discuss this film because the focus is (justifiably) on Anthony Hopkins' performance, but the movie would have felt uneven if Levine was not able to construct a movie monster of his own.  Anthony Heald has a knack for playing pompous jerks, and this is one of his best roles.  His petty antics amidst a serious criminal investigation ring true, and the closing scene with him always makes me smile, despite the serious context.  The rest of the cast is made up of primarily television actors, but they don't distract from the more important roles at all, which is a feat unto itself.

And then there is Anthony Hopkins' performance.  One of the big reasons this film works is because Hopkins was able to live up to the film building up to his character.  The elaborate check in process in his Baltimore prison, the enormous cage when he is in Washington, DC, the face mask --- all of these make Lecter seem terrifying before you even get a chance for Hopkins to act.  Now, picture Gene Hackman (who nearly played the part) saying "Good evening, Clarice."  It just doesn't feel right.  Almost any other take on the character would have been a let down, given the reactions that the other characters have to Lecter.  It's not difficult to believe that Anthony Hopkins can convincingly play an intelligent character (he's got a British accent --- the work is half done for him already), but the type of intelligence he displays here is ingenious.  Instead of playing Lecter as a psychopath, or even as a less funny version of the Joker, Hopkins plays the character so cold and calculating that he seems almost mechanical (Perhaps even War Games-ish?) at times.  The unblinking stare he gives Clarice only reinforces his lack of humanity and his analytical prowess.  And then, out of nowhere, he'll make a wry comment about Senator Martin's shoes.  Lecter's coldness is what makes him frightening, but his ability to charm (even when he's insulting someone) is what makes him dangerous.  Hopkins did a fantastic job balancing the two tendencies, which lends a plausibility to the relationship he and Jodie Foster build together.

It's rare to find a film that can balance directorial voice, high quality acting, and a story that the masses readily embrace.  Any one of those qualities is enough to make a movie recommendable.  This film goes above and beyond.  It is disturbing, yet artfully done.  The acting is honest and empowering, but also frightening.  The story is familiar, and yet distinct.  Yes, the one thing you remember about the movie is undoubtedly Hopkins being creepy, but this movie is so much deeper than that, and so much more rewarding.

Shoot 'Em Up

Rarely do you know exactly how much you will like a movie within the first five minutes.  Sure, it occasionally happens, but it's still noteworthy.  Some people will undoubtedly love this movie, while just as many people will absolutely hate it.  Here's the acid test: about two or three minutes into the movie, Clive Owen's character stabs a man through the eye with a carrot, killing him; Owen's one-liner follow-up is "Eat your vegetables."  If that doesn't sound like the start to an amazing movie, there's the door.  See ya.

For the rest of us, Shoot 'Em Up delivers in almost every possible way.  I sometimes complain about movies that have all-encompassing titles that the films do not live up to.  Not here.  Shoot 'Em Up is exactly what you think it is, a very violent movie with very little plot or character development.  The deaths come in bunches, are violent, and are often creative.  Some might say that the movie is not realistic enough, that the movie often wanders into being just plain silly.  Well, here is a viral video that was used to tie into the film's promotion:



Do you really think the filmmakers care is their action movie is bordering on the ridiculous?

There is a plot to this movie, believe it or not.  Smith (Clive Owen) is sitting on a street bench when a pregnant woman runs by, sobbing.  She is followed by a gun-toting tough-looking guy, who says, "You're dead, bitch! [to Smith] What the hell you looking at?"  Smith doesn't get up to follow the woman so much as he gets up to punish the guy for annoying him.  Smith kills the man, but a larger group shows up immediately after, so Smith tries to protect himself and the pregnant woman, who has just gone into labor.  Smith manages to deliver the baby, kill six or eight bad guys, and severs the umbilical cord with a well-aimed gunshot.  More bad guys show up, and it begins again.  The new mother dies this time around, but Smith manages to keep the baby, kill some more guys, and escape.  Thinking logically, Smith goes to the only food source for the baby that he can think of.  Enfamil?  Similac?  You're getting closer...lactating prostitutes?  Bingo!  Smith imposes on DQ (a perfect character name for Monica Bellucci) to feed the baby while he figures out how to keep the baby from getting killed.  Mr. Hertz (Paul Giamatti) is the leader of the gun thugs, and he's a pretty smart guy, so he is able to keep finding Smith, DQ and the baby.  Repeat ad nauseum.

This is truly a stupid movie.  It's absolutely ridiculous.  There is no way around that.  Most action movies would try and boost the testosterone in the movie with tough-guy cliches and nonsensical one-liners (remember in Predator?  Hey Jesse Ventura, you're bleeding!  "I ain't got time to bleed."  Oh, okay...wait, what?) to try and show how serious they are, but this movie is more than happy to embrace the ridiculousness of the action and plot.  For instance, Smith has an ongoing conversation throughout the film, where he rants about what he hates (which is mostly everything).  Whatever it is that he hates, I promise you this...he will shoot it momentarily.  Guys with ponytails, people who slurp coffee, or whatever, they will all get a bullet from Smith.  The dialogue is chock full of goofy, filthy, and sometimes stupid lines. Hertz is the source for a lot of these, like when he asks why a gun is better than a wife --- because you can put a silencer on a gun!  Ba-DUM-bum.  There are a LOT of lines like that.  You would think that it would be irritating, but Giamatti and Owen deliver the lines with the perfect amount of conviction and timing; I found it hard not to react to even the most eye-roll worthy lines.

The acting is a little campy, but everyone is clearly having a good time.  Clive Owen is his typical charming self, despite the fact that Smith is not charming at all.  Giamatti gets to play a relatively tough guy in this film, which is a big change from his normal everyman roles.  I thought he did a very good job as the smart, wise-cracking boss.  Monica Bellucci is pretty solid here, able to deliver some good lines and act as the straight man to a lot of Smith's rants.  Sure, she's in the movie because the role demands a busty actress, but she is able to hold her own and (surprisingly and a little distractingly) avoids nudity.  The rest of the cast does a good job of getting in the way of bullets.

As for the direction, well...this is definitely the highest profile work that writer/director Michael Davis has done to date (although he did co-write Double Dragon, which ought to count for...absolutely nothing).  I am willing to give Davis the benefit of the doubt and give him substantial credit for the fact that this movie doesn't suck.  It really should be terrible, but it is just so over the top that even Nicholas Cage would say "That's a bit much."  The whole movie just has such a loose, fun feel to it that I have a hard time taking anyone who dislikes it seriously.

There is something to be said for movies that know exactly what they are.  This was never going to win a Best Picture Oscar; it's a fun, dumb, blow stuff up flick.  Shoot 'Em Up embraces that status and does almost everything right (some of those one-liners are bad, though) for the type of movie it is.