The Hangover Part II

 

I don't usually agree on movie humor with other people.  I don't know what it is, but I just don't find a lot of movies intentionally funny.  When The Hangover came out in 2009, everyone I knew wanted me to share in the joy of the R-rated comedy and give it a try.  So I did.  It was okay, I'll admit.  I laughed out loud at some of the closing credit pictures and I smiled at many of Zach Galifianakis' awkwardly delivered lines.  While I certainly wasn't blown away --- will someone please explain how Bradley Cooper can headline a successful comedy without cracking jokes? --- I didn't hate it, and it's been a while since I could say that about any blockbuster comedy.  With the shockingly huge success of the film, it came as no surprise when The Hangover Part II was announced.  I will say that I was a little surprised at just how similar the two films appeared to be.

The Hangover Part II, like Part I, is about a bachelor party gone awry.  This time, sweet dentist Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married and has invited the always bland Doug (Justin Bartha), dickhead Phil (Bradley Cooper), and --- against his better judgement --- the always peculiar Alan (Zach Galifianakis) to his wedding in Thailand.  Why?  Because Stu was the only unmarried non-Galifianakis character left after the last film, and a plausible change in location would add variety to the premise.  In theory.  So Stu's new fiance, Lauren (Jamie Chung), happens to be of Thai decent, and getting married in Thailand is very blah blah blah excuses excuses.  Justifiably wary of Doug's bachelor party experience from the last film, Stu is intent on turning in early and making it safe and sound to his wedding.  But then he agrees to one drink on the beach with his buddies and Lauren's little brother, Teddy (Mason Lee).  

*Cue record needle scratch*

The next morning, Phil, Alan, and Stu wake up in a strange shit hole of an apartment in a city they don't recognize.  Alan's head has been shaved, Stu has Mike Tyson's facial tattoo, and there is a monkey with a denim vest in their room.  Oh, and Chow (Ken Jeong) has returned from the first movie and gives audiences a better look at his penis this time.  The guys quickly realize that they have no recollection of the previous night.  Thankfully, they get a phone call from Doug, which means that he didn't get lost this time and the film avoids being an identical copy of the first movie.  Unfortunately, this time they have lost most of Teddy; they did find a finger, but that was not terribly reassuring.  Now they have to once again piece together a night of drug- and alcohol-fueled debauchery to find a friend.  Only this time, it's in Bangkok.

Correction: scenic Bangkok

The acting in The Hangover Part II is both what you expect and what we deserve.  The good news is that nobody (except Jeong) mugs the camera, so nobody gets too annoying.  Bradley Cooper is still a handsome devil, although he doesn't get to be nearly as big of a jerk this time around and, therefore, isn't very entertaining.  He is, however, the most normal character in most of the scenes, so he becomes the rational, easy-to-identify-with character again.  Ed Helms continues to use his most successful comedy personality to date; if you're tired of him playing a milquetoast with some seriously weird stuff repressed, then you're out of luck.

Yeah, I know.  I'm familiar with your filmography.

Zach Galifianakis still has the funniest bits in the movie, but his part is a lot more aggressive and not nearly as awkward and random as in the original movie.  If that sounds like he's a lot less funny this time around...then I expressed myself clearly.  Ken Jeong has a much larger part this time, although he is missing from a chunk of the movie.  While I generally don't like Jeong, I will admit that his ridiculous performance here was in line with the tone of the movie, so he didn't annoy me as much as he usually does.  The only other actor that made an impact in this film was Paul Giamatti, who got to play his bad-guy-who-relishes-being-bad role again; personally, I like that persona and liked seeing him be mean for a few minutes.  The rest of the cast is hardly in the movie at all.  Justin Bartha and Jeffrey Tambor combine for a dozen lines, with maybe one being funny.  Sasha Barrese, Jamie Chung, and Gillian Vigman play the wives of these idiots, but they have even fewer lines and are irrationally forgiving of their husbands.  Mike Tyson shows up again, and it's kind of funny.  Transsexual pornographic actress Yasmin Lee plays a small (but convincing) part as a transsexual stripper/prostitute in one of the edgier/funnier/weirder scenes.  Nick Cassavetes has a small cameo that, while kind of funny, probably would have been more effective if I actually recognized him.  Mason Lee (no relation to Yasmin, but son of Ang) doesn't get a whole lot of screen time, but what he does have, he fills with blank stares.

Okay, fine.  He smiles once

I'm not entirely sure what to say about director and co-writer Todd Phillips' work in The Hangover Part II.  Yes, he kept the look and feel of the movie the same as in the original.  Yes, the characters were as consistent as comedic characters need to be.  The change in locale added to the overall harsher feel of this movie --- Bangkok is a scarier place than Las Vegas, and the consequences of this night were far more severe --- and Phillips kept things moving as quickly as he could.  The only problem with that speed is that the plot doesn't make a ton of sense.  Sure, you can follow it, but there aren't as many clues for the audience to decipher this time and parts of the middle act feel like they could have been omitted, shortened, or made twice as long without impacting the larger story one bit.  My favorite comedies are ones that actually make use of the story and situational humor and aren't just excuses for dick jokes, so making the story less important bothered me.

Don't worry.  There are plenty of dick jokes, some including monkeys

But I keep comparing The Hangover Part II to the original film.  How does it stand up on its own?  If you have not seen The Hangover, then you might enjoy this movie.  The monkey is kind of funny, Galifianakis has several small moments, and Ed Helms summarizes the plot through song at a seemingly random moment in the story.  If you like gratuitous nudity in your comedies, there is a strip club scene.  On the other hand, the most memorable nudity was male and played for gross-out laughs, so I suppose your appreciation will depend on your tolerance for that sort of thing.

Above: not a male nudity scene, but it totally could be

The story makes a deliberate point of not explaining some of the most obvious questions stemming from the "lost night," which is appreciated; most movies would have the most outrageous scenes center around those plot points (Alan's head shaving, Teddy's finger loss, etc.), but most of those answers instead came during the credits, as the guys look at some funny pictures.

Pages 60-110 of the script read, "and hijinks ensue"

But what if you have seen The Hangover?  Well, then you've practically already seen The Hangover Part II.  This film borders on being a carbon copy.  The main plot drivers, the main characters, and the types of jokes are all the same (but less funny because you've heard them before), with a few things substituted and updated here and there.  While it is perfectly obvious that this is a clone of the original movie, it is just as clear that Phillips & co. were well aware of that fact when making this movie.  There are a few lines sprinkled throughout the script that point this out, but most of the acknowledgement almost seems metatheatrical.  It's like the main theme of The Hangover Part II is that the movie is ridiculously similar to the outrageously unlikely story in Part I because Hollywood is always rehashing the same crap, over and over again.  And yeah, sure, I can buy that argument, but it isn't funny enough to carry an entire comedic movie.  Personally, that sense of the filmmakers winking through the screen about how clever they are reminds me of the "7211" episode of Sealab 2021, where the joke is that there is no joke.  Only here, the joke is that they're not being original because sequels aren't original.

...until you add an adorable animal/midget/child to the mix

Part of me finds that incredibly annoying.  I don't particularly like feeling insulted, and the blatant "this is what sequels do" attitude felt like the filmmakers were mocking me for watching their movie.

This is exactly how I envisioned Phillips watching me watch this movie

The other part of me remembers Todd Phillips' IMDb credits include exclusively stupid movies, so the likelihood of him purposefully insulting his audience is pretty unlikely.  Alright, rational mind, you win this round.  Still, that doesn't make The Hangover Part II a good movie.  It's not awful, but it is missing most of the things that made the first one funny, like warmth, truly unexpected twists, and awkwardness.

The Ides of March

When I first saw the poster for Ides of March, several things came to mind.  First of all, I thought that was a pretty cool poster; it can be disarming how much two handsome men can fit the same mold and yet look different. 

***Too...much...handsome...for...one...screen...!***

The second thing I noticed was the stellar cast; three Oscar winners, some great character actors, a rising star and...Evan Rachel Wood.  Finally, I noticed the release date and the filmmakers; Fall is typically when most Oscar bait comes out and George Clooney directed and co-wrote this picture with Grant Heslov, his co-writer on Good Night, and Good Luck.  This kind of looked like Clooney trying, once again, to make Important Movies with Capital Letters; while I like Good Night, And Good Luck and Syriana, neither one was much fun to watch.  Great dramas don't have to be fun, but if you're aiming for greatness, you've got to hit it out of the park, or else you underwhelm your audience.  Would Ides of March finally be Clooney's political movie masterpiece?

Flag pin: check!  Political importance: pending

Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) is running for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States against Senator Ted Pullman (Michael Mantell).  Stephen (Ryan Gosling) is the idealistic and instinctively brilliant junior campaign manager for Governor Morris; the senior campaign manager is Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who has experience and political savvy.  Both candidates need to win the official support of crazy ass Senator Thompson (Jeffrey Wright), who controls enough delegates to sway and clinch the nomination for either candidate.  Pretty cut and dry so far, right?  Stephen is a rising star who both legitimately believes in his candidate and is getting to show off how awesome he is, every time Governor Morris says or does something clever in public.  As the campaign heats up, though, both Stephen's idealism and his fantastic career suffer enormous setbacks.  Can he fight back and save what is rightfully his, or will he have to sacrifice one for the other?

Production note: there are a lot of corded phones in this flick

If there is one thing that The Ides of March is not lacking in, it is acting talent.  I kind of have a thing for Ryan Gosling right now (ever since I saw Drive), and he has a good handle on the whole charming-but-occasionally-coldly-manipulative thing here.  George Clooney turns in a similarly effective performance; it was kind of cool seeing him turn on the "public face" charm and then, in private, have a different attitude.  Both men were good, but not great, in similar roles.  What impressed me most in this film were the dueling performances by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti, who played Senator Pullman's senior campaign manager.  Both turned in terrific performances; I really liked Giamatti's resignation toward being a spider-like bastard and Hoffman's uncharacteristic explosion took me by surprise.  The rest of the cast was solid, but nothing extraordinary.  Jeffrey Wright gave another good small performance as a fairly unlikable character. 

Mostly for his attitude during the "Yo Mama" jokes part of political speeches

Marisa Tomei was effective as a tough reporter.  Evan Rachel Wood was pretty good as a Morris campaign intern.  You might recognize Max Minghella's eyebrows from The Social Network; he plays a similarly small role here.

While the acting is good, the best parts don't get nearly enough attention.  I seriously loved Giamatti and Hoffman as heartless dueling chessmasters, but this movie needed either Gosling or Wood to be the characters that impressed. 

...and it wasn't going to be her bipolar character

This is one of the problems I have with George Clooney as a writer/director.  While I appreciate his apparent modesty when in the directing chair (his only major role in a picture he directed was in the comedy Leatherheads), I think he tends to value the theme of his movies more than the performances.  The Ides of March looks pretty good and is told in a competent fashion, but it felt like Clooney was holding back for most of the film.  I was more than willing to wait for the hammer to drop, but when it did, I was left cold.  For reasons that elude me, it seems that George Clooney expects audiences to be shocked by political backstabbing and corruption.  Maybe someone should tell him that Watergate was almost forty years ago now; Americans haven't trusted their elected officials to be anything but bastards for decades.

Moments later, at least one man would have a knife in his back

That's not to say that The Ides of March is a waste of time; it's just not as excellent as it should be, given the talent involved.  Here's what I liked:

• while Clooney is an outspoken Democrat, this film doesn't target (or even mention) Republicans, which makes this a lot less abrasive than it might have been
• Ryan Gosling's crazy eyes when he finds out Governor Morris' secret are priceless
• I loved Giamatti's character when he explained his motives

"Well, Stephen, I'm made entirely of bastard molecules"

Here's what I didn't like:

• Really?  That is the scandal facing Governor Morris?  Couldn't they try something unique?
• Evan Rachel Wood's character's motives confuse me.  SPOILER ALERT: Maybe I just don't understand pregnancy (which is very possible), but I have trouble imagining a seemingly carefree young woman essentially demanding sex from a handsome man when A) she knows she is pregnant B) is freaking the hell out about being pregnant and C) her new sexy time partner is not her baby daddy.
• That title sucks so much.  Sure, they were clever enough to set Election Day on March 15, but did they have to use this title?  While slightly literary, the only people who want to watch this film will know exactly what the title refers to --- if they weren't going to be subtle, they might as well have titled the movie "Political Betrayal: The Movie"

And to be completely honest, I would not have minded any of those flaws too much if the film had only had a better message.  The Ides of March is not an expose, but it has the feel of one; if they had focused on the betrayal and built up Stephen's idealism more, this could have (maybe) been a great film. 

Stephen, in mourning for his innocence

Sadly, it's stuck in that limbo of "pretty good," where a lot of movies get forgotten.

Ironclad

It's becoming a habit.  I see a movie that I am unfamiliar with and would normally ignore, but then I notice an actor or director.  And then I recognize other cast members.  Pretty soon, I am watching the movie with the hope of discovering a diamond in the rough; the problem is that diamonds are (unsurprisingly) rare.  That's how I stumbled upon Ironclad.  Paul Giamatti, Brian Cox, Jason Flemyng and Derek Jacobi --- none of whom I trust to headline a movie, mind you --- tend to play solid supporting roles, and I had a vague recollection of James Purefoy from the Rome DVD covers.  The tagline is "Blood.  Will.  Run."  All of that should add up to a decent movie, right?

Judging by hair and makeup, I'd guess a period comedy

Ironclad opens with some narration about some of the basic reasons King John of England (Paul Giamatti) was forced to sign the Magna Carta, the document that essentially began the decline of the monarchy in the West and the rise of the individual.  This movie is not about the signing of the Magna Carta, though.  Ironclad is the story of what happened next, which is often overlooked.  After signing this important historical document, King John quickly waged war on the barons that had forced him to sign it, and he did it with Danish mercenaries.  

All of whom were designed by Frank Frazetta

Marshal (James Purefoy) was a Templar Knight who, like so many other recent film knights, had seen too much evil done in battle.  And, because this is a movie, that means that he is fated to see even more battle within the next few hours.  Marshal passed word of John's ill deeds on to others, including  the author of the Magna Carta, Archbishop Langton (Charles Dance), and a freedom-loving baron, William Albany (Brian Cox).  Agreeing that John must be stopped, the trio also agree that the place to do it is at Rochester Castle.  The castle isn't much to look at, but realty and strategic military objectives often share the same slogan: location, location, location.  If John plans to take the fight to London, he needs to capture Rochester Castle.  Albany and Marshal agree to take a few men to the castle and protect it to the last man against the evil of King John. 

Actual dialogue: "YEAAARRGH!"

I don't have any real problems with the idea of Ironclad.  Sure, I realize that the details of the film are not historically accurate, in the same way that the course of history isn't accurate when you play Sid Meier's Civilization on "Easy."

Above: my Civilization III navy, circa 1400

That reminds me...nobody ever uses the word "ironclad" in Ironclad.  Isn't that kind of strange?  It's not without precedent, of course, but I expected to see something heavily armored in the movie, at the very least.  Oh well, that's not a huge deal. 

While I have no problem with the idea behind Ironclad, I have some significant problems with its execution, starting with the cast.  Brian Cox was over-dramatic, but it was a part that called for some bombastic speeches, and he delivered them with enthusiasm.  Vladimir Kulich was pretty entertaining as John's lead Danish henchman, but he didn't get enough opportunities to show off.  I was conflicted over Paul Giamatti's performance as King John, though.  I liked that John isn't portrayed as a coward or a spoiled child, as he typically is.  I'm fine with the choice to make him into a meanie jerkface.  But Giamatti's typically solid performance has a hard time overcoming the fact that he looks like this:

You know...like Paul Giamatti in a bad wig and silly clothes

Giamatti chewed on some scenery and gave a couple of nasty speeches, but I couldn't enjoy his nastiness because he just looked silly.  The rest of the cast of Ironclad doesn't have quite the same problem.  While many of them looked nice, there wasn't much acting or characterization.

You'd think something cool was happening here, but no

James Purefoy is the lead in this film, but he doesn't do much.  He starts out as a reluctant warrior, winds up fighting, and grimaces his way through a love interest.  Kate Mara treats Purefoy's acting as a gambling bid, seeing his grimace and raising awkward motives and terrible dialogue.  The supporting cast is fairly noteworthy, but none of their performances are.  Derek Jacobi, Charles Dance, Jason Flemyng, and Mackenzie Crook are all welcome sights in a lesser-known film, but their parts are shallow and their screen time is limited, forcing the actors into well-trodden stereotypes the audience can understand without requiring anything like acting or character development. 

Example: Crook was referred to as "Gareth"

On the bright side, I thought Jamie Foreman was decently entertaining in his limited part and relative newcomer Aneurin Barnard wasn't completely obnoxious as the idealistic youth.

Ironclad is not a complete waste of time, though.  Director Jonathan English may not have shown any skill in making me care about the fate of any of these characters and he may have co-written a script that is not terribly accurate from the historical perspective, but he did manage to do this:

Yes, that's a hatchet splitting a skull like an overripe melon.  That's not all the ridiculous violence Ironclad has to offer, either.  Hands, feet and a tongue are all forcefully removed from their owners in this film.  There is even a scene where Jamie Foreman severs a man's arm and then proceeds to beat the man with his own arm.  There's a lot of what you might expect in a castle siege fight sequence (stabbings, arrows, tar, loss of life and limb, etc.), but even the typical fare is pretty decent.  Perhaps English's greatest achievement is that he gave the battle meaning by explaining the strategic significance of it.  At one point, John's top Dane gets annoyed that he is wasting his men on this little castle and wants to move on, which seems totally sensible.  Not only did English do a good job of giving the heroes a reason to fight and die for that castle, but he also had John explain why the bad guys needed to fight and die for the castle, too.

But is that enough to recommend Ironclad?  Uh, no.  A movie like this doesn't need to have witty banter or a well-written supporting cast, but it does need two or three important elements: a hero you root for, a villain you love to hate, and/or a romance that you give a damn about.  Purefoy's character isn't charismatic, he just seems weary, and that's a tough lead character type to watch. 

This is his "I'm glad we're having pie" look

Giamatti acted well enough as John, but his hair and the obviousness of some of his schemes (like the promise he made to the Danes) were just ridiculous.  And Kate Mara...her character is married to Derek Jacobi, and yet she spends her entire siege time intent on forcing Purefoy to break his Templar vows and have sexy time with her.  Sorry, Ironclad, you are zero for three.  Still, the action is pretty good, and the warfare felt authentic to the time period.  Plus, I learned a new use for pigs; they truly are a magical animal.  I wouldn't say that Ironclad is good, but it's halfway decent entertainment if you like battles and don't want to invest much emotions into the characters.

The Last Station

Biopics can be tough.  Casting an actor to play a real person is always difficult (except for Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela --- that was a no-brainer), but that is rarely the toughest part.  The real crux of a biopic is the story arc.  Just telling the life of a person usually mutes the inherent drama in that life (Public Enemies, anyone?).  In my opinion, the best way to go with these movies is to take a slice from the subject's life and follow one of the many story lines from it.  This notion leads us to The Last Station, which tells the tale of the famous Russian author/philosopher/Count Leo Tolstoy in the last year of his life. 

I entered this picture with only some general knowledge of Tolstoy's work (War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and I knew that he was influential on Ghandi), but even that knowledge was unnecessary.  This movie proved to be very "stupid American" friendly, explaining Tolstoy's life and philosophy simply and effectively.  That might sound like a pretty dry movie, but I found it to be enjoyable, containing a surprising amount of humor.

Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) is an old man with a big beard nearing the end of his life.  In his homeland of Russia, the opening credits tell us that many consider Tolstoy to be nearly a saint, and his religious/philosophical followers have established communes devoted to his principles of chastity, equality, and nonviolence.  The movie follows a young Tolstoian, Valentin (James McAvoy), as he is recruited by the head Tolstoian, Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), to be Tolstoy's new secretary.  Valentin is not just supposed to write about Tolstoy, though.  Chertkov needs Valentin to act as a Tolstoian spy in the Tolstoy home so Chertkov can manipulate Tolstoy against his wife.  Why would someone want to do that?  Well, Chertkov believes in Tolstoy the philosopher less than Tolstoy the man; if Chertkov can convince Tolstoy to actually follow through on some of Tolstoy's philosophical musings, like renouncing his private property, then the Tolstoian movement will have a founder that lived the movement's ideals.  Of course, that means that Tolstoy's wife, the Countess Sofya Tolstoy (Helen Mirren), would get pushed to the side with her more traditional views on family and religion.  Young Valentin is thrust in the middle of this barely civil conflict as the Tolstoians attempt to get Tolstoy to sign a new will that will essentially give away the copyrights to his writings, making them public domain.  Giving away a famous author's copyrights obviously will limit the inheritance of his children, so Sofya is violently opposed.  At times, Tolstoy seems determined to live his last days according to his writings.  At other times, though, he shares his lust for life with Sofya between their shouting matches.

As the main male character, Valentin gets his own plot thread that runs parallel to this conflict.  Valentin is a "good Tolstoian," which means that he adheres to Tolstoy's writings and has remained a virgin.  His beliefs come into question after some time with Tolstoy, who clearly has not been much of a Tolstoian at all; he is a wealthy Count that had several torrid love affairs in his youth, which he remembers fondly.  While staying at the local Tolstoian commune, Valentin meets a young woman, Masha (Kerry Condon), with whom he begins a relationship with.  Eventually, though, he is faced with the decision on whether he should follow Tolstoy or his heart.

One of the more surprising aspects to this movie is the complete lack of Russian accents.  It's not a bad thing, mind you, since bad accents can really hurt a movie (I'm looking at you, K-19: The Widowmaker), but it is kind of strange when the movie is about someone that is so very Russian as Leo Tolstoy.

The biggest surprise for me was the endearing relationship shown between Leo and Sofya Tolstoy in this movie.  I cannot think of another movie that portrays the affection between an old married couple better than this film.  You know those old, bickering couples that argue all the time, but clearly love each other and can't imagine life without the other?  That's what you get here.  The fights are loud and intentionally hurtful.  The love is childlike, and yet knowing.  They share a bedroom scene --- which is not gross, I promise! --- that is absolutely adorable.  Both Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer received Academy Award nominations for their work, and they were both well deserved.  Mirren, in particular, did a fantastic job.  Plummer's acting was also impressive, but it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge his lovely Tolstoy beard, which made his casting seem perfect.

The rest of the performances are pretty solid.  McAvoy once again plays a nervous young man and that shtick hasn't gotten old yet.  McAvoy's real-life wife, Anne-Marie Duff, turns in a less impressive performance as one of Tolstoy's daughters, but she doesn't do a bad job, per say.  The same can be said for Paul Giamatti and Kerry Condon.  They're not bad, but their roles just aren't very good.  I actually like Giamatti best when he plays finks like this, but there wasn't enough complexity to his character to really satisfy me.  Condon did a fine job with her role, but it was written in a way that made some of her character's choices seem rather abrupt and arbitrary.

The same can be said for the film's focus.  While the relationship between Leo and Sofya was fantastic, the rest of the film was a little limp.  I understand the need for a point-of-view character (in this case, Valentin), and I understand the urge to give him more depth by giving him a sub-plot.  Ultimately, though, that sub-plot needs to be relatively short or serve as an extended parallel to the Tolstoy marriage to truly work.  Here, the Valentin's love story is too long to simply be an aside, but not involved enough to do much for the plot as a whole.  In the end, Valentin professes his love for Masha, but it doesn't feel like the same sort of love we witness between the Tolstoys.  Oddly enough, the praise for the good performances and the criticism for the poor plotting can both be aimed at Michael Hoffman, who directed the film and wrote the screenplay from Jay Parini's novel. 

Overall, this is a surprisingly enjoyable movie with humor sprinkled throughout, but it is carried by the performances of Christopher Plummer and especially Helen Mirren.  The movie itself may not be anything special, but their performances help romanticize the notion of growing old with your special someone, even if they drive you nuts.

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.