Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

"Shoot 'Em Up" has been recommended to me for a few years now that I think about it, but for some reason I never got around to watching it, though I recall renting it once. Perhaps I just wasn't ready for the insanity I knew was headed my way because you really do have to be in a particular mood to watch something that is purely crazy for the sake of being crazy.

And yeah, "Shoot 'Em Up" certainly fits that bill. It's crazy. It's nuts. It's insane. It's so over the top that it would be most accurate to classify it as a comedy rather than an action movie. Of course, now that I think about it some action movies are two steps from comedy anyways. Look at "Commando," "Die Hard with A Vengeance" or "Machete" and tell me you're not supposed to laugh. I suppose that's kind of the point, and to be sure it's a lot of fun to watch a crazy action movie, which is certainly what "Shoot 'Em Up" is trying to be.

But you know what? After seeing it, when all is said and done, I'd rather watch "Crank" or "Escape From LA" or some other crazy action flick over "Shoot 'Em Up." I mean, yeah it was nuts, and yeah it had an absurd amount of action and a raging sense of humor about it, but I think it fell flat for two different reasons, and the second one I surprise even myself by saying.

First, I do not care much for Clive Owen. I find him uncharismatic and dull. He's what would happen if Daniel Craig was homeless for a couple months and somehow had the small amount of personality he had sucked out with a straw. He's just not charismatic at all, and he delivers his lines with all the gusto of a sack of onions. And this guy is supposed to be an action hero? Where's the panache? Where's the style? Where's the humor? Where's the badassery?

I just can't get behind a hero who looks like Ben Stiller.

The thing is that he seems dreadfully miscast. He just doesn't look like a tough guy. He doesn't look like someone who could jump through a plate glass window and put bullets between the eyes of 5 guys before he hit the ground. I'm sorry, I'm just not buying it. He looks like the catcher for a minor league baseball team, not a trained killer.

That and he can't pull off a one-liner to save his life.

There's also these really weird character traits they give Clive Owen, one where he gets really angry about random stuff and is always starting sentences with "You know what I hate?" Usually that means he's about to shoot somebody. Because you know, he's the good guy. There's also this running gag with him eating carrots. I don't get it. They do give him a one liner after he kills a guy with one, jamming it through the back of his throat and then saying "Eat your vegetables," but it comes off about as good as you'd expect it to. Schwarzenegger this guy ain't.

Ummm...symbolism?

The other thing that was kind of a weird thing to have a problem with was the fact that the story is at best nonexistent. Within the first minute and a half, Clive Owen is running through a warehouse shooting a bunch of guys he doesn't know. They don't know him, either. He was just there in the middle of something, so they send in like 50 guys out of nowhere to kill him. And while I would usually applaud an action movie for getting started really quick it's really hard to care about what's going on when you have absolutely no frame of reference.

In fact, despite the movie barely clocking in at 85 minutes, we are not given context to anything plot-related until nearly an hour into the film. Imagine if in "Die Hard" you didn't know there was a robbery going down until the beginning of the third act. It would have just been a guy without shoes running around an office building shooting people. That would have sucked.

There have been movies that have gotten off to a really fast start and been good, but they were either sequels, where you know these people already, like "The Expendables 2," or they gave you context really quick, like "Crank." In fact, let's take "Crank" as an example. That movie too was ridiculous action packed comedic madness, but in the first minute of the film, you know Jason Statham's character's name, what he does, who he pissed off, and what his predicament was. From that point on, it's action that doesn't stop, just like "Shoot 'Em Up," but we actually care because of trivial things like knowing what the hell is going on.

Shockingly, this has more context.

"Shoot 'Em Up" begins with Clive Owen sitting on a bench eating a carrot. A man runs past him trying to kill a pregnant lady, so he chases after them, kills the dude, and then starts shooting everyone else who starts flooding into the building to kill him. That's it. That's your setup. And you don't know anything about anything until the movie is almost over.

I can't believe I'm saying this, because even though it's really over the top and super charged, it really makes the action boring. I was actually bored by "Shoot 'Em Up," simply because I had no context, so I didn't care.

The one good thing about "Shoot 'Em Up" was Paul Giamatti as the hitman trying to kill Clive Owen. He's this really dumpy, unassuming guy with a bad comb-over, but he's probably the thing most people will remember before anything else about the movie. It was particularly funny watching him get more and more frustrated with not being able to take Clive Owen out, including a rather good line where he yells in exasperation, "My god. Do we suck or is this guy just that good?"

Ugh. I need an adult after just looking at that expression.

Also, Stephen McHattie shows up in a upper-echelon baddy role, but I'm not even sure where he fit into the whole picture since by that point, I really didn't care. Oh well. It was still nice to see him.

You know, I enjoy brain-dead action. I really do. But there's got to be some kind of reason for the explosions and bullets and blood splatter. Otherwise how am I supposed to care? At some level, I have to be somewhat invested so that I'll at least like the character. Or at least know what they're doing. Because without context or plot or reason, all you have is explosions. And that's why we have Michael Bay. And screw that.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I can see someone really enjoying "Shoot 'Em Up," but it wasn't for me. I just don't like Clive Owen, and I found it more like an experiment in showing purely action with no plot than an enjoyable movie watching experience. Maybe fans of gratuitous over the top silliness will like it, but really, there's plenty of movies that do it FAR better, like "Crank." If you're curious watch it, but if you skip this, you're not missing much.

Intruders (2011)

In what I can only chalk up as a total fluke, "Intruders" was the second movie I watched in two days that had Spanish subtitles. Weird.

One of my favorite things about perusing the new titles that come out is finding films that nobody has ever heard about. Mostly this is made up of straight-to-DVD schlock starring Robert Englund or Val Kilmer, and while those do have their place and possess their own special kind of entertainment value, every once in a while I will come across a quality movie that flew under everyone's radar for reasons that I seriously couldn't tell you. "Intruders" fit the bill as far as that goes.
 
I hadn't heard a darn thing about this film, and to be honest, upon reading the back of the case, I was skeptical. It described a monster called "Hollowface" that was terrorizing two kids who lived in different parts of the world, because he wanted their faces. That sounds lame. "Hollowface?" Really? That just sounds like the villain in a really bad slasher movie, you know? Added to the low bar I had set for this was the fact that it stars Clive Owen, an actor I'm not overly fond of. So I went in not expecting much.

At this point I should mention that another one of my favorite things is being surprised. This was pretty freaking good.

The first thing that struck me about "Intruders" is that it's very Neil Gaiman-esque, although the true scope of how similar in tone this is to Gaiman's work isn't fully relieved until the second half of the film. It has a wicked "dark fairy tale" thing going on, which only gets more pronounced the further it progresses. It reminded me a bit of "Coraline," Guillermo Del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth," or Terry Gilliam's sublime "Tideland."

 Few things are as horrifying as the mind of a child.

A lot of this has to do with children being put in terrifying situations, but they also all have a recurring theme of imagination, often coming from innocence, leading to very dark and horrific situations. Perhaps it is this innocence that the darkness is coming from that makes it so chilling. What is fascinating to me, however, is that in these films, the children don't seem to fully comprehend the darkness as something to be feared. They spin their creepy stories, travel down their dark passageways, totally rolling with the horror that surrounds them when an adult in the same situation would freeze and panic, and deny what they're seeing as impossible to be true. In a way, their adaptability is what is scary for us as adults, because we know better. Perhaps that makes us weaker.

Oddly enough, while it was plenty creepy. I don't even know if I'd call this a horror film, to be honest with you. And that's not because it wasn't creepy, which it was. Good lord was it creepy in spades. "Intruders" did an incredible job of slowly building up a situation, and presents you with unique and horrendously scary images which are presented very matter-of-fact, without overblown theatrics or horror movie cliches. It honestly does scary stuff far too well to be considered much a modern horror film. If you're looking for stuff to jump out of the shadows to try and shock you instead of scare, this ain't the movie for you.

And thank goodness it's not. I hate that crap. Jump scares are the bane of the horror genre's existence, and it's so refreshing to see a movie that isn't afraid to NOT use them at all. Seriously, I don't think there's a single jump scare in the entire film, and what do you know, it still manages to be scarier than any other movie I've seen this year. Oh it may be true that my heart wasn't pounding from the adrenaline being rocketed into my veins due to the fake-out 9,000 decibel orchestra sting playing as a kitty jumps out of a closet, but I can assure you that the skin on the back of my neck was crawling like mad through nearly the entire film, usually from a scene with barely any music at all.

 Well.I guess I'M not getting to sleep tonight...

What movie sounds like the more legitimately scary experience to you?

The dark situation that is occurring in "Intruders" is a bit difficult to explain without giving away ridiculous spoilers, and trust me, this is not a movie you want spoiled. I shall do my best to describe it while got giving anything away. Just know that it's actually far more interesting that I can adequately describe in these circumstances.

The description on the case that rang so hollow is basically accurate. Clive Owen and Carice van Houten's (Hey! Melisandre from "Game of Thrones!") daughter, played quite well by Ella Purnell, is living in what I'm guessing is somewhere in the U.K., and new comer Izán Corchero plays another child who I'm guessing lives either in Spain or Mexico. It's never mentioned to my recollection, but it's somewhere Spanish-speaking. They are both being tormented by this creature they name Hollowface, who attacks them at night. Why they are both being haunted, and what Hollowface wants with them, is a mystery.

What the description doesn't tell you is that the way these two stories interconnect, and you're spending the whole movie trying to piece together what on earth the stories have to do with each other, is so masterfully executed and revealed that I have to put it up there with the most shocked I've ever been while watching a movie. And it's not only shocking, but also a lot of fun to finally see all the pieces fit together. And like any good twist, it changes everything about what you've seen up to that point. Scenes that were just kind of weird or confusing at first now make total sense, and previously unseen layers appear to make the story much richer and interesting to think about and dissect.

This is the reason to watch "Intruders." The lead in, while interesting and engaging, isn't quite so memorable as the payoff of the final 15 minutes, which are insane. In fact, the final 15 minutes of the film changes things up in such a significant way that it is enough to make one think of "Intruders" as an artsy film that is functioning as a metaphor, as opposed to a horror film about a monster. Yeah, that's right, we're going into "The Fountain" territory here.

Of course, when a movie is more of a metaphor than anything else, that's when the story can start breaking down a bit in terms of sense-make, because there are some things that really didn't add up at the end. But while it may not make a whole lot of sense when you sit back and think about it in any great detail later, the overall tone and mystery of the film is so all-encompassing that it really doesn't matter that much.

Part of me feels that, although the film does a shockingly good job of linking these two stories together by the end, it's almost as if this isn't supposed to make sense. It's more about conveying an otherworldly tone. And when a movie does that this well, it's easy to let slide some things that I would otherwise nitpick to death. When a movie reaches a certain level of vagueness, I can't really be mad when not everything is neatly explained, you know what I'm saying? At that point, I'm willing to let a lot of stuff go.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Intruders" is one of the most unique, genre bending experiences I've seen in years. Coupled with the Neil Gaimen-style tone, an ending that is probably the most blown away I've been with a twist since "Fight Club" or "The Sixth Sense," and the fact that there was not a single point where I called anything to happen the way it did, this gets my seal of approval. I even liked Clive Owen in it. Who would have thought a movie with a villain called "Hollowface" could be so damn good? Highly Recommended.

Killer Elite

I have a theory about Robert De Niro. I believe that his mole is actually a sentient life form, born of some malicious other-worldly dark deity. It spreads its minions among us in order for it to sow despair and sorrow, and De Niro has become an unwilling victim of its whims. Every night, the mole whispers horrible secrets, Lovecraftian in nature, of the coldness and insanity-provoking terrors of the universe, and urges him to go out and spread these horrible truths, thereby doing its bidding. This endless torment has caused him to become corrupted and worn, hanging on the brink of insanity every minute of every day -- a dessicated husk held together only by the machinations of his new Dark God.

And that's why Robert De Niro scowls all the time.

That's also why people with big moles on their faces creep me out. I'm always waiting for them to scream "Cthulhu f'tagen!!!" and stab me to death with ceremonial daggers. And before you call me on it, no, Val Kilmer doesn't count. In fact, the reason why I'm such a big Val Kilmer fan is because he has been the only person able to combat the Dark God's power! His mole may make the attempt to corrupt him, but Val's shear bad-assery stops it cold every time. It's more like a trophy Val Kilmer allows to stay on his face, so that he can mock the Dark God's impotence. And the Dark God knows better than to push the issue further, because like any self respecting life form, he's seen "Top Gun," and after that, he knows that to combat the awesomeness that is The Val is useless. He's our only hope, people! We need Val Kilmer back!!!

Our first and last line of defense...

Going into "Killer Elite," I was...hesitant. It was like a mix and match of things I like and things I don't like. Jason Statham is pretty sweet, but although he's a national treasure I just can't get excited about seeing Robert De Niro again. Let's be honest with ourselves here. The man has been doing an impression of himself for some 30 years now. Just squint your eyes, scowl, shrug a lot, and repeat yourself when you are being intense. That's the De Niro Method at work. The worst part is that it's considered light treason if you don't worship the ground the guy walks on. Is it just me? I can't be the only one who is annoyed by Robert De Niro, can I? Don't get me wrong, if I met the dude I'd tell him "You was the bomb in "The Godfather Part II"...in 1974" but I probably couldn't bring myself to say anything else.

I assumed that De Niro probably wasn't going to have a huge role in it, since it appears to be an action flick and De Niro couldn't out-action a rack of lamb nowadays. So Statham is was then. I then noticed that Clive Owen is in it, and my expectations sank that much lower. Ugh. Clive Owen? I do not care for him much at all. It's probably more his track record being in movies I didn't like than him as an actor but maybe this will be-

Ha. Ah ha! HA HA!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Awww. Isn't that just the cutest little mustache? Has Selleck Claus been leaving little gifts on all the good boys and girls upper lips? That's just precious and deserves a mocking ^_^. In truth, it's closer to an unrefined version of a post-2000 Burt Reynolds than the powerful Tom Selleck 'stache, but either way it's ridiculous. How can you take that seriously? And dig on this: He's the bad guy. Isn't that hilarious? During the fight scenes I kept imagining Ron Jeremy instead and it lost all sense of tension. Would have made "Killer Elite" a better movie, though.

Since I've beat around the bush long enough with this, I'll just come out and say it: I didn't care for "Killer Elite." And it wasn't so much that the movie was bad, necessarily, it was just impossible for me to care about, silly mustaches aside. I say it wasn't necessarily bad because this is more of a problem I have with the genre in general than any kind of lacking "Killer Elite" had in the way of film-making. I don't like spy thrillers. I hate to say it but I've been forced to come to that conclusion after many attempts to try and prove it to myself otherwise. I especially have an aversion to modern "serious" spy thrillers.

The problem is that they are so frigging complex. Too complex. I'm not a stupid person but I have a real problem following names, especially if there are a bunch thrown out all at once, which they always are, and that's a pretty big issue if you're trying to follow one of these movies. Maybe if these movies were allowed to take their time it wouldn't be so bad, but they always rocket forward like everyone in the audience has a photographic memory for names and faces. But I don't, and it's always thumbscrews for me to figure out who is shooting who and for what purpose. The same thing happens to me with mobster movies, and that's why I don't like them much, either. My head begins to spin, and I realize I have no idea who anybody is, or why they're doing what they're doing. And you know what happens when I reach that point? I stop caring.

I reached that point in "Killer Elite" about 30 minutes in. It's a 2 hour long film. For the last 3/4's of the movie, I had no idea what was happening, and not in a good Christopher Nolan "Memento" kind of way. It was a "I'm bored out of my mind" kind of way. It has to do with an Arabic Sheik forcing an assassin (Statham) out of retirement by kidnapping his friend, another assassin...who got caught and is helpless for some reason. He's a frigging assassin...oh wait it's De Niro. No action for him, got it. He's contracted to kill a bunch of ex-SAS officers who killed the Sheik's sons in a war, and Owen is...some kind of secret agent person or maybe SAS who is trying to stop the killings, I guess. Maybe?

See that's what I'm talking about. I never even had a clear understanding of who one of the main characters is. Is he a cop or a spy or what? Why does he care? The assassinations are made to look like accidents, why is he running around with a gun and sending scouts out to the desert to tail people who they don't even know? I'm sure the movie explains it but I feel like I need Cliffs Notes just to watch this thing. And with these kinds of movies, I can't help but think, "What's the point? The only thing I know for sure is that at some point one of the characters you least suspect is probably going to double-cross the main character, and it's going to end with him finishing the last job and retiring." Because that's how they almost all end. For as many twists and turns as they try to have, they sure are formulaic.

"If we introduce enough character names, it will make our movie seem really, really smart."

Every once in a great while there is an admittedly well filmed scene where Statham punches or shoots something, and that's cool, but I was so uninterested in the plot of "Killer Elite" that it ruined any enjoyment I may have been able to squeeze out of the film. Who are these people and what are they doing? The bigger question is: "Who cares?"

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and write the screenplay for my new movie where Val Kilmer battles Shoggoths...

The Bottom Line: I am no great judge of spy thrillers, since I generally don't like them anyway, but this was a boring, overly confusing mess with unfortunate facial hair. Unless you're a die-hard fan of the genre, skip it.