Shoot 'Em Up

[Bourne101]

http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/1/v/P/shootemupposter.jpg

Directed by Michael Davis

Genre: Action

Tagline: I'm a British nanny and I'm dangerous.

Plot Outline: A man named Mr. Smith (Owen) delivers a woman's baby during a shootout, and is then called upon to protect the newborn from the army of gunmen.

Starring: Clive Owen, Monica Bellucci, Paul Giamatti and Greg Bryk

Rated R for pervasive strong bloody violence, sexuality and some language.

Smokin' Aces was a complete disappointment. It was supposed to be a badass, fun and great time at the movies. It did not live up to expectations. It tried to be more than it was by putting in ridiculous twists and pointless subplots. Shoot 'Em Up isn't exactly what Smokin' Aces looked like, but people are going to go into this with the same expecation of a badass movie that entertains like crazy, is violent, funny and well acted. Nothing more nothing less. I am looking forward to it very much, and lets hope that it doesn't fall flat on its face like Smokin' Aces.

[Cronos]

This looks like it's going to be a hell of a good time and it's also got a great cast. I doubt it'll be any worse than Smokin' Aces.

[Tweek]

Clive Owen! Monica Belluci! Yay!!!

Will probably see this.

[gspawn]

*crosses both sets of fingers*
Please don't let this suck... please don't let this suck... please don't let this suck...

I'd hate for this to be another case of Hollywood screwing up a premise that seems like it can't possibly go wrong. Although, from the terribly obvious CG of the skyjumping scenes in the trailer, I'm left wondering... they look almost like there's a matte painting of the sky in the background. Insert spinning through the air stiffly about the hip-level axis, just like all other wirework movies in the world, with arms robotically pushed out in front to guide them between said wires.

Please don't let this suck... please don't let this suck... please don't let this suck...

[MisterChristian]

Hoping to see this on Saturday. There's a crew screening in Toronto and my buddy worked on it - so he hoping to get extra tickets. Clive Owen is rumoured to be there as he's in town for the Toronto International Film Festival :)

[ilovemovies]

It looks like it'll be the most fun time at the movies in a long, long time! :cool:

[daddiefatsacks]

im excited to see this, but im afraid near the end it may get repetitive and boring with the violence

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by daddiefatsacks
im excited to see this, but im afraid near the end it may get repetitive and boring with the violence

I actually heard it wasn't as violent as the trailer would lead you to believe. I mean, there is obviously violence, but I doubt that there will be so much that it will become tiresome.

[bigred760]

I'm going to watch it, but it'll have to wait until after 3:10 to Yuma.

[athf1980]

This looks like a solid action flick.

[Superplasmatron]

looks silly, I liked smoking aces anyway.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

This has the potential to be among the most purely entertaining movies, and best action films ever made.

A great cast, a simple but very effective concept, and what could be the new RAMBO/McClane. I can't fucking wait, this is my most anticipated movie for the rest of the year.

[MisterChristian]

Love Massawyrm's review on AICN.

Some highlights:


The first thing you need to know going in is that, no, Shoot 'Em Up is not serious. Quite the contrary. Shoot 'Em Up is a comedy, a comedy written in the language of extreme, implausible violence.


The best way to describe it is as if you sat a thirteen-year-old down with a bowl of Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream covered in Nestle Quik and pixie sticks, then let him wash it down with Jolt Cola and had him watch about a half-dozen John Woo movies. Then you asked him to write his own screenplay afterwards.


This thing is a hell of a lot of fun and everything the trailer promises to be. If the trailer got your blood pumping and very interested in this, odds are you're gonna enjoy it, and for those it comes Highly Recommended. If however it just looked silly, stupid or just plain retarded, this is Not Recommended for you.

[Trooper3]

^ it was an awesome review. Hopefully more of the AICN group dugg it.

If ya goto the Shoot 'Em Up website there is 2 new clips. the car one is badass

[Bourne101]

Nice! Just got the rating from the official website. Rated R for pervasive strong bloody violence, sexuality and some language.

[someguy]

I've given up on these movies, and considering the release date it seems to be a dump film. I'll pass.

[Worthystevens]

Owen, Bellucci, and over-the-top, fun violence? Paul Giamatti wielding some serious firearm power?

I'm fucking there next weekend.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by someguy
I've given up on these movies, and considering the release date it seems to be a dump film.
Umm, when exactly would you have released it? Doesn't strike me as a dump film at all.

[someguy]

It strikes me as a dump film because it's released in the time period where studios dump their bad movies out in theatres.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by someguy
It strikes me as a dump film because it's released in the time period where studios dump their bad movies out in theatres.

like halloween?


I think it looks like a great dump

[someguy]

I never denied Halloween being a dump film, in fact I went into the movie with lowered expectations because of that specific reason along with the terrible script which I partly read. I won tickets to go see it a day early, and if I didn't get the free tickets then I wouldn't have bothered seeing it in theatres at all. Nice try though.

[dreamcurls]

not sure about the plot of this film, but Clive Owen has yet to dissapoint me, so i'll give it a shot

[psycheoutsteve]

Shit!!! I can't decide whether to see this film before 3:10 to Yuma or vice versa. Both films have a cast of actors I love, great concepts, promising trailers, and look to be loaded with action. I thought I'd be more torn between movies during the regular summer season, but September seems set to pack a punch.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by someguy
It strikes me as a dump film because it's released in the time period where studios dump their bad movies out in theatres.

That would be January.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by CreeperBEATNGU
That would be January.

Well late August and early September can be dumping times too.

However, this still looks awesome.

Plus, 3:10 to Yuma certainly doesn't strike me as a movie that's being dumped, yet it's still opening next weekend as well.

Then again, another western, An Unfinished Life, came out about the same time a couple of years ago that I liked a lot and it tanked.

However, I don't think Yuma will tank because my theater was actually extremely filled. Probably almost sold out. And that NEVER happens. Especially on a Sunday night.

[Bourne101]

So far reviews have been quite positive all over the web. Looks like it should be a good time.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
Well late August and early September can be dumping times too.

I don't think many "dump movies" have Monica Bellucci, Clive Owen, and Paul Giammitti in them.

[gyro_44]

There's several clips at You Tube for those who don't know. Here's a couple...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p8KV0nADX8&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcBwu1_CTy8&mode=related&search=

"The leader who stays in the rear.... takes it in the rear."

This movie looks like a gas.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by someguy
I never denied Halloween being a dump film, in fact I went into the movie with lowered expectations because of that specific reason along with the terrible script which I partly read. I won tickets to go see it a day early, and if I didn't get the free tickets then I wouldn't have bothered seeing it in theatres at all. Nice try though.


I aint trying nuttin, I just think this film looks fun, but I agree its the kind of thing you expect to see Jason Statham fronting, but Paul Giamatti and Clive Owen look like they make this cheese fest watchable, I could be wrong, but this looks like the kind of inaine action flick that I love dispite myself, I enjoyed kiss of the dragon btw, this is the kind of film I love on video.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by CreeperBEATNGU
I don't think many "dump movies" have Monica Bellucci, Clive Owen, and Paul Giammitti in them.

Monica Bellucci in an English Language film usually spells shit with a capital S. In England we refer to a shit as a dump coincidently.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
Monica Bellucci in an English Language film usually spells shit with a capital S. In England we refer to a shit as a dump coincidently.

Only if it has Matrix in the title.

Tears of the Sun is vastly better than most of the American shit films that are widely lauded.

[DunlopolnuD]

There's something extremely cool about seeing Paul Giamatti as a bad guy, kind of like Philip Seymour Hoffman in M:I 3... so I'm definitely there.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by CreeperBEATNGU
I don't think many "dump movies" have Monica Bellucci, Clive Owen, and Paul Giammitti in them.

Well I never said I thought this movie looked like a dump movie. Infact, I don't think so.

The tone of this movie reminds me of Crank last year, and maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that was a hit. So that might be why they are releasing it now.

[Badbird]

I don't think it's a dump kind of movie. September can be very good for "genre" movies like this... Underworld and Transporter 2 both did very well in September.

God oh god oh god I hope this is good. Paul Giamatti is my favorite actor and he looks awesome in this. The only thing that will be disappointing for sure is that since he's the bad guy, he's gonna die in the end. No sequel for you.

Unless they pull some Daredevil/Bullseye shit at the end.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by Badbird


God oh god oh god I hope this is good. Paul Giamatti is my favorite actor and he looks awesome in this. The only thing that will be disappointing for sure is that since he's the bad guy, he's gonna die in the end. No sequel for you.




Couldn't agree more.

Clive Owen looks badass in this and Monica Bellucci is hot.

But the reason to watch this will be for Giamatti. As I've said before, just watching the trailer you can tell Giamatti had so much fun in this role and I'm sure it'll be just as much fun to watch him as it was for him to do the movie. :cool:

[thedudeman69]

Two words : carrot grenades. .

Also, Clive plows Monica in this .


I am so fucking there.

[Strider]

I was fortunate enough to attend a special advance screening of Shoot 'Em Up at this year's San Diego Comic-Con, and I thought it was a blast. Clive Owen is such an ultra-cool bad-ass in this film, Paul Giamatti chews up every line and scene, and Monica Bellucci is scorching hot. Shoot 'Em Up is preposterous, over-the-top, insane, cartoonish (in terms of the violence), and just a wild roller-coaster ride of an action flick.

I'm looking forward to seeing it again.

Strider

[Mr.HyDe807]

Im thinking of seeing 3:10 to Yuma and this on Friday. A mindless action movie and what looks to be an awesome western in one day. It could be just as awesome as Children of Men/ Pan's Labyrnith double feature i did

[SheLizard]

3:10 to yuma looks really good. i love christian bale and i like russell crowe...when hes not throwing phones at poeple

[TylerDurden182]

Looks like a blast.

[Bourne101]

The new TV spots have really spiked my excitement for this movie. I will be seeing this and 3:10 to Yuma this weekend.

[veddhead83]

Pretty corny action sequences fill this 87 minute film. Owen delivers the goods as a human 'Bugs Bunny.' And Giamatti has fun with his Elmer Fudd. But I still can't quite get over how cheesy this was. Is it really supposed to be like that?? There could have been something really cool with this flick, instead it turns out to be this years "Crank."

"Shoot'em Up": C

[movieme07]

Looks like the video game generation's orgasm of this year (last year's probably being Crank)

[Strider]

Originally posted by veddhead83
But I still can't quite get over how cheesy this was. Is it really supposed to be like that??

....instead it turns out to be this years "Crank."

I definitely think "cheesy" is what writer/director Michael Davis was aiming for, along with over-the-top, insane, outrageous, cartoonish, etc.

As you said, Shoot 'Em Up is this year's Crank, but I think the former is a better action flick than the latter, which I wasn't a fan of. Crank wore out its welcome before the climax, Shoot 'Em Up doesn't. Plus, Shoot 'Em Up features a superior villain, played by a vastly superior actor, who obviously had a total blast playing his character.

But that's just me.

Strider

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by Strider
I definitely think "cheesy" is what writer/director Michael Davis was aiming for, along with over-the-top, insane, outrageous, cartoonish, etc.

As you said, Shoot 'Em Up is this year's Crank, but I think the former is a better action flick than the latter, which I wasn't a fan of. Crank wore out its welcome before the climax, Shoot 'Em Up doesn't. Plus, Shoot 'Em Up features a superior villain, played by a vastly superior actor, who obviously had a total blast playing his character.

But that's just me.

Strider
I agree with your statements. However, there are certain elements that are cool, but as a whole it just doesn't do it for me.

[Jim H]

I just got back from seeing the film...

Where to begin? I'm not quite ready to write a longer piece, as I like to wait a few hours, so I'll just put some random thoughts down here...

First: Paul Giamatti is great in this. Clive Owen is about as good as he could be considering the role and the way it is written.

Second: This film wastes no time. There is a major shootout within three minutes of the credits beginning.

Third: The jokes are sometimes funny, sometimes so bad they're funny, and sometimes just bad.

Fourth: The action scenes are fairly outrageous, but if you're a Hong Kong film fan, don't expect to be wowed too much. Few HK films have AS MANY gags as this does in crazy gun gags, but the staging in the best films is better. In particular, the action scenes in this have far too much close cutting, are over-edited, and rarely feature the lead and his targets in the same shot. The latter hurts it the most, I'd say. That's not to say the action scenes aren't good and quite entertaining though, or that gun fights shot this way can't work, just that in this case it didn't quite do it all the time.

Fifth: A lot of the music in this sucks. A new score could have helped quite a bit. Oh well.

Still well worth seeing, especially for action fans and fans of cinema which are... Often in poor taste. Giamatti's performance is enough to make it worth seeing by itself anyway.

I'd rank this a 7, close to an 8 though.

[franky4fingerz]

fun mindless action flick simply describes the movie.
7/10

[gyro_44]

A friend of mine saw this last night and is raving about it. I'm hoping to catch it this weekend, along with 3:10 To Yuma. Wow, I don't even remember the last time I actually wanted to see two new movies in one weekend.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Wow. This movie is quite simply entertainment and adrenaline personified.

I can't think of a single film that's packed with more jaw dropping stunts, setpieces, and dialogue that's as cool as it is hilarious.
Terrific performances from the big three cast members that actually sell lines that wouldn't have worked with other actors delivering them, Owen is now up there with the McClane and RAMBO of the 80s as one of the greatest movie bad-asses to ever live, easily one of the best sleezy villain performances I've ever seen from Giamatti who gives facial expressions that are as unique and sytlish as the dialogue, Monica plays the role with just the right blend of fragility and toughness, especially good in a scene where she has to convey her fear as Giamatti tortures and interrogates her, and a heartfelt scene between her and Owen that got me genuinally invested in how things turned out for them.
This is the best of every one man army movie ever made from the Stallone, to Willis, to Bronson...blended to perfection with the so over the top that you can't take your eyes off the screen escapist adventure of Sin City, Grindhouse and Kill Bill, but executed in a way that it makes it all its own.

This is the most original, unique cinematic experience of the year by a longshot, and if not for Pan's Labyrinth, it'd be the best film I've seen all year.
In a year loaded with great action films from 300, to Death Sentence, to Live Free or Die Hard, to Hot Fuzz...this blows the doors off of all of them and stands ahead of the pack as the definitive action film of the year, and rivals the classics as one of the greatest ever.

I'm hard pressed to think of a handful of films that gave me a better theatrical experience than this one. It's definitely Clive and Giammitti's best film, and it's Monica's best American film.

I already had obscenely high expectations, and this blew them away.

[movieme07]

Shoot Em Up is much better than Crank, but it still wore out its welcome I felt. The shootouts were amazing, but the dialogue scenes were painful and a surprising amount of the jokes fell flat. It'll be great to watch with friends (as I did this time) but 3:10 to Yuma is a much better movie.

8/10

[Quigles]

Gloriously stupid doesn't even begin to describe this highly stylized gun-toting action-packed extravaganza. It's so utterly ridiculous and campy, it gives both CRANK and SNAKES ON A PLANE a run for their money.

This is the type of film where over half the dialogue is bad puns and one-liners, shoot-outs take place during baby deliveries and sex scenes, and a man who professionalizes in being a badass rigs a pulley system throughout a warehouse (completely unnoticed) that enables him to take down a horde of bad guys by just running through it and pulling on strings.

What's not to love?

8 out of 10

[TeeRay]

Saw it tonight.

Pretty friggin' awesome. I might see it again this weekend. Clive Owen is awesome. Monica Bellucci is hot. Loved the corny oneliners (Eat Your Vegetables is my favorite). And the sex scene is epic.

9/10

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by movieme07
Shoot Em Up is much better than Crank, but it still wore out its welcome I felt. The shootouts were amazing, but the dialogue scenes were painful and a surprising amount of the jokes fell flat. It'll be great to watch with friends (as I did this time) but 3:10 to Yuma is a much better movie.

8/10


You seem kind of down on it for such a high rating/grade.

Reading what you said, it sounds more like a 6 or 7 than an 8.

[veddhead83]

This movie is tanking at my theatre. We put around 20 people in it for 3 shows combined.

3:10 is almost selling out and this is a movie I should have opened in the alley.

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
You seem kind of down on it for such a high rating/grade.

Reading what you said, it sounds more like a 6 or 7 than an 8.

Are you seriously trying to convince him he gave too high a score? Like someone on a message board writing the number eight instead of six matters? Jesus, Joseph and doggie-style Mary...

[psycheoutsteve]

I loved this film, I mean...over the top humor and violence, cool characters, great action sequences...what's not to love? This was just what I was craving. 9/10

[anakinsrise]

Shoot 'Em Up is a cool send up (get it??) of action movies.
Clive Owen's Smith is a combo of James Bond,Batman and Superman.
The kind of guy who has a oneliner for every bad guy he dispatches.
Paul Giamatti is pretty funny as his nemesis Hertz .The glowingly beautiful and super voluptuous Monica Bellucci always makes my heart skip a beat or two.But each time she spoke it sounded like she had just received her script 30 seconds before filming her scenes.Some major plotholes abound,the standout being the setup in the gun factory.But maybe im reading to much into it,i assume the aforementioned was done that way purposely(??)
In the end i had fun though enough laughs and violence to get me going.
Scale of 1-10 a 7 1/2

[franky4fingerz]

Originally posted by veddhead83
This movie is tanking at my theatre. We put around 20 people in it for 3 shows combined.

3:10 is almost selling out and this is a movie I should have opened in the alley.



This is true. shoot em up is in the biggest sized house we have and i moved it today to one of the smallest ones and put superbad back in the big one. its really too bad. 3:10 to yuma also is selling out like a bitch, but it is texas so what do you expect. rednecks gotta have there westerns.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by franky4fingerz
This is true. shoot em up is in the biggest sized house we have and i moved it today to one of the smallest ones and put superbad back in the big one. its really too bad. 3:10 to yuma also is selling out like a bitch, but it is texas so what do you expect. rednecks gotta have there westerns.

My friend that works at the theatre said that 3:10 to Yuma was almost selling out every showing, but also that Shoot 'Em Up was doing quite well. But I guess it doesn't really matter theatre by theatre, but Shoot 'Em Up is not performing very well domstically.

[veddhead83]

We re-opened Ratatouille and it is kicking Shoot'em Up's ass. It is doing 10x the amount of business....

[MidnightAngel]

Is Shoot 'Em Up a movie worth a wait on dvd release?

[mreeez]

I was actually surprised to see as many people in the theatre with me when I saw this. It didn't strike me as the type of film that would have people flocking to it in droves. Plus it's a September release which usually means the movie's a turd.

That being said, I really dug the flick. Good, mindless action/cheese.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally posted by veddhead83
We re-opened Ratatouille and it is kicking Shoot'em Up's ass. It is doing 10x the amount of business....

Ya, well I think that has something to do with the fact that Ratatouille is a family film, which attracts more of a general audience. Why is this so surprising again?

[CreeperBEATNGU]

My theatre was pretty crowded when I saw this Friday evening, but in any event a $5 mill opening is pretty damn quick, even though it did have a very low theatre count.

It seems like another Grindhouse, most people that see it love it, but not nearly enough people are seeing it.

It'll have to wait for it's inevitable cult status on dvd for its profit.

Fanboys love these way over the top movies, but the general public usually doesn't go for them, even if big names are attached.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by anakinsrise
The glowingly beautiful and super voluptuous Monica Bellucci always makes my heart skip a beat or two.But each time she spoke it sounded like she had just received her script 30 seconds before filming her scenes.

I thought the scene with Giammitti interrogating her and the emotional scene with Clive prior to the sex scene/shoot out are two of the best acted scenes in the film.
Her accent is definitely very noticeable, but it fit fine for character and the film. It makes her even more sensual and seductive, as she was meant to be.

[Bourne101]

Shoot 'Em Up - 8/10

This movie is bloody fantastic! The action and violence is so fun, exciting and intense. The acting is just about as good as it gets for an action film. Owen and Giamatti are dynamite and have great good guy, bad buy chemistry. Monica Belluci gives a good performance and is smokin' hot. The movie is very over-the-top but it knows it and nothing was ever unintentionally funny. The parachute scene and aftermath had me in tears. It's a real shame that this didn't do better at the box-office so we could get a sequel. If you are looking for a very fun time at the movies, with lots of bloody action and violence, some laughs and one liners, and a story that doesn't try to complicate itself *cough*Smokin' Aces*cough*, then you will love Shoot 'Em Up. It's one hell of a good time.

[Jim H]

**SPOILERS**






One small note... The gun control themes in the film, some people online are taking them way too seriously. I think it was meant as a jab at the obvious and extremely silly nationalistic macho American action films of the 80s.






***END***

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Jim H
**SPOILERS**






One small note... The gun control themes in the film, some people online are taking them way too seriously. I think it was meant as a jab at the obvious and extremely silly nationalistic macho American action films of the 80s.






***END***

Oh for sure. This movie is just meant to be over the top and fun. Not realistic and completely serious.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I don't know if they were planning a sequel or not, but if they were there's still a shot for it.

This will probably do quite a bit better overseas, and be huge on dvd.

Pitch Black wasn't a success in theatres, but dvd money got a sequel made.

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
Ya, well I think that has something to do with the fact that Ratatouille is a family film, which attracts more of a general audience. Why is this so surprising again? Dude, Ratatouille came out in JUNE!!! This is a brand new film.....Rat should have faded from peoples minds a month ago.
I think the fact that this film was just plain mediocre is why it is tanking at the box office. As for the Pitch Black comparison, not so fast...Pitch Black actually had $30 million in profit just from Box Office revenue. Shoot'em has done squat as of yet. I would bet it has actually lost New Line about $50 million.

So lets give it time before we start comparing two films revenues and business.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by veddhead83
Shoot'em has done squat as of yet. I would bet it has actually lost New Line about $50 million.
Not a chance Shoot Em Up cost more than $50 million. Could be half that.

[chinton]

Oh my God what a terrible terrible film. I was actually rather excited about it, but I hated it. Thank God it was short although it felt like it went on forever and forever.

When you get past the action scenes there is nothing to this film. The characters, and I use that word jokingly, are almost non-existant. The dialogue which is supposed to be oh so funny fell flat on it's face. That means all there is left is the action scenes. I enjoyed them for about five minutes then they just got repititive. I mean after you've seen 10 people killed in a variety of ways with guns the next 5,000 are boring as Hell. I was really about to fall asleep towards the end of this film and would have walked out has I not been with a friend.

I would mention a "plot" something about bone marrow and babies but it really made little sense. All just a terrible terrible movie.


2/10

[dman476]

Originally posted by chinton
Oh my God what a terrible terrible film. I was actually rather excited about it, but I hated it. Thank God it was short although it felt like it went on forever and forever.

When you get past the action scenes there is nothing to this film. The characters, and I use that word jokingly, are almost non-existant. The dialogue which is supposed to be oh so funny fell flat on it's face. That means all there is left is the action scenes. I enjoyed them for about five minutes then they just got repititive. I mean after you've seen 10 people killed in a variety of ways with guns the next 5,000 are boring as Hell. I was really about to fall asleep towards the end of this film and would have walked out has I not been with a friend.

I would mention a "plot" something about bone marrow and babies but it really made little sense. All just a terrible terrible movie.


2/10
YAY!!!!!

We always agree, don't we. Even when we don't.

I too almost fell asleep.

I gave it a 4 or 5/10, but that really is too kind.

I just had to give it that score because I gave Crank and Smokin' Aces like 3/10 - so, it was not fair to put them in the same league, but they're all awful films.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by gyro_44
Not a chance Shoot Em Up cost more than $50 million. Could be half that.

I believe it was about $37 million for the production budget...

as for nothing past the action scenes and lack of characterization...no shit. It's meant to be an aggressively fast paced way over the top eccentric action romp, like a live action one man army video game of a movie...pure entertainment, not at all made for substance.

The story made sense btw, it's hardly the central focal point since this is the ultimate action driven film, but it did a good job of condeming the very thing it appears to be condoning with its take on gun control.

I can't believe someone could watch a film called "Shoot 'Em Up" and complain about too much action and not enough character and storytelling.

[chinton]

Originally posted by CreeperBEATNGU
I believe it was about $37 million for the production budget...

as for nothing past the action scenes and lack of characterization...no shit. It's meant to be an aggressively fast paced way over the top eccentric action romp, like a live action one man army video game of a movie...pure entertainment, not at all made for substance.

The story made sense btw, it's hardly the central focal point since this is the ultimate action driven film, but it did a good job of condeming the very thing it appears to be condoning with its take on gun control.

I can't believe someone could watch a film called "Shoot 'Em Up" and complain about too much action and not enough character and storytelling.


It didn't have too much action. The problem was the action got dull and monotonous and since there was nothing else there was nothing for me.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

This has some of the most unique action setpieces to ever grace the screen, I could't think of anything further form dull and monotonous than a pulley system of gunfire, a mid-air shootout, a sex scene/shoot out, riding a rope down an entire apartment building while blasting away at legions of bad guys on each floor....

[notchreturns]

See I can;t go into a film like this and hate on it for the lack of strong characters, writing or what have you.

I mean the whole thing is just shoot out, tiny bit of story, more shootouts, sex, shootout, story, shootout, shootout.

It was alright for what it was, though. A cheesy really over the top action fest. I liked Crank more though.

Statham is more interesting to me in these action roles than Owen.

Yeah I said it

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I think Statham is ok, essentially the same in every movie...most of which are mediocre.

The only one I really liked was WAR, and that was because of Jet Li.

Any one action set-piece in this film tops the entire Crank movie.

[veddhead83]

Ok, so Shoot'em Up has lost New Line $30 million, which means no sequel.

[chinton]

Once again I didnt hate the film for the lack of strong characters or writing. I was perfectly to be entertained by the gun fights if they didn't get so dull so fast. Once thats gone there is nothing to this film ssince all the jokes were dumb and unfunny. Thats a problem for me.

[Cop No. 633]

So I caught this along with 3:10 to Yuma this weekend. Wanna guess which was the better film?

I thought Shoot Em Up would be a lot funnier. For all the style and gun fights this has, I figured there would've been more laughs. Many of the jokes make you smirk, but that's as far as it goes. The action scenes get dull after a while. The problem with that is that you never get a sense that Clive's character can get hurt for 3/4's of the movie, so when he does, it's too late. That's what makes the best action scenes great: the pain. When you see McClane or Tequila or McCauley in a shoot out, you worry the guy might die or get hurt. They often do. But most of this film, you're just waiting to see everybody die at the hands of Clive Owen who doesn't get hurt till late in the game. It's the same problem with Halloween... there's a lot of deaths and the superficial things that make the genre (action or horror), but there's no soul behind it. It's just empty. I wanted to like Shoot Em Up, but I got bored by it. I'm glad I paid for 3:10 to Yuma. I would've been more disappointed had I paid for this film. Not that this film is terrible, it's got some decent action scenes, but it's very weak for what it could've been. I think had the characters been more memorable, it would've been good. I'm not saying make a character arc or anything... hell, Sin City didn't have any arcs, but they sure as hell had great characters who bled and got killed. I think Shoot Em Up would've benefited if Frank Miller wrote it because Michael Davis still has a ways to go. He can direct action okay, but his writing needs to improve. I've seen his 8 Days a Week and 100 Girls... the guy definitely improved a little but not by much.

4/10

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by chinton
Once again I didnt hate the film for the lack of strong characters or writing. I was perfectly to be entertained by the gun fights if they didn't get so dull so fast. Once thats gone there is nothing to this film ssince all the jokes were dumb and unfunny. Thats a problem for me.

And what I'm saying is that I don't know how any action fan get get bored by one action sequence after another, most of which are unlike anything ever before seen on film; if they were generic action scenes I could understand it, but the setpieces in this film are far from generic, as for the dialogue, I'd put even the worst one-liners on par with just about anything in Sin City, which I loved.

[navarr0]

I really enjoyed the movie. Despite the cheesy humor and laughs
**SPOILERS**
(i.e. the neon light scene. And the constant bunny jokes)
***END SPOILERS***
It was action packed and everything i hoped it to be. Nothing less, nothing more.

8/10

[Jim H]

When you see McClane or Tequila or McCauley in a shoot out, you worry the guy might die or get hurt.

Tequila? Really? He shrugs off bullet wounds like a normal man does flys.

[ilovemovies]

Disappointingly underwhelming. It's mildly amusing and the cast is great. But it's nowhere near as much fun as I it could've/should've been.

Cranks was MUCH better.

6/10

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Cranks action and dialogue weren't a tenth as original and stylish as this flims, nor where its perforamnces even close to worthy of comparison.

[TeeRay]

Me and my friends are in a bitter fued over this movie. They hated it, I loved it. And when I said it was better than Crank, they got pissed.

What I find funny about it is that they hate it for the same reasons I find it to be awesome. It's unrealistic, it's cheesy, it's dumb. Just like Crank.

[cletus66]

Shoot Em Up was alright but my biggest problem with this movie was how cartoonish the violence was. The shit Clive Owen was doing was totally unrealistic and I really think this would have been a better movie if the action was at least somewhat realistic.


6.5/10

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Well...of course it was cartoonish and unrealistic, that was the point. It was meant ot be insanely over the top and loaded with surreal action like nothing ever seen on film, and it delivered in spades.

This was never meant for someone that wanted realism, they made that abundantly clear prior to its release.

Complaining about Shoot 'Em Up being too unrealistic is like complaining about porn being too raunchy.

"So I caught this along with 3:10 to Yuma this weekend. Wanna guess which was the better film?"

This one.

[veddhead83]

The over-the-top and cheesiness just doesn't work in this film - as much as some of you think so. The box office tally and reviews from most critics and most schmoes seem to all say the same - "The film doesn't work."

[thedudeman69]

Originally posted by veddhead83
The over-the-top and cheesiness just doesn't work in this film - as much as some of you think so. The box office tally and reviews from most critics and most schmoes seem to all say the same - "The film doesn't work."


You are basing how a film is on box office totals, and what some random person is saying on a message board? 5 millon dollars worth of people saw this opening weekend, and I bet they went in expecting a good old fashioned time, and that is what they got. Most people's opinons doesn't represent another's

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by veddhead83
The over-the-top and cheesiness just doesn't work in this film - as much as some of you think so.
Actually, in their opinion, it does work.

I know a few somewhat hard-to-please moviegoers and they really enjoyed Shoot Em Up, and it seems others do too, so despite the extremely disappointing box office and mixed reviews, I certainly wouldn't say that the universal opinion of this film is that it "didn't work".

[bigred760]

I wasn't exactly expecting Oscar-worthy material when going into this movie, but I did think I'd see a little more style, wit, and sense in this movie. Yes, there was a lot of action, but it was over-the-top, cliched, and it got old really quickly.

It was painfully obvious that all the over-the-top action was intentional because it was all over the movie. Our hero, Mr. Smith played by Clive Owen, is killing bad guys left and right all while holding a baby. He does this a lot. And of course there's the cliched action piece where the baddies are trying to shoot the hero while missing and the hero only needs one shot per bad guy. Again, it got old. Not to mention that Mr. Smith can't get two feet in any direction without the bad guys finding out where he is. The story gives a lame reason or two behind the discoveries but after a while, it gives up; I guess it assumes that it didn't need a reason to find the guy. Who cares in the end right? Mr. Smith is going to kill them anyway, whether he's solving the conspiracy or banging the prostitute he wants to care for the baby - the gorgeously hot and thick accented Monica Bellucci..

The action and gunplay are molded loosely together by a storyline that includes gun manufactures, a senator, and some sort of conspiracy that made little sense to me. The story wasn't the focal point at any part of the movie but it brought the movie down when it tried to make any sense.

The main point of the movie was to offer as much action as possible, and Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti, and the hundreds of shooting and death-by-carrot victims delivered. It did seem that the two stars were having a good time in this over-the-top actioner. Giamatti especially, playing the creepy and odd villain who not only was a smart, clever assassin - but somewhat of a family man. Clive Owen was also pretty cool, even though a lot of his action scenes where cheesy as hell, not to mention his one-liners were groan-worthy.

If this writer/director wanted to make the next Snatch or even Smokin' Aces, he failed miserably. There was no style or class in his movie, just a lot of cheesy and over-the-top stunts. He got some pretty good leads to play his characters, and I'll admit to enjoying some of the action and one-liners, for the most part, this is nothing but a B-action movie.

5/10

[Cop No. 633]

Originally posted by CreeperBEATNGU
Well...of course it was cartoonish and unrealistic, that was the point. It was meant ot be insanely over the top and loaded with surreal action like nothing ever seen on film, and it delivered in spades.

This was never meant for someone that wanted realism, they made that abundantly clear prior to its release.

Complaining about Shoot 'Em Up being too unrealistic is like complaining about porn being too raunchy.

"So I caught this along with 3:10 to Yuma this weekend. Wanna guess which was the better film?"

This one.

Hey, no need to feel bad because i didn't think anything of the film outside of it being moderately entertaining. Maybe I was a little harsh with the 4/10 but I really didn't find anything special about it.

I have no problem with cheesy films... some of my favorites include Shoalin Soccer, Wet Hot American Summer, Loaded Weapon 1, but I simply felt Davis hasn't mastered the form yet. He got the action down but the comedy was extremely lacking for me. I only smirked a few times but I never remember laughing. Sure, the carrot stuck in the trigger of the semi-automatic was cool, but I wasn't laughing. For a film like this to work, the comedy and action have to work hand and hand. If one fails, it defeats the purpose of the film to me. I would've loved it if maybe Stephen Chow had done this... he's better suited for this kind of material. Close, but no cigar. I wanted to like it, too. Oh well, I loved 3:10... great western so as long as we both left the theater happy, i think we both win.

[veddhead83]

You guys are not understanding what I am saying.....the OVERALL buzz about this film, not individuals. As a collective, democratic way. The majority. As for the box office, I just feel it may be an indicator of how the film is. I am not saying it is true with every film, but sometimes the box office does tell some amazing stories. I mean, did you think Pluto Nash bombed because it was a good movie???

[Jim H]

Originally posted by veddhead83
You guys are not understanding what I am saying.....the OVERALL buzz about this film, not individuals. As a collective, democratic way. The majority. As for the box office, I just feel it may be an indicator of how the film is. I am not saying it is true with every film, but sometimes the box office does tell some amazing stories. I mean, did you think Pluto Nash bombed because it was a good movie???

I don't know what the word of mouth is like, but the film was poorly advertised and the trailers were pretty crap. It got little hype from anybody. This was going to be an opening weekend failure no matter what, me thinks.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by veddhead83
You guys are not understanding what I am saying.....the OVERALL buzz about this film, not individuals. As a collective, democratic way. The majority.
But the majority of critics liked the movie... it's 67% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes... and its seems about two thirds of posters here did also. So you've got your ear to the ground and you hear the majority didn't like it, fair enough. I don't necessarily agree.

Sometimes box office tells the truth, you are right, but more often than that good films get left in the dust because they never had a wide appeal. This one obviously had zero chances, right out of the gate. It didn't take poor word of mouth to bring it down, it just didn't draw an audience at all. And you're telling me it's because they KNOW it's going to suck?

Personally I have wanted to see this since the first trailer. I love Owen and Giamatti and it looks like a blast. I'm probably seeing it tonight, and I hope to not be disappointed.

[jbar1026]

for me the movie is entertaining but falls short in a lot of areas. first the over the top action. second the story.

the action was ok but its unrealistic nature kept me from really getting into the movie. an example would be jumping off a bridge shooting out a sunroof of a car and landing inside perfectly. come on!!! and then it was just clive killing people with what seemed no real danger to himself.

maybe it was me but the story was lame. what? you cant have an action movie with a good story or a story that pieces together nicely look at die hard or any of its sequals they are action movies yet the story flows in a resonable direction

the movie could have been better if it took itself more seriously. it had the cast Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti and it was a good idea to create the most action packed movie ever.

shoot em up 6.5/10 a good movie but nothing to get excited about

[Romero&Juliet]

Had I seen a trailer, or heard ANY buzz about this flick, I never would have sat through it. But, sadly, I'm one of those assholes who still thinks it's kosher to see movies based solely on star billing.

I can totally imagine the actors taking part in the movie if it were at all clever, or even racy!

HOW DO YOU MAKE A LACTATING HOOKER UNINTERESTING
.....MONICA BELLUCCI??

HOW?

Maybe it looked better on the drawing board? I dunno.. but SHOOT EM UP was the first movie that I ever walked out of.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Jim H
I don't know what the word of mouth is like, but the film was poorly advertised and the trailers were pretty crap. It got little hype from anybody. This was going to be an opening weekend failure no matter what, me thinks.

I think the box office take and the quality of the movie go hand in hand. It's not that good. I wouldn't be suprised at all if the movie drops out of the top ten this weekend.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by bigred760
I think the box office take and the quality of the movie go hand in hand. It's not that good. I wouldn't be suprised at all if the movie drops out of the top ten this weekend.

They can, but it doesn't mean they do.

The early reviews were very positive. How could the quality of the movie itself have affected opening gross other than that?

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by Romero&Juliet
Maybe it looked better on the drawing board? I dunno.. but SHOOT EM UP was the first movie that I ever walked out of.
Wow... can I ask what you were expecting?

I just got back from the movie and I'm happy to say I enjoyed the living piss out of it.

Shoot Em Up is halfway a Naked Gun movie - in no way, shape or form does this movie take itself seriously. All of Clive Owen's one-liners were obviously intentionally bad and reminded me of Arnold sending himself up in Last Action Hero. And I'm not sure how anyone can call this a straightforward action movie, it is outrageously ridiculous in parts. I just thought there was a lot of clever and imaginative (albeit sometimes depraved and silly) stuff going on throughout. I laughed out loud several times, like the visual punchline to the skydiving scene.

I understand what Michael Davis set out to create here: the ultimate every-cliche-in-the-book action movie complete with sneering bad guys, a lone hero who kills dozens (hundreds?)... and then turn it into a completely batshit crazy version of that movie. It's like getting James Bond and Austin Powers at the same time. What really made the difference for me was that this movie is really WELL SHOT. I knew it was aggressively storyboarded, and that really pays off in my opinion with cool shot compositions. The gunfights were all fun to watch (especially liked the descending-down-the-stairwell-while-machine-gunning bit) and for the most part I lapped up the slightly Looney Tunes quality of many of them.

I liked Owen, loved Giamatti as the scene-stealing bad guy, and thought Monica Belluci was pretty weak. Not hard to look at though.

This was just the dose of insanity that I needed on a Friday night. I understand that not everybody is jiving with the way Shoot Em Up has been made, but I think it is often inspired and surprising and a really fun effort.

8/10

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by Jim H
I don't know what the word of mouth is like, but the film was poorly advertised and the trailers were pretty crap. It got little hype from anybody. This was going to be an opening weekend failure no matter what, me thinks.

Could not disagree more. I think the movie was well marketed. The trailer for one ROCKED! This was one of movies I was looking forward to most because of the kickass trailer. It was just very disappointed because the action wasn't nearly as creative and wild as I was hoping. The action, quite surprisingly, was actually quite hohum. The only scene that came close to delivering the giddy kick I was hoping for was the scene where Clive Owen is in a shootout while parachuting out of an airplane. The rest of the action wasn't anything special. Just a bunch of generic shootouts and car chases. Yawn.

But the point was that in a way the movie does deliver what the marketing promises. Non stop action. But it's disappointing because that action wasn't anything special.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Jim H
They can, but it doesn't mean they do.

The early reviews were very positive. How could the quality of the movie itself have affected opening gross other than that?

I was saying that based on what I thought of the movie. Early reviews, good or bad, don't affect box office gross that much - though bad seems to affect it more. Though I didn't hear any reviews for it, good or bad, before it came out.

[gspawn]

I think there's a simple explanation for people not liking this movie: tiny penises. I can find no other explanation for why a grown man wouldn't love this movie.

Actually, I do see. This is the kind of flick you either "get" or "don't get". Personally, I got it, and I f'ing LOVED this flick. This is exactly what so many summer action movies need to be- all the BS is utterly removed, and it's nothing but action through and through with as little explanation as possible. In fact, explanation isn't just left out, it's intentionally avoided. And I totally dug it.

Yeah, the special effects are over-the-top to the point of sheer (often, glorious) cheese, CGI is overused, and there's no rhyme or reason as to why anything happens- and I loved it.

I just hate the people don't GET IT. Too many people, I think, are trying to say the action got boring when they're really just so used to having unnecessary exposition, family scenes, etc that they're working too hard on trying to find some emotional point to invest themselves in. That's just not the point. The point is just to have your ass blown off by rock music and gunfights, with some sex and some insanity thrown in to change things up now and then.

When I walked out of the theater after Shoot 'Em Up, the world was brighter, my step was lighter. I had a sudden urge to dig out some metal music, imbibe dangerous substances, and engage in risky behavior- classic signs of having one's head rocked off, I do believe.

Shoot 'Em Up- 9/10
The action movie has been aaaalmost perfected. An ounce of justification (not necessarily explanation) and using about half as much CG would have made this a completely perfect movie. Eat your vegetables, bitches.

*not really spoilers*

Was it really freakin' necessary to have CGI toilet water? Would it really have been so tough to drop a prop gun into toilet water? And couldn't Dramatic Prime-Time Medical Show have leant a fake umbilical cord instead of CGI there as well? They're relatively minor complaints... but chinks in the armor nonetheless. Also: I'm going to make "SOMEBODY LEFT A BABY!" my ringtone. One of many huge middle fingers to "regular" action movies everywhere.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by gspawn
I think there's a simple explanation for people not liking this movie: tiny penises. I can find no other explanation for why a grown man wouldn't love this movie.

See . . . I probably should've expected a response like this from someone who DID like it.


Actually, I do see. This is the kind of flick you either "get" or "don't get". Personally, I got it, and I f'ing LOVED this flick. This is exactly what so many summer action movies need to be- all the BS is utterly removed, and it's nothing but action through and through with as little explanation as possible. In fact, explanation isn't just left out, it's intentionally avoided. And I totally dug it.

Oh I got it alright; I just got tired of it after a while. I enjoyed the action; it was the lame storyline, the plotholes, not to mention the dumb ending that turned me off from it.

I just hate the people don't GET IT.

Why? How do other people not liking it or getting it impact how you feel about it?

Too many people, I think, are trying to say the action got boring when they're really just so used to having unnecessary exposition, family scenes, etc that they're working too hard on trying to find some emotional point to invest themselves in. That's just not the point. The point is just to have your ass blown off by rock music and gunfights, with some sex and some insanity thrown in to change things up now and then.

God forbid.

I don't need to be emotionally invested; I kind of figured I wouldn't need to be after watching the trailer. What I do LIKE (this implies opinion mind you) is a good storyline, a plot without holes, and even some substance in a movie - and without redundancy. I've seen action movies before where the hero kills faceless bad guys scene after scene; it's redundant and predictable.

When I walked out of the theater after Shoot 'Em Up, the world was brighter, my step was lighter. I had a sudden urge to dig out some metal music, imbibe dangerous substances, and engage in risky behavior- classic signs of having one's head rocked off, I do believe.

I'm happy you liked it, but don't go around needing that every single person in the world, including this board, had to enjoy it as much as you did.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by bigred760
I think the box office take and the quality of the movie go hand in hand. It's not that good. I wouldn't be suprised at all if the movie drops out of the top ten this weekend.

Rob Zombie's Halloween isn't that good either, and it's raking in cash. Transformers was horrid beyond description, the opening sequence of this is 100x more entertaining than that entire film, not that that gives it much, and that raked in shitloads of money.

Considering everyone that loved the film and those that disliked/hated it all can't stop talking about how absurd, over the top, and video game come to life-like the action was.....the film did exactly what it advertisded and was quite successful at its intention.

It didn't have any plot holes, not that it would matter since this film was not made for those looking for storytelling. It's as Peter Travers called it, an action junkies wet dream.

The action is far from redundant, each action scene is quite different from the last. Of course this movie was going to be scene after scene of the hero blasting away faceless baddies...the point was the remarkably unique and insanely over the top ways that he comes up with to do it...that was how the film was promoted. It's a man that tries to help a woman and a child for no other reason than that it was the right thing to do, getting caught up in one massive gun battle after another. Anyone that wanted more of a plot than that shouldn't have even bothered watching this.
This film is one setpiece after another unlike anything shown on film before, which is quite an accomplishment considering how many different types of action sequences Hollywood and elsewhere has thrown at us. They actually gave me more storytelling than I expected, I've seen films try twice as hard without making me care half as much, though the storytelling wasn't really the point anyway nor did they pretend that it was. The promotion practically screamed "don't come to see this if you're looking for substance."

I wish that more Hollywood films could be as spot on delivering me what they promised me as this one was.

"and thought Monica Belluci was pretty weak."

There isn't an actress in Hollywood that would've fit that role better. Her looks make it very easy to overlook her ability, but she has plenty of it.
This isn't one of her more powerful performances, but it's far from bad. She has atleast two scenes here that are as good from anything as Owen and Giamitti.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by CreeperBEATNGU
Rob Zombie's Halloween isn't that good either, and it's raking in cash. Transformers was horrid beyond description, the opening sequence of this is 100x more entertaining than that entire film, not that that gives it much, and that raked in shitloads of money.

Halloween had the benefit of being part of a popular horror franchise. Transformers was great (in my opinion) and got better reviews before it was released; not to mention that it was one of the most beloved toys of the 80s. And fans loved the movie (most of them anyway) and it's not just a coincidence that it's being rereleased in IMAX at the end of the week.


Considering everyone that loved the film and those that disliked/hated it all can't stop talking about how absurd, over the top, and video game come to life-like the action was.....the film did exactly what it advertisded and was quite successful at its intention.

And I'm sure the people not making money off of what it advertised are loving every bit of it.


It didn't have any plot holes, not that it would matter since this film was not made for those looking for storytelling. It's as Peter Travers called it, an action junkies wet dream.

Sure it has plot holes; I like action movies as much as the next guy, but I guess I like a little story and more than just a guy killing every bad guy with one shot (never missing :)) no matter what the situation, whether it's jumping out of planes, holding a baby, or screwing Monica Bellucci. If that's the definition of an action movie, than that is one stupid definition.

Now, I enjoyed the action in the movie; I liked Owen, Giamatti, and Bellucci; but there's more to enjoying a movie for me than seeing Owen kill every extra in the movie.


This film is one setpiece after another unlike anything shown on film before, which is quite an accomplishment considering how many different types of action sequences Hollywood and elsewhere has thrown at us.

I personally thought some of the setpieces looked dumb or fake. One shootout took place in what looked like a cage surrounded by nothing (and I do mean nothing) but boxes. Though the house at the end was pretty cool.

They actually gave me more storytelling than I expected, I've seen films try twice as hard without making me care half as much, though the storytelling wasn't really the point anywhere nor did they pretend that it was. The promotion practically screamed "don't come to see this if you're looking for substance."

I've seen movies try half as hard and the movie was much better than this. Forgive me if I want a little more than a mysterious stranger (that goes by "Mr. Smith" no less) who's a gun expert with a heart of gold; he kills everybody; and hooks up with a hooker. Sue me if I like my action movies less cliche.

If the promotion screamed anything that said "stay away" then that has got to be the dumbest marketing team in the history of movies.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Oh I know why Halloween and Transformers did well, I'm just pointing out examples of quality hardly matching box office take.
Transformers was one horrible joke after another with Shia LeBeaof as himself again, consuming the film with a pointless, generic as can be puppy love story and pointless comedy bits like Anthony Anderson as the cliched token black guy just for the hell of it, and some horribly edited clusterfucks of robot fights that anybody with a budget could've done. They even managed to interrupt action scenes for the sake of even more lame comedy bits in a movie that was already overflowing with them. IE.) Lets cut away to a conversation with some goofball from the phone company during what's supposed to be an intense, exciting action scene...wow, that's brilliant. That'd be like just cutting away to Giammitti arguing with his wife on the phone right in the middle of a shoot out, but unlike Captain cliche hack Bay, even with nowhere near as much experience, Michael Davis knew how to competently shoot action sequences, make them unique and fresh, and integrate humor that compliments the action and the story rather than consuming it.
I loved Transformers since I was a kid, and I hated that film beyond description. Popular sure, good...that's a different story.
People are entitled to their opinions, but I don't know how so many Transformers fans can be praising that movie. It's not Transformers, it's a bad comedy, loaded with cliches (more than Shoot 'Em Up, and unlike this Transformers in Shoot 'Em Up they actually fit), that guest stars come CGI robots that mildly resemble the characters that I loved as a kid. The voice actors for the auto bots were really the only good thing in the movie.
That and Disturbia (yet another financially successful, terrible film) are the two worst films I've suffered through all year, neither delivered what they promoted nearly to the extent that this film did.
If you're looking for substance, "never trust those that stand to profit, they're the bad guys" how this film addresses that, and the character driven scene between Monica and Clive prior to the hotel shoot out has more of it than anything in the other films that I just mentioned. Monica and Clive's relationship was a hell of alot better than the cliched puppy love story straight out of an after school special between LeBeaof and Fox in Transformers (or the one from Disturbia, essentially the exact same thing...replace a poorly used David Morse with some poorly used robots, and Transformers and Disturbia are the same horrible movie).

"And I'm sure the people not making money off of what it advertised are loving every bit of it."

Completely irrelevant to what I was pointing out, but thanks for going back to my previous point about box office having nothing to do with quality.
Financially the film will still probably be fine with overseas and especially dvd factored in.

"Sure it has plot holes; I like action movies as much as the next guy, but I guess I like a little story and more than just a guy killing every bad guy with one shot (never missing ) no matter what the situation, whether it's jumping out of planes, holding a baby, or screwing Monica Bellucci. If that's the definition of an action movie, than that is one stupid definition.

Now, I enjoyed the action in the movie; I liked Owen, Giamatti, and Bellucci; but there's more to enjoying a movie for me than seeing Owen kill every extra in the movie."

Than you probably shouldn't have went to this, that's pretty much what was advertised.

"I personally thought some of the setpieces looked dumb or fake. One shootout took place in what looked like a cage surrounded by nothing (and I do mean nothing) but boxes. Though the house at the end was pretty cool."

Well they certainly weren't anywhere near realistic, but they weren't meant to be.

"I've seen movies try half as hard and the movie was much better than this. Forgive me if I want a little more than a mysterious stranger (that goes by "Mr. Smith" no less) who's a gun expert with a heart of gold; he kills everybody; and hooks up with a hooker. Sue me if I like my action movies less cliche.

If the promotion screamed anything that said "stay away" then that has got to be the dumbest marketing team in the history of movies."

If you want more than that, like I said you shouldn't be there; there's plenty of dumber marketing than marketing an action junkes wet dream as that.
Not marketing a film toward everyone hardly means dumb marketing.

We're talking about a film entitled "Shoot 'Em Up," I think that pretty heavily indicates that this movie is about Clive Owen blasting the living, breathing shit out of everything in sight in extremely innovative ways and was not made for substance, and was going to be over the top to the strongest degree.
Going to this movie and complaining about that reminds me of the people that went to The Passion of the Christ and complained about it being...The Passion of the Christ.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by CreeperBEATNGU
Oh I know why Halloween and Transformers did well, I'm just pointing out examples of quality hardly matching box office take.

Popular sure, good...that's a different story.

No . . . that's exactly what I'm talking about; it's obvious you didn't like Transformers and you did like Shoot 'Em Up. Transformers was a huge success while so far Shoo 'Em Up has been a big disappointment. I'm talking mass appeal; we can talk about how I didn't like it and how you like forever, but in the grander scheme of things people do not want to see a mindless action movie. The opening weekend proved that.

"And I'm sure the people not making money off of what it advertised are loving every bit of it."

Completely irrelevant to what I was pointing out, but thanks for going back to my previous point about box office having nothing to do with quality.
Financially the film will still probably be fine with overseas and especially dvd factored in.

You liked it; I didn't. So right now I'm thinking quality has something to do with it. Quality is all about opinion really so the point doesn't matter.




Than you probably shouldn't have went to this, that's pretty much what was advertised.

You're right; it's my fault thinking an action movie could have a decent storyline with over the top action sequences.


Well they certainly weren't anywhere near realistic, but they weren't meant to be.

What were they meant to be? I'll give you the action, but you lost me on the set design.

If you want more than that, like I said you shouldn't be there; there's plenty of dumber marketing than marketing an action junkes wet dream as that.

I was there; many people weren't; by your reasoning that I shouldn't have been there implies that nothing other than "action junkies" should watch this movie. If that's the case, then there probably won't be too many more of those if the box office receipts stay as is.

Whether I should've been there or not is irrelevant; it's my risk whether I like it or not. I like movies; I like action movies, but it takes more than one guy killing everybody to make a good action movie.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Actually, they did, Transformers was simply able to cash in on its classic name and more family oriented appeal, it was indeed even more mindless than this film though.

Yes, of course Transformers had more mass appeal, I knew that long before either was released, but mass appeal doesn't make a film good.

It had as much of a storyline as the promotion indicated. The action was the forefront, not the storytelling. Those that wanted it the other way around shouldn't have watched it.

I didn't say set design, I said setpieces...action sequences. They were meant to be what I said before, over the top, unique from one another, and unlike anything else put on film, which they were.

It's not irrelevant. You can bash movies for them being what they were supposed to be if you want, but of course the counter criticism is going to point out that you're bashing the film for doing precisely what it intended, and what it told you it would do.
A one man army taking out bad guys in one surreal action sequence after another in ways never seen before is exactly what it takes for a great action movie, regardless of how much mass appeal that has.
This film personifies action as much as a film with one wildly funny joke/comedy bit after another personifies comedy.
Have I seen better films with action in them than this, sure; but not many, if any pure action films. Those other films may be better, but they aren't as much fun.

[bigred760]

Transformers was set in a sci-fi universe; this was not. And it's not as mindless as this either; it had a coherent storyline that wasn't redundant every five minutes.

Yes, the action was the forefront, but that doesn't mean it has to sacrifice storytelling all together. All action in the trailer doesn't mean that the story, cliches, and everything else will be redundant as hell.

Bottom line - I thought I would like the movie, I was wrong. And now I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that I will not watch it again. The makers of the movie will suffer for it more than I will.

[ilovemovies]

I didn't care for Shoot 'Em Up, but I'll take it over Transformers any day.

And I agree that just because something is a hit doesn't necessarily mean it's good.

And the action in Shoot 'Em Up WAS redundant. And that was the problem with the movie. There was nothing inventive about the action. Just the usual gun fights and car chases.

Still, at least I could follow the action. That's more than I can say about Transformers. And at least some of Clive Owen's one liners were actually funny. And at least the dialogue wasn't hideous like it was in Transformers. And the level of acting is far better too.

[navarr0]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
And at least some of Clive Owen's one liners were actually funny.

''Talk about blowing your load''.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by bigred760
Transformers was set in a sci-fi universe; this was not. And it's not as mindless as this either; it had a coherent storyline that wasn't redundant every five minutes.

Yes, the action was the forefront, but that doesn't mean it has to sacrifice storytelling all together. All action in the trailer doesn't mean that the story, cliches, and everything else will be redundant as hell.

Bottom line - I thought I would like the movie, I was wrong. And now I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that I will not watch it again. The makers of the movie will suffer for it more than I will.

This was meant to be a fantastical film just as that was whether it's classified as sci-fi or not; no it's not as mindless as this, it's far more. This also had a coherent story, and it wasn't nearly as redundant as Transformers was. Transformers was one lame ass comedy bit after another, many of which were totally unnecessary and not driving the story forward at all, and the fights as I said earlier were all the same, lacked imagination, and relied solely on budget. Any filmmaker with a shitload of money could've done them. Say what you want about Shoot 'Em Up, but it's action sequences hardly lacked imagination and were anything but redundant. Of course they all have Clive Owen dispatching of shitloads of bad guys, but the ways he does it are completely different and remarkably imaginative; unlike the horrendously edited robot fights in Transformers where you can barely tell who's throwing around or shooting at who. "Um...this one is a tank or something right?.....uh, who just shot at who? What robot just went flying past the screen........Um, who's that again?....uh.....ah, nevermind, I lost track and don't care anymore:(" That's Transformers big finale.
They didn't sacrifice story all together (even though that wasn't the point of the movie anyway, nor did they try to rick you into believing that it was), again, like I pointed out earlier, they did a much better job of conveying the point of Clive Owen's line "never trust those that stand to profit, they're the bad guys" than Transformers did of conveying any point at all...other than Anthony Anderson eating some donuts, his fat cousin jumping into a pool, and regurgitating every after school special, redunant as can be cliche in the book, not to mention re-releasing the same movie we saw a few months ago in Disturbia, only replacing a poorly used Morse with poorly used robots.

Like I said earlier, the filmmakers won't suffer as much as you think. Once overseas and dvd are accounted for they'll probably be fine.

A pulley system of guns being used to dispatch of tons of bad guys, using a rope to go down an apartment complex while blasting away bad guys on every single level on the way down, a guy sliding under tables using oil to dispatch of bad guys, a guy using his car door to smash his enemy in the head as the enemy vehicle moves toward him and then picks the gun up as he drops it to kill the driver, flying through your own windshield into the truck of the enemies and blasting them all before they can get a single shot off, a shoot out during a sex scene, a mid air shootout involving parachuttes.....hardly redundant, for anyone that says it is I'd love to hear about all these other movies that have done this.
"Oh but it's just one shoot out after another with Clive Owen blowing away bad guys." Yeah...look at the title of the movie, none the less the shoot outs are anything but redundant.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
And the action in Shoot 'Em Up WAS redundant. And that was the problem with the movie. There was nothing inventive about the action. Just the usual gun fights and car chases.
Whaaa? I saw some of the most unusual stuff I've ever seen in an action movie in these action scenes.

I can understand the comments from those who found the action redundant because of the way they were presented, but I don't agree. I'm not usually a fan of rock songs set to action sequences but here I thought the music was well chosen and paced to the gun fights. It worked for me.

I'm confused with people who say there was no style, or nothing inventive going on here. The director seemed to have a clear vision of what he wanted, and totally came through and delivered it. Scenes were shot and choreographed with flair. There were many goofy, oddball choices that I admired. Michael Davis is a bit of a minor hero to me after this.

The movie is called Shoot Em Up. It is not about plot, character, or anything traditional you would even expect from most mainstream films. This is a glorified B movie that you would be foolish to take seriously for one second. It's a live action cartoon, one of the most gleefully ridiculous movies I've ever seen. I found its courage to be totally brainless (but in smart way in my opinion) fresh and liberating. I'm just happy someone is making movies as crazy as this one. With all respect to those who didn't care for it, I thought it was a blast.

[jbar1026]

transformers was good but not great if it had been a bit more like we all remembered it to be no one would of had a problem with it.
transformers 8/10
shoot em up was supossed to be this crazy action movie with all this innovative action that had never been seen before. problem is the action is redundant and with no story to fall back on it fell to pieces. if you loved shoot em up good for you but the movie had so many problems i could only give it a 6.5/10

honestly you cant compare the two movies transformers may not have been what we all remember but bay had to try to pull in mass appeal. 300 million says he did just that. but shoot em up is an original idea it sold itself as something and did not deliver it tried and it gets an A for effort but dropped the ball

Originally posted by CreeperBEATNGU
1)A pulley system of guns being used to dispatch of tons of bad guys, 2)using a rope to go down an apartment complex while blasting away bad guys on every single level on the way down,3) a guy sliding under tables using oil to dispatch of bad guys,4) a guy using his car door to smash his enemy in the head as the enemy vehicle moves toward him and then picks the gun up as he drops it to kill the driver,5) flying through your own windshield into the truck of the enemies and blasting them all before they can get a single shot off,6) a shoot out during a sex scene, 7)a mid air shootout involving parachuttes.....hardly redundant, for anyone that says it is I'd love to hear about all these other movies that have done this.
exact scenes are hard to find you can say scenes in any movie are unique
1)not a pulley system persay but there are plenty of movies with remote weapons killing people 2) i cant remember exactly but i think there is a scene similar to this in either equilibreum, the big hit, or ultra violet 3)the transporter 4) i actual liked this one and can think of no scene like it 5) in back to the future 1 mcfly to avoid being crushed jumped in biffs car and jumped out the other side letting biff run in to the manure truck 6) desperado 7) maybe james bond, xxx, or even point break

[Romero&Juliet]

Originally posted by gyro_44
Wow... can I ask what you were expecting?


Well, as I wrote, I went in blind, expecting an honest-to-goodness shoot'em up.

I think by nature a spoof isn't normally something used as a platform to show off your cool acting chops.

The cast here were so gatchy and self-deprecating that it was fucking SAD; I actually have my suspicions that it HAD at one point been either a really dynamic concept, or a SERIOUS movie, but somewhere along the lines everyone gave up and decided to be idiotic.

I dunno - felt confused to me. And it's a shame cause I normally love kitsch (and well-paid actors making COMPLETE asses of themselves).

[Jim H]

Originally posted by jbar1026
transformers was good but not great if it had been a bit more like we all remembered it to be no one would of had a problem with it.
transformers 8/10
shoot em up was supossed to be this crazy action movie with all this innovative action that had never been seen before. problem is the action is redundant and with no story to fall back on it fell to pieces. if you loved shoot em up good for you but the movie had so many problems i could only give it a 6.5/10

honestly you cant compare the two movies transformers may not have been what we all remember but bay had to try to pull in mass appeal. 300 million says he did just that. but shoot em up is an original idea it sold itself as something and did not deliver it tried and it gets an A for effort but dropped the ball

Originally posted by CreeperBEATNGU
1)A pulley system of guns being used to dispatch of tons of bad guys, 2)using a rope to go down an apartment complex while blasting away bad guys on every single level on the way down,3) a guy sliding under tables using oil to dispatch of bad guys,4) a guy using his car door to smash his enemy in the head as the enemy vehicle moves toward him and then picks the gun up as he drops it to kill the driver,5) flying through your own windshield into the truck of the enemies and blasting them all before they can get a single shot off,6) a shoot out during a sex scene, 7)a mid air shootout involving parachuttes.....hardly redundant, for anyone that says it is I'd love to hear about all these other movies that have done this.
exact scenes are hard to find you can say scenes in any movie are unique
1)not a pulley system persay but there are plenty of movies with remote weapons killing people 2) i cant remember exactly but i think there is a scene similar to this in either equilibreum, the big hit, or ultra violet 3)the transporter 4) i actual liked this one and can think of no scene like it 5) in back to the future 1 mcfly to avoid being crushed jumped in biffs car and jumped out the other side letting biff run in to the manure truck 6) desperado 7) maybe james bond, xxx, or even point break

1. I haven't seen anything quite as extravagant as that in Shoot 'Em Up, but yes, there have been similar things. As with many of the gags, Shoot 'Em Up just made it as crazy as possible.

On 2, you're thinking of the Big Hit, there is an opening sequence where Wahlberg is going up and down on a rope. It's very different from Shoot 'Em Up. A less over-the-top sort of thing happens in the Bourne Identity, but it is similar.

3 - The Transporter did it in a hand-to-hand fight sequence, not a shootout. It wasn't the first to do that in hand-to-hand, either. As far as oil slicks and shooting... I haven't seen one quite like that, but there are movies where people slide on the floor shooting (either just on the ground, like in Time and Tide, or on a mobile cart, ala A Better Tomorrow). Shoot 'Em Up just took it to the extreme.

5 - That was a very different scene. I don't think they're really that comparable.

6. Desperado didn't have a shootout during a sex scene. It had one afterwards (she's sitting in bed playing the guitar, remember?). Last Man Standing sort of did, though Bruce Willis was forced to stop penetrating the hooker he was with.

7. As far as I know, a mid-air shootout is completely unique to Shoot 'Em Up. None of the Bond filmx (in Moonraker, Bond steals a guy's parachute in mid air, but that's it), XXX or Point Break (has a similar scene to Moonraker) have one. I thought that was quite entertaining myself.

[quoth_the_raven]

well, I'm not one for lengthy, philosophical commentary...I came out grinning like an absolute idiot.

It was fun, I was entertained, and the whole dark humour of it absolutely tickled me.

I have to say, I've read a lot of utterly redundant analysis of the movie on the internet (not just here before anyone mounts the old high horse). I can't help but wonder that if you're thinking that hard, you might have already missed the point. Go figure :)

[g05]

just saw this movie. it was corny, cheezy, ridiculous... and very cool! when i saw the trailer for this movie, it wasn't appealing at all. glad i saw the whole thing.

[Ratlehed]

I liked it alot. It reminded me of "Payback" with Mel Gibson. Though Shoot'em up! was much more over the top. A dumb fun movie. Motorheads "Ace of Spades" is a great song to mow down the bad guys too.


3/4 stars.

[Badbird]

Pretty good movie, but I was a little disappointed. Many have compared it to Crank due to its over the top nature, and I think that's a decent comparison, but Crank is WAY better. I'd say the movie Torque is closer to what Shoot em Up is.

My problem was that it wasn't clever enough. Yeah, yeah, there were lots of good jokes and stuff, but come on - two different one liners about "blowing your load?" In a movie with twenty lines of dialogue, how hard was it to come up with a couple that didn't sound exactly the same?

And I was disappointed that most of Giamatti's lines were seen in the trailers. He didn't get to chew up enough scenes for me.

And you can be light on plot and still have a great movie, but sometimes it can be too light. It seems like everything was revealed in the final ten minutes instead of spreading the information out to make the plot more engaging.

Eh, anyway, it was still cool and way more fun than a lot of movies.

And I had read in a lot of reviews that this was supposed to have some big anti-gun/pro-gun control message in it... uh, yeah. I didn't see it. I think some people took this movie too seriously.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by CreeperBEATNGU
Like I said earlier, the filmmakers won't suffer as much as you think. Once overseas and dvd are accounted for they'll probably be fine.

That depends on the budget; which I can't find - probably because the studio doesn't want others to know how much money it will lose. And judging from the fact that it fell out of the top 10 this weekend, it's going to be difficult to recover that budget - even with overseas and DVD revenues.


A pulley system of guns being used to dispatch of tons of bad guys, using a rope to go down an apartment complex while blasting away bad guys on every single level on the way down, a guy sliding under tables using oil to dispatch of bad guys, a guy using his car door to smash his enemy in the head as the enemy vehicle moves toward him and then picks the gun up as he drops it to kill the driver, flying through your own windshield into the truck of the enemies and blasting them all before they can get a single shot off, a shoot out during a sex scene, a mid air shootout involving parachuttes.....hardly redundant, for anyone that says it is I'd love to hear about all these other movies that have done this.

No, not redundant at all :rolleyes:

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS**
The only real inventive and creative death I found in the movie was when he killed a guy with a carrot; and he had to do THAT more than once. (Now that I think of it, the second Die Hard has a similar looking death only with an icicle.)

As far as some of your examples of originality: -It's not action, but even Home Alone had several strings and pulleys for traps for the bungling burglars.
-There wasn't a rope, but Bourne Identity had Bourne falling down a stairwell killing people on the way down.
-The Transporter was already mentioned with the oil; this movie just added guns.
-One of the Bond movies featuring Jaws - I think i it was Moonrakerhad guns and parachutes; so did Point Break.

Shoot 'Em Up just added the redundant shootout to everything.


Yeah...look at the title of the movie, none the less the shoot outs are anything but redundant.

I look at the title for Die Hard also; and that movie is hardly redundant in the way they all "die hard." That movie was much, much better than Shoot 'Em Up.

[Quigles]

Originally posted by bigred760
No, not redundant at all :rolleyes:
What's the name of the movie again?

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Quigles
What's the name of the movie again?

Well, if that's the case . . . then the parachuting scene was all wrong. And the carrot scenes should be taken out.

[veddhead83]

I have no idea why Transformers was brought up, but since we are on the subject - it sucked ass!!! It was way worse than Shoot'em, which still wasn't very good either. But at least the laughs were supposed to be there, unlike Transformers when I couldn't control myself.

Transformers blew.
Shoot'em Up was better, but it basically beats it by default. Intentionally being over the top(ala' Once Upon a Time in Mexico, or any spoof film) is not very appealing to me.

[Goat Punisher]

I left this movie confounded by what to think. I enjoyed some of it (the recurring carrot joke), but I only laughed a few times. It felt like the movie was stick between action movie and action spoof. And wasn't successful at either.

[jbar1026]

Originally posted by Goat Punisher
I left this movie confounded by what to think. I enjoyed some of it (the recurring carrot joke), but I only laughed a few times. It felt like the movie was stick between action movie and action spoof. And wasn't successful at either.
i felt the same way!!! like if it had tried even for a secound to be serious it would of somehow been better.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by jbar1026
i felt the same way!!! like if it had tried even for a secound to be serious it would of somehow been better.
No it wouldn't have.

[NathanRomano]

I was so dissapointed with this movie.
I was expecting such cool action and just a fun time, it had it's moments but nothing memorable...

5/10

[jbar1026]

Originally posted by gyro_44
No it wouldn't have.
why not?? i felt that if they had tried to keep a bit of realism to the film and made the action more believable then most of the problems i had with the film would have worked themselves out except for the lack of plot of course thats just my two cents

[gspawn]

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
I have to say, I've read a lot of utterly redundant analysis of the movie on the internet (not just here before anyone mounts the old high horse). I can't help but wonder that if you're thinking that hard, you might have already missed the point. Go figure :)

Originally posted by jbar1026
i felt the same way!!! like if it had tried even for a secound to be serious it would of somehow been better.

^^I think there's a perfect summary of the arguments for an against this movie.


AGAINST: The acting was so cheesy, and the action so redundant... I just didn't feel any connection to the characters, and I couldn't find any justification for what was going on.

FOR: Holy crap guys, why are you trying to take this movie so seriously? It's like going to the video store and renting Kung Fu- It's so bad it's perfectly good.

[Jim H]

-One of the Bond movies featuring Jaws - I think i it was Moonrakerhad guns and parachutes; so did Point Break.

I'll just repeat myself and say that neither film features a shootout in the air - just two guys struggling over a parachute. If anyone can reference a film that actually does, I'd be interested to hear about it.

[Iacon5]

8/10
i loved the one liners, and the intentionally over the top action. it seemed like a parody of the die hard franchise.
ps, anyone notice how Clive owen play pretty much the same guy in just about every movie?

[CreeperBEATNGU]

[QUOTE=bigred760;2532051]That depends on the budget; which I can't find - probably because the studio doesn't want others to know how much money it will lose. And judging from the fact that it fell out of the top 10 this weekend, it's going to be difficult to recover that budget - even with overseas and DVD revenues.



No, not redundant at all :rolleyes:

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS**
The only real inventive and creative death I found in the movie was when he killed a guy with a carrot; and he had to do THAT more than once. (Now that I think of it, the second Die Hard has a similar looking death only with an icicle.)

[B]Yeah, more than once...two different ways.

As far as some of your examples of originality: -It's not action, but even Home Alone had several strings and pulleys for traps for the bungling burglars.

Which is not a pulley system of guns used to blow away a large group of villains...not even close.

-There wasn't a rope, but Bourne Identity had Bourne falling down a stairwell killing people on the way down.

Which again...wasn't even close to the scene in Shoot 'Em Up.

-The Transporter was already mentioned with the oil; this movie just added guns.

Yes, which makes it different.

-One of the Bond movies featuring Jaws - I think i it was Moonrakerhad guns and parachutes; so did Point Break.

But not a wild mid air shoot out near to the extent of this one.

Shoot 'Em Up just added the redundant shootout to everything.

If by redundant you mean vastly different...yes they did, and you're complaining about too many shoot outs in a movie called "Shoot 'Em Up," which is more absurd than anything in this film.

I look at the title for Die Hard also; and that movie is hardly redundant in the way they all "die hard." That movie was much, much better than Shoot 'Em Up.

They're two of the best of their kind, and that film is more redundant than this one with less innovative ways of dispatching of the bad guys and not much more of a plot than this film had, though neither is very redundant.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I'll just repeat myself and say that neither film features a shootout in the air - just two guys struggling over a parachute. If anyone can reference a film that actually does, I'd be interested to hear about it.

Indeed...these are all very, very poor examples of scenes that only mildly resemble the extremely innovative sequences that Shoot 'Em Up is loaded with.

"It was too over the top and ridiculous...it never took itself seriously....too many shoot outs and not enough focus on the story..."

If these are the best complaints that people can come up with, than the detractors are unintentionally complimenting the film.

[jbar1026]

Indeed...these are all very, very poor examples of scenes that only mildly resemble the extremely innovative sequences that Shoot 'Em Up is loaded with.
the example show that it has been done before maybe just in a different way. the fact that they mildly resemble the extremely innovative sequences makes them good examples

"It was too over the top and ridiculous...it never took itself seriously....too many shoot outs and not enough focus on the story..." its an action movie not a parody of an action movie. im personaly a fan of shot outs and story
If these are the best complaints that people can come up with, than the detractors are unintentionally complimenting the film. these coplaints seem perfectly ligitimate to me. and how can saying the movie had no plot be a compliment?

if shoot em up was good to you than im glad you didnt waste your money or time watching it. i liked parts of it but over all it just was not a good movie imo

[joeyzz]

Whatever. to each his/her own

[veddhead83]

I understand the concept of the film - "Let's just be as ridiculous as possible and people will love it. Sort of a slap towards all of the Arnold/Stallone/Van Damme films from the 80s and 90s. This will sell."

To me, I just don't think it worked as an entertaining film. I was rather bored. I almost wish they would have played it straight, it would have been better that way.

[gyro_44]

To all of you who liked this movie, you're crazy!
Then lock me up in the insane asylum I guess, cause that's where I belong.

And I don't give a fuck.

[gyro_44]

why not?? i felt that if they had tried to keep a bit of realism to the film and made the action more believable then most of the problems i had with the film would have worked themselves out except for the lack of plot of course thats just my two cents
Fair enough, I just appreciated the fact that this was existing in its own ridiculous hyper-reality from beginning to end. That was refreshing. But to each his own.

[Bourne101]

To all of you who liked this movie, you're crazy! Do me a favor and pm me anytime you like a new movie in the theaters, and I'll be sure not to see it. Just when I thought the movie couldn't get any worse, it did! What's with the stupid carrot? Soooooo terrible. I was just waiting for that "What's up doc" riff! My girlfriend and I just kept looking at one another and laughing are asses off. Perhaps I would be willing to admit that this is one example of a movie that was so bad, it's good. Like 'Dolemite.' And just for the record, this movie was not marketed as a comedy, nor was it portrayed in any way as a spoof on action movies. Yes, I know the title "Shoot 'em up" implies that it's supposed to be silly, but come on! A baby that's a day old, eating Gerber baby food? And the sex scene, don't even get me started! I hope she brushed her teeth after having that other guy's thingy in her mouth! B-L-A-A-H-H!!

This guy has "banned schmoe" written all over him.

[joeyzz]

This guy has "banned schmoe" written all over him.

What's 'banned schmoe?' Do people get axed for sharing their opinion around here? I stopped in, saw the 'F' word uncensored, and just thought that perhaps there were a few liberals hangin out. Anyways, I edited that last comment to 'Whatever!' Which is what I really meant to say. Golly, when I see a bad movie that a lot of people seem to like, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! (name that movie quote)

[veddhead83]

What's 'banned schmoe?' Do people get axed for sharing their opinion around here? I stopped in, saw the 'F' word uncensored, and just thought that perhaps there were a few liberals hangin out. Anyways, I edited that last comment to 'Whatever!' Which is what I really meant to say. Golly, when I see a bad movie that a lot of people seem to like, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! (name that movie quote)Don't worry mate - people around here get very upset if your view is not theirs. I have been battling that for a couple of years now. I have almost turned to 'non-blogging' because it gets so ridiculous.

[Bourne101]

Don't worry mate - people around here get very upset if your view is not theirs. I have been battling that for a couple of years now. I have almost turned to 'non-blogging' because it gets so ridiculous.

You obviously didn't read his extremely rude post, which he edited, because he knew it was one step closer to being banned.

Here it is if you missed it:

Originally Posted by joeyzz View Post
To all of you who liked this movie, you're crazy! Do me a favor and pm me anytime you like a new movie in the theaters, and I'll be sure not to see it. Just when I thought the movie couldn't get any worse, it did! What's with the stupid carrot? Soooooo terrible. I was just waiting for that "What's up doc" riff! My girlfriend and I just kept looking at one another and laughing are asses off. Perhaps I would be willing to admit that this is one example of a movie that was so bad, it's good. Like 'Dolemite.' And just for the record, this movie was not marketed as a comedy, nor was it portrayed in any way as a spoof on action movies. Yes, I know the title "Shoot 'em up" implies that it's supposed to be silly, but come on! A baby that's a day old, eating Gerber baby food? And the sex scene, don't even get me started! I hope she brushed her teeth after having that other guy's thingy in her mouth! B-L-A-A-H-H!!

Guess I don't get an opinion since I liked Shoot 'Em Up, eh?

[joeyzz]

You obviously didn't read his extremely rude post, which he edited, because he knew it was one step closer to being banned.

Here it is if you missed it:



Guess I don't get an opinion since I liked Shoot 'Em Up, eh?

How was that rude? Was I attacking you personally? no. I was purposefully being overly dramatic for effect, to be funny, ya know? Don't take everything so personally. I'm just very passionate about how terrible this movie was, that's all. Sorry if I offended you.

[jbar1026]

i dont see anything offensive. maybe your overreacting a bit

[Bourne101]

How was that rude? Was I attacking you personally? no. I was purposefully being overly dramatic for effect, to be funny, ya know? Don't take everything so personally. I'm just very passionate about how terrible this movie was, that's all. Sorry if I offended you.

I understand what you mean, but you're new to the board, and you need to know that you can't say that anyone who liked a certain movie is an idiot (I know you didn't say it quite like that, but you pretty much did, lol), just because you didn't like it. It doesn't matter how much you loathe the film. State your opinion, talk about the movie amongst others, but there is no need to single out the group of people who like a certain film. ;)

[Bourne101]

i dont see anything offensive. maybe your overreacting a bit

To all of you who liked this movie, you're crazy! Do me a favor and pm me anytime you like a new movie in the theaters, and I'll be sure not to see it.

Uh... what part of that is inoffensive? Basically says that anyone who liked Shoot 'Em Up has a horrible taste in movies and is crazy.

[athf1980]

4/5

This movie was blast. really no plot but they were not going for the plot. Great shoot-outs. my fav. may be the parashout shoot-out. This was like very violent bugs bunny cartoon. insteed of anvils there guns. Owen was great. Paul was awsome as the over the top bad guy.

[joeyzz]

Uh... what part of that is inoffensive? Basically says that anyone who liked Shoot 'Em Up has a horrible taste in movies and is crazy.

I think Bourne got picked on a lot in as a kid... My dramatics were all in fun buddy. Don't shed a tear.

[Bourne101]

I think Bourne got picked on a lot in as a kid... My dramatics were all in fun buddy. Don't shed a tear.

And yet another rude comment made by the infamous joeyzz. He's been on the boards for a few weeks, and he thinks he owns it.

Yeah, they were all in fun once you realized that you made a stupid mistake.

[gyro_44]

How was that rude? Was I attacking you personally? no. I was purposefully being overly dramatic for effect, to be funny, ya know? Don't take everything so personally. I'm just very passionate about how terrible this movie was, that's all. Sorry if I offended you.
I think Bourne was just a bit upset because of the "you're crazy if you like this movie" comment, which to be honest I didn't take too kindly either... just sort of a pet peeve of mine, cutting down those who disagree with your opinion.

However, I do see the humor in your posts joeyzz and as far as Shoot Em Up goes, to each his/her own as you said earlier.

[Bourne101]

I think Bourne was just a bit upset because of the "you're crazy if you like this movie" comment, which to be honest I didn't take too kindly either... just sort of a pet peeve of mine, cutting down those who disagree with your opinion.

However, I do see the humor in your posts joeyzz and as far as Shoot Em Up goes, to each his/her own as you said earlier.

Gyro always sums it up perfectly.

[jbar1026]

Uh... what part of that is inoffensive? Basically says that anyone who liked Shoot 'Em Up has a horrible taste in movies and is crazy.
to me none of it. i didnt like the film that much. and ive been called crazy so many times. i do not think he ment for it to be an insult. its just the way he says he did not like the movie and cant see how anyone else could.

[veddhead83]

This is why blogging on this site has become stupid. If someone says something one doesn't agree with, the whole fucking world has ended. If someone can't handle anothers general comments on craziness, they should probably stick to personal journals, not internet blogs.

[Bourne101]

This is why blogging on this site has become stupid. If someone says something one doesn't agree with, the whole fucking world has ended. If someone can't handle anothers general comments on craziness, they should probably stick to personal journals, not internet blogs.

I don't care if he likes this movie or not. I never told him his opinion was wrong, that is basically what he was telling myself and the rest of the people who liked Shoot 'Em Up.

And they weren't general comments. They were "supposedly" humourous, but came of as rude and were typical ignorant newbie comments. And then when I let him know that those comments might rub some people the wrong way, he continued to make rude comments.

[veddhead83]

I don't care if he likes this movie or not. I never told him his opinion was wrong, that is basically what he was telling myself and the rest of the people who liked Shoot 'Em Up.

And they weren't general comments. They were "supposedly" humourous, but came of as rude and were typical ignorant newbie comments. And then when I let him know that those comments might rub some people the wrong way, he continued to make rude comments.
I believe they were general comments. The "You're all crazy" bit was kinda funny. If you are going to take offense to that, you live a pretty sheltered life dude. I understand the rules of the forum, but I don't beleive you can ban someone for making a statement like that. However, if he were to call everyone on here BASTARD ASSHOLES, then we have a different story all together. IMO, keep your cool, he can keep his cool and we can continue watching terrible/quality movies such as "Shoot'em Up."

[psycheoutsteve]

I think some people on here might be overreacting just a tad...

Shoot'Em Up is a movie that INTENDED to be over the top and non-serious. It's supposed to be stupid, ridiculous,humorous, and adrenaline driven. If people are actually trying to approach their reviews to this film in a serious way, then i would love to know what kind of pills they're taking because it just plain doesn't make sense.

There was also some comment about how the film wasn't marketed as an action-comedy? Come on! You would have to be pretty thick to think it wasn't.

I have no complaints towards people who thought it was redundant in some sense...to each his/her own...

[joeyzz]

I don't care if he likes this movie or not. I never told him his opinion was wrong, that is basically what he was telling myself and the rest of the people who liked Shoot 'Em Up.

And they weren't general comments. They were "supposedly" humourous, but came of as rude and were typical ignorant newbie comments. And then when I let him know that those comments might rub some people the wrong way, he continued to make rude comments.

Those comments are very general and biased against any and all new members to the forum bourne. Thanks for the warm welcome. For the last time, I was not attacking you personally. I was trying to entertain everyone with my passionate disdain for this flick! Take it for what it's worth. We don't all have to agree on everything. You shouldn't refer to newbies as 'typically ignorant.' This is without a doubt very rude and prejudice. All I can suggest for you is try exercising your sense of humor just a bit. This forum is supposed to be a fun place to bounce around your opinion about films with other movie lovers. So, see you in the threads. ;)

[Bourne101]

We don't all have to agree on everything.

Which is exactly how all of this started, with your "crazy" statement, which I know, I know, it was meant to be "funny", but not all schmoes are going to take it as a joke, so to let them know you are just having a little fun by putting one of these dudes: :D:p:);) and arguments like this won't even begin.

And if you haven't already, give these a read http://joblo.com/forums/announcement.php?f=7

[rocknblues81]

http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/1/v/P/shootemupposter.jpg

Directed by Michael Davis

Genre: Action

Tagline: I'm a British nanny and I'm dangerous.

Plot Outline: A man named Mr. Smith (Owen) delivers a woman's baby during a shootout, and is then called upon to protect the newborn from the army of gunmen.

Starring: Clive Owen, Monica Bellucci, Paul Giamatti and Greg Bryk

Rated R for pervasive strong bloody violence, sexuality and some language.

Smokin' Aces was a complete disappointment. It was supposed to be a badass, fun and great time at the movies. It did not live up to expectations. It tried to be more than it was by putting in ridiculous twists and pointless subplots. Shoot 'Em Up isn't exactly what Smokin' Aces looked like, but people are going to go into this with the same expecation of a badass movie that entertains like crazy, is violent, funny and well acted. Nothing more nothing less. I am looking forward to it very much, and lets hope that it doesn't fall flat on its face like Smokin' Aces.

LOoks like a cliche action movie to me.

[dtrain8906]

amazing movie i reviewed it 4 my facebook group shortest review ever only 4 words long

BEST
FUCKIN
MOVIE
EVER!!!!!

[CreeperBEATNGU]

LOoks like a cliche action movie to me.


Well...that's kind of the point, it's meant to be sort of like an action movie SCREAM, a satire on the over the top bad-ass action movie genre.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

amazing movie i reviewed it 4 my facebook group shortest review ever only 4 words long

BEST
FUCKIN
MOVIE
EVER!!!!!

I don't know if it's the best, but it's probably the most fun.

[HoyleHaw]

Definitely a blast was had. I'm not sure how this movie would hold up in repeat viewings, but it definitely has a novelty aspect to it that was quite enjoyable.

8/10

[paul calf]

i am flumoxed after watching this i dont know whether i loved it or hated it,it was completly over the top fun and mayhem,it had so many ridiculas set peices and scenes that my brain was fried afterwards,i can guarentee if this was a japanese movie people would be going ape shit over it,for now am gonna say i really enjoyed it but after another watch that may change to loath its an 8/10 for now.

[joeyzz]

i am flumoxed after watching this i dont know whether i loved it or hated it,it was completly over the top fun and mayhem,it had so many ridiculas set peices and scenes that my brain was fried afterwards,i can guarentee if this was a japanese movie people would be going ape shit over it,for now am gonna say i really enjoyed it but after another watch that may change to loath its an 8/10 for now.

I'm sorry, but I watched this movie again tonight - and I must say... "the writing sucks, 85% of the facts and science behind any and all action scenes are totally bogus and far-fetched... and wait... shouldn't true humor contain some kind of wit and intelligent sentiment for notoriety?" Well, guess what? If you liked this film, then you suck... bottom line. It did not market itself as an action flick spoof, and the script is awful! Take a film appreciation class, then watch it again. If you insist on skipping class, be sure to grab a moist towel - jackass!

[bigred760]

I'm sorry, but I watched this movie again tonight - and I must say... "the writing sucks, 85% of the facts and science behind any and all action scenes are totally bogus and far-fetched... and wait... shouldn't true humor contain some kind of wit and intelligent sentiment for notoriety?" Well, guess what? If you liked this film, then you suck... bottom line. It did not market itself as an action flick spoof, and the script is awful! Take a film appreciation class, then watch it again. If you insist on skipping class, be sure to grab a moist towel - jackass!

I'd recommend reading the rules of the site before posting something like this again.

And on topic . . . I didn't like the movie; reading paul calf's post made me chuckle a bit since he said he didn't know whether he liked it or not. I kinda got that feeling about halfway through the movie, and ultimately came to the conclusion that I thought the movie was stupid. The writing is bad, the action scenes are waaaaay too over the top for me to enjoy.

[paul calf]

I'm sorry, but I watched this movie again tonight - and I must say... "the writing sucks, 85% of the facts and science behind any and all action scenes are totally bogus and far-fetched... and wait... shouldn't true humor contain some kind of wit and intelligent sentiment for notoriety?" Well, guess what? If you liked this film, then you suck... bottom line. It did not market itself as an action flick spoof, and the script is awful! Take a film appreciation class, then watch it again. If you insist on skipping class, be sure to grab a moist towel - jackass!

wow i suck and am a jackass thanks,did i stand up a member of your family ,or eat your last rolo i must have done something to deserve such furious wrath.
anyways i was'nt gonna bite but i think i will have a nibble,film appreciation class ?,is that what you have to attend before you can truely enjoy a movie thanks for the tip,could you let me know what night its on am pretty sure it will be posted somewhere near the charm school you go to.
i could be an arse and report yer silly post but thats not my style,just chill young man life aint that serious and neither was the movie.

[Rawlin67]

favorite movie of the year. i had never had more fun watching a movie ever. i truly feel this will become a cult movie over the following years, it definitely has that kind of feeling, and it has those little quirks that make them what they are.

[gyro_44]

Well, guess what? If you liked this film, then you suck... bottom line. It did not market itself as an action flick spoof, and the script is awful! Take a film appreciation class, then watch it again. If you insist on skipping class, be sure to grab a moist towel - jackass!
And there he goes again...

Dude, if you can't learn to express your own opinion without stomping all over the opinions of others, then maybe check out another movie forum... such as IMDb. Grow up.

[Bourne101]

I'm sorry, but I watched this movie again tonight - and I must say... "the writing sucks, 85% of the facts and science behind any and all action scenes are totally bogus and far-fetched... and wait... shouldn't true humor contain some kind of wit and intelligent sentiment for notoriety?" Well, guess what? If you liked this film, then you suck... bottom line. It did not market itself as an action flick spoof, and the script is awful! Take a film appreciation class, then watch it again. If you insist on skipping class, be sure to grab a moist towel - jackass!

There goes joeyzz, trying to be a "funny guy" again. Why would you watch it again if you loathed it so much the first time? I'm pretty sure you didn't watch it again, and you're just trying to stir some more shit up. You need to grow up.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Um....it very obviously marketed itself as a ridiculously over the top campy romp....it was never marketed in a way that pretended it was at all serious.

[Superplasmatron]

Um....it very obviously marketed itself as a ridiculously over the top campy romp....it was never marketed in a way that pretended it was at all serious.

that's it basically its comic book style silliness, I for one love such things

[jbar1026]

favorite movie of the year. i had never had more fun watching a movie ever. i truly feel this will become a cult movie over the following years, it definitely has that kind of feeling, and it has those little quirks that make them what they are.

i know what you mean but i have to say ... for me it didnt make it it to the so bad its good catagory. almost! unfortunately it turned out to be just so bad.

Originally Posted by joeyzz
I'm sorry, but I watched this movie again tonight - and I must say... "the writing sucks, 85% of the facts and science behind any and all action scenes are totally bogus and far-fetched... and wait... shouldn't true humor contain some kind of wit and intelligent sentiment for notoriety?" Well, guess what? If you liked this film, then you suck... bottom line. It did not market itself as an action flick spoof, and the script is awful! Take a film appreciation class, then watch it again. If you insist on skipping class, be sure to grab a moist towel - jackass!


There goes joeyzz, trying to be a "funny guy" again. Why would you watch it again if you loathed it so much the first time? I'm pretty sure you didn't watch it again, and you're just trying to stir some more shit up. You need to grow up. you know when you guys were going back and forth the first time i thought you were being silly. but this time i think i'll side with you. he was more than a bit out of line with more than one of comments.

[gspawn]

I'm sorry, but I watched this movie again tonight - and I must say... "the writing sucks, 85% of the facts and science behind any and all action scenes are totally bogus and far-fetched... and wait... shouldn't true humor contain some kind of wit and intelligent sentiment for notoriety?" Well, guess what? If you liked this film, then you suck... bottom line. It did not market itself as an action flick spoof, and the script is awful! Take a film appreciation class, then watch it again. If you insist on skipping class, be sure to grab a moist towel - jackass!

How was it not marketed with a comedy element? The carrot-snacking was in there, and so was at least the scene where he shoots the file cabinet and a guy is hit by the drawer. Not to mention the airplane sequence- which was horribly cheesy, even from quick glimpses.

And yes, the script IS awful! That's the point. Scripts are ALWAYS awful in action flicks, only this movie was trying to poke fun at that by just taking that to the max. Same for the physics- lots of the movie is totally impossible. Just like every other action movie.

If more people were like this:
I understand the concept of the film - "Let's just be as ridiculous as possible and people will love it. Sort of a slap towards all of the Arnold/Stallone/Van Damme films from the 80s and 90s. This will sell."

To me, I just don't think it worked as an entertaining film. I was rather bored. I almost wish they would have played it straight, it would have been better that way.
...then I wouldn't be working to defend the flick. You saw it, you didn't like it, cool. But too many people either didn't get or refuse to even acknowledge the premise- which was just a step short of National Lampoon. It's like when people walk out of Fight Club and whine that the movie was only about blood and gore. It's not that the person didn't like the movie, really, it's that they missed the entire freaking premise and basically spent two hours staring at moving pictures with no narrative happening at all. I'd dislike that experience as well. If they were to go back, and actually follow the premise, they might actually love the movie.

[Rawlin67]

haha the script was not only awful, it was the most ludicrious thing ive ever heard. if you didnt laugh during that scene in the plane when Giamatti explained his diabolical plan which was....well....outrageous, then i fear for your sense of humor.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

that's it basically its comic book style silliness, I for one love such things

Indeed. Live action comic books/cartoons are some of the most purely entertaining, just plain fun movies ever made.

Of course they're not the "best" in a technical or meaningful sense, because it would completely defeat the purpose if they were.

It reminds me of people that watch stuff like Family Guy and complain because "this is stupid! It makes no sense and it's just a bunch of off the wall random comedy bits!".....

NO SHIT!!!

That's the point, if you don't enjoy ridiculously over the top, off the wall material, you shouldn't even bother watching.

Watching that type of stuff, which is very obviously marketed as being that and then complaining because it is like that makes much less sense than the film/show itself.

Realism often DETRACTS from entertainment value, it can make a film better if you're trying to make an important point of some kind or create an extremely intense experience, but absurdity can do wonders to enhance a films entertainment value.

If Jesus acted like Marv from Sin City when he's being electrocuted with the "that the best you can do!*_*" demeanor while he was being scourged in The Passion, it would've made it much fun because of how absurd and unrealistic it is...of course it would've completely defeated the purpose, because that film wasn't meant to be fun, it was meant to convey meaning.

The point of films like Shoot 'Em Up is simply for the viewer to have fun.

[jbar1026]

And yes, the script IS awful! That's the point. Scripts are ALWAYS awful in action flicks,

this statement is wrong and i can prove it in two words DIE HARD

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I find this and Die Hard pretty simialar actually, both are absurd and over the top, Shoot 'Em Up is just more upfront about it.

IMO Owen's one-liners after his huge stunts and action set-pieces are just as witty as anything that McClane says (and I'm a Die Hard fan).

[jbar1026]

I find this and Die Hard pretty simialar actually, both are absurd and over the top, Shoot 'Em Up is just more upfront about it.your kidding

i know every element of the movie is not based in reality, but the script had nothing to do with it. i never thought that any of the dialoge was laughable. unlike shoot em up which was one bad one liner after another

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I don't know how you couldn't have thought that, alot of McClane's lines are deliberately laughable, he's meant to be funny and the action is meant to be over the top; which is why Die Hard and its central character are so damn entertaining.

Die Hard and Shoot 'Em Up are much in the same vain; a smart ass hero that goes around offing bad guys (most of which are paper thin) in cool and innovative ways and popping out funny as hell, bad-ass one-liners along the way.

Sure, Shoot 'Em Up is more over the top, which is why I say that it's more upfront about its absurdity; none the less Die Hard is still in the same mold, it's no deeper or more intelligent.

It's over the top adrenaline and just plain fun just like Shoot 'Em Up is.

[jbar1026]

I don't know how you couldn't have thought that, alot of McClane's lines are deliberately laughable, he's meant to be funny and the action is meant to be over the top; which is why Die Hard and its central character are so damn entertaining.
i can agree with that to a point... but eventually you have to see that placeing these two stories side by side would make the shoot em up sript something that could only be used to wipe someones butt

[CreeperBEATNGU]

i can agree with that to a point... but eventually you have to see that placeing these two stories side by side would make the shoot em up sript something that could only be used to wipe someones butt

No, not really.

Maybe if Die Hard came up with all kinds of exposition of insight into the lives of the police and the bad guys, but they don't.

We get a sense of who McClane is, we introduce a bunch of power hungry heartless assholes that have very little depth and are just there to get their asses handed to them by our hero, and we sit back and enjoy the ride.

Replace McClane with Smith, and put Giammitti in Rickman's place, and I think the films are very simialar; the Die Hard script hardly does anything to put itself leaps and bounds ahead.

[jbar1026]

the die hard movies are about mcclane saying that the bad guys have little depth is a bit of a reach they might not have the detail that mclane has but who cares they will be dead at the end of the movie. in shoot em up all we learn about the bad guy is that he has an annoying wife. you might not learn much more about hans but what you do get is of importance.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I know that the movies are about McClane, the point was that the film has no more depth than Shoot 'Em Up.

There are plenty of films about the protagonist(s) where see a ton of insight into the lives of the antagonist(s), but these films are not among them, because neither is much deeper than the other.

I don't see how its much more important than what we learn about Giammitti, they're both greedy, power hungry assholes that don't give a shit who they have to hurt or kill for their own financial gain; the performance are what made both characters effective, the writing is no more stellar in one case than it is in the other, and both have a bunch of paper thin drones working for them that are dispatched for the sole purpose of getting owned by the hero.

As for what we know about McClane, I was invested in Clive and Monica's relationship as much if not more than I was in any aspect of McClane's life.

[jbar1026]

im at a loss for words after that statement. i will just have to accept that you find the movies simalar in quality even though i think shoot em up isnt even on the same level as die hard. i can give you the fact that they have simalarities. but imo die hard is one of the best action movies ever and shootem up is one of the worst.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I don't really get how someone can love one and hate the other, I think that they're two of the best action movies ever.

If I'm missing something that made Gruber some really deep, intricately well rounded villain, or made the plot so much deeper, feel free to explain it to me.

I love Die Hard, I've watched the films quite a few times, but their depth is never what made them so effectively entertaining for me anymore than it was with Shoot 'Em Up.

If I were to pick an action film that I love as much for its substance as its adrenaline and entertainment value, I'd go with an allegorical social commentary story like Apocalypto (a superior film to either of these).

IMO Die Hard and Shoot 'Em Up are both just set 'em up and knock 'em down one many army uber bad-ass movies; which are some of the most purely entertaining movies ever made.

[jbar1026]

I don't really get how someone can love one and hate the other, I think that they're two of the best action movies ever.

If I'm missing something that made Gruber some really deep, intricately well rounded villain, or made the plot so much deeper, feel free to explain it to me.

I love Die Hard, I've watched the films quite a few times, but their depth is never what made them so effectively entertaining for me anymore than it was with Shoot 'Em Up.

If I were to pick an action film that I love as much for its substance as its adrenaline and entertainment value, I'd go with an allegorical social commentary story like Apocalypto (a superior film to either of these).

IMO Die Hard and Shoot 'Em Up are both just set 'em up and knock 'down one many army uber bad-ass movies; which are some of the most purely entertaining movies ever made.

what makes die hard the better movie is that it follows a logical line of events that carry the charactors from point a to point b

you dont get any of that two people in a city and the bad guy can find them any time he wants no matter what. the depth of the charactors is not the most important thing. good storytelling is. shootem up just does not have it.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I don't think that confining a story to an office building makes it any better than having a simiarly story take place throughout a city (and Giammitti found them by various traces that they were leaving behind).

Point a to point b for both films is just going from one generic bad guy that has to be taken out to the next, Die Hard just does it in a more isolated setting.

[Rawlin67]

a logical line of events that carry characters from point a to point b doesnt always make a good film. ive seen plenty of films where characters never even get from point a, and ive seen some great ones that went from point a, skipped b, and went to c and then back, and all over the place.

its all about you what you like. i personally like shoot em up much better, its more insane, funnier, and more entertaining. but thats just me. however, as far as comparing them, i think Die Hard is a lot grittier, and a bit darker overall than Shoot Em Up.

[joeyzz]

There goes joeyzz, trying to be a "funny guy" again. Why would you watch it again if you loathed it so much the first time? I'm pretty sure you didn't watch it again, and you're just trying to stir some more shit up. You need to grow up.

Actually Bourne, I'm not trying to be funny... the movie sucks so bad, I'm willing to be condemned if it means expressing my views to a mass audience! Hey, at least I don't curse in my posts...(you said the 'S' word). Maybe I do need to grow up. However, if growing up means building some appreciation for poorly written, dimwitted, unfunny, and utterly unwatchable films, then I'd like to stay a kid please. The reason I take it so personally that so many claim to like this film is because there are many more projects with ten times the merit of this useless hunk of celluloid that never make it to the screen. Would I watch this film with my wife? No, cause it's tasteless. Would I watch it with my friends? No, cause it's ridiculous and senseless. Would I ever recommend the film (if we can even call it that)? No, it hasn't a single redeeming quality! I could write a better script in my sleep. The minute I saw that ridiculous carrot in the opening scene, I was just waiting for the line "What's up doc?" Okay, I didn't necessarily mean to bash anyone for liking this uhhh, movie... It's just that I tried to watch it a second time with several of my friends, which spawned a conversation about sucky movies that got sooooo over the top... I wish you could've all been there! You would've enjoyed it! You condemn me now for sharing my opinion, but listen and learn my friends. Speaking your mind can be fun. I use to be a conformist just like the rest of you. It's not your fault. And Bourne, give me the name of the bullies that use to push you around in grade school, I can totally let them no what time it is... but please, try to watch your mouth in future posts. Thank you so much.

[joeyzz]

Um....it very obviously marketed itself as a ridiculously over the top campy romp....it was never marketed in a way that pretended it was at all serious.

Really? "Shoot 'Em UP" starring Clive Owen... I think you're wrong. Remember "Payback" with Mel Gibson? That's the movie you're thinking of.

[joeyzz]

a logical line of events that carry characters from point a to point b doesnt always make a good film. ive seen plenty of films where characters never even get from point a, and ive seen some great ones that went from point a, skipped b, and went to c and then back, and all over the place.

its all about you what you like. i personally like shoot em up much better, its more insane, funnier, and more entertaining. but thats just me. however, as far as comparing them, i think Die Hard is a lot grittier, and a bit darker overall than Shoot Em Up.

Yes, but "Die Hard" - John Mclaine pulls off stunts that are somewhat believable and/or humanly possible in terms of brain absorption and sheer entertainment. Don't get me started on "Shoot Em Up":

1. Newborn babies can only feed on breast milk; they were feeding it Gerber Baby food...

2. Newborn babies' heads are very floppy, their necks are unstable... need I say more.

3. Clive Owen slides under the bathroom stalls on ceramic tile, wearing a leather jacket... slides for several feet.

4. Clive Owen conveniently keeps a mechanical baby and reel-to-reel recorder with a baby's cry just in case he needs to stage a decoy.

5. In less than 15 minutes, Clive Owen arranges a beautiful ballet of machine guns and twine to battle his adversaries, who happened to be less then twenty feet away.

Should I go on? Or are you already beating your head against a brick wall. I understand education in the states ain't what it used to be, but come on guys!

[jbar1026]

I don't think that confining a story to an office building makes it any better than having a simiarly story take place throughout a city (and Giammitti found them by various traces that they were leaving behind).

Point a to point b for both films is just going from one generic bad guy that has to be taken out to the next, Die Hard just does it in a more isolated setting.

i have to say you are relentless in your quest to make shoot em up as good movie as die hard. we will just have to agree to disagree after all its all a matter of opinon. we can both be right

but die hard is the better movie;)

[joeyzz]

And just to beat you to it Bourne... yes I said that I didn't mean to bash anyone for liking this film... yet I stated, "Well, guess what? If you liked this film, then you suck... bottom line." That was half me, and half the emotion that rises from the abuse I get from bad movie viewing. You started this thread, but you know what? I forgive you.

[bigred760]

I don't really get how someone can love one and hate the other, I think that they're two of the best action movies ever.

If I'm missing something that made Gruber some really deep, intricately well rounded villain, or made the plot so much deeper, feel free to explain it to me.

I love Die Hard, I've watched the films quite a few times, but their depth is never what made them so effectively entertaining for me anymore than it was with Shoot 'Em Up.

If I were to pick an action film that I love as much for its substance as its adrenaline and entertainment value, I'd go with an allegorical social commentary story like Apocalypto (a superior film to either of these).

IMO Die Hard and Shoot 'Em Up are both just set 'em up and knock 'em down one many army uber bad-ass movies; which are some of the most purely entertaining movies ever made.

I did.

Shoot 'Em Up was an action movie with a dumb plot; gspawn even said it was marketed with a comedy element; it's practically a parody of action films (a poor one in my opinion - you and I have been through this already :D). Die Hard has the comedic element, but John McClane is not sliding over oil, shooting file cabinets, and rigging up pulley systems with guns - pulling strings killing people, jumping out of helicopters shooting people in the air. McClane is running for his life, getting shot, getting hurt, all while trying to save his and his wife's life. McClane is stuck in a building with no way out; yes, there are some spectacular stunts like throwing himself off a building with a firehose attached to himself, but it is more realistic than the stuff in Shoot 'Em Up.

Both are action movies, but they are not that similar; one is more of a parody, the other is more character and story-driven.

[bigred760]

a logical line of events that carry characters from point a to point b doesnt always make a good film. ive seen plenty of films where characters never even get from point a, and ive seen some great ones that went from point a, skipped b, and went to c and then back, and all over the place.


Not it doesn't make a good movie - you're right, but it's one of the things that makes Die Hard a good movie, and a better movie.

[jbar1026]

I did. Shoot 'Em Up was an action movie with a dumb plot; gspawn even said it was marketed with a comedy element; it's practically a parody of action films (a poor one in my opinion - you and I have been through this already :D). Die Hard has the comedic element, but John McClane is not sliding over oil, shooting file cabinets, and rigging up pulley systems with guns - pulling strings killing people, jumping out of helicopters shooting people in the air. McClane is running for his life, getting shot, getting hurt, all while trying to save his and his wife's life. McClane is stuck in a building with no way out; yes, there are some spectacular stunts like throwing himself off a building with a firehose attached to himself, but it is more realistic than the stuff in Shoot 'Em Up.

yeah what he said

[Bourne101]

Actually Bourne, I'm not trying to be funny... the movie sucks so bad, I'm willing to be condemned if it means expressing my views to a mass audience! Hey, at least I don't curse in my posts...(you said the 'S' word). Maybe I do need to grow up. However, if growing up means building some appreciation for poorly written, dimwitted, unfunny, and utterly unwatchable films, then I'd like to stay a kid please. The reason I take it so personally that so many claim to like this film is because there are many more projects with ten times the merit of this useless hunk of celluloid that never make it to the screen. Would I watch this film with my wife? No, cause it's tasteless. Would I watch it with my friends? No, cause it's ridiculous and senseless. Would I ever recommend the film (if we can even call it that)? No, it hasn't a single redeeming quality! I could write a better script in my sleep. The minute I saw that ridiculous carrot in the opening scene, I was just waiting for the line "What's up doc?" Okay, I didn't necessarily mean to bash anyone for liking this uhhh, movie... It's just that I tried to watch it a second time with several of my friends, which spawned a conversation about sucky movies that got sooooo over the top... I wish you could've all been there! You would've enjoyed it! You condemn me now for sharing my opinion, but listen and learn my friends. Speaking your mind can be fun. I use to be a conformist just like the rest of you. It's not your fault. And Bourne, give me the name of the bullies that use to push you around in grade school, I can totally let them no what time it is... but please, try to watch your mouth in future posts. Thank you so much.

You are a piece of work.

[Bourne101]

And just to beat you to it Bourne... yes I said that I didn't mean to bash anyone for liking this film... yet I stated, "Well, guess what? If you liked this film, then you suck... bottom line." That was half me, and half the emotion that rises from the abuse I get from bad movie viewing. You started this thread, but you know what? I forgive you.

WTF?

[Bourne101]

Really? "Shoot 'Em UP" starring Clive Owen... I think you're wrong. Remember "Payback" with Mel Gibson? That's the movie you're thinking of.

No, I think he was correct. Shoot 'Em Up was clearly marketed as a fun, senseless movie.

[Superplasmatron]

Yes, but "Die Hard" - John Mclaine pulls off stunts that are somewhat believable and/or humanly possible in terms of brain absorption and sheer entertainment. Don't get me started on "Shoot Em Up":

1. Newborn babies can only feed on breast milk; they were feeding it Gerber Baby food...

2. Newborn babies' heads are very floppy, their necks are unstable... need I say more.

3. Clive Owen slides under the bathroom stalls on ceramic tile, wearing a leather jacket... slides for several feet.

4. Clive Owen conveniently keeps a mechanical baby and reel-to-reel recorder with a baby's cry just in case he needs to stage a decoy.

5. In less than 15 minutes, Clive Owen arranges a beautiful ballet of machine guns and twine to battle his adversaries, who happened to be less then twenty feet away.

Should I go on? Or are you already beating your head against a brick wall. I understand education in the states ain't what it used to be, but come on guys!

actually new born babies can be fed on bottled milk and some women choose not to breast feed, but what i really want to know is why the hell did you watch this film, you clearly have an worrying concept of what constitutes entertainment, I'd hate to think what your idea of a party is. You have to remember that everyone here is a huge movie buff, I for one have seen more films than most over many genres and having just viewed this film as a good fun romp, next you'll be attacking the fast and the furious for being to fast.

[Bourne101]

actually new born babies can be fed on bottled milk and some women choose not to breast feed, but what i really want to know is why the hell did you watch this film, you clearly have an worrying concept of what constitutes entertainment, I'd hate to think what your idea of a party is. You have to remember that everyone here is a huge movie buff, I for one have seen more films than most over many genres and having just viewed this film as a good fun romp, next you'll be attacking the fast and the furious for being to fast.

Ditto Roy L Dennis, ditto indeed.

[jbar1026]

Shoot 'Em Up was clearly marketed as a fun, senseless movie.

i have to dissagree. it was marketed as an over the top action movie however and unfortunatly it was an over the top spoof of action movies.



1. Newborn babies can only feed on breast milk; they were feeding it Gerber Baby food...

.
actually new born babies can be fed on bottled milk and some women choose not to breast feed

sounds to me like you are both right

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I did.

Shoot 'Em Up was an action movie with a dumb plot; gspawn even said it was marketed with a comedy element; it's practically a parody of action films (a poor one in my opinion - you and I have been through this already :D). Die Hard has the comedic element, but John McClane is not sliding over oil, shooting file cabinets, and rigging up pulley systems with guns - pulling strings killing people, jumping out of helicopters shooting people in the air. McClane is running for his life, getting shot, getting hurt, all while trying to save his and his wife's life. McClane is stuck in a building with no way out; yes, there are some spectacular stunts like throwing himself off a building with a firehose attached to himself, but it is more realistic than the stuff in Shoot 'Em Up.

Both are action movies, but they are not that similar; one is more of a parody, the other is more character and story-driven.

Like I addressed earlier, I don't see how Die Hard is so much more plot and character driven, they have about the same amount of plot and character substance (very simplistic and much more about fun than depth).

Yes, DH is more realistic than Shoot 'Em Up, I didn't say that it wasn't; I was saying that regardless, they're both wildly unrealistic, and Shoot 'Em Up is just more upfront about it, if anything I feel that makes it a better action film, not a worse one because it has less limitations.

No, he's not doing all those things, which is why the action scenes in McClane's movie aren't nearly as innovative or fun to watch.

As for McClane's journey, I was just invested in the dynamic between two people that at first are very emotionally distant and have a hard time giving a shit about anything that are brought closer together by the bond they form through trying to protect this baby that they encountered by random chances that ended up changing their lives and making them a family. That to me is as meaningful, or more so than anything in Die Hard.

"i have to dissagree. it was marketed as an over the top action movie however and unfortunatly it was an over the top spoof of action movies"

The same type of dialogue and absurd action that's featured throughout the film was featured in the trailer, they never lied in their advertising.
Yeah, it's a tongue in cheek referential action film to the one man army over the top bad-ass movies of the 80's...it never pretended that it wasn't in its promotion...hell even the poster is rather comedic looking.

[Rawlin67]

man oh man, i just love shoot em up.

the people that hate it are so consistent to hate it. just makes me love it more.

[Bourne101]

i have to dissagree. it was marketed as an over the top action movie however and unfortunatly it was an over the top spoof of action movies.

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make. My point was that it was marketed as over the top, not as a serious action film like joeyzz believed it was.

[jbar1026]

i would not say i hate it but if i said i liked it i would be lying. it just isnt a good movie!

i cant write for shit! but i could have written this movies sreen play over the weekend!

[jbar1026]

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make. My point was that it was marketed as over the top, not as a serious action film like joeyzz believed it was. i cant say it wasnt over the top but why cant it be over the top and serious

[CreeperBEATNGU]

I don't know why someone would go to a movie called Shoot 'Em Up looking for seriousness, like I explained on the previous page, seriousness can actually detract from the fun factor; and if you can write lines as off the wall and bad-ass at the same time as the ones Owen delivers in this movie, I really wish you were a Hollywood writer.:)

Oh, the scene between Bellucci and Owen where she's talking about why it didn't work out between them before and she says "eggs have no business mixing with stones," and she mentions her last baby dying when her pimp punched her in the stomach; that's a genuinally good writing that really had me caring how things turned out for them.

Nice TMNT avy btw.;)

[Rawlin67]

i would not say i hate it but if i said i liked it i would be lying. it just isnt a good movie!

i cant write for shit! but i could have written this movies sreen play over the weekend!

no, you couldnt have.

really nothing else to say. its just sorta simple. you couldnt have.

that plot was so absurd, if you could honestly thought up that whole baby conspiracy shit in a weekend and put along with some of the most absurd action stunts ever, in a weekend, then you dont write as bad as you think.

[Bourne101]

i cant say it wasnt over the top but why cant it be over the top and serious

Because it's called Shoot 'Em Up and it didn't at all look serious. The preview consisted of over the top action and funny, non-serious one liners. :cool:

[Rawlin67]

to me, over the top and serious dont work that well together.

because like, if somethings over the top, you either find it funny, or you find it stupid. to find something over the top to be very serious....would probably make it not over the top.

[jbar1026]

no, you couldnt have.

really nothing else to say. its just sorta simple. you couldnt have.

why not? because you liked it? the movies script is weak if you cant see that im sorry. i write bad the movie is bad sounds like i could have written it to me!

[jbar1026]

to me, over the top and serious dont work that well together.

because like, if somethings over the top, you either find it funny, or you find it stupid. to find something over the top to be very serious....would probably make it not over the top.

wrong

take the church scene from resident evil 2 she flies through the stain glass window doing a back flip off the back of the moter cycle while shotting zombies.
over the top - yes
serious - yes "its an action servival horror movie"

and there is a difference between very serious and just serious. its like making a movie and not caring how the plot unfolds because of budget and making the best movie you can with the budget you have

[bigred760]

I don't know why someone would go to a movie called Shoot 'Em Up looking for seriousness, like I explained on the previous page, seriousness can actually detract from the fun factor;

So can absurdity, and that's what most of the movie was. I wasn't looking for anything serious, but at least something plausible or coherent.


Oh, the scene between Bellucci and Owen where she's talking about why it didn't work out between them before and she says "eggs have no business mixing with stones," and she mentions her last baby dying when her pimp punched her in the stomach; that's a genuinally good writing that really had me caring how things turned out for them.


Please don't tell me you thought that was good writing.

I didn't get the "spoof" aspect of the movie from the trailers or marketing. I did not. It looked like an action movie. Not an action movie with a ridiculous plot.

[bigred760]

Like I addressed earlier, I don't see how Die Hard is so much more plot and character driven, they have about the same amount of plot and character substance (very simplistic and much more about fun than depth).

It's more plot driven because the story is more believable. In Die Hard, a cop tries to save his wife and other hostages from bad guys who've taken over the building they are in. Pretty straightfoward . . . nothing more to it. In Shoot Em Up, you get conspiracies involving cloning, senators, gun manufactures, whatever. It didn't take it seriously so the writer (not jbar1026 - sorry brother) emphasized the jumping out of airplanes, pulley systems, and the like. When the Die Hard villains show up to kill McClane, they're usually prompted to do so: they here him transmitting on the roof, they see him breaking a window trying to get a cop's attention, Hans call them. In Shoot 'Em Up, they just show up in as many numbers as they feel like it. There's no limit to how many bad guys there can be. I'm still dumbfounded as to how they showed up for the car chase scene.

Now . . . "character driven." John McClane has a wife, two kids, is a NY cop and hate that his wife is so successful on the other side of the country. Audiences can relate to him a hell of a lot more than they can Mr. Smith. He's more down-to-earth, funnier, cooler, and is running around with no shoes on. You can see him changing in the movie, whether it's his fear for his life or his wife's, especially at the end when he's telling Powell to find his wife if he doesn't make it. More character? . . . the older brother is pissed that his younger brother is dead and wants revenge, the asshole gets himself killed because he's hyped up on coke and thinks he can make a difference. Powell relates the story of how he shot a kid and transferred to a desk job. You know all about these characters; you know Mr. Smith likes carrots and has previous military training (you might have to correct me on this . . been a while since I've seen it), the hooker has a heart of gold, and the bad guy has a wife that keeps calling it. You learn a lot more about the characters in Die Hard than you do in Shoot Em Up . . . making it more character driven, and I believe that coincides a bit with the plot too.


No, he's not doing all those things, which is why the action scenes in McClane's movie aren't nearly as innovative or fun to watch.

We've been over the innovative part already; I consider a realistic aspect to it all, and there's absolutely none in Shoot Em Up.

As for McClane's journey, I was just invested in the dynamic between two people that at first are very emotionally distant and have a hard time giving a shit about anything that are brought closer together by the bond they form through trying to protect this baby that they encountered by random chances that ended up changing their lives and making them a family. That to me is as meaningful, or more so than anything in Die Hard.

While this made little sense to me (your first sentence is five lines long), I'm more invested in what is more a realistic family: husband, wife, two kids . . . than a loner, a hooker, and a baby that the loner finds. Hooking up at the end at an ice cream shop, where he eventually starts killing people again by the way (nice writing :rolleyes:) is more meaningful? Wow.

[bigred760]

I will give you guys one thing though . . . I doubt there's been another movie this year (or longer) that has been discussed this extensively for this long (it was released on Sept. 7 and it is now November).

Still doesn't make it good though. :D

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Again, simply saying that it's more realistic does not mean that it is more plot driven, which is essentially what you just said there, only very stretched out. There's a difference between realism and plot.

Emotionally distant people being brought together by their desire to protect an innocent is just as meaningful, whether it's as realistic or not as anything in Die Hard was; and that line you mocked is as character driven and draws me into the characters as much as anything in Die Hard did.

Of course he starts killing people again when the woman he loves and their baby are in danger; and I didn't say it was deep and heartfelt, I said it was as meaningful as anything in Die Hard (which as I've said, is not that meaningful of a film either; substance is not what attracts me to either of them).

Oh, Powell was a good supporting character, there wasn't any supporting character in Shoot 'Em Up that was nearly that good. I agree there.

None the less, I cared just as much about Smith as I did about McClane, and I found his dynamic with the love interest to be atleast as good, if not better for reasons that I've already stated.
I could care less if it's realistic, I wasn't going in expecting or wanting realism.

As for "realism" I'm closer to being a loner than I am a cop, so if anything I found Smith more relateable; and women that have lost the chance to raise a child is just as real as a guy with a struggling marriage.

Sure, the Shoot 'Em Up story is told in a more over the top way, but that doesn't make the Die Hardy plot and characters any thicker, the plots are still fairly simialar and they aren't that far off from one another in character depth.

"Still doesn't make it good though."

It's sparking passionate debate on both sides, that certainly helps.;)

[Rawlin67]

nevermind. this is a pointless argument. the people who loved it loved it for what it was, not for perfection. and if you didnt like it, fine.

but if you can honestly take a whole weekend and write something even CLOSE to this, insane and unbelievable yet makes-sense plot with action scenes that are very absurd, then do it. if not, dont talk big like you know what it takes to write a script.

[bigred760]

but if you can honestly take a whole weekend and write something even CLOSE to this, insane and unbelievable yet makes-sense plot with action scenes that are very absurd, then do it. if not, dont talk big like you know what it takes to write a script.

I don't think I could, whether I wanted to or not, make up something that absurd.

[bigred760]

Again, simply saying that it's more realistic does not mean that it is more plot driven, which is essentially what you just said there, only very stretched out. There's a difference between realism and plot.


Okay . . . try to convince me that Shoot Em Up is more plot driven that Die Hard, or that they're even similar. Shoot Em Up is pure action, whether it's believable or not . . . I think it falls more on the "not" side myself - the pulleys, the falling out of airplane sequences, etc. Compare those to what you see in Die Hard (hell . . . throw in the sequels there if you want to).

The writer/director of Shoot Em Up did not care for plot, realism, story, characters, whatever. He just wanted to throw in how many ever spectacular events he could throw in to his movie with guns killing people that he could. Mr. Smith was never the "underdog" in Shoot Em Up . . . the stunts involved were never meant for the hero to lose. But in Die Hard, the hero was to overcome whatever obstacle came his way, and it was fun and exciting watching McClane doing it. That just wasn't the case in Shoot Em Up; there was no suspense or fun for watchin Clive Owen kill nobodies when he's doing whatever he's doing.

I have no problem with people liking or disliking this movie; my problem comes in comparing Shoot em Up to Die Hard. I think Die Hard is several times better, and I do mean "several," than Shoot Em Up. Die Hard has more character, realism, plot, story than Shoot Em Up could ever dream of having.

And so far, nobody has come close to convincing me otherwise. All I've heard is that "realism doesn't matter" and "there's no character." If that's the best you got, than I'm disappointed. Prove to me otherwise, that Shoot Em Up's plot is equal or better than Die Hard. I've given my arguments . . . say something more than "uh-uh." If the plot gives more character, story, REALISM, less "let's shoot all the bad guys with as many bullets as we want."

Do you really thinl that Mr. Smith will grieve as much for a hooker if she dies and a baby that he just saved from a mother he never knew, than McClane would for his wife if she died in a "terrorist incident." If you do, then I'd like to know the reason. The fact that he and Holly have marital problems and he still wants to see her again is more emotional than anything that Mr. Smith could come up with.

I don't see Die Hard and Shoot Em Up even in the same sport; I don't see how anybody can think that the latter has a better plot or better characters.

[Superplasmatron]

i cant say it wasnt over the top but why cant it be over the top and serious

Um a film that uses carrots as a weapon can hardly been viewed as serious.

It may not be a good film but its great fun, is fun bad?

[Well_Said]

I loves me some Monica Bellucci!

[CreeperBEATNGU]

[QUOTE=bigred760;2588443]Okay . . . try to convince me that Shoot Em Up is more plot driven that Die Hard, or that they're even similar. Shoot Em Up is pure action, whether it's believable or not . . . I think it falls more on the "not" side myself - the pulleys, the falling out of airplane sequences, etc. Compare those to what you see in Die Hard (hell . . . throw in the sequels there if you want to).

I've already clearly addressed why the plots are simialar, and I don't think either is much more plot driven than the other.

Of course Die Hard is more realistic than Shoot 'Em Up, I didn't say that it wasn't, I asid that both are very over the top and unrealistic, Shoot 'Em Up is simply upfront about it.

The writer/director of Shoot Em Up did not care for plot, realism, story, characters, whatever. He just wanted to throw in how many ever spectacular events he could throw in to his movie with guns killing people that he could. Mr. Smith was never the "underdog" in Shoot Em Up . . . the stunts involved were never meant for the hero to lose. But in Die Hard, the hero was to overcome whatever obstacle came his way, and it was fun and exciting watching McClane doing it. That just wasn't the case in Shoot Em Up; there was no suspense or fun for watchin Clive Owen kill nobodies when he's doing whatever he's doing.

Not if you're looking for depth (which neither this or Die Hard has much of), but it was alot of fun if you're looking for bad-ass, way over the top, extremely innovative action with a cool as hell one man-army hero; that applies to both Shoot 'Em Up and Die Hard.
Both had heroes with enough personality to make me like them and want them to win, but neither is a very deep film; both films are primarily for the fun of watching smart-ass heroes take out one bad guy after another; the hero or the bad guy aren't much deeper in one than in the other since neither film was made for depth.

I have no problem with people liking or disliking this movie; my problem comes in comparing Shoot em Up to Die Hard. I think Die Hard is several times better, and I do mean "several," than Shoot Em Up. Die Hard has more character, realism, plot, story than Shoot Em Up could ever dream of having.

Realism yes (which again doesn't necessarily make an action film better for reasons that I previously covered), the rest I find them about the same.

And so far, nobody has come close to convincing me otherwise. All I've heard is that "realism doesn't matter" and "there's no character." If that's the best you got, than I'm disappointed. Prove to me otherwise, that Shoot Em Up's plot is equal or better than Die Hard. I've given my arguments . . . say something more than "uh-uh." If the plot gives more character, story, REALISM, less "let's shoot all the bad guys with as many bullets as we want."

You don't have to be convinced, I don't expect you to start loving the film, think of it as you wish; none the less I don't find a movie about a cop with a struggling marriage taking out bad guys with guns in an office building all that much more plot or character driven than a two emotionally distant people being brought closer together by their desire to protect a child from a bunch of bad guys with guns.
Both films have very simple plots and fairly basic characterization, with the primary intent being to entertain, not to integrate much depth.

Do you really thinl that Mr. Smith will grieve as much for a hooker if she dies and a baby that he just saved from a mother he never knew, than McClane would for his wife if she died in a "terrorist incident." If you do, then I'd like to know the reason. The fact that he and Holly have marital problems and he still wants to see her again is more emotional than anything that Mr. Smith could come up with.

Yes, I think he'd grieve very much for them, since he'd grown to love them and now, probably for the first time, had people in his life that he cared about; the fact that the child came from a birth mother that they never knew makes little difference, that applies to adopted babies too, which hardly means that the adopted parents don't love the child like birth parents do theirs.
The fact that he started off not caring very much and softened up along the way and started to love them is just as good for me as a cop with a wife that he bitches at and ends up getting back together with to be with their kids that I don't even know.

I don't see Die Hard and Shoot Em Up even in the same sport; I don't see how anybody can think that the latter has a better plot or better characters.

I don't see how anybody can think one is so much more complex and well rounded than the other, and nobody has come close to convincing me of otherwise.

I think that they're two of the best films of their kind, both for their entertainment value, neither for their substance.

[bigred760]

I've already clearly addressed why the plots are simialar, and I don't think either is much more plot driven than the other.

But they're not similar. Not even close.


[B]Not if you're looking for depth (which neither this or Die Hard has much of), but it was alot of fun if you're looking for bad-ass, way over the top, extremely innovative action with a cool as hell one man-army hero; that applies to both Shoot 'Em Up and Die Hard.
Both had heroes with enough personality to make me like them and want them to win, but neither is a very deep film; both films are primarily for the fun of watching smart-ass heroes take out one bad guy after another; the hero or the bad guy aren't much deeper in one than in the other since neither film was made for depth.

Die Hard does have depth . . . that's why it's so freakin' good. You know the villain and the good guys. You know what the villains are after, and it doesn't involve anything absurd like clones and government conspiracies. You know that McClane is talking to a cop on the ground and they become fast friends. We know that McClane is trying to get to his wife, but the villains don't know that. That makes for a lot of depth.

Realism yes (which again doesn't necessarily make an action film better for reasons that I previously covered), the rest I find them about the same.

While I do think realism plays a big part, and Die Hard obviously has more of it, it's the absurdity of the story, action sequences, and redundancy of Shoot Em Up that makes it a weaker film.


Yes, I think he'd grieve very much for them, since he'd grown to love them and now, probably for the first time, had people in his life that he cared about; the fact that the child came from a birth mother that they never knew makes little difference, that applies to adopted babies too, which hardly means that the adopted parents don't love the child like birth parents do theirs.
The fact that he started off not caring very much and softened up along the way and started to love them is just as good for me as a cop with a wife that he bitches at and ends up getting back together with to be with their kids that I don't even know.

I totally disagree. There is nothing from Mr. Smith - emotion, attitude, sympathy - that makes me believe he would care if the baby or the hooker died somewhere along the way. He might shed a tear somewhere along the way, but other than that . . . he'd just go on his merry way and do whatever he does.

[jbar1026]

I totally disagree. There is nothing from Mr. Smith - emotion, attitude, sympathy - that makes me believe he would care if the baby or the hooker died somewhere along the way. He might shed a tear somewhere along the way, but other than that . . . he'd just go on his merry way and do whatever he does.

i have to say he might care if the baby died! he did spend the whole movie protecting it. but not the hooker! he apparently got over the death of his wife hince the relation ship with the hooker in the first place. and if you can get over your wifes death enough to go see a hooker like the one in this movie then you can get over anything including the death of the baby

[CreeperBEATNGU]

[QUOTE=bigred760;2589277]But they're not similar. Not even close.

They're fairly simialar, and not that far off.

Die Hard does have depth . . . that's why it's so freakin' good. You know the villain and the good guys. You know what the villains are after, and it doesn't involve anything absurd like clones and government conspiracies. You know that McClane is talking to a cop on the ground and they become fast friends. We know that McClane is trying to get to his wife, but the villains don't know that. That makes for a lot of depth.

I know the villain and good guys about as well as I do in Shoot 'Em Up, I disagree about either of them having very much depth.
What you just described about McClane, as I said earlier, invested me no more in him than what I've discussed about Smith and how he softens up and starts to care for the woman and baby along the way.
I think they have about that both films have a little depth an abundance of entertainment value.
The only thing that I'll give Die Hard over Shoot 'Em Up from a substance standpoint is a strong supporting character like Powell. I was more invested in the love interest, and at least as interested in what Smith was fighting for as I was for McClane.
The fact that it starts off with Smith fighting to defend some woman and baby that he doesn't even know, if anything makes him an even better hero, he's doing it for no other reason than that it's the right thing to do, that pretty much personifies heroism. That gets me invested in him right off the bat, and what he's fighting for gets better as it goes on.


While I do think realism plays a big part, and Die Hard obviously has more of it, it's the absurdity of the story, action sequences, and redundancy of Shoot Em Up that makes it a weaker film.

Again, I've never denied that Die Hard has more realisim, but it's a moot point since I don't think that realism makes this type of film better; and Shoot 'Em Up is anything but redundant (as covered several pages ago in our last debate on the subject). Sure it's shoot out after shoot out (as one expected from a film labeled "Shoot 'Em Up"), but all of the shoot-outs are vastly different from one another and far more distinct than the ones in Die Hard. If I were to accuse either of them of redundancy it would be Die Hard.


I totally disagree. There is nothing from Mr. Smith - emotion, attitude, sympathy - that makes me believe he would care if the baby or the hooker died somewhere along the way. He might shed a tear somewhere along the way, but other than that . . . he'd just go on his merry way and do whatever he does.

That scene between them at the hotel where he shows regret after realizing how cold and un-sympathetic he's been toward the way that she's felt since he brought the baby to her, and when he tries to actually connect with the baby rather than just carrying it around really showed me care how things turned out for the trio and I really wanted them to end up being an unlikely, but happy family.

"i have to say he might care if the baby died! he did spend the whole movie protecting it. but not the hooker! he apparently got over the death of his wife hince the relation ship with the hooker in the first place. and if you can get over your wifes death enough to go see a hooker like the one in this movie then you can get over anything including the death of the baby"

That hardly means that he'd gotten over it, if anything it meant that he was lonely and had a hard time forming another relationship with someone, so he just latched onto to someone to relieve the lonliness and he eventually ended up forming a much closer bond with her than he ever intended to.
Their relationship became a fresh start and the chance to have a family, the chance he was robbed of earlier in his life; which meant very much to him and became what he had to fight and to live for; which again, I find every bit as meaningful, if not more so than anything in Die Hard.

[Jim H]

If I were to accuse either of them of redundancy it would be Die Hard.

Die Hard only has three real shootouts, and they're pretty brief. It also has a few brawls and near-escapes. These scenes, dramatically, do a lot more to develop the plot and characters than those in Shoot 'Em Up (where they consist entirely of showing us the baddassness of Clive Owen and the annoyance of Paul Giamatti).

Don't take that as something against Shoot 'Em Up. Of course it has less depth and is a more shallow film than Die Hard. That was exactly the point.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

The brawls and shoot outs in Die Hard show what McClane is capable of just as the extremely innovative ways Smith comes up with to dispatch of his foes do, neither says much more about the characters or the plot, and the fact that Shoot 'Em Up can have so many more shoot outs while making them so distinct from one another only further shows that it's the less redundant of the two if you were to label either film as such.
Yes, Die Hard only has a few, and they're not nearly as unique from one another as the ones in Shoot 'Em Up.

The point of Shoot 'Em Up was to make a referential homage/parody that was alot of fun but not very deep of other over the top action films that were also alot of fun but not very deep...like Die Hard.

[HoyleHaw]

I'll say to all naysayers: you are entitled to your opinion.

Do I think the movie is believable? Hell no!

Did I enjoy the hell out of it? You bet your ass I did!

Did I take any of it seriously? Not a second! (well, okay, maybe that much, but no more)

It's a fluff film meant to entertain folks looking for some sort of enjoyable action film that pretty much exists outside regular physics. The improbability of the whole set-up works to its advantage, should the viewer actually catch on.

Either way, the mere fact that they stuck Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti (I was a fan of both before they hit it big-time), and Monica Belucci in a film together is enough for me. That "History of Violence" psychopaths Stephen McHattie and Greg Bryk also popped up in the film in rather unrelated roles wasn't bad either.

I'll admit what I saw probably exists in the realm of novelty, and should that wear off on repeat viewings, I will think much worse of this film. As is it was one helluva ride, particularly in theaters.

[bigred760]

[B]I know the villain and good guys about as well as I do in Shoot 'Em Up, I disagree about either of them having very much depth.

What do you know about the villains in Shoot Em Up? You know more about them in Die Hard, for example how many they are, two of them are brothers, one is a techno-geek that wasn't brought along for his "charming personality," one of them has a bag with explosives which they absolutely need to carry out whatever the hell they're doing. You see . . . depth. And that's not even covering the head bad guy.

You only know about Paul Giamatti in Shoot Em Up, and that he has an annoying wife.


And HoyleHaw, I'm not saying they don't have the right to enjoy it or anything; I'm disagreeing that it's anything like Die Hard.

[bigred760]

The brawls and shoot outs in Die Hard show what McClane is capable of just as the extremely innovative ways Smith comes up with to dispatch of his foes do, neither says much more about the characters or the plot, and the fact that Shoot 'Em Up can have so many more shoot outs while making them so distinct from one another only further shows that it's the less redundant of the two if you were to label either film as such.
Yes, Die Hard only has a few, and they're not nearly as unique from one another as the ones in Shoot 'Em Up.

It tells me that McClane is one tough S.O.B. And the fact that he's getting shot up and at, getting his ass kicked by a big ass blonde, dealing with ungrateful cops and FBI agents who offer little to no help, and worrying the whole time that the bad guys might find out who his wife is . . . and all this with no shoes on. That tells me a whole helluva lot about John McClane.

I know Mr. Smith likes carrots and knows how to work a pulley system. Oh, and he's a saint for helping a baby he doesn't know.

[jbar1026]

"i have to say he might care if the baby died! he did spend the whole movie protecting it. but not the hooker! he apparently got over the death of his wife hince the relation ship with the hooker in the first place. and if you can get over your wifes death enough to go see a hooker like the one in this movie then you can get over anything including the death of the baby"


That hardly means that he'd gotten over it, if anything it meant that he was lonely and had a hard time forming another relationship with someone, so he just latched onto to someone to relieve the lonliness and he eventually ended up forming a much closer bond with her than he ever intended to.
.

she a hooker thats lets guys get thier kicks by drinking milk from her tit as if they were infants. what ever bonding they did he intended it ...hell he paid for it. dont make they guy out to be a saint because he isnt one.

forget the realism take all the action out of both movies
die hard would still run close to an hour and you would almost be able to understand the plot. shootem up on the otherhand would be twenty minutes of bad one liners with no plot
that is why die hard is the better movie its becuse it tries to be more than a collection of gun fights

[CreeperBEATNGU]

What do you know about the villains in Shoot Em Up? You know more about them in Die Hard, for example how many they are, two of them are brothers, one is a techno-geek that wasn't brought along for his "charming personality," one of them has a bag with explosives which they absolutely need to carry out whatever the hell they're doing. You see . . . depth. And that's not even covering the head bad guy.

You only know about Paul Giamatti in Shoot Em Up, and that he has an annoying wife.


And HoyleHaw, I'm not saying they don't have the right to enjoy it or anything; I'm disagreeing that it's anything like Die Hard.

The fact that they're brothers hardly qualifies as deep characterization, all I really know about any of their personalities as they're a bunch of ruthless assholes that don't give a fuck who gets hurt or killed as long as they get rich; I knew the same about the bad guys in Shoot 'Em Up.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

It tells me that McClane is one tough S.O.B. And the fact that he's getting shot up and at, getting his ass kicked by a big ass blonde, dealing with ungrateful cops and FBI agents who offer little to no help, and worrying the whole time that the bad guys might find out who his wife is . . . and all this with no shoes on. That tells me a whole helluva lot about John McClane.

I know Mr. Smith likes carrots and knows how to work a pulley system. Oh, and he's a saint for helping a baby he doesn't know.

And many instances throughout the film told me that Smith was one tough son of a bitch too, again, I know about the same amount about both of them (hell he retalliated from a torture session by single-handedly taking out a handful of bad guys).

I also know what I stated previously; he was an emotionally distant loner that along the way finds something to care about along the way. He lost the chance at having a family before when his wife was killed and now he's getting another chance and he's a tough sob that'll do anything he can to ensure that he's robbed of it again.

That's as much depth as McClane had.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

"i have to say he might care if the baby died! he did spend the whole movie protecting it. but not the hooker! he apparently got over the death of his wife hince the relation ship with the hooker in the first place. and if you can get over your wifes death enough to go see a hooker like the one in this movie then you can get over anything including the death of the baby"



she a hooker thats lets guys get thier kicks by drinking milk from her tit as if they were infants. what ever bonding they did he intended it ...hell he paid for it. dont make they guy out to be a saint because he isnt one.

forget the realism take all the action out of both movies
die hard would still run close to an hour and you would almost be able to understand the plot. shootem up on the otherhand would be twenty minutes of bad one liners with no plot
that is why die hard is the better movie its becuse it tries to be more than a collection of gun fights

I was referring to the way that they bonded AFTER he brought the baby to her, what they became along the way, not what they were before this started.
Of course he's not a saint, I never suggested any such thing.

I can just easily understand the plot of either. Ruthless assholes endanger the lives of innocents...tough sob intervenes with the plans of ruthless assholes to protect the innocents that are in danger.
That's the plot, Die Hard just has it take place in an office building while Shoot 'Em Up has the story more widespread throughout the city; and again, I was invested in Smith and his love interest as I was in McClane's fragile marriage, there was as much for me to care about besides the action in both films.
If

If either one is deeper than the other, I don't think it's by much.

[joeyzz]

i cant say it wasnt over the top but why cant it be over the top and serious

That's just it jbar... Thank you! Obviously, with a name like 'Shoot em up' - there's going to be quite a bit of over-the-topedness. But the movie lacks brains, intelligence and wit of any kind! I can respect what the movie was trying to be, only it failed miserably!

[bigred760]

And many instances throughout the film told me that Smith was one tough son of a bitch too, again, I know about the same amount about both of them (hell he retalliated from a torture session by single-handedly taking out a handful of bad guys).

I also know what I stated previously; he was an emotionally distant loner that along the way finds something to care about along the way. He lost the chance at having a family before when his wife was killed and now he's getting another chance and he's a tough sob that'll do anything he can to ensure that he's robbed of it again.

That's as much depth as McClane had.

Emotionally distant? Real deep. McClane was thinking of how to handle his situation with more than guns (and carrots). He pulls the fire alarm, gets to the roof with a CB radio calling for help, and throws a dead bad guy out a window to catch his future friend's attention. Most of these were to try and get help, and the funny thing is . . . he gets very little of it. All of these events also clue in the bad guys to his presence and makes him have to fight them off; he doesn't kill a bad guy with every encounter and his situation seems to get worse with every one - making the hero and the movie much deeper.

That's just the hero. I'm not just talking about the hero, I'm talking about the whole movie. You know anything else about any of the characters in Shoot Em Up? No. Like people have stated in this thread, all the villains are throw away, faceless goons. I've already described half the villains in Die Hard, they are not as expendable. And knowing what they're all about makes Die Hard a much deeper movie than Shoot Em Up. And it's hard to empathize with Mr. Smith since through most of the movie he's performing ridiculous stunts that had me rolling my eyes and not thinking about what his motivation is.

[gspawn]

Emotionally distant? Real deep. McClane was thinking of how to handle his situation with more than guns (and carrots). He pulls the fire alarm, gets to the roof with a CB radio calling for help, and throws a dead bad guy out a window to catch his future friend's attention. Most of these were to try and get help, and the funny thing is . . . he gets very little of it. All of these events also clue in the bad guys to his presence and makes him have to fight them off; he doesn't kill a bad guy with every encounter and his situation seems to get worse with every one - making the hero and the movie much deeper.

That's just the hero. I'm not just talking about the hero, I'm talking about the whole movie. You know anything else about any of the characters in Shoot Em Up? No. Like people have stated in this thread, all the villains are throw away, faceless goons. I've already described half the villains in Die Hard, they are not as expendable. And knowing what they're all about makes Die Hard a much deeper movie than Shoot Em Up. And it's hard to empathize with Mr. Smith since through most of the movie he's performing ridiculous stunts that had me rolling my eyes and not thinking about what his motivation is.

...and with every sentence, you only confirm that you missed the ENTIRE POINT of the movie! Everyone IS throwaway- because that's the point! Sure, Die Hard works to make you care about its people. But really, at its heart, do you NEED to know anything more than "Average Joe American kicks Eurotrash ass"? Try and figure out which Die-Hard I'm referring to there. I dare you.

Oh, but you intercut scenes of Bruce Willis bleeding with his wife looking worried, and all of a sudden it's emotional, and deep, and- goddamn Sam Jackson is hilarious! Holy crap, did you see that explosion? Jesus- he's bleeding all over. *popcorn shoved in face*. Oh holy cow- who cares about his daughter? OMG BOoBEEZ!!!

...that's kind of the idea. Sure, Die Hard's a damn good film. But it's also just like 9,000 other films in a lot of ways, biggest among them being that it tries to put emotional content in-between explosions to make you feel you're doing more than just watching explosions.

Another example: Armageddon. Yeah, I choked back tears when Bruce shoved Affleck back in the rube. So did everyone else. But even if you subtracted the whole romance angle, the whole redemption angle- it was a great freakin' movie with a lot of special effects, and the well-done emotional bits were just the cheese powder on the salt on the butter on the popcorn.

The point of Shoot-Em-Up was to cut all the BS and just show an action movie for what it is- a gratuitous collections of guns, tits, and explosions. And again, I'm fine if you didn't enjoy the movie. That's cool. But so many people just didn't GET the whole central angle of the flick. The characters aren't one-dimensional because the writer phoned it in- they're one-dimensional because they're basically flat representations of action movie stereotypes, and you can fill in all the details because you've seen the details from a million other movies.

Put yourself into Kung-Fu-flick mode when you see this thing. It's good BECAUSE it's bad. It's fun BECAUSE it's stupid. And so on.

[Superplasmatron]

That's just it jbar... Thank you! Obviously, with a name like 'Shoot em up' - there's going to be quite a bit of over-the-topedness. But the movie lacks brains, intelligence and wit of any kind! I can respect what the movie was trying to be, only it failed miserably!

only if one has a stick up ones behind.

[chinton]

...and with every sentence, you only confirm that you missed the ENTIRE POINT of the movie! Everyone IS throwaway- because that's the point! Sure, Die Hard works to make you care about its people. But really, at its heart, do you NEED to know anything more than "Average Joe American kicks Eurotrash ass"? Try and figure out which Die-Hard I'm referring to there. I dare you.

Oh, but you intercut scenes of Bruce Willis bleeding with his wife looking worried, and all of a sudden it's emotional, and deep, and- goddamn Sam Jackson is hilarious! Holy crap, did you see that explosion? Jesus- he's bleeding all over. *popcorn shoved in face*. Oh holy cow- who cares about his daughter? OMG BOoBEEZ!!!

...that's kind of the idea. Sure, Die Hard's a damn good film. But it's also just like 9,000 other films in a lot of ways, biggest among them being that it tries to put emotional content in-between explosions to make you feel you're doing more than just watching explosions.

Another example: Armageddon. Yeah, I choked back tears when Bruce shoved Affleck back in the rube. So did everyone else. But even if you subtracted the whole romance angle, the whole redemption angle- it was a great freakin' movie with a lot of special effects, and the well-done emotional bits were just the cheese powder on the salt on the butter on the popcorn.

The point of Shoot-Em-Up was to cut all the BS and just show an action movie for what it is- a gratuitous collections of guns, tits, and explosions. And again, I'm fine if you didn't enjoy the movie. That's cool. But so many people just didn't GET the whole central angle of the flick. The characters aren't one-dimensional because the writer phoned it in- they're one-dimensional because they're basically flat representations of action movie stereotypes, and you can fill in all the details because you've seen the details from a million other movies.

Put yourself into Kung-Fu-flick mode when you see this thing. It's good BECAUSE it's bad. It's fun BECAUSE it's stupid. And so on.


Honestly who here doesnt get Shoot Em Up. Its not hard to get. Its essentially action porn much Black was gun porn to video games. There's a point though where stupid doesn't become fun it just becomes more stupid and more boring. Thats what this movie is.

[joeyzz]

only if one has a stick up ones behind.

feels good sweety! should try it some time.

[ilovemovies]

Shoot 'Em Up wants to be like Crank. An action movie that is pretty much a comedy and is wild and crazy and exhilarating and is just pure entertainment.

Crank succeded at that. It was hilarious and exciting and wondefully giddy entertainment.

Shoot 'Em Up fails because unlike Crank, which was wildly inventive, the movie is just a bunch of boring, unoriginal shootouts. There is no flair to the action scenes and it just gets so repetative. The only scene in Shoot 'Em Up that even comes close to matching the giddiness of Crank is when he parachutes off the plane and there is that shootout while he is parachuting down. That and the climax when Clive Owen is being tortured and then he kills all of the bad guys.

The rest of the movie was incredibly blah, meh. Nothing special. And actually got dull.

Even the sex scene isn't nearly as funny as Crank's sex scene. Although that's another decent scene in Shoot 'Em Up. The sex scene was enjoyable.

[bigred760]

...and with every sentence, you only confirm that you missed the ENTIRE POINT of the movie! Everyone IS throwaway- because that's the point! Sure, Die Hard works to make you care about its people. But really, at its heart, do you NEED to know anything more than "Average Joe American kicks Eurotrash ass"? Try and figure out which Die-Hard I'm referring to there. I dare you.

I got the point of the movie; I just thought it was pointless making this dumb a movie. Do you "NEED" to know more about Average Joe? No, but since you do and the movie makes an effort to make sure you do so, that's what makes it a much more superior film.


Oh, but you intercut scenes of Bruce Willis bleeding with his wife looking worried, and all of a sudden it's emotional, and deep, and- goddamn Sam Jackson is hilarious! Holy crap, did you see that explosion? Jesus- he's bleeding all over. *popcorn shoved in face*. Oh holy cow- who cares about his daughter? OMG BOoBEEZ!!!

Who the hell is talking about Sam Jackson? Who the hell is talking about his daughter? I'm talking about the first Die Hard and only the first (although the sequels are better than Shoot Em Up too).


...that's kind of the idea. Sure, Die Hard's a damn good film. But it's also just like 9,000 other films in a lot of ways, biggest among them being that it tries to put emotional content in-between explosions to make you feel you're doing more than just watching explosions.

Some of us like something more than a hero killing countless nobodies and shit blowing up. When there is none of the other stuff, the movie gets redundant - just like Shoot Em Up.


Another example: Armageddon. Yeah, I choked back tears when Bruce shoved Affleck back in the rube. So did everyone else. But even if you subtracted the whole romance angle, the whole redemption angle- it was a great freakin' movie with a lot of special effects, and the well-done emotional bits were just the cheese powder on the salt on the butter on the popcorn.

Armageddon is a better movie than Shoot Em Up too.


The point of Shoot-Em-Up was to cut all the BS and just show an action movie for what it is- a gratuitous collections of guns, tits, and explosions. And again, I'm fine if you didn't enjoy the movie. That's cool. But so many people just didn't GET the whole central angle of the flick. The characters aren't one-dimensional because the writer phoned it in- they're one-dimensional because they're basically flat representations of action movie stereotypes, and you can fill in all the details because you've seen the details from a million other movies.

Yeah I got that. I know what Shoot Em Up is; I saw the movie. I've accepted the fact that some people enjoyed it and that I did not. My problem came up when somebody stated that it was a lot like Die Hard; I disagreed, apparently so do you. I get that movies like this are made and that people enjoy them for what they are. This one did not do it for me.

[jbar1026]

Average Joe American kicks Eurotrash ass"? Try and figure out which Die-Hard I'm referring to there. I dare you.


well its not 2 or 4 the main badies in them were american!

number 1 the badies were a mixed bag from all over including americans.

so my guess is 3 its the only one i did not notice any bad guys that were from all over. hell i think simon was the only one who could speak without the accent but then so could his brother. if im wrong you may need to refraze your statement to exclude the word “eurotrash”

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Shoot 'Em Up wants to be like Crank. An action movie that is pretty much a comedy and is wild and crazy and exhilarating and is just pure entertainment.

Crank succeded at that. It was hilarious and exciting and wondefully giddy entertainment.

Shoot 'Em Up fails because unlike Crank, which was wildly inventive, the movie is just a bunch of boring, unoriginal shootouts. There is no flair to the action scenes and it just gets so repetative. The only scene in Shoot 'Em Up that even comes close to matching the giddiness of Crank is when he parachutes off the plane and there is that shootout while he is parachuting down. That and the climax when Clive Owen is being tortured and then he kills all of the bad guys.

The rest of the movie was incredibly blah, meh. Nothing special. And actually got dull.

Even the sex scene isn't nearly as funny as Crank's sex scene. Although that's another decent scene in Shoot 'Em Up. The sex scene was enjoyable.

I thought that Crank was mediocre and kinda boring, I saw it once and never had any desire to see it again. Shoot 'Em Up is possibly the most purely entertaining movie that I've ever seen.
The shootouts as far from unoriginal as you can get, this movie is packed full of some of the most innovative action scenes of its kind to ever grace the screen. I can think atleast a handful of action setpieces and lines from Shoot 'Em Up that are infinitely better than ALL of the ones in Crank.

As for "emotionally distant...yeah, real deep"

OF COURSE ITS NOT REAL DEEP!!! I never said that Shoot 'Em Up was 'real deep,' the film that I'm comparing it to isn't either.

You have not described half the villains as anything other than "oh these two are brothes..." that's nice...
as you would say, "wow...real deep."

Things get worse for Smith as the movie goes along too, he gets pitted against more and more guys and has to come up with more and more creative ways to fight them off throughout the film, eventually getting captured and tortured and caring enough about the people that at first he was not emotionally invested in to be willing to endure it for their well being.

There's no need to keep repeating to me that McClane has a wife and kids and there's a cop in it with emotional problems regarding killing a kid...I'm aware of that, and again, I don't find it any deeper than what I've discussed about Shoot 'Em Up.
I enjoy both films for their entertainment value, not for their depth. They both have the same type of wit. They both have an uber bad ass, innocents that they're trying to protect, and a string of ruthless assholes in their way that they take out in entertaining ways with a cool one-liner accompanying it.
I don't find the characterization and storytelling any deeper ine one than the other, I find the action the vastly superior in Shoot 'Em Up for reasons that I've already discussed.