Shoot Em Up

The verdict: Clive Owen shoots bad guys while doing stuff (and Monica Bellucci) but even if it's intentionally cheesy and shallow, it lacks the genuine quality to make up for that.

The rating: 5/10

Every now and again, a 'laddish' film such as 'Shoot Em Up' is released that separates the critics into two distinct camps. On the one hand, you have the lads mags, the likes of FHM and Loaded calling it "non-stop gung-ho entertainment", and on the other, you have "big papers" like The Guardian using such a movie as an example of how modern cinema is being dumbed down.

At the level of the average movie viewer, this can often mean that such a movie becomes emblematic. For example, to admit to liking such a film is a statement that you know how to enjoy watching movies. Conversely to criticise such a film can leave you open to being seen as a bit of a cultural snob.

Now, before I give you the reasons why I didn’t like this movie, I'll ask you not to get me wrong, because I like my brainless entertainment as much as anyone. However, I'll add a bit of a proviso to that statement. Jason Statham's better movies (I'm thinking of 'Crank' and 'The One', for example) may appear at first glance to be brainless, but in my opinion this is by design rather than by accident. If you scratch a little below the surface of those movies, you'll find genuine creativity – these movies might be based on simple ideas, but they are at least a little original, they are well executed, and display a good sense of humour and enough quality to entertain.

'Shoot em up' is different. The premise of the movie is so contrived, it could have been dreamed up by Awesom-o. Anyway, the premise is thus: take John Woo's 'Hard Boiled' and remove Chow-Yun Fat. Insert Clive Owen, and numerous scenes where he shoots many many bad guys while doing cool stuff (like having sex with Monica Bellucci). Now, the premise isn't so bad, but there are so many scenes in here that are just crowbarred into the script because they sounded 'cool' (in a thoroughly self-conscious way, which of course, isn't that cool).

The action in Shoot em up is mildly entertaining at times, but the script, story and characters are just props, linking the assorted scenes of over the top gunplay. I don't know about you, but if I don't care whether the good guy lives or dies, then I’m not going to get too worried about whether he survives to the end or not.

Monica Bellucci is essentially a prop in this movie, appearing every now and again to explain what's going on to the audience, and provide a bit of agreeable T&A filler material before the next action sequence. Clive Owen isn't bad, but his dry cool one-liners are really terrible. He just doesn't have the comic delivery of an action hero. Paul Giamatti hams it up nicely, but he's working with peanuts here.

I know we should all be down with post-modern ironic entertainment, where movies like 'Grindhouse' and 'Hot Fuzz' have made it legitimate to make intentionally cheesy movies, as long as there is the occasional nod to the audience and of course, the original source material. However, this approach can wander into dangerous territory if it goes too far, and 'Shoot em up' is in the kind of 'Snakes on a Plane' territory. It's knowingly cheesy, but it's still cheesy. The one-liners might be written with the intention of making you groan, but the effect is the same. The action has been constructed to be ridiculous, but at the end of the day, is that going to give the audience real entertainment? This movie effectively steals from John Woo, and doesn't reward him for invoking his iconic image.

If you watch this film with the lads over a few cans, you might get enjoy it. Maybe I was just too damn sober for it. I'm going to give it a five, but not because I'm on a moral crusade against low-brow entertainment. No, this movie gets a five because I just didn't enjoy it that much.

The Illusionist

The verdict: A visual treat, well-acted and beautifully scored. Quality film-making and a great yarn.

The rating: 7/10

As is often the case with the Hollywood production engine, two movies are often released in close proximity to each other, despite treating similar themes, even the same subject matter. For every 'Troy' there's an 'Alexander'. For every 'Capote', there's an 'Infamous'. For 'The Prestige' (coming soon to PCMR), it seems there is also Neil Burger's 'The Illusionist.' (At least there was only one bloody 'Titanic' - Ed)

Burger's screenplay for 'The Illusionist' is based on a short story by Steven Millhauser, and Burger also directs. The setting is Vienna at the turn of the century where Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) is working on behalf of the dastardly crown prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell) to keep a watchful eye on the movements of Sophie (Jessica Biel), the woman who may one day be princess - for her own protection of course. Uhl is also given the responsibility of investigating Eisenheim (Ed Norton), a mysteriously talented magician perceived by the prince as a threat to his own authority. As it transpires, Eisenheim had a childhood relationship with Sophie, and their connection only drives the determination of Leopold to have Eisenheim arrested.

Oh, but the plot thickens folks, and while the yarn is being spun, the technicians behind the cameras contrive to create an immersive atmosphere with this movie. Philip Glass' orchestral soundtrack is subtle and haunting, and Dick Pope's Oscar-nominated cinematography, more traditionally at home in the stark English suburbs of Mike Leigh, illuminates the mysterious theatre stages of Vienna in a feast for the eyes. For most of the movie, the audience is placed in the theatre with Eisenheim's performance, illuminated by flickering candle-light and ready to be entertained.

The lead performances are quite strong, although the period drama accents are a little difficult to place, but this is never grating, as can be the case with many Hollywood period pieces - for an example of this, see 'Troy' above or, rather, don't. (Where is that pseudo-British accent supposed to be from anyway!? - Ed).

With the exception of the quite excellent '25th Hour', Norton may have been accused of phoning it in for some of his recent cinematic outings ('The Italian Job', anyone?). Considering the capabilities he demonstrated with 'American History X' and 'Fight Club', poor old Ed could make a fair claim to the question of 'where was I supposed to go from there?'. He has wisely moved on from the angry characters, however, and his performance in the Illusionist is nicely understated and suits the tone of the movie and character very well. Giamatti too, is reserved, but quietly effective, and Rufus Sewell does a nice job as the dastardly crown prince, despite bearing more than a passing resemblance to Jude Law, except with the addition of decent acting. (Zing! - Ed). Biel is also quite good as the woman who may be betrothed to Leopold, but who really loves the mysterious Eisenheim...

The real star of the movie is the story though. Like an old-fashioned mystery yarn, it unravels slowly and delicately, but unlike an old-fashioned stage magician, it actually reveals some of its secrets towards the end. The movie is beautifully crafted though, and were it not for the fact that the excellent 'Pan's Labyrinth' won the Cinematography Oscar over 'The Illusionist' this year, PCMR might be mildly peeved at the injustice of it all.

So, PCMR would recommend 'The Illusionist' as a solid night at the movies, being the type of well-told tale that should hold a wide appeal. It might be a little heavy on technical craft, but it's still a good story with enough smoke, mirrors and more importantly, plot to hold the interest of the audience right till the ending.

So, what odds now for Jerry Bruckheimer producing 'Paul Daniels: the movie' in 2008? (Now that would be magic. Giamatti to play Paul Daniels, Helen Mirren for Debbie Magee!? - Ed)