I went to see it with a buddy. It was very laugh out loud over the top and I loved that about it.
favorite shot:
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>the boom-up as he's walking through the railway tracks and all the bodies of the parachute-clad victims are strewn about the area.</span>
My favorite part were most definately the carrots and how they enhance his vision heh. Not to mention this is Paul's absolute best role. The director said that Paul has always been cast as a good guy who was soft. To that level he decided he had to cast him as the villan in this film and tailored the role for him. Utterly awesome. The tank thing had to be the funniest part in the movie.
Shoot 'Em Up was the worst movie I have ever see. I was ready to leave two minutes into the movies.
Who the hell cuts an umbilical cord by shooting at it. On top of that without clamping it. Both the baby and the mother will bleed to death. I would like to see someone cut a guarden hose with that gun.
I won't even start talking about all the movement the baby was subjected too. If it was a real newborn baby, his head would have popped off.
It wasn't supposed to be realistic. Titan, are you female?
I'm a manager at a movie theater, as such, I am subject to the complaints of movie patrons, and the only people who have complained, and with the arguments you used, are women.
It's not supposed to be realistic, it's an insane, super crazy action movie. It's the kind of movie that's not about the story, but rather the mindless shooting violence and the interaction between the protagonist (Clive Owen) and the antagonist (Paul Giamatti).
It even has a good lesson, eat carrots, they're good for your eyesight.
No. I am a guy. But my wife and I are going to have our first in couple of months. (my wife was not with me when I went to see the movie.)
I guess it is one of those movies where you need to be prepared for it. Like Master and Commander, for example. With it, people ######ed because they expected to see and action movie, instead they got an adventure movie.
With Shoot 'Em Up, I expected to see an action movie, but the movie trailer did not hint anything of what I saw in the movie theater.
If awesome was a movie, it would be a movie about me. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1651067:date=Sep 21 2007, 11:35 AM:name=TheTitan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheTitan @ Sep 21 2007, 11:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1651067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->a title might suggest what the subject of a medium is, but it does not provide information on the quality of that medium.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're just the same kind of person who claimed Crank was too pointlessly violent and sexual, when it's just the point of the movie. They're meant to be low-brow kill everything in sight kind of movies. And disconnecting an umbilical cord via gunshot sounds pretty damn awesome.
but it pears that you are young at the moment, and thus unable to comprehend the umbilical cord situation. Maybe in 7 to 10 years, when you are about my age, your views will differ.
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
The movie was pure awesomesauce.
And I don't see how the trailer could have failed to convey what the movie was. It's one of the only movies I've ever seen in a theater with absolutely no freaking clue what the rough story was. None, Zip, Nada.
I knew there would be Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti, and a lot of gun fights. That was it. And it delivered.
<!--quoteo(post=1651075:date=Sep 21 2007, 02:59 PM:name=TheTitan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheTitan @ Sep 21 2007, 02:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1651075"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->but it pears that you are young at the moment, and thus unable to comprehend the umbilical cord situation. Maybe in 7 to 10 years, when you are about my age, your views will differ.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't help but laugh at this. I don't understand how you can possibly take the movie seriously, or how you can claim that it wasn't an action movie.
The fact that it was so absurd is what makes it so funny and enjoyable to watch. Oh well, I guess if you're going to get caught up not liking a few initial seconds of the movie, I can see how you would be distracted throughout the rest of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1651099:date=Sep 21 2007, 04:19 PM:name=enf0rcer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(enf0rcer @ Sep 21 2007, 04:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1651099"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->how you can claim that it wasn't an action movie.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I did not say that it was not an action movie!
Shoot 'Em Up was pretty meh. I mean, I get it. It's supposed to be a send up of the genre. But it was still crap. You can't just call something a parody, and that automatically makes everything good. The one-liners, while a little amusing at first, just got more and more painful as the movie went on.
The villains were over-the-top cartoony evil. I mean, <span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>harvesting babies for bone marrow</span>? The fights were pretty dull as well. There were a few cool parts here and there, but most of it was stupid, <span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>especially in the gun factory with all the strings</span>.
<!--quoteo(post=1651039:date=Sep 21 2007, 01:04 PM:name=TheTitan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheTitan @ Sep 21 2007, 01:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1651039"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Shoot 'Em Up was the worst movie I have ever see. I was ready to leave two minutes into the movies.
Who the hell cuts an umbilical cord by shooting at it. On top of that without clamping it. Both the baby and the mother will bleed to death. I would like to see someone cut a guarden hose with that gun.
I won't even start talking about all the movement the baby was subjected too. If it was a real newborn baby, his head would have popped off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I understand what cutting an umbilical cord would do if you did it too early. Both mother and child would bleed to death, doctors wait until it goes limp and all the fluids have all but drained. I also understand your concern for a newborn child, however, the only sequences where a newborn was actually used was in the close ups. Later on, it's completely obvious that either they were using a CG baby or an animatronic one with elements of CG. I don't believe any director is stupid enough to be throwing babies through the air on set. It also makes sense that having a child on the way and seeing this kind of graphic content can upset you. Just to clarify, this entire movie was an act of fiction meant for entertainment purposes. If certain scenes in the movie disturb you then it simply wasn't meant to tailor to your demographic.
By that end, every person is entitled to their own opinion.
<!--quoteo(post=1651116:date=Sep 21 2007, 05:08 PM:name=PerfectionsFlaw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PerfectionsFlaw @ Sep 21 2007, 05:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1651116"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Firstly, I understand what cutting an umbilical cord would do if you did it too early. Both mother and child would bleed to death, doctors wait until it goes limp and all the fluids have all but drained. I also understand your concern for a newborn child, however, the only sequences where a newborn was actually used was in the close ups. Later on, it's completely obvious that either they were using a CG baby or an animatronic one with elements of CG. I don't believe any director is stupid enough to be throwing babies through the air on set. It also makes sense that having a child on the way and seeing this kind of graphic content can upset you. Just to clarify, this entire movie was an act of fiction meant for entertainment purposes. If certain scenes in the movie disturb you then it simply wasn't meant to tailor to your demographic.
By that end, every person is entitled to their own opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> * I did not say that the movie was a reality. Thus I do not associate it or compare it to my life. Unless it is promoted as documentary or based on real facts it is understood that the medium is a fiction. Other wise If that was the case than I won't go to work, but I will be walkign through the streets watching people shoot each other.
* Of course they would not use a real baby and throw it around. It would be as if someone walked to another person and shot them, then get away with it when they say - "oh it was for a movie". A movie, a book, or any other fiction does not justify the loss of a human life or jeopardizing it in any way. Any sane and rational person will understand that.
The baby, BTW, looked more like a doll.
My comments extend in the borders of a movie reality and its semi-relation to real life reality and to an extent where the scenes somewhat make some sense.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
What makes human life so important in a movie? I say: Blow em all to smithereens in the most elaborate ways ever thought up (Quentin?) and let god sort em out if the movie has funfights*
Internet arguments are a$$ though. Some are funny, but a$$ in each and every way <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--coloro:#333333--><span style="color:#333333"><!--/coloro-->* not a typo<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1651104:date=Sep 21 2007, 05:28 PM:name=TheTitan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheTitan @ Sep 21 2007, 05:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1651104"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I did not say that it was not an action movie!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"With Shoot 'Em Up, I expected to see an action movie"
- that implies that you didn't see an action movie.
On a side note I seriously thought that you were ESL. Then I saw you're from the US...gotta proofread if I'm going to be on the same level as you. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
The meaning of this sentence - "With Shoot 'Em Up, I expected to see an action movie." differs from the meaning of this sentence- "With Shoot 'Em Up, I expected to see an action movie, but the movie trailer did not hint anything of what I saw in the movie theater."
The first one is a statement - i did not see an action movie. The second one is more of a lead into - the action movie I saw, wasn't the one I expected. - i saw an action comedy; action parody; a crappie, distasteful action movie. i.e. i did not see the action movie i expected.
No argument that it was an action movie. Just not the type of action movie I expected.
Is ESL another gamer or an abbreviation for something?
<!--quoteo(post=1651132:date=Sep 21 2007, 06:33 PM:name=TheTitan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheTitan @ Sep 21 2007, 06:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1651132"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is ESL another gamer or an abbreviation for something?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> English as a Second Language
<!--quoteo(post=1651132:date=Sep 21 2007, 08:33 PM:name=TheTitan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheTitan @ Sep 21 2007, 08:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1651132"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The first one is a statement - i did not see an action movie. The second one is more of a lead into - the action movie I saw...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a glaring contradiction, and you can't even try and pass that off as being comprehensible by anyone but you, the originator of the "sentance"
Anyway, I really don't care. I just disagree with your posts in general, so I'm happy to condense it to that and leave it be.
I saw the trailer and I was not shocked at all to hear about a babies umbilicable cord being severed by a gunshot. It sounded like an absurd, violent, completely unrealistic and intentionally B-grade action movie. I think you just failed to understand the trailers. The name alone says what kind of action movie it is. It's named Shoot 'Em Up for god's sake.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
I couldn't watch all of it. It really wasn't good. The action is something you have seen a thousand times before, and one liners, well you see them every day, even if they are intentional or not.
Comments
favorite shot:
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>the boom-up as he's walking through the railway tracks and all the bodies of the parachute-clad victims are strewn about the area.</span>
"Are you serious?"
"It's the safest place in the world."
Who the hell cuts an umbilical cord by shooting at it. On top of that without clamping it. Both the baby and the mother will bleed to death. I would like to see someone cut a guarden hose with that gun.
I won't even start talking about all the movement the baby was subjected too. If it was a real newborn baby, his head would have popped off.
I'm a manager at a movie theater, as such, I am subject to the complaints of movie patrons, and the only people who have complained, and with the arguments you used, are women.
It's not supposed to be realistic, it's an insane, super crazy action movie. It's the kind of movie that's not about the story, but rather the mindless shooting violence and the interaction between the protagonist (Clive Owen) and the antagonist (Paul Giamatti).
It even has a good lesson, eat carrots, they're good for your eyesight.
I guess it is one of those movies where you need to be prepared for it. Like Master and Commander, for example. With it, people ######ed because they expected to see and action movie, instead they got an adventure movie.
With Shoot 'Em Up, I expected to see an action movie, but the movie trailer did not hint anything of what I saw in the movie theater.
I think you're just the same kind of person who claimed Crank was too pointlessly violent and sexual, when it's just the point of the movie. They're meant to be low-brow kill everything in sight kind of movies. And disconnecting an umbilical cord via gunshot sounds pretty damn awesome.
but it pears that you are young at the moment, and thus unable to comprehend the umbilical cord situation. Maybe in 7 to 10 years, when you are about my age, your views will differ.
And I don't see how the trailer could have failed to convey what the movie was. It's one of the only movies I've ever seen in a theater with absolutely no freaking clue what the rough story was. None, Zip, Nada.
I knew there would be Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti, and a lot of gun fights. That was it. And it delivered.
I can't help but laugh at this. I don't understand how you can possibly take the movie seriously, or how you can claim that it wasn't an action movie.
The fact that it was so absurd is what makes it so funny and enjoyable to watch. Oh well, I guess if you're going to get caught up not liking a few initial seconds of the movie, I can see how you would be distracted throughout the rest of it.
I did not say that it was not an action movie!
The villains were over-the-top cartoony evil. I mean, <span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>harvesting babies for bone marrow</span>? The fights were pretty dull as well. There were a few cool parts here and there, but most of it was stupid, <span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>especially in the gun factory with all the strings</span>.
Who the hell cuts an umbilical cord by shooting at it. On top of that without clamping it. Both the baby and the mother will bleed to death. I would like to see someone cut a guarden hose with that gun.
I won't even start talking about all the movement the baby was subjected too. If it was a real newborn baby, his head would have popped off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I understand what cutting an umbilical cord would do if you did it too early. Both mother and child would bleed to death, doctors wait until it goes limp and all the fluids have all but drained. I also understand your concern for a newborn child, however, the only sequences where a newborn was actually used was in the close ups. Later on, it's completely obvious that either they were using a CG baby or an animatronic one with elements of CG. I don't believe any director is stupid enough to be throwing babies through the air on set. It also makes sense that having a child on the way and seeing this kind of graphic content can upset you. Just to clarify, this entire movie was an act of fiction meant for entertainment purposes. If certain scenes in the movie disturb you then it simply wasn't meant to tailor to your demographic.
By that end, every person is entitled to their own opinion.
By that end, every person is entitled to their own opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
* I did not say that the movie was a reality. Thus I do not associate it or compare it to my life. Unless it is promoted as documentary or based on real facts it is understood that the medium is a fiction. Other wise If that was the case than I won't go to work, but I will be walkign through the streets watching people shoot each other.
* Of course they would not use a real baby and throw it around. It would be as if someone walked to another person and shot them, then get away with it when they say - "oh it was for a movie". A movie, a book, or any other fiction does not justify the loss of a human life or jeopardizing it in any way. Any sane and rational person will understand that.
The baby, BTW, looked more like a doll.
My comments extend in the borders of a movie reality and its semi-relation to real life reality and to an extent where the scenes somewhat make some sense.
Internet arguments are a$$ though. Some are funny, but a$$ in each and every way <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--coloro:#333333--><span style="color:#333333"><!--/coloro-->* not a typo<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
"With Shoot 'Em Up, I expected to see an action movie"
- that implies that you didn't see an action movie.
On a side note I seriously thought that you were ESL. Then I saw you're from the US...gotta proofread if I'm going to be on the same level as you. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
The meaning of this sentence - "With Shoot 'Em Up, I expected to see an action movie." differs from the meaning of this sentence- "With Shoot 'Em Up, I expected to see an action movie, but the movie trailer did not hint anything of what I saw in the movie theater."
The first one is a statement - i did not see an action movie.
The second one is more of a lead into - the action movie I saw, wasn't the one I expected. - i saw an action comedy; action parody; a crappie, distasteful action movie. i.e. i did not see the action movie i expected.
No argument that it was an action movie. Just not the type of action movie I expected.
Is ESL another gamer or an abbreviation for something?
English as a Second Language
The second one is more of a lead into - the action movie I saw...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a glaring contradiction, and you can't even try and pass that off as being comprehensible by anyone but you, the originator of the "sentance"
Anyway, I really don't care. I just disagree with your posts in general, so I'm happy to condense it to that and leave it be.
I said this: With Shoot 'Em Up, I expected to see an action movie, but the movie trailer did not hint anything of what I saw in the movie theater.
Two different statements.
I did not say that Shoot 'Em Up was not an action movie. I said that the movie trailer did not hint of what kind of action movie Shoot 'Em Up is.