Give 'em Hell, Malone (2009)

Such a frustrating disappointment

Lack of good storyline.

Good concept, poorly executed.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

I want to believe that this tries to be a rather naive homage to Noir films with a sense of humor. It has all the ingredients of a Noir film except one: a good story! Everything is predictable, cliché after cliché, and the feeling is that the formal part of this film was much more important that what it tries to describe. It has elements from comics and the visuals are rather good, which makes this m,movie watchable if you want some fun, but do not try to take it seriously.Another disappointing was the acting, which always seems odd and forced.So watch it, have fun, and forget it!

Russell Mulcahy(Highlander)directs this bloody gangster opus which follows Thomas Jane as he works his way through the crime syndicate of Gregory Harrison, over a toy elephant(!)found in a steel case. The elephant is known throughout the movie as "the meaning of love." Jane is costumed in 40s Bogie attire as the hard-to-kill Malone, having to stay one step ahead of Harrison and his hired killers, Ving Rhames(as Boulder)and the absolutely insane Doug Hutchison(as Matchstick, notorious for burning his parents alive, narrowly escaping the house, suffering hideous burns on his own face in the process). The eye candy of the movie is Elsa Pataky(striking in blood red lipstick), sliding smoothly into the sultry Film Noir moll role, as Evelyn, whose motivations remain suspect as she asks Malone to help free her kidnapped brother, killed by another assassin, a Japanese girl named Mauler(Chris Yen). French Stewart shows up as a bad lounge comic who also works as a stool pigeon for Harrison and ends up on Malone's bad side for almost getting him(and his alcoholic mom)killed. Rhames only works for Harrison because the crime lord pays to keep Boulder's wife alive on life-support. GIVE 'EM HELL MALONE is a homage to those detective noir films, where the film's hero is a flawed man you only root for because everyone else is so evil. Malone is always having to constantly look over his shoulder for either a knife to his back or bullets aimed in his direction at all times. Even Evelyn can not be trusted. Jane's Malone is the usual tough-guy archetype, good with a gun, takes a licking and keeps on ticking. The film sure as hell opens with a bang as Malone attains the case with the elephant for his boss, Murphy(Leland Orser), annihilating a whole army of Harrison's men with plenty of Hong Kong John Woo balletic gunplay, bodies torn to bloody shreds as bullets damage and destroy in grand style. This would make an ideal double header with the equally ultra-violent, cartoony, gratuitous crime actioner, SHOOT 'EM UP. Easily the most entertaining character in the movie is Matchstick because of how batsh#t crazy he is(funny is how he progressively becomes more worse for wear due to his inability to finish Malone off, his face set on fire on more than one occasion).

I'm not looking to get into a slagging match with fans of this film - these are just my opinions on WHY this film is what it is - a lame straight to DVD 'bad copy' of a copy of previously played characters, genres, ideas, styles and clichés.1- not only did the matchstick character look stupid but he was a complete embarrassment to watch. for some reason he appeared to think he was heath ledger from the dark knight. a silly character who was VERY poorly written, at times it seemed as though he needn't be in the film at all. in fact they may have well had him ware a t-shirt saying "look at me ooooh im pissing all over heath's grave and the director seems to think this is just fine" 2- the pan-zooms on the buildings in the intro had no business, one long zoom to the building in question would have been better than panning in on the corners of random structures.3- the film blew it's load all over 'shoot em up' from the get-go. no brood no tension just bad splatter supposedly yealding a 'wow' factor.4- i couldn't figure out, at times, if this film was parodying itself as being a bad imitation or if the director was REALLY under the impression that they were pulling this off.5- the modern 'retro-noir' thing was done supreme by Sin City and not too long ago KILLED by the savage poo that was 'The Spirit'. this film came off as a very bad imitation of an imitation but without the visual effects budget.6- throwing in one cool 50's car and a mustang does not make everything OK.7- horrific cgi, inconsistent sound editing, cheesy effects.8- the casting agent wishes they could have afforded Scarlet.J instead of Elsa Pataky.9- Ving Rhames is an excellent actor and deserves better. i last saw him in 'bringing out the dead' within which he was excellent.10- the first 37 minutes felt like an hour.11- the cinematography was cliché deluxe.12- the script was cliché deluxe, not even in the self-aware sense.13- the titles looked cheap.14- the 'innocent looking sexy Japanese girl' with the skills of an assassin - yawn yawn yawn - Kill Bill owned it and Bitch Slap rinsed it - BORING. and her look of 'recollection' about her life as she straddles malone on the stage, is so amateur, it was hard to watch. surely the director is supposed to guard the editor from including such 'performances' and out-right horrible 1st year acting school delivery.+ as far as i know even the most insistent of sound designers do not believe that a sword being swished through the air makes a sound like it's grazing another metal object.15- all the flashbacks of malone watching his family getting murdered never happened then? and when he finally, by some kind of voodoo manages to contact them by phone he chooses to hang up. yeah right.16- the colour grading was horrific, blacks far too crushed in many shots and a vast number were miss-matched.17- the entire picture was obviously(?) shot on a digital camera, the genesis? or maybe even . . . an SLR? sure as *beep* wasn't done using a RED ONE. if this turns out in fact to not have been shot using the mankest digi-cam i would be in shock and awe. if anything this film is either TRYING to destroy the rep of digital cinema, or has been directly employed by kodak to do so.---- all said and done this is a BAD rip-off of a REALLY BAD film - The Spirit. i say 'rip-off' but it doesn't even then come close to something that was *beep* in the first place. even the key-art was a rip-off of a bazillion other artworks/DVD covers/posters. Sin City isn't god on wheels but it sure did set a damn high standard for any modern 'retro-noir' style film.in conclusion this film is a DELUXE CACK-FEST and the bastard son of Cliché SUPREME. it's not hard to see why it went straight to DVD and it's a DAMN shame that Russell Mulcahy - director of Highlander - has this to show as his latest work.

There is much to like about Give 'em Hell Malone. It is a deliciously gorgeous and entertaining comic book noir, which manages to be both exiting and funny. This is the film that Sam Raimi's Darkman could've been if it was a bit smarter. The plot is a bit convoluted, but you end up not really caring. It is a fun ride, and is also the first time since Deep Blue Sea in which Thomas Jane has actually impressed me. On account of his lack of variety and charisma, Jane is only cut out for soft spoken/slick persona, individualist characters. Mr. Malone qualifies. It should also be noted that Give 'em hell Malone is occasionally played for laughs. The script throws out a lot of one liners and a few quirks, which helps turn the smile on my face into a giggle. It ain't a terribly long movie, and by the end, you may find yourself exited for more. I guess the makers are exited too because Give 'em Hell Malone ends with a 'To Be Continued'Hard to know if and when a second part will get the green light any time soon, but I would certainly embrace it. If you can find Give 'em hell Malone, you should check it out.