Watch Give 'em Hell, Malone For Free

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

The only reason I watched this was because the guy at the video store handed it to me and told me it was really good, and I would've looked like a wuss if I had thrown it back at him & rented "Sense and Sensibility" instead. I mean, it's tough enough renting a Hugh Grant flick without the added pressure.So I got back home feeling a bit conned & not expecting much. Boy was I surprised. From the first 30 seconds I could tell this was no ordinary action flick.Yes, as other reviewers have noted, this film is strongly rooted in film noir. But what makes it so interesting is that it's noir without the noir. Sure, we have the lantern-jawed, emotionless anti-hero who's everything we would expect from Bogie. We have the mysterious femme fatale and the late night saxophone music to add to the mood. But the visuals, pacing and presentation is something very fresh, very vibrant & colourful, and so over-the-top violent that you can't help but feel the strong contrast against the typical 40s film noir. This was deliberate on the part of the director, just like he deliberately throws in lots of playful anachronisms: 1940s cars driving alongside modern minivans, and old time cityscape that suddenly blends into modern streets (from what I understand, that's what the city of Spokane is really like), and the list goes on. Other interesting contrasts include the tough-as-nails hero who's loving mother drops in at unexpected times. The flow of this film is anything but predictable, and that's what really keeps you hooked.But my favourite part was the insane lineup of villains. It's so surreal, like something out of Dick Tracy. I particularly liked the character of "Matchstick", a deformed, psychotic sicko whom you gotta fall in love with. Then there's the cute/slutty lolita girl "Mauler" who can carve a man up faster than a ginsu knife commercial; yet she complains that she can't get a date. And lastly we have the incomparable Ving Rhames playing the cold-hearted assassin who slips into Gandhi-like moments of introspection and wisdom. What a wacky bunch! This is definitely a fun film. Even the excessive violence is so exaggerated you gotta love it. Here we have the best gore clichés in the business: the guy who gets hit in the mouth and spits a gallon of blood, the guy who gets knifed in the leg and gushes blood like a hose, and don't forget the best one... someone getting their heart ripped out of their chest while they're still breathing. There's a lot of tongue-in-cheek fun going here. It's almost like an action flick that makes fun of action flicks. But at the same time it's subtle enough that you can take it as a straightforward action flick. Either way, you're in for a wild ride.

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!

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.

As a big fan of film noir, The trailer grabbed my attention with some pretty entertaining visuals and some intense music.It took me about 25 minutes for my enthusiasm to dwindle. Once the feeling set in, I was unable to shake it off.Credit where credit is due, Thomas Jane deserves a pat on the back. With roughly 80 percent of screen time, I'm glad to say that he has the least cringe worthy moments of the movie. The odds of his accomplishment were stacked against him, since he is given nothing more to play with than a character that is riddled with more cliché's than the body count he racks up through the film.Very few other cast members came out of this with any dignity to their performances. Two that are worth mentioning are French Stewart, who plays a talentless club singer. The few scenes he has, are pure gold. The other performance that I thought had merit, came from Leland Orser. I have seen him a fair number of times playing less-than-stable parts and it was pleasing to know that he could play against the more colourful characters too.It is important for me to make it clear that I don't think any actor/actress was to blame for the lack of entertainment in this movie. The script was poorly written. Malone can be summed up in three words.Tough. Alcoholic. Vengeful These three things are hammered into the audience every minute from the establishing shot to the end credits.The character of Evelyn was used to contain about,7 stereotypes of character and plot devices that you would associate with the film genre. It made it impossible for the actress to connect with the audience and by the end you feel nothing for her. No anger, no love, just nothing.Again, the performance by Elsa Pataky gets two thumbs up for trying to play with the crap hand that she had been dealt. The problem comes from laziness in narrative structure.That is the sentiment that I have taken from this film, that the puppet masters behind this calamity were lazy. The best example I can pull from the movie was in the third act. Malone take out an adversary and there is one of the most poorly edited sequences I have seen in some time. I will not spoil the ending for you, but If you have the ability, watch the last (approx) 20 minutes, it should not be hard to find.