Mean Guns (1997)

The movie has a very cheap vibe, the action is shot in a very trashy way, the movie is clearly on a tight budget but all this is to be expected from an Albert Pyun movie. This isn't as good as Cyborg with JCVD which is glorious schlock but it is up there with Pyun's best. Christopher Lambert shot his scenes in two days and it shows, I am curious as to how long this whole movie took to shoot, it couldn't have taken much longer as Lambert appears in half the movie at least, of course in some scenes where action is meant to take place around his it can be seen that his scene was shot separately from the others. Despite all this it's very entertaining and the promise is pretty clever and fun, makes you think how much better the movie could have been if it had a bigger budget. The only downsides are that it could have been 10 minutes shorter as well as the ending which I won't spoil which was disappointing although well set up.

I'll be honest with you. When I first saw Mean Guns back in 2007, I was not a fan of the film. I thought that the film was horrible. I felt the plot was nonexistent, the dialogue was cheesy and nonsensical, and the gunfights were poorly choreographed. At the time, I felt that the odd soundtrack and the quality of the acting were the film's strongest suit. The best performances in the film were from Christopher Lambert and Michael Halsey, playing polar opposites. I knew the film wasn't meant to be Citizen Kane, but I was disappointed. As a result, I didn't watch the film again for years.HOWEVER, my opinion has completely changed. I saw this film a few years later, and boy was I surprised!The entire film is a social commentary on violence in film, as well as the typical Hollywood romanticizing of hit men that are goodhearted and trying to redeem themselves. Michael Halsey's Marcus and Christopher Lambert's Lou are perfect examples of this archetype. When you first see Marcus in the film, you don't like him as he kills a detective and kidnaps Cam. Solemn faced and soft spoken, his character is slowly fleshed out, to the point to where you believe he is the 'good guy'. Lou is a likable character. He's dressed like he is out of a John Woo film, has charisma, with a childlike playful quality to him. He admits in the film that he asked to be invited for the $3 million, and later you find out that he is doing this for his daughter. As the movie progressed, you find that Lou is insane. He loves laughing at and killing the other 'bad guys'. But, you root for him. After all, he is likable, and they are killers. Then, you see that he is having hallucinations of a child, you later find out was someone he accidentally killed. But, you have sympathy for him. Marcus on the other hand, was there at his employer's behest. He was Ice-T's murderous enforcer, and you presume he is the antagonist, as he murdered a cop and kidnapped the female lead. It should be noted that the female lead is the only one in the film who is not a killer, but merely a witness for the prosecution. Once the shooting starts, Marcus saves Cam's life, and you begin believing that this is a tale of redemption for the 'kind-hearted hit-man'.By the end of the film, the point of these characters becomes clear. Marcus towards the end picked up several pictures of a dead man's children, reminding the audience that killers or not, these were people with families, and the families are also victims by Marcus' hand. Marcus at the end asks Cam for the photo evidence she had of the Syndicate, with the photos revealing how Marcus coldly strangled a man to death, and that he worked for a man (Ice-T) who was not above pointing a 12 gauge at a Senator to get his way. As a result, the audience is reminded that these are not good men with redeemable qualities, like Hollywood would have you believe. This is why at the end Marcus asks her if he killed dozens of people but had good reasons for doing so, would excuses make it right? Another example is immediately after this, Cam asks Marcus about why he helped her, and he responds by saying it "doesn't matter anymore". This is because contrary to Hollywood's principles, redemption of his character doesn't matter, and he knows it. He just wants to do one good thing, even though it won't excuse his actions. With Lou, you see how demented he is by the end of the film. He is a mentally unstable drug addict, who gets off on murder. We sympathize with him wanting to help his daughter, but realize that he is just as dangerous. He admits that his daughter was raped, which possibly led to his breakdown. The point is that whether he was mentally damaged from killing a child or from his daughter's rape, it doesn't matter. He is a rabid dog. This is illustrated when his daughter of all people, asks Marcus to kill her dad.I believe the style, dialogue, lack of blood, and the upbeat music were intentional. The stylish shootouts were similar to John Woo's and Robert Rodriguez's films. The dialogue and 'Mexican standoffs' were Tarantinoesque. The upbeat music was similar to music played in Rodriguez's Mariachi films. This film as much pays homage to them and their films, as it does criticize them. I felt the lack of blood was to make the killings look 'G- rated', cool and cartoonish, especially when paired with the happy sounding Mambo music. By the end, I felt this was a satire of Hollywood's typical portrayal of violence. Once we see who Marcus REALLY is, with him viewing his and his employer's depraved acts in photographs, it sinks in. When it is admitted that Lou became crazy because his daughter was raped and he killed a child, it sinks in. When his daughter doesn't feel safe and wants him dead, it sinks in again that they're not good men. Violence has touched their lives and made them inhuman. You can disguise the perverseness of violence with upbeat music and 'family friendly' shootouts. But when we see the victims of these 'heroes', it shows us the reality that Hollywood doesn't. These men are not heroes. The heroes and the violence are not cool and stylish. They were falsely glamorized to make a point. I commend Albert Pyun on this film. This is a film he should be praised for. 10/10

I remember watching this on VHS with a friend who was obsessed with Christopher Lambert and thinking it was quite interesting and I would like to see it again. And walking through a Collector's shop there it was, the dumb title grinning at you on a now oversized looking VHS cover. I made the purchase. Let's whack it in the player and see if this was actually worth the $3 Australian I paid for it.So we start with Ice T (he's in this) a major player in a crime syndicate who's invited 100 hardened criminals (and one seemingly innocent girl), who have all wronged his syndicate, to fight to the death inside a prison facility that is to be opened the following day. Only the last three (at least they resisted the temptation to say "There can be only one") will walk away with $10 million. "What if we don't want to play?" one of the criminals asks. "THEN DON'T." Ice T answers shooting him in the chest.This is a pretty intelligent film given the subject matter. There are a lot of alliances made and the fighting, while artsy, does try to trend towards realism. Though there are a few scenes where director Albert Pyun (B-movie go to guy) can't help himself. The ending is surprisingly well thought out and satisfying. The main issue here is the lighting, it's usually far too bright and the walls are all white and grey. Darkness would have worked better. It would be interesting to see what David Fincher or Quentin Tarantino (for very different reasons) would have done with this.This is a good little movie. Decent story and passable performances. Smarter than I thought it would be. Hard to get hold of, but worth a watch.

This movie is a classic of film noir. Just because it has a low budget and a noted B movie director doesn't mean that he didn't create a bit of art out of what could have been schlock.Give it a chance if you like intense movies about the nature of violence or just a good shoot 'em up testosterone-fest that allows the few females a chance to shine as well. This movie is just a completely under-appreciated gem. Christopher Lambert does psycho well and there are quite a few of the usual suspects in this director's movies, but they all come together to do a good job.Try a few of the other of this director's works such as Omega Doom with Rutger Hauer and Tina Cote from this movie shows up as well, or try Nemesis which is a kind of terminator knockoff, but has a lot more edge and again some of the same actors.