IMDB Bottom 100: No's 66 & 65: Nine Lives and Brothers in Arms

Number 66: Nine Lives (2002)

Yeah, Paris Hilton. You know this is going to be a classy movie.

Hilton plays a rich, self-obsessed bimbo in this horror movie. She plays herself basically. She goes to a Scottish manor with a group of other equally obnoxious but British friends (there’s nine of them in total, hence the title). We get to see their boring conversations, with some awkward editing, all culminating in them saying their old latin school motto which they say means ‘To follow the exploits of our ancestors’ (it doesn’t, I checked). Whatever is going to kill them all can’t come soon enough.

It would seem there was an old 14^th century warrior called Murray who was former owner of the mansion and has now returned to reclaim his property after it had been seized by the English.

Now the problem you will immediately spot with this is that shots of the interior and exterior will tell you the house is nowhere near that old.

Luckily, we don’t have to put up with Miss Hilton for too long as she’s the first to be killed off around the 20 minute mark. Murray takes over the body of one of the group and starts to kill the group off. However, if the body Murray is currently in is killed he transfers to the body of his killer so he can carry on. To be fair, it’s a pretty decent plot device and a good twist on the unstoppable monster theme. So the survivors have to figure out a way to stop the ghost without killing it.

One of them does survive to the end, the Scottish one. He suggests it’s only because he’s Scottish he was spared and Murray just wanted to kill the English ones and Paris Hilton (well, why not?). There is no evidence to support this though other than the Scots undying hatred for the English. And Paris Hilton.

The film is probably guilty by association and the cast is pretty obnoxious and unlikable but I did like the idea they were put in a situation where they couldn’t kill the enemy without becoming the monster themselves. Apart from that, it’s pretty standard horror but none of the kills are particularly creative which is what these kind of movies really thrive on.

It’s ok. Better than most the Friday the 13^th movies anyway.

Number 65: Brothers in Arms (2005)

It’s different, that’s one thing you can say for Brothers in Arms. It is positively Tarantino-esque in its disregard for historical accuracy.

It’s set in the Old West and is centred round a gang planning a bank heist. They are most notable for being an almost all black gang (plus one Mexican and technically one of them is supposed to be half-native American), a rarity to see in a Western. You’d think race would play more into it but apart from one use of the n-word at the start, it doesn’t ever come up again. This is a far more multi-cultural community than you would expect in a western.

The gang itself is introduced in a Guy Ritchie style of cuts, explaining their skills and a bit about their backgrounds. So for example, there is Slim played by Jean Claude LaMarre (who is also writer and director) who is the smooth operator of the group able to talk his way out of any situation. The most notable member of the group for film and TV buffs is the Reverend, played by Raymond Cruz better known for his role as Tuco in Breaking Bad.

The clothing the gang wear can’t go unmentioned, the gang all clad out in frilly black leather and denim jeans. Mara, the only female member of the group, appears to be wearing Jennifer Garner’s Elektra outfit from Daredevil. This is very distracting and breaks all suspension of disbelief. The only person dressed appropriately to the period is the Reverend, which just makes it harder to swallow. Tarantino plays fast and loose with history but at least you can buy his characters as being from that period, the same cannot be said here.

So, to the story. As mentioned earlier, the gang are planning to rob a bank in a cliché cardboard cut-out Old West town. It always bothers me when I see those towns: you have the saloon, a few stores 

but where are the houses? Where do all these people live?

The town is controlled by Mr Driscoll, played by David Carradine (yeah, sorry, another Tarantino connection). He is essentially a Mr Potter character who owns everything in town. Unfortunately, there was no George Bailey in this town to stop him and it’s now been renamed Driscollville.

The gang’s plans get messed up when they kill Driscoll’s son and he hires a gang of bounty hunters to kill them. They hide out in the hills for a sequence that goes on far too long before returning to rob the bank. I appreciate the director is trying to flesh out their characters but it could have been done in half the time this takes.

They go to rob the bank but get trapped inside with hostages. This is where the movie just stops dead. We know they aren’t getting out of this so now we’re just killing time until the climax.

A female sheriff comes to try and get them to come out. We learn she had a prior relationship with Linc, the leader of the gang. Until that point, gender aside, she came across like every world weary sheriff that exists in every western. She abandons her duties and tries to help them escape but is gunned down by Driscoll for her efforts.

The gangs’ numbers slowly get whittled down until it’s just Linc and his brother Kansas (played by rapper Kurrupt which explains the hip hop soundtrack). Linc makes the ultimate sacrifice so his brother can escape through a back window (why they didn’t do that earlier?). With his last bit of strength, Linc shoots Driscoll between the eyes. This would have been more dramatic if they had any interaction beforehand but they never spoke a word to each other in the whole film. It’s a shame really, as for the few minutes Carradine was on screen he was hugely entertaining. As if he knew this was a stupid movie and he was just having fun with it.

I suppose as a Western based around a black character that pays no heed to historical accuracy, I’m going to have to mention Django Unchained. Now Brothers in Arms came out several years before Django so it’s not a knock-off but how does it compare? Not very well you’ll be shocked to hear. As noted before, Quentin Tarantino plays fast and loose with history but you can buy into his characters and the stories are very enjoyable. You just can’t say the same here: the story is nothing special, the characters look out of time and they just aren’t all that interesting anyway.

Apart from Tuco, he’s always badass.