To be fair, the style-homage adapted by Malone has an even bigger problem that trumps the familiarity: consistency. In the film's opening scene, Malone (Thomas Jane) is in the process of stealing a briefcase from a hotel safe before a thug grabs it from him and hops (er, falls) out a window. Shortly thereafter, the two characters embark on a short car chase, in Malone's extremely retro 1952 Chop Top Buick Straight 8 (thanks, IMDb) and in a distractingly modern-looking Ford van, which the baddie (whom the subtitles refer to as 'Stache) steals from a modern-looking delivery boy on a modern-looking street. The whole movie is like this: the costumes and some of the vehicles are obviously retro, while the fringes -- extra-wide fringes, at that -- are totally 21st century, from the background details to the cheap, digital-looking cinematography. Sure, it's a low-budget movie, and I know that cutting the pastiche probably negates the film's artistic reason to exist, but if the movie isn't going to adhere to its own style, the filmmakers might as well not bother.

In any case, though, that overwhelming sense of "been there, done that" is still a close second on any list of reasons to drop the act, as the sense of disappointment starts with Jane's opening "hard-boiled" voiceover and continues throughout every scene of the movie, as characters chase Jane and the aforementioned briefcase in various directions. I've enjoyed Jane in the few things I've seen him in prior to this (particularly The Mist), but the slight voice he's adopting paired with the script's lame-duck wit really doesn't do anyone any favors, especially not in a world where similar neo-noirs like Brick or even Lucky Number Slevin exist and are just as accessible on DVD (not to say anything of the actual classics). As the movie continued, I became convinced that Malone would have been more successful as a darker, grittier, and straightforward modern movie, with Jane playing more of a dickish criminal-for-hire than a would-be private eye.

Beyond the dialogue, some of Malone's poor writing is pretty basic. There's a scene between Murph (Leland Orser), the guy who gives Malone his work, and a burn-scarred psychopath named Matchstick (Doug Hutchison), in which Matchstick is threatening Murph in order to glean some information from him. Matchstick's method is to spray Murph with kerosene and wave a lighter dangerously close to him, which is terrifying enough that Murph caves in. However, the scene is capped with Murph randomly insulting Matchstick as the guy is walking out the door, not because it makes sense for Murph to suddenly grow a backbone, but because writer Mark Hosack and director Russell Mulcahy find it easier to resist logic than the desire to pay off what they've set up, no matter how uncharacteristic it might require someone to be. In this specific example, it doesn't help that Matchstick is one of those intensely annoying, pseudo-intellectual, talky villains, and that the resulting pyrotechnics are crafted using obvious computer graphics, but the entirety of the scene is disappointing.

The only real signs of life here are Eileen Ryan as Malone's mother Gloria, and Ving Rhames as right-hand-man Boulder. Ryan actually seems to inhabit her role to some degree, unlike most of the other cast members, who are merely playing up the movie's style. The bond between Malone and Gloria seems genuine thanks to Ryan, and she even gets to play a scene or two drunk (she's good) and deliver the movie's title command. Rhames, conversely, isn't doing anything particularly special, I'm just a fan of the actor's cadence and attitude. Like his one-time Pulp Fiction co-stars Christopher Walken and Samuel L. Jackson, Rhames has a familiar presence that the viewer comes to expect, a low-key cool that just makes the guy fun to watch. Again, no offense to Jane, because he seems like a good actor and a nice guy, but I wonder how much more I'd like Malone if Rhames played the title character.

The irony of Give 'Em Hell, Malone is that its obvious lack of inspiration comes from trying to be inspired. This is a movie that's groan-worthy when it follows the beaten path and annoying when it tries to subvert it. There's a scene late in the movie where Malone is tied to a chair and forced to watch an elaborate dance routine that quickly turns violent. It reminded me of a scene in The Spirit, a movie that everyone apparently hated but I only thought was deeply flawed. At least The Spirit was visually arresting; Miller's movie was something to look at. Give 'Em Hell, Malone is not.

The Video and Audio
As I mentioned in the body of the review, Give 'Em Hell, Malone is clearly a modern movie. It appears to have been filmed on the cheap and then had the color and contrast tweaked in post, in the hopes that the change would give the film more of a "look", to distract them from the budget-strained production design. Unfortunately, the effect does not agree with DVD transfers, as this 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen presentation looks blown-out and extremely rough, filled with compression artifacts and mosquito noise. The biggest problem is the contrast; had it been right, the colors might have been vivid rather than harsh. Instead, the blacks are too black, obliterating detail, and the whites are occasionally blinding, and always give the film a blocky, digital look that's unappealing.

Dolby Digital 5.1 doesn't sound like much, because aside from an opening shootout, there really isn't all that much going on that requires more than the front three channels. Most of the movie is dialogue, there's probably more thick punches than bullets, and occasionally there's a touch of awkward score (like the sax that bursts in at one point, when Elsa Pataky does something or other that's meant to be sexy). Dolby Digital 2.0 audio and English and Spanish subtitles are also provided.

The Extras
A series of interviews with Thomas Jane, Elsa Pataky and Doug Hutchison (19:34 total) is the only bonus feature. The interviewer is quite hard to hear, but these fairly cursory chats are subtitled in English, so you know that Jane's interview is being held up by a car alarm beeping, while he smokes his gigantic cigar. Jane, for one, seems mildly irritated to have to answer the questions, although once he gets into an answer he seems enthused by the material. Interestingly, one of the questions points out that the film was shot in Spokane, which is four hours from where I live. For some reason, these bits are shot handheld, and the person filming often likes to focus in on little things like people's eyes and whatnot, which is sort of bizarre.

The movie's original theatrical trailer rounds things out, while additional trailers for Baby on Board, Night Train, Camille and Staten Island are accessible from the main menu.

Conclusion
I had high hopes for Malone going in, but they dropped off sharply before even the introductory action sequence had ended. If this was one of those movies where the first 10 minutes were available online, I doubt anyone would actually bother to see it. It's not that the movie is particularly terrible, just that it lets down the viewer's expectations in all the wrong areas. Despite a couple of good supporting performances, sadly, I'd have to advise the viewer to skip it. Even if you're a big French Stewart fan.