Guns Akimbo

This odd New Zealand film will undoubtedly divide audiences, but it works best if viewed as an ultra-violent, very dark comedy (rather than as a serious action film), with Daniel Radcliffe’s commitment to the absurdity of the concept doing a lot of the film’s heavy lifting.

Premise: Frustrated computer programmer Miles (Daniel Radcliffe) crosses the wrong people when he posts on the forum for Skizm, an illegal, citywide, livestreaming deathmatch competition. The gang behind it all abduct Miles and bolt pistols to each of his hands, before forcing him to compete against Skizm’s undefeated champion, Nix (Samara Weaving).

Review:

I have no doubt that there will be a large number of viewers who will hate Guns Akimbo. Its plot makes little sense, its premise is pretty preposterous, and it’s very loud and very, very violent. It is, to put it mildly, likely to be an acquired taste. And yet … if you can sync up with its unusual sense of humour and tongue in cheek tone, Guns Akimbo can be surprisingly funny and surprisingly fun.

Much of the film’s success is down to Daniel Radcliffe, who carries the film and is practically in every scene. At the start of the film, Daniel Radcliffe’s character Miles is a bit of a non-entity, trapped in a dead-end job that he doesn’t like, dumped by an ex-girlfriend who he still secretly pines for, spending his evenings getting drunk on his own at home and trolling online trolls for kicks. But when Miles is abducted by the gang behind the Skizm deathmatches and they bolt his palms and fingers to two pre-loaded semi-automatic pistols (just go with it...), he not only finds his life is on the line as Nix (played by Samara Weaving) hunts him down, but also that it’s all being livestreamed for people’s entertainment.

“...it knows it’s ridiculous & it leans into its over-the-top tone…”

Guns Akimbo thankfully does not take itself too seriously (unlike, say, Unhinged, which was weighed down by its own sense of self-importance) - Guns Akimbo knows it’s ridiculous and it leans into its over-the-top tone. So yes, there is an element of social commentary in relation to the morality of “reality TV” and the people who watch other people’s misery for their own entertainment – but those elements are treated very lightly and never in a way which threatens to overshadow the film’s sense of fun.

This is why I say the film works first and foremost as a comedy, rather than an action flick. The action scenes themselves are decent enough, if a tad repetitive and pedestrian, but it’s with its sense of humour that the film really comes alive. It has everything from slapstick (like Daniel Radcliffe’s attempts to dial a phone or open a door with guns bolted to his hands), to action/comedy one-liners, to absurd comic characters like Rhys Darby’s homeless man. And through it all, Daniel Radcliffe is the comic glue who somehow manages to make all of the various tones and shades in the film come together and coalesce into an enjoyable whole.

“…the film’s ultra-violence is done with its tongue firmly in its cheek…”

This is very much Daniel Radcliffe’s film, but the flipside of this is that the rest of cast don’t really have as much to do. Samara Weaving arguably gets the second most screen time, but her character Nix is very much a concept rather than a three dimensional character, although Samara Weaving still manages to make Nix a memorable force of nature. The lack of character depth is equally applicable to Natasha Liu Bordizzo’s portrayal of Nova, Miles’ ex-girlfriend and the object of his current lovelorn obsession, but at least the film does take her character in a few unexpected directions. But ultimately, if Guns Akimbo is a comedy (rather than an action thriller), it’s perhaps not surprising that all of the supporting cast are essentially caricatures and archetypes rather than fully realised characters, as personified by Rhys Darby’s enjoyably over-the-top performance midway through the film.

Despite being a comedy, Guns Akimbo is an extremely dark comedy, and this is reflected in the extreme levels of violence that the film portrays. Daniel Radcliffe’s character has guns bolted to his hands in quite a visceral manner, and the film has too many brutal and gruesome deaths to court. And yet … it’s all done with its tongue firmly in its cheek and a mischievous glint in its eye, so the extreme violence never feels gratuitous or sadistic. Nevertheless, it will still clearly be too extreme for many viewers.

“…a darkly comic, over-the-top delight…”

Overall, after a fairly predictable and underwhelming first act (at least, predictable in the context of the absurdity of the film’s premise), the movie manages to throw in some genuinely unexpected developments later on, and the whole film is leavened by the strong vein of dark humour that runs throughout. Make no mistake, more people will dislike this film than enjoy it, but for those who can get onto its wavelength, it’s a darkly comic, over-the-top delight.