I wonder what the '.45', that is the film's title, is actually referring to? Is it in reference to the guns one character sells? Could it equate to the fraction of people that see this film and will actually like it? Maybe it could refer to the overall rating out of ten most people that see it might give it. Whatever it means, .45 is a bit of a disaster – a multi-genre piece trying to incorporate crime, comedy, noir, romance and some kind of bizarre feminist undertone, but really failing on all fronts. As it was, the film had a run in the cinemas of Greece, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and Mexico. Boy, those lucky sons-of-guns. For everyone else, it was direct to DVD and it shows.
The cover for the film sees its lead character, named Kate (Jovovich), sitting, indeed leaning up against a wall, in a leather jacket; short skirt and leggings. She holds a pistol and looks just off centre beyond the onlooker. She's there and you can see it; she wants you to notice her and she has this look in her eye as if to say 'I know you're there, but I'm not acknowledging you'. She remains alluring in an odd pose and yet aware of her sexuality as she refrains from looking directly at us. This suggested to me a female character of great power; of great awareness and of considerable sense. It suggested a film that had could have ventured down the route of noir with Jovovich playing a femme fatale role. Too bad it ends up being a direct to cable feature, reminiscent of a 1990's low-budget erotic thriller, about how, in fact, stupid and submissive a woman can be at times that present them with the chance to be strong and independent.
"So?", I hear you say "The film wasn't what you were expecting it to be – that's still no reason to dislike it". Well actually, it is. The film clearly wants to fall into that realm of noir. It's told in flashback format; it is narrated; it revolves around scummy criminal lowlifes in an urban location and it centres around a protagonist that delicately tiptoes on that line between moral/immoral as well as right/wrong. Towards the end, the film moves up a gear and into a fully fledged noir infused tale of seduction and betrayal when certain events transpire with Kate instigating it all. Trouble is, these characters are supposed to 'use' their sexuality, not 'give' it away and allow themselves to play a submissive.
The films begins with a real regular annoyance of mine in films: the dreaded 'piece to camera'; the 'look how post-modern we're being' tactic. Jovovich stands there, grinning and laughing in a childish fashion about how 'big' her ex-partner was. I could've handled it once, as a setting up of the past situation but we get several other characters deliver their own opinions on said character's ex-partner. The ex-partner in question is Al (Macfadyen), played by an actor whom, believe it or not, once played the role of Orson Welles. It's established Al and Kate live together in New York with Al selling guns and Kate, who pretty much hangs around and pleasured him when he wants.
The first third is a non-event. People deliver pieces to the camera, which is just tiresome; characters describe sex acts, talk of sex and engage in annoying, old-hat pulpy dialogue sequences like when two women talk about why 'men are a bit like snow' – something to do with the ambiguity revolving around 'how many inches you get' and 'how long it'll last.' Not funny, not clever. Half an hour has gone by and we have, quite literally, got nothing to go on. Smack on the thirty minute mark we have a scene in which three leering men eye up some women in a bar and make their move. Nothing yet.
Then the film has the audacity to pull the rug from under our feet by presenting a wildly out of place scene in which it transforms into something else entirely. Oh right, so all this meandering was leading to this, was it? Now it's a tale about the aftermath of such events and how women can leave a relationship; stand up for themselves; get a new life. Actually, no – apparently. Apparently Kate takes this chance to re-confess her love for Al, despite what transpires; she takes this chance to actually go back to him and restart the relationship, only I guess we're supposed to sympathise with her a tad more because she doesn't enjoy the sex as much. What's equally hilarious is the incidence during which Al delivers a piece to camera of his own, asking us to excuse him.
A user on the 'plot summary' page here on IMDb says Kae is 'smart, stylish, and self-confident.' No she's not! She's an idiot who blushes when she talks of male genitalia; cannot think for herself and is only injected with these personality traits when the narrative demands she needs them. This is for the final third, when the film needs one character to be a bisexual female that likes Kate; needs another one to be a former victim at the hands of a male to fuel hatred and needs a male that both hates certain characters and likes Kate at once to instigate the finale. The film is a mess. It carries the same checklist that cheap, direct to DVD movies have: some nudity; little bit of sex; splashes of violence; maybe some girl on girl action; everyone's a caricature; etc. It's bad, bad, bad and surprisingly dull. I just kept wishing everyone grow up a little: get out more; explore; live a little; go and meet some nice people for a change; find a hobby. What might've been an interesting piece really just ends up as Bound meets Nil By Mouth.