Hitman

dir: Xavier Gens
[img_assist|nid=732|title=Killing people is easy. Working your problems out without resorting to assassination is hard.|desc=|link=none|align=right|width=300|height=428]
It’s called Hitman. Use your imagination as to what it’s about, go on. I dare you, I double dare you.

It’s about a guy called 47 (Timothy Olyphant), bald and with a barcode on the back of his head, who travels the world at the behest of The Organisation, killing people for money. He’s very good at his job, as one would expect, since centring an action movie and a game franchise around a hitman who’s actually quite lazy and sloppy would seem to be counter-productive.

Varying from the game, 47’s origins are such that he was picked up as an orphan and trained ruthlessly by some macabre monk types before being unleashed upon the world. Orphans just cop it the worst every time, don’t they?

He is hired to take out the current Russian president, and does so, only to find that he is now a target, and that the Russian president seems to be fine despite having had his head JFKed with a high-powered sniper round.

Also, he alternately tries to protect and/or kill Nika (Olga Kurylenko) a delectable Russian working girl with a dragon tattoo on her face, who knows the truth about the president. At the same time, some Interpol agents led by a very tired looking Dougray Scott have been on 47’s trail for years, and are trying to get him, whilst The Organisation’s bald barcode-headed goons and the Russian FSB are also on the hunt.

But 47 is so good that they’ll never even get close. Despite trying to set itself up as something different from the recent rash of secret agent/action-type flicks, Hitman really comes across as a poor cousin version of the Bourne films, just with a guy with a shaved head in the lead, and with even less characterisation. The Bourne films at least are about a sociopath who’s trying to regain his humanity by unlearning his programming, whereas Hitman is about a sociopath who’s a bit sad about having grown up with a number for a name, but who doesn’t let anything stand in the way of his job, which is invariably killing people.

He can’t even bring himself to have sex with a hot Russian chick, because it would interfere with his mission. How screwed up are his priorities, eh?

I have to say that I find the lack of moral ambiguity refreshing. Sometimes you just want to see a guy doing what he does best, without any of the other frippery and moral hand-wringing. Not often, but occasionally.

Timothy Olyphant, who can act (most notably in the Deadwood series), and knows how to play a badass, looks like he’s having a ball in the role. And why wouldn’t he? They’re paying him big money to shave his head, fight goons and have hot Russian hookers grind against him. And all in the post-Soviet wonderland that is Mother Russia.

Well, not all, since they travel as far as Istanbul as well for a hit, but mostly it’s all set in Russia. It’s an interesting view of Russia, in that you get to see parts of it that usually are skipped in flicks of this ilk, especially since the vast majority of it is filmed in Bulgaria. And, citing the Bourne example before, the primary virtue this flick has over those is that they don’t use shaky handheld camera techniques throughout the flick’s duration, only during a few of the brawls.

Its lack did not bug me. As it is based on the game, they feel obligated to include details that would thrill about 1 per cent of the population, as in structuring set pieces along the lines of missions from the Hitman games, having him use some of the signature techniques (like syringe knockouts, clothing changes, dual baller handguns, explosives hidden in amusing locations) and of course details like his trademark suit and tie outfit.

They’re there, and there’s even a scene of incredible banality and laziness where 47 rappels through a window into some other people’s hotel room, to surprise some kids who seem to be playing a console game with a main character who looks suspiciously like our lead…

It made me laugh out loud to see that scene from Hitman: Blood Money, but I’m not sure why. Was I laughing because I recognised the game, and thus recognised the magnitude of my geekiness, or was it the pathetic manner that the makers had of referencing the games directly? It put me in mind, later on, of a British flick made a few years ago centred on soccer hooliganism called The Football Factory. Some or all of the money for the flick came from RockStar Games, the company responsible for unleashing the Grand Theft Auto games upon the world. Was it therefore any surprise to see some of the characters in the movie playing Vice City and saying how wonderful an experience it was?

There were a few other scenes that brought a smile to my face as well. This flick, which is fine for what it is and doesn’t take itself seriously, isn’t a great flick, by any stretch of the imagination, yours or mine. It is, in parts, ridiculous, amateurish and nonsensical. But it was fun for me to watch it. It is not a story that occurs in the real world, because it’s no more referential to the real world than a cartoon or a game even. No socially relevant commentary, no elaboration on issues of international significance, no investigation of American foreign policy. Just a guy and a hot Russian girl, traipsing around the countryside killing people for fun and profit.

In truth, despite the Bourne reference before, it has more in common with the Transporter movies, and that’s not just because of the suit-wearing, shiny-headed leads. The only difference would be the respect for the laws of gravity and the complexity of the morally nuanced universe in which the characters operate. And that Jason Statham, he’s just the reincarnation of Sir Lawrence Olivier and Fatty Arbuckle all rolled into one, isn’t he?

There are tolerable scenes, (very) few decent scenes, and a lot of others that indicate a kind of schizophrenia at the heart of the movie. Apparently, the studio execs didn’t think French director Xavier Gens did a good enough job, and resorted to reshoots with another director to get that real multiplex feel to the flick. Perhaps they felt there was too much dialogue, or too much character development. Always a problem, that.

I haven’t really been able to pinpoint why I enjoyed the flick apart from the tone, or maybe I just like the character, and especially Olyphant’s thankless work as the lead. After all, it’s a performance and a movie that have been critically mauled and mangled. Maybe the sight of the Russian babe unclad was enough to cause my critical faculties to fly out the window like the tattered remnants of my dignity. Or maybe I just like watching a professional kill people who’re just begging for it.

As a movie adaptation based on a game, it doesn’t do too badly. Honestly, considering how wretched most of them turn out, from the well known properties (Tomb Raider, Doom, Resident Evil) to the more obscure (Silent Hill, Alone in the Dark, Bloodrayne), they usually end up being utter shite, and as painful for the ignorant to watch as it is to the fans. So, damning the whole genre with faint praise, Hitman is probably one of the more tolerable adaptations made thus far. It sticks with the essence of what constitutes the core of the game (47 kills people), and doesn’t vary too much from that central plank.

Regardless, I know deep down that it’s not a good film. It is, however, a mildly entertaining way for 90 minutes to just waft right by you, letting you forget if only for the duration that you are 90 minutes closer to your own death.

Whenever that may happen, and whatever you may have done to deserve it.

6 ways from Sunday that 47 could kill you and stuff you in a freezer just for having the misfortune of wondering out loud as to how difficult it would be to track down a guy with a barcode on the back of his head out of 10

--
“Yell all you like - the Lord Himself won’t hear you.” – Hitman.