Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Hitman: Agent 47 (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Video game movies get an incredibly bad rep these days. I think it’s because people go into them expecting them to be something there not. The expectation of these films to follow the rules of our reality, instead of the reality of the game itself, which is not always the same. I think that it is for this reason that many reviewers out there, including some that I saw the film with, will lambaste this movie in their write-ups. Now full disclosure, I may be one of the few who actually enjoyed the first Timothy Olyphant Hitman from 2007. I own the DVD. But did Hitman: Agent 47 surpass it, or will it join it down at the very bottom of everyone’s list? Read on.
Agent 47 begins by giving background on what the “Agent” program is: a research project to genetically enhance humans to make them the perfect weapons; however, Litvenko (Clarán Hinds), the man who unlocked the key to the genetics behind the program, morally disagreed with the direction the program was going in and went on the run with his young daughter. Fast forward to present day where we find Katia (Hannah Ware) search for Litvenko, but she doesn’t know that he is her father. She just know that she needs to find him. The problem is that Syndicate International, the corporation trying to restart the agent program, is searching for her believing that she knows where her father is. They send an agent of their own, John Smith (Zachary Quinto), to find her and protect her, though he is not exactly what he seems to be. Enter Agent 47 (Rupert Friend) who reveals the nefarious plans of Syndicate International, and begins to unlock the secrets to Katia’s past, and her own enhanced abilities.
Now remember, this is based on a very popular video game franchise. The rules of reality that we know do not necessarily apply. You already need to take into account the fact that “Agents” exist where they have been genetically altered to not feel fear, love, sadness… anything really. Genetically altered humans to be faster, smarter, instinctual, and emotionless. But people tend to forget this when we start to see what Syndicate International has done in their own attempts to create an agent. I do not want to give much away on that, as some of it plays big to the plot, but just keep an open mind.
So was it good? I believe so. I am a big fan of the highly successful game franchise. Even though I liked the 2007 film, it did bother me that it didn’t feel like the game I had come to love and play over and over. Agent 47 hits that feel right on the nose. The mission he is sent on is fraught with scenarios that would be right in the game, and the story line is similar enough to some of the plots we have seen, that the movie was really enjoyable. The action sequences were great, the story was decent, and Friend managed to portray the stoic agent well enough that I almost thought I was watching the game for a short time.
All in all, this is a good film if you are a fan of the game franchise. Also, if you can go into it with an open mind about some of the ideals and plotlines involved in the movie, you will love it. Some do not know this, but the late Paul Walker was originally set to star in the role as Agent 47. Knowing this going into the film, I could pinpoint certain lines of dialogue that may have been written with him in mind, and it made me wonder if the film would have been better, or worse, received than its current form. Sadly, we will never know.
If you want some good, if not over the top, action sequences, along with an interesting take on the Hitman universe, definitely check out this film. This is one that is going into my collection upon home release.
Agent 47 begins by giving background on what the “Agent” program is: a research project to genetically enhance humans to make them the perfect weapons; however, Litvenko (Clarán Hinds), the man who unlocked the key to the genetics behind the program, morally disagreed with the direction the program was going in and went on the run with his young daughter. Fast forward to present day where we find Katia (Hannah Ware) search for Litvenko, but she doesn’t know that he is her father. She just know that she needs to find him. The problem is that Syndicate International, the corporation trying to restart the agent program, is searching for her believing that she knows where her father is. They send an agent of their own, John Smith (Zachary Quinto), to find her and protect her, though he is not exactly what he seems to be. Enter Agent 47 (Rupert Friend) who reveals the nefarious plans of Syndicate International, and begins to unlock the secrets to Katia’s past, and her own enhanced abilities.
Now remember, this is based on a very popular video game franchise. The rules of reality that we know do not necessarily apply. You already need to take into account the fact that “Agents” exist where they have been genetically altered to not feel fear, love, sadness… anything really. Genetically altered humans to be faster, smarter, instinctual, and emotionless. But people tend to forget this when we start to see what Syndicate International has done in their own attempts to create an agent. I do not want to give much away on that, as some of it plays big to the plot, but just keep an open mind.
So was it good? I believe so. I am a big fan of the highly successful game franchise. Even though I liked the 2007 film, it did bother me that it didn’t feel like the game I had come to love and play over and over. Agent 47 hits that feel right on the nose. The mission he is sent on is fraught with scenarios that would be right in the game, and the story line is similar enough to some of the plots we have seen, that the movie was really enjoyable. The action sequences were great, the story was decent, and Friend managed to portray the stoic agent well enough that I almost thought I was watching the game for a short time.
All in all, this is a good film if you are a fan of the game franchise. Also, if you can go into it with an open mind about some of the ideals and plotlines involved in the movie, you will love it. Some do not know this, but the late Paul Walker was originally set to star in the role as Agent 47. Knowing this going into the film, I could pinpoint certain lines of dialogue that may have been written with him in mind, and it made me wonder if the film would have been better, or worse, received than its current form. Sadly, we will never know.
If you want some good, if not over the top, action sequences, along with an interesting take on the Hitman universe, definitely check out this film. This is one that is going into my collection upon home release.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
The film Tarantino was born to make
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD is the film that Quentin Tarantino was born to make and it is his Masterpiece.
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)