For those who haven't heard, Hitman actually got some decent reviews. OK, maybe not some. Maybe just notably one, from Roger Ebert. In the midst of screening films lusting after precious Academy Awards in full heat, he bestowed upon the movie 3 stars.
What I found intriguing about the movie was the lonely self-sufficiency of Agent 47, his life without a boyhood, his lack of a proper name, his single-purpose training. When Nika comes into his life, he is trained to guard against her, but he cannot, because she is helpless, needy...To the degree the movie explores their relationship, it is absorbing.
But to the degree that it doesn't?
Other scenes, which involve Agent 47 striding down corridors, an automatic weapon in each hand, shooting down opponents who come dressed as Jedi troopers in black. These scenes are no doubt from the video game...It has a high body count but very little blood and gore. I wish it had less. It's the people we care about in movies, not how many dead bodies they can stack up. "Hitman" stands right on the threshold between video games and art. On the wrong side of the threshold, but still, give it credit.
Not having seen the movie (and generally avoiding video game movies like the plague because I too believe they stand on the wrong side of the threshold...the movie side) I can easily imagine the film as a Hollywood blockbuster that replaces the clever, resourceful Agent 47 with a John Woo unlimited-bullets-pistol marksman.
Anyone see it yet?
Hitman Review [rogerebert]