Assassin(s)

Mathieu Kassovitz has directed one of the best movies ever (La Haine) ; a movie about gangs. This time, he comes back with a film about contract killers: Assassin(s). Kassovitz has done a very good directing job, and he is a very good actor too, but the violence is so intense in this film that it becomes unendurable to watch it.

The film is about an old contract killer who teaches his job to a young boy and who wants him, eventually, to take over the business. This isn't a very entertaining movie, it‘s pretty hard to watch, it's violent, horrifying and it has a total lack of humor. It is inspired a lot by : "C'est arrivé près de chez vous " (Man Bites Dog), which was a much better film with a lot more humor. The movie wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either...let's just say it was good.

This movie was booed in Cannes. Why? Audiences were probably expecting a second La Haine. But thank god Kassovitz did not do a repeat performance. This movie is not so much social commentary as some have approached it, but more a character study of sorts. The three protagonists interaction is quite gripping, the sitcom on TV is the best ever, and the twist in the middle(!) is filmmaking at its finest. Drawbacks aplenty, the ending is obvious, for example, and a bit of cheap shot, but overall this movie is definitely not as bad as many critics thought.

Michell Seraut is an aging assassin who trains the young, disoriented Mathieu Kassovitz (who also directed) to be his successor. And this is yet another movie that blames TV and video games for the violence in our society, and repeats the idea of killers with moral codes, who are not really butchers and...well, it's a rotten world anyway, the politicians are on the take, you know. I found it morally repugnant. But because Kassovitz is a talented director, it's often cinematically exciting. There's a startling plot development midway through, although the story generally shows little concern for logic. However, the film has to get extra points for its grim ending, which, considering more recent tragic events, proved to be almost prophetic. (**)

Kassovitz is not the first director that made the mistake to let a message overflow his picture. In Assassin(s) he does it thoroughly and quite conscientiously. At least no one can question the artistical outcome. The point of view is accurate, everything is well-thought: the story-line very well paced and packed with dark suspense.

That is the main point. The movie is by far too gloomy. Cinema cannot be an Art for the Art's sake, it definitely has to do with entertainment. People go to the movies hoping to get out relieved from such concerns as screen violence & social issues. These people are not only fat-brained teens starving for action blockbusters, it would be wrong to think entertainment is for low-educated masses. People want laughs (mostly), thrills (escape from the dull), scares (not too scary though)... but they do not want a distressing movie.

Hence Assassin(s) does not cater for a large audience. I found it great despite its darkness because I am sensitive to its top class directorial and writing skills. Yet the poor marketing skills make it a somewhat suicidal experience for a young director and fortunately Kassovitz has been granted the expensive privilege of learning directly from his mistakes. Just hoping Les Rivières Pourpres brought him back his self-confidence to avoid out-of-the-box happy endings in the future.

This movie is, at least, morally baffling. Wagner is a veteran killer, who takes his work very seriously. However, he's dying and has no one to pass on his legacy of death. He decides, therefore, that it is best to take the young Max for his apprentice.

Mathieu Kassovitz is in great shape in this film. In addition to ensuring a solid direction, he also makes one of the main characters, namely Max. Nothing to point out from negative. The actor was able to give the character a look of ingenuity and inexperience that fit well with the situation and with Wagner, a more cunning and sinister character, who was well interpreted by veteran Michell Seraut.

Forget any notion of ethics and morals. The film is very amoral and does not mind trampling our most elementary concepts of society. It tries to point out blame for the clumsiness of our society, the inherent rot of humanity, bad television entertainment and the influence of mass communication. This is something that leaves us totally out of our comfort zone, coupled with the virtual absence of female characters and ultimately a bit disconcerting.

I personally enjoyed this movie, although it is not an easy movie for everyone. There are many artistic elements here, and I particularly liked some camera angles and shooting effects. But it lacks a solid moral background that allows people to like the film more.