Assassin(s)

Some say Assassin(s) speaks of TV-violence and its effects on society. I see the film presenting television as a substitute reality. In the film, TV is constantly there with you, you can't escape it and, slowly but surely, it changes your sense of reality. The result is a numb society, lacking the capacity to feel and emphatize. That is far more frightening than just TV-violence, which, after all, just presents the means of expressing aggression. Kassovitz realises this and directs a shocking but fantastically sharp film that follows its own path of logic owing nothing to any other film. I can't remember the time I've been shaken like this by a motion picture. It's a shame there hasn't been more discussion (in Finland, anyway) about the media-cultural issues Assassin(s) brings forward.

Almost as dangerous as Stone's "Natural born killer" or Collard's mindless and irresponsible " les nuits fauves" ,"Assassin(s)" left me unconvinced and ill -at-ease .Michel Serrault 's character might be fascinating to some people :he does his job "seriously",as if it were a nine-to-five one ("Do not be late for your first contract,Sonny"),he describes his "method" in lavish detail ,and the director/writer does not even try humour noir as an alibi.Besides the very young "assistant "is an Arab, which is not a very smart move .Girls are completely absent ,which is the main originality of the screenplay.The only woman who appears is the hero's mother (Danielle Lebrun) and this part is underwritten (two scenes in a 2hours+ movie)

Actually the hero is like a zombie,he resembles some robot from a vague video game ,the stringman being the old man .Television is omnipresent,with its stupid games,its series -although "Colombo" is not that much violent-,its Japanese cartoons and its commercials.The old killer's "moral" would go like this :"everybody,politicians,journalists,military men,cops et al are criminals ,so why not me?" .We are not far from Docteur Petiot's ideas -another Michel Serraut's part a few years before.

First of all, this is not a good or a bad movie. It is a little boring, and a couple of things did not quite match.

However, it has a very serious violence (no action, pure raw and disgusting violence) with enough good taste to avoid blood all over the lenses (but not less shocking), and compared to the Oliver Stone movie, it is a lot better and really delivers the message.

All three main characters are marginal people. One of them a dying drug addict killer, the other two are nobodies trying to find a way in life. I do not think that every lost person in the world could become a killer or a psychopath; but there are not bad candidates either. The concept of TV generating violence, is not new and hardly arguably, but the way it is presented, without any poetry or sympathy makes the point better than any other movie on the subject.

Conclusion; this is not a commercial movie. It is the type of film you see when you are looking for something deep that makes your brain work. Overall, you will probably dislike it, which is a good reason to give it a try.

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.