RATING: ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: When a notorious hitman, Darius Kincaid, is asked to testify in court with Vladislav Dukhovich, Europe’s top assassins are sent to kill him only to have Michael Bryce, a bodyguard, take Kincaid on a crazy trip.
I saw IT; Buck saw The Hitman’s Bodyguard. I had several questions that I needed answers to, and Buck was there to provide them.
QUESTIONS WITH KEZZY
K: How is the chemistry between Reynolds and Jackson? Does it carry the film?
B: Overall chemistry is fine. It was not too forced. However, their friendship is not that unique. At the end, you don’t care about the characters, but that has more to with the script than the actors. I will say it is believable that Reynolds and Jackson would be friends in real life, and that their characters, who are caricatures of themselves, could actually be friends.
K: Did their relationship ruin or better the film?
B: Their relationship was the film. With this in mind, their relationship could have been stronger. The film gives us their backstories, but it needs to go further on character development. First off, these guys are thrown together, so they don’t want to be there. I get that… They have all of the pieces but only show us two seconds off that, and then they give us long scenes that don’t aid the character development.
K: What was the film’s focus?
B: It’s like a road trip with Ryan Reynolds. I get tired of films where the entire film is focused on defeating the bad guy. For this one, I forgot that the bad guy is actually the bad guy, and what the purpose of the road trip is. I forgot that the assassins going after the two main characters were not the bad guys, that they were hired. The assassins were stereotypical. It was focusing on the main characters, the road trip, and adventure. We see the assassins from the beginning of the film, yet it does not seem to be the main focus. Finally, when the assassins are all dead, we’re like, “oh, here the bad guy is.”
K: Were there any plot holes?
B: There were. There is an obvious part where the film just jumps from one scene to the next without explaining how the characters got there.
K: What were you expecting? Did you get that?
B: A lot of macho comedy. You know, man up against man. I was expecting Jackson to be a really esteemed hitman who’s assistants find him a dweeby bodyguard, Reynolds. What we get is sparse humor and very different story than what I was expecting.
K: How does it balance comedy and action?
B: This is definitely an action film. The action is quick-paced, and there are many car chases some of which are quite fun. Reynolds and Jackson do a bunch of talking in the car(s). They make fun of themselves a bit too.
K: Why was this film is R-rated?
B: The film was rated R because of the language, blood (looked like ketchup), and allusions to sex scenes.
K: Any “awe” moments in cinematography, acting, plot, direction, etc.?
B: One shot where Sam Jackson is standing atop a building, and I thought “that the clouds behind him were nice.” It was a nice shot. Also, I enjoyed the singing scene in the bus with the nuns.
K: Is there a film that you would relate to this one? Why?
B: This film is not trying to be anything that it wasn’t. The style of the film isn’t anything different from many other films, today. So, it seems to me that what they set out to do was what they achieved in the end.
K: Who would you suggest this film to?
B: I would suggest this film to someone who enjoys action films, or if they like seeing Reynolds or Jackson play their usual selves.
K: Final grade?
B: I would give this a 5 out of 10. This film is not awful. I see why this got a 38% on Rotten Tomatoes, but the way that things are filmed is not bad nor is the plot aren’t bad. I have seen films that on Rotten Tomatoes that are 70% and are comparable to this.
THE FILM ALIEN 