Portrait of a Hitman

This movie sounded to me exciting because I like films about hitman and stuff like this. But his film has a boring story and I only watched it half before I fell asleep

i want to write about the paintings used in the movie. They are an integral part of the plot and I guess that being a painter and a hit-man is what constitutes the main character traits. The paintings you see in the house and during the opening of the exhibition at the end of the movie are all the work of the painter Tony Mafia. I think I remember him telling that they were originally in the house of the Nassi family. The portrait of the lady, wasn't done by Tony Mafia. You can easily tell by the style and the brush strokes. Tony didn't want to do that one. In the movie they give credits to him and the other painter. He was kind of proud of that. So I have a question: Why are the credits not here also? The plot works well, since the painting brings the movie to a logical conclusion. Tony like the part were the art critics rant and rave about his work at the opening of the show. He showed me that part a few times.

The first time I watched this I could have sworn it caused me pain, but the second time I watched it (years later) I didn't find it to be too bad...not great mind you...but not awful.

Jack Palance (It can Be Done Amigo) is JimBuck, painter and hit-man and supreme mumbler who can't do a hit because it's on the head of his mate Bo Svenson (Snowbeast), a brilliant neurosurgeon who's about to operate on a guy who's going to rat on the mob. JimBuck can't go through with it, which enrages Rod Steiger (Duck you sucka), who is also Palance's friend. Can Jack put everything right and get out of the mob? Or will Richard Roundtree get 'his arse' as he says in his African accent.

There's much navel gazing in this film and not much action. You'd be surprised to know that Rod Steiger does some shouting. I did kind of dig it up to a point but was supremely confused by the ending (what happened to Richard Roundtree?). Palance does get into a few gunfights but you'll have to be pretty tolerant of low budget films to enjoy this. Like me- I'll watch any crap these days. Palance does kill an awful lot of black guys, which is a bit alarming.

To sum up - I had this film in my collection for years before I watched it. That should give you an indication of what to expect.

I just bought this film on DVD for $5 from a disposal bin. Why? to be honest, I wanted to see if Jack could act.

I found out he can! This film is another in a stream of 1970's examples of a great script and (some) excellent acting ruined by disappointing cinematography.

Very little imagination appears to have been used in the design of shots and locations, which is a odds with the good choice of atmospheric. It's as if a minimalistic lip-service has been paid to realising the vision of the screenplay.

Was this budget related? It was right in the middle of a massive move to TV production by a lot of the big money Hollywood players.

Personally, I'd like to see this film remade with a better crew and budget - the script deserves another chance ... maybe Jack does to!

What in the world were Jack Palance and Rod Steiger thinking about when they agreed to appear in this film? It is so poorly written and the characters so shallow as to be beyond belief. It reminds me of the really trashy porn movies of the early 70's where plot and character development didn't feature, just the naked flesh. There is no porn here just the lack of plot and every other item that makes for an interesting and enjoyable film. The lack of realism is also evident and all concerned appear to be 'going through the motions' as if paying back some obligation . My vote is 1/10. why oh why did you do it Jack? you can't have been that hard up.