Diario de un asesino a sueldo

"Diary of a Hit-man" is something more than the average entry into the neo-noir genre of many such films produced in the 80s/90s. They usually hold a similar trashy appeal, more style than substance, and not too much in the way of quality performances. Forest Whitaker helps to make this an exception from the mold. Here, playing a variant of his later role in "Ghost Dog", he lets you into the mind of a conflicted, controlling, somewhat neurotic hit-man.

This film was adapted from a play by Kenneth Pressman, and the middle act pays testament to that. A series of scenes in a small apartment capture a real depth of emotion, both from Whitaker and his target (played by Sherilyn Fenn). It seems almost claustrophobic, but there's a power to it. Roy London doesn't show a lot of experience in his direction, but he does express a good deal of humanity. This is a grounded film, personal. There's no cheap exploitation feel, nor is there any sense of big budget Hollywood.

The acting is the real reason to watch "Diary of a Hit-man". Even the small roles have something to offer. I particularly liked the two doctors, one a psychiatrist (John Bedford Lloyd), the other an optometrist (Ken Lerner). James Belushi and Sharon Stone show up briefly, but aren't given a whole lot to do. This isn't an overly complicated or particularly far-reaching film, but the narration lets you under its skin, and there's no terrible overacting or delusions of grandeur. The title might seem cheap, but "Diary of a Hit-man" has a lot more to offer.

Dekker (Forest Whitaker) is a troubled hitman. He tries therapy. He's having eyesight problems. He gets a new job which he hopes to be his last. He gets a suspicious change including a hit on a baby. He is about to kill Jain (Sherilyn Fenn) when he's interrupted by her friend Kiki (Sharon Stone).

I like the meandering setup to the hit. I like spending time with Dekker. I even like going to the eye doctor. Once he gets into the apartment, he needs a good reason for delaying. He has to give a reason. It becomes stretched out. He could get that reason by talking to Jain. I don't really understand Dekker's thinking. Quite frankly, it starts with changing the hit. He smells something fishy right away but he should do something about it. I just want Dekker to be written smarter.

Diary of a Hitman (1991) is a movie that I recently watched on Tubi. The storyline follows a Hitman that is going blind and is about to retire. He has one last job that breaks all his codes and rules which causes him to get sloppy. Will he be able to get back on track or will this assignment be his demise?

This movie is directed by Roy London (Episodes of The Larry Sanders Show) and stars Forest Whitaker (The Butler), Sharon Stone (Casino), Jim Belushi (Res Heat) and Sherilyn Fenn (Wild at Heart).

The cast in this is really good and I enjoyed the characters. The narration was entertaining and Forest Whitaker was a good main character. Sharon Stone was perfectly cast in her bit role too. The storyline and some of the sub plots didn't work for me. I'm not sure I ever felt the Hitman breaking his rules aligned to the character. A lot of the decisions seemed like a stretch. The dialogue is good. There's a church scene that is well executed. The way they portrayed his eye site was really good. The ending also felt unrealistic.

Overall, this was worth a watch but doesn't overly standout within the movies about hitmen (it's not Leon: The Professional). I would consider this an average to slightly above average movie and score this a 5.5/10.

Diary of a Hit-man is directed by Roy London and adapted to screenplay by Kenneth Pressman from his own play, Insider's Price. It stars Forest Whitaker, John Bedford-Lloyd, Sherilyn Fenn, Seymour Cassel, James Belushi and Sharon Stone.Music is by Michel Colombier and cinematography by Yuri Sokol.

Hit-man Dekker is contracted to kill the wife and baby of his latest client, but he starts to seriously question the ethics of the job...

"you're your own worst witness"

The ingredients for a high end neo-noir piece are all in place here, with the pic at times threatening potency to strike a telling blow, sadly it rounds out as very unfulfilling. Its stage origins are all too obvious, and the blend of quirky and wry humour with the more dramatic core of the story never sits well. Cast also come off as a little awkward, no doubt straining to deliver the goods for their acting coach director.

On the plus side for noir fans there's stuff to savour. Pic is driven by a Dekker narration, and the character is in contact with interesting characters. Be it a mime artist, his psychiatrist, a kid in a tumble dryer, a busy body tarty sister or the weasel villain who hires him, the human contact is straight out of noir land. The places he goes are also in keeping, the local bar with neon lighting, the church where "business" is conducted, Jain's (Fenn) apartment, which is a bizarre concoction of scatterbrain living and mummy housewifery, or a peekaboo strip joint. Elsewhere there's an extended session of film where Dekker has double vision, this putting a nice off-kilter vibe on things, while the whole time where the pic takes place in the apartment - with just Dekker and Jain in conflab - holds considerable interest. But then there's the finale, which is so far removed from noir it may make some want to set fire to the TV...

Just above average neo-noir, but not one to recommend with any sort of confidence. 6/10

I have trouble believing this movie has so many good user reviews here, because for me it was rather poor. I understand that it's from a play, "Insider's Price", and its origins show. I usually like Forest Whitaker, the hit-man, but I think he was badly directed here. He overacts, a lot, and his narration was atrocious as in exaggerated and almost ludicrous. It wasn't even a real diary, it was a phone conversation and as such it worked even less. I get our hit-man isn't the sharpest tool in the block but the writing seemed weak with some lousy lines. The target, Sherilyn Fenn's, although looking fine, was arguably worse acting-wise, because her reactions often weren't believable or seemed emotionally fake. You see James Belushi and Sharon Stone in the credits, but they only have 5-minute cameos. Belushi's part could have easily been cut. Sharon Stone's was a bit more interesting but any actress could have done it.

The main part of the film was a confrontation between the hit-man and the target in her apartment. From the way it was shot, the confined space and the acting, it really felt theatrical there but not in a good way. I suppose some scenes would have elicited laughter in front of a audience (such as the pulling back and forth of the curtains or the cake scene), but here, they seemed out of place. I was more often puzzled by reactions than gripped by tension as to her fate and that of the baby. Also, very little action here, it was all very talkative. This film seemed very forgettable fare to me.

Rating: 3 out of 10 (poor)