Soul Assassin

It's not easy to do, but a story that had potential simply sinks under very, very bad direction.

In film one of the director's jobs is to tell the viewer where to look. True that. But it does not mean that he should be shouting "Look at me!" when he should be concentrating on story and characterization.

A reported $7 million goes down the toilet in developing this story of greed, jealousy, and revenge. Actors who have done very fine work in the past are simply stranded on screen. That's bad enough.

But for some reason a great chunk of the action is filmed using a blue filter over the lens. This is understandable for the exteriors at night. But it looks more than slightly stupid for scenes in, say, a living room.

The action is sped up in some scenes for no reason whatsoever. And the fight scenes are edited so incoherently that it's impossible to tell who's who are what's going on.

Watching movies directed by, say, Ed Wood can be a fun experience. Catatonic actors, cardboard sets, special effects that totally fail, it's sort of like watching the community theater group perform on the stage in the American Legion hall. You know that they're genuinely trying to do their best and it's easy to root for everyone involved.

Here, the gimmicks just seem to try to cover up undeveloped story arcs.

There is one very good thing about this, though. Director Laurence Malkin directed exactly one more movie after this, in 2006, and has not worked behind the camera since then although he has remained active in the film business. People seeking proof that God created an orderly universe need look no further.

Accomplishing what I had thought impossible, this film moves from intriguing/thriller-worthy premise to absolute schlock within 5 minutes of the opening credits. No story. No characters. No acting. Dubious cinematography (I guess it's just a Blue, Blue World). All this matched by an ending which establishes a new standard for 'lousy'. Given that it was a free rental....I want my money back.

Beyond an absolutely brilliant performance by Skeet Ulrich as a man trained to be a hit-man for a criminal corporation, there's not much to recommend this film. It's not as terrible as some reviewers remarked - beneath the flashy visuals lies a rather old-fashioned suspense thriller. Unfortunately, the producers were clearly shopping for another "Bourne Identity", and the director, probably a meth-addict, had watched too many John Woo films. I mention this because while I watched the bicycle chase stunts - all too clearly created by the editor rather than the stunt crew - I thought of Jackie Chan's marvelous bike chase in "Project A" and thought to myself, 'gee, that's what this movie needs - Jackie Chan, not John Woo'. But John Woo is the influence here, and since Woo is an arch-stylist, to imitate him you have to have a real schmaltzy but original plot going on beneath the style; and while this film has the schmaltz, it has no originality to speak of. There are glaring references to Hitchcock and Stanley Donen, Samuel Fuller's "Dead Pigeon on Beethoven Street" and an obscure thriller based on an Alistair MacLean novel, "Puppet on a Chain" - glaring because the originals were so much better and certainly don't need this sort of 'tribute'.

I won't say this is a bad thriller; some will find it entertaining enough. But it pretends to be so much more - what a disappointment.

One of the worst filmed movies i've ever seen. The camerawork was lousy, the screen was tilted to the left _All_the_time_. the colours were awful, there are only one or two scenes that aren't filmed with a blue filter. Even if you can get used to the blue screens, the stroboscopic effects that turn up every action scene (my guess is; lack of budget) _will_ turn your stomach.

Obviously there was _no_ budget for any special effects other than the effects you get if you buy the $100 el-cheapo-fastforward/slomo-mixer.

The fight scenes lack any sense of choreography, i.e. you only see full-scene shots when the 2 "fighters" are walking around each other slowly, the only "contact" shots are extreme close-ups. The same applies for nearly all the stunts/shooting scenes.

At least the story made some sense, in the way that most b-rated action/thriller flics have a story-line. Too bad though that the actors didn't really get a chance to show what they can do (see above.)

In conclusion: If I were you i'd leave this "direct to video production" right down there on the videostore's shelves and rent Jackie Chan's "Who Am I" instead.

What I hated most about the film is that the building most of the film is shot in has is located in Amsterdam, but the view is of a bridge in Rotterdam for a resident of Amsterdam this would be his ultimate nightmare.

then in a, i have to say, nicely shot chase on the canals, suddenly, the character played by Skeet Ulrich is in Utrecht. there are too many of these things in the movie to explain.

maybe this is the cause, of the film not getting really good credits in Holland.

An advice to future directors, who want to shoot a film in holland, take notice of the fact, somethings don`t mix, taking the view of the Rotterdam bridge from a Building in Amsterdam as main example.