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.

Kassovitz is not the first director that made the mistake to let a message overflow his picture. In Assassin(s) he does it thoroughly and quite conscientiously. At least no one can question the artistical outcome. The point of view is accurate, everything is well-thought: the story-line very well paced and packed with dark suspense.

That is the main point. The movie is by far too gloomy. Cinema cannot be an Art for the Art's sake, it definitely has to do with entertainment. People go to the movies hoping to get out relieved from such concerns as screen violence & social issues. These people are not only fat-brained teens starving for action blockbusters, it would be wrong to think entertainment is for low-educated masses. People want laughs (mostly), thrills (escape from the dull), scares (not too scary though)... but they do not want a distressing movie.

Hence Assassin(s) does not cater for a large audience. I found it great despite its darkness because I am sensitive to its top class directorial and writing skills. Yet the poor marketing skills make it a somewhat suicidal experience for a young director and fortunately Kassovitz has been granted the expensive privilege of learning directly from his mistakes. Just hoping Les Rivières Pourpres brought him back his self-confidence to avoid out-of-the-box happy endings in the future.

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.

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.

Having read the previous comments, I must say that for me it wasn't too gloomy, too violent, too confused. I think you couldn't have been more lucid, even visionary, in 1997, considering the real-world high school rampages thereafter (1999: Columbine/USA, 2002: Ehrfurt/Germany, etc.).Another sharp insight in this film is the depiction of the different generational "characters". We have the old, heroin-addicted killer, the naive hard-working mother, the joint-smoking, lethargic twen and the cold-blooded, bored teen. Me, being a twen, found a totally new generation presented: They are not only constant TV consumers like all the other generations, nor is only one parent missing, but here we have no parents at all, and their active, martial video-gaming-experience combined with passive access to all the trivial perverseness of TV's innumerable channels, can most likely lead to a detached killer seeking real life testing of his training in the virtual world. The key scene for me is, when Max sees himself as a killer in the reflecting car-window. He then can still reflect upon the insanity of it all.