Assassin(s)

This movie was booed in Cannes. Why? Audiences were probably expecting a second La Haine. But thank god Kassovitz did not do a repeat performance. This movie is not so much social commentary as some have approached it, but more a character study of sorts. The three protagonists interaction is quite gripping, the sitcom on TV is the best ever, and the twist in the middle(!) is filmmaking at its finest. Drawbacks aplenty, the ending is obvious, for example, and a bit of cheap shot, but overall this movie is definitely not as bad as many critics thought.

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.

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.

This movie is, at least, morally baffling. Wagner is a veteran killer, who takes his work very seriously. However, he's dying and has no one to pass on his legacy of death. He decides, therefore, that it is best to take the young Max for his apprentice.

Mathieu Kassovitz is in great shape in this film. In addition to ensuring a solid direction, he also makes one of the main characters, namely Max. Nothing to point out from negative. The actor was able to give the character a look of ingenuity and inexperience that fit well with the situation and with Wagner, a more cunning and sinister character, who was well interpreted by veteran Michell Seraut.

Forget any notion of ethics and morals. The film is very amoral and does not mind trampling our most elementary concepts of society. It tries to point out blame for the clumsiness of our society, the inherent rot of humanity, bad television entertainment and the influence of mass communication. This is something that leaves us totally out of our comfort zone, coupled with the virtual absence of female characters and ultimately a bit disconcerting.

I personally enjoyed this movie, although it is not an easy movie for everyone. There are many artistic elements here, and I particularly liked some camera angles and shooting effects. But it lacks a solid moral background that allows people to like the film more.

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.