Killshot

I've watched this film after getting suggested by a friend of mine. First of all, I did take a look at the cast: Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson, Diane Lane, Tom Jane... I thought that I couldn't go wrong even with Rourke and Dawson alone like in Sin City, but I was mistaken.

Rourke pretends to be a Native Indian, and does his job real good, but he is no Native Indian even nearly. The character of Rosario Dawson is wasted totally, you can cut it off and forget easily. Diane Lane did her part just fine. Tom Jane tried to perform like a super-man from The Punisher, but he was clearly no supposed to.

The story line is predictable extremely. Even though the whole thing starts up pretty promising, it degrades in quality quickly and leads to a dumb, really dumb end. I cannot believe that a professional hit-man can do so many mistakes one after another. And I do know for sure what a close shot of Remington 870 means.

So, we have a mediocre thriller to watch once upon a time and never return. Without Rourke and Lane it wouldn't even score 6/10 in my opinion.

KILLSHOT with Mickey Rourke, Diane Lane, Thomas Jane, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Rosario Dawson and Hal Holbrook, directed by John Madden.

MICKEY Rourke's intense and interesting performance as a troubled hit-man lifts this structurally flawed adaptation of Elmore Leonard's gritty crime novel. Directed by John Madden ("Shakespeare in Love"), the film is never as much fun as the book, which was a violent, witty and richly enjoyable slice of ultra-sleazy pulp fiction. But, despite all it's fault (the movie was completed in 2006, but is only being released now), "Killshot" is not a total dead loss and is likely to be enjoyed by genre fans who approach it with low expectations. Oscar-nominee Rourke ("The Wrestler") plays Armand "The Blackbird" Degas ,a veteran, half Indian hit-man for the Toronto mob who slays his boss's girlfriend during a hit. Returning to the rural area where he was raised, he pairs up with dim-witted young psychopath Richie Nix (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Then, when, when the lovely Carmen Colson (a sexy, effective Diane Lane) sees Armand's face during a botched crime, he decides she must die. And the chase is on. "Killshot is a rather messy film that shows evidence of post-production edits and re-shoots, but Armand, Carmen and Richie are classic Leonard characters, there're one or two good shoot-outs and at least the films retains some of the master crime writer's wonderful trademark dialogue. Nice scenery too. As a Leonard fanatic, I wouldn't have missed the chance to see this on the big screen for anything (it's been given a national cinema release in South Africa - not a huge one, but way bigger than five screens in Phoenix ). I wasn't expecting much, so I certainly was not disappointed. Quite a bit of the book comes through and although Gordon-Levitt - usually one of my favourite young actors - sometimes goes to far over the top, the supporting cast is pretty good. Thomas Jane and (a totally miscast) Rosario Dawson have some nice moments and there's a cool cameo by the great Hal Holbrook . However, the interaction between Armand and Carmen Colson is nowhere near as intriguing as in the book (perhaps this has something to do with the notorious Weinstein scissors) and even though the picture has been pruned to 84 minutes it still drags in the second half. Reading Elmore Leonard's website the other night, I noticed that the maestro has seen the film (apparently a 100-minute cut) and seems to have enjoyed it, which tells us something. This flawed, but watchable (there's a good film lurking in there somewhere) movie should have been released to more cinemas in the States. Sadly, it doesn't look as if that's going to happen, but I can tell you one thing. It's going to be a solid renter when it hits DVD. Hopefully the distributor will release both this 84-minute cut and a longer version on disc. And let's hope we get to see Johnny Knoxville's deleted scenes, and a director commentary. But I suppose it will only come out in a vanilla version shorn of special features.

My Rating: 6 out of 10 (on the big screen).

PS. Drop the score down to 5/10 for the DVD - I've now seen the (South African release)DVD which in the 1.78 aspect ration ratio rather than 2.35.1 and looks shoddy compared to how it looked on the big screen. The film really falls to pieces on a second viewing.

Killshot should have had its day in court theatrically. It was a property that had been in the works for many years dating back to the mid-90s with the Weinsteins and nearly being made with a very intriguing pairing of De Niro in what is now Mickey Rourke's part of Blackbird and Quentin Tarantino in Joseph Gordon-Levitt's part of Richie Nix. And now, several years later, it comes to us direct to DVD (if it had a theatrical release I certainly missed it somehow), and considering its presentation as such, without any special features (out of shame or just not being able to get anyone for comment?) it's not that bad. At least, not as bad as one might expect, that it would be another total bastardization of a classic Elmore Leonard novel filled with talky tough guys and flawed good guys and one of those plots that's more about character than story. Well, at least not entirely.

Its story is simple: hired killer with a bad rep, Blackbird, is seen by a guy (Thomas Jane) and his ex (Diane Lane) at a real estate office, and he and his not-really partner/mentee low-life Richie Nix need to go after them, because, as the line goes "she's seen my face." There's witness protection program moving, and eventually the killers follow up on their targets, yada yada. The story seems fine, on paper. But there's something curious to it not being super suspenseful or engaging all the time (though there are some exceptions, which I'll get to in a moment), and I think it's due to John Madden's direction. It's slick but impersonal, without a whole lot of urgency and in a few scenes seemingly phoned-in. He's a director who's made a name with romance dramas sometimes successful (Shakespeare) and not (Corelli's Mandolin) and he doesn't feel at home directing something that should have been in more capable genre-director hands. Indeed, and I can't believe I'm writing this, the original choice, Tony Scott, would have been a more ideal candidate.

So if the script is only marginally strong, depending on when or when not it seems to take its cues (if not actually take from the source) of the Leonard novel (certain scenes like the Elvis dialog, or the joke about Nix "not like Stevie Nicks, have that Leonard feel, while the characters Lane and Jane play are barely two-dimensional), and the direction only competent, why the partial recommendation? Because, for the most part, the casting works. Mickey Rourke could have potentially sleep-walked through the part, but there is something of a good performance kicking around, and some scenes, like his last scene of dialog with Carmen is compelling and the method he employs (one can see Rourke sticking around Indian reservations for months for such a thankless film) work its stuff. Lane is also very good as the scared but strong Carmen, while Jane is... yeah, it's Thomas Jane, not so great.

But the real keeper here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt. This is an actor who has worked since he was young (I remember him as early as the Angels in the Outfield remake), and he's gotten better to the point that his name carries some weight. In Killshot we see him dig into what could be a conventional sociopath-maniac and give him life, moments that connect, like that very Leonard scene where he gives Carmen's mother a back-rub while in her house getting possible info. He, like Rourke, understand what potential there is in the material and seizes upon it. If the filmmakers were on the same page with (some) of the cast, it would be very memorable. Instead, it's something that one can feel a little bad for not making it just limited theatrically, but not that it may be forgotten in time like some other Leonard adaptations.

The story around this movie reminds me of the movie 'What Just Happened' which is about movie production and how a brutal atypical movie gets a bad preview screening and has to be strongly edited and isn't widely distributed. This is much the same situation, the movie is not filled with much beauty in life, other than Diana Lane. Always bad weather, depraved characters with few redeeming features, elements of hopelessness and it was apparently edited because of this. That said it's not bad. Professional editing, lighting, direction. Fairly catching story line, good acting and famous actors. I'm pretty sure I've seen widely released movies that were much worse. In what seems like a long dry spell of bad movies this winter, this can definitely be watched. Aside from a few clever details this isn't much different from 'No country for Old Men'

This B-ish movie packs a pretty strong cast that provides the platform for an enjoyable movie.

The plot is fairly rudimentary but the character development is above the norm for this type of movie as they consider who they are and who they want to be.

Its tough watching Rourke if you watched him when he was younger, he face (from apparent damage) has a reduced ability to express emotion which makes him come across as wooden. As an actor he is/was pretty amazing so to see this reduction in his abilities is a shame. Check out Angel Heart to see what he can do with DeNiro!

Killshot is much better than the coverart would suggest :)