Contract Killers

I ordinarily comment about movies I like. This is an exception. Frida looks the part of of a hardened, stealthy assassin. Nevertheless, a weak script, disjointed segments and sloppy direction supplant her latent talent and place it under a thinly veiled insult to her ability.

By no means a Robert Ludlum thriller, the film is merely an inept reprise of the Bourne trilogy. Tougher, smarter and much more gutsy, Jason rarely used a firearm to execute his agenda, but that is Frida's only counter to the loosely conceived threats she faces. Her unwitting English accomplice bears little resemblance to Jason's love interests.

Always the bad guys, the C.I.A. hierarchy and subordinates lack the sophistication we have come to know in the film media. Easily duped, they are outwitted at every turn, and their "assets" are more like liabilities. Humanizing them weakens their ability to pose a serious threat to Frida as she unravels a truly ludicrous scheme that would effectively undermine the economy of the world.

The fights, the car chases, the helicopter intervention (why didn't the asset just shoot it down?) and the predictable climax made a dismal excuse for an action thriller. I hope Frida's paycheck compensates her for the what is truly a stab at her credibility as an actor.

I was not familiar with this 2008 action thriller titled "Contract Killers" from director Justin Rhodes prior to stumbling upon it by random chance here in 2025. And with it being a movie that I hadn't already seen, of course I had to check it out.

Writers Ric Moxley and Justin Rhodes put together an interesting enough script and storyline, provided you enjoy these cloak-and-dagger type of movies.

Of the entire cast ensemble, then I was only familiar with actor Nick Mancuso. The acting performances in "Contract Killers" were good, and leading actress Frida Farrell was adequately cast for the role.

There is a fair amount of action scenes and sequences in the movie, which were adequately brought to the screen.

While "Contract Killers" is a watchable and enjoyable enough movie, it is hardly one that you return to watch a second time, as the storyline just doesn't seem to have the layers and contents to support more than a single viewing.

My rating of director Justin Rhodes's 2008 movie "Contract Killers" lands on a five out of ten stars.

Simply put, this film is not what I expected. There was mediocre acting, mediocre directing, and obviously a very mediocre budget.

And as far as the director rant in the comments, the comments are designed for people with an opinion ABOUT THE FILM, not about how people are watching it. Your personal bias is one that none of us are interested in.

Additionally, your logical fallacy of comparing downloading a movie over the internet to stealing a car and returning it is one of the dumbest, most less thought out comparisons I have ever heard. Not only is there no logic to that statement but I actual give you less credit as a producer and human being for having floated that comment out there in the first place.

If you want a "seen it a million times" film, check it out.

Julian Cane is SO right. After all, what you think of the quality of a movie has NO value at all unless it is bought or watched in the cinema. If you download the movie it magically turns into a horrible, horrible film that is completely different from a 'legal' version of the same film.

I'm not promoting movie piracy here, but stating that a reviewer's opinions of the movie are invalid simply because he or she watched it by some other means than BUYING it is ridiculous. Perhaps the movie's horrible performance has something to do with the intelligence of its producers.

It held my interest. I cheered for the heroine and her helpers. I booed the villains and their minions. But the movie was only MILDLY interesting. It was mostly the same old same-o. And a reviewer on this site said that unless one buys a movie, or pays to see it in a theater, then their opinion is invalid. Uh... why? I saw this film on Tubi, the free streaming site; who presumably paid any fees and royalties due. Duly, they showed me commercials. So, any financial obligations are thusly met. As if that even made a difference. A good movie is good, even if you didn't PAY money to see it. Similarly, a bad movie is bad, and a mediocre movie is... paid for.