Contractor

This is your typical Wesley Snipes DTV film. I mean you can only go as far as the script goes, and this movie does just that, very simple script, very simple movie. The actors did a decent job. Watching movies like these really makes me wonder how much Snipes and the other actors earn turning in these films, because they must know something that I don't. Because an actor the caliber of Wesley Snipes could easily pick up a good script somewhere and make summer blockbusters.

So either

A. Wesley isn't doing this strictly for money and has a more distinct personal interest in the parts that he has been playing....or

B. Wesley makes a lot more money from these than any of us really know.

Either way, decent movie, I recommend watching it if you are a Snipes fan like myself. He has made far worse.

Having just seen Hit-man, another film of the type "good hit-man fights bad hit men", but incredibly stupid, The Contractor seemed to me of incredibly unexpected good nature. The main character is human, fallible, vulnerable. He does his job as well as possible given the circumstances, he tries to save his skin as well as possible and when a stern "Moscow rules: if the mission fails you're already dead" assignment comes his way he feels no confusion when deciding he should stay very much alive, no matter the mission.

Of course, in all this gem of a script idea there is also bad screen play, occasional bad acting and things that make no sense. It's like a good machine without oil, everything is well made but not really working. The action scenes are shaky and amateurish for a Snipes movie, but then again, the point was not the action or the technical prowess of the hit men, but the fact that they are human beings.

At first I thought it was going to be another Nikita/Leon ripoff, but the girl story arch was sensible and reasonably original. The ending was a little bit forced, too.

Bottom line: in the abysmal hell of bad written hit-man action movies, this obscure film is a real gem in the mud and a reminder that the budget is not really important, nor the genre of the film, but the very real effort of actually trying to make a movie, not just money.

Every film has a heart. Some hearts are more special than the others. But you are bound to get a wrong impression if you draw your inference without knowing where the heart is.

To the plebeian crowd, if Wesley Snipes is on the poster, that means some semi-mindless non-stop action, with a streak of silly humour once in a while, is coming their way. But Wesley never signed an agreement about that, did he now? This is not an action film, though you see some action in it.

First of all, it is a very low budget film, so don't go all tough and smart criticizing it. Those B-movies, which come to TV only late at night because other slots are for those blockbusters, can certainly not be measured against The Art of War or Blade. The Contractor is a simple, low budget film that shows a little girl's bond with an assassin, whose mission has gone wrong and who has fallen the prey of his own employers. While the action sequences and other things are inadvertently done, very special care has been taken of those moments that reflect the warmth of feelings. Lena Heady was not a necessary recruit for this film, her role any pretty face could play. But I like her, so I am glad she did it.

Some low budget, non-famous films sometimes leave lasting impressions. Maybe they fail overall in box office and audience poll, but sometimes there can be very heartfelt elements in such films. I watched it late at night and liked it for what it is. I was not disappointed for what it was not. Because if I wanted someone other film, I would watch some other film.

But of course, idiots have minds (and comments on IMDb) of their own.

I don't really know what I was expecting when I went into this. I usually don't waste my time with direct-to-video garbage, but I was sick and very bored. I'd just watched Snipes' earlier vehicle Incontrôlable (2004) which I thought was actually pretty decent, and in no way deserving of all the hate that's been heaped upon it. After seeing the very poor rating of that film, and liking it, I saw this film's lukewarm rating and thought it must be at least ok. I was wrong, and I want my time back.

Let me just say that I usually go into films with expectations. I learn about most movies through this or some other website, so I've usually read about a movie before seeing it, and I pick the ones I want to see. That said, I go into the ones I've picked really wanting to like them, so when they're not good, I'm disappointed, even to the point of being annoyed. Maybe i should change my approach, but this film just didn't meet my expectations.

The plot is wholly generic. A legendary, but retired, government assassin is called in for one last mission, which is to take out a ruthless dictator and terrorist. Once he completes the job, he attempts to leave the country, but is framed for another murder before he can. On the run, he must rely on his skills to survive. Sounds like "Bourne meets any Steven Seagal movie". It's very unoriginal, and it is just a rehashing of every other action movie you've ever seen.

The characters are all bland. I like Wesley Snipes, a lot actually, and I'd even go as far as to call myself a fan. He was the only reason I gave this film a second glance, and the only reason I pressed play. He was alright, even though he didn't have tons of dialogue. He's not as charismatic as he was in the roles of his prime, but he's nowhere near Seagal territory when it comes to wooden acting. He is onscreen a lot, but there's also a lot of time where he's not onscreen. When he is though, he's sitting and/or staring, and occasionally speaking. The other characters are all stock characters recycled from other films. Bleh.

Director Josef Rusnak, obviously an amateur, didn't do horribly. Most of the movie was at least watchable, but he went with shaky, frenetic camera work reminiscent of Tony Scott. Scott's newer, frenetic style, is most notable in Man on Fire (2004), but at least there the style fit the mood. Here, Rusnak's obvious imitation is unnecessary, and just looks clumsy.

Now, I can forgive a generic plot and mediocre characters in this kind of film. It is a brainless B action movie after all, right? I've come for action, and a long as I get at least a fair amount of decent action scenes then I'll be good. Well this so-called "action movie" can't even deliver that. The trailer, which seemed to promise a good amount of action, gravely misled me. There are barely any action scenes, basically like, three or four small ones, in the movie, all of which are incredibly brief (the last one was ok), and poorly edited. Worst of all, Wesley Snipes has one fight scene. ONE FIGHT SCENE. We've come to see Wesley fight and don't get that at all. It seems like Snipes is starting to go the Seagal route of doing fewer and fewer action scenes in his movies, which is sad. Another scene with potential is stupidly obscured by strobe lighting, for no reason. Just why. Several more action scenes, and this would've been better.

The movie asked me to care about its story and characters, and attempted to privilege the story over the action. It's a risky move, one I can respect, but the problem is that it wasn't a great story and the characters weren't great. When there wasn't any action, I was left with the story, which was unsatisfying. The script could've used more action to keep the slow story moving, and at least make it more interesting. Maybe I should re-evaluate it, but my time is too valuable too me.

I wanted so badly to like the movie, but I have to be honest with myself. If you're a Snipes fan, then I guess you could watch it just to say you did. Otherwise, avoid it. It really is a waste of time.

Wesley Snipes is an ex-killer for the CIA, living contentedly on a ranch. He's asked to come back to kill a bad, bad man.... and realizes it's a set-up to get him killed. He also needs to take care of 15-year-old Eliza Bennett because the writers must have seen THE PROFESSIONAL and said "I can do that!"

No they can't. It's a decently acted movie -- it's got Charles Dance and Lena Headley -- but it's so derivative that you'll watch it and wonder as it plods self-importantly through its plot points, why they stole this particular twist from that movie, instead of a different plot twist from another. Or any of ten others.

It went straight to video. Now it's on the higher-numbered cable channels.