Videogame movies are so much fun. Whether it's Resident Evil: Extinction, Silent Hill, or Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever, the film is almost invariably going to disappoint us, and end up leaving a bitter taste in your mouth. Usually, though, the film is attempting to either incorporate a detailed plot, or tries to translate the fun of being in an interactive environment into a non-interactive medium.
Well, simply put, Hitman has always been about killing people. If it wasn't, then I'd say the title was a huge tease and promptly condemn it to the bargain bin. And if I know Hollywood, they love to film people being shot in all sorts of manners. So, what could possibly go wrong -- Hitman and Hollywood could potentially be a match made in Heaven!
Hitman (film)
Directed by Xavier Gens
Written by Skip Woods
Released November 21, 2007
Hitman was an enjoyable movie, I'll give it that. For those of you who have never heard of the series, Agent 47 (played by Timothy Olyphant) is an assassin trained from childhood to work for "The Agency," performing any number of hits all across the world. Of course, Interpol isn't too happy about this, and is constantly pursuing the man, even though they have no clues.
The bulk of the movie takes place in Moscow, where Agent 47 is assigned to assassinate the Russian president. All the while, Interpol agent Mike Whittier (played by Dougray Scott) and the Russian FSB, lead by Yuri Marklov (played by Robert Knepper). That's the barebones version of the plot, as otherwise you start to get into spoiler area.

One of the rules of screenwriting, as my teacher told me, is to use flashbacks, dream sequences, and voice overs sparingly. Hitman is 95% flashback, though. It gets to the point where I completely forgot what the opening minutes of the show was about, or its significance, about half way through the film. This leads to my qualification of the film as "enjoyable" but not necessarily "good." The story is set up fine, for the most part. There aren't huge gaps in logic that need to be jumped, and there are actually a few plot twists and turns, however predictable they may be.
Apart from Agent 47, Mike Whittier, and Yuri Marklov, the rest of the characters in the movie are relatively flat and secondary. Other agents do appear in the movie, but they're just punching bags meant for show. Even Nika Boronina, the main female lead, is just there to be the object of a few snide remarks and to be a pair of tits on-screen. She serves no other purpose, honestly.
Which brings me to my biggest problem with the film: Agent 47 shouldn't be showing emotion. Yet for some reason -- most likely the need to show tits on-screen -- Agent 47 doesn't kill her right away, and in fact takes her with him wherever he goes. This also leads us to the problem of Timothy Olyphant trying to display emotions, a skill he doesn't seem to have a great hold on in the film. His "angry" face is nothing more than laughable with a shaved head.

Otherwise, the film goes as I'd expect the games do (I haven't gotten to play them myself). Agent 47 has to kill a target, and so he sneaks and blasts his way through to whoever he needs to find. There were a few things that I balked at when it came to 47's preparations -- like hiding pistols in ice chests at the hotel. Otherwise, though, I left the film with a small sense of longing. I had hoped to see more interesting uses of Agent 47's training, as opposed to having him do some fancy fighting moves. The beginning provides a great example of the innovation in assassination that I'm talking about, but then the rest of the film fails to follow up.
The plot could have been developed further, and the case that the film focuses on could've been shortened. I would've loved to see more of a backstory behind Agent 47's training and upbringing. It's hinted and alluded to in some flashbacks, but it's never fully explained. That was probably the greatest tease of the whole film, and it saddens me that it was never fully developed. Hopefully they will in the future, though.

The film is mostly just packed with explosions, fighting, and some tits thrown in there to make the 14-year-old boys who snuck in happy. While this sounds craptacular, the film is done competently. The camerawork is good, and the action doesn't get to be gratuitious. While the plot isn't very strong, there are no serious screw ups, and it stays faithful to the basic concept of what the game is about. If more videogame films would follow Hitman and cut down on the cheesiness, then the films would turn out much better. You can still have references to the games and other nerd culture items, just be smart about it. For example, I loved the nod to Jin Roh: The Wolf Brigade, with the FSB's uniforms.
If you're planning on seeing this, be sure to like explosions, guns, and fights. Also, tits. To be honest, though, they're not that exciting, so don't go just for the tits. Hitman is a step in the right direction for videogame films, but there's still a long way to go.
Rating: 6.0

Good review though. Your issues with the film are consistent with the other reviews that I've read. I'm just sort of indifferent myself, not really being a fan of the series, which seems to be the angle from which you approached the film.
you're welcoming them to make a sequel of this shlock craptacular BS
and Timothy Olyphant where have I seen him before??
oh right The Porn guy from GIRL NEXT DOOR....and he was in DREAMCATCHER which also sucked.....
Hollywood (I live and work here) is really trying to make what they think will sell instead of making something worthwhile that will sell on its own merit which is really disheartening...
if you want to see something a lot cooler and more original than HitMan...go see The Mist its badass!!!
lets hope they keep getting better and better, and not fall back into the pit resident evil and street fighter call home.
@ UglyPhil - rofl.
The movie was pretty decent. Decent meaning it stuck somewhat to the games plot, and he killed some people in pretty cool ways at points. But WHY did he have emotion? If he's a clone, born and raised to KILL WHY would he fall for some russian chick that somehow falls FOR HIM.
There was also an extremely stupid sequence in which there is a mexican standoff, but then they drop their guns and fight each other with katanas they had conveinently hidden behind their backs.
But I agree with this review, this is probably the best video game based-movie I've ever seen, which Isn't saying alot.
I've never had to blow things up to play the Hitman games. Perhaps you're doing it wrong?
Maybe someone who's a fan should step up and review it in order to give us the perspective of someone who's played the games, if only to appease those interested in finding out how it shapes up as an adaptation. It wouldn't matter one way or the other to me though, as I'm in the same boat as McVengeance.
I meant that the movie should be like the games, meaning, using stealth and being all slick like, instead of what the movie was: a cliche action movie with a bald douche bag.
I'm a fan of action movies. Tits I can see whenever. All I have to do is ask a certain someone who's really close to me, but not my relative. It starts with a G and ends with a D.
I think I might go see this next weekend. I have nothing to do, really.
If I get a chance, I'll deliver my fanboyism-tainted review after I see it this Friday. If I see it this Friday.
Something like Silent Hill, on the other hand, requires a greater knowledge of the game, because the story is such a centerpiece of the whole thing.
I feel like games that are really based around interactivity (Trauma Center) or story (Phoenix Wright) necessitate playing through the game(s), because a comparison between the source material and the final product is vital to the film's success/failure.
On the other hand, things like the Mario Bros. movie and Hitman don't need that comparison between the source and the final product, because they're meant to be inspirations and adaptations, not a strict retelling.
@Phil: It's fine if you try to call me out. That's what the site is about. You're free to interact with us and we'll respond.
So yeah, I went in with mild expectations, and that's pretty much what I got. I wouldn't recommend paying money to go see this, but it might be worth a rental.
Side note: Whose Patrick Olyphant?
And I honestly look forward to reading it. If you write it.
garfield tits? eewww!
Um...it’s Timothy Olyphant. You must’ve just had a brain fart, since you got it right in the first paragraph of the review.
@bleep: Timothy Olyphant also played the villain in Live Free or Die Hard.
@Necros: Actually, no...Ebert gave it a much better score than DMV did; Ebert rates movies on a 4-star scale (the standard “poor/fair/good/excellent” scale). So Ebert effectively gave it a 7.5/10.
I thought it was going to be utter shit, so I was pleased with the end result.
Also..... Olga Kurylenko is fucking sexay.
One thing I like about game reviews is that nobody ever pans a racing game because it's not an RPG.
But this is an epidemic in movie reviews -- as if all the gunplay and explosions are just a distraction from the plot and acting we were hoping to see.
Although, Tim was not the proper choice to play hitman. The dude from Transporter, he would have been awesome (Jason Statham). Tim just didn't have the right build for the part, he also appeared to be awkward in many scenes of the movie.
How on Gods green Earth could Dtoid send someone to review this who has never played the games?