Hitman, the movie: don't believe the haters

ranalin wrote:

For the movie itself... meh. Wasn't as bad as i thought it could be, but it wasn't as good as i was hoping it to be. BTW Olga Kurylenko is hot!

I laughed out loud when he jumps into a window with kids playing the Hitman game.

Theater cracked up when it happened when I watched.

(That is a horrible sentence)

Wasn't completely terrible. Olyphant looks like a kemo patient with a nice tailor, but other then appearance he played the character decently.

The sword fight was completely ridiculous though.

Sinatar wrote:

Wasn't completely terrible. Olyphant looks like a kemo patient with a nice tailor, but other then appearance he played the character decently.

The sword fight was completely ridiculous though.

Ridiculous Awesome?

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

WTF? So you are going to waste this much emotion and bile because Ebert takes the time to clue you in on where he stands, so that you can make a much better judgement about his opinons of movies? I've seen him make the same type comments, and was able to chat with my wife about why I think he is wrong. Then I was able to watch and read more of his reviews with a little better clarity about his bias.

Ebert is a great writer, and his reviews are some of the best when it comes to letting people know if THEY would like the movie, even if he didn't. Your comments are much more appropriately directed at your little rant. Seriously, what you wrote was pathetic and small minded.

So wildly off-base that I have to wonder if you bothered to even read what I wrote or my back-and-forth with unntrlaffinity. That part of the review has nothing at all to do with whether or not people would like the movie.

Of course. As I mentioned, I've thought he was off-base in his opinon on whether games are art. But I never felt the need to call him names and rant about it. I just use it as information on the bias he carries. He liked Hitman, and has an anti-gaming bias.

But your name calling rant was really offensive. There was nothing in your back and forth with unntrlaffinity that lead me to believe you regretted making such an offensive post. That's why I commented.

If it makes you feel better, I hardly wasted any emotion and bile at all. I have plenty left.

Jay, I found nothing about his post offensive. Quintin's posts seem perfectly acceptable to me in the context of his back 'n forth with Unntrl. I actually found your post the more insulting/and offenseive one -- its not cool to go up to someoneand call them pathetic and small minded.

Edited to avoid hilarity.

Cramps wrote:

its not cool to go up to someone pathetic and small minded.

I can't tell if that's what you intended to write or not, but it sure made me laugh out loud.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Cramps wrote:

its not cool to go up to someone pathetic and small minded.

I can't tell if that's what you intended to write or not, but it sure made me laugh out loud.

Nope, I'm just terrible on the keyboard. I laughed out loud too, when I re-read it.

Cramps wrote:

Jay, I found nothing about his post offensive. Quintin's posts seem perfectly acceptable to me in the context of his back 'n forth with Unntrl. I actually found your post the more insulting/and offenseive one -- its not cool to go up to someoneand call them pathetic and small minded.

Edited to avoid hilarity.

That's cool. I just find calling someone a fat f*ck wildly inappropriate, and I only called Quint's comment small minded and pathetic. I've never been bothered by anything Quint has written before, and just found his rant on Ebert offensive.

I'll just take my diapers off now, I guess.

Thin_J wrote:

I too went in expecting crap and came out with a very "Well it wasn't pathetically awful like Ultraviolet" attitude.

Could we set the bar any lower? At all? "Ecks vs. Sever"?

Here's my question. I want to take in one more flick before I have to sit on a damn plane for five hours because the family is heading down to N'Awlins. I've only been watching movies i'm interested in recently, save for a few silly popcorn flicks here and there. This ended up being a minor mistake, as I couldn't even get through "Rush Hour III".

So, is this better or worse than Rush Hour III?

I don't know. After the first Rush Hour I simply refused to see the second or third ones.

I enjoyed it more than Rush Hour, but that's not saying a lot.

As for the bar lowering thing.. I never saw Ecks vs. Sever so Ultraviolet is the lowest of the low for me. When Hitman ended I was fairly amused. There were stupid parts, there were cool parts, and there was some stuff in between. It was, for me though, fun. That said I've bemoaned and outed my own somewhat sketchy taste in movies many times.

I can sit down and enjoy a movie like Mystic River for what it is, and openly think it's a great movie and I own it on DVD. But great movies like that sit on the same DVD rack in my room as movies like Resident Evil and Running Scared.

High brow I am not.

Also: Olga Kurylenko is hawt.

Prederick wrote:
Thin_J wrote:

I too went in expecting crap and came out with a very "Well it wasn't pathetically awful like Ultraviolet" attitude.

Could we set the bar any lower? At all? "Ecks vs. Sever"?

E vs. S is Citizen Kane compared to Ultraviolet. It's a miracle i still have my eyes. The attendant just happen to do his walk by as i was trying to gouge my eyes out with my straw.

Guess what needs a reboot? If you guess Hitman, you're probably psychic. Or you noted that this is the Hitman movie thread.

Fox Reloading ‘Hitman’ With Paul Walker As Bald Barcoded Assassin Agent 47

deadline.com wrote:

EXCLUSIVE: Fox International Productions is rebooting Hitman, the live action film adaptation of the hit Square Enix video game. They’ve set The Fast And The Furious‘s Paul Walker to star in Agent 47, an action film that was written by A Good Day To Die Hard‘s Skip Woods and Michael Finch and will be directed by Aleksander Bach, a highly regarded commercials director making his feature helming debut.