cinema_admirer What can one write about "Assassins"? It's so bad, that almost every scene should be torn apart for its stupidity, yet the whole movie doesn't deserve 50 words of a review.The story is much more simple, than it pretends to be. Two assassins are given the very same task by some mysterious employer. One of the killers suffers from "an old veteran willing to retire" cliché. The other hit-man however is "a young, flamboyant rookie" (doesn't this characterization recall a much better movie directed by Donner - "Lethal Weapon"?) Needless to say, those cardboard characters are gonna clash more than once and I'm sure you're dying to find out the final result.The horrible script (filled with more then standard amount of clichés, plot holes, logical flaws and contempt for laws of physics) has pretty much given up any attempt at credibility in the first half an hour. The "evil" hit-man (Banderas) escapes arresting by police. He can be hiding anywhere. Yet our "hero" assassin (Stallone) only needs to steal a cab and wait for a passenger willing to reach an airport - miraculously he turns out to be Banderas. Coincidence of such proportions wouldn't a five-year-old, but it's good enough for those allegedly adult writers of "Assassins"Who, one may ask, is given the questionable "credit" for writing this nonsense? Two names shouldn't come as a surprise - Andy and Larry Wachowski, two of the biggest hacks of modern cinema. After getting way too much praise for "Matrix", they thought every junk they produce, will spawn a similar religious following. It seems they were terrible writers before 1999, just not as self-indulgent.A bit more surprising is the third name in the bunch - Brian Helgeland, the Academy Award winner for "L.A. Confidential". It's up to debate, how great the script for Curtis Hanson's noir film really was. Surely, a work of genius compared to "Assassins", though a rest of his career wouldn't prove such quality.Obviously, a script this bad is still a pile of paper, which should never be brought to life. Who takes responsibility here? Surprisingly again, a few acclaimed names and (with exception of miscast Julianne Moore) experienced in making action films. Should we praise Stallone, Banderas or Donner for their mild "competence"? Or maybe we should mock them for embarrassing themselves. I didn't find their effort as a "saving grace" of this film, as much as a "fall from grace" for them.To conclude, this way too long review - "Assassins" is an awful movie, which asks to be annihilated. Luckily, to accomplish this mission, you don't need to hire one or two killers. All you have to do is change the channel.

Leofwine_draca This highly engaging thriller has a polished edge of style and sophistication to it, giving it an upper hand over the rest of the endless action movies churned out during the never-ending '90s. Mixing the talents of an established director who knows how to handle the action - step up, Richard Donner - and two soon-to-be-mega-famous scriptwriters, the Wachowski brothers (THE MATRIX), plus some surprisingly good performances from the interesting cast, and what you have is a decent movie. The action sequences are excellently handled, highly realistic and at the same time very exciting, and the various special effects and stunts are inserted perfectly into the flow of things.Meanwhile the scenes of suspense between the action are full of very real danger, so despite the long running time you never find your attention wavering. Cast in the flawed hero mould is endlessly-criticised Sylvestor Stallone, putting in a nicely subtle performance and letting his nemesis, Antonio Banderas, do all of the (over)acting as psychotic but deadly assassin Miguel Bain. Holding the movie together is a low-key and sweet Julianne Moore, as a surveillance expert who finds herself over her head and in the middle of a violent battle to the death between two expert marksmen. The only problem I have with a film like this is that all other action movies don't possess the same level of commitment, grace, and intelligence as this one does.

AlexanderExtazy Only thing that made me avoid giving a 10 is the fact that the filming was quite old, which as we can see the cinematics aren't as sophisticated as today's work.However; acting, plot, story-line, and the scenario altogether was unbelievable to the point that it is my favorite movie so far.Assassins movie gives a broad view of what life is like for an assassin back in the 90's. In this case, it's about two different assassins with two different point of views.When East meets West, the clash is very fierce and a game of never ending chess keeps on playing.What I loved most about this movie is the characterization of both assassins; their intelligence, wit, will, and how cynical they are in achieving their goals.Unlike normal people, assassins strive for success in their field, and they do that by risking their life since they got nothing to lose except this life that has been given to them.Afterall, in their mind what better way is there in giving themselves a better life except by taking a life?

jwsanfrancisco I was very impressed w/ this Stallone action thriller, but when I saw the incredibly good looking woman (tv description, the computer data something, or other),I was blown away how beautiful she, was, but could not place her face!..OMG, it was the same woman who won the Oscar for playing some sort of senile dementia(STILL ALICE?)....this is the same woman? how could it? she is so breathtakingly beautiful in this sleeper hit!.As always, I would have to describe Stallone's performance as,definition: 'Laconic': the term used to describe someone as having a 'Spartan reputation for being terse in saying something....'(!!!???). 5-star rating movie.....