Movie Tab II

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (Woody Allen, 2008)


Woody Allen's latest treads similar territory as some of his classics. He's basically dealing with how people deal with love, how love influences passion, how passion influences people's lifestyle choices, and how everything can all be undone if passion overrules love and comfort, even as comfort can constrain you from passion. Why do the people who seem to be the most in love end up becoming incapable of even being in the same room together? This film may well be a conglomeration of Love and Death, Manhattan and Hannah and Her Sisters, but it's much more European in the way it handles sex, passion and commitment than most of Woody's movies. It may be because the hot-blooded Spaniards Javier Bardem and Penélope Cruz are the most influential characters in the flick. They are both charming, wonderful and dangerous. In fact, if enough people see the film, I wouldn't be surprised if Cruz got an Oscar nom for Best Supporting Actress.



The main characters, at least those Americans who are presented up front, are sorta schematically drawn as the person who craves order, respect and lifelong commitment, and that would be Vicky (the wonderful Rebecca Hall, trying her darndest to be as neurotic as Woody) and the seemingly free-spirited, sexually-liberated Cristina (Scarlett Johansson). They are both on a European vacation and end up their last two months of the Summer staying in Barcelona with Vicky's family friend (Patricia Clarkson) who is stuck in a "comfortable, yet passionless" marriage.

Things progress when the Javier Bardem character, a "passionate" painter, comes on to both young women, pitching the idea of a quick vacation to an exotic location where a ménage à trois will happen immediately if he has his way. I neglected to mention that Vicky is engaged to Doug (Chris Messina), as nice as a money-grubbing, unpassionate kinda American pseudo-Capitalist could ever be. Well, things happen, and they don't happen the way you might expect.



The most important thing about the movie is that things get turned on their head and that love, commitment, passion, artistic integrity and a complete disregard for basic concepts of love and marriage are pretty much tossed to the wind while the film seeks true love and passion. The fact that the film cannot find any such thing as true love isn't really cynical to me. It's more of a wake-up call to the reality of this world. Woody is evolving, even if this film may be just a bit too sly for its own good. In fact, it's so sly and so low-key that it was often difficult for me to consider that I was watching an intentional comedy. Oh yeah, I laughed out loud a few times, but more often than that, I was left wondering if I was supposed to admire Woody's restraint in limning such an intense drama or scratch my head because his comedy seemed to just not be that funny.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I've seen at least four significant films since I got back from the Woodman's latest:

The Night of the Iguana (John Huston, 1964)



One of Tennessee Williams' most serious plays is turned into a poetic and almost hilarious film by Jonh Huston. Richard Burton completely buys into the humorous aspects of the situation, while sexy Sue Lyon does her best to get into his pants and have him put away, Ava Gardner wants to try to remember what love without maracas is like, spinster Deborah Kerr finds a kindred soul in the Burton character, Kerr's "grandpa" (Cyril Delevanti) delivers one of the greatest poems in film history , and Grayson Hall ("Dark Shadows") plays one of film's first and greatest repressed lesbians ever.

Outcast of the Islands (Carol Reed, 1952)



Although this film hasn't been available to TV or video for at least 20 years, this is one of my fave commercial TV film experiences. How do you forget the completely fake but completely spaced-out scenes where captain Ralph Richardson navigates his way through treacherous islands and atolls? How can anybody forget the scene where Robert Morley is trussed up in his hammock and swung back and forth across a humongous bonfire? Trevor Howard projects an enormous amount of sexual upheaval in his performance, and this still has to be the best adaptation of a Conrad novel; yes, it's much better than the broken-backed Apocalypse Now. This flick is a little bit broken too because it's basically insane for anyone to turn Conrad into a film, but Reed does the best of anyone so far because his insanity best suits that of his characters and their motives.

Control (Anton Corbijn, 2007)



The film is interesting, but it's also too underdeveloped. The best thing about much of its running time is how the band/actors all played their own instruments and sang the songs. Although the lead actor never sounds like Ian Curtis, he does a good job of faking him, even though he can't quite ever delve DOWN to reach his baritone. Although the film is shot in black-and-white, it's just an interesting creative device. It's obvious, watching a 2007 film in between films from 1952 and 1949, that black-and-white film just doesn't contain the same ingredients as it did before which enabled an expert to get vast degrees of light and dark from their film stock. Even so, I do recommend this film, especially for those who care about the music scene of the last 30 years.

The Passionate Friends (David Lean, 1949)



This is another film which is incredibly well-crafted. There are at least a half-dozen shots which are honestly mind-boggling, but even though Lean seems to be trying to make Brief Encounter II, it just never comes off as sincere or affecting as the earlier film. It took me until today to understand how popular that Trevor Howard really is. I always took him more as a man's man, and a star of adventures, but both Brenda and Sarah say that they've always found him to be attractive, and therefore, the fact that he played the romantic lead in more than a few films is unsurprising to them. That's inside info I might not get if I were still just a loner.

The Counterfeitors (Stefan Ruzowitzky, 2007) +

Whether I give this film 4/5 or slightly less, it doesn't take away from the fact that I recommend it to all as another side of the Holocaust which people don't really know about. However, there is a survivor, who's still alive, and he wrote the book and served as the consultant for this film which tells a different kind of version of the Nazi concentration camps, even if this character isn't the main character of the film. The Nazis, with the help of some skilled Jewish prisoners, counterfeited more money (especially the British pound) than anyone known ever has, and it was all done out of a concentration camp.

The film certainly shows Nazi atrocities, and it was the survivor Adolf Burger's intention to discount Holocaust deniers when he wrote the book. In the film, Burger is played by August Diehl, and he is worried about his wife who is still in Auschwitz, and he still believes in trying to do anything he can to stop the Nazis' plans of both destroying the British economy by flooding the market with fake pound notes and increasing the chances for the bankrupt Nazis to win the war by perfecting the counterfeit American dollar. This is where the actual lead character of the film plays such an important role. Karl Markovics plays the expert Jewish counterfeiter/criminal/playboy who has made a career pre-WWII by being the best in his trade in central/eastern Europe. However, he's captured before the war by a Munich policeman (Devid Striesow) who later becomes the head of the secret Nazi counterfeiting operation inside the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen.

For anyone who has already been wrung dry by the Holocaust through Night and Fog, The Pawnbroker, Schindler's List and The Pianist, The Counterfeitors still has the power to move you, both emotionally and intellectually. It may be because it looks at the Holocaust from a mostly-different perspective than most such films, and therefore it's very psychologically-complex. It presents the idea that the Jews who are working for the Nazis are basically collaborators and therefore provided with food and comforts which no other Jews in the concentration camp system were ever given. It also tries to humanize the man who many initially see as a bad man because he's a habitual criminal and seems to be really chummy with the Nazi who decides which of them lives and which dies. Yet this expert counterfeiter also seems to concern himself with the survival of his fellow prisoners more than anyone else there, and he also fights against Burger because he fears that Burger's principles will get them all killed. Then it presents a Nazi man of power as a family man who decries the fact that he, himself, is even a Nazi.

Then again, maybe this film is just powerful because anytime you see somebody dehumanize somebody else and treat them as less than they see themself as, and then they proceed to treat them as animals and kill them on whims, it just gets your humanity (latent or otherwise) into such a frenzy that it either makes you want to go to the streets to do something against the practice, makes you want to cry, or makes you feel glad that you live in a land where such a thing just couldn't possibly happen. With our current political season upon us here in the Good Ol' U.S.A., I hope that all of us remember that we are brothers and sisters, whether we are fortunate enough to live here or just share this world, which, after all, is more important than one single nation or concept. I look forward to a time where conflict, strife, torture and murder are long gone just because of race, creed, color, religion, intolerance or political party. I'm sure everyone here agrees too.

Yup, it's a good'un. HERE is my review on the site, from when I saw it back in January.

I'm impressed that movies from this new century such as The Counterfeiters, Polanski's The Pianist and Marc Rothemund's Sophie Scholl: The Final Days can still find fairly new ways to tell WWII Holocaust narratives that are just as powerful as the almost incomprehensible horror of the ovens or lime pits.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I'm not going to write "reviews" on the other two now, but I certainly give The Pianist and Sophie Scholl: The Final Days also.

Duel (Spielberg 1971)



This thriller is so good, but I feel it gets overlooked in favor of Spielberg's later films.

In this film Dennis Weaver plays David Mann, a kinda wimpy businessman, that travels around California for his job. As he pulls his car in to the gas station for a fill-up, we see an old beat-up gasoline tanker at the other pump. As Mann call his wife from a payphone, we understand that they'd had a fight the night before, due to David's mild reaction to another man being improper with his wife. She feels he should have been more aggressive, Mann feels that it wouldn't have accomplished anything. We then understand who David Mann is.



David leaves the station and continues his commute, but a few minutes later, the truck that had been next to him at the gas station is on his bumper and making him uncomfortable. He waves the truck by, and is surprised to see the truck slow down. Mann is hurrying to get to his client, so he tries to go around the truck, but the truck swerves to block Mann every time he tries. Mann is confused and mildly angry. The truck waves Mann to pass him, but when Mann tries to, he sees a car in the other lane and they almost collide. Mann's anger turns to fear. Suddenly, this drive to work turns into a fight for survival as the trucker terrorizes Mann all through the hills. Every time Mann thinks he's gotten away from the truck, it keeps coming back. Mann has to go faster, and drive more recklessly than he ever has to try to outwit and out distance the truck. This movie is tight with tension, the dialogue is very spare, and it moves along at a good clip. When it ends, you find your own palms a little sweaty.

__________________
If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise.

Johann von Goethe

Hamlet 2 was fun. I was worried it wouldn't live up to my expectations based on the trailer but it did!

__________________
Bleacheddecay

Cherry 2000 (Steve De Jarnatt, 1987)



After mentioning this in Used Future's 1980s Trash thread, what happens? I see this film is on cable and watch it yesterday. I agree with him that it's a solid genre film and well were watching if you enjoy sci-fi and/or post-apocalyptic films. I didn't actually remember it being so well-crafted and mostly serious (even if there are humorous bits). I did remember some of the action scenes though and the Ford Mustang. I can't really add too much that Used didn't include in his review, but I don't find this film to be camp or winking at the audience at all, even if Tim Thomerson's Dictator of the Desert doesn't get his sandwich at the end of the movie. It's a pretty sincere flick where the actors and filmmakers don't act like they're so much better than their characters and plot.

Anguish (Bigas Luna, 1987)



Oh well, here's another low-budget 1987 genre flick, set in the U.S., shot in Spain, and featuring two American leads, Zelda Rubinstein (Poltergeist) and Michael Lerner (Barton Fink), who play characters who make Norman Bates and his Mother seem about as staid as characters in a Robert Bresson film. Lerner's John is a seemingly-meek underachiever, but when "pressed" by his mom, Rubenstein's Alice, he's capable of horrendous acts of on-screen violence including the murder and removal of people's eyes. I don't really want to get into what's on this film's mind, but it starts out crazy, with obsessions on snails and birds, then about a half-hour into the movie, it pulls the rug out from under the audience, a la David Lynch's last two films (although it's actually clear what's going on, but it changes entirely the perspective of the viewer). Then the second half of the film plays out, and you just hope that they're able to pull off most of the possible surreal tangents. Director/scripter Luna (great name for this movie) pulls it off about 60%, I'd say. It doesn't really matter what I think though because this is definitely a cult film. I still like his later Jamón, jamón better though.

The Epic That Never Was (Writer/Producer Bill Duncalf, 1965)



Alexander Korda got the rights to Robert Graves' epic two-volume set, I, Claudius and Claudius the God and proceeded in the mid-1930s to hire Josef von Sternberg as director and cast the principal roles with Charles Laughton, Merle Oberon, Emlyn Williams and Flora Robson. He bought and created a new studio and enlisted his brother Vincent to build some enormous sets for the production which he envisioned to be THE great British epic film. However, along the way, he ran into a few snags, principal of which was that Laughton was having difficulty finding the character of Claudius and basically became too self-conscious to be able to work on a daily basis. After a few weeks, Merle Oberon was injured in a car accident, so Korda & Co. used that as an excuse to pull the plug on the production and recoup their losses through insurance covered by Lloyd's of London.



I actually watched this documentary about this lost episode of cinema history back on PBS in the mid '70s at just about the time "I, Claudius" was all the rage in America on PBS. Narrated by Dirk Bogarde in a sympathetic, yet somehow still dry and acerbic style, it is worth seeing to see some extended scenes of the film which worked out quite well, as well as some rushes with blown lines all over the place, especially by Laughton. It also contains interviews with people involved with the film who were still alive in 1965, including von Sternberg, Oberon, Robson and Williams. It's a grand history lesson, not only of 1930s British film but also the filmmaking process, at least how it was done back in the day.

I also watched this again yesterday (very strange), and have to agree that it is played straight for the most part (though Thomerson is comically over the top). I never said (and don't think) the film is campy, just quirky and offbeat. I think it definitely works more as a satire than an action flick, plus most of the laughs are unintentional. Pamela Gidley as Cherry is also amusing.

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

Olympics are done and now it's time to get back to zee movies.

Started off with a bunch of tried and true classics and one that most hate but I rather enjoy.

Predator (John McTiernan - 1987)

Ah man I loved Arnie back in the day. I can't really say much about this flick without starting to gush all over the place. It's a shame that both of the AVP movies haven't been very good because the first two Predator movies are aces. Just some fantastic one liners in this movie and several of which that we (sadly) will most likely never hear again in most movies. Need an example? I knew you did.

"Bunch of slack-jawed ******s around here. This stuff will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me."



Predator 2 (Stephen Hopkins - 1990)

Many say this is superior to the first and I guess I understand their points but I've learned that it's OK for you to be right and I'll be happy. I think they are both about even. In a pinch I would give the nod to Arnie because when it comes right down to it, I believe that Arnie could kill one of these things and Danny Glover probably couldn't. I mean, I'm sorry Danny but you are not Conan The Barbarian, Mmmkay?

Conan The Barbarian (John Milius - 1982)

Well that's weird I was just talking about Conan wasn't I? Small world. This one is in my top 100 and for good reason. Simply put this is the best and brightest Barbarian/Gladiator movie ever. Period. Although a little movie by the name of 300 just came down the pipe recently and that is one helluva show as well. Still, Conan is better. Especially the music. I love the music and tend to hum and whistle it for days after watching it.


Transformers (Michael Bay - 2007)

I just don't know why its so hard for people to enjoy a flick like this. For a geeky 36 year old such as myself this movie is total eye candy and very fun to watch. I spend probably way to much time defending movies like this so I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't bother to as much anymore. We'll see. I change my mind a lot. Anyway, I can't wait for the second one.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

The Addams family!!!!! Woop woop!

__________________

Undercoverlovers 100 REDUX

Tropic Thunder (Ben Stiller, 2008)

The first five minutes are pretty hilarious. Not just the four faux-trailers, the faux-battle scene that follows them is damn near perfect. But after that, the movie kinda loses its way and it is definitely fifteen minutes too long. I didn't find Tom Cruise all that funny and Nick Nolte's character was completely worthless. If the movie gravitated closer to the tone of what happens to Steve Coogan's character, I think it could've been very special. As it is, it's just alright






Black Book (Paul Verhoeven, 2007)

Lame






Semi-Pro (Kent Alterman, 2008)

Very, very lame.

Hamlet 2 - I LOVED this movie. So screamingly funny throughout. Steve Coogan is hilarious as a failed actor turned high school drama teacher who won't let his obvious (even to himself) lack of talent get in the way of his dreams. He's such a great character, and his performance recalls Gene Wilder, or at least it did to me. The movie mines some really dark places for it's humour, but in a weird, upbeat sort of way. It has lots of quoteable lines, it ridicules all the cliche's of the "inspirational teacher" genre, and it's smarter and more deep than it actually needs to be, so thats why it's easily my favourite film this year so far.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

My Blueberry Nights (Wong Kar-wai, 2007) -

I don't understand the hate towards this film, it was only hurt mainly due to the performances of the actors and actresses. Although, I loved seeing Chan Marshall (Cat Power).

The kids and I enjoyed it too. It's sometimes difficult to find a movie the three of us can all really get into. This was one of them!

We laughed a great deal. It lived up to my hopes for it and to it's trailer.

Somebody reassure me that this makes total sense, even for an old fart. Let's say that you watched a world-renowned classic film. Let's say it's a foreign film from the era where most such foreign films were considered the Second Coming. (For all I care, "foreign" means "American" or "English-language" right now.) Let's say that you watched it and you just didn't "get it". It made you feel something along the lines of the Emperor's New Clothes. You tell people you didn't get it and you don't actually like it. What do you do? Do you move on to other films from a similar era and even by the same director, or do you just watch films you "believe" you have a stronger afinity for? For me, I try to watch as many films ASAP, but I agree that if I have a negative memory about a film, I tend to need a reason to rewatch it. Well today, I had Sarah as a reason to rewatch Antonioni's L'Avventura for the third time.

L'Avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960)



Rewatching L'Avventura takes me back in many ways. When I first watched this film, I loathed it. Maybe I was under the influence of a plot-driven Devil, but nevertheless, I had a difficult time even enjoying the photography and sound effects, one of my fave actresses (Monica Vitti), the maturity of the mystery, or the way the film actually fit into Italian cinema in 1960 (the year which also produced La Dolce Vita, Rocco and His Brothers, Two Women, etc.) Nowadays, I can see that the film isn't really experimental, and even though many still find it boring, it's certainly not that either. However, I still find it unsatisfactory. So, although 30 years ago I would have advised you to stay away from this film, now I recommend it as part of a well-rounded film education, especially one involving B&W photography and unique sound effects.



Something else which I've noticed recently concerning Antonioni is that he is David Lynch long before there was a film personality identified as David Lynch. All of Antonioni's films are mysteries open to interpretation. None of them are easy to understand, even with multiple viewings. They all contain visual, aural and acting motifs which enable some people to believe that they actually do make more sense to them than mere mortals, especially when put into a thematic context amongst ALL of Antonioni's films. To give you an example, in L'Avventura, one of the lead characters disappears at exactly the same time that the characters and the audience hear an outboard motorboat go by the island all the characters are vacationing at. However, after one or two characters mention the sound of the engine, everybody goes off looking for the missing woman and no one ever again mentions the "boat" motor again. Later on, what sounds like a helicopter to me, but sounds like another boat to a character, is heard, but once again no craft is ever seen and the comment about an engine never makes another appearance. However, the woman's lover and best friend become lovers, and it becomes clear immediately that it's a major mistake and maybe somebody is being possessed by a missing somebody. Then again, maybe a horned-dog man is just trying to score at every opportunity possible.



Ultimately, I find this film better than the third part of the "Loneliness" Trilogy. I have La Notte in my queue, but it's supposed to be a "Very Long Wait'. I earlier wrote a review of L'Eclisse which I gave , and that was also an improvement over the first time I saw that film. Antonioni is definitely a filmmaker who doesn't make simple films and most of his films improve (if only slightly) with repeated viewings. However, I won't swear that that's the case with Zabriskie Point!!

The Small Back Room (Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, 1949)



This lesser Powell/Pressburger film still contains many set-pieces of world-class filmmaking. The actual plot involves a bomb expert, working in the back room of a bureaucratic government organization in 1943, but, needless to say, England is constantly being attacked by "silent" bombs. These aren't the buzzbombs so wonderfully depicted in Green For Danger, but small thermos-sized bombs dropped which kill one or two soldiers or children at a time when they find them and move them without thinking. What makes this film more complex than usual is that the lead character (David Farrar) has already lost a foot from a bomb during WWII and he has a strong affinity to drink whiskey to help him forget about his infirmity and situation. However, he has a loving fiancee (Kathleen Bryon) who works in his office and provides him with enough support to get him through his "average" weaknesses.



This film DOES seem very low-key and almost disappointing as a piece of "just" storytelling, but as a piece of CINEMATIC storytelling, it has almost as many awesome set pieces as the duo's usual films. For example, there's an almost throwaway scene at Stonehenge involving the testing of an important gun for the Army. It's truly inspiring. Then, there's a visit by the "Minister" (Robert Morley) to the shop of the "Boys in the Back Room" which is definitely on the hilarious side. Another scene which is very funny is the bureaucratic discussion of the advantages/disadvatages of the gun tested at Stonehenge. Jack Hawkins especially gets to shine in that scene, along with Farrar. Ultimately, the best scenes are probably the scene where Farrar freaks out, not due to his drinking, but due to his lack of drinking. The way Powell is able to include the clock, the booze bottle, the curtains and David Farrar, all alone in his living room, is spectacular. Probably the other most-spectacular scene is the bomb-defusing conclusion on the rocky beach at the end. Nail-biting suspense right there.



This is another film where things might seem slow or boring, but if you actually pay attention to all the craft (the photography, sound, editing, sets, costumes and ACTING), you will notice many things which you may have missed the first time through. My God, CRAFT, I'm glad that rufnek never comes in this thread. (Oops!)

i find Transformers was fun, but in a real MST3K manner and not in any way approaching genuine fun. Oh, well.

Also, Predator 2 equal to Predator?! I'm not saying it's a bad film ('cos there are waaay worse) but there's no way I could consider the second one to equal the first.

But eh, opinions and all that.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Ok, so I watched Hitman (finally grew bored enough), and hated it - the guy they have playing him is too young. In the game, you get the impression that Agent 47 (?) is firmly in his mid to late 30s, with more of a cultured Man Voice, and you never get that he's afraid of women.

This guy's young - he cant be past 25 years old, and he's having problems with girls? No way man.

Final point (I think): It just occured to me. How is having a clearly visible BAR CODE on the back of your clean shaven head "keeping a low profile?" Give me a break. I have a hard time believing that no one no where ever found a strange, somber, silent, brooding man was with a BAR CODE on his head interesting enough to report to the authorities.

Identifying mark, anyone?

And think - I like the game!

Wanted
10/10 Great movie, fresh new storyline/aspect (at least for me). Oh and James McAvoy is hot, which always helps. OMG this movie was so feel-good just for the simple fact of watching McAvoy's character cycle through his indifference to "grow a pair" as he put it. That angst. We've all had it one time or another! Wonder if Angelina actually has that many tattoos, or if it was for the movie?

The Mutant Chronicles
Lame!!! Super-lame. Unless youre the kinda girl that doesnt mind watching a hammy kill-em-up flick that is kind of Sky Captain and the World of Tommorrow-esque. I'm sorry. Thomas Jane just isnt Jude Law, and he came off monotonous in this one. Best actor was our guy Ron Perlman, and the most intriguing was the Severian chick. Basic storyline. REAL basic, but worth a once-over for originality.

Penelope
10/10. My faith in Christina Ricci's movie choices is henceforth restored! Plus, its James McAvoy again. Awesome cute and cuddly little flick. Any girl who has a scary, well-meaning, kind of overbearing mom will totally understand this movie!

__________________
something witty goes here......

Tropic Thunder
I think Ben Stiller should stick with directing. While the film does have some problems, I found it to be funnier and more enjoyable then Pineapple Express. Jr. carries the film (much like Franco did with Express). I felt that at times the jokes might have gone a little too far. I never found the simple Jack bit to be that funny, but the cameos more then make up for what the film lacked in the middle.

Yes the first 10 minutes is where the most fun is at, but the climax is entertaining and funny. Even if you can see the joke coming, you still laugh because of the delivery, good job for the actors on that one.

I loved the look of this film, it is almost the total opposite of what and how war films are shot. It's too pretty to be a war film and it works with how these characters live in this world. They are oblivious to most things...even when there is a dead body.

Sure Ben Stiller is paying the same character again, but it works in this film. He manages to make it a little more fresh then stale. I wasn't too impressed with Jack Black, but he does get one of the best jokes in the entire film. (The bit when he is tied to the tree).

Tropic Thunder is decent, I enjoyed it, was expecting a bit more on the parody of war films, we get Platoon, but where's Deer Hunter? I probably enjoyed it more because it pokes fun at Hollywood and the go around of it all. I tend to gravitate towards that style.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

He's spent half his life being taught to kill people and the other half actually killing people. I guess anything beyond the most basic social interaction would've been considered superfluous by his educators (who are in essence the only family he has)

I didn't hate Hitman, it was just fun to kill time with a few friends watching it. The movie couldn't get anything above