Far From a Hit

One movie from last year that I thought I was super-excited to see was The Hitman's Bodyguard, the teaming up of Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson in a dark warping of the buddy cop formula. (Jackson is a hitman set to testify against a genocidal dictator; Reynolds is the reluctant bodyguard trying to keep him alive until then.)

I guess I wasn't that excited about the movie. It came out the week I went to GenCon, and by the time the next week came around, the interest wasn't there. I'd heard it wasn't as good as I'd hoped, something more interesting came out at the theater, whatever. But I did finally catch it last week.

Indeed, it wasn't as good as I'd hoped. At least it wasn't defanged by the studio that released it; it earns every bit of its R rating. It's not Robocop-level violent, but neither does it shy away from letting the blood fly. You get Samuel L. Jackson cursing as much as you could ever want him to, and yes, there's a joyful verve to it.

The thing is, it should be a whole lot funnier. It has an overabundance of plot for what it aims to be. 20 minutes of humorless setup at the beginning gives us way more than we need to know about the characters, and frustratingly delays what we're here to see -- the team-up of Reynolds and Jackson. Once we finally get there, the movie does have its moments, just not nearly enough of them. Part of the problem is that Reynolds' comedic skills are squandered in the conventional "straight man" role in the comic pairing. Not that you could have just swapped casting on this, but Jackson doesn't really need the "punch lines" as such to be be funny. The script just isn't tailored well to these two actors.

Speaking of odd casting, the appearance here of Gary Oldman (as the ruthless dictator at the core of the plot) is rather mystifying. It's not a juicy part by any stretch -- it's maybe 10 minutes of screen time, and there are countless working actors who could have played it. Why the man who would win an Oscar with his very next film would choose to do this, I can't imagine. It's not a chance to be funny; it's a 100% sincere and sober villain role. It's not a chance to work with an esteemed director; Patrick Hughes doesn't have that kind of pedigree. It's not a chance to work with a particular actor; virtually none of Oldman's scenes are with the top-billed cast. Sure, Oldman comes in and does great in this nothing part. I just don't get it. Alimony payments to make?

On the other hand, there's Salma Hayek, who I didn't even know was in this, and so on every level became the surprise of the movie for me. She's hilarious, perhaps all the more so for me not generally expecting that from her. Her role is on the small side too, but she digs in with gusto. She's as sarcastic as Reynolds in his best moments, curses with as much glee as Jackson in his best moments, and earns easily more than half the movie's laughs -- which could be seen as a criticism of the rest of the movie, but let me be clear that I mean it as a compliment to her.

There are worse comedies out there, movies that generate no laughs at all. Still, you can (I'm sorry to say) do a lot better than The Hitman's Bodyguard. I'd give it a C-. I mean, A+ to the premise, the people who made the poster, cut the trailer, and so on. But an over-serious script kept it from realizing its full potential.