Nonureva Really Surprised!

Ploydsge just watch it!

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Spikeopath Sly Stallone stars as an ageing assassin who gets embroiled in a cat and mouse game with a younger assassin who wants to be number one of the trade. Teaming up with a computer hacker, Stallone battles not only his pursuer but also an event from his past that troubles him so.With Antonio Banderas and Julianne Moore in starry support, Richard Donner in the director's chair and the Wachowski brothers on writing duties, Assassins held the promise of a top line actioner. Sadly that promise is not met.There's clear signs of the makers trying to make something more deep and cerebral, what ultimately transpires is a overly complicated - and way over long - picture. Punctured with great action scenes, none more so than an outrageous taxi ride that John Woo would be proud of, it's in the middle section where pic drags itself into needless slumber. By this mid-point, one has had enough of Banderas, who comes off more like a deranged excitable kid than someone to be feared. Donner really falters there, but conversely he gets an interestingly engaging tune out of Stallone. Moore is very good, and gets some good dialogue to spout, which is a rarity, though, since much of the chatter is mumbled or said in such agitated or broody manner that the sound mix strains for aural clarification.It's not a stinker, and in its own way it's a diverting time waster, but too many holes and too many poor production desicions leave it knocking at the averageville door. 5/10

zkonedog Though Sylvester Stallone will forever be known as an "action hero", his best films by and large come from very emotional performances, whether it is the tormented John Rambo or the inspirational Rocky Balboa. In Assassins, he tries to deliver on both counts, failing on one (emotional) and succeeding in the other (action).The plot of this film sees Stallone playing Robert Rath, an aging hit-man who smells a rat and wants to get out of the game. Before he can do so, however, he is dogged by Miguel Bain (Antonio Banderas), a young whippersnapper who would like nothing more than to be "the best", and is willing to stop at nothing to do so. As Bain plays a cat-and-mouse game with Rath, programmer Electra (Julianne Moore) enters the picture in possession of a disc that is crucial to Rath's "retirement plans".The thing about this film I was most impressed with was the direction of Richard Donner. Though the movie fails on a good many aspects, it won't really strike you as boring due to the excellent pacing and scenes. It's not too often that good direction can make up for a lack of emotion, but in this case it puts this effort into the "watchable" category.Unfortunately, there are so many missed opportunities along the way. For example, we never really learn anything about Rath, his past, or why he wants to ride off into the sunset, which would have been crucial to giving this film some real emotional kick. Also, his relationship with Electra is so blase that it doesn't really make you want to root for them in the end. Perhaps the worst transgression, though, is the little to no exposition on the "mentor vs. young gun" theme that runs throughout the entire movie. It is clear that Bain once idolized Rath, but I would have liked a more fruitful narrative about why exactly Bain is willing to kill Rath in order to accomplish his "being #1 goal". Once you see the ending, you will wonder "why didn't they just do this two hours ago and save me the time?".Plus, the acting is also quite weak. Stallone, besides a few cheesy one-liners, never really gets to emote, while Bandaras is so over-the-top that one could almost consider him certifiable. Moore turns in a decent performance as a counter-point to the main masculine duel, but (as previously stated) her character really isn't given enough emotional depth to make a make on the narrative.Thus, despite some solid direction and great action sequences, this movie is one that you can skip and not miss out on a whole lot. Without any emotional connection to viewers or terrific acting, it just falls into that vacuous "b-movie action" category where so many of Stallone's movies end up.

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?

Wuchak Released in 1995, Richard Donner's "Assassins" is a slick action flick starring Sylvester Stallone as Rath, a professional hit man who wants out of the business after decades of killing. Antonio Banderas plays his young rival and Julianne Moore a computer whiz with whom Rath teams up. Anatoli Davydov is also on hand.At a 132 minutes, "Assassins" is too long for what it is – a wall-to-wall action movie where someone gets shot every 1-2 minutes, at least during the numerous ultra-violent sequences. This would be alright if the story and characters were interesting enough to warrant such length, but they're not. Banderas shines in the role of Bain, the zealous murderous psycho, but being a "murderous psycho" means he will get no sympathy from the viewer, otherwise he wouldn't be a murderous psycho. The characters played by Stallone and Moore are more sympathetic, but there's not enough detail to really care about them. Beyond that, the plot is convoluted even while the film is snappy. Despite the thrills, the story's just not engrossing enough to give a higher grade, but it's nowhere near as bad in this regard as, say, "The Mummy Returns." In other words, "Assassins" moderately keeps your attention.And then there's the pile-up of implausibilities that are too easy to spot, like how does Bain not get seriously wounded by a bus while hanging out the window of a taxi? How does he emerge virtually unscathed from a fall from a third-story window after a great explosion? Even if the table protected his head and mid-section, what about his fingers and legs that weren't protected? How did he NOT break something from the awkward fall? Why does Rath blow valuable seconds looking for a dumpster to throw a suitcase with a ticking bomb? If you knew a sniper was waiting for you outside a bank, wouldn't you use the back door and then maybe surprise the assassin from behind? If someone pulls a gun on you, like at the end with Bain and Rath, wouldn't you automatically shoot first and ask questions later? Lastly, the whole set-up at the end with one character waiting in the bank, another as a sniper in an abandoned hotel, and the other outside informing the one in the bank is the height of contrived.I realize implausible and contrived things happen in all action flicks, but the really good ones are able to get away with it because the filmmakers take the extra time to work out the kinks and make a truly compelling picture, like "Terminator 2," and not merely string together a bunch of "exciting" action scenes with contrivances galore. Still, "Assassins" is worth checking out if you like the cast and are in the mood for a polished action/thriller.The film was shot in Seattle & Everett, Washington, Portland, Oregon, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.GRADE: C+