User reviews

OK if you want a mega budget action film, big names, big affects....well then this is not for you. Its always hard to rate a low budget film as most have a bigger version out there (not always better mind) its hard to see past the poor locals or affects, long story short they look cheap. So we have Hit-man who relives his life, flash backs and the like, all that he has done told through his eyes. Acting wise Luke Goss is good, cold and cool, and the other cast.....well a few are good and a few bad (it tends to be accents that let actors down) The action is good at times, again the low budget keeps it to mainly gun/hand fights, both of which are not bad, its not flashy but it feels a little bit more real to life. The story is what it is, been there seen that, but it moves along well. The look of the film is lower budget.....but at times it looks very well shot. One thing that stood out for me was the soundtrack, simple and at times haunting, much better than most films of this type. I know I keep saying budget budget budget, but its what you have to think of when you look at these films, for me this is a good solid film for the budget, it makes me wonder just what Perry Bhandal(director, first film) could do if he was to get a bigger....OK last time BUDGET. I hope some studio has faith in Perry Bhandal and gives him more room to create.

Film noir? I Think so. It contains some of the classic ingredients. Narration, urban locations, a sultry lead male with chips on both shoulders (for no other reason than that his childhood was stolen from him?) and being in a place that he really doesn't want to be. A strong, mysterious female.

The camera work would not be to everyone's taste. Hand held a lot using available lighting? The result isn't always easy to watch. There are a lot of 'in-your-face' close-up shots, which Luke Goss lends himself too brilliantly. The film appears to be built around the editing, which really works and is very clever. The soundtrack was unobtrusive and enhanced the film. I like the fight scenes, no big demonstrations of pushing over large pieces of furniture, it didn't drag on for minutes just filling celluloid, no unrealistic sound effects. You don't need to know how Viktor became able to kill a man quickly with his bare hands.

Well cast in my opinion. Luke is pleasing on the eye for close up and his expressions showed all the emotion, or lack of it, the part required; no passion available - Perfect. I want to say he was very 'cool', but the character wasn't suppose to be cool, he was a boy on a mission and knew no other way to act, which just happened to come across as 'cool'. The supporting cast, mostly recognisable from any violent British film or grisly TV drama, played their parts admirably. Oh, and young Viktor? Elliot Greene, I hope shooting up people hasn't left him disturbed in any way. Or is he just being primed for the remake of Scum? I think without even realising it, or being told to, he played young Viktor with the same stealth and detachment that Luke played old Viktor.

I liked the twisting, or is that twisted? plot which made you wonder what was going on half way through then all made sense in the end, and what a conclusion. . .

Favourite shot – The expression on Viktor's face when he shoots the person under the table.

Best line: "Sorry to hear about your Mother". "Why? You didn't even know her" – a response all should be allowed to give when telling people they lost a parent when they were in their teens or younger and not be considered rude or insolent

INTERVIEW WITH A Hit-man.

I really liked it. Now I didn't rate Luke Goss much as an actor, but to be honest that was unfair of me. I only felt that way because I know him mostly from the boyband Bros, who I hated when I was a kid. But I have to say he is actually not a bad actor. He does a great job here as a cold hearted killer.

Luke is a hit-man who is giving an interview to a journalist. He sits down and tells his life story from when he was a kid up until present day.

There are some great twists in this movie which I didn't see coming. And there are some really shocking hits that he makes.

The story doesn't get boring and it flows along keeping you hooked on the film. You watch the film and start to by hating him as a kid, but by the end of the movie I felt sorry for him. He has had a messed up life.

This is not the best hit-man film I have ever seen, but it is still good.

I will give this film 7 out of 10.

Good film, but I have seen better hit-man films (Leon)

For more of my reviews, please like my Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ordinary-Person-Movie- Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl

Not sure what people's problem is with this film.

From the score you'd think it was terrible...

... but it certainly isn't.

It's moody, well-paced and plotted and well acted for the most part.

With some good twists...

I know Luke Goss isn't exactly Al Pacino but he's good in this part.

Well worth a watch - ignore the naysayers.

Is that ten lines yet? Good grief.

Way to force people to add superfluous text! All I wanted to say was "ignore the weirdly low score - it's a good movie".

All i can say imagine this first time director with a big Hollywood budget then you will see the true beauty of this film. I felt at times that i could feel David finchers atmospheric cinematography riding through this film and with the menacing soundtrack i think this film deserves much more of a user review score for a first time director.

The story is a child grows into a hit-man finds love thats it but inbetween there is so much more and i thought the ending was pleasing.

This isn't a popcorn flick and though the fight scenes and action sequences are good it is a slow paced melodrama but the script is good which in my opinion makes the film worth watching

You don't need a big budget to be well informed about the reality..As a romanian viewer, I don't recognise neither the background nor the detailes of an imaginary Romania-Russia. Low budget, low quality and low everything...

Viktor (Luke Goss) grew up in the slums of Bucharest. His father was an abusive drunk, constantly in debt to the mob. When they finally kill his father, Viktor proves himself to be tough and resourceful enough to join them. He sees this as his opportunity to escape his life of poverty.

Viktor is taken under the wing of Sergei (Danny Midwinter), a low-level boss. Under Sergei's tutelage, Viktor grows up to become a feared enforcer and a successful hit man. His fortunes change when they are assigned to help Franco (Ray Panthaki), the son of Sergei's boss Traffikant (Stephen Marcus), on a drug deal. Franco freaks out and kills the man he was buying from, and Viktor and Sergei are forced to help him cover up.

Unfortunately, the man Franco killed was also the son of a powerful mob boss. Viktor comes home one day and finds Sergei waiting for him. Sergei explains that Traffikant is sure that the murder cannot be concealed forever, so he ordered Sergei to kill Viktor. He doesn't want to, but it's either Viktor or him. Viktor manages to give Sergei the slip, but he knows he can't hide forever. He fakes his own death and flees to England.

Arriving safely in London, he makes contact with a local crime boss hoping to get work with his organization. He gets in their good graces by grabbing an informant from police custody and delivering him to them. He is sent to kill a woman named Bethesda (Caroline Tillette), when he finds her being attacked and beaten by thugs, he rescues her instead. They fall in love and move in together, with Viktor hiding her from the gangsters who wanted her dead.

The film has a wrap-around gimmick borrowed from "Interview with the Vampire". At the beginning of the film, after performing a hit, Viktor sits down with a film director to tell him the film's story. This seems largely like an excuse to use narration to help tell the story, but it turns out to be integral to the plot. As Viktor nears the end of his story, Bethesda arrives and it's revealed why Viktor has been telling his story to this man.

The cover art for this release makes it look like a straight-to-video sequel to Timothy Olyphant's "Hitman" film. It's better than that though. It's largely the next instalment in Luke Goss's plan to become the low-rent Jason Statham. If the phrase "low-rent Jason Statham" sounds pretty cool to you, you'll most likely enjoy this film. It largely covers familiar territory, but it covers it well, and has a few genuine surprises waiting at the end.

I had high hopes with this one, it has some good actors but..... The Film Photography was Sepia Monochrome... The speech was in Monotone and just drones on and on with no excitement or enjoyment... The Sound track/music if you can call it that, is a Monotone that just drones on and on... The Plot, by this point is just as boring as the rest.

One assumes the intention was to copy the sepia look of lock stock along with the gangsta style but both are in totally different leagues. The music in lock stock sings to the heart, there is no music in interview with a hitman.

It's a wasted opportunity but it looks like the sound, film, writer, director & actors, phoned in this movie. The ending is ok but by the time you get there, you've lost interest, so the twist is hardly surprising,..

I'll be honest to say that I had not seen any of Luke Goss films, I remembered Luke from my younger days when he was a singer with his twin brother, and had sort of forgotten about him, and was surprised that he had been doing the film thing for some time.

And I am sure I will try and view a few other of his film roles, as this film was not bad, sure the budget was not over the top, the directing was thin at times, but I must say Luke did a stand up job playing the role of a hit-man.

The story line was nothing we movie goers had seen before, but it was entertaining enough, good action, but it lacked in direction. It did not explain the story well enough for me, and thats not the fault of the cast in any way, they did a good job with a thin script.

If they had a bigger budget and a better director, and worked a bit more on developing the story and the characters, then this would have been better received.

But still not a bad flick, I gave it a 7 out of 10

Typical tough guy too cool for everything hit man character without emotion except when he sees a woman getting beaten like his mother then he supposedly jumps into righteous hero mode. Predictable and formulated with incessant droning music that makes you want to take a bullet yourself just to end the monotony. And enough with the shaky camera, it literally does not stop quivering for a split second during the whole movie. Even reigning hand held twitchy kings like the Bourne flicks take a break from that once in a while during the story. The twist at the end is not even enough to rescue this flick from an hour and a half exercise in dreariness.

The first impression for me, watching this movie was: What the hell - a surprise out of nowhere. The atmosphere is sometimes as cold as the mind of a hit-man must be. Although, one can easily feel sympathy for him. So that should be the real title for this movie - Sympathy for a hit-man.

There is no way to compare the older hit-man movie (which follows the the game series) with this one.'Interview' is much harder, much more direct. While the body count is lower, and the pacing is much slower, with the absence of explosions and machine guns dismembering buildings, it's intensity is several classes above the earlier 'big' movie's.

Violence erupts fast and lethal, man's life isn't worth a second thought. Hit-man Victor does his job disciplined, results-oriented and precise.

So it is some kind of 'film noir' of todays days, an exception I would put in a row with Old boy or Sin City. You may love or hate them both, but they are also undoubtedly outstanding movies of their own kind.

This movie's strengths do come mostly from the presence of Luke Gross, who perfectly depicts a thug soldier, slowly awakening from an early inner death to an imagination of some kind of a life.

After that, there is a compelling soundtrack, and then, last but not least, for a first timer, I must say, an unbelievable talented director (Perry Bhandal), a late starter from whom we should hear and see more, in the near future, i hope.

There is also a solid supporting cast of pure professionals, that should be said for those of us who are reading here some reviews where an amateur cast is guessed. That's definitively not the case, you won't see anyone who can't act - on the contrary, even the kids are playing their parts very well. And of course, the Romanian characters are looking like Romanians, even when played by Brits, because Romanians can look like Russians or Italians or even like well-styled Englishmen ;-)

The few small flaws shouldn't be suppressed: First, Romanians are speaking together with a slight accent, that's sometimes irritating, but maybe is a tribute to those cast members who do not natively speak English. Second, the story itself is a bit confusing, and is not that believable when it comes to its solution; Even the interview idea per se is IMO a bit too far-fetched. At last, I felt that the age difference between grown-up Hit-man Victor and his Romanian Mentor Sergej is not shown properly in terms of make-up styling. But be assured, these are minor weaknesses.

Overall I cannot give less than 8 stars for atmospheric tense, cinematography and character depiction. While I found most of the past movies focusing on professional killers boring, this one by no means, thanks to actors, the director/writer, and the soundtrack composer.

It might be good, it might not.

You can't tell when the production is so incompetent that you can't hear the dialog. You'd think a director would know that when the actors mumble or whisper and the music is turned up loud that the audience won't be able to hear what is said. You' think a director would know that when the audience can't hear what's said, the audience can't tell what's going on. You'd think. I guess it was a bunch of amateurs shooting to hand-held consumer video cameras with the music coming off a boom box behind the camera man. But I can't tell. Maybe it was maybe it wasn't. Like the film, you just can't tell.

I don't agree with the complainers about this film. Luke Goss is a stone cold killer from early age to adulthood. He played his part really well. I didn't pay all that much attention to the other characters enough to critique them much. The music tracks were quite good and someone already mentioned almost haunting. Sure there are some plot holes and some bad acting from some lesser characters in the movie. But that's actually quite normal for action flicks of any budget. Overall I enjoyed the film and the action scenes were pretty good for it's budget. The story is true to the movie's description. I gave this a 9 out 10 because I really can't complain about much. For the budget of the film it beat out dozens of action flicks I've seen in the last 12 months that had much higher budgets. However, I preferred Luke's bad-ass character in Blood In Blood Out more.

"Interview with a Hit-man" offers a number of reasons to enjoy and appreciate the film, but also a number of reasons for frustration that it couldn't be better. The latter are somewhat mitigated by the recognition that this is an independent, first-time production by a writer/director/producer, so will not have the technical polish of a studio production.

Luke Goss gives a credible performance as a dispassionate assassin who seems so desperate to cling to some semblance of his own humanity that he places disproportionate reliance upon a sort of code that includes loyalty and honor, but isn't necessarily subscribed to by the sociopaths in his world. The fight scenes are decent, although at times seem too easy. The film looks as if it was shot through some sort of gold or sepia filter that washed out most of the color, leaving a surreal image that is largely reduced to black and white, like the choices the characters must make.

The most glaring fault in the movie is the incessant and distracting camera movement. Every single shot looks as if the cameraman was trying to balance on a unicycle while holding the camera in one hand at arm's length. IMDb and other movie sites should include a Richter scale rating indicating the level of unnecessary camera movement in each movie. Consumer rights groups should sue Steadicam to compel them to change their name to Jiggly-cam.

Other quibbles include a few too many coincidences and a plot twist that was largely predictable and somewhat derivative. The film has long segments without dialogue, but too many scenes of talking heads. The romance seems rushed, forced and never believable. The film would have benefited from a stronger leading lady. The motivations of some characters seem contrived.

As a first-time effort, as a low-budget independent direct-to-video, it's better than average and worth a view.

Interview with a Hit-man would have likely gotten a much higher rating if I could understand a single spoken word in it. The problems start with the decision to make the music very loud. This drowns out everything anyone says so already the viewer is at a huge disadvantage if they want to try and follow the movie. Second, it seems like most of the cast speaks English as a second language so no one enunciates at all. Finally, everyone practically whispers so this movie isn't a good choice to watch if you have neighbors, kids, or live with anyone that is trying to sleep. These problems culminate in quite possibly one of the funniest scenes I've experienced in a long time with the female lead giving a long rambling impossible to understand monologue whilst piano music blasts in the background.

This is by far the best British made thriller I have seen in a long time, the story is gritty, intense and compelling. Although the film was produced on a low budget, this for me enhanced the authenticity of the film and surpasses many other high budget thrillers in my opinion!

Luke Goss plays the lead character Viktor the Hit-man, Luke displays his raw talent throughout and his portrayal of an assassin is most compelling.

Perry Bhandal has done an fantastic job creating this film. I am truly amazed to hear that this was his first feature length film and I for one can't wait to see his next film!

While I can't give the film a "Must See!" rating, it was definitely not the cheap production that I expected. In general, the production values were good. The actors (especially Luke Goss) were competent and the story held together, even if it was derivative of several better-known movies. Oddly, IWAH is not particularly bloody. Even close-range shots from a handgun fail to produce noticeable blood or any damage to the clothing. And the camera frequently frames the scene so the victim is out of frame.

One thing that did drive me nuts was the sound. The soundtrack and incidental music were fine, but the dialogue is frequently hard to hear. This movie should have been looped (or looped BETTER). There are some points in the film where ALL of the following occur at the same time: (1) the speaker has an accent (to my USA ears, at least); (2) the speaker is facing away from the camera or obliquely to the frame; (3) the volume is low and the room is reverberant; and (4) the words are critical to the plot or to establishing tone. I found I had to stop and re-play several scenes because I had no idea what the actor/actress said. I mean, I got what was going on, but somebody worked very hard to get those six or seven words "just right."

Worth a watch, but not going to win a bunch of awards.