Assassin's Bullet (I) (2012) User Reviews

Bad story makes this movie a mess to watch.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 4/10 · 26 July 2012]

It's a somewhat decent made and looking low budget genre flick, that is however suffering from a terrible written script.

Problem with the movie is that you for the longest time will have no idea what you are watching here. You have no idea who all these characters are supposed to be and where the story will be heading at. I hate it when a movie does that. It's lazy writing and not a clever way to keep the audience in the dark for as a long as possible, concerning its story.

And really, when the plot becomes apparent it gets very easy to guess each time what shall happen next. The big 'twist' also is hardly something clever at all, since probably most will figure it out half way through already. It's just too obvious all and unfortunately also nothing too convincing, making this movie and its plot quite ridicules all.

It also really makes this a pointless movie to watch. It's lacking a clear point and direction with its story and there is nothing in it that shall ever truly surprise or thrill you. Not even the action, which isn't even all that much present anyway but you can blame the budget for that.

It's a sad thing Donald Sutherland's talent has to go to waste in this movie. Well, guess it was just some easy and fast money for him, since he isn't even all that much present in this movie, though it of course still gets advertised like he is playing a big part. But same can be said for Timothy Spall really, who should be above these type of movies.

Just not a very good movie to watch.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The Twist They Wanted You to Know about

[Chris_Pandolfi · 4/10 · 3 August 2012]

"Assassin's Bullet" is a halfcocked attempt at a political thriller – a film that not only skimps on the expected action thriller elements but also labors mightily on a profoundly implausible plot and incredibly weak character development. It actually constructs itself around two twists, one the filmmakers didn't even attempt to keep hidden and another they didn't attempt to resolve. Apart from the fact that this amounts to an absolute mess of a screenplay, one that clearly wasn't ready to be shot, this also puts me in a very awkward position. How can I adequately describe a movie that is all spoilers without having to cop out and issue a spoiler warning? I've trained myself to give away only that which is essential for good reading and no more; perhaps I was fated to see "Assassin's Bullet," for it would test my worth as a film critic.

Let me start with what I know I can reveal. It takes place in Sofia, Bulgaria. There, we meet a former FBI black ops agent named Robert Diggs (Christian Slater), who's there essentially to escape the memory of his dead wife. He's called back into duty at the U.S. Embassy by Ambassador Ashdown (Donald Sutherland), who wants him to track down and identify an unknown vigilante who's assassinating Islamic terrorists high up on America's Most Wanted list. This rash of killings could have something to do with a now defunct counterterrorism program called Project Sofia; it seems this assassin not only has access to these high profile targets but can actually wipe them out in a matter of days, something the black ops specialists haven't been able to do in years. How is this possible?

To be sure, we do see this assassin, albeit in initially vague ways. We know that it's a woman in an all-black getup, her eyes concealed by sunglasses and her face somewhat obscured by black bangs of hair. I was under the assumption that assassins were supposed to be inconspicuous; given the way her wardrobe makes her look like a cross between a dominatrix and a biker chick, she would never have gotten away with her line of work. To her credit, she's a skilled sniper, and she can even engage in hand to hand combat if the occasion calls for it. Granted, that's almost never in this movie. The only scene in which there's any real action is reserved for the very end, when she fights Diggs with a pipe. She almost never speaks. The only words that pass her lips are, "No witnesses," which should tell you everything you need to know about her methods.

Two other women enter Diggs' life, in a manner of speaking. One is a mysterious dancer at the club, who does her act with a scarf and seems to be channeling Mata Hari. Diggs inevitably falls in love with her, and although she seems receptive, there's also the unmistakable sense that she's hiding something. The other is Vicky (Elika Portnoy), who teaches English as a second language to teenage students. A damaged woman who regularly suffers from memory gaps and frequent visions of her own traumatic childhood, including the death of her parents, she's the patient of Dr. Khan (Timothy Spall), an incredibly odd therapist who, rather than take notes during his sessions with Vicky, sketches her instead. He has the tact of a classic James Bond villain, always speaking his dialogue as if he had an ulterior motive for everything. He also happens to be friends with Diggs, and they regularly convene in the club.

And this is where talking about this film starts to get tricky. What I can say is that, for a large portion of the film, the person giving the unknown assassin her assignments isn't shown; all we see is a man's hand playing around with a coin and tapping on an iPhone. I can also say that, given what is made all too clear to the audience fairly early on, Diggs is without a doubt the densest black ops agent in the history of the FBI. He's so dense, in fact, that one wonders how he got accepted in the first place. It can't possibly be a good sign that the main character, who's said to be one of the best in his field (the exact word used to describe him is "exemplary"), ends up being the most clueless one of the story. I swear to God, there were times when I wanted to crawl up into the screen and slap some sense into him.

An interesting sidenote: Portnoy not only co-stars but is also given story credit. In Hollywood, whenever someone is given story credit, that typically means that the first draft of the screenplay was seized by other writers and eventually altered to the point of destroying the author's original vision. Was that the case with "Assassin's Bullet"? Did Portnoy pen a screenplay, only for Nancy L. Babine and Hans Feuersinger to take control of it and ultimately receive final credit? That would be the story I'd stick to, if I were her. Not only can we not believe anything we see or hear in this film, but at no point did anyone even try to surprise us with its "twists," nor did anyone bother to take the story in an original direction. This movie is a sad case. I feel bad that the names Slater, Sutherland, and Spall had to be attached to it.

-- Chris Pandolfi (www.atatheaternearyou.net)

A really long and boring movie with a great cast. I had high hopes and was disappointed. Nothing to rush to. I say C-

[cosmo_tiger · 4/10 · 22 July 2012]

"No questions, that's all I ask." When members of the Most Wanted terrorist list in Europe begin to get killed off the US Ambassador (Sutherland) sends for the best of the best. A former FBI field agent (Slater) begins to investigate. Judging by the plot and the cast this is one I was all ready to watch and enjoy. I had high expectations and was excited to see this. Then the movie started. To say I was disappointed is an understatement. The acting was OK, but the movie was just so incredibly slow moving that I really found it had to pay attention to. This really felt like a made for TV movie with better actors. There have been a lot of anti-terrorist movies lately and none of them seem to really be that interesting. This one had the possibility of being one of the best. Then I watched it. While not as bad as the Steven Segal or Dolph Lundgren movies that have been coming out it's still not anything to rush out and see. Overall, long and boring and hard to stay focused on. I give it a C-.

Horrendous!

[mame-7 · 2/10 · 15 July 2012]

This is a poorly written, poorly directed FEMME NIKITA knock-off, like a poor, unattractive Bulgarian little sister to the French original. Sutherland and Slater have no business in this film. The votes it received as a "ten" have to be from production folks or PR people - it's a 2 at best. This movie features bad direction, lousy writing, horrendous action sequences, a pathetic "reveal" and it doesn't build to anything but a limp, predictable end. If you're looking for an action movie, this isn't it. If you want good acting, keep looking. If you like looking at open toed shoes with shiny pantyhose, this could be the film for you. Don't bother and don't get taken in by the bait-and-switch trailer - it isn't worth it!

a kid can make a better movie. What's with the bellydancing!?!

[jumpmang8 · 1/10 · 7 August 2012]

Just imagine a kid trying to make his first "foreign-place action movie" who has no idea about the world and cultures and has it all mixed up in his head and this is what you get. Amazingly inaccurate and confusing settings and like everyone said, dumb story. What does Bulgaria or Sofia have to do with this? And what time in the future or past is it taking place because that country and city have never looked or sounded like that. Why are American and British folks chilling in bellydancing and shisha bars?? If they said it was Turkey or middle east it would be slightly more accurate. All that arabic music in the background is hilarious! You don't hear arab music in Europe unless you go into an ethnic restaurant. So amazingly inaccurate. I can't believe there is an actual American director who mixed up cultures and countries like that. This is like making a movie in France but having Italian music in the background while people speak Spanish but actually looking like German. Total parody of a movie! Makes for decent laughs!

Laughable and pathetic!

[botev1921 · 1/10 · 13 August 2012]

Sorry to say, but this Bulgaria-made movie is by far the most idiotic piece of cinema you could possibly imagine. It is hard to believe this had a budget of 5 million to work with and I guess most of it went into paying Slater and Spall, whom I would hardly imagine will take the part without a substantial paycheck. Concentrating on the actual movie, I would start with the story, which is non-existent and so badly written you could hardly follow what exactly is going on. Advertised as an action movie, the action is so little you could easily fall asleep. The biggest fight scene between Slater and the woman near the end is banal and completely detached from the entire plot (if there is any plot at all), that it makes you wonder if they just needed Slater to be brutally beaten because he was so stupid to take the part. The woman, whose name I can't bother to remember is such a bad actress, it made me feel uncomfortable and I would strongly advice her to find a real job as acting can hardly get worse nowadays...not to mention how incredibly unnatural everything she does is. I never say this about any woman, but sometimes people who are obviously terrible actors are cast because of their good looks - not the case here unfortunately, but then again I doubt there were any auditions for the role as the actress is also the writer. Screenplay-wise I would say this is the most unrealistically portrayed Bulgaria ever seen. You see scenes more suited for Iraq or Afghanistan 20 years ago rather than Bulgaria. Buying typical Arab clothing on the street in a European country is very unusual even for a movie. I assume the author wanted to ridicule the current situation in Bulgaria, where corruption and organised crime are thriving but involving some middle-Eastern terrorists and basically making it look like Bulgaria is more or less the center of modern day terrorism is moronic. I am not going to discuss the endless belly dance scenes and perverted moments involving Slater in a public place seemingly having an orgasm, but one thing is certain - sexuality does not always sell!

I would not recommend this piece of "action" to anyone, who considers themselves moderately intelligent! In fact I would not recommend it even as a joke as that would be too cruel!

Just Pass

[woodytractor · 1/10 · 17 July 2012]

This movie is so awful I can barely put words together. Reviews here require 10 lines of text, and I'd like to prevent others from wasting time and money on it, so here goes... I love action flicks and typically ignore critical reviews, but this is a truly pathetic film. It is incoherent and not interesting or exciting at any point. The fact it got 6 out of 10 (usually a "go" signal for me on action movies) tells me how easy it is for studios to game this site. They must have spent a lot of money on the actors and had to recoup it somehow, otherwise this would never have made it to distribution. If there is an Oscar for worst movie, nothing can compete with this.

Pure crap...

[vaughnedj · 1/10 · 19 July 2012]

Okay so it pretty much starts out this chic walking into a place and taking everyone out. I'm not even going to go into all the errors in this particular scene. Suffice to say, at least 1 of the people she 'killed' would not have even been in critical condition upon arrival of paramedics. Then we go on into some plot of the movie. What's the plot? I don't even know, they don't really tell you at this point, it's like you're now watching a completely different movie. Then it goes back to the chic, she buys a rifle. Okay let's set aside that she buys a rifle that is way overpowered for the shot she plans to take later, and let's set aside that she has no spotter for the shot. She gets there, the guy is making a bomb from some C4. Sure, okay, we'll go with that. Somehow the dog can tell she's there from across a lake placing her at least 800 metres from the target. I don't know what kind of super dog this is but I wish I had one. Then the guy goes to do his daily prayer. She's supposed to be a cold-blooded killer, yet she hesitates. Then, when she *does* finally shoot him... once again like in the first scene, a wound to the upper right shoulder. Anatomy 101 fellas, there is nothing fatal there. *Maybe* if it was his left shoulder, she could have possibly hit an artery, but no. Then she says in some cheesy accent 'No witnesses' and shoots the dog (who is still somehow aware of her precise location). Seriously, does the dog know sign language? What was the point? I turned the movie off here and could not watch this crap any further. If you spent any kind of money on the viewing of this film then I'm sorry that my review (as well as some others) did not make it to you in time to warn you. If not? Well just highlight the file and delete it and empty your recycle bin. Crap of this magnitude should not be allowed to exist. Come on Hollywood, if you're going to bother spending money to make movies and complain when they get stolen, maybe people would feel better about paying for them if they were actually worth watching.

One of the worst movies I've seen

[kay-bellor · 1/10 · 18 July 2012]

I'm stuck by the 10 line requirement, too. I could lift the best bits from the previous reviews. Anyway, this movie was awful, almost laughably terrible. I, too, could not figure out what fine actors like Donald Sutherland and Christian Slater were doing in it. But I just read an article about actors who don't see their pictures, just the pools and cars that they buy. Watching Slater become lovestruck by the female lead was hilarious. She's a belly dancer with a pretty bad overbite with hideous make up and bad hair (she's lovely in person, I am sure). Say what???? She did look good in her black ninja costume. And Sutherland employed his twinkle a couple of times to good effect. But gawd - we kept watching like we would watch a train wreck and because we paid extra for the "in theaters now" cable version. Don't waste your money.

I did not understand what the movie tried to convey

[balesh-lakshminarayanan · 1/10 · 18 July 2012]

This is a very bad movie which should be watched only if you have absolutely nothing else to do. There is nothing in this movie. Except for some belly dancing, I could not understand what the movie tried to communicate. There is this terrorist killing vigilante with a multiple personality disorder but at the end of the movie I got really confused as to whether its about terrorists or about MPD or a love story ...God knows ...And Michel Slater could have done better, especially when there is a chase towards the end where he is not able to even run properly being an "exemplary" FBI agent. Probably time to quit smoking for him.

A free tour to Bulgaria?

[rightwingisevil · 18 July 2012]

A horrible film, definitely and I have to say that the main reason Christian Slater and Donald Sutherland signed the contracts to play these two roles in this film was that they not only got the money to play the parts, they also got a free tour to Bulgaria at the production companies' expense. Well, why not took the opportunity in between new movie projects and went to some foreign country, stayed in the 5-star hotel, all expenses including air fares covered. They didn't have to worry about if the screenplay was a lousy one, or the supporting actors good or bad, the director....and so on, they signed on, went there, shot the film and went back to where they used to reside.

I also noticed that the leading production company, Mutressa Movies, only produced 4 films so far, including this one, but all of them were low budgets B-level films, strictly released to DVD rental market. In the meantime, another new production company, Sofia Productions, was sucked in to do business with Mutressa Movies. I really don't know why they always and could only find lousy screenplays that only received the lowest reviews all the time. Christian Slater, well, I have to say that in recent years, he's already fallen into B-movie's first choice and that is not good, man. Because once you signed on those low budget B movies, your career is doomed to go down the hill.

Donald Sutherland played the role so mindlessly easy. He is very old but still very active. When there's money to make, traveling abroad, all expenses covered, why not?

Good movie

[boskov_dime · 8/10 · 18 August 2012]

According to me, this is good movie. I like it. The acting from the pro's is perfect, the story is 10/10. Just didn't like when the killer act like a robot. Had to kill the dog!!! This is not pointless as some think is. Cheap, yes. But with that budget... this is magic. I understand that you didn't understand the movie because it is not in English, but till the end of the movie, I couldn't believe it's the same actress in all three roles. For Bulgarian movie, it is perfect. Just a little thing. It is Bulgarian movie, but it has soundtrack named "Macedonian Girl", which can be heard around 19 minuet and like final song at the credits :)

Sorry, this movie is not for you

[adyankov · 6/10 · 10 August 2012]

As a Bulgarian I sometimes watch the horrible Stallone/Lundgren action flicks that get filmed in my country. I first saw the rock-bottom IMDb rating and reviews for this one, and prepared for one more night of cringing self-embarrassment. Boy, was I pleasantly surprised.

Sorry, guys, but no way you will ever get this movie. Hint: check the credits - it was primarily created by Bulgarians and half the time people in it speak in Bulgarian. This movie really was made for a Bulgarian audience and features all sorts of coy little inside jokes in the plot, poking with self-irony at bad American action films and cultural misunderstandings between our two nations. And, it actually paints a decent picture of Bulgaria and Sofia, our refined Oriental folk establishments and fine police force - sadly now we even have terrorists.

I am not saying it is a great film at all. It is at the level of good TV productions in Bulgaria and is actually very enjoyable to a Bulgarian who watches it as precisely that. How and why this was ever marketed to bloodthirsty action flick fans and sold overseas I can't say, but I kind of hope it diverted some cash from the awful Stallone stuff. Yet, you got your fair warning - just don't watch it.

Yawn time!

[footpad2010 · 2/10 · 8 August 2012]

I had high expectations for this movie because of the cast. However both Slater and Sutherland seem to be going in slow motion. Christian Slater's facial expressions, especially scenes with Timothy Spall, who is far too good for this-were of the school play ilk. All seems very amateurish and the acting from these great stars was extremely disappointing. Obviously the director who was also the author and female lead was very inexperienced and so the acting was very wooden. Bad direction, but good camera-work. The story and location were good but don't fulfill the potential. Such a shame that my wife and I wasted an evening on this. Not much more I can say just to fill my ten lines - Boring, Yawwwwwn!

Absolute complete and utter shite!

[yokobagginsoftheshire · 1/10 · 11 August 2012]

What I put on my fb wall to warn everyone:

Managed to watch only 20 minutes and nearly poured the salt in my eyes cause I was eating sweetcorn. The only reason I am alive is because I could not decide on the most painful way to commit suicide! My IQ has dropped by at least 100 points, I DO NOT KNOW HOW I am managing to write at all!

Produced by MUTRESSA MOVIES! THE HELL IS THAT! In Bulgarian, "mutressa" is what u call members of organised crime. They are renowned for being brutal, uneducated, corrupting and uncultured - this is the type of movie they would produce. I would not be surprised if the studios are used for money laundry.

Absolute tripe

[daggersineyes · 1/10 · 17 April 2016]

I'm sorry but this movie has ZERO redeeming features - even Slater & Sutherland can't save it. It's badly produced, directed, written, filmed, edited etc. The script is laughable. The "whodunnit" non-existent (it's obvious what's going on from the start). There's no-one likable in the movie - Christian Slaters character comes closest but the script and lack of character development just leave you feeling like he's a cardboard cutout - made worse by the generic "tragic backstory" so badly exposed you feel nothing for him. The lead actress who needed to carry this film is atrocious - completely incapable of delivering a line, acting or in any way drawing in the viewers interest and amazingly unattractive, not so much in the physical sense (although she really isn't an oil paining) but she has no charisma or magnetism at all. Seriously...... where did they dig her up from? On top of all this horrendously awful quality we are subjected to long scenes of very bad belly dancing from not very attractive women (ie the unattractive lead) and incredibly sexist & misogynistic attitudes & comments all the way through. As if that's not enough. they kill the dog.

If you were thinking of watching this on Netflix or something, seriously just don't. There is nothing here to watch. You'd get more entertainment from watching grass grow - and less irritation.

great disappointment

[marcoasleitao-905-480753 · 1/10 · 13 October 2020]

I decided to watch this movie only because of Slater and Sutherland. I was extremely disappointed Everything in the movie is bad...little action, bad plot, etc, etc...

No witnesses

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 22 March 2018]

Not being satisfied with killing the western genre, Christian Slater turns his sights on spy thrillers. Slater plays a former FBI official who now works at the US embassy in Sofia, Bulgaria. There is a vigilante assassin of "bad" Muslims that for some reason is a problem. We get to see that the killer is a dark haired woman.

In order to get Christian Slater back into the FBI business, the film incorporates the acting of Donald Sutherland, Hollywood's go-to guy for black ops since "JFK." In addition to the killings, the movie centers around Slater's obsession with a red headed belly dancer and a psychologist talking to a blond woman who teaches English.

The film gives you clues and key plot points almost in a manner of "Student Bodies" with a big arrow and the word "clue" by it. The camera will zoom in and pause to let us know the director thinks his audience is composed of idiots. Slater was unconvincing. Elika Portnoy was boring. This is not an action thriller, but a poorly developed drama/mystery.

On the plus side we did get to see some of the old architecture of Bulgaria.

Parental Guide: No f-bombs, no nudity, minor bed scene.

If you want to learn belly dancing, you should watch this one

[peterp-450-298716 · 1/10 · 6 May 2014]

Slater and Sutherland in the same movie ... that couldn't be bad. It was worse than bad. What a terrible B-movie this was. For those who want to learn belly dancing, buy that movie. There's plenty of tutorials in.

There are also some really ridiculous blunders: a VHS tape that catches fire after being thrown into boiling water. A teacher who exposes half her buttocks showing a tattoo there. Afterwards she appears to be the belly dancer, but where did that tattoo go?

I had a flashback into the '80s when you could rent such crap movies by the hundreds at your local VHS rental store. Better forget about this real quickly

More reviews at http://opinion-as-a-moviefreak.blogspot.be/

Hard to spoil something that is already rotten

[gfrancis0 · 1/10 · 28 September 2013]

OK, technically it is not rotten, just a completely amateur effort. They had some interesting camera work and Slater and Sutherland of course do respectable acting jobs, but that is IT as far as things to like. Wow, the story is just SO lame, really not sure how they got those two guys to do the movie, but I am thinking it probably included a few dollar signs. The budget listed on IMDb is $5 million, I am assuming that each guy got a LEAST a million to swallow their pride and do this pig. Where to start with the bad stuff, hmmmm. Hiring actresses to be featured belly dancers in the same bar that they go to EVERY night that are obviously NOT, including the main actress who looks more like she has Parkinsons or something. Having the same actress be 3 women (without being recognized immediately) basically by switching wigs is very "supermannish" of them. She has a raised mole over her right eyebrow, kind of gives it away. And trying to present her as this ravishing beauty is also hiLARious! The main plot point about having to put the "retired US spy" on the case to figure out why someone is killing terrorists in Bulgaria is puzzling as well. Why the hell would we care? I swear this was written by kids in 6th grade, I could go on forever about the stupidity in the script. Even the title is meant to sound enticing, but is just infantile. Save yourself the 90 minutes and do just about ANYTHING else, this thing is a LAME JOKE!

Slow...

[karenhutchinson13 · 3/10 · 11 April 2018]

Good story, but the pace tooo slow! I became disinterested halfway through, and that was generous. I kept waiting for it to get better, however I will never know because I shut it off , seemed like it wasn't going to. The only redeeming quality was Slater and Sutherland. Too bad, I wanted to like this film.

Slater delivers yet again.

[thegame376 · 10/10 · 28 August 2012]

This is one of the best movies in recent decades, all the fuss about movies like Shawshank Redemption being on top, this is the real Oscar contender. His captivating role in this film builds up such an enticing atmosphere, by his role, you all know who I'm talking about. The Slater. The S Man. The one actor that should get the Oscar. No. That DESERVES an Oscar for his award winning performances in movies such as this, and the classic Lies and Illusions. Which I also gave a 10/10. No surprise there. Anyway, this is one of the best films of our generation. And I haven't even seen it! 10/10

.CS

Not as bad as all that!!!!

[mistertcj · 6/10 · 25 October 2016]

A short time ago, I was given a box of DVD's, some of which I have never even heard of. I have made a point not to be influenced by reviews, so made it a specific task of mine not to go on to IMDb until I have finished watching the movie. Sofia (or Assassins Bullet) was certainly a movie that I'd never heard of and, being a sucker for most movies filmed in continental Europe, thought I'd give it a view. When finishing the film, I have to admit to being surprised at the average rating on IMDb and the poor reviews. At the end of the day, it wasn't as bad as all that. I found it very intriguing and have to admit, without giving too much away, didn't suss about the belly dancer straight away. Elika Portnoy certainly turns in a very good performance as the female lead. It was good see Christian Slater as it seemed ages since I'd seen him and Donald Sutherland was what Donald Sutherland has become of late in his movies.......sly, artful, deceiptful. Is he one of the good guys...or is he bad. I think we all know which is favourite!! My main fault with the movie though is that there were certain areas where I actually worked out certain situations after I'd finished watching it.....important things that were never fully explained but needed to be. This is quite difficult to describe without giving plot spoilers, so I will stop there. Sofia was filmed in Bulgaria by a mostly Bulgarian crew. It certainly opened my eyes as to what a fascinating multi cultural country it is. I never realised...but given it's proximity to Turkey, i suppose I should have known better. Anyway, Sofia is certainly not the best film ever made and contrary to other reviews, it's definitely not the worst. This intriguing little thriller is definitely not a one star movie.

So bad, it made the entire theater smell foul

[fpweeren · 2/10 · 6 July 2014]

What's not to like, I thought? It's got big names - Christian Slater, Donald Sutherland, Timothy Spall; it has action and the plot sounds feasible, plus it's in Sofia, which I have never seen...

Well, here's the truth: The rest of the cast is world-famous, too (in Bulgaria). The plot is so bad, I often found myself wondering if this was a high school drama class group project - you know, "Class, write your own screen play."

We open with a gent carrying an ominous briefcase entering a restaurant, apparently in Paris. A little girl swings nearby, giddily laughing and staring at her parents nearby... it is so obvious that the man with the briefcase must be an Islamic terrorist that the constant repetition of the scene throughout the film makes the penultimate bombing flashback completely anticlimactic.

This little girl is reintroduced to us in three incarnations - an ESL teacher in Sofia, as an exotic (but putrid) belly-dancer in what apparently is supposed to be the closest thing Sofia has to a titty-bar, and as a brazen, sunglasses-wearing stereotypical ice-cold killer assassin. The oh-so-clever use of wigs apparently is supposed to not only fool main protagonist Christian Slater into believing the woman to be separate people, but also the audience at large, and the rest of the cast as well.

The assassin, we are told, is a vigilante who has apparently been picking off Islamic fundamentalist targets one by one. We are privy, however, to the fact that she gets her targets via mysterious mobile phone texts.

Enter Donald Sutherland as the U.S. ambassador to Bulgaria, who is Christian Slater's boss. Slater is an attaché at the embassy who is mainly concerned with the spread of English as a Second Language teaching in Bulgaria. Ambassador Sutherland decides that Slater should instead work with the (crooked, of course) Bulgarian police to solve the killings, because, after all, local authorities are incompetent (Bulgarians). Slater is, you see, an ex-FBI agent who left "the Bureau" because his wife and child were killed earlier and he is "trying to forget" everything. Mind you, this is dribbled out bit by bit throughout this long-winded, badly written epic production.

Intermingled with all this exciting (yawn!) action is a bunch of scenes with Timothy Spall, who is apparently a brilliant psychiatrist who just happens to be befriended with Slater's character and just happens to be the shrink of the wig-wearing assassin in all three of her persona. He, like everyone else in the film, is totally surprised by her cunning use of different wigs and has no clue the three patients are all one and the same person, probably because he spends most of the sessions with them "perfecting" really bad pencil sketches of them instead of actually asking them any deep questions.

Slater meets the wig-wearing wonder woman the first time at a very badly acted ESL school scene in which he is apparently functioning in his nebulous attaché capacity. He meets Wiggy the Assassin again with Timothy Spall as a belly dancer in scenes featuring the most appalling attempt by Slater to look as though he is not only in love, but in total lust, with her when she does some of the worst belly dancing ever caught on film. He is apparently supposed to be totally aroused by her even though his facial expression is more like someone who is about to vomit; perhaps the director should have asked Slater to achieve an erection and then zoomed in on the bulge in his trousers (if there is one big enough) to make perfectly clear that it is arousal he is trying to portray.

Intermingled between all these apparently human-interest building flashbacks and flash forwards, we are privy to the various assassinations and, bit by bit, how Wiggy came to be the apparently confused mess she is today. Each time she flashes back to her childhood in Paris, we see a little more of the bombing which killed her parents. Each time she goes to Spall the Shrink, she "blacks out" or "steps away," and occasionally we see flashbacks of her undergoing electroshock therapy or being confined in a padded cell in what is obviously a mental institution.

Everything culminates in the climactic "final" assassination: Wiggy is tasked with bumping off a bigwig "Islamic terrorist leader" who arrives in Sofia to fire up the "troops" so that "Islam can take over the world." Slater, who has in the meantime put together (in a host of very bad scenes of his doing supposed detective work at his embassy desk) that Wiggy's three persona might be the same person thanks to a faded tattoo on her right upper buttock, happens to catch sight of her and tails her to the site of the planned assassination. Here, the two of them engage in some very badly acted oriental martial arts style hand to hand combat which involves steel pipes placed handily on the ground nearby. Slater gets his butt kicked, assassination goes forward, the end is nigh and I won't tell you any more than that. If you really want to know, watch it yourself; suffice it to say it is hokey in the extreme.

My advice to Donald Sutherland: Find a new accountant if you needed the cash badly enough to be talked into making this dog. Same for Slater, along with the counsel that he may not want to do anymore scenes in which he is supposed to be in lust, smitten or horny for a woman as nobody was buying it. To the screen play author: Please don't quit your day job; your efforts are in vain and wasted. You have no talent; please refrain from further writing!

I made it 42 minutes then gave up.

[oppy1984 · 1/10 · 15 February 2014]

This was painful to watch, I sat through 42 minutes of this film and then gave up. The acting was horrible, the camera work was bad, and several things didn't even make sense. This is one of those films where you know the actors took their roles just to pay the bills, which is sad because I normally enjoy Christian Slater and Donald Sutherland. Also I really hate having to read subtitles, if you can speak English just do it, it's easier on the viewer! **SPOILER** Just one example of how stupid this film was, in the first 20 minutes of this film, a VHS tape is thrown into a post of boiling water and the tape catches on fire... that's how this movie works. Don't waste your time on this stinker.