I’m starting to think that video game-movies aren’t just shallow adaptations intended to sell a license instead of a story, but are properties actually cursed by a benevolent force. I don’t know how else to explain Hitman, a film that carries itself like an honest-to-god action film except after stylishly constructing the look of the film and wisely casting Timothy Olyphant in the lead role, someone forgot to that action films need action scenes.

There’s a lot wrong with Hitman. There’s the convoluted plot involving the assassination of the Russian president and the genetically engineered assassin Agent 47 (Olyphant) trying to find why he’s now at the mercy of members of his own mysterious organization. There’s the lack of a serious antagonist or worthy foil for the unstoppable 47. The film could desperately use a sense of humor. But all of this would be forgivable if the film had some fun action scenes. With maybe the exception of 47 trying to escape the hotel once he’s been betrayed, the film has absolutely nothing memorable in the action department and that’s inexcusable when the film is based around a guy who is really good at killing people. There are action scenes, but they’re so unimaginative that it’d be better just to cut in some scenes from Jean Claude Van Damme movies, digitally shave the guy’s head, and use that for your movie.

Lending credence to my “cursed” theory is that Hitman had some last-minute re-shoots and I can’t imagine the studio saying “You know what this film needs? Less action,” I’m at a loss as to why a film that should have been an easy sell failed at such an obvious and necessary element. As for where it falls in comparison to other video game films, the solid production values put it near the top of the pile, but that’s like saying it was one of your least painful root canals.