The Gunman – Film Review
Director: Pierre Morel
Starring: Sean Penn, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Mark Rylance and Javier Bardem
Release Date: Mar 20
It doesn’t take a genius to see what the thinking behind The Gunman is. Sean Penn is clearly Liam Neeson-ing it. He’s made his mark as a dramatic actor and now, he wants to cash in. To be safe, he’s working with Pierre Morel, the director of Taken, in the hopes that he can make lightning strike twice.
But it isn’t to be, because The Gunman is as ho-hum as the worst Neeson action films. Admittedly, Sean Penn is a lot better in the lead role than most action lunkheads. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the script is rote, uninspired and doesn’t have what it takes to keep us invested.
Sean Penn is Jim Terrier, an ex mercenary. After a successful assassination mission, he is forced to sever ties and flee from Annie (Trinca), the woman he loves. Eight years later, just when he feels his life is taking a positive new direction, Jim’s past catches up with him. There are men out there who want him dead, and he needs to find out why. Cue lots of guns, fist-fights and car chases.
What was once a sparky and captivating plot set-up has now become the action movie short-hand. It has great confidence in the opening scenes. A love triangle between Jim, Annie and Jim’s old teammate Felix (Bardem) shows some promise. And Penn has an interesting quirk of recording or transcribing events as they happen, which is conveyed deftly.
But once we move into the second act, the narrative is just going through the motions. Jim reunites with Annie with almost no ceremony whatsoever. Her character is very flat. Every revelation, decision and character arc she undergoes could easily be surmised by a simple glance at the film poster. Bardem also goes from potential anti-hero with serious depth to 2-dimensional bastard in record time. And Ray Winstone, while enjoyable as Jim’s surly old mate, is still a stereotype that comes pre-packaged with British crime thrillers.
It should be noted that none of the performances here are bad, per se, they’re just dull. We’ve seen all of this before, and we’ve seen it done better. Characters are just a necessity in order to serve the audience some hot, sexy action sequences. So it begs the question, where the hell is the action?
There’s the occasional shoot-out or fist fight (there may have been a car chase as well, it is genuinely hard to remember), but it’s all light on action and heavy on editing. It gives the impression that this is all just a theatrical production, and that we are constantly being distracted by people yelling or shooting at nothing whatsoever.
If there is a reason to see this though, it is to see Sean Penn in a very different role than the types he usually plays. To his credit, he doesn’t phone it in. He has some solid scenes that neatly convey what a capable military man he is, such as the shower scene (which probably isn’t what you think it is). There’s never a point where someone talks about him as though he’s a one-man army and “you all just better watch out”. He’s just very good at his job. That’s all. And that much should be commended.
Despite his performance though, Penn simply isn’t as engaging onscreen as Neeson, which is harmful to a movie that is inevitably going to be compared to Taken. He has a little personality and is believable as a retired mercenary. But you can’t root for him in the same way that you do with Neeson. He just doesn’t have that ‘fuck-yeah!’ factor, which a routine film like this needs if it wants any attention at all.
It has its problems, but Penn’s performance stops it from ever being terrible. This is a film that shows potential, but doesn’t really tap into it the way it should. It’s Taken-lite, with less action, a more grounded/boring story and a hero who is less cartoonishly OTT than Neeson, which would be a good thing if the film itself wasn’t so bog-standard.
Score: 2/5
Written by Stephen Hill
