Netflix's Fake Assassin Movie, Hit Man, Is So Enjoyable It's Almost Criminal
Fake murder, real fun.

If you have fringe political views and some stranger shows up to offer you help committing an act of terrorism or political violence, think twice. As Reason's C.J. Ciaramella wrote in 2022, that helpful stranger is probably working with the feds.
Similarly, if you're out to have a rival or a lover murdered but don't want to do it yourself, you should probably be suspicious of anyone you meet who claims to be a professional hit man. The murder-for-hire contractor across the diner booth from you is probably an undercover cop. Hit men, at least as portrayed in movies and airport thrillers, don't really exist.
Yet people holding murderous grudges want to believe that they do. And that's how Louisiana college professor Gary Johnson—no, not that one—became a fake hit man and the subject of a surprisingly charming new movie from director Richard Linklater.
Hit Man stars Glen Powell as Johnson, a nebbish professor of psychology and philosophy who began helping local police catch wannabe killers, first by setting up cameras and microphones and then by assuming the role of fake hit man himself.
Or, to be more precise, roles. Johnson leans into the acting aspect of the job, donning wigs and costumes to accentuate his various personas. Some are downright silly, but the point is that his theatrical accouterments allowed him to try becoming a different person. And that, in turn, helped him change himself—and become the person someone else needed, or wanted, him to be.
Hit Man, which was cowritten by Powell and Linklater, punctuates the film with brief sequences in which Johnson lectures his students about the fragility of the self, the way that most people think they know who they are but really don't. The self isn't as fixed as people think it is: Rather, it's always a kind of role, a character, a costume that people put on to be themselves.
That becomes relevant to Johnson when, in the guise of a suave contract killer named Ron, he meets a young woman named Madison who wants her abusive husband done in. Johnson, as Ron, advises her to drop it and just leave the bastard, which she does. But when they eventually bump into each other again, it becomes clear that she has feelings for him. Those feelings, however, are for Ron, not Gary.
Madison and Ron fall desperately in lust, and possibly even love. But their fling is complicated by Gary's ongoing deception, and by the reemergence of Madison's husband.
The title and setup make Hit Man sound like a twisty thriller, but it's best as a gently quirky romantic comedy, with the ordinarily hapless Gary playing the ultra-cool Ron and learning to be a different version of himself in the process.
Hit Man occasionally nods to the ethics of police stings and setups; it's peppered with brief scenes in which Gary not only meets up with wannabe murder mavens, but later encounters them in court, where he testifies to their guilt against lawyerly protests that they were entrapped rather than caught. But for the most part, the film is content to push those questions aside in favor of fake hit man rom-com hijinks.
Powell, the breakout costar of Top Gun: Maverick, is endlessly charming, and manages to ground the movie's sillier turns in something relatable. Despite the pretense of psychological complexity, it's not a particularly deep movie, but it's a sly, romantic, and pleasantly undemanding summer streaming confection. Indeed, it's so effortlessly enjoyable, it almost feels like a setup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This review is surprisingly spot on. Not because of what it actually says but in echoing the ingrained, oblivious socio/psychopathy of this movie. I don’t know Gary Johnson, but if I were him or his partner or widow, I would’ve considered this movie utterly disgraceful.
Case in point: In this review we have two named characters from the movie, Gary Johnson and Madison. We know the actor who played Johnson, Glen Powell, but Madison is unnamed (Ctrl+f “Adria Arjona”: 0 results). The actress does a decent job with the material she’s given and she’s half the motivation for the plot to happen, so you’d think she gets a mention, but that’s, apparently, not how this whole deal works anymore. Don’t ask questions, just consume product and get excited to consume next product.
To wit, the whole movie feels like a skin suit *mostly* propped up by Powell. He does a good job with costumes and most of the character changes, but there are some where he, or the plot, is just reaching. And it kinda starts with Johnson and everyone around him playing the “They must be a nerd because they have glasses on.” act. Adria Arjona does a decent job but, in the character and genre, her range has to extend all the way from “being exotic” to “being attractive”. At no point does she flub her lines or come across like a cold fish so… success!
Other than that, the movie spends a lot of time on the abstract “You might not be who you think you are.” philosophy that it otherwise fails to tell a coherent story and effectively winds up glorifying, in a “and they lived happily ever after” fashion, the only two people in the movie we actually know killed people. Moreover, while the people they killed are portrayed as generally uncouth, we are never given any more justification for their murders by the protagonists other than they didn’t like them and/or their existence is inconvenient. And there’s no impression given about any of this that makes the protagonists seem the least bit aware that they did anything wrong so it comes across as more psychopathic rather than romantic (dark) satire like Mr. and Mrs. Smith or Santa Clarita Diet.
As I indicated, and is stated at the close of the movie, the actual Gary Johnson was a Buddhist who never killed anyone. I don’t know if his wife, if he even had one, did or didn’t. It would seem like depicting or commemorating him in such a psychopathic fashion, a fairytale ending for sociopathic murderers, isn’t consistent with either the fact or the ethos of the man’s life.
All that said it's a RomCom. Long-form girl porn. It's not made for me. If it lacks a soul and ghoulishly wears around someone's legacy, who cares? It's going to be forgotten by the time the next RomCom comes out, if not the next morning, anyway.
Thanks -- the two reviews are much better together. I've pretty much stopped watching any recent movies, given Hollyweird's woke nonsense, and it doesn't help that there are so many separate streaming services that it would cost a fortune to subscribe to enough to cover all new movies. Haven't been to a theater in ages, can't stand so many people jabbering on phones instead of watching the show, and the sticky floors and high prices haven't helped.
But I do read reviews, hoping Hollywood will return and leave Hollyweird in the dust, and maybe some pay per view service will have access to all movies instead of subscribing to each studio and then only watch one or two a month for exorbitant prices.
Whether it’s a side effect or direct cause of the wokey culture, Hollywood’s output is so bad even the stuff that isn’t overtly political is a trial to sit through. Whether it’s “The Message” leaking through at random times, the blatant self-inserts by neurotic writers, or the absolutely horrible dialogue and character development (mostly because the writers aren’t actually reading anything other than Oprah-fied Book of the Month schlock, and have no life experience outside of LA or New York), Current Year movies and teevee is a pain in the ass to watch.
I suspect a big reason that streaming is so common now, besides the convenience of it, is because the channels have so many older shows and films that aren’t crippled by the post-Floyd cultural miasma. It's not really an accident that these services are seeing older shows being more popular than the newer stuff.
While I concur that Hollywood and television are horrible and worsening, it’s not just the political correctness message crap that is so annoying for me. Much of my refusal to watch extends farther back to Hollywood and television’s insistence on trivializing every plot with some half-baked romantic interest. I have not found a single “war movie” looking all the way back to before my birth that did not have some totally irrelevant female role as a love interest for the hero. I have read – and continue to read – great stories and historical accounts that would make GREAT movies and television series if some clever writers and producers used their talents and special effects expertise to actually tell those stories without giving into the temptation to mass-appeal them. Many writers and artists over the centuries have managed to produce great art without trying to produce blockbusters. Some of them even managed to eke out a living doing so while still alive. In today's much wealthier world, they should be able to make a killing at this. What happened to “art for the sake of art?”
I have not found a single “war movie” looking all the way back to before my birth that did not have some totally irrelevant female role as a love interest for the hero.
The reason for that has been a long-standing piece of 20th and early 21st century cinema that the hero’s love interest helps keep him grounded and reminds him of what he’s defending. It’s not just the “cause,” it’s love and family. Especially in war settings where emotions run high and you’re not sure if you’re actually going to come back or not. The love interest gives the hero something to want to return home to, so he’s not just a nihilistic killing machine. That’s been true as far back as Odysseus.
What happened to “art for the sake of art?”
Casualty of the streaming era, plus the need for massive profits on tentpoles to justify costs. We went through an “arty” era in the 90s mainly because the Weinsteins were pushing the envelope in that arena with Miramax. Stuff like “Sling Blade,” “Reservoir Dogs,” “Emma,” “Clerks,” etc., that had a more European sensibility or were just way out of the mainstream probably wouldn’t have been released by the big studios. The model was to make a movie for about $10 million or less, and then try to triple the profit to fund other projects. If it became a blockbuster, like Pulp Fiction, great, but with such small budgets, making a profit wasn’t terribly difficult. “Cop Land,” for example, was considered a box office disappointment, but it still made a decent profit because it only cost $15 million to make.
The Weinsteins had a bit of a mini-revival of this in the \2010s with Oscar bait from The Weinstein Company releases, but those films never had the same pop culture impact as what they released with Miramax in the late 80s through the 90s.
Kenneth Branagh had a similar cottage industry going with the Samuel Goldwyn Company and his Shakespeare films, but he was an actor and director, not a producer exec, and couldn’t match Miramax’s output. These movies didn’t just have a life in the multiplexes, there was a niche part of the business with the art-house theaters that were basically the remnants of post-World War II movie theaters that had been abandoned by the big studios as the suburbs grew through the late 20th century. A lot of the “arty movies” ended up showing there and making modest box office returns because they were seen by movie critics and pretentious Boomers and Gen-Xers as a more “sophisticated” consumer activity. Most of these theaters were pretty much all gone by 2020 because you just can’t survive on showing Rocky Horror all the time.
"...if you're out to have a rival or a lover murdered but don't want to do it yourself, you should probably be suspicious of anyone you meet who claims to be a professional hit man."
I actually knew someone [place of work] who fell for this. You just never know with people; thought the guy was a narcissistic jerk, but never figured him as a murder for hire type.
Entrapment is a real thing and the line between a legitimate sting and entrapment is not all that subtle. If you’re walking along minding your own business and an undercover cop accosts you and offers you something illegal that you were not particularly looking for at the time, that is entrapment. If you are already a suspect in a crime and law enforcement has a warrant based upon probable cause and sets up a trap that you, in the process of committing a crime, walk into for the purpose of committing the crime, that is not entrapment. Of course, libertarians will continue to object to victimless crimes being enforced in the first place, with or without entrapment, but that’s a different issue.
So entrapment comes up most often in my office with respect to solicitation (of a prostitute or minor). Because in 2024, hookers use the internet to find johns. And cops put up fake ads for minors looking for hookups.
Well in a recent one, the cops put up an ad for “college girls looking for easy money” or similar. The ad says 19yr old girl. Once someone responds they make arrangements for how much $ and where to meet. Then when the person agrees to the amount and follows the prompt to tell them they are on the way, the “girl” says oh ya sorry im actually 16 hope you are okay with that.
So then the legal question becomes whether someone who is predisposed to pay for sex with an adult is also predisposed (and hence its not entrapment) to pay for sex with a minor. Obviously the penalties are drastically higher for the latter. So all in all, the cops have way too much time on their hands and their desperate measures to turn otherwise non sex offenders into sex offenders is really fucked up (to say the least). One of the clients is a foreign exchange student who doesn’t even speak much English. Ridiculous.