 Recently I pondered why anyone would bother to shoot a film in ‘motion capture’ technique. Seems like an awful bother when live action looks better – and is more engrossing.
But then I saw “Hitman” and thought to myself: “There’s a film that was made for this format.” Of course “Hitman” is based on a video game franchise but was not shot with this technique.
Director Xavier Gens tries hard in several scenes to imitate a video game. Timothy Olyphant is frequently seen from the back of his head walking down corridors, turning corners and shooting people. It almost looked like a video game (and the script had as much nuance!). So why not marry the content with the format? Perhaps motion capture is too expensive for a schlocky B level film like “Hitman?” Or perhaps the filmmakers were striving for authenticity?
Too funny! What do you think – combine or leave the two techniques separate?
| 
