The only thing I can really praise about this film is that for a feature film made with a $3,000 budget, it's a respectable achievement that should inspire other film makers that it is possible to make a film on a practically non-existent budget. And the type of film that Scott Ryan has made is perfect for a low budget film, a gritty documentary style. Its a style that suits the budget and available equipment. Other than that, however, there's not much else.<br /><br />This film tries to give the impression that it is a documentary following in the footsteps of a Melbourne hit man named Ray Shoesmith as he goes about his business: killing people. The documentary maker Massimo Totti follows Shoesmith around asking question and filming murders.<br /><br />In one key scene that typifies the whole movie, Shoesmith and Totti are driving in a car at night through the Victorian countryside with a drug dealer in handcuffs locked in the boot of the car. Shoesmith and Totti are arguing about whether or not Clint Eastwood was in The Dirty Dozen. Shoesmith stops the car, opens the boot with gun in hand and asks the captive in the boot if Clint Eastwood is in the movie. This is basically what the entire film is about: showing a hit-man and his victims casually talking and discussing pointless and irreverent topics like their favourite cars, football players and what they want on their hamburgers. Other glib scenes involve Shoesmith telling Totti that he's not going to share a bed with him in a motel if he takes his pants off. Scenes like this, of meandering vacant ramblings, are given a large amount of time in the movie, and my guess is they're supposed to be funny scenes. Other lengthy scenes involve Totti asking Shoesmith how much money would he have to be paid before he would eat human excrement and why has he never been to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. 85% of the film is made up of scenes like this and frankly it gets really boring.<br /><br />Scott Ryan gives a decent performance as Ray Shoesmith, but there is a problem which affects the whole movie. There are no characters or characterisations in this film. The characters are portrayed as superficially and rather clichéd. There is no depth in this film whatsoever. In this "documentary" we never learn why Shoesmith is a hit-man, we never learn who he kills and why or how he feels about it, we never learn who he works for and we certainly never learn what makes him tick. All we get to find out about him is that he hasn't the slightest conscience of killing people (in fact the whole thing means very little to him) and he thinks he's rather funny. He indulges in inane chit chat about pointless topics. I think what Scott Ryan is trying to do here is make a joke, the one joke this film is about: a hit-man who is an average bloke who talks about mundane things.<br /><br />Unfortunately it fails on almost all fronts. In fact, its the worst aspects of 3 different types of cinema. It's not particularly funny, it doesn't work as a 'documentary' because you learn nothing slightly interesting or fascinating about the characters nor do you gain any insight when you see them or him in action, and the acting is so unnatural that it comes across in some parts as a bad improvisation game, it doesn't work as a gangster film because the majority of the film is spent on dull conversation.<br /><br />This film is called the Magician because obviously like Shoesmith's dead bodies (which you never see but he does talk about) he makes things disappear, however a Hit Man knows how to hit his target, something this film certainly failed to do.