I didn't understand why he killed Leo, the taxi driver. I mean, he was the most innocent of anyone involved. If he let the client go for not knowing what happened, then Leo should have been spared as well.
@@jotithind7502 yeah I agree, I think however as a metaphor for capitalism it shows how the people at the bottom of the hierarchy get punished for doing nothing wrong and the richest people at the top of the hierarchy never have consequences
Ah yes that was something I forgot to mention in the section on voice over is that the voice over is meant to be a bit abrasive because it’s an important part of the characterization
It's a good movie. One thing i didnt understand is that why he would approach Tilda Swinton's character in public. I mean all those witnesses (and cameras) seeing him as the last person she was seen with?
This movie caused me to reflect myself as an artist who definitely has perfectionistic tendencies and perhaps maladaptively so at times. When you focus so much on execution and production you can sometimes end up killing the very thing you gave life to. You try to plan for all contingencies but that doesn't always work. In fact... it rarely does. You never know quite what you're getting into until you take the first step, then the next, etc... On the other hand, being methodical and careful, showing care for every little detail, every little nuance can undeniably result in a work of a certain quality, a certain polish, even if the tools you have at hand are not the best, or even particularly good. So there's always an internal struggle, a conflict between the spontaneous, the emotional, and the methodical, the analytical. The Killer I think is an expression of the side that just wants everything clean, controlled and polished, accounted for and archived. I also find myself engaging in the same kind of self-talk as the protagonist... it's the self-talk of a perfectionist, someone who plans ahead for every minute detail and wants total creative control. And we all know Fincher is the same way; he's poking fun at himself here. You start a project and you think you know what you're doing, that you have a method, but as soon as it starts it's chaos every time and it soon becomes obvious to everyone that you really have no idea what you're doing at all. You're really just winging it despite all the preparation and the little monologues you give yourself to pump yourself up. But metatextual elements aside, I very much enjoyed this movie for the same reason as another reviewer, who said that... it's just fun to watch someone who's really good at their job... even if that job is killing people.
It's a great movie. Not Fincher's best but I'd comfortably put it in his top 5. It's a masterwork of sorts in subversion. That opening, slick, fast-pace credit sequence that opens the film is hilarious on rewatch when juxtaposed to the rest of the movie. It's intentionally the anti John Wick (which are also great). This is a hit man film set in the mundane nature of everyday life accompanied by the dark humor that would produce - missing his first on screen hit after bragging about how great he is through narration (which I love btw), misjudging putting nails in the lawyers chest, grabbing the most useless kitchen appliance in the brute fight, and most importantly contradicting his own mantra throughout the entire movie. Now, don't mistake this as me claiming the movie is this deep, layered work. It's not. But it's more nuanced than some are giving credit. It's not uneventful. This isn't an action thriller. It's a character study. And while I understand the ending being unsatisfying to some, I can't help but feel that's because they were expecting something the movie never intended. Before breaking into his apartment, the killer narrates something like "once I look in his eyes, I'll know how this will go". He was prepared to kill him if needed. But all he wanted to know is if he was aware of the terrible violation that happened to his wife/girlfriend. The camera goes to an extreme close-up when he delivers the line "I'm curious. I break into your home in the middle of the night with a silenced pistol, and you have no idea why I might be here?" Claybourne shrugs and the killer walks away annoyed before issuing a final threat. THIS. This is the point. Claybourne is the detached, oblivious billionaire who is unaware of the damage his request caused. The Killer doesn't get the satisfaction of delivering the final kill. And neither do we.
The anti John Wick is a fun way to put it. There is even a very similar sequence in this film where the Killer digs his guns up in the yard. Thanks for sharing your interpretation 😊
I didnt mind the voice over and I didnt even consider the movie boring, but the ending was such an anti-climax. Didnt make sense to me at all. And it kind of ruined everything I liked about it because I feel it made the whole damn thing a waste of time. Like cooking a great meal and then dumping it in the trash before you can even take a bite.
To me it wasn’t uneventful at all. A very critical friend of mine didn’t quite like it at first but then saw it two more times and now he really likes it. It was exciting to me; enough for me to like it. I didn’t love it but did so much more than I did Mank; which was hella boring!
Honestly, thank you for this comment I think people get so objective about art (especially on the internet) forgetting that we all see art in different ways which is what is so beautiful about it and way the films we love (or hate haha) the most often feel so personal 🙂
This is why David Fincher kind of sucks. He fundamentally hates his audience and likes nothing more than disrespecting them. It's not fun watching a movie like that.
It’s not one of his best, but I think it IS a very good film and return to something actually interesting/worthwhile after Mank. I think it’s fallen flat for people who got to the end credits and didn’t feel like they were in on ‘the joke’ or if the film was even attempting to double as a satire to begin with. To me it used the unreliable narrator brilliantly to comment on a lot of things and convey who this person is and what they represent in society, though I get why it also confuses people why the action sequences are mostly played as serious and tense, even with the musical score - to me these are true to the experience of the character and punctuated by moments after that expose his contradictory nature as someone with extremely unearned confidence, who’s ‘sigma males of society’/‘we are one of the few’ mentality evidently isn’t preventing him from barely making it out alive. There’s more to it - including the subversive nature of the note it ends on, ‘I’m one of the many now’ when he was all along, what this represents and the survival of the uncaring billionaire behind it all - and I loved the The Smiths incorporation and the idea of a supposedly emotionless killer routinely listening to them of all things, but I get why it’s not what everyone would’ve wanted from a new Fincher project. To me he has gone full tongue in cheek similar to Fight Club - it is more overtly Fincher deconstructing Fincher than anything he’s ever made and making fun of his own perceived audience, which is bound to be a niche sort of thing that wouldn’t normally get greenlit.
@@MintVolcano In the U.K. its been released in the big screen for a short window. The only positive of the film is that the name might lead people to watch John Woo's flick.
What did you think of The Killer? Did you agree with my assessment?
I didn't understand why he killed Leo, the taxi driver. I mean, he was the most innocent of anyone involved. If he let the client go for not knowing what happened, then Leo should have been spared as well.
@@jotithind7502 yeah I agree, I think however as a metaphor for capitalism it shows how the people at the bottom of the hierarchy get punished for doing nothing wrong and the richest people at the top of the hierarchy never have consequences
It's a masterfully made film about a guy who's only half as smart as he thinks he is.
Ah yes that was something I forgot to mention in the section on voice over is that the voice over is meant to be a bit abrasive because it’s an important part of the characterization
It's a good movie. One thing i didnt understand is that why he would approach Tilda Swinton's character in public. I mean all those witnesses (and cameras) seeing him as the last person she was seen with?
This movie caused me to reflect myself as an artist who definitely has perfectionistic tendencies and perhaps maladaptively so at times. When you focus so much on execution and production you can sometimes end up killing the very thing you gave life to. You try to plan for all contingencies but that doesn't always work. In fact... it rarely does. You never know quite what you're getting into until you take the first step, then the next, etc... On the other hand, being methodical and careful, showing care for every little detail, every little nuance can undeniably result in a work of a certain quality, a certain polish, even if the tools you have at hand are not the best, or even particularly good. So there's always an internal struggle, a conflict between the spontaneous, the emotional, and the methodical, the analytical. The Killer I think is an expression of the side that just wants everything clean, controlled and polished, accounted for and archived.
I also find myself engaging in the same kind of self-talk as the protagonist... it's the self-talk of a perfectionist, someone who plans ahead for every minute detail and wants total creative control. And we all know Fincher is the same way; he's poking fun at himself here. You start a project and you think you know what you're doing, that you have a method, but as soon as it starts it's chaos every time and it soon becomes obvious to everyone that you really have no idea what you're doing at all. You're really just winging it despite all the preparation and the little monologues you give yourself to pump yourself up.
But metatextual elements aside, I very much enjoyed this movie for the same reason as another reviewer, who said that... it's just fun to watch someone who's really good at their job... even if that job is killing people.
The player is one of the greatest satires.
It's a great movie. Not Fincher's best but I'd comfortably put it in his top 5. It's a masterwork of sorts in subversion. That opening, slick, fast-pace credit sequence that opens the film is hilarious on rewatch when juxtaposed to the rest of the movie. It's intentionally the anti John Wick (which are also great). This is a hit man film set in the mundane nature of everyday life accompanied by the dark humor that would produce - missing his first on screen hit after bragging about how great he is through narration (which I love btw), misjudging putting nails in the lawyers chest, grabbing the most useless kitchen appliance in the brute fight, and most importantly contradicting his own mantra throughout the entire movie.
Now, don't mistake this as me claiming the movie is this deep, layered work. It's not. But it's more nuanced than some are giving credit. It's not uneventful. This isn't an action thriller. It's a character study. And while I understand the ending being unsatisfying to some, I can't help but feel that's because they were expecting something the movie never intended. Before breaking into his apartment, the killer narrates something like "once I look in his eyes, I'll know how this will go". He was prepared to kill him if needed. But all he wanted to know is if he was aware of the terrible violation that happened to his wife/girlfriend. The camera goes to an extreme close-up when he delivers the line "I'm curious. I break into your home in the middle of the night with a silenced pistol, and you have no idea why I might be here?" Claybourne shrugs and the killer walks away annoyed before issuing a final threat. THIS. This is the point. Claybourne is the detached, oblivious billionaire who is unaware of the damage his request caused. The Killer doesn't get the satisfaction of delivering the final kill. And neither do we.
The anti John Wick is a fun way to put it. There is even a very similar sequence in this film where the Killer digs his guns up in the yard. Thanks for sharing your interpretation 😊
I didnt mind the voice over and I didnt even consider the movie boring, but the ending was such an anti-climax. Didnt make sense to me at all. And it kind of ruined everything I liked about it because I feel it made the whole damn thing a waste of time.
Like cooking a great meal and then dumping it in the trash before you can even take a bite.
Yeah it was a little bit of a middle finger to the audience
To me it wasn’t uneventful at all. A very critical friend of mine didn’t quite like it at first but then saw it two more times and now he really likes it.
It was exciting to me; enough for me to like it. I didn’t love it but did so much more than I did Mank; which was hella boring!
That’s more dedication than I have 😂
Boring movie
each must decide for himself - is good movie for him or not.
For me - it is:)
Honestly, thank you for this comment I think people get so objective about art (especially on the internet) forgetting that we all see art in different ways which is what is so beautiful about it and way the films we love (or hate haha) the most often feel so personal 🙂
@@MintVolcano , 100%.
This is why David Fincher kind of sucks. He fundamentally hates his audience and likes nothing more than disrespecting them. It's not fun watching a movie like that.
It’s not one of his best, but I think it IS a very good film and return to something actually interesting/worthwhile after Mank. I think it’s fallen flat for people who got to the end credits and didn’t feel like they were in on ‘the joke’ or if the film was even attempting to double as a satire to begin with. To me it used the unreliable narrator brilliantly to comment on a lot of things and convey who this person is and what they represent in society, though I get why it also confuses people why the action sequences are mostly played as serious and tense, even with the musical score - to me these are true to the experience of the character and punctuated by moments after that expose his contradictory nature as someone with extremely unearned confidence, who’s ‘sigma males of society’/‘we are one of the few’ mentality evidently isn’t preventing him from barely making it out alive.
There’s more to it - including the subversive nature of the note it ends on, ‘I’m one of the many now’ when he was all along, what this represents and the survival of the uncaring billionaire behind it all - and I loved the The Smiths incorporation and the idea of a supposedly emotionless killer routinely listening to them of all things, but I get why it’s not what everyone would’ve wanted from a new Fincher project. To me he has gone full tongue in cheek similar to Fight Club - it is more overtly Fincher deconstructing Fincher than anything he’s ever made and making fun of his own perceived audience, which is bound to be a niche sort of thing that wouldn’t normally get greenlit.
great interpretation, looking at him as a product of modern “sigma male” culture is very funny, and probably correct 👍
Nothing new under the assassin's sun.
The movie was boring
Ultimately I agree with this
Dude, the one thing I can tell you for sure is that Sonia is super lame.
She’s not 😝 but thanks for the comment
One of the worst films ive seen in cinemas
Wow you watched it in the movie theater? I didn’t know that it was released in theaters
@@MintVolcano In the U.K. its been released in the big screen for a short window.
The only positive of the film is that the name might lead people to watch John Woo's flick.