El asesino

I don't understand why people give this movie 1-2 stars. It's not a great movie but how do you rate it so low when 90% of movies are much worse and have better ratings. It does start slow but then turns into a quite watchable and enjoyable action flick, with minor logical holes but a gem compared to movies that don't make sense at all.

Sure; it will be a waste of time for many, but what do you expect, to be enlightened and see something amazing and original that no one ever suspected? How many of such movies are released every year?

The Killer is simply a dose of decent entertainment when you do decide to waste some time and run out of amazing truly movies to watch.

What happens when a hired killer makes a mistake?

After a twenty minute introduction, something finally happens, and you're left with a film that's beautifully shot, well acted, with a somewhat interesting story.

The trouble is, if this film were a song, it would be something by The Smiths, there's definitely a fan base, but for some of us, it's all just too slow, too dull, and ultimately a depressing affair.

The voiceovers become a little irritating after an hour or so, and that constant first person narration slows the film down to a snail's pace.

Neo noir style, nice to look at, and I did like Michael Fassbinder's performance, but ultimately I couldn't stop myself from yawning for the full two hours.

5/10.

A David Fincher film is always an event. With his infamous reputation for perfection and requesting, he has earned what every aspiring filmmaker wishes for: the proper time to get every element right. There's always glee and eager anticipation seeing his latest, knowing the film is in the reliable hands of a strong director.

For The Killer, David Fincher brings his trademark eye for detail, delivering an arthouse action thriller that moves with clockwork precision with its smooth camera moves and sharp edits, oozing cinematic coolness to the point of being completely cold.

Returning to acting after a 4-year hiatus doing F1 racing, Michael Fassbender fits his performance like a cog to a well-oiled machine. He acts through body language and voiceover, wryly playing a version of the director as a meticulous monologuing professional hitman who strictly abides by his own set of rules.

The Killer doesn't deliver the action thrills of a Jason Statham film or the psychological study in Collateral. It's in between and it rests on the audience to color in the meaning behind everything.

Is The Killer a deconstruction of the lone assassin film? Is it subverting all its tropes? Or is it a character study? Is Fassbender's killer even a sociopath?

Andrew Kevin Walker, the writer of Se7en, puts the audience in the assassin's head through an inner monologue, as he recites his rules and muses negatively about humanity.

The script doesn't provide a character to care about or even like. There's a particular moment when Michael Fassbender says "Hi!" like a normal person and it's darkly comic. For the common viewer, this can easily be an empty and cold experience.

The meaning I gleaned from the film, was the irony between what people say to themselves to create their identity, code or philosophy and how real life, indifferently by and chaotically, puts that to a test.

The technical details are what make this film.

It's the day in the life of an assassin, showing the mundanity of waiting for the perfect moment for the kill shot, the routines to stay incognito, the neat safe rooms, the dozens of passports in ziplock bags...

The decor of Michael Fassbender's home was striking, a big hollow living room with billowing veils where every corner is immediately visible.

The climatic hand-to-hand fight was impressive, well choreographed and shot. The moves had weight and the audience could feel the pain.

Zodiac is still Fincher's best film, as it has everything that he does best, making little factual on investigative details hugely significant and great natural performances chiseled from tiring the actors after multiple takes-I do wonder how many shots in Fincher's films are, in fact, the final take.

With Mank and The Killer, David Fincher seems to be entering a new phase of pursuing smaller niche topics experimentally and having cinematic fun for himself. Comparatively, The Killer seems like a fetishizing of obsessive compulsive behavior.

The best way to enjoy The Killer, I think, is to follow suit. Be OCD for 2 hours and see how many little details you can spot.

The definition of a good thriller is that the plot should be slick and smart. That means the film is edited in such a way that it follows the narrative closely without a lot of extra fluff. It also means all the characters in the story act like real human beings and make logical decisions. One thing I have found about David Fincher is that he has OCD when it comes to details. The details are presented in an intelligent fashion. In this film, the details can be straight forward or logical when it comes to the plot. Fincher tells the story through cutaways, insert shots showing the little details that explain our main character's actions. For example, early on when the Killer (who remains unnamed) loads a magazine into his gun, it takes no less than three cutaways to accomplish this.

The opening act has a voyeuristic perspective, akin to "Rear Window" as we slowly get into the Killer's head through voiceover. The first act has an almost hypnotic quality as we study his situation, vigilantly maintaining a stakeout over several days, waiting for a mark. Filmmakers need to be careful when using voiceover, as it sometimes can be a conceit. Usually you try to tell the story through visuals. Here, the majority of the voiceover remains in the first act. Then through the rest of the film, bits we heard earlier are repeated at key moments during the film. My reaction is that these extra VO drops were unnecessary, but also act as a disruption. His train of thought in these moments is confronted with an unanticipated setback.

Finchers adds a couple touches of humour. I have stated in another review how important it is to find the right amount of humour to an otherwise serious drama. Too little and the drama starts to get stiff. Too much, and you are being removed from the reality of the situation. Fincher keeps the humour to a minimum, compared to one of his peers, Steven Soderbergh. Soderberg excels in this genre, with films like "Out of Sight" and "Haywire". The latter also includes Michael Fassbinder, the pro/antagonist in this film. All the supporting characters this film are almost cameos, but all are excellent.

The story remains focused on the Killer, never really revealing the greater plot, or what to anticipate as we follow the Killer through his agenda. But again, this is smart scriptwriting because it respects the audience's intelligence, who can easily fill in the blanks. Another staple of the Thriller genre is globe-hopping, James Bond style. The film is constantly on the move, as our main character travels from one airport to another. It is also adds the extra element of realism by shooting mostly on ___location (save for some interiors). The moments of action are well done. There are "Bourne" like moments with the action scenes, but not as frequent.

The film, because it is a singularly focused story about the Killer and a job gone wrong, has a generally small scope. The actions of the Killer are pretty straightforward, and there are no real twists. I appreciated that lack of multiple subplots, too many scripts try to overachieve and can become confusing by throwing too many side characters or too many twists. The slim story could be a drawback if expectations were higher. However, Fincher is very skilled at drawing you into the workings of clandestine activities with his meticulous cutaways (sometimes he'll shoot 70 takes to get a shot right). This precision matches the Killer's precision in resolving his issues.

There is only one gimmick that made me groan. Everytime the Killer presents an ID at an airport or rental car place, we see his alias is the name of a well known sitcom character. This is a cute moment of humour, but in reality would be a very stupid thing for our smart assassin. One doesn't even need to be of the 70s generation to recognise these well known character names (Sam Malone, Bob Hartly, Felix Unger, Archibald Bunker, etc,). Reruns of these TV shows run on digital side channels and on streaming services, so younger generations would also be able to recognise these names. If there is a security agency (like Interpol) looking for him, once they link a sitcom character's name to the Killer, they can easily search for other fictional sitcom characters to try and track him.

Ultimately, I sat through this procedural with rapt attention, with the tight editing and intriguing spycraft providing the momentum. With the opening titles resembling the quick montage of action shots and graphics like "Mission Impossible", it set expectations appropriately. One of the better thrillers made recently, it rises above other movies like "Equalizer 3" (which left me wanting). Not as big in scope and story as "Fight Club" or "Zodiac", but entertaining as "Se7en" and his outstanding TV series "Mindhunter". 7 out of 10.

Was really looking forward to this movie as i like Michael Fassbender and David Fincher and they never showed it at any cinemas near me during its limited release. Maybe i've just built it up too much in my head but i can't help but be disappointed in it.

It has alot of cool style and it as dark as you'd expect from Fincher. Who as you'd imagine, does a good job of directing. But its a very straightforward story and i couldn't help but say "Would a professional hitman really do that?" at certain points of it.

The constant commentary of the movie won't be for everyone and there's only so much dramatic acting Fassbender can do as a stealthy killer. So all in all. Pretty average.