|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 14, 2023 23:00:56 GMT
If there's a problem here it's that how the Fassbender character is written is kind of a mess. The terrific first act introduces him so well as this stone cold sociopath, so then why does he care so much that his girlfriend gets beat up (not even killed). Add to that that we've never seen her before and are never given a reason why he cares so much about her when his philosophy throughout the movie is total dog eat dog. A shame since Fassbender's acting on a technical level is so good here. He really is "being" instead of acting, a total cliche that is really the case here. A lot of actors would have vamped a part like this up and tried to be Hannibal Lecter or something which would have been the completely wrong approach. This is always a logical argumet in this type of film where you (at first) accept a character as one thing and then they' re shown to be something else. The best example I can give is Mamet's Homicide (1991) where people either buy the shift (and consider it a minor masterpiece, that's um, me ![:laugh:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/30ulL7PvEvGt97femFHx.gif) ) and those people who don't find a switch convincing .......... The Conversation is probably the best example because it shows it to us so well in how its realized and in how it's written.... But I think in The Killer he only "realizes" it in the last 2 scenes - one of whom could "be him" and he could end up the same way, which is why he "blinks" in this scene and the other of which who never even gave his life or death any thought at all ie he is one of the (relatively) many controlled by one of the few - ie clients It's quite a stretch but if you buy t well you buy it, and if you don't, you don't that's valid too............I just don't think he knew the "why" until he saw those 2 things though..............he was doing it "for himself" prior and the perceived threat on himself........ I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. What do you think he “realizes” in the last 2 scenes? And just to clarify what you have under spoilers, when you say “he could end up the same way” are you referring to his death that could have eventually resulted from killing Howard? If so, I’m wondering if he blinks in the final shot because he also knows he could still be killed at some point (even after retiring and not killing Howard), but just accepts it as a possibility because “the need to feel secure is a slippery slope” and that feeling of security is something he might never completely achieve because he’s just “one of the many” after all.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 14, 2023 23:21:01 GMT
This is always a logical argumet in this type of film where you (at first) accept a character as one thing and then they' re shown to be something else. The best example I can give is Mamet's Homicide (1991) where people either buy the shift (and consider it a minor masterpiece, that's um, me ![:laugh:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/30ulL7PvEvGt97femFHx.gif) ) and those people who don't find a switch convincing .......... The Conversation is probably the best example because it shows it to us so well in how its realized and in how it's written.... But I think in The Killer he only "realizes" it in the last 2 scenes - one of whom could "be him" and he could end up the same way, which is why he "blinks" in this scene and the other of which who never even gave his life or death any thought at all ie he is one of the (relatively) many controlled by one of the few - ie clients It's quite a stretch but if you buy t well you buy it, and if you don't, you don't that's valid too............I just don't think he knew the "why" until he saw those 2 things though..............he was doing it "for himself" prior and the perceived threat on himself........ I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. What do you think he “realizes” in the last 2 scenes? And just to clarify what you have under spoilers, when you say “he could end up the same way” are you referring to his death that could have eventually resulted from killing Howard? If so, I’m wondering if he blinks in the final shot because he also knows he could still be killed at some point (even after retiring and not killing Howard), but just accepts it as a possibility because “the need to feel secure is a slippery slope” and that feeling of security is something he might never completely achieve because he’s just “one of the many” after all.
Yeah we're on the same page on the spoiler: Prior o the last 2 scenes he's getting revenge to stay alive for himself imo - it's in the last 2 scenes where he realizes he could be killed by a random assassin himself like Swinton - and the story she tells resonates with him ............ and if he kills Howard it opens up a whole can of worms that he doesn't know......... ........He was an afterthought to Howard .......so he realizes there's more at stake than just himself......... To read the movie as he goes on vengeance JUST for her isn't quite correct imo ...........however any film with a defined character changing is always subject to that "I didn't buy it" critique..........I'm usually the opposite - it applies to many of my favorite movies (Decision To Leave just last year) and I often use movies where characters don't change as a negative (Goodfellas - I love it.....but not the way that most do)
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 15, 2023 2:31:46 GMT
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. What do you think he “realizes” in the last 2 scenes? And just to clarify what you have under spoilers, when you say “he could end up the same way” are you referring to his death that could have eventually resulted from killing Howard? If so, I’m wondering if he blinks in the final shot because he also knows he could still be killed at some point (even after retiring and not killing Howard), but just accepts it as a possibility because “the need to feel secure is a slippery slope” and that feeling of security is something he might never completely achieve because he’s just “one of the many” after all.
Yeah we're on the same page on the spoiler: Prior o the last 2 scenes he's getting revenge to stay alive for himself imo - it's in the last 2 scenes where he realizes he could be killed by a random assassin himself like Swinton - and the story she tells resonates with him ............ and if he kills Howard it opens up a whole can of worms that he doesn't know......... ........He was an afterthought to Howard .......so he realizes there's more at stake than just himself......... To read the movie as he goes on vengeance JUST for her isn't quite correct imo ...........however any film with a defined character changing is always subject to that "I didn't buy it" critique..........I'm usually the opposite - it applies to many of my favorite movies (Decision To Leave just last year) and I often use movies where characters don't change as a negative (Goodfellas - I love it.....but not the way that most do) But doesn’t he already realize that there’s more at stake than just himself when his girlfriend is first attacked? I think there’s a reason why the most we ever see him emote is during the hospital scene where he goes to see her and pretty emphatically says to Marcus “Nothing like this will ever be allowed to happen again.” I’m not saying he seeks vengeance JUST for her (it can be for both of them), but I don’t think the change in his character has to do with him learning to see beyond himself so much as it is about him realizing that “the need to feel secure is a slippery slope” - that line at the end I think is key. You mentioned in your review that the movie is about the biggest statement of all - “choosing happiness” – but I’d say it’s also more precisely about how the constant, relentless pursuit of security precludes happiness, and how that pursuit can ironically make one less secure... which dovetails with the film’s broader existentialist themes (the futility of seeking/attempting to maintain order and stability in the midst of chaos).
|
|
Schiggy
Full Member
Posts: 621
Likes: 247
Member is Online
|
Post by Schiggy on Nov 15, 2023 3:10:42 GMT
It's not that I dislike this movie, I just didn't like it. (If that could possibly make sense) This is Fincher firing at half cylinders. It's like it was the "most Finchery" script he came across since Mank and was like, "Yeah, I guess I'll do this."
Compared to his other movies I've seen (NS The Game, Alien 3, Panic Room, Mank - the latter which looks fucking BORING as shit), this was the most nothing.
Fassbender is as good as the script needs him to be (but that script is pretty limited and lacking a stronger narrative/characterization - I don't care if that's how it was "supposed" to be, it's still bland and unfulfilling). That said, I like that Fassbender's not written/played to be some flawless combatant or putting on airs of some macho bravado like being alpha/super cool dudebro is his personality. And as usual, he's wonderfully nice to look at.
I did like the boss he nails and his secretary. Their roles were brief but effective. Swinton was not anything special but fine in her role.
The girlfriend was random, meaningless, and unnecessary. He doesn't even follow his own rules in a way that makes it seem useless for him to keep reminding us (trust no one, do not have empathy, anticipate - don't improvise, etc). Which maybe that was the point, but the point is dulled and makes it seem, well, daft. Why should I care about her? Does he even really care about her or is she just some proxy for a human connection that he only thinks he wants?
That fight scene in Florida though! If only the whole movie could have been that good. The hits were heard and heavy, and not edited in a way that makes it so obvious it's over-choreographed to not hurt to wee little actors and look flashy and choppy without any oompf in the attacks and bodies being thrown around. It looked like a real fight scene. No CGI (I assume), which was great.
Of Fincher's movies I've seen, I think only Seven, I legit disliked (I thought it was boring. But I've only seen it once, almost 15 years ago).
5/10
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 15, 2023 12:18:49 GMT
The real question with a movie this divisive is where do you put the opening credit sequence in Fincher's filmography - if we could just agree on that then we can discuss character motivation and stuff........ That was a joke but Fincher totally owns opening credit sequences ...just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 15, 2023 12:45:25 GMT
If there's a problem here it's that how the Fassbender character is written is kind of a mess. The terrific first act introduces him so well as this stone cold sociopath, so then why does he care so much that his girlfriend gets beat up (not even killed). Add to that that we've never seen her before and are never given a reason why he cares so much about her when his philosophy throughout the movie is total dog eat dog. I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. There’s plenty of people in the world who only care about those in their immediate bubble but couldn’t give a shit about anyone else outside of it. Yeah, I'm in total agreement with this. Moreover, one of the movie's (more humorous) goals seems to be showing us how the killer's inner thoughts don't quite align with reality, like how he talks a big game about never missing and then fucks up in the very first kill we see. To me his instinctual (not calculated, at least initially) choice to go after those who hurt his GF is one of those instances of the movie revealing him to us despite his self-absorbed inner voice trying to present a different picture. He wants us to believe that he DOESN'T. GIVE. A. FUCK. but what we actually see is that he very much does when things get personal. Later his quest obtains other meanings for him but I think it's pretty telling that the initial impusle for him to go on it is an emotional one. Whatever the true point of his vengeance is (I think it's not limited to one thing), I prefer to think that the movie - in yet another kinda sorta joke - is ultimately about him accepting normalcy or even mediocrity, kind of sinking into it. He starts off saying that one simply must not be one of the many as they're exploited by those of the few, and yet at the end he spares the literal top of his revenge pyramid and then in the last line accepts his place among us, the many. But the joke goes even further because it's yet another instance of reality amusingly clashing with his narration. He tells us (once again with utter self-seriousness) that he's now one of the many... and in a "normal" film that could have been the path of the story - a cold killer finding his humanity and leaving his previous life behind... but him thinking he's turned into a pleb is in reality him chilling at his house by the sea with a buttload of money in the bank. Not quite how the many live out their days ![:laugh:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/30ulL7PvEvGt97femFHx.gif) And that's what I really dig about the movie - it's this constant dialogue between itself and its main character. Dialogue in which the movie subtly roasts him... but then also shows that he's indeed capable of some pretty neat shit. There're things to respect about him and then there're things to rib him for, and Fincher is doing that constantly, right to the very last second. It's also an excellent first-person POV movie since it does a terrific job of putting us into the killer's head - not just through narration of Fassbender's awesome iciness but mainly through the amazing sound design which really allows us to understand the way he hears the world around him. I think it's a pretty awesome film but it's mostly awesome when you're in there. Once it's over (and it's over way too quickly, as if Fincher couldn't wait to get to the credits), there aren't too many traces of it in your mind. Well, OK, in my mind. But there's plenty of stuff to like here.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Nov 18, 2023 20:17:55 GMT
Tense and immaculate like any other Fincher thriller but its less rewarding when compared to his stronger works. Fassbender's ice cold demeanor well suited the film. The contradictory narration and happenings felt oddly humorous but it wasn't enough. Somehow a "stops half-way and decides its enough" kind of film and that's now what i expected from Fincher.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Nov 20, 2023 7:14:57 GMT
Fincher is one of my favorite directors but I didn't love it. The whole film felt very basic, albeit with great technical direction. Fassbender is good but the character is probably the least interesting protagonist we've seen in a Fincher film.
After the first act, It feels like a story we've seen a hundred times and there's no real depth or sense of importance to make it stand out.
I'd put it in the bottom half of his filmography around The Game and Panic Room, though both films are more entertaining.
|
|
forksforest
Junior Member
Quit your shit-spitting
Posts: 496
Likes: 214
|
Post by forksforest on Dec 10, 2023 23:14:11 GMT
I really enjoyed it - simple yet effective? Nothing grandiose (plot-wise or cinematically imo) but still gripping, tightly written.
I also love how non flashy Fassy’s role was. I’m tired of the showy “acting” roles, this role was subdued and still entirely his film.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 13, 2023 17:36:55 GMT
I didn't think Fincher was even capable of making a film this dull.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on May 31, 2024 23:55:28 GMT
What a strange, strange movie. In the moment, it just seems like minor Fincher, going through the motions of a noir thriller like any other - save for some nice setpieces and restrained tone showing effort, this could have been released by some D-tier distributor peddling recent Bruce Willis movies.
But after the fact, the dry, dry, DRY humor begins to kick in, as I looked back at the movie and tried to figure out just what the hell Fincher was trying to do. The movie is kind of Fincher's The Trouble with Harry: a comedy the director made because he thought it was funny, made with no care for what audiences will actually make of it. For Hitchcock, that was dry surrealism - for Fincher, it's dry contradictionism (that's a word now, shut up). He likes playing with his protagonist's inner voice and outer action, and it's funny to think about in retrospect.
That said... there's not really anything else here. It's one joke that makes me chuckle a bit twenty minutes later when I suddenly realize that there was a joke at all. That in itself is actually kind of funny, I admit. But it is so reserved and played so straight that I can't really get behind it too much either.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 1, 2024 6:55:22 GMT
What a strange, strange movie. In the moment, it just seems like minor Fincher, going through the motions of a noir thriller like any other - save for some nice setpieces and restrained tone showing effort, this could have been released by some D-tier distributor peddling recent Bruce Willis movies. But after the fact, the dry, dry, DRY humor begins to kick in, as I looked back at the movie and tried to figure out just what the hell Fincher was trying to do. The movie is kind of Fincher's The Trouble with Harry: a comedy the director made because he thought it was funny, made with no care for what audiences will actually make of it. For Hitchcock, that was dry surrealism - for Fincher, it's dry contradictionism (that's a word now, shut up). He likes playing with his protagonist's inner voice and outer action, and it's funny to think about in retrospect. That said... there's not really anything else here. It's one joke that makes me chuckle a bit twenty minutes later when I suddenly realize that there was a joke at all. That in itself is actually kind of funny, I admit. But it is so reserved and played so straight that I can't really get behind it too much either. It's definitely not a dressed up D-list thriller. The script was a lot more layered than I thought at first, you're watching the process of him slowly becoming human ("one of the many") and of course Fassbender plays it perfectly. But it's subtle and slooowwwww as with everything in this movie so it's not going to be for everyone. Watched it twice on Netflix after seeing it in theaters and it definitely unravels into something bigger when you watch it more.
|
|