"I take orders from the Octoboss."

The Killer (2023)

Yeah, I know, I agree – John Woo’s THE KILLER is what we mean when we refer to “THE KILLER.” Where my KILLER tape at, etc. If we mean the Henry Silva one we say “that Henry Silva movie THE KILLER.” But now we also have to say “David Fincher’s THE KILLER.” And that’s okay. I never thought I’d be able to deal with there being two totally different Steve McQueens, but now I’m out there doing it every day. I believe we can get past this. 

The title comes from Le Tueur, the name of the French comic book it’s based on. I don’t know it but it’s 13 volumes from 1998-2014, written by Matz and illustrated by Luc Jacamon. Matz (a.k.a. Alexis Nolent) also wrote Du Plomb Dans La Tete, which became Walter Hill’s BULLET TO THE HEAD. And he did another one called Cyclops that James Mangold was supposed to adapt in 2008, so that’s probly not happening anymore, but then again Fincher was first announced for this one way back in 2007. Anyway, it’s adapted by Andrew Kevin Walker, his first credited collaboration with Fincher since SE7EN, though he’s done rewrites on a bunch of them.

Michael Fassbender (THE COUNSELOR) stars as the titular killer, who is never referred to by a real name, and takes all of his aliases from ‘70s and ‘80s sitcoms. Other quirks include wearing a bucket hat to look like a German tourist and exclusively listening to The Smiths (there are 11 of their songs in the movie). When I saw him using an iPod I thought for a second it was a period piece, but no, I think the unspoken explanation is that you’re gonna have an iPod if you enjoy music but are required by your occupation to smash every cell phone you use. (Or maybe he just prefers it – I use one and I’m not a phone-smasher or a person in the past.)

A funny joke in THE KILLER is that it hurls us into a quick spy-TV-show-intro type credits sequence flipping through a bunch of exciting murder scenarios (poison, electrocution, snake) over an “oh shit, it is about to go DOWN!” synth riff by Fincher’s boys since THE SOCIAL NETWORK Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES: MUTANT MAYHEM)… then abruptly cuts to quiet. The second line from The Killer, narrating, is “If you’re unable to endure boredom, this work is not for you.”

Though sequences are edited with momentum (editor: Kirk Baxter) and often accompanied by narration, I do think some will be bored and consider it “slow” for its sparse dialogue and long stretches of just watching him quietly do stuff – travel, dispose of evidence, purchase supplies, put things in place, crack his neck, do yoga. He spends much of the movie waiting around and watching, which I guess you could also say about SNIPER, but I consider this to be what I call “arthouse crime” or “arthouse badass” – hard-nosed movies more rooted in old crime novels, POINT BLANK, GET CARTER and LE SAMOURAI than in modern pacing and pyrotechnics. Others of its type include THE AMERICAN, THE LIMITS OF CONTROL, WIDOWS, also THE LIMEY, HAYWIRE (co-starring Fassbender) or GHOST DOG (co-starring Henry Silva, THE KILLER), although those last three are much more eventful.

Don’t get me wrong – I love events. But I also love this approach to a crime story: a matter-of-fact procedural, the mundane steps leading to brief explosions of conflict, and the problem-solving to recover when the plan goes awry. The story is pretty simple, laid out in chapters, titled after the city and a description of the person he intends to kill. (Other lives are lost along the way – all hired hands like himself.)

Like most cinematic killer protagonists, he gets into trouble for not killing someone. Usually they grow a heart and draw a line, like in THE REPLACEMENT KILLERS when Chow Yun Fat (THE KILLER) gets Michael Rooker (HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL THE KILLER) in his sights but then sees his wife and kid and can’t pull the trigger. This The Killer does pull the trigger, but he misjudges it, a sex worker (Monique Ganderton, Charlize Theron’s stunt double in FATE OF THE FURIOUS) steps in the path of the bullet, the maid screams, bodyguards respond, he has to flee, mission cancelled. Usually this type of character would either finish the job or flip and start to protect the target. Here the target is irrelevant. A cancelled Lyft ride, a lost Uber Eats order. We never even find out who he was.

But The Killer loses his 5-star rating, you could say. When he gets home to a hideout in the Dominican Republic he finds a trail of damage and blood, discovers his girlfriend Magdala (Sophie Charlotte) was attacked when they came for him. She survived, proud that she didn’t give up any information, and from the hospital she and her brother (Emiliano Pernía) provide enough bread crumbs for The Killer to begin the detective work to find out who did the hit and who ordered it, avenging them and a few other participants and witnesses along the way.

The joy is the friction between what feels like authentic, ordinary life and our knowledge of what sort of nefarious business this character is up to as he walks through the world. Oh shit, hardware store person, do you wonder what he’s buying all those saws for? It’s about great little touches like the patter of the guy selling him guns out of the back of a hatchback. I was almost convinced they hired some non-actor street salesman for an authentic spiel, didn’t realize it was Jack Kesy from DARK WEB: CICADA 3301 and the upcoming Hellboy movie.

You know I say this non-judgmentally in either direction, but this is not, like, a Jason Statham movie. Most of the “fuck yeah” moments are just clever little details like ordering a steak from room service so he can have a knife for self defense. But there’s one absolutely great fight scene when a big muscle dude (Sala Baker, “Jesus” – BLOOD AND BONE, “Gang Member 2” – FALCON RISING, “Teddy’s Guy” – THE EQUALIZER, “Mercenary” – BRAVEN, motherfuckin Sauron in the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy!) catches him sneaking into his house, and they go at it for a while, smashing through walls and furniture and (this is so cool) the flat screen TV. It reminded me of a great fight in John Hyams’ DRAGON EYES, and then I saw Hyams tweet that the scene made his weekend, so maybe he was thinking the same. The fight coordinator/stunt coordinator is Dave Macomber, who has worked on stuff ranging from G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA to FAST FIVE to (like everybody) a bunch of Marvel things, but I think maybe his most impressive sounding credit is fight coordinator for “Finale” and “Mayhem Sequence” on BAAHUBALI 2: THE CONCLUSION.

Not a surprise coming from Fincher, but you gotta use words like “exquisite” to describe the visual craftsmanship. Too bad this was a Netflix joint so I didn’t get to see it in a theater. Despite the notorious compression issues associated with streaming, I think Fincher and cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt (whose only previous feature films are MANK and DEVOTION) came up with some of the best low light photography I’ve seen in the digital age. The fight scene takes place in a house with the lights off, mostly lit by outdoor floodlights bleeding into the windows, but it’s very visible. 

This is not a reinvention of the genre – it’s mostly a meticulously crafted version of it. But one thing that makes it stand out from others of its type is that it does not make its assassin look or sound cool. He’s witty sometimes, but he’s a weirdo. A dork. He rides a scooter. At least once he wears flip flops. I thought about how Brad Pitt (who Fincher wanted for this years ago) dressed like a tourist in BULLET TRAIN and still comes across as cool. Not the case with The Killer. (Okay, some of his Hawaiian shirts do look good on him.) We assume he’s in it for the money, but he’s not buying silk suits and fine wine. He drinks Starbucks, eats McDonalds, throws away the muffin part of the McMuffin because he only cares about the protein.

Once again we have a Fincher movie some have accused of being too cold and clinical. I think that’s kinda like saying Beavis and Butthead is a dumb show because it’s about characters who are dumb. The Killer is detached, but I have emotional reactions to his poor choices, to the fates of other characters who don’t seem to deserve what they get (or at least not any more than he does), and to his teetering on the edge of the possibility to grow as a person. Maybe the movie respects you enough to assume you can bring your own emotions to it without bossing you around, and you’re the one who’s too cold.

I’ve also heard tell that some hate the narration. I think it could still be a good procedural without it, but it would have an entirely different meaning. It’s also a character piece about this guy who justifies his evil with aphorisms like “it’s a dog eat dog world” and a quote he doesn’t remember comes from Aleister Crowley, and the extent to which he deludes himself about being “one of the few, not of the many,” or about his work, the idea that it’s just business, he can just be a professional and “not give a fuck.” The truth is that most of the people he kills are doing their jobs and following the rules more than he is right now, pursuing his own agenda. Sure – hurting Magdala, the main thing he’s avenging, sounds like it might’ve been a violation of standard protocol. But what good does it do her that “for what it’s worth” The Expert (Tilda Swinton, OKJA) says she “objected to” what her colleague did “and told him so”? It’s still part of the business. Magdala not giving up any information was her trying to follow the rules of the job as well. The issue here is not a lack of professionalism, it’s the profession itself. Obvious to us, but not to them.

I read a few interviews with Fincher and Walker after seeing this, and they’re pretty insistent about just wanting to do a genre exercise, not make a grand statement. More of a PANIC ROOM than a FIGHT CLUB. Still, there are undeniable themes and motifs here, drawing parallels between this criminal organization and any real corporation preaching convenience and customer satisfaction while ignoring fairness to workers and other ethical concerns. There’s a reason only a handful of THE KILLER’s characters have names, and most of the others are just descriptions of service jobs: Airline Ticket Agent, FedEx Clerk, Gym Janitor, Air France Lounge Greeter, Day Doorman, Night Doorman, etc. And it’s not an accident that The Killer rents a WeWork office for a stakeout (and used to use AirBnB), that he orders equipment cheap from Amazon, picks it up at an Amazon locker, that he gets past two layers of security not only wearing a uniform and pushing a garbage can, but by sending a FedEx package and following the guy as he delivers it. He notes that even highly protected billionaires let their guard down to order DoorDash.

You gotta wonder if there’s something there about Fincher, meticulous craftsman of Nike commercials and expensive studio movies, who famously does not know how to “not give a fuck.” He’s dependent on giant corporations to practice his art at the level he insists on, and sometimes he must wonder if he’s full of shit for making FIGHT CLUB. Is he a guy who thinks “I’m not one of them, I listen to The Smiths!” while trying to kill a human being on behalf of a billionaire hedge fund dude (Arliss Howard, PLAIN CLOTHES!) who himself must think “I’m not one of them, I wear a Sub Pop t-shirt”? Note that The Killer (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER) lets that guy go at the end (Fincher told GQ it was because he didn’t see him as a threat) but the best he could do for the secretary Dolores (Kerry O’Malley, Davey & Goliath’s Snowboard Christmas) was kill her in a way where her kids will still be able to claim the insurance money. That was the sign of collegial respect between mid-level workers.

I mean, there’s no way Fincher and Walker didn’t know they were Saying Something About Capitalism ’n Shit here, but also I’m sure it’s true that it wasn’t the main thing that interested them in the project. Honestly it’s smart to just let people appreciate that aspect if they want to rather than acting like they’re gonna change the world with it.

I think the parable I’d like to take out of THE KILLER at this time is one about work-life balance. The Killer is a guy who works for some company, and doesn’t really live a life. He brags about Not. Giving. A. Fuck, about serving no god or flag, and yet work is just about his whole life. He doesn’t seem to see Magdala all the time, and she feels obligated to give everything for his job too. Aside from the more obvious and important lesson of “don’t do evil things for an evil company,” he could learn something from his colleague The Expert. She wants to enjoy life while she can, up to and including one last flight of whiskies at her favorite restaurant. I think people could benefit from ditching the American tradition of your shitty job being your whole life and value. If you can’t find one where you do give a fuck, for fuck’s sake get as short of hours as your bills will allow and spend as much time with Magdala as you can.

 

 

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 16th, 2023 at 11:14 am and is filed under Reviews, Crime. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

32 Responses to “The Killer (2023)”

  1. I agree with you about a lot of the themes, and honestly your write-up makes me think I should watch it again, but I didn’t like the movie after one viewing. I found it totally inert. Arliss Howard and Kerry O’Malley played recognizable human beings, but everyone else was a chess piece or scenery. And I had a violently negative reaction to the presence of Tilda Swinton, who I felt like was not only not playing an actual character but was just there so Fincher could nudge us in the ribs and say “Look! Tilda Swinton! Isn’t her hair incredible?” As far as the actual direction, except for the masturbatory Hitchcock/De Palma stuff during the opening non-kill, it felt like Fincher trying to make a recent Soderbergh movie and failing. Soderbergh’s pulp movies (Haywire is an obvious antecedent, and the hotel room fight in that is 100x better than the dark-house fight in this, but Side Effects and Kimi too) leave this thing in the dust.

    Also, I fucking hate the Smiths, so that may have prejudiced me against it going in…

  2. I loved this. It *is* slow, but exactly as you say – the good kind of slow that allows all sort of procedural and (admittedly shallow) philosophical detail in. And the close quarters brawl is excellent, but I loved the detail that he painstakingly [SPOILER] does not kill the dog, which almost comes back to literally bite him in the ass.

    The thing I got the most hung up in is the baby in the freezer in the title credits. Is that from the original comics? Because holy fuck, what a way to introduce the character. This guy will totally stick a baby in the freezer for enough money. That’s our protagonist.

  3. I don’t remember freezer baby, will have to watch that bit again. I read the first two volumes of the comic but again, a freezer baby didn’t come up, as best as I can recollect, and a freezer baby is not something one would normally overlook. Unless this is the equivalent of Fincher inserting a single frame of a penis into FIGHT CLUB for the lolz.

  4. This movie is great auteurist genre filmmaking. Smart, funny, crafted without peer. A satire on how a killer might or must think in 2023. This flick will age well too. And “Slow”? Whatever dudes. As Too Short said “people say I can’t rap they say I rhyme to slow, so? I’m from the O I go for what I know.”

  5. Fincher isn’t my jam so maybe I am not the audience for this movie but I found it to be ok but rather dull. I don’t mind a slow burn but this is no LE SAMOURAI or LE CERCLE ROUGE. However maybe that’s the point it’s a shallow movie about a shallow character. That fight scene was surprisingly good tho.

  6. Charles: Your first line “Maybe Fincher isn’t my jam” I think is your spot on thing. I love when a filmmaker is so unique that their whole aesthetic, point of view, regardless of subject is really the heart of the matter. For example, our host recently gave a great review to Sofia Coppola’s movie which he well described as great, though will I probably never watch because S. Coppola’s aesthetic sensibility has never connected to me, try as I might. This is also the reason I have only seen 3 movies in the theatre this year: The Killer, Killers of the Flower Moon, and Barbie. (But that means I’m batting .1000). I guess, all that to say Auteurists are the bomb y’all.

  7. Drew I am glad you get something out his films I don’t. Without being negative about someone’s work that you seem to genuinely enjoy I will agree Fincher has a strong style & perspective I just wish I found it more interesting. I am glad fans of his seem to be enjoying this one.

  8. Charles: Of course. You are exactly right. And my point was just as simple as ‘that’s what’s so wonderful about auteurists.’ I love that an individual’s povs/aesthetic can come through the multi-person/multi-phase machine of studio filmmaking. I completely get that Fincher doesn’t work for you, I was just musing and enjoying on the fact that a director can still conjure that ubiquity with his work. Gives me hope.

  9. Yes, weather they are my cup of tea or not I hope he gets to keep doing his thing.

  10. Charles: Word. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  11. Great review — and the parable at the end is potent. The term “work-life balance” has long since fallen into cliche-dom, and you do a good job of recovering the idea that a job is a thing you do to pay your bills that may or may not be an intrinsic source of joy and that rarely if ever should become your identity.

    Ironically, Fincher stepped in it once or twice with some “both sides” ism about the actor’s strike.

  12. @burningambulance, that comment about how this is Fincher trying to do a late Soderbergh and failing… That is a sick-ass burn. I really liked “The Killer”, but that’s a great fucking point. Fincher seems like a really tough dude but if someone told him that, I bet he’d shrink to three feet tall. That being said… I’m glad I live in a universe where I can enjoy Fincher and Soderbergh pulp without having to choose.

    Anyway, Vern brings up the idea of multiple movies being named The Killer and the rest of us just living with it. But I think about titles a lot. And if I think about them a lot, how much do actual filmmakers? Fincher was a young and aggressive director in the early nineties when, I’m certain, someone slipped him a bootleg VHS of The Killer, maybe the greatest action movie of all fucking time.

    Couple decades later, he’s using the same title. And the movie isn’t an homage. To do what Fincher is doing seems… A little dismissive? Because when you reuse a title, it’s a threat to wipe out the previous movie, no matter what it is. If Martin Scorsese announced his next movie tomorrow, and it was a cool and original thriller, but it had the title VERTIGO… shots fired, right?

    Is The Killer even an accurate title? “Middle Management” is more accurate, or even “The Hitman”. Fassbender comes across as a professional, a bland workaday nobody who just happens to assassinate people. “The Killer” implies someone who is so good he’s terrifying. Fassbender’s character, like a lot of filmmakers Fincher would look down upon no doubt, is a faceless drone trying to convince himself through mantras and materialism that his work means something. “The Killer” character is basically the Russos, convinced they’re pushing the artform forward. And in that case, you could just call it “Middling Shooter” and not risk an aggressive eyebrow-raise from John Woo.

  13. Loved it but I had to wonder: isn’t using sitcom names drawing more attention to himself? I guess he’s counting on no one remembering Sam Malone or Archie Bunker which seems bold in a post streaming world. If one person does they could be like “oh there was that one guy with the really distinct name” as opposed to Robert Johnson or Jack Baker.

    Well, I guess that’s why I’m not an elite assassin…

  14. The first review review I read on this picked it apart in a way that I thought it was something completely different. Luckily it’s just what I wanted and not what I expected. Loved it on first viewing and will probably watch it again real soon. Nobody mentions THE DAY OF THE JACKAL, which is the greatest influence here. With some John Woo’s THE KILLER thrown in for good measurement.

  15. The first review I read on this picked it apart in a way that I thought it was something completely different. Luckily it’s just what I wanted and not what I expected. Loved it on first viewing and will probably watch it again real soon. Nobody mentions THE DAY OF THE JACKAL, which is the greatest influence here. With some John Woo’s THE KILLER thrown in for good measurement.

  16. This is the first time something I assumed was a streaming series turned out to be a movie. Usually it’s the other way around. I hear a cool premise for a movie and then get disappointed when it turns out to be a series that will cover about a prologue’s worth of material in eight episodes before getting cancelled by Netflix because they never bothered to promote it and if they do a second season they’ll have to pay everybody more money and the algorithm says it’s more efficient just to make another first season of a show they won’t bother to promote and subsequently abandon after eight episodes.

    I have to admit I considered the choice of title to be fighting words. I like Fincher most of the time but not enough to let this John Woo erasure stand. I’ll try to be a professional (another title this one could easily have stolen) and get over it.

  17. Not to mention, director Jae-Hoon Choi’s excellent follow up to the equally excellent THE SWORDSMAN was a stylish, John Wicki-ian action thriller called…THE KILLER.

    I like Fincher but will take my time with this..not quite in the frame of mind for a sloooow, art-house-y take on assassins.

    Especially since I simply cannot wait to get into the Woo Zone with the upcoming Silent Night.

  18. I liked it too. It was mesmerisingly mundane in how it depicted things and the darkly comic touches were appreciated. I do think it was a bit of a copout how Mr. “I don’t give a fuck” went out of his way multiple times to avoid killing a dog, unless that’s supposed to be an intentional commentary on cognitive dissonance about supposed moral standards giving how ruthless he is about everything else. I mean, I can rationalise the choice he makes at the end because it’s arguably more pragmatic to handle things quietly than make a big high profile mess that might draw more heat, and even the fact he’s pursuing the other assassins is less about revenge for his girlfriend than just the fact it’s unresolved and he doesn’t want to be looking over his shoulder so much.

  19. Majestyk, A PROFESSIONAL would have been a great alternate title for this.

    I really, really liked this overall, while it also ultimately felt like a little less than the sum of its (to me) very appealing parts).

    On the pro side, I loved the cold, calm crime procedural material that is like 90% of this – agree 100% with the DAY OF THE JACKAL connection. And I liked the sense of humor throughout – the deadpan narration that so often did not match the “everything going to shit” nature of events on the screen, especially at the start… the Smiths, every time they came on… and I laughed out loud at “WWJWBD?”

    Con, I felt a bit like the first segment (Paris and his frantic trip home) had me expecting a different movie than what eventually unfolded – a, I did not at all have the feeling I was watching someone who would turn out to have a (albeit weird) committed emotional relationship to someone he’s devoted to and who would go through hell to protect him… b, for all his “I’ve got this shit down to a science” internal patter I didn’t feel like I was watching someone who’d check all the boxes of his mission of revenge. I guess I was hoping the protagonist would turn out to be further down the somewhat delusional road I thought was being laid out at first.

    But that did not stop me from enjoying the hell out of this and very much looking forward to the sequel – I can’t see Fincher as much of a sequel guy but couldn’t you see this spinning out a zillion lower budget followups? Maybe THE KILLER: HARD-BOILED or THE KILLER: BULLET 2 THE HEAD. Or THE KILLER: HARD 2ARGET? Hey, there’s no bad ideas in brainstorming…

  20. What I don’t understand is why he would kill the cabbie and the female assistant while sparing the hedge fund guy. It’s not like the hedge fund guy didn’t see his face. He threatened the hedge fund guy with “If I have to come back here…” or words to that effect. Couldn’t he have similarly threatened the cabbie and female assistant (both of whom would have had far less ability to retaliate against him)?

  21. According to Fincher, because the other people knew where he lived. According to me, because it’s supposed to be unjust and terrible that the worker doesn’t get the same lenience as the client.

  22. I would say it’s because the Killer is going through a very opaque character arc, which dovetails with the social commentary. It’s very easy for him to take out his rage on low-level employees, but by the time he gets to the CEO, he’s tired of it all, even though the CEO is actually at fault in a way that the guy on the ground floor isn’t.

  23. I just want to state that I really liked this movie, (depiction doesn’t equal endorsement) and even though I find Fincher’s worldview to be an abhorrent example of the stupid Libertarian “Alternative but Conservative” trope perfected by Gen X, but he still knows how to make a beautiful fucking movie.

    Anyways, I’m pretty sure the killer spared the billionaire because he is one, during the initial monologue, when our Killer is describing his worldview and his ruminations on the have’s and have not’s of the world, he makes it pretty abundantly clear that the only value he assigns to human life is based solely on their $ value, hence his clueless both sides argument to both the recent strikes.

  24. I seem to recall the narration mentioning that the amount of effort the police put into investigating a crime is in proportion to the victim’s income… implying that the narrator knows he’ll potentially be opening up a problematic can of worms for himself if he actually kills Sub Pop. I did feel a little unsatisfied – and it sure seems like the intended target in the opening hit was plenty rich and important – but it felt like it made sense for him to not go through with actually killing the guy. That was my take anyway.

  25. There’s a comparison to be drawn with Donald Westlake’s great novel THE AX. The middle-management killer doesn’t go after the billionaires who jeopardised his existence, because what good would that do him? Instead, he goes after the poor schlubs working exactly the same job he does. He’ll never have a bite at the pie, but he can maintain his hoard of the crumbs.

  26. The explanations you guys provided to my question concerning the killer’s reasons for murdering the cabbie and assistant make sense.

    As a bit of trivia, I think I heard two “gently used” portions of the script:

    When the killer tells us something along the lines of “a thousand things can go wrong, you’re a genius if you think of a dozen….” I think the arsonist character played by Mickey Rourke says the same thing in 1981’s BODY HEAT.

    When Tilda Swinton tells the hunter/bear joke, that same joke was told much more elaborately by the character playing Prince Charles in an earlier season of THE CROWN.

  27. Considering all the other trappings of our technofeudalist hellworld that show up in the film I’m inclined to buy into the reading that Killer spares Sub Pop because that’s what the system would do. Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime, that’s why I’m the one getting killed for company crime.

    I also think the film is about Killer making some sort of “opaque character arc” as Kaplan mentioned. Killer presents us with a series of rules that he follows in order to remain effective and sane in his work, and then immediately starts abandoning them. He repeats the rules with increasing sarcasm / scorn in the narration, self-aware that the code has become meaningless. Perhaps by the time he spares Sub Pop, he’s completed whatever transformation he’s going through. It’s not about whether or not killing this guy is too risky or high-profile, it’s that Killer is now a person who deliberates over the power of life and death he holds instead of just being a cog in the machine. I think it’s meant to be ironic and disturbing, not some sort of fulfillment or self-actualization. In Killer’s few / many dichotomy, sparing Sub Pop is his one chance to taste what it’s like to be one of the Few, but he knows he never will actually be one of them.

  28. As I’m sitting here watching THE BOURNE IDENTITY I notice that THE KILLER’s first hit takes place in the same town square that CIA has it’s safe house in BOURNE, and I start to wonder why, for all his inner monologue, he doesn’t mention that Jason Bourne once climbed the same drain pipe he’s been watching for a week straight?

  29. My take on why he doesn’t kill the billionaire is that this guy is a newbie. And when in a work there’s a newbie who makes a mistake, you forgive the dude. So The Killer is not only a super professional guy obsessed with professionalism, but he balances with promoting a good work environment.

  30. This flick sucks.

    Stupid self-absorbed blabla from start to end. Sorry (not really), but shut the fuck up (to the character).

    Watch SILENT NIGHT instead. That is how it has to be done.

  31. Both characters are stupid and self-absorbed, they just express it in different ways. For me THE KILLER is ten times more fun, but hopefully SILENT NIGHT will grow on me if I ever feel like watching it again.

  32. I’m late to the conversation, but Fassbender states in his narration that the police response will be proportional to the earnings potential of the victim. He doesn’t kill the billionaire is because he seems convinced the guy won’t be a threat, and killing him will bring way too much heat. It’s an on the nose critique of capitalism. You can kill an innocent taxi driver but you can’t kill a billionaire.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>