The Killer: Unique, Immersive, Very Slow

"Stick to your plan. Anticipate, don't improvise. Trust no one. Never yield an advantage. Fight only the battle you are paid to fight. Forbid empathy. Empathy is weakness. Weakness is vulnerability. Each and every step of the way, ask yourself: 'What's in it for me?' This is what it takes, what you must commit yourself to, if you want to succeed. Simple."

So, as I sat down with some of my fellow film students to watch a totally-not-bootlegged copy of David Fincher's "The Killer," I had an idea in my head of what this movie would be. Being familiar enough with some of Fincher's other work, I assumed that this movie would be methodical, with a huge amount of attention to detail. And it was all of these things. However, I also assumed that it would be something of an action thriller as well. I mean, it's about an unnamed assassin (unless you count his many aliases) who kills for the highest bidder, so I assumed that there would at least be a touch of Bourne in this film, some glamorization of this line of work. I assumed that this film would pick up its pace gradually as it progressed. I also assumed that this film would follow a somewhat linear path from point A to point B. And, to my surprise, this film did none of those things. In short, "The Killer" was not the movie I was expecting, and I was pleasantly surprised by this while also being simultaneously annoyed by some of the film's more pretentious tendencies. Critics liked this film, but "The Killer" seems to have divided audiences cleanly down the middle. General viewers either loved or hated it. So, what is the consensus on this movie? Is it good? Bad? Neither of these things? Or both? Well, if I had to sum up my thoughts on this film, I would have to say that this movie is startlingly different - and that's a good and a bad thing.

To throw out the compulsory spoiler-free plot synopsis, David Fincher's "The Killer" follows an unnamed hitman with many aliases (Michael Fassbender) as he embarks on a quest against those in charge of him when a hit in Paris goes horribly awry.

So, let's start with the first good thing I noticed about this film, probably the main reason a lot of big-name, big-shot critics liked it a lot (and probably the same reason a lot of audience members hated it). "The Killer" is different. Very different. And when a movie is different, a critic who watches countless movies for a living takes notice. "The Killer" is not a glamorous, spruced-up action movie as one might expect from Hollywood's history of dealing with hired killers. In fact, this film is very far from it. It's a unique, gritty, cold, methodical, inglorious, and honest look at the life of a hitman. Most of the film isn't even dedicated to our unnamed anti-hero (anti-villain? Just a villain?) killing his targets. 90% of the movie fixates on his preparation, his methods, his mindset, and just the normal, menial, some would even say boring day-to-day things he does while preparing to strike out at those he has been paid to kill from the shadows, things like getting a bite to eat, doing yoga to relax, and listening to music. Also, as a sidenote, this movie has a, pun intended, killer soundtrack. This movie obsesses over every little detail in true Fincher fashion, and while this initially surprised and, to some degree, annoyed me, I gradually grew fond of the details crafted by a team that so obviously loved what they were doing. "The Killer" was not afraid to be very different from other films, and I have to give it points for daring to do so.

OK, so just a caveat before I get started with the first thing that I didn't like about this film: I get that the way it was structured was intentional, and I understand that this film is based on a chapter-bound graphic novel series. However, I did not love the chapter-based approach of this movie. If each chapter had built upon our lead character more than they did, I might have loved this approach. However, because our lead character doesn't change much as the film progresses, the chapters gradually become repetitive, and this definitely detracts from the quality of the film. Now that I've gotten on a roll talking about chapters, I almost wonder if this movie would have worked better as a six-part Netflix short series. If each chapter of this film were an episode of a show, I think that this structure would have worked much better, as it would have given audiences a breather before throwing them head-first into what too often felt like a completely different movie. In short, the chapter structure doesn't accomplish enough to justify its own existence, and Fincher probably would have been better off either putting more work into making it run better or cutting it from the film altogether.

Now, that said, one thing that worked really well in this movie is this: the technical aspects of "The Killer" are undeniably breathtaking. Erik Messerschmidt's cinematography is gorgeous, blending scenic wide shots of everything from cities to jungles with excellently lit and framed, detail-oriented shots of our title character preparing for his next hit, wherever and whenever it might occur. The sound design of the movie is very interesting as well, and its use of music is equal parts amusing, chilling, and entertaining. I have no complaints as to the aesthetic approach of the movie, and if it gets a nomination for "best cinematography," I will not be surprised at all.

To flip the script, another thing that annoyed me about this movie was that it was a character study of a character that ultimately didn't warrant the level of scrutiny he received. If our title character had a weakness of some sort, or if the film had focused more on another side of his personality other than the cold-hearted killer he is, then maybe the film would have been more interesting. Unfortunately, our killer is just kind of a horrible person with too few unique and/or conflicting personality traits, and while I can understand some people being satisfied that Fincher didn't take the much-traveled road of "show the weaknesses of your character," I ultimately feel that there weren't enough details to our character to fill out what was, shockingly, less than two hours of runtime. Now, there is an upside to this flaw, and that upside is namely that the details-obsessed David Fincher once again obsesses over details, and the methodical nature of this film ensured a few things: first, nothing can really go wrong with the story this film is telling. There aren't any glaring plot holes in "The Killer," nor are there any questions the audience might have that don't get answered at one point or another. If a detail can be included in the movie, more likely than not, it is included. Fincher knows that the threat of violence is always more effective than actual violence in a film, and if you can get over the fact that "The Killer" isn't an action-packed blockbuster, there is something really grotesquely interesting about watching someone prepare to do an awful deed, even observing our character do something as normal as eating, exercising, or getting his heart rate low enough before pulling the trigger on someone with a price on their head. Nothing goes unaccounted for, and it's nice to see genuine attention to even the smallest of details in a film because it's often the small things that end up mattering the most in the end. Just like in the world of a contract killer, no?

Now, attached to this downside/upside is yet another downside, and that downside is that this movie is slow. Really slow. Like slow, slow, slow, slow, slow. I almost hate to mention it, but a lot of people have called this movie "boring," and you know what? I can perfectly understand where they are coming from. Granted, when you watch a lot of movies, you develop patience for them, so I must say that I enjoyed this movie, but I can understand why someone wouldn't. And the real shocker? This movie is less than two hours long, yet can often feel like it's in excess of three. That's not a good thing. If you easily get bored at the movies, I can confidently say that this is one you should pass on for your own sanity.

But, despite the film's ups and downs, "The Killer" stands out from a lot of other movies for one very simple reason: you can tell that the people who made it cared about the story they were telling. This film has a unique voice, a unique vision, an almost-unparalleled attention to detail, an awesome sense of style, and is just all-around a well-made film that is probably destined to do well come awards season. Too many movies today are driven by corporations who don't really care about the movies they are making, and it's refreshing to see a genuine, no-hoots given passion project amidst a sea of mediocre, dime-a-dozen action and superhero flicks that are nigh-impossible to tell apart from each other these days. The passion is evidently there, and I think that "The Killer" establishes a lot of good precedents and habits that future films would be wise to learn from and follow. All in all, "The Killer" is not the film I was expecting, but despite some annoying tendencies, namely some jarringly out-of-place dialogue as well as the repetitive chapters aspect I mentioned earlier, it's ultimately a well-made and solid movie that probably would have worked better as a TV short series. Now, don't hear me say that this is a movie you should drop everything to go watch, and as a Christian who also happens to be crazy about movies, I have to, in good conscience, give a strong warning to those who would want to watch this movie. "The Killer" is a deep dive into the mind, the methods, the rationale, and the justifications of a murderer, and that should rightfully give us pause. This movie, despite being less bloody and dark than other Fincher outings (looking at you, "Se7en"), can still be quite disturbing from time to time, and we should approach these matters with discretion. This is not a movie everyone should watch, so just take everything I've said with a grain of salt before you take the time to view it.

The Killer - 7/10

Genesis 9:6