User reviews

It's well compiled. The narration got me invested. Shot beautifully, the suspenseful music is excellent. The movie as a whole is...yeah it's fine? It lacks depth and some scenes lack logic as well. It makes for a fun watch nevertheless. Better than most of the stuff going around these days. A one time watch and you never think about it again kind of a watch. Not Fincher's best but not his worst either. Fassbender is decent in his role portrayed as a mysterious killer who has a knack for everything pretty much. Solid punches to the face by a guy twice his size does not faze him at all. That's about it really.

This movie is perfectly fine. It is so perfectly fine, that I can´t think of a single explicit point of criticism at all. However, i can´t think of anything that made it particularly great either. It is too clean. Meanwhile that is the point of the movie. It is about a man whose entire life revolves around minimizing errors, being in control, and following a set of internalized rules without emotions ever coming in the way. And it is an interesting idea to see a hitman treating the profession of violently murdering people as just another repetitive 9 to 5 job, that you just have to get through day after day. But when it comes to telling a compelling story, that is a bit of a problem. Because what generally makes movies stand out - even thrillers like these - is the ability to get people emotionally invested, to have them feel with the characters. This is explicitly not, what is happening here. There is not a single emotion in this movie. It is kind of about revenge but not really. You are just watching a man go through his perfected way of getting his job done and this job just so happens to be killing people who show varying degrees of innocence. We don´t even know anyone´s name. There is however one amazing fight scene that has one of the best choreographies that I have seen in Hollywood in a long time and which had me at the edge of my seat for at least five minutes. Irnoically, this is also the only scene where the character decides to not follow his set of rules and ignores the fact that he might be a little bit too emotional to perfectly execute his task. And it is the most gripping scene of the movie. Maybe that means something...

7/10.

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.

Fassbender and Fincher have crafted a cold and very slick thriller. It's incredibly unique and in many ways, brilliant. It will certainly not be for everyone and it should not be categorised as an action film.

David Fincher's directing is as crisp and precise as always. The cinematography is great and the film looks incredible. It's technically sound and visually stunning with its cold contrasted shots. Fassbender is as brilliant as always and commands the scenes.

BUT, my brain cannot seem to accept the simplicity of the story. I expected something completely different from this and i really believe that the synopsis provided is misleading. It does not feel like there are any stakes in this film nor character development and under no point is there serious danger. We get a brief (cliche) incident to get us started and then it is monotone the rest of the way, much like the protagonist. Maybe there's a hidden, beautiful parallel to that, i dont know.

I feel like i need to watch this again with a different mindset because it's not what i expected or what was advertised.

Despite my complaints, i liked this movie. I just wish the story and action sequences had been expanded a lot more. It's worth a watch, just not the watch you're expecting.

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.

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.

Nothing new here that's the disappointing part, great directors often give us high expectations given their former work but not all their movies are masterpieces and I guess that's all right.. Some are more consistent than others of course, but long story short this is a regular hitman movie, with great cinematography and direction and a great lead.

It's not that the movie is bad, everything looks good, I didn't mind the approach to the story, the fact that it is a monologue from the main character and you navigate the story he tells is all right - it's well acted and directed which is what kept me interested but other than that is average at best... The dialogue seems a bit forced, while trying to convey these pseudo life lessons it feels like I am looking at quotes on Facebook and the plot couldn't be more basic...

Overall it's an okay movie, its style and production are great and Fassbender delivers as expected, but it's not enough to make it memorable or compelling.

It seems after all these years Netflix keeps its formula of enlisting a famous actor for a an average movie to keep their subscriptions going.

The only drawbacks for me was the constant monologue in the protagonist's head told out loud, and it starts out somewhat slow for me.

Other than that, if you like films such as Payback or Man on Fire, this is somewhat like them. At least that was my thought while watching. Our lead has to work, 'up the chain' as it were, to exact revenge on others in his assassin network after botching a job.

Fantastic fight sequence in the middle of the film was outstanding.

The look and style of the film was good and I thought that the music really stood out. This is definitely a must watch on Netflix.

.

David Fincher name alone makes you wanna watch the movie, and only a few directors have this power. His last creation is a most watch for anyone who loves movies, yet I feel a little bit disappointed after watching the 2 hours The Killer, don't get me wrong, it's a good movie with essentially Fassbender on the screen (really good) and some unique visual style, the movie is more a character study than an action movie, a lot is happening yet nothing happens which makes the movie good but easily forgettable, especially the last act, you will probably enjoy some good scenes, a few good quotes about modern society but as soon as the film ends you will move on to something else like you watched nothing....that's the limits of the latest Fincher movie!

" Stick to the plan. Anticipate, don't improvise. Trust no one. Yield no advantage. Forbid empathy." The Killer Michael Fassbender

You've seen cool killers in film before, but maybe not like this one. David Fincher is a fearless director tackling challenging films from Se7en and Gone Girl to Mank and many different subjects in between. The Killer is different from other films about assassins but the same in many respects. His Killer has the cool of Keanua Reeves' John Wick, the ingenuity of Sean Connery's James Bond, and not even close to the warmth of Denzel Washington's Equalizer.

Above all he's chill; the introductory quote gives the idea that he is as close to a killing machine as has ever appeared on screen. Reeves looks downright humane by contrast. Yet, like Wick, he is impelled to revenge as he tracks down his employer and operatives, who include Tilda Swinton's Expert at her androgynous, ambiguous best. We never learn his real name, but his aliases are legion, connecting him to us in macabre impersonation of our primal urge to revenge. He use names like Thomas Jefferson, Archie Bunker, and Felix Unger, all from TV and history.

To see him order some of his tools from the Amazon Smartphone App is to send an extra chill of recognition and connection. To hear him lament he can't recall his last "nice quiet drowning" is to paint a portrait of an amoral ghoul. However, the film is replete with dark jokes like The Expert's bear joke or the parmesan grater.

Avenging his girlfriend's beating, Killer tracks down each of her attackers with a precision that the voiceover analysis of his work manifests. Mostly it's about sticking to the plan, not being distracted, and not giving into sympathies. His chat track is late night show amusing but without back story or emotion.

He has broken a cardinal rule of his profession by revenging his girlfriend's misfortune. While he exclaims to be indifferent and cold to emotions, his voice over continues to assert the revenge necessity. In that way, writer Andrew Kevin Walker connects us to emotional weaknesses in us all. After all, his hat and his problems are not much different from Brad Pitt's in Bullet Train.

What we do see is a man who is regimented and cool enough to kill for a profession and love and defend a woman who has brought him close to death. In this way, he adds dimension to an MO almost solely owned by John Wick, without the body count. As Total Film's Jan Crowther comments, "And if you ever wondered what Fincher's Bond might have looked like, this could be it."

The Killer is a hypnotizing study of lethal precision with only a hint of humanity. If you wait for it on Netflix, you can savor the director's precise use of his own cinematic tools as many times as you want. And with intermittent snacks.

"I am who I am." Popeye, quoted by the Killer.

What you get: very good acting performances all the way around. Fassbender and Swinton easily the best.

Despite reviews alluding to a deeper character film exploring sanity (or lack thereof), it plays as a very detailed revenge film. As such, it does well, if a bit slow especially in the beginning. And in spite of his frequent narrative detailing his code, the film presents him breaking his code over and over, with predictably less than great results.

He also professes to not give a darn (not the word he used) about anything and claims to eschew empathy. And yet, we see him frequently altering his actions to allow for sympathetic moves.

The ending felt anti climactic. Almost as though to put a bow on it. He's supposed to be unchanged; but through viewing the movie we know better.

I'm a huge fan of David Fincher's work. I consider Zodiac, The Social Network, & Fight Club to be amongst my favorite films, and Mindhunter in that same category for TV shows. So, even with The Killer dropping on Netflix, I went to a special theater showing to see it on the big screen. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way in to this one--mainly because plot-lovers (like me) will largely be a bit lost.

For a very basic overview, "The Killer" tells the story of the unnamed Killer (Michael Fassbender) hired to perform a rather tedious assassination. When the plan goes a bit awry, however, he must compromise--or at least re-evaluate--some of his principles as he ventures into uncharted emotional territory.

The Killer is certainly a clinic in cinematography and choreography, as is the usual Fincher style. Its action set pieces are tension-filled and Fassbender's flat aesthetic is perfect for the lead role. Half the film's dialogue is the Killer's snarky inner monologue, and again Fassbender nails that.

The big problem--at least for plot-lovers--here is that there is seemingly very little context or rhyme/reason for what we see transpire. Almost nothing is provided other than what is literally playing out in front of viewers in any given scene. As such, I really struggled to care about anything that was happening--in large part because it quite frankly felt like a series of disconnected interludes as opposed to a whole, coherent story. There were times I even felt bored watching because I knew an extended espionage scene was upcoming and I didn't fully understand the stakes.

Seeing as how The Killer is getting relatively high marks, I can assume either one of two things is happening: 1. Audiences are not as hung-up on the lack of discernible plot/motives than I; or 2. There is a deeper message here that I'm just utterly missing. Perhaps the ongoing monologue holds the key--but again, I found that more snarky/sardonic than informative.

Perhaps more analysis or a second viewing will crystalize The Killer for me--but as it stands in the immediate aftermath of my first viewing I have to place it near (perhaps at) the bottom of the Fincher canon.

I don't quite get the low ratings here - I watched htis last night and really enjoyed it. It was not what I expected and I was pleasently surprised.

The plot is the standard one of revenge and the challenges that come with it.

Fassbender's character is cold, clinical, and unbending - an almost anti-hero. His continues internal monologues are insighfful and quite chilling and verbalise why he is the best anbd what he does; his unwavering code makes sure there are no grey areas.

The people along his path revenge on are distictive but not one-dimensional, fleshed out with enough dialogue with Fassbender's character to take you to the next stage.

Many have commented that it's slow which I did not find to be the case. The two-ish hours moved along at a steady pace enopugh to keep me interested, and was complimented with very cool and slick look that went from brightly coloured to a near-noir styling at the right times.

There's a few Easter eggs that will keep you paying attention for the humour and guesswork of what will happen next.

Not a movie to watch when tired as you will miss a lot and things might not make sense, and watch it with another person as you will bounce things around e.g "did you see that?"

Kick back after dinner in the early evening and don't think too hard and you will enjoy it.

There's an art to the profession that you pursue, requiring concentration, application and focus - to name a few, to achieve the end result, there's only you that you consult, going over your technique, by rote narration. Alas solutions do not always find conclusions, and stray bullets may just lead to more confusions, as the hand that feeds bites back, you're left with revengeful attack, that may leave one or two souls, with bad contusions. You nail home the message you believe is fair, tracking down the double crossers in their lairs, the antithesis of Leon, you won't be scotched by brutes who put on, and beware the landing that, leads to the stairs.

Great to see Michael Fassbender back doing what he does best.

I'm surprised by all the positive reviews here. If you like movies that are stylistic and pretty in theory, but boring and consulates in practice, I guess you'll like this movie. But if you're someone who actually cares about plot, I'd definitely pass.

For starters, this movie takes forever to get to the point. It starts off with narration that just continues and continues. If you make it past the dull start, you'll discover an unoriginal plot that's just not interesting enough to justify its unnecessary complexity. There are a few stand out moments, but they're strung together poorly. There's also nothing to get you invested in the characters or their well-being. You're just watching a guy do stuff, and sometimes it's interesting, but a lot of the times it's not.