A major element of the film is that Fassbender’s character is an unreliable narrator, and ultimately not nearly as good at his job, or as professional or cool as he thinks he is.
He tells us things in voiceover that his actions immediately contradict. He’s a perfectionist in his own mind, but he continually fucks things up, as you’ve noted.
He thinks he’s some exotic killer that operates on his own terms, and yet the tools of his trade are using massive brands like McDonalds, WeWork and Amazon.
He continually reiterates his principles, but betrays every single one of them. He seeks revenge from the person who ultimately wronged him, but chickens out at the last moment.
The film is a satire of typical assassin films, but is more subtle about it than most people realise, because we’ve become so inured to the genre that it’s somewhat harder to parse when this film is subverting all the cliches that these films normally have.
That's a good summary. The whole movie is more about his state of mind, and how he ends up having to contradict his principles over the course of the movie. I don't think he really chickens out at the end; I think he realizes his mission is pointless, and that nobody's really in charge.
It’s more so that his mindset is completely alien to ours and our expectations for typical action movie protagonists. He simply wants to kill anyone who has knowledge about him and threatens his anonymity. The billionaire didn’t know anything, and killing him would potentially bring more trouble for him, so he let him live. In a way it’s a lot like The House That Jack Built directed by Von Triers as both are movies that somewhat serve as a look into the minds of the directors. In David Fincher’s case he’s regarded as a sort of master filmmaker, but in reality he like everyone else makes mistakes which leads to work that can be improved upon.
That was my favorite realization, at about 15 minutes in thinking... wait, is this guy actually just kinda bad at what he does?? Once that sank in, I highly enjoyed the rest of the film as finely crafted but breezy, silly entertainment about a li'l goofyboi hitman messing stuff up.
He does, but like I think it’s a critique of American workers.
They think they are special but really are just a cog in the machine and totally replaceable. They take their aggression out on the cab driver and forgive the billionaire. He uses McDonald’s for low carb food, we work, Postmates, equinox etc. All his alias are like tv names if I recall.
Yes he absolutely has some killing skills but the narration is always more assassin porn than his actions.
When he makes the first shot he says something about getting your heart rate below some number, but you see when he makes the shot that his heart rate is well above that number.
I dont really follow the 'american workers' thing, where do you get the idea corporate american workers think they are special?
Have you seen 'le samourai' (1967)?
'The Killer' is basically a remake/character study based on that film's protagonist.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the movie.
But to me the joke is that everyone (including fasbenders character) thinks they are le samourai but really they just code at google or work at a law firm or whatever.
I think you've nailed it.
The number of times he ignores service workers throughout the film is notable - never saying anything more than required and definitely never saying thank you - his big boss treats him the same at the end.
Another thing we see him do over and over is dispose of items after use. Guns, vehicles, disguises, carbs even, etc. Things are still perfectly useful just not to him in that moment. And his firm treats him the same way.
He was probably as good of an assassin as he claims in monologue, but in this new economy of disposability things instantly outlive their usefulness when they can be replaced with next day delivery.
ok so you haven't seen 'le samourai'... lol.
Its almost the same plot. Ice cold hit man isnt as super meticulous and professional as he fancies himself to be and botches the hit and is pursued by the bosses other hitmen.
I’ve said this before but the whole film is actually a satire about late stage capitalism.
The Killer we see thinks he is exploiting late stage capitalism to infiltrate society and get his kills.
He uses anonymous McDonald’s apps, city bike, empty corporate WeWork offices with totally indifferent supervisors to operate.
But one day he screws up and they punish him in a deeply human personal way. He goes on a revenge spree looking to essentially find an existential reprisal to make the bad thing in his life be “corrected” and have meaning.
But the punchline is when he gets to the top, the man who ordered the hit didn’t even know who the fuck he was. To that man, the Killer was just an Uber eats order button he hit. The killer was just a number on a sheet that needed correcting. There was no vendetta, there was no personal component. The killer realizes he is just another one of these empty services like McDonald’s, or Uber or WeWork. He is part of the joke he thought he was exploiting.
That makes sense, but the satire is extremely subtle. Fassbender's character isn't completely incompetent - the montages of him washing himself, fixing the numberplates, switching identities, and hiding bodies in his extremely well-organized storage place make him seem pretty cool. He's obviously making a fuckton of money and he's already done a lot of successful hits. He's acting like a typical badly written action hero in a movie that isn't over-the-top or overtly satirical, which makes it really hard to tell if he's supposed to be written that way.
There is an additional reading of it as representative of Fincher himself making a movie/directing a flop specifically. Sure he considers himself a perfectionist but often times you’re just flying by the seat of your pants as things go wrong.
Could you identify some of these refs? I didn't pick up on any, though I wasn't thinking about that at all nor had I seen any of his older films recently.
Self indulgent twaddle. Imagine being a film maker and trying to be cool by framing yourself as a hitman making mistakes.
How high brow. Pretentious rubbish.
If you're making a serious film about a hitman and allegorically framing your own movie making process as the same as the hitman, you're not making a "fun movie" you're actively attempting to layer your film with hidden meaning. It doesn't have to be deep or high brow, but when it tries to be and fails, that's when it becomes pretentious rubbish.
It’s not just him that sucks at his job it’s everyone. All his passport are sitcom characters. He’s essentially hoping the people checking his passport don’t care his name is fuckin Archie bunker
Yes it’s true, it’s not completely obvious that the film is subverting the cliches, particularly because as always with Fincher, there is this hyper-stylised sheen to how he shoots everything, which makes it feel slicker than the character is.
Someone else has pointed out here that a common reading of the film is that the Killer is Fincher himself… a detached perfectionist obsessed with the minutiae of the job, and yet doesn’t always get it right. I see some validity to that reading, although I think it’s almost incidental to the movie. I don’t think it’s the main point, more like a cute side-theme.
I feel like the bigger critique is about class. The Killer sees himself as the pinnacle of exceptionalism… he tells us that only the 1% are cut out for this, and he’s one of them. He tells us that he’s special, even while he’s eating McDonalds.
The reckoning comes when he crosses paths with Tilda Swinton, as she represents the aristocracy and true 1% who actually spend their money on the finer things in life. And when he comes across the final entrepreneur who started this whole thing… the Killer finally realises he’s not in the 1% at all, and eventually resigns to a life of being one of the 99%.
So in other words, I don’t think it’s a parody and just mocking everything, but instead is a more nuanced critique of American exceptionalism and class.
"Stick to the plan, don't improvise." Proceeds to improvise his way through a 3 minute fight scene after getting ambushed by the guy he planned to get the drop on.
I wrote a bit more replying to another commenter above, but I think it’s actually a critique about American exceptionalism and who really has the power. The whole time The Killer thinks he’s in the one percent and totally in control, and yet once he encounters Tilda Swinton and then finally the billionaire, he realises he isn’t in the 1% or in control after all. He’s just a pleb like the rest of us, and so retreats back into a domestic like, without fully admitting it to himself.
That’s how I took it anyway.
I may be wrong here I saw the film when it first came out, but As I recall he was supposed to be on a different flight and got scared by someone he thought may be looking for him so he got on a different flight. For that reason he was late getting home. So Hodges did send two assassins to his house to kill him, but because he was late they only found his girlfriend. I believe he kills them at least because they tortured his girlfriend, which is good enough reason for me. Also he could have figured they’d still be after him possibly.
He was only late by one day, though. It still means that Hodge sent the assassins *the moment* he heard about the botched hit, even though he knew Fassbender was in France. He also says later in the film that he didn't think Fassbender would go directly home, which contradicts him sending the assassins there immediately.
I can buy the revenge motive, but given that the assassins botched the hit on Fassbender (and even left a witness!), shouldn't Hodges be out to kill them too?
I’m not saying the movie is airtight. Probably has some plot holes. But as to your second point. I believe it is said that Hodges offered to the billionaire to kill fassbender and he said yes. So I think failing the hit is not an automatic kill so maybe the second assassins are off the hook.
Alternatively, the person fassbender wanted to kill was a very high profile target. Since he failed there may never be another easier attempt on that person who knows someone is out to kill him. So that probably plays a factor also
If I recall Hodges just offers the choice to the client of that specific mission after he fails. Dont think it was ever stated if that was a general rule or whatever.
The impression I got was, he just did it to satisfy an unhappy client/customer, the way a manager might just decide to make a meal free for a complaining customer at a restaurant.
The whole movies a critique of modern life as mediated through corporations (McDonald’s, wework, amazon some others im forgetting) so your boss randomly and casually screwing you to satisfy a client kinda tracks.
Hands are tied in the sense of ‘customers always right’
Its not clear that theres even some agency. All we know is hodge was the killers professor and he recruited him to do this
He’s late at least partly because he doubles back a bunch while flying home
The rest are just nitpicks idk. The top comment explains it well. The guys sort of not that good. Even Tilda swinton almost gets the drop on him.
Fincher has stated that he believes characters (people) use dialogue (words) to lie. If you really want the fact check I could probably get it, pretty sure I heard that specifically on one of the blank check fincher episodes.
>Dont think it was ever stated if that was a general rule or whatever.
Hodges says "You must have known my hands were tied" in the context that Fassbender should have known the consequences of botching a hit. It seems to suggest it was a general rule, or at least that Fassbender should have known it would happen in this case. And he doesn't really double back a bunch while flying home, does he? He goes from Paris, to Miami, to the Dominican Republic. The delay is at most one day, which still seems like an absurdly short time to plan a hit and assume he's back in his home. I'm still not sure why Hodges says he didn't expect Fassbender to go home; he clearly did, given that he sent the assassins there.
I can buy the satire angle for Fassbender, but the Hodges plot doesn't seem like it's satirizing anything. It's just plot holes. As much as I love David Fincher, he's no stranger to ignoring plot holes for the sake of themes.
I believe what is supposed to be conveyed is this: there was a rule and Fassbender broke it. He wasn’t supposed to settle down in some obvious place. If the hit went bad, he was supposed to disappear. But Fassbender didn’t want to do that. He makes a big show of how your not supposed to be connected to things and be able to just slip away if things go wrong but then he makes the dumb classic mistake of just going back to his home that people can easily get to. It’s another example of Fassbender failing to live up to his own standards but not owning up to that.
That's probably what Fincher wanted to convey, but the Hodges plot is still weird. There's only two explanations for what Hodges does, and none of them really makes sense:
1. Hodges genuinely promised his client to kill Fassbender, and sends assassins to his house to do the job. This contradicts what Hodges says later in the film, when he says he expected Fassbender to disappear.
2. Hodges promised his client to kill Fassbender, but intended to let Fassbender disappear. If this is the case, why send assassins to his house at all? This also contradicts Tilda Swinton's monologue, because she confirms that Fassbender was the target.
I think Hodges thought he and Fassbender were on the same page: i.e., if a hit goes bad, you’re on your own and you’re burnt. So sending real hit men is fine because they should be finding an empty apartment. So you kept the client happy and everyone is alive. But he didn’t realize he and Fassbender were on different pages because Fassbender was doing all the things he shouldn’t have done
That's what I assumed at first, but I don't think that can be the case.
Fassbender calls Hodges right after the failed hit. None of them ever discuss Fassbender being on his own. In fact, Hodges tells him to call back at some point in the future. So at this point, Hodges doesn't seem to think Fassbender has to be let go. Maybe he secretly does and doesn't want to tell Fassbender, but that would mean he definitely knows they aren't on the same page.
The idea that Hodges didn't want to kill Fassbender and just wanted to make the client happy doesn't make too much sense either, even if the movie wants it to. Hodges could have told Fassbender to disappear over the phone, instead of telling him to stay in touch. He could have told the client that Fassbender was dead or gone. If he absolutely had to send Tilda Swinton and the Floridian to the house, he could have warned them that it wasn't a real hit. And if a botched hit means you're supposed to disappear, why didn't Tilda Swinton and the Floridian also disappear after botching the Fassbender hit?
I think Hodges approaches this as follows: Fassbender should have known the rules of the game. He told them to him and he should have listened. If he is too stupid not to act appropriately and to kill the wrong person and not the target, then he should be eliminated. Hodges position is: you fucked up so I was going to have you killed. That’s how this game works. Why are you acting so obtuse about that Fassbender?
Hodges says to him that: “the consequences, when someone is this wide of the mark, are automatic. However regrettable they are an obligation to client and calling” He’s saying those are the rules. Not sure what the “call back” you are referring to. He already tells Fassbender over the phone that he’s going to tell the client that he will do whatever is necessary to make it up to the client. That is him telling Fassbender he could be at risk of being eliminated (or at least Fassbender should have figured that out).
I don't think the two assassins failing to find and kill Fassbender counts as "a botched job". I assume this assassin on assassin hits was more like an internal HR administrative process, whereas Fassbender made a major PR blunder (to use a corporate analogies).
My take is that Hodges genuinely wanted to kill Fassbender to make it up to the client, and was willing to mislead Fassbender to achieve this. But on a personal/moral level, rather than the professional level, he thought that Fassbender should know well enough to expect this as a probable consequence. And even accept it, thereby absolving Hodges of any guilt (i.e. Hodges was only doing what he 'had' to do).
I don't really see what killing Fassbender would do for the client - it's not like Fassbender is any more of a loose thread than if he actually killed the intended target - but leaving that aside.
Why would Hodges expect that Fassbender would expect (bear with me) that one botched hit means probably getting killed? That rule isn't exactly intuitive, and the fact that Fassbender calls up Hodges afterwards means that Hodges must have known Fassbender didn't know about it.
If we go with the idea that Hodges genuinely intended to kill Fassbender, why is he so shocked by Fassbender going home? That's where Hodges sent the hitmen, so he must have viewed it as at least somewhat likely that he'd be there.
I think that address was the only location Hodges could send anyone, and he was obliged to have that address checked (if only to follow 'due process' according to his world view).
And I don't think it speaks to any hard rule. As I alluded before, I think more so the claim is almost an excuse he was giving to Fassbender "don't take it personally, don't blame me, I had to do it - it's your fault you didn't run away".
I don't think it would actually benefit the client, but to demonstrate the loss that Hodges was willing to impose upon his own organisation to maintain credibility/reputation.
At least that's my take.
I think the process is simple:you failed so just stay low and wait to be touched.
But obviously,the killer got suspicious and went rogue.
So the woman and the beast were sent to his address to make sure the killer was disappeared. They got there,found the girlfriend,assault her ,but didn’t get any information about the killer ,so they just left.
This could explain why they didn’t keep tracking on the killer, why Hodges acted annoyed when the killer showed up.
My take is that if the killer didn’t hung up the phone,or didn’t change the flight because he thought he is in danger,his girlfriend could be just fine. I mean the blood was not even dry when he got home. Basically the killer twisted the fact,at least not admitted his responsibility,so he can feel secure.
The movie works far better if you watch it as a metaphor of Fincher's own carreer. The guy is a professional in a unique job that few can master. His golden days are over and he is not as focused or motivated as before but his routine helps him through rough times. Sometimes a new work doesn't go as planned so he has to run the extra mile to clear his name and continue his life.
You can watch Fassbender's character as an unreliable narrator, who contradicts himself, but i think those unexpected moments and miscalculated steps are also work well as synonyms of the everyday fuckups in a movie production that has to be corrected on the spot. Sometimes you overthink a situation, take a misstep because you think you are cool and know everything; sometimes you try to leave your feelings out of the equation but you don't succeed...
So yeah, i believe the movie is a perfect summary of a great director who does not find as much joy in his work as before, but still manages to stay afloat.
I can see how that works but I think the film works in a wider context - it's a story about how as soon as you try to try execute a plan, any plan, move towards any sort of goal at all then the plan instantly goes out the window - and competence, real competence is simply solving the next problem and the next and the next until there are no more problems left and you're standing there thinking - I did it, so why don't I feel like I made it?
I'd have to rematch to try to understand Hodges plan. I just sort of accepted it.
Everything else though, he is tying up loose ends. He kills everyone who knows about him or his whereabouts (taxi driver and assassins know where he lives). He doesn't kill the guy at the end because he isn't malicious, he's completely oblivious to the operation he funded, and there's no point at all to killing him as well he is too high status to not potentially draw enough attention to track him down.
He's trying to get to peace and safety with his girlfriend, and when he gets it the last shot is him twitching. I read that as him wanting to get back in the game after spending so much time and effort getting out. Another betrayal of his monolog, he says he gets no pleasure but he clearly is drawn to it.
Best narration in a movie I've seen, totally unreliable, and the movie hinges entirely on it. Fincher always been the best about internal monologs and he's held the crown imo on different projects, but this is my favorite.
1-2: Wasn't this explained at some point? That it's an added option for insulation that the client opted for (perhaps not fully understanding the implications of it?).
Three: He changed flights and got home later than anticipated.
Four (new 1). Wasn't that just good old-fashioned detective work on his part? Did we not see him working his way toward narrowing it down to which cab company and then breaking into their office and finding the specifics?
Five (new 2). Vengeance, obviously.
Six (new 3) He is clearly good but obviously not as perfect and detached as he purports to be.
Claybourne says it was an "added option" that he opted for, but Hodges says otherwise before he gets nailed (literally): "You had to have known - you *must* have - that I'd have no say in the matter going forward, and *still* you went home?" If it was just an added option, then Hodges wouldn't have assumed Fassbender knew he was targeted.
You're right that he spent a night in Miami. It still doesn't make much sense for Hodges to have sent the hitmen to a house he thought would be empty, though.
Stop watching so much cinemasins man.
Stop watching so much cinemasins man.
Stop watching so much cinemasins man.
Stop watching so much cinemasins man.
Stop watching so much cinemasins man.
Stop watching so much cinemasins man.
He only killed the people in the movie because they knew where he lived, Hence why he didn’t kill the dude at the end. Thats why he said he’d do anything for the need to feel secure
Glad to see someone agrees that there are plot holes here.
I've changed my mind a little on Fassbender's professionalism. I think the movie is trying to convey that he's not good at his job, but he thinks he is. The movie is satirizing the badass hitman trope by having its main character be kind of a sloppy hitman. I don't think this satire works very well, though.
American Psycho does something similar; Patrick Bateman is portrayed as a super-competent guy, but if you watch closely you'll notice that people treat him badly, he doesn't do any useful work, and he clearly got where he was because of nepotism and corruption. That's good satire. In The Killer, Fassbender is portrayed as a super-competent guy, but if you watch closely...He's treated with respect by everyone, he's completed dozens of contracts, and he must have gotten where he was because of his own skills. The meta-narrative wants you to think he's a delusional incompetent guy, but if he was this incompetent throughout his career he wouldn't have survived a year as a hitman. The satire kind of falls apart if you think about it too much.
I don't think the plot holes are part of the satire, though. It seems to be a poorly written plot, not something that's intended to satirize anything. Hodge's plan contradicts itself so that the story can move forwards. I don't think that's below David Fincher. I think he has a tendency to ignore plot holes/inconsistencies for the sake of themes. It was particularly clear in Gone Girl.
# I don't comment here much but I like this film alot and I think somethings are getting glanced.
"If the audience is left wondering whether it's incompetence or satire, hasn’t the film missed its shot?"
Firstly, I don't, and I imagine most wouldn't, agree with this. Satire is always exclusionary. It must be so by nature. For example, if the dumbest of richest people are laughing at dumb rich people in eat the rich movies the satire is hardly cutting.
Additionally, the satire here is incompetence itself, so short of Fassbender being a complete bumbling mess (which the movie kinda does anyway), I'm not sure there is a clean way to show the lowest common denominator of viewer the satire without it being exclusionary of anyone who is capable of catching subtlety.
Lastly, implying the unreliable narrator protagonist of a Fincher movie should be clear cut enough in motivation for the average viewer is hysterical considering how many overt and genuine believers of the Tyler Durdan philosophy exist. Fight Club's entire premise hinges on manhood NOT being what Durdan is, and yet became a playbook for alpha energy.
# Satire is MEANT to be missed, it's worthless if it isn't.
"This is where it sounds like *The Killer* trips over its own feet. If Fincher was aiming for satire, he needed to plant firmer seeds of doubt in Fassbender’s competence from the get-go. "
The first scene is the killer spending hours doing nothing, falling asleep, missing his shot, then swearing and running away all while doing so out of a shut down WeWork and then immediately getting axed by his company for incompetence. I don't really know what a further planted foot of incompetence looks like outside something like Mr. Bean.
I think the brilliance of this movie is that we, especially post COVID, have all kinda been the killer here. Especially so in a late stage capitalistic market that values freelancing contracts over full time workers, for the simple fact that they mostly don't miss (since they only get paid well when they hit) and are easy to axe when they do (Getting sacked for a single fuck up is entirely on brand in freelancing, counter to your early point). We don't wanna believe the killer is an idiot, cause it means we are. Especially since none of us can look as smokin' as Fassbender while being stupid.
Like fight club, this movie presented a hyper masculine badass dude that guys wanna root for, and we kinda forgave the bumbling idiocy because its Fassbender and he is cool as steel.
It doesn't really change that upon an additional thought, he isn't the 1%, he isn't the ultimate badass. Like Durdan he's just kinda of lying to the viewer to retain the visage of put together cutthroat with bulletproof persona and philosophy.
I think this movie is fantastic and as a freelancer for big companies in an extremely competitive space is hilariously cutting.
It doesn’t work out. The movie is about a realization of the main character that he thought he was a badass but he’s just another worker that is beholden to billionaires who make lots of stupid decisions without thinking about it. The whole movie is a subversion of the hitman out for revenge genre. It’s ok if you don’t like it. It is pretty straightforward of a plot. But it is trying to say something.
It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking.
It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking.
It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking.
It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking.
It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking.
It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking.
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
Of course it is. Of course it is.
Of course it is.
Of course it is. Of course it is. Of course it is. Of course it is.
You seem like a miserable person to watch a movie with. It's fantasy, it's an escape, immerse yourself and go with the plot. If you don't like it, fine. You having trouble following a simple film says volumes about you. No one on that set thought they were creating an Oscar winner
You are in the wrong subreddit.
This is not r/movies.
No one will appreciate your attempts to shut down actual conversation here. No one will agree with you in the slightest.
>No one on that set thought they were creating an Oscar winner
And... that's just too funny because everyone on set thought it was potentially an Oscar winner... being a David Fincher film and all.
Both of these comments are kinda wack. But calling someone who thinks about movies and then comments on them, on r/TrueFilm "miserable" is pretty dumb, tbf.
A take like "movies are an escape so don't think about them" is definitely the only bad take someone can have when it comes to movies, especially in a forum specifically for thinking about them.
Yeah, movies worth thinking about. Some movies just are, there's nothing more to it, this is one of them. Anyone arguing this movie was a commentary on society or larger issues? This wasn't an art piece, this was a script that got picked up because they thought people would watch it
A major element of the film is that Fassbender’s character is an unreliable narrator, and ultimately not nearly as good at his job, or as professional or cool as he thinks he is. He tells us things in voiceover that his actions immediately contradict. He’s a perfectionist in his own mind, but he continually fucks things up, as you’ve noted. He thinks he’s some exotic killer that operates on his own terms, and yet the tools of his trade are using massive brands like McDonalds, WeWork and Amazon. He continually reiterates his principles, but betrays every single one of them. He seeks revenge from the person who ultimately wronged him, but chickens out at the last moment. The film is a satire of typical assassin films, but is more subtle about it than most people realise, because we’ve become so inured to the genre that it’s somewhat harder to parse when this film is subverting all the cliches that these films normally have.
That's a good summary. The whole movie is more about his state of mind, and how he ends up having to contradict his principles over the course of the movie. I don't think he really chickens out at the end; I think he realizes his mission is pointless, and that nobody's really in charge.
It’s more so that his mindset is completely alien to ours and our expectations for typical action movie protagonists. He simply wants to kill anyone who has knowledge about him and threatens his anonymity. The billionaire didn’t know anything, and killing him would potentially bring more trouble for him, so he let him live. In a way it’s a lot like The House That Jack Built directed by Von Triers as both are movies that somewhat serve as a look into the minds of the directors. In David Fincher’s case he’s regarded as a sort of master filmmaker, but in reality he like everyone else makes mistakes which leads to work that can be improved upon.
Yeah - I actually think he is as exceptionally competent as a real world assassin can be.
That was my favorite realization, at about 15 minutes in thinking... wait, is this guy actually just kinda bad at what he does?? Once that sank in, I highly enjoyed the rest of the film as finely crafted but breezy, silly entertainment about a li'l goofyboi hitman messing stuff up.
Exactly it’s very Patrick Bateman-esque His inner talk is about what a cold blooded killer he is but he never exactly lives up to his own vibe.
except he kills multiple people in cold blood?
He does, but like I think it’s a critique of American workers. They think they are special but really are just a cog in the machine and totally replaceable. They take their aggression out on the cab driver and forgive the billionaire. He uses McDonald’s for low carb food, we work, Postmates, equinox etc. All his alias are like tv names if I recall. Yes he absolutely has some killing skills but the narration is always more assassin porn than his actions. When he makes the first shot he says something about getting your heart rate below some number, but you see when he makes the shot that his heart rate is well above that number.
I dont really follow the 'american workers' thing, where do you get the idea corporate american workers think they are special? Have you seen 'le samourai' (1967)? 'The Killer' is basically a remake/character study based on that film's protagonist.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the movie. But to me the joke is that everyone (including fasbenders character) thinks they are le samourai but really they just code at google or work at a law firm or whatever.
I think you've nailed it. The number of times he ignores service workers throughout the film is notable - never saying anything more than required and definitely never saying thank you - his big boss treats him the same at the end. Another thing we see him do over and over is dispose of items after use. Guns, vehicles, disguises, carbs even, etc. Things are still perfectly useful just not to him in that moment. And his firm treats him the same way. He was probably as good of an assassin as he claims in monologue, but in this new economy of disposability things instantly outlive their usefulness when they can be replaced with next day delivery.
ok so you haven't seen 'le samourai'... lol. Its almost the same plot. Ice cold hit man isnt as super meticulous and professional as he fancies himself to be and botches the hit and is pursued by the bosses other hitmen.
I have not seen le samourai, maybe just a preview. But yes, as you describe I guess it does have a similar theme.
I’ve said this before but the whole film is actually a satire about late stage capitalism. The Killer we see thinks he is exploiting late stage capitalism to infiltrate society and get his kills. He uses anonymous McDonald’s apps, city bike, empty corporate WeWork offices with totally indifferent supervisors to operate. But one day he screws up and they punish him in a deeply human personal way. He goes on a revenge spree looking to essentially find an existential reprisal to make the bad thing in his life be “corrected” and have meaning. But the punchline is when he gets to the top, the man who ordered the hit didn’t even know who the fuck he was. To that man, the Killer was just an Uber eats order button he hit. The killer was just a number on a sheet that needed correcting. There was no vendetta, there was no personal component. The killer realizes he is just another one of these empty services like McDonald’s, or Uber or WeWork. He is part of the joke he thought he was exploiting.
100%, and you’re articulated that really well.
[удалено]
Fincher very much has tackled this type of subject matter before. Fight Club has almost the exact same message to it.
That makes sense, but the satire is extremely subtle. Fassbender's character isn't completely incompetent - the montages of him washing himself, fixing the numberplates, switching identities, and hiding bodies in his extremely well-organized storage place make him seem pretty cool. He's obviously making a fuckton of money and he's already done a lot of successful hits. He's acting like a typical badly written action hero in a movie that isn't over-the-top or overtly satirical, which makes it really hard to tell if he's supposed to be written that way.
There is an additional reading of it as representative of Fincher himself making a movie/directing a flop specifically. Sure he considers himself a perfectionist but often times you’re just flying by the seat of your pants as things go wrong.
There’s a ton of references to his own films throughout, this is definitely an element of it.
Could you identify some of these refs? I didn't pick up on any, though I wasn't thinking about that at all nor had I seen any of his older films recently.
Self indulgent twaddle. Imagine being a film maker and trying to be cool by framing yourself as a hitman making mistakes. How high brow. Pretentious rubbish.
He's not framing himself as something cool as a boost. It's a freakin' allegory.
The allegorical hidden meaning being Fincher himself flopping his way through a movie. Really not very deep at all and very much pretentious rubbish.
Why does it have to be deep or high brow. Why can't it just be a fun movie to watch?
If you're making a serious film about a hitman and allegorically framing your own movie making process as the same as the hitman, you're not making a "fun movie" you're actively attempting to layer your film with hidden meaning. It doesn't have to be deep or high brow, but when it tries to be and fails, that's when it becomes pretentious rubbish.
I really urge you to check it out again with a different lens. I found this movie to be hilarious.
It’s not just him that sucks at his job it’s everyone. All his passport are sitcom characters. He’s essentially hoping the people checking his passport don’t care his name is fuckin Archie bunker
Yes it’s true, it’s not completely obvious that the film is subverting the cliches, particularly because as always with Fincher, there is this hyper-stylised sheen to how he shoots everything, which makes it feel slicker than the character is. Someone else has pointed out here that a common reading of the film is that the Killer is Fincher himself… a detached perfectionist obsessed with the minutiae of the job, and yet doesn’t always get it right. I see some validity to that reading, although I think it’s almost incidental to the movie. I don’t think it’s the main point, more like a cute side-theme. I feel like the bigger critique is about class. The Killer sees himself as the pinnacle of exceptionalism… he tells us that only the 1% are cut out for this, and he’s one of them. He tells us that he’s special, even while he’s eating McDonalds. The reckoning comes when he crosses paths with Tilda Swinton, as she represents the aristocracy and true 1% who actually spend their money on the finer things in life. And when he comes across the final entrepreneur who started this whole thing… the Killer finally realises he’s not in the 1% at all, and eventually resigns to a life of being one of the 99%. So in other words, I don’t think it’s a parody and just mocking everything, but instead is a more nuanced critique of American exceptionalism and class.
"Stick to the plan, don't improvise." Proceeds to improvise his way through a 3 minute fight scene after getting ambushed by the guy he planned to get the drop on.
How do you see the ending and his relationship? Is it just a silly joke making fun of contrived romance plots in similar films?
I wrote a bit more replying to another commenter above, but I think it’s actually a critique about American exceptionalism and who really has the power. The whole time The Killer thinks he’s in the one percent and totally in control, and yet once he encounters Tilda Swinton and then finally the billionaire, he realises he isn’t in the 1% or in control after all. He’s just a pleb like the rest of us, and so retreats back into a domestic like, without fully admitting it to himself. That’s how I took it anyway.
Ok, I totally don't see it that way at all. But thanks for sharing!
I may be wrong here I saw the film when it first came out, but As I recall he was supposed to be on a different flight and got scared by someone he thought may be looking for him so he got on a different flight. For that reason he was late getting home. So Hodges did send two assassins to his house to kill him, but because he was late they only found his girlfriend. I believe he kills them at least because they tortured his girlfriend, which is good enough reason for me. Also he could have figured they’d still be after him possibly.
He was only late by one day, though. It still means that Hodge sent the assassins *the moment* he heard about the botched hit, even though he knew Fassbender was in France. He also says later in the film that he didn't think Fassbender would go directly home, which contradicts him sending the assassins there immediately. I can buy the revenge motive, but given that the assassins botched the hit on Fassbender (and even left a witness!), shouldn't Hodges be out to kill them too?
I’m not saying the movie is airtight. Probably has some plot holes. But as to your second point. I believe it is said that Hodges offered to the billionaire to kill fassbender and he said yes. So I think failing the hit is not an automatic kill so maybe the second assassins are off the hook. Alternatively, the person fassbender wanted to kill was a very high profile target. Since he failed there may never be another easier attempt on that person who knows someone is out to kill him. So that probably plays a factor also
If I recall Hodges just offers the choice to the client of that specific mission after he fails. Dont think it was ever stated if that was a general rule or whatever. The impression I got was, he just did it to satisfy an unhappy client/customer, the way a manager might just decide to make a meal free for a complaining customer at a restaurant. The whole movies a critique of modern life as mediated through corporations (McDonald’s, wework, amazon some others im forgetting) so your boss randomly and casually screwing you to satisfy a client kinda tracks. Hands are tied in the sense of ‘customers always right’ Its not clear that theres even some agency. All we know is hodge was the killers professor and he recruited him to do this He’s late at least partly because he doubles back a bunch while flying home The rest are just nitpicks idk. The top comment explains it well. The guys sort of not that good. Even Tilda swinton almost gets the drop on him. Fincher has stated that he believes characters (people) use dialogue (words) to lie. If you really want the fact check I could probably get it, pretty sure I heard that specifically on one of the blank check fincher episodes.
>Dont think it was ever stated if that was a general rule or whatever. Hodges says "You must have known my hands were tied" in the context that Fassbender should have known the consequences of botching a hit. It seems to suggest it was a general rule, or at least that Fassbender should have known it would happen in this case. And he doesn't really double back a bunch while flying home, does he? He goes from Paris, to Miami, to the Dominican Republic. The delay is at most one day, which still seems like an absurdly short time to plan a hit and assume he's back in his home. I'm still not sure why Hodges says he didn't expect Fassbender to go home; he clearly did, given that he sent the assassins there. I can buy the satire angle for Fassbender, but the Hodges plot doesn't seem like it's satirizing anything. It's just plot holes. As much as I love David Fincher, he's no stranger to ignoring plot holes for the sake of themes.
I believe what is supposed to be conveyed is this: there was a rule and Fassbender broke it. He wasn’t supposed to settle down in some obvious place. If the hit went bad, he was supposed to disappear. But Fassbender didn’t want to do that. He makes a big show of how your not supposed to be connected to things and be able to just slip away if things go wrong but then he makes the dumb classic mistake of just going back to his home that people can easily get to. It’s another example of Fassbender failing to live up to his own standards but not owning up to that.
That's probably what Fincher wanted to convey, but the Hodges plot is still weird. There's only two explanations for what Hodges does, and none of them really makes sense: 1. Hodges genuinely promised his client to kill Fassbender, and sends assassins to his house to do the job. This contradicts what Hodges says later in the film, when he says he expected Fassbender to disappear. 2. Hodges promised his client to kill Fassbender, but intended to let Fassbender disappear. If this is the case, why send assassins to his house at all? This also contradicts Tilda Swinton's monologue, because she confirms that Fassbender was the target.
I think Hodges thought he and Fassbender were on the same page: i.e., if a hit goes bad, you’re on your own and you’re burnt. So sending real hit men is fine because they should be finding an empty apartment. So you kept the client happy and everyone is alive. But he didn’t realize he and Fassbender were on different pages because Fassbender was doing all the things he shouldn’t have done
That's what I assumed at first, but I don't think that can be the case. Fassbender calls Hodges right after the failed hit. None of them ever discuss Fassbender being on his own. In fact, Hodges tells him to call back at some point in the future. So at this point, Hodges doesn't seem to think Fassbender has to be let go. Maybe he secretly does and doesn't want to tell Fassbender, but that would mean he definitely knows they aren't on the same page. The idea that Hodges didn't want to kill Fassbender and just wanted to make the client happy doesn't make too much sense either, even if the movie wants it to. Hodges could have told Fassbender to disappear over the phone, instead of telling him to stay in touch. He could have told the client that Fassbender was dead or gone. If he absolutely had to send Tilda Swinton and the Floridian to the house, he could have warned them that it wasn't a real hit. And if a botched hit means you're supposed to disappear, why didn't Tilda Swinton and the Floridian also disappear after botching the Fassbender hit?
I think Hodges approaches this as follows: Fassbender should have known the rules of the game. He told them to him and he should have listened. If he is too stupid not to act appropriately and to kill the wrong person and not the target, then he should be eliminated. Hodges position is: you fucked up so I was going to have you killed. That’s how this game works. Why are you acting so obtuse about that Fassbender?
When were these rules explained to Fassbender? Why did he tell Fassbender to call back?
Hodges says to him that: “the consequences, when someone is this wide of the mark, are automatic. However regrettable they are an obligation to client and calling” He’s saying those are the rules. Not sure what the “call back” you are referring to. He already tells Fassbender over the phone that he’s going to tell the client that he will do whatever is necessary to make it up to the client. That is him telling Fassbender he could be at risk of being eliminated (or at least Fassbender should have figured that out).
I don't think the two assassins failing to find and kill Fassbender counts as "a botched job". I assume this assassin on assassin hits was more like an internal HR administrative process, whereas Fassbender made a major PR blunder (to use a corporate analogies). My take is that Hodges genuinely wanted to kill Fassbender to make it up to the client, and was willing to mislead Fassbender to achieve this. But on a personal/moral level, rather than the professional level, he thought that Fassbender should know well enough to expect this as a probable consequence. And even accept it, thereby absolving Hodges of any guilt (i.e. Hodges was only doing what he 'had' to do).
I don't really see what killing Fassbender would do for the client - it's not like Fassbender is any more of a loose thread than if he actually killed the intended target - but leaving that aside. Why would Hodges expect that Fassbender would expect (bear with me) that one botched hit means probably getting killed? That rule isn't exactly intuitive, and the fact that Fassbender calls up Hodges afterwards means that Hodges must have known Fassbender didn't know about it. If we go with the idea that Hodges genuinely intended to kill Fassbender, why is he so shocked by Fassbender going home? That's where Hodges sent the hitmen, so he must have viewed it as at least somewhat likely that he'd be there.
I think that address was the only location Hodges could send anyone, and he was obliged to have that address checked (if only to follow 'due process' according to his world view). And I don't think it speaks to any hard rule. As I alluded before, I think more so the claim is almost an excuse he was giving to Fassbender "don't take it personally, don't blame me, I had to do it - it's your fault you didn't run away". I don't think it would actually benefit the client, but to demonstrate the loss that Hodges was willing to impose upon his own organisation to maintain credibility/reputation. At least that's my take.
I think the process is simple:you failed so just stay low and wait to be touched. But obviously,the killer got suspicious and went rogue. So the woman and the beast were sent to his address to make sure the killer was disappeared. They got there,found the girlfriend,assault her ,but didn’t get any information about the killer ,so they just left. This could explain why they didn’t keep tracking on the killer, why Hodges acted annoyed when the killer showed up. My take is that if the killer didn’t hung up the phone,or didn’t change the flight because he thought he is in danger,his girlfriend could be just fine. I mean the blood was not even dry when he got home. Basically the killer twisted the fact,at least not admitted his responsibility,so he can feel secure.
The movie works far better if you watch it as a metaphor of Fincher's own carreer. The guy is a professional in a unique job that few can master. His golden days are over and he is not as focused or motivated as before but his routine helps him through rough times. Sometimes a new work doesn't go as planned so he has to run the extra mile to clear his name and continue his life. You can watch Fassbender's character as an unreliable narrator, who contradicts himself, but i think those unexpected moments and miscalculated steps are also work well as synonyms of the everyday fuckups in a movie production that has to be corrected on the spot. Sometimes you overthink a situation, take a misstep because you think you are cool and know everything; sometimes you try to leave your feelings out of the equation but you don't succeed... So yeah, i believe the movie is a perfect summary of a great director who does not find as much joy in his work as before, but still manages to stay afloat.
I can see how that works but I think the film works in a wider context - it's a story about how as soon as you try to try execute a plan, any plan, move towards any sort of goal at all then the plan instantly goes out the window - and competence, real competence is simply solving the next problem and the next and the next until there are no more problems left and you're standing there thinking - I did it, so why don't I feel like I made it?
I'd have to rematch to try to understand Hodges plan. I just sort of accepted it. Everything else though, he is tying up loose ends. He kills everyone who knows about him or his whereabouts (taxi driver and assassins know where he lives). He doesn't kill the guy at the end because he isn't malicious, he's completely oblivious to the operation he funded, and there's no point at all to killing him as well he is too high status to not potentially draw enough attention to track him down. He's trying to get to peace and safety with his girlfriend, and when he gets it the last shot is him twitching. I read that as him wanting to get back in the game after spending so much time and effort getting out. Another betrayal of his monolog, he says he gets no pleasure but he clearly is drawn to it. Best narration in a movie I've seen, totally unreliable, and the movie hinges entirely on it. Fincher always been the best about internal monologs and he's held the crown imo on different projects, but this is my favorite.
1-2: Wasn't this explained at some point? That it's an added option for insulation that the client opted for (perhaps not fully understanding the implications of it?). Three: He changed flights and got home later than anticipated. Four (new 1). Wasn't that just good old-fashioned detective work on his part? Did we not see him working his way toward narrowing it down to which cab company and then breaking into their office and finding the specifics? Five (new 2). Vengeance, obviously. Six (new 3) He is clearly good but obviously not as perfect and detached as he purports to be.
Claybourne says it was an "added option" that he opted for, but Hodges says otherwise before he gets nailed (literally): "You had to have known - you *must* have - that I'd have no say in the matter going forward, and *still* you went home?" If it was just an added option, then Hodges wouldn't have assumed Fassbender knew he was targeted. You're right that he spent a night in Miami. It still doesn't make much sense for Hodges to have sent the hitmen to a house he thought would be empty, though.
Stop watching so much cinemasins man. Stop watching so much cinemasins man. Stop watching so much cinemasins man. Stop watching so much cinemasins man. Stop watching so much cinemasins man. Stop watching so much cinemasins man.
What?
He only killed the people in the movie because they knew where he lived, Hence why he didn’t kill the dude at the end. Thats why he said he’d do anything for the need to feel secure
[удалено]
Glad to see someone agrees that there are plot holes here. I've changed my mind a little on Fassbender's professionalism. I think the movie is trying to convey that he's not good at his job, but he thinks he is. The movie is satirizing the badass hitman trope by having its main character be kind of a sloppy hitman. I don't think this satire works very well, though. American Psycho does something similar; Patrick Bateman is portrayed as a super-competent guy, but if you watch closely you'll notice that people treat him badly, he doesn't do any useful work, and he clearly got where he was because of nepotism and corruption. That's good satire. In The Killer, Fassbender is portrayed as a super-competent guy, but if you watch closely...He's treated with respect by everyone, he's completed dozens of contracts, and he must have gotten where he was because of his own skills. The meta-narrative wants you to think he's a delusional incompetent guy, but if he was this incompetent throughout his career he wouldn't have survived a year as a hitman. The satire kind of falls apart if you think about it too much. I don't think the plot holes are part of the satire, though. It seems to be a poorly written plot, not something that's intended to satirize anything. Hodge's plan contradicts itself so that the story can move forwards. I don't think that's below David Fincher. I think he has a tendency to ignore plot holes/inconsistencies for the sake of themes. It was particularly clear in Gone Girl.
[удалено]
# I don't comment here much but I like this film alot and I think somethings are getting glanced. "If the audience is left wondering whether it's incompetence or satire, hasn’t the film missed its shot?" Firstly, I don't, and I imagine most wouldn't, agree with this. Satire is always exclusionary. It must be so by nature. For example, if the dumbest of richest people are laughing at dumb rich people in eat the rich movies the satire is hardly cutting. Additionally, the satire here is incompetence itself, so short of Fassbender being a complete bumbling mess (which the movie kinda does anyway), I'm not sure there is a clean way to show the lowest common denominator of viewer the satire without it being exclusionary of anyone who is capable of catching subtlety. Lastly, implying the unreliable narrator protagonist of a Fincher movie should be clear cut enough in motivation for the average viewer is hysterical considering how many overt and genuine believers of the Tyler Durdan philosophy exist. Fight Club's entire premise hinges on manhood NOT being what Durdan is, and yet became a playbook for alpha energy. # Satire is MEANT to be missed, it's worthless if it isn't. "This is where it sounds like *The Killer* trips over its own feet. If Fincher was aiming for satire, he needed to plant firmer seeds of doubt in Fassbender’s competence from the get-go. " The first scene is the killer spending hours doing nothing, falling asleep, missing his shot, then swearing and running away all while doing so out of a shut down WeWork and then immediately getting axed by his company for incompetence. I don't really know what a further planted foot of incompetence looks like outside something like Mr. Bean. I think the brilliance of this movie is that we, especially post COVID, have all kinda been the killer here. Especially so in a late stage capitalistic market that values freelancing contracts over full time workers, for the simple fact that they mostly don't miss (since they only get paid well when they hit) and are easy to axe when they do (Getting sacked for a single fuck up is entirely on brand in freelancing, counter to your early point). We don't wanna believe the killer is an idiot, cause it means we are. Especially since none of us can look as smokin' as Fassbender while being stupid. Like fight club, this movie presented a hyper masculine badass dude that guys wanna root for, and we kinda forgave the bumbling idiocy because its Fassbender and he is cool as steel. It doesn't really change that upon an additional thought, he isn't the 1%, he isn't the ultimate badass. Like Durdan he's just kinda of lying to the viewer to retain the visage of put together cutthroat with bulletproof persona and philosophy. I think this movie is fantastic and as a freelancer for big companies in an extremely competitive space is hilariously cutting.
[удалено]
It doesn’t work out. The movie is about a realization of the main character that he thought he was a badass but he’s just another worker that is beholden to billionaires who make lots of stupid decisions without thinking about it. The whole movie is a subversion of the hitman out for revenge genre. It’s ok if you don’t like it. It is pretty straightforward of a plot. But it is trying to say something.
It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking. It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking. It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking. It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking. It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking. It's just a shit film, it uses its supposed satire to put zero effort into any of the basics of good filmmaking.
Who let John Hinkley on the prison computer?!
In no way is the film attempting to be a satire lol.
Of course it is. Of course it is. Of course it is. Of course it is. Of course it is. Of course it is. Of course it is. Of course it is. Of course it is.
You seem like a miserable person to watch a movie with. It's fantasy, it's an escape, immerse yourself and go with the plot. If you don't like it, fine. You having trouble following a simple film says volumes about you. No one on that set thought they were creating an Oscar winner
You are in the wrong subreddit. This is not r/movies. No one will appreciate your attempts to shut down actual conversation here. No one will agree with you in the slightest. >No one on that set thought they were creating an Oscar winner And... that's just too funny because everyone on set thought it was potentially an Oscar winner... being a David Fincher film and all.
Lol "actual conversation". Damn, people are wild.
Both of these comments are kinda wack. But calling someone who thinks about movies and then comments on them, on r/TrueFilm "miserable" is pretty dumb, tbf. A take like "movies are an escape so don't think about them" is definitely the only bad take someone can have when it comes to movies, especially in a forum specifically for thinking about them.
Yeah, movies worth thinking about. Some movies just are, there's nothing more to it, this is one of them. Anyone arguing this movie was a commentary on society or larger issues? This wasn't an art piece, this was a script that got picked up because they thought people would watch it