There's no wound on the supposed "i," there's only a bullet hole above it from which blood is mysteriously pouring. Comparing the size of the bullet hole to the size of the "i," if that bullet had hit the "i" it would have been obliterated and not laying down fully intact. The bullet hole is therefore unrelated and it must not be an "i" at all, but instead morse code.
Sure there's subtext, but every movie has subtext. That's a poor excuse for a screenplay that felt like a first draft. Zodiac wasn't very good either, and suffered from many of the same symptoms this movie did.
Audiences couldn't read the existential subtext or see the humor(He goes on about the code of no attachments and gets attached everytime, eg: He breaks her neck to look like an accident)
This anon gets it. In the first twenty minutes he goes on for several minutes about what a perfect emotionless killer he is and then he immediately fricks up a job and gets angry about harm coming to a girlfriend he hadn't mentioned up to that point. Anyone who thinks this is "poor storytelling", you must be some kind of idiot. It's deliberate.
Can you explain to me why any of that is interesting? What if I got that entirely but just didn't find it interesting?
His character is flat as fricking cardboard.
I like movies that make me feel something. This made me feel nothing. I didn't like the killer, I didn't dislike him either. I didn't like nor dislike any of his victims, with the exception of the always enjoyable Tilda Swinton. I didn't care about his love interest.
I think the biggest problem I had about the film is that I felt it didn't have any capacity to surprise. Whether the plot chugged on as expected or had some sort of twist didn't seem important to me. What else can I say? The plot didn't thrill me.
If you have to be supplied characters to root for as well as characters to root against in order to be sufficiently motivated to engage with a film, you are exactly the kind of person I'm talking about when I describe someone who has been groomed by Spielberg to expect that a film asks absolutely nothing of you as a viewer.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Anon if none of the characters in a film are compelling that is not the mark of a good film.
Lol, you got the impression you were supposed to? And there are no actual villains in the movie, at least compared to him, they all deserved to die and so did he. The difference was just skill and luck, no morals played any part in this movies plot. Which was kinda the point. It's a nihilistic action movie.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, her getting her ass kicked is literally his motivation in the film, what the frick man
5 months ago
Anonymous
Don't bother arguing with him. He's the kind of poster who thinks he has a 180IQ because he understood on the 3rd viewing og Inception that the time dilation is exponential.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Lol, the chick he never even told he loved? The one he didn't bother to call? Never crosses his mind before or after he talked to her? You think she was ultimately the reason he killed the cab driver?
I think people just wanted this movie so much to be John Wick 5 they can't accept the idea that it isn't.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I don't get it, are you agreeing with me?
The chick was pretty important to the plot. But I didn't care about her. His entire motivation for his spree and also his return didn't mean anything to me. Do you get why that's kind of a problem?
5 months ago
Anonymous
I thought this was a lame reason too first watch. On a second watch it seems he was more personally offended they came after him. He’s clearly a sociopath and sees her as part of himself. Notice he doesn’t really even try to comfort her he just tells he this won’t happen again and leaves to kill people.
Hence the whole mantras he’s deliberately violating like only fight the battles you’re paid to fight. He’s doing all this on his own dime for satisfaction and so he doesn’t even have to move house.
I think the whole point of the movie is that despite his claim about being the many, he’s far detached from society and cannot really stop.
The fact the last shot we see of him, retired, sunbathing with his wife/gf. And an up close shot of his eye twitching. Definitely implies he can’t maintain living the normie life and will return to killing even though he clearly doesnt need the money any more. He’s the Killer. He needs to kill. His rules are probably just as much to keep him being an assassin for hire rather than a serial killler.
It wasn't particularly interesting. My issue was that the film didn't know what it was doing. Whether it was a character piece, satire, mood film, revenge flick so it tried to do a little of everything and did nothing particularly well.
He literally goes on in the first three minutes how a) being an assassin is really boring and b) he’s just an ordinary guy with a very strict routine. The fact you got filtered that easy when it’s all laid out that he’s supposed to be a cardboard cutout and Fassbinder does an excellent job in portraying that. Sorry there weren’t anime kawaii girls in unicorn outfits to keep your autistic mind occupied anon. Maybe go watch Wish instead huh?
Basically, yeah. The way that after ruining a job he kills everyone around him but ultimately leaves the person responsible for it all in the first place alone which I suspect is supposed to be some meta commentary about making failed movies. Is this super deep and interesting? No. It's a pretty movie but not really the most compelling watch. I'd call it a flick ultimately
It does both, actually. It provokes lukewarm feelings in *you* because you're so used to being spoonfed by hyper-accessible Spielbergian fare that your brain has turned to jello
Like why can't fans of this film just accept people have fine reasons for not liking it.
There's thing to enjoy about the film but don't tell me I'm boring becuase I thought the screenplay wasnt that great, lol.
This. Those who say 'it was to make him sound crazy!' are coping. Nothing in those opening monologues made him sound crazy, or portrayed him as crazy. If it were leaning any way, it made him sound pretty tame and normal
>Listens to a popular music band >See's his job through a very narrow and robotic lens >Does yoga, breathing and meditation, all pretty standard, even normie-tier excersizes and 'health conscious' behaviours. >is also health conscious regarding his diet, elminates carbs when he eats the McMuffin without the english muffin, thinks of nutritional content when describing proteins (14 grams)
and then later
>has a love interest who, when hurt, he uses to justify the ensuing murders that make up the remainder of the movie after the first assassination attempt
Sure, killing people is crazy, something a 'crazy' person would do. But none of his other behaviour screams 'crazy' to me. It was just poorly written, the whole thing.
Look he uses Starbucks coffee because instead of focusing on him you’ll see the product placement instead. Absolute operator kino that’s based. You were filtered obviously because you brought it up.
the plot is so shallow and slow its hard to not notice all the product placement. they literally show an amazon shopping ui multiple times for no reason lmfao
> Characters inner philosophy gets contradicted by his real world motivations.
Yeah it's monologues are meant to be unreliable thus he's unreliable narrator. Nice try, now go akshually someone else pseudo.
Is the killer the narrator? Yes
Does his narration contradict his actions? Yes
That's an unreliable narrator. It doesn't have to be a schizo or psychedelic trip to make an unreliable narrator. Just someone with a deluded philosophy.
Won't bother with you longer.
5 months ago
Anonymous
homosexual, you can literally just look up what the literary device means lol
You think because he's literally narrating and contradicting himself it's unreliable narrator.
No.
Unreliable narrator is when events depicted are of questionable authenticity. Like someone recounting a tale full of embellished truths.
He's cut off by things going against his mantra, but we are still being shown events as they happen, with veracity. He's not an unreliable narrator just because he's a frick up. Jesus christ, read a fricking book.
5 months ago
Anonymous
homosexual, I read more than you.
Yours is just a type of unreliable narrator.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>if I post something else, tangentially related, it'll cover the fact I was wrong
5 months ago
Anonymous
The story is told through a character eyes whose POV is in contradiction with the authors message (although the Killer kinda realises it by the end)
ITS ALL YOU NEED FOR AN UNRELIABLE NARRATOR.
It doesn't have to be "it was all a le...dream!!!"
Is the kid from Catcher in the Rye a reliable narrator? Yes, but pretty sure the events in the book still happened.
Now cope, seethe and dilate.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You're still not getting it, we can take the events depicted at face value.
5 months ago
Anonymous
The events, yes. But not the killer motivations or rationale of those events.
Are you starting to get it now?
Are you?
5 months ago
Anonymous
The word "narrator" really seems to be confusing you
Unreliable narrator is when the POV is ambiguous. Maybe what is depicted is true or maybe it false. It's unclear. It's an unreliable pov
The killer says one thing but our POV as viewers is reliably true, as evidenced by the fact his spiel gets interrupted when he is wrong. There is no deception happening; he is simply incorrect sometimes. It's like you're really dumb or something, I dunno.
5 months ago
Anonymous
> Maybe what is depicted is true or maybe it false.
That's only one specific type of unreliable narrator.
The events of Catcher in the Rye are true. Still Holden has a distorted perception of them, therefore he's unreliable. > The killer says one thing but our POV as viewers is reliably true
That's the point idiot. Without the contrast between what the POV said and the audiences perception there would be no way of claiming a narrator is unreliable in the first place. You seem on the spectrum and stubborn on being right so I won't waste more energy on you.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>I won't waste more energy on you.
You said that like 4 replies ago lol. It's okay to be wrong about this one thing. But please don't ever confuse anyone who didn't like this movie for being dumb.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>still replying
5 months ago
Anonymous
I'm an unreliable narrator
5 months ago
Anonymous
>still thinks transparent lying is unreliable narrator
Just watched this this morning. I’m officially a Killerbro. This might be the best film of the year as far as I know. So glad I watched it and I’m glad Cinemaphile recommend it to me.
It felt like a Fincher movie from the perspective of the villain. Which made the pacing pretty unusual compared to his other movies.
The main characters own mantra is completely contrary to what he’s actually doing. There is no real urgency to his kills because he is choosing the time and place at his leisure. This leaves his actions mostly as tense in the midst of the killings or attempts to get what he needs.
My favorite scene was probably when he confronts Tilda Swindon’s character, doesn’t say a fricking word a she keeps talking, looking for a wedge to see if she could survive or convince him she’s not worth killing, it isn’t her fault etc etc. then he denies her her favourite last drink by drinking it himself.
Then the second of seeming vulnerability she has when her shoe breaks and she asks for help. He immediately shoots her in the head and we see she’d palmed a knife and was gonna gut this man the second he reached for her. First time his mantra about forbidding empathy and sticking to the plan paid off it seems to me
>My favorite scene was probably when he confronts Tilda Swindon’s character, doesn’t say a fricking word a she keeps talking, looking for a wedge to see if she could survive or convince him she’s not worth killing, it isn’t her fault etc etc. then he denies her her favourite last drink by drinking it himself.
I might have liked that scene if the writing weren't so pretentious. I did like that he takes her last drink, though.
I think it was pretentious because she WAS pretentious. She was literally living it up in some fancy restaurant dressed like she came from a gala.
He knew there was no point in engaging in talking to her, drinking her last drink was both an act of spite and a signal that no. There is no chance you’re living b***h
Maybe. It's not like any of them weren't pretentious though. he's living on a massive private mansion in the carribean. He was saying pretentious things too in his inner monologues. I like Fincher, but I think you are defending a bad screenplay too adamantly.
Did anyone find it amusing that he says he’s a stone cold sociopath but he’s happy to see things like the woman feeding the cat or the kid play shooting his mom?
I don’t recall him saying he was a stone cold sociopath. When did he say that?
Closest I can remember is him saying “I don’t give a frick” about the targets he’s paid to kill. But that doesn’t equate to him saying he’s a sociopath
Oh ok wiseguy gimme a film in the last three years that’s entertaining and great and if it has any ESG subplots or casting I’m gonna call you a dumb gay.
I felt bad for the dominatrix and the cab driver. They were just doing their jobs. They didn’t deserve to die. Hopefully he sent their families a little bit of money.
His claimed reasoning, There can be no trail leading back to him. There is no way to know if he had no idea who they were or how involved they were. He doesn’t want any link to him remaining as he kills all the people involved he can to keep him safe
Actual reason. He wanted to kill him because he was partially involved, even if unwittingly.
>I eat at McDonald’s and Starbucks and shop at Home Depot just like normies do >for extra layer of security I pay random strangers in a parking lot to buy my stuff for me because I don’t wanna be on camera in the store >yup I got everything figured out cause I’m a true operator
Critical Drinker said the big fight scene was simple and short. Wtf does he mean? It went on far too long like 10 to 12 minutes and was far from simple yeah he said it was brutal but it was going pro wrestling even comic book reality as both men would’ve bled out in seconds but nope they fight for over ten minutes etc.
Did anyone else feel like Fincher was influenced by Assassins, Branded to Kill and Le Samourai? Those really felt the strongest influences of hitman films because of how absurd it was at times.
I thought the movie was cool for the first like 5 minutes but then he made the comment "of the many lies told by the US Military Industrial Complex..." and I immediately got the vibe that this film was for middle class liberals who think they are very smart people, the kind of homosexuals who watch MSNBC and listen to NPR.
I thought the movie was cool for the first like 5 minutes but then he made the comment "of the many lies told by the US Military Industrial Complex..." and I immediately got the vibe that this film was for middle class liberals who think they are very smart people, the kind of homosexuals who watch MSNBC and listen to NPR.
The fight scene was so out of place; nobody fights like that in real life destroying half the furnitures and even a wall and still going at it like in some capeshit superhero movie.
It's like modern american movies need at least one scene like that to satiate the manchildren audience.
the big guy especially looked cgi because he moved so stupidly fast, i immediately felt they made it dark and shit to hide that. and added all the effects to give off the idea that the guy was just that scarily strong and dangerous on top of it but ultimately failing. it looked so shit.
Um you realize the Freak assassin in the film is a pro wrestler a part of the famous Uso family of Polynesian wrestlers so him busting thru walls and bashing into tables isn’t special effects for him it’s pretty much every day training right?
the effects i mean are the visual and audio ones, theres stuff like the killer getting hit and the air distorts and slows and shit like that. not the destruction, you can have that but still choreograph a scene, i mean the actual guy itself looked like it was CGI'd in and sped up and all that. i know what real fights look like amongst heavyweights, i'm into martial arts and practice myself.
but i'm aware that brown people are superior to white people and are capable of flight when they aren't receiving psychic oppression from the existence of white devils yes and polynesians are a mythical warrior race that can deadlift 900kg at age 5 yeah
>those awful digital camera shakes >all that wonky cgi >90% of the movie is tight shots of the killer in small-ish spaces, no sense of locale even though he's globetrotting >worst, most uninspired soundtrack by tr/ar to date
I liked the film but I see it’s flaws. Kinda funny that what felt like forty percent of the film is just Fassbinder looking out a window in some supposedly shoddy Parisian office but it could literally be anywhere in some Third World shithole.
>The Knller
What did Fincher mean by this?
It's an I on the side
Because it has been shot
There's no wound on the supposed "i," there's only a bullet hole above it from which blood is mysteriously pouring. Comparing the size of the bullet hole to the size of the "i," if that bullet had hit the "i" it would have been obliterated and not laying down fully intact. The bullet hole is therefore unrelated and it must not be an "i" at all, but instead morse code.
-. .. --. --. . .-.
Budget schlock.
Peak Fincher aesthetic, not peak Fincher storytelling. I enjoyed it, although I had several issues with the screeplay
It's filled with subtext.
Thematically it fits perfectly into Fincher filmography.
If this movie as nothing to say, then neither TSN or Zodiac
Zodiac was also kind of bad
The Social Network was bolstered by a terrific screenplay
>Zodiac was also kind of bad
Stop watching movies entirely
Maybe you should watch more film, actually
Maybe you should work on actually understanding the films you do watch rather than filling some arbitrary quota that you think makes you a film buff
Why are the homies who populate these threads so sensitive lol.
What are you presuming I "didn't get" now? How was I "filtered" by Zodiac?
You don't have to hurt my feelings for me to think you're an idiot, anon.
Sure there's subtext, but every movie has subtext. That's a poor excuse for a screenplay that felt like a first draft. Zodiac wasn't very good either, and suffered from many of the same symptoms this movie did.
Subtext does not make a film automatically good
I did not say that. I meant that it relies on it more than dialogue and it's not inherently a bad thing. Kinda like old movies.
>it’s what the didn’t write or put in the movie that makes it good!
>Fincher storytelling.
what are some movies that fincher has writtem himself? name 5
1. Toy story 2
2. Toy story 1
3. Troya
4. Dog Soldiers
5. Stargate SG1
It didn't go anywhere, didn't say anything
Passable entertainment
Audiences couldn't read the existential subtext or see the humor(He goes on about the code of no attachments and gets attached everytime, eg: He breaks her neck to look like an accident)
This anon gets it. In the first twenty minutes he goes on for several minutes about what a perfect emotionless killer he is and then he immediately fricks up a job and gets angry about harm coming to a girlfriend he hadn't mentioned up to that point. Anyone who thinks this is "poor storytelling", you must be some kind of idiot. It's deliberate.
Can you explain to me why any of that is interesting? What if I got that entirely but just didn't find it interesting?
His character is flat as fricking cardboard.
Pray tell anon, what do you find interesting?
I like movies that make me feel something. This made me feel nothing. I didn't like the killer, I didn't dislike him either. I didn't like nor dislike any of his victims, with the exception of the always enjoyable Tilda Swinton. I didn't care about his love interest.
I think the biggest problem I had about the film is that I felt it didn't have any capacity to surprise. Whether the plot chugged on as expected or had some sort of twist didn't seem important to me. What else can I say? The plot didn't thrill me.
If you have to be supplied characters to root for as well as characters to root against in order to be sufficiently motivated to engage with a film, you are exactly the kind of person I'm talking about when I describe someone who has been groomed by Spielberg to expect that a film asks absolutely nothing of you as a viewer.
Anon if none of the characters in a film are compelling that is not the mark of a good film.
>I didn't care about his love interest.
Lol, you got the impression you were supposed to? And there are no actual villains in the movie, at least compared to him, they all deserved to die and so did he. The difference was just skill and luck, no morals played any part in this movies plot. Which was kinda the point. It's a nihilistic action movie.
Yes, her getting her ass kicked is literally his motivation in the film, what the frick man
Don't bother arguing with him. He's the kind of poster who thinks he has a 180IQ because he understood on the 3rd viewing og Inception that the time dilation is exponential.
Lol, the chick he never even told he loved? The one he didn't bother to call? Never crosses his mind before or after he talked to her? You think she was ultimately the reason he killed the cab driver?
I think people just wanted this movie so much to be John Wick 5 they can't accept the idea that it isn't.
I don't get it, are you agreeing with me?
The chick was pretty important to the plot. But I didn't care about her. His entire motivation for his spree and also his return didn't mean anything to me. Do you get why that's kind of a problem?
I thought this was a lame reason too first watch. On a second watch it seems he was more personally offended they came after him. He’s clearly a sociopath and sees her as part of himself. Notice he doesn’t really even try to comfort her he just tells he this won’t happen again and leaves to kill people.
Hence the whole mantras he’s deliberately violating like only fight the battles you’re paid to fight. He’s doing all this on his own dime for satisfaction and so he doesn’t even have to move house.
I think the whole point of the movie is that despite his claim about being the many, he’s far detached from society and cannot really stop.
The fact the last shot we see of him, retired, sunbathing with his wife/gf. And an up close shot of his eye twitching. Definitely implies he can’t maintain living the normie life and will return to killing even though he clearly doesnt need the money any more. He’s the Killer. He needs to kill. His rules are probably just as much to keep him being an assassin for hire rather than a serial killler.
It wasn't particularly interesting. My issue was that the film didn't know what it was doing. Whether it was a character piece, satire, mood film, revenge flick so it tried to do a little of everything and did nothing particularly well.
My sentiments exactly, anon.
Well this just shows that you got filtered. The film knew exactly what it was going for.
He literally goes on in the first three minutes how a) being an assassin is really boring and b) he’s just an ordinary guy with a very strict routine. The fact you got filtered that easy when it’s all laid out that he’s supposed to be a cardboard cutout and Fassbinder does an excellent job in portraying that. Sorry there weren’t anime kawaii girls in unicorn outfits to keep your autistic mind occupied anon. Maybe go watch Wish instead huh?
>he's dull but he's SUPPOSED to be dull. if you found it dull you're wrong
Was Fincher trying to create a "literally me" character with this?
Basically, yeah. The way that after ruining a job he kills everyone around him but ultimately leaves the person responsible for it all in the first place alone which I suspect is supposed to be some meta commentary about making failed movies. Is this super deep and interesting? No. It's a pretty movie but not really the most compelling watch. I'd call it a flick ultimately
I loved it. I'm planning on reading the comic it's based on now
It doesn't hold your hand or tell you how to feel. Of course people on this board hated it.
>film provokes lukewarm feelings
>i-it's mature! It doesn't tell you how to feel!
Good films show, don't tell. The K_.ller does neither. Bravo!
It does both, actually. It provokes lukewarm feelings in *you* because you're so used to being spoonfed by hyper-accessible Spielbergian fare that your brain has turned to jello
tl;dr it's you, not the film
Like why can't fans of this film just accept people have fine reasons for not liking it.
There's thing to enjoy about the film but don't tell me I'm boring becuase I thought the screenplay wasnt that great, lol.
I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours. It is my opinion that you didn't like the screenplay because it went over your head.
That's hilarious. How do you figure?
fincher is a hack and he always was
frick you homosexual stop watching the Critical Drinker and develop your own opinions
Cool Amazon commercial.
Now that Fincher adapts random shit into Netlix content, I want a Andy and Leyley movie made by him.
He'd be perfect for it.
i really liked the 20+ product placements and 40 minute long nihilistic teenager monologue
i also liked the attempts at realistic elements like when he stomps on a cell phone to let everyone know he doesnt use the same cell phone twice
>40 minute long nihilistic teenager monologue
It's almost like the point was to portray him as a lunatic instead of a super-spy-master-assassin.
He didn't really sound like a lunatic either. He sounded low IQ
This. Those who say 'it was to make him sound crazy!' are coping. Nothing in those opening monologues made him sound crazy, or portrayed him as crazy. If it were leaning any way, it made him sound pretty tame and normal
>Listens to a popular music band
>See's his job through a very narrow and robotic lens
>Does yoga, breathing and meditation, all pretty standard, even normie-tier excersizes and 'health conscious' behaviours.
>is also health conscious regarding his diet, elminates carbs when he eats the McMuffin without the english muffin, thinks of nutritional content when describing proteins (14 grams)
and then later
>has a love interest who, when hurt, he uses to justify the ensuing murders that make up the remainder of the movie after the first assassination attempt
Sure, killing people is crazy, something a 'crazy' person would do. But none of his other behaviour screams 'crazy' to me. It was just poorly written, the whole thing.
ok, even then. so what? it's a movie about a dumb character with a really lame hitman plot. compelling stuff
Look he uses Starbucks coffee because instead of focusing on him you’ll see the product placement instead. Absolute operator kino that’s based. You were filtered obviously because you brought it up.
the plot is so shallow and slow its hard to not notice all the product placement. they literally show an amazon shopping ui multiple times for no reason lmfao
its such a bad movie its unreal
a bellow average Fincher film is still better than 90% of Hollywood
Yeah Fincher is just schooling the directors of the MCU.
>Well this just shows that you got filtered. The film knew exactly what it was going for.
>wtf didn't people like it?
muh product placement
Why he no kill billionaire?
He's a le bad assassin
why didn't his actions parallel his monologue?
> why didn't his actions parallel his monologue?
Capeshit fan discovers the concept of unreliable narrator
That's actually not what "unreliable narrator" means, but really good try anon. You'll get it.
> Characters inner philosophy gets contradicted by his real world motivations.
Yeah it's monologues are meant to be unreliable thus he's unreliable narrator. Nice try, now go akshually someone else pseudo.
Yeah again, that's not what unreliable narrator means.
Is the killer the narrator? Yes
Does his narration contradict his actions? Yes
That's an unreliable narrator. It doesn't have to be a schizo or psychedelic trip to make an unreliable narrator. Just someone with a deluded philosophy.
Won't bother with you longer.
homosexual, you can literally just look up what the literary device means lol
You think because he's literally narrating and contradicting himself it's unreliable narrator.
No.
Unreliable narrator is when events depicted are of questionable authenticity. Like someone recounting a tale full of embellished truths.
He's cut off by things going against his mantra, but we are still being shown events as they happen, with veracity. He's not an unreliable narrator just because he's a frick up. Jesus christ, read a fricking book.
homosexual, I read more than you.
Yours is just a type of unreliable narrator.
>if I post something else, tangentially related, it'll cover the fact I was wrong
The story is told through a character eyes whose POV is in contradiction with the authors message (although the Killer kinda realises it by the end)
ITS ALL YOU NEED FOR AN UNRELIABLE NARRATOR.
It doesn't have to be "it was all a le...dream!!!"
Is the kid from Catcher in the Rye a reliable narrator? Yes, but pretty sure the events in the book still happened.
Now cope, seethe and dilate.
You're still not getting it, we can take the events depicted at face value.
The events, yes. But not the killer motivations or rationale of those events.
Are you starting to get it now?
Are you?
The word "narrator" really seems to be confusing you
Unreliable narrator is when the POV is ambiguous. Maybe what is depicted is true or maybe it false. It's unclear. It's an unreliable pov
The killer says one thing but our POV as viewers is reliably true, as evidenced by the fact his spiel gets interrupted when he is wrong. There is no deception happening; he is simply incorrect sometimes. It's like you're really dumb or something, I dunno.
> Maybe what is depicted is true or maybe it false.
That's only one specific type of unreliable narrator.
The events of Catcher in the Rye are true. Still Holden has a distorted perception of them, therefore he's unreliable.
> The killer says one thing but our POV as viewers is reliably true
That's the point idiot. Without the contrast between what the POV said and the audiences perception there would be no way of claiming a narrator is unreliable in the first place. You seem on the spectrum and stubborn on being right so I won't waste more energy on you.
>I won't waste more energy on you.
You said that like 4 replies ago lol. It's okay to be wrong about this one thing. But please don't ever confuse anyone who didn't like this movie for being dumb.
I accept your concession.
>still replying
I'm an unreliable narrator
>still thinks transparent lying is unreliable narrator
Yes.
needs to be ambiguity
first 2 chapters are OK but then nothing really interesting happens
>wtf didn't people like it?
i loved it
Just watched this this morning. I’m officially a Killerbro. This might be the best film of the year as far as I know. So glad I watched it and I’m glad Cinemaphile recommend it to me.
It felt like a Fincher movie from the perspective of the villain. Which made the pacing pretty unusual compared to his other movies.
The main characters own mantra is completely contrary to what he’s actually doing. There is no real urgency to his kills because he is choosing the time and place at his leisure. This leaves his actions mostly as tense in the midst of the killings or attempts to get what he needs.
My favorite scene was probably when he confronts Tilda Swindon’s character, doesn’t say a fricking word a she keeps talking, looking for a wedge to see if she could survive or convince him she’s not worth killing, it isn’t her fault etc etc. then he denies her her favourite last drink by drinking it himself.
Then the second of seeming vulnerability she has when her shoe breaks and she asks for help. He immediately shoots her in the head and we see she’d palmed a knife and was gonna gut this man the second he reached for her. First time his mantra about forbidding empathy and sticking to the plan paid off it seems to me
>My favorite scene was probably when he confronts Tilda Swindon’s character, doesn’t say a fricking word a she keeps talking, looking for a wedge to see if she could survive or convince him she’s not worth killing, it isn’t her fault etc etc. then he denies her her favourite last drink by drinking it himself.
I might have liked that scene if the writing weren't so pretentious. I did like that he takes her last drink, though.
I think it was pretentious because she WAS pretentious. She was literally living it up in some fancy restaurant dressed like she came from a gala.
He knew there was no point in engaging in talking to her, drinking her last drink was both an act of spite and a signal that no. There is no chance you’re living b***h
Maybe. It's not like any of them weren't pretentious though. he's living on a massive private mansion in the carribean. He was saying pretentious things too in his inner monologues. I like Fincher, but I think you are defending a bad screenplay too adamantly.
Did anyone find it amusing that he says he’s a stone cold sociopath but he’s happy to see things like the woman feeding the cat or the kid play shooting his mom?
I don’t recall him saying he was a stone cold sociopath. When did he say that?
Closest I can remember is him saying “I don’t give a frick” about the targets he’s paid to kill. But that doesn’t equate to him saying he’s a sociopath
He implied it throughout the whole film but he contradicted himself constantly.
>Did anyone find it amusing that he says he’s a stone cold sociopath
>He implied it throughout the whole film
So he didn’t say it then.
Even a subpar Fincher film is literally one of the best films in the last ten years and that’s saying something.
>lauded by people who don't watch movies
Oh ok wiseguy gimme a film in the last three years that’s entertaining and great and if it has any ESG subplots or casting I’m gonna call you a dumb gay.
If it wasn't Fincher you guys would be saying it's as boring and derivative as frick.
I felt bad for the dominatrix and the cab driver. They were just doing their jobs. They didn’t deserve to die. Hopefully he sent their families a little bit of money.
yeah why did he kill the cabbie?
His claimed reasoning, There can be no trail leading back to him. There is no way to know if he had no idea who they were or how involved they were. He doesn’t want any link to him remaining as he kills all the people involved he can to keep him safe
Actual reason. He wanted to kill him because he was partially involved, even if unwittingly.
>I eat at McDonald’s and Starbucks and shop at Home Depot just like normies do
>for extra layer of security I pay random strangers in a parking lot to buy my stuff for me because I don’t wanna be on camera in the store
>yup I got everything figured out cause I’m a true operator
>if I wear a goofy fisherman’s hat and pretend to be a German tourist the cops won’t recognize me…
Critical Drinker said the big fight scene was simple and short. Wtf does he mean? It went on far too long like 10 to 12 minutes and was far from simple yeah he said it was brutal but it was going pro wrestling even comic book reality as both men would’ve bled out in seconds but nope they fight for over ten minutes etc.
Did anyone else feel like Fincher was influenced by Assassins, Branded to Kill and Le Samourai? Those really felt the strongest influences of hitman films because of how absurd it was at times.
main character is cringe
simple as
peak product placement and reddit monologuing
low iq audience
I thought the movie was cool for the first like 5 minutes but then he made the comment "of the many lies told by the US Military Industrial Complex..." and I immediately got the vibe that this film was for middle class liberals who think they are very smart people, the kind of homosexuals who watch MSNBC and listen to NPR.
The killer seemed painfully incompetent
A movie so mid it made a Fassbender performance boring. If you're going to make a movie about an autistic psychopath at least make it interesting.
The fight scene was so out of place; nobody fights like that in real life destroying half the furnitures and even a wall and still going at it like in some capeshit superhero movie.
It's like modern american movies need at least one scene like that to satiate the manchildren audience.
It felt even more out of place for Fincher. I think he's losing his touch.
i watched this movie while sleep deprived but that scene looked like it was CGI to me, was it actually?
Probably
the big guy especially looked cgi because he moved so stupidly fast, i immediately felt they made it dark and shit to hide that. and added all the effects to give off the idea that the guy was just that scarily strong and dangerous on top of it but ultimately failing. it looked so shit.
Um you realize the Freak assassin in the film is a pro wrestler a part of the famous Uso family of Polynesian wrestlers so him busting thru walls and bashing into tables isn’t special effects for him it’s pretty much every day training right?
the effects i mean are the visual and audio ones, theres stuff like the killer getting hit and the air distorts and slows and shit like that. not the destruction, you can have that but still choreograph a scene, i mean the actual guy itself looked like it was CGI'd in and sped up and all that. i know what real fights look like amongst heavyweights, i'm into martial arts and practice myself.
but i'm aware that brown people are superior to white people and are capable of flight when they aren't receiving psychic oppression from the existence of white devils yes and polynesians are a mythical warrior race that can deadlift 900kg at age 5 yeah
It’s anti-white propaganda.
It is kinda ironic The Killer was sort of the meme “teleports behind you, psssh nuthin personal kid” taken to the extreme in a film version.
>those awful digital camera shakes
>all that wonky cgi
>90% of the movie is tight shots of the killer in small-ish spaces, no sense of locale even though he's globetrotting
>worst, most uninspired soundtrack by tr/ar to date
gay movie, fincher should get back to mindhunter
I liked the film but I see it’s flaws. Kinda funny that what felt like forty percent of the film is just Fassbinder looking out a window in some supposedly shoddy Parisian office but it could literally be anywhere in some Third World shithole.
I’d like Mindhunter S3 but the second season kinda shit the bed there.
2nd season was better
Because they're intelligent and not women
peak netflick
lowest Fincher
it was a masterpiece and even my dad who watches action movie slop liked it