At least audiences could see this sucked ass. Basically budget John Wick.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why are critics so out of touch?
At least audiences could see this sucked ass. Basically budget John Wick.
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Audiences are fricking stupid and the reason the general level of films has to be dumbed down.
As bad as critics are (and always have been), this is very true of modern audiences. Just because they're the alternative to critic opinions, doesn't mean they're worthwhile opinions.
Or Fincher made a dogshit movie for easy Netflix money. I guess we all arent on your level
the only reason why morons like Seven is because of the blood and gore (and sex).
And of course the american gets their favorite black God, Morgan Freeman.. they have to like the movie.
There was only one on-screen death in that movie. But sure friend
> one on-screen death
where did I say anything about murder?
this kind of scene is enough to stimulate the few brain cells of any morons so that's enough for them
I only ever saw Se7en on tv, so I never understood what happened in the lust killing other than the guy was forced to have sex with her. Just watched the uncensored version the other day and knife-dildo really surprised me.
>i-is that...a malnurished person???? the gore is going to make me vomit
Let me guess, you meant inferred sex as well. It wasnt just you being moronic and not remembering the actual movie
dude... are you seeing things in your head?
wtf are you even talking about? get checked by a pro.
>gore and sex are all over the movie
>theres hardly any gore and sex
>bro dont read the things i write
Move those goalposts kid
>gore and sex are all over the movie
I never said that.
>bro dont read the things i write
ironic
>Move those goalposts kid
ultra ironic
don't you have a new marvel movie to watch moron?
>the only reason why morons like Seven is because of the blood and gore (and sex)
So you meant the lack of blood, gore, and sex but had a stroke while typing. My bad. Get well soon friend
are you saying there's no blood and gore in Seven fricking moron?
there are SOME blood and gore... which is enough for morons like you.
>I guess we all arent on your level
Concession accepted.
/fpbp. The movie says it to your face: it's for the few, not the many. One of Fincher's best. Lowest common denominators probably resent its show don't tell approach and the fact that the main character's motivations are 100% rational and unspectacular coupled with the fact that he isn't flawless himself.
It doesn't give the masses the slop they've been trained to gobble down, it doesn't spoonfeed anything and its subtly brilliant technical aspects go over the head of midwits.
>One of Fincher's best.
get the frick out of here.
No, you get the frick out of here and out of the gene pool you low IQ reject
It's a completely unremarkable hitman flick without a single original idea you shit eating moronic homosexual
Shut the frick up you clueless dysgenic imbecile, don't mistake your otherwise obvious limits for what the movie actually has to offer.
the movie has very little to offer. Thats just the problem. Its not the worst thing ever but it definitely feels like a placeholder film. Something fincher did on the cheap and fairly quickly so that Netflix can give him money for whatever the next thing is that he actually cares about.
have to agree, stylistically it was very well done and the inner monologue was nice but it felt pretty generic.
i
obvious baitpost is obvious
>the fact that he isn't flawless himself.
That's putting it fricking lightly. The dude was a fricking clown. My friends and I tore into this movie from minute 1.
That's precisely one of the reasons why the movie is great. Cardboard invincible videogame cliches such as John Wick (a franchise I enjoy within reason) are only taken seriously by mental or literal 12 yos.
The movie's main character got the job done while adapting to the circumstances instead of waltzing among dozens of heavily armed foes as JW does
>adapting to the circumstances
Missing an easy sniper shot, sitting in front of an assassin's house for 24 hours then deciding to break into his house and set of the front door sensor, letting his handler have his home address in the Dominican Republic, fricking up the kill with his handler, only getting away with killing Tilda Swinton because of the plot device that she wanted to have a nice chat instead of immediately saying "no idk who the frick this is" when the waiter asked if she was ok...he created every shit circumstance he was in and was a moron. I get that the movie was him dealing with things going wrong, but he caused all of it
>I get that the movie was him dealing with things going wrong, but he caused all of it
yes? that's the story.
a dude who thinks he is perfect... is not.
but he's still good enough to get away with it.
if you want to see a perfect killer, you have Hitman and john wick.
>yes? that's the story
And its a shit story
>frick everything up
>bad writing lets you sail off into the sunset because....eh frick it why not
>All of your somewhat autistic nitpicking boils down to "why wasn't he the flawless superduper action hero I've come to expect from Hollywood slop?"
it's actually funny how this seems to be the massive issue for a lot of people ITT
they literally don't understand that the hero is not perfect and just another lucky butthole.
just like this moron here:
>bad writing lets you sail off into the sunset because....eh frick it why not
>eh frick it why not
yes, why not? do you think bad people always get punished?
are you 14?
>do you think bad people always get punished? are you 14?
Frick man. You got me. I guess I just needed to turn my brain off and eat some popcorn huh? Dont worry about the details, just watch man shoot guy then wait for next shoot guy scene
>Dont worry about the details
you have all the details on why he survives at the end...
this movie is all about details
what the frick do you want???
yes some 'details' are not very good but so what. nobody is saying this movie is perfect.
>the protagonist was a frickup and....this is bad....because it just is ok!
wick wasn't perfect in the first movie.
>sleeping while female assassin sneaks into his hotel room, and dafoe has to wake him up
>gets captured by mob boss and dafoe has to snipe again to bail him out
>easy sniper shot
No such thing. This is not a videogame movie
> deciding to break into his house and set of the front door sensor
Unpredictable circumstance.
> letting his handler have his home address in the Dominican Republic
Crime syndicates usually have failsafe options like that. His world wasn't a moral one and again, he wasn't a superhero.
> Tilda Swinton
She literally explains why she didn't say anything. As the next sequence shows, she was trying to ease him into a sense of comfort/relaxation and stab him.
All of your somewhat autistic nitpicking boils down to "why wasn't he the flawless superduper action hero I've come to expect from Hollywood slop?"
That 100% was an easy shot. Less than 100m. You can do that with a shit AR platform. You can also find out if there are alarm systems on doors, he bought a RFID tool off fricking Amazon later. You pulled the crime syndicates thing out of your ass. And Tilda said she didnt want to cause a scene because she would die anyway, which is lazy writing because she could have at least fricked him over. And her waiting for her chance to kill him outside is a shit reason because she got piss drunk and only had a knife. Flip the table over and run like hell.
The movie is shit
>That 100% was an easy shot.
Anon, you're a shut-in who at the very best shot some tomato soup cans in your backyard and thinks COD proficiency equals being a good shot irl.
The movie was about little random, unexpected circumstances befall even highly skilled professionals and how to circumvent/adapt to them as your priorities change.
Its an easy shot on a basic AR platform, let alone with the gear he had. If you think it isnt, you dont shoot. Sorry children. It was across a small street in France. 100m, tops. He probably wouldnt have missed if he didnt take his optic out of a satchel and slap it on.
>He probably wouldnt have missed if he didnt take his optic out of a satchel and slap it on
thank you for proving you've never fired a gun in your life
Lol please explain how you take an optic out of a bag and put in on a rifle without adjusting for windage and elevation from a zero. Tell me where I'm wrong
>please explain to me how to pretend to know about guns online
no
You cant. Good job no-guns
I can, I won't, if you can't that's on you.
Hey man, its an easy question. Do you need to adjust for windage and elevation from an established zero after mounting an optic?
If you had even the most novice experience with firearms you could figure it out yourself by remembering how to mount and zero an optic
Ah thank you for agreeing with me. Now, did he do that in the movie?
You're profoundly moronic. Try again.
Lol. Thank you for validating me while showing how dumb you are. Failed to answer a yes or no question because I am correct and youre upset. Ahh FRICK that feels good
>noguns thinks he has to adjust for windage on a 100 yard shot like he's Chris Kyle trying to hit a dime a mile away
Mind telling me how you think you're going to adjust for windage moron?
Wait...you think the windage adjustment on a scope is there just in case there is a breeze? No....ok. I get it. You trolled me. Frick you got me man, hats off.
>can't answer
>keeps saying "windage adjustment" because he heard it in a movie
Thats what it is lol. Windage knob, elevation knob. Establish a zero, adjust the windage and elevation based on distance, sight alignment, individual shooting habits, and environmental factors. Your adjustments at 100m will be completely different from sea level than at 10,000ft. You have less than a basic understanding of firearms
Hey moron, when you zero a sight, you have to fire rounds on target and adjust.
>I can't believe he didn't adjust the windage of his scope he probably zeroed in probably weeks ahead of time
What the frick do you want him to do? Start firing test shots across the street? You're a fricking moron. And even if for whatever fricking reason his windage was off, that's what the reticle's for. The little notches aren't a fricking cosmetic item you get from a battlepass.
>What the frick do you want him to do? Start firing test shots across the street?
Study the distance of the shot, go to a remote area with the same elevation, dial it in, take notes, adjust accordingly when you mount your optic. Dont take the scope out of a bag and cross your fingers. Idk if you saw the movie, but he was a moron.
>that's what the reticle's for
Wait...so you think the reticle and "those little notches" alleviate the need to adjust windage and elevation? This is becoming fascinating.
Ive really enjoyed forcing you to agree with me about this over time. Like beating someone half to death with a stick made of their own ignorance. Im going to bed though, so thanks man. Good note to end the night on
How can you be this much of a fricking moron? The scope is already zeroed in. The scope is already on a rail. When he takes the scope out of the bag, and attaches the rail to the gun, the scope is zeroed. The notches on your reticle are not decorative.
>bruh I could have made that shot in fortnite
I don't understand your complaint. Yes, he fricked up. Most of his problems were of his own makings, and he broke his own rules numerous times. Why is that a complaint? Did you want this assassin to execute every plan flawlessly and for his boasting to be accurate?
No of course not. I just dont like people acting like he was competent. He wasnt. The only reason he survived was because, somehow, everyone was more moronic than he was.
Almost like there is no super John Wick hitman in reality and the people who would kill for money as a living tend to be misanthropic banal twats like this one.
>t instead of immediately saying "no idk who the frick this is" when the waiter asked if she was ok
Then he would have shot her dead on the spot and run for it. She noted herself if she called attention like that that might get him caught, or he might escape, but in both situations she would be dead.
Right, so why not do it? Assassin's code? The lady at the lawyer's place made sense
>hey man my kids need insurance money, mind being a bro?
Her best logical option was to gain time, trying to ease him into a sense of complacency and wait for an opportunity to attack him, which she tried
That I get, but she fricked it by getting wasted. Better scene than the shit with the Brute at least
>getting wasted
Yet another tactic to make him underestimate her. She tried to defuse their interaction from second one: food, booze, chitchat, jokes etc
That makes sense. Thank you. She did the best she could to disarm him or get him off his game
Exactly: the point of that world is to maximize your options within your circumstances. The black guy tried to bluff too in his own way.
Because she'd be dead! She had no way out of that situation that wouldn't end with her guaranteed death. She was sat in front of him with a gun pointed at her. She had one hail mary, which was to get out of the restaurant and try to trick him into coming close enough to her for her to go for him with her knife. She tried that, it failed because he cottoned on to it and just shot her. It was a long shot. But a 1% chance of living is better than a 0% chance.
They didn't have to make him 100% incompetent to comedic levels in order to accomplish this.
If this were you, you'd frick things up in such an absolute totality that it's beyond explanation.
Hence why in the inevitable biopic, I wouldn't be set up as a perfect experienced killer with a 100% success rate all the way up to the beginning on the story where I miss a routine shot in the most predictable manner possible, misjudge how long a man can drown in his own blood, misjudge how much drugs can keep a shitbull down for long, allows a huge gymbro to get the jump on him when he had the total element of surprise and just barely best him in close-quarters combat. The fact he didn't fall for Tilda Swinton's obvious bait was the most surprising part of the film honestly.
You would get caught with a gun at the airport and get fisted by airport security, then spend the next 10 years getting trains run on you in prison.
Yes.
Hence why in the inevitable biopic, I wouldn't be set up as a perfect experienced killer with a 100% success rate all the way up to the beginning on the story where I miss a routine shot in the most predictable manner possible, misjudge how long a man can drown in his own blood, misjudge how much drugs can keep a shitbull down for long, allows a huge gymbro to get the jump on him when he had the total element of surprise and just barely best him in close-quarters combat. The fact he didn't fall for Tilda Swinton's obvious bait was the most surprising part of the film honestly.
>to comedic levels
no to the "moronic level that were made up in fantasy movies like John wick or Hitman were the solo killer can take down an entire army by himself".
There's a middle ground. You're talking to guy who doesn't like John Wick either, so no need to constantly bring that franchise up.
He wasn't. He set out to complete a personal task, got the job done, didn't start a needless war and went back alive and mostly unscathed to his gf in the Dominican Republic.
>The dude was a fricking clown
almost as if the point of the movie was to show that real killers are not perfect, can mess up and often kill innocent people
>The dude was a fricking clown. My friends and I tore into this movie
You "tore into" the film for showing that this Killer was not some superhuman but was actually deeply flawed and fricked up repeatedly? And you never thought in this film that it was intended that way?
This
Audiences clap at the stupidest things like drones.
>comparing it to John Wick
Did you even watch it?
wouldn't surprise me if these were the exact type of morons who didn't like the movie. They wanted le epic shootout scenes and muh badass baba yaga
Spot on, lol lmao even
>We made the movie bad intentionally ... as a joke!
Reminder that this is what you reddit memers that post "just like me" now were saying when Drive came out
Why is it bad?
This movie was a textbook example of how NOT to do character development. The audience couldn't give less of a frick about the main character because they just dropped him in as "le silent killer" without any scenes developing his personality. What a waste of time.
I read the comic years back and the character is an even more unlikeable poorly written character, cause he's so deeply pretentious as well.
Even Drinker vouched for it lmao. He now has more in common with gaylord ~~*((critics*~~)) than actual everyday moviegoers.
you watch that shit?
Beats Grace Randolph you sad troony
>kill middlemen without remorse
>save the billionaire
Yeah it's shit.
Imagine John Wick finally facing the man who killed his dog... and then just letting him go with a warning
>the man who killed his dog.
that the big dude... and he is dead.
the guy who sent the big dude... is also dead.
the rich dude had nothing to do with that... and even if he did a little, it was the killer's fault in the first place.
yeah...
posting bbc shit is what I would expect from a moron who can't understand a movie like this.
he kills the people that have the ability to frick with him and then that's it, he's out. why is this dude obligated to completely frick up his life and die over a fricking dog like John Wick?
>billionaire had no ability to frick with him
It's the opposite you asshat, he's the biggest threat and now he's seen the hitman's face and has it on security cams.
The billionaire has no idea who he even is or what he wants. He has absolutely no ability to frick with him whatsoever. If he kills him or disappears him there's an investigation and he's on video with massive (likely global) media attention.
>he's the biggest threat
Lolno. He admits that he's a newbie to this whole assassination business and that he had no idea they would try to kill the hitman or attack his gf for fricking up, he just chose the "insurance" option because it sounded good, not knowing what it meant. The billionaire's death wouldn't have achieved anything.
>admits
Just like the middleman claimed it was the billie's idea to have him scrubbed. There's literally no reason to take any of these people at their word, especially in this line of work.
He had no reason to lie. And the hitman's dispatcher in New Orleans already said as much. Just by looking a the billionaire you could tell he was way out of his depth.
That is why he left him with a threat, even if it was empty because he's actually retiring, the billionaire doesn't know that. The billionaire has no idea who he is, just that he is dangerous and could have killed him but chose not to. Furthermore, anyone who did know who he is is dead, and the billionaire is just some fool clueless about the business he worked in. The Killer vanishes into one of his many many identities, and retires. It's not hard to follow.
Wow he has an utterly generic white male's face.
You think the billionaire guy would out himself going "hey, I ordered a hit on a competitor but the guy hired to do it didn't get the shot and later threatened me, so pls put my business, my freedom and my life at risk by going after him"?
He killed the two assassins who couldnt even murder his gf. They let her literally just run out of the house then got back into a cab. Instead he lets the guy who has the resources and capital to hire 1000 more assassins to finish the job live.
> Instead he lets the guy who has the resources and capital to hire 1000 more assassins to finish the job live.
and why the frick would he do that when he didn't even want to do it in the first place.
also his contact is dead.
>It's the opposite you asshat, he's the biggest threat and now he's seen the hitman's face and has it on security cams.
god damn low IQ morons.
>billionaire who already hired a hitman at least once won't do it again
>thinks people like this don't have fixers who can find a dozen other agencies to deal with this
So much for "trust no one"
He didn't follow any of his code. Did you even watch the movie? He's contradicting his code as he recites it in his head multiple times.
>thinks people like this don't have fixers who can find a dozen other agencies to deal with this
Hitmen aren't magicians or psychics, they're hired guns with maybe a little bit of investigative skill. They aren't going to find a guy that's hiding in the Dominican Republic under a plethora of different identities. The FBI can't even find fugitives within the United States.
you do understand he has ZERO(0) interest in going after the killer right?
the guy is a businessman who clearly didn't understand how this whole thing worked and just want to forget about it.
>He did. He chose the option to clean up the mess.
He literally say he didn't understood what it meant and would not have done it if he knew.
>. You dont think he's going to wake up one day and decide to send a different team down there?
WHY the frick would he do this when this would give a reason for the killer to come back AGAIN?
if he doesn't, nothing will happen.
>he didn't even want to do it in the first place
He did. He chose the option to clean up the mess.
>why the frick would he do that
A guy came into his apartment and threatened him. I doubt the guy he ordered the original hit on did anything half as egregious, even if it was a bunch of money or pussy. He was pissed enough to hire an assassin over personal or business dealings, and had the means to track him down to his house in Mexico 2.0. You dont think he's going to wake up one day and decide to send a different team down there?
Do you think a dude that paid money to kill a guy and lost all that money for nothing, and then paid for it to get cleaned up and lost all that money again for nothing, is gonna pay somebody out his ass to complete a borderline impossible hit?
Yes. The Killer's bank account was 8 million. I know he could have other accounts etc but that 8 million was important enough to him that he went to a bank to get the entire account withdrawn. Im making leaps here, but I would doubt that entire 8 million was just one contract. If it was, why bother. So what did he get paid by the billionaire for one hit? $100,00k? $1,000,000? Suppose it was the entire 8 million, if you have a billion dollars, $8mil is nothing to not have an assassin potentially murder you in the middle of the night because he changes his mind one day
>if you have a billion dollars, $8mil is nothing
Billionaires get to be billionaires because they don't throw their fricking money away like a moron.
Good point. It would be out of character for the billionaire that hired an assassin, then hired two assassins to kill the assassin to hire an assassin.
>then hired two assassins to kill the assassin to hire an assassin.
why you do you always feel the need to prove that you are a moron?
is this a medical condition?
You...missed that part of the plot?
>You...missed that part of the plot?
jesus... dude.
did you even listen to what the boss said at the end?
the killer's boss proposed to "clean up" the mess of the failed assassination and the boss accpeted (duh) without knowing what it really meant.
the only thing the boss cares about is: being alive and not being caught by the police.
hiring a bunch of assassins to maybe kill another assassin is really not what he wants to do.. which is why he's still alive at the end.
is it that hard to understand???
>accpeted (duh)
Get some sleep
Unironically, yes holy shit man are you dumb in the fricking head?
>play hand with massive bet
>lose
>double down
>lose
>"yeah gimme another hand please"
That's why morons like you don't have generational wealth.
You know how casinos make money, right?
Yes that's exactly why I'm using that analogy. The billionaire in this analogy is throwing his money away on losing hands. Do you really think someone prudent enough with money to end up a billionaire is going to double down on a loosing hand?
casinos frick with people who embarrass them all the time?
the billionaire ordered a hit
the hit got fricked up
he was offered to have the hitman killed so there wouldn't be any blowback
he accepted the offer
that was basically the end of the billionaires involvement
More importantly, he had no idea he had accepted the offer to have the hitman killed.
>then hired two assassins to kill the assassin to hire an assassin.
But he didn't do that. Did you even listen to the dialogue? He had no idea what he was agreeing to when the lawyer offered him "insurance" on the failed hit. It was extremely clear when he had no idea why an assassin might be in his house in the middle of the night with a silenced gun pointed at him, and he had to be prodded to realize remotely what he might be there for.
once again, how is he going to track this person down, who doesn't even legally exist and has nothing to go on except a generic white male face, and more importantly, WHY would he try to track down a person who just spared him and said he could kill him with an "accident" or radioactive poison on his coffee mug if he gives him a reason to?
He has already hired three assassins and is a billionaire. Why would he not? Oh, because assassins are inherently trustworthy?
>He has already hired three assassins and is a billionaire
no but seriously... why are you all THIS moronic??
the boss hired ONE assassin, just one.
the boss only wanted to kill ONE dude, that's it.
the boss doesn't give a shit about the killer as long as he doesn't bring the police to him.
He hired three assassins
no he didn't.
the other 2 were part of the "sorry we frick up" package... which he knew nothing about.
no but seriously are you trolling or is this some sort of mental disability?
Did he pay for them?
>Did he pay for them?
no, he paid for an insurrance against blow backs.
the black dude then paid the 2 killers.
I know you are going to say it's the same thing but it's not anybody in his position would take the "insurance" and the killer choose to believe him when he says he didn't know what it meant.
You may think this is wrong but that the fricking point of the movie.
Oh, so the lawyer threw the billionaire's insurance money in the trash and paid the two assassins out of his own pocket. I missed that
here we go.. I was waiting for another moronic argument.
so what's your point again... that the killer should just kill the boss and create a massive shitstorm just in case he might find another broker and ask him to go find an anonymous killer that did nothing to him expect enter his home.
alright... good plan.
He did not know what he paid for when he was offered insurance to clean up. He had no idea who the Killer was and didn't even remotely think he was there for revenge, he thought it was a robbery at first. If he knew there was a second hit being done on the hitman, and then some threatening iceman with a gun appeared in the middle of the night, wouldn't he have a slight inkling that this might be the OTHER guy a hit was to be carried out on? Instead he had no idea why anyone might want to kill him.
He tried to order a hit on an enemy, and was told the hit failed, and that there was insurance to clean it up for only a small extra fee. That's all he knew.
Did you actually watch the movie or did you post on Cinemaphile while it played in the background?
>three assassins
He paid for one hit. When this failed, he was offered a cleanup for 150 mil, which he accepted. Though the nature of the cleanup could be inferred, it was ambiguous enough to make him seem oblivious to its extent.
More importantly, torturing Fassbender's gf in order to know his whereabouts was unquestionably not ordered by the rich guy as he simply wanted the matter to be finished.
He didn't hire three assassins you idiot. He didn't even know about the other two sent to kill the first. He just tried to buy a hit on someone major who presumably was causing him trouble, not knowing what he was doing, and when it was botched, the lawyer offered him insurance to clean it up, which he accepted. He didn't know that involved killing the hitman involved, hence why he had no idea who the Killer was when he showed up in the middle of the night with a gun, and had to be prodded into realizing even why there might be someone out there looking for revenge.
Wait, so the other two assassins did it for free?
>Go to restaurant
>They get your order wrong
>You complain
>Manager says "I'll make it right"
>Fires waiter in front of you
>Next day see on news the manager and two other waiters are dead
>Turn around, fired waiter is in your house pointing a gun at you
>Says "we good?"
>You shit your pants and say yes
>He leaves
>Anon who lives across the street and saw it happen yells "what the frick!!! Why'd he let you go? You were the mastermind behind it all!"
waiter in front of you
It wasn't even in front of him. He had no idea about the attempt on the hitman or any inkling that was what he was buying insurance for. A more accurate one is
>We'll make it right
>Ok
>Go back to your business and forget about the whole thing
>A waiter appears in your house looking murderous, turns out he was fired without severance pay because of your complaining
>order a meal
>meal is fricked up
>hire two chefs to make sure the first chef never cooks again and cant watch you eat
The billionaire could have the resources to hire a hundred billion assassins and he'd still have no idea where to start.
>yeah uh assassin company yeah there's this guy that uh broke into my house and asked me if I recognized him and I need you to kill him.
>what? n-no I didn't recognize him...
>n-no no I don't know why he was in my house
>uh yeah so let me spend a small fortune to find and kill this dude for no reason yeah
Hire a team to spend one day getting CCTV footage of the guy who broke in to his apartment. Take the hours and hours of high resolution videos and photos to the other assassin groups and say
>hey, ever hear of this "ghost" who just walks around NY killing people? yeah he just killed two other assassins for high who had his address in the Dominican Republic. know any assassins who look like this in the DR? they took a cab to his house, and he back-tracked that to me. here's 100 million dollars, kill him by lunch. -xoxo billionaire
You have John Wick brain. There isn't like some massive underground interconnected league of assassins. The guy is a business man and he isn't going to spend money out the ass trying to fix something that isn't a problem especially when he's already at a massive financial loss from the incident.
>There isn't like some massive underground interconnected league of assassins.
That would be true if it wasnt the plot of the movie
It isn't the plot of the movie. You want this movie to be John Wick so badly you're willing to lift plot points from it and insert them into this one.
There was a network of assassins. He went to his business manager to track down other assassins using his network. You seem confused and it makes me feel bad.
It was functionally crippled when the lawyer was killed. Who's gonna contact all the assassins to tell them the lawyer's dead when he's the contact? The whole thing is done. The people working for this dude are done.
How is this not absurdly obvious to people, he crippled the whole operation
And then it immediately died when that one person was killed. That's not a vast world controlling network, that's one guy with a business.
but it isn't the plot of the movie, the other assassins were complete strangers to him and he had to track them down by records of jobs, anyone the lawyer had on his payroll was completely isolated from each other
>and he had to track them down by records of jobs
Yeah, through a central guy who managed them. Almost as if they were.....interconnected
And what happened when that one guy was killed, anon?
It makes perfect sense: the main character closed the loop, got revenge (the rich guy didn't order the gf to be severely beaten), established limits and didn't open a can of worms as John Wick did
>didn't open a can of worms
why would the billionaire leave him alone? the guy is so sociopathic that he doesn't understand who would be pointing a gun at him right after he sanctioned the "insurance" ie kill the hitman he hired.
at that point he SHOULD have murdered him - coz you know the moment he steps out of that room the billionaire is gonna forget how scared he was and get embarrassed and seek revenge.
the type of person who sanctions a hit isn't gonna leave him alone.
He's not "sociopathic", at least not in that regard, he is clueless. He had no idea that was what "insurance" involved or that there was blowback like this possible.
so a supposedly rational agent sanctioned a hit then sanctioned insurance then is seen to visibly freak out at the guy over the phone - a guy who he was discussing business with and who would instantly be suspicious when he got hung up on?
this is your "rational agent"?
you guys don't understand how humans actually behave - the movie literally shows that the q-tip assassin lady made up that whole sob story and was still gonna try and shank the dude to live.
once you threaten a person openly you have opened yourself to reprisal - THAT is the rational response. why would the billionaire believe that the hitman would never show up again or blackmail him?
The guy isn't a crime boss, he's some nerd tech mogul who got into some shit out of his depth
Fassbender could've just killed him right there, whole point of showing up was to prove that to him and scare him and everybody else into keeping his distance. He wasn't there for revenge on him, the client was a bigass loose end for him to handle
you guys may have missed it but the billionaire sent someone to kill someone else then tried to clean up after himself.
the nerdy tech mogul persona is a facade - even the social network showed that nerdy tech mogul is just another way of hiding insecurities.
people are still people.
honestly i'm done discussing this mediocre movie, everyone just wants to love it cause fincher attached his name to it.
you might kill me but my pitbull will bite your balls off
>billionaire sent someone to kill someone else then tried to clean up after himself.
No, he tried to hire a hit from a contractor who handles that sort of thing. The contractor offered insurance for a small extra fee that would clean up if the hit failed. He did not include that involved killing the hitman who missed.
You keep massively overstating the billionaire's role in the actual mechanics of the hit.
>the nerdy tech mogul persona is a facade
>my headcanon is what actually happened in the movie
moron
Maybe you missed this in the movie, but Tilda Swinton was a hitwoman, while the billionaire was not a hitman.
>so a supposedly rational agent sanctioned a hit then sanctioned insurance then is seen to visibly freak out at the guy over the phone - a guy who he was discussing business with and who would instantly be suspicious when he got hung up on?
this is your "rational agent"?
Yes. Being rational doesn't preclude you from having human reactions and it doesn't mean navigating a childish world where solutions are easy and definitive.
>you guys don't understand how humans actually behave
Don't be silly. You're the one expecting these characters to behave as capeshit/videogame NPCs. What the Tilda character did was 100% in line with the movie's mindset: people use whatever tool at their disposal, verbal,emotional, physical or whatever, to achieve their goals, particularly when survival's at stake.
>why would the billionaire believe that the hitman would never show up again or blackmail him?
Because that would be irrational. The killer was there to see how involved the billionaire was in his gf's torture. When it is established he was not, he threatened him in unquestionable terms-- of which his breaking in was irrefutable evidence-- but didn't go as far as killing the guy because that would serve no purpose and the impulse would result in questioning, investigations and so on.
Who's he going to call, his hitman connect is dead
And if he finds another one, how are they going to know who the frick it is he was looking for, Fassbinder destroyed all the lawyer's stuff
>why would the billionaire leave him alone?
See
These are all rational agents. The billionaire would be unfathomably stupid in every single sense-- including the risk of self-incrimination-- if he went after Fassbender's character. They both saw it from an objective rather than emotional perspective.
He killed the people who actively participated in and facilitated the attempt on his life and the assault on his girlfriend. He didn't bother with the billionaire because he realized he was just some idiot in over his head who had no idea what he was asking for.
>The billionaire who carelessly signed off on the assault to happen in the first place gets off because he was oblivious of what he was asking for
>The cab driver gets the bullet even though he absolutely 100% did not know he was participating or facilitating anything
You don't get it anon, he was MEANT to be inconsistent and moronic.
>You don't get it anon, he was MEANT to be inconsistent and moronic.
again thanks for proving that every hater is a complete moron.
>killing the billionaire would bring a massive police and media inquiry
>killing the taxi driver would bring some local cop saying "welp, no idea".
he robbed the taxi driver, cash from his wallet and his radio, so cops would just think robbery.
He shot the cab driver on impulse. It's very clear he did it on a whim in the scene. Which breaks his rule of "no empathy", as he made an emotional decision. He took the time to think about the billionaire, and concluded he had no real part in what happened and there was no point in killing him.
>He shot the cab driver on impulse.
Not at all. He planned it and the reasons why have been mentioned above. What he did was make it clean, quick and merciful, just as he shot the secretary old lady in a way that'd look accidental and make her sons get the life insurance
I actually think he lets the cab driver have the last smoke out of empathy, breaking his "no empathy" rule
He let him relax for a sec as the best window of opportunity to kill him with the least chance of a reaction or a mess (busy hand etc). I don't think it was empathy as much as efficiency and a lack of interest in making the guy suffer needlessly.
Do you think the Killer doesnt just kill the pitbull out of empathy for the dog?
No. After he does what he set out to do and throws the molotov wienertail he simply ignores the dog.
why not just shoot it as it's running after him?
Inside the house? Perhaps because he saw fleeing as an efficient strategy-- which turned out to be correct.
True but he wanted a clean job. A fire/arson rather than a poisoned dog. He did miscalculate, as he also miscalculated the time it would take for the black guy to die, and in both cases he adapted: there was no videogame linearity to his actions.
But he could have laced the meat with an overdose and be guaranteed silence from the dog, instead he tried to calculate how much would knock it out, and wound up underdosing it given it woke up a few minutes later.
Lmao, no he didn't, his car was parked like a hundred feet away, he'd picked out the spot he was going to shoot him in before he even went to see the dude
>he had no real part in what happened
Seems fricking moronic that he could consider him a non-participant because he was stupid while the cab driver apparently was worthy of death for being oblivious.
The cab driver was at least local to his home, that's actually a loose end to him.
>hey this crazy dude threatened me with a gun!
>just another day in buenos aires eh?
i was more surprised the cab driver remembered the other killers, he was probably driving those kinda people around constantly.
He remembered sticking around the airport specifically to get their fare when they landed in a private plane since it had been a slow day, and then them making him drive out to the middle of nowhere and wait for an hour before coming back injured. I'm sure even for an Argentinian can driver that isn't a once a day kind of occurrence.
More like John Wick without shit
Seriously it is better than any modern hollywood action trash like TakenEquializerJW etc
Grats, you're a contrarian like most critics who think they know better than people who actually just want a fun time at the movies. You're everything wrong with the industry. Enjoy your complimentary onions drink.
John Wick movies are critically praised.
The last Equalizer movie has mostly positive critic reviews.
Only contrarian here is you because you went so far up your own ass you now try to larp as a normalgay (and proud) and follow the most bottom barrel of herd opinions. All that because being a "hipster" is "uncool" now. Pure insecurity.
>most critics who think they know better than people who actually just want a fun time at the movie
What the frick are you talking about?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/john_wick
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/john_wick_chapter_2
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/john_wick_chapter_3_parabellum
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/john_wick_chapter_4
Since when was John Wick not well received by critics? And a bonus John Wick copy film
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/nobody_2021
In fact...
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_killer_2023
The four Wick films have a higher approval than The Killer does. So what is your argument exactly?
It definitely felt like a poor man's wick. He even digs out weapons he kept buried for a rainy day like he's about to go on a revenge warpath and ends up offing like 3 people.
>It definitely felt like a poor man's wick.
How? Explain how. I'm genuinely curious how you think this film that had a single action scene, half way in, and was otherwise based around slow surveillance and tracking was supposed to be like John Wick.
>about to go on a revenge warpath and ends up offing like 3 people.
yes, because those were the three people who had wronged him? was he supposed to also shoot forty random guys working security as well?
God you know something is bad if it's a "poor man's wick" which is already a poor man's john woo.
this movie is a classical example of "low IQ people can't understand shit if you don't spell out things for them" with a big dose of "low IQ people can't support slow scenes because their brain can't formulate complexe/insightful thoughts".
>audiences know best... until they hate what I like
Okay let me say I enjoy JW as well but I really don't get why you morons compare this to it. Because it has guns and it's called the The Killer? That means it NEEDS TO HAVE NON STOP ACTION? Jfc
My boomer Trump-supporting mother watched it and text me to say she liked it.
Message her back saying she's pozzed now and to never text you again
My mom and Fincher are both based. You sound like a gay.
Taken and John wick were both shitty normalgay films for morons. If you liked that garbage you probably buy madden every year.
If David Fincher isn't a cinematic genius, they have no career. Look at any review site and you'll see A+ 100% for stuff like House of Dragons and Last of Us. A whole industry dies if there's nothing worth recapping
I give it a solid 6/10, sucks because it probably could have been way better with a few changes
>director makes good movie that makes fun of "sigma" incels
>endless seething on Cinemaphile
That's cute
>billionare apologists
its alright I guess. Competently shot/directed but the story is so barebones and unremarkable that I'm not sure what fincher really saw in it on a script level.
Unless of course it turns out to be a one for them, one for me kinda deal and he's got something more interesting in development at with them next, then it would make way more sense.
>'m not sure what fincher really saw in it
netflix money
he should just man the frick up and do the BTK season of Mindhunter to make up for that dogshit woke s2 Atlanta Child Murders nonsense
I'm not gonna watch it because I'm sick of Fincher but audiences usually have horrible tastes
More so than critics and I hate critics.
I liked it don’t get why people are shutting on it so much
>I disagree with the critics
"Bro these fricking homosexuals are so out of touch
>I agree with the critics
"Bro these shills need to go back to marvel slop, this is top kino"
>"silencer" is just a compensator
D R O P P E D
I mean does it even matter when movies treat silencers like they do?
Yeah what the frick was that about
Flincher should do a moron cut.
>cut down the first scenes to 1min of setup
>add a bunch of gunshots during the escape
>add a sex scene flashback when he's looking for his girl
>add an epic knife fight with the woman killer
>when he enters the rich dude building, add 50 guards that he has to kill with a gun (john wick style bb)
>after the boss finish talking, the killer inserts a grenade in his mouth and he throws him out of the window
>"sorry, no refund"
>movie begins with 20 minutes of the most reddit nihlism narration ever while he listens to the smiths
no wonder Cinemaphile loves this piece of crap
>Exactly what kind of hipster is David Fincher? His access to the zeitgeist through music videos, TV commercials, and movies has made him a favorite director for the kool kids. His Madison Avenue instincts override artistry; he merely pitched yet another serial-killer project to Netflix: his latest film, The Killer. It is a sequel, of sorts, to the 1995 serial-killer film Se7en and the 2011 The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, reversing their vengeance perspectives. In sync with Millennial angst, The Killer’s protagonist — a professional assassin played by Michael Fassbender — personifies the dystopian mood. Self-interest makes him the hero. Plus, he has exquisite musical taste: He dispatches his human targets while listening to songs by the 1980s pop group The Smiths.
>This predilection is a distinctive marker. The Smiths were never embraced by American tastemakers (reviewers resorted to snide put-downs), so the band developed a silent-majority coterie — a Make Music Great Again following. The Smiths signify the killer’s depraved idiosyncrasy — his untrustworthy individuality evokes the elite sadists in Fincher’s Fight Club. This combination of elitism and sadism is distinct to Fincher, as is his puke-and-urine color scheme. He follows the assassin through his debauched world; each assignment resembles a TV-series procedural, the preferred narrative for moral detachment. The soundtrack’s Smiths songs become ironic rather than expressive because the killer shows no real affinity for them. It’s Fincher’s attempt to destroy everything The Smiths stood for — the ultimate hipster-fascist statement.
>The Killer gets its anomic air from a series of graphic novels by Alexis Nolent (also nodding to the chic French art movie Le Samouraï, by Jean-Pierre Melville).
wow one of the few times i've actually agreed with him
we're so starved for smart action movies it's insane. you guys really don't need to defend this piece of shit. I know the drought is bad but have some respect for yourselves
But it isn't an action film in any way.
>Still, it’s unmistakably the same quasi-noirish hellscape as in Gone Girl, The Social Network, and Panic Room. Fassbender plays the hit man like a runway model — photogenic but blank, an automaton’s version of Kevin Spacey’s hammy villain in Se7en. His worldview (evident in how he takes pride in cold professionalism or speaks of “Annie Oakley jobs”) distorts a detective’s moral code. Each nameless character in each generic chapter, whether Sophie Charlotte as his pouty sex interest or Tilda Swinton as his eccentric rival, deserves annihilation. Screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker’s sophomoric idea of profundity is the philosophical cliché “Most people refuse to believe that the great beyond is anything more than a cold, infinite void.” A lack of compassion suffuses Fincher’s dank slickness, a test-marketed style of affectless alienation. His focus on killing but not its moral ramifications — what distinguishes Hitchwiener, Fritz Lang, and De Palma — is the most debased form of Mad Ave. cynicism.
>The music for such an exercise should be the corrosive, grind-house nihilism of Nine Inch Nails, headed by Fincher’s favorite composer, Trent Reznor. But Fincher’s antipathetic TV-commercial motifs are not well served by The Smiths catalogue — the most droll, unabashed petition for empathy of the past half century.
>From the first moment Fassbender takes aim, with his earbuds emitting “Well I Wonder,” Fincher proves as insensitive a DJ as he is a storyteller. The irony is not just obtuse, it’s an affront to our sensitivities. I haven’t forgiven the bowdlerization of Donovan’s wondrous “Hurdy Gurdy Man” in Zodiac. But targeting The Smiths — and the sensibility that music represents — is sociopathic. (If he had any respect, or an ounce of wit, he’d settle for “Meat Is Murder.”)
>“I Know It’s Over” cannot ever be “mood music” — its imprint in pop history etches the personal agony that Morrissey dared show to the world via The Smiths. That triumphant not-aloneness is also what made the guitar-quivering “How Soon Is Now?” seismic. Called the “alternative-rock ‘Stairway to Heaven’” for its majesty and universality, it has an ineluctable appeal that defied the insensitivity dominant in Eighties rock criticism (despite that era’s amazing cultural ferment and eccentric geniuses Michael Jackson, Prince, The Smiths, Kate Bush, etc.). “How Soon Is Now?” longs for happiness and demands an end to smugness. Fincher squanders it as music to kill by, returning smugness.
>It’s impossible to hear “There Is a Light That Never Goes Out” and think bad thoughts, but Fincher spreads ugliness throughout the culture. Variety’s review asked, “Doesn’t he ever listen to music that’s not The Smiths?” Another ignorant review complained about “droning vocals and . . . romantic anti-romanticism.” The only anti-romanticism is Fincher’s indifference to the special pleading in “Hand in Glove” and “This Charming Man” — songs that challenged status quo pop. Being unresponsive to the brilliance and gaiety of “Bigmouth Strikes Again,” “Unhappy Birthday,” and “Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now” seems especially witless. And the misuse of “Girlfriend in a Coma” and “Shoplifters of the World, Unite” — each a radical concept of grief and revolution — makes Fincher an unfit communicator. Because of Fincher’s humorlessness — remember Brad Pitt whining “What’s in the box?” in Se7en? — nothing here can be taken seriously except the assault on pop-music culture.
He didn't kill the billionaire because the whole point was to make a big show to signal to everyone not to frick with him. "I came to show you how easily one might get to you.". He wiped out the guy who sends the assassins, the assassins themselves, and put the fear of God in the guy who would complain about the bad customer service to begin with. Said to his gf's brother at the beginning "I swear to you nothing like this will ever be allowed to happen again.". If the rich homosexual just shows up dead, he isn't around to be terrified and tell everyone to just leave it alone.
You guys are pleeeeeeeeebs
he even threatened him that if he had to come back he wouldn't take it easy on him. point was to scare the guy.
and he shot the hue taxi driver
>and he shot the hue taxi driver
because the taxi driver is not important like the boss and he knows a lot more about the Killer than the boss.
nobody is going to give a frick about the driver... so it's a safe kill
Loose end. He couldn't run the risk, however remote, of the taxi driver being connected to the crime world and relaying the information that someone was looking for the 2 criminals he drove to Fassbender's house
You're overthinking it. The taxi driver works in his neighborhood and saw his face.
it is a much smaller scope than other movies in the genre. he works for a mom&pop assassination firm. his gf gets beat down at his house and the end of the movie he's just chilling on his deck.
killing the cabbie made sense because he lives in the same area kek
There's that, they both lived in the same city, but even if that weren't the case, the taxi driver was a liability so letting him go wasn't an option regardless
That was impulsive, and broke his supposed rules, one of numerous times he did so. Sparing the billionaire was him realizing he was compromising said rules in the pursuit of this and it was time to rein it in and go home.
>The Killer is calculated for quiet barbarism threatening to normalize inhumanity. Fincher’s rejection of The Smiths aims to destroy the band’s great contributions to civilization. This anti-art horror film appeals to the hipster appetite for self-destruction.
I feel conflicted but delighted by the decision not to shoot the billionaire at the end of the film.
Just want to say I really like Gone girl
Hey me too
>10 Minute hipster art monologue trying to appeal to people who smell their own farts as if it were a wine tasting event.
>Kills lower class individuals, who did it for the pay, as he does.
>Doesn't kill the man who is responsible for everything because he is careless with his money, and throws money at the problem
>Trying to be unconventional and that the guy lives at the end
>"Like, what if, just hear me out, like he doesn't kill the guy at the end, like we always think, like what if the dude actually, and I mean actually didn't know? How different would that be?"
Lmao, of course dorks enjoy, they've been socially engineered for years to consume trash.
>10 Minute hipster art monologue trying to appeal
Or making the Killer out to be immensely pretentious. The film seemed more like a deconstruction of the cool cold hitman to me. He listens to the Smiths while preaching zero empathy. Is that not a clear message to you that this guy is kind of full of shit?
>The film seemed more like a deconstruction of the cool cold hitman to me
it's exactly what the movie is.
he breaks all the rules of his code... showing that he's just another normal dude and not some super special human.
This is designed to be Gen X's "literally me."
That's because millennials and zoomers don't have jobs/gfs etc. Notice how the main character's gf is younger than him
only weak part of the movie was the fight scene. I dont think an assassin would waste his time fighting at all if we're going for realism in the modern world. everyone watches ufc, and the dude probably trains--it's a time wasting battle, and if you get injured when you could have just shot someone's leg, you're a dumbfrick.
>only weak part of the movie was the fight scene.
yeah but that's the only thing morons liked.
remove the fight and the score would be at 49%.
I bet if there was an epic knife fight with the woman killer, it would be 75%
>the movie has to be bad
what? wtf are you even trying to say.
this movie is very good but the whole "brute" sequence was probably the worst from a story pov.
it was just there for some cool trailer shots.
The movie is shit dude
Also sleeping/parking in front of the guy's house for an entire day. It was at a dead end road, you had to go through a gate just to get there. An assassin (the Brute) wouldnt notice a guy parked in front of his house for 24 hours? How many times did they drive by him
I think it should have been handled like the scene in Barry where he busts the guy's windpipe and the dude keeps trying to fight but just ends up making it worse. Like if they had made the injuries more serious. Pulled ligaments and broken bones and the like.
> if we're going for realism
I dont think they were going for that at all, at least I hope not because the movie is a massive failure in this regard.
the most irrealistic thing is skinny fassbender taking multiple kicks from the brute and not having multiple bones broken.
there's no way you could block those kicks with those arms.
It's not like he went in there planning to have a fight, he was just going to shoot him. He fricks up constantly in the film actually, he miscalculates the dosage for the dog and it wakes up early, he miscalculates how long a lung puncture would take to kill his boss, and he gives himself away setting off the door alarm. Never mind his initial botch after being given clear shots a few times before that.
the movie was constantly saying one thing and having the character do the other. the vibe was going for a bumbling un-self aware fool.
but why would that kinda movie be made-what is interesting about a serious mr magoo is what i don't understand.
It's funny
ehhh. It's practically the only movie I've managed to sit through this year. it's not a masterpiece, but I enjoyed it for what it was.
>but why would that kinda movie be made-what is interesting about a serious mr magoo is what i don't understand.
You wanted another film with a flawless assassin who is unstoppable?
>throw some comedy in there
>have him get chastised by someone who actually understands how pathetic he is
>up the philosophical musings by 1000% really go ham
instead it's like they tried and failed to make a mr magoo movie.it fails in all dimensions and is just bland and forgettable.
If this Black person maligns Mr Magoo one more time I'm sending him a radioactive coffee cup
Fassbender is solid, he just has a habit of being in mediocre films
I liked it, it was a good movie.
Everyone on Cinemaphile who doesnt is wrong and homosexual with bad taste.
Plot hole to me seems like the broker's clients or handler would want to find out why he lost his broker. The military, etc, other governments. They'd want him taken out for fricking with their business.
critics rarely watch movies, they just replicate what other topper critics write, especially with a blue chip like fincher
they also get paid
>critics rarely watch movies
This, 100% Same with food critics. I know dozens of both (cant name names). Most food critics have never even eaten at a restaurant, and a lot of the top movie critics I know (big names, but dont ask) see two or three films a year - tops.
>dude boring narration
>uses subsonic rounds instead of a semi automatic sniper that can shoot more than one round a second and has penetration power
seems silly to me
>his fricking escape route is right outside facing the building he's killing someone in
'''expert'''
Are they thinking we're dumb or something?
No they're thinking you're smart enough to realize he's dumb, which is why he's always contradicting his narration as he says it.
You can use subsonic rounds in a semi automic. That isnt really the issue. The issue is him not going for broke and following up after he dropped the first shot.
>Are they thinking we're dumb or something?
If you find fault in the ammo and not him taking a scope out of a bag without adjusting the windage and elevation from a previously determined zero, you are dumb
I think the escaping out the front is dumb, but it wouldnt shock me if Hitmen hid pretty clearly in plain sight
>broker doesn't kill the assassins for fricking up their jobs
the broker said he was fine with letting him go if he didn't return to his house and just disappeared.
also, the killer didn't want to kill the broker.. he just wanted the name of the dude who almost kileld his girl.
>”Oh shit, is that a remake of the John Woo film?!”
>cursory search
>…
why would they remake perfection?
I need a critic score, an audience score, and an arbitrarily assessed Cinemaphile score to get a better idea of what I thought of the movie.
>asked ai for chuds
awww
both critics and general audiences are wrong and stupid all the time
>budget John Wick.
One, John Wick was budget John Wick, the first film had a tiny budget.
Second, this was not remotely like John Wick other than featuring a hitman. It was a slow thriller, not an action film. You could at least compare Nobody or other films to John Wick. There was literally a single action scene in The Killer.
Why does a movie funded by Netflix need an insane amount of product placement like this movie?
>movie makes the hitman into a pretentious butthole who has an empty life and fricks up numerous times
>WHERE IS HEADSHOTS!?
>I kill hundreds of people so I can chill on a beach in some shitty tropical country
Do people really?
>Expecting Cinemaphile not to eat up a movie that features a handsome, autistic, blue-eye'd white protagonist with an ethnic gf where he murders a black guy, a Hispanic, and a woman in cold blood and uses the word "normies".
The film's quality (or lack thereof), was never a factor.
The movie was just a flatline. Literally soulles slop, made to sell a product (Netflix, McDonalds, Amazon, Ace Hardware, FedEx, Starbucks, the Waterfront resteraunt, take your fricking pick in this one).
>actually it is le dark comedy because he's a frick up
Nah, that's cope. The script needed him to frick up so that the story happens, that's why he's inconsistently good or shit depending on the scene, which is just bad writing.
You're just talking about yourself. Imagine thinking The Killer is propaganda for Amazon or any of the services shown in it. They're there to point out the concept of morally neutral efficiency that the main character himself embodies.
>They're there to point out the concept of morally neutral efficiency that the main character himself embodies.
That's the dumbest fricking thing I've ever heard.
>That fricking moron MC
>Embodying efficiency
That's because you're stupid: you can't fathom interpretations outside the staggeringly low IQ "McDonalds and Amazon want a contract killer to be their poster boy"
Yes because I'm sure Sony wanted a murderous republican politician and and a suicidal junkie to be their "poster boys". Companies will pay for product placement in any film/show that might have a decent amount of eyeballs on it, moron.
The ad's an ironic skit you autist
That was an actual scene from the show you stupid Black person. The Playtstation graphics were added for comedic effect.
It's a deliberate merchandise action...Do you even know what that means?
In The Killer, whatever's used is shown with stark indifference to the character's purpose. Amazon, AVIS etc are as efficient as the arms peddler and the bank employee who hints at shady investment deals he could get by talking to certain people from another department.
>It's a deliberate merchandise action...Do you even know what that means?
A random string of words you just invented?
No but I'm not giving you remedial lessons either. Educate yourself on why these are utterly unrelated circumstances.
>That's because you're stupid: you can't fathom interpretations outside the staggeringly low IQ "McDonalds and Amazon want a contract killer to be their poster boy"
You realize anytime you see a brand in media it's because it's authorized I.E. paid for?
Authorized yes, paid for's on a case-by-case basis. You do realize that these companies didn't see this as a shallow, standard case of product placement some midwits seem to assume it is? Imagine thinking that The Killer's made to convince people to use Amazon or whatever. It takes a staggeringly low IQ lack of insight.
Personally, I don't know about it being created for the sake of advertisement, but all movies are made to make money. Product placement is just a tacky way to make more of it and is therefore worth criticizing. For a movie that seems to take itself pretty damn seriously, its laughable there would be so much here.
>all movies are made to make money.
Sure, but assuming the script made it a point to feature those brands just to get advertising money would be beyond ludicrous. Brands are everywhere in any contemporary movie these days, and as I said above in the movie they're shown as amoral tools. They're ubiquitous because they're aligned to the main character's view of the world as Darwinian.
>They're there to point out the concept of morally neutral efficiency that the main character himself embodies.
lol, you're on a roll now bud
That's how you watch movies: flowing with them and thinking instead of expecting them to cater to your mundane, narrow expectations.
It had more soul than 99% of current releases, which is more of an indictment for the industry at large, but at least it wasn't some exec's idea of an IP cash grab. Fincher wanted to make an efficient assassin kino and achieved just that.
I'm sure another anon has already said this, but RottenTomatoes scores are completely fricked. Even a 98 percent FRESH rating doesn't mean it's kino. If you look at the positive reviews, a lot of the time they could be giving the movie a 2.5 or C+. If everyone says "hey, it was OK" that counts as fresh, and people immediately think it's the most kino thing released.
Frick you I liked it
"This isn't John Wick, why isn't this movie like John Wick"
I fricking hate /k/ homosexuals.
>What if the main character from Drive.......was an international assassin????
You thought this movie wouldn't have an army of apologists on Cinemaphile?
What does the billionaire accomplish by having the assassin killed? How is that "insurance"? Insurance against what? The killer knows nothing about the billionaire.
Why would Florida Man and Tilda Swinton beat up the killer's girlfriend to wihin an inch of her life and then leave without killing her? It's obviously just a cheap way to set the plot in motion, like John Wick's dog getting killed. Except that made sense.
Why would the killer leave the billionaire alive after he's seen his face?
This movie is fricking moronic. Sorry for the reddit spacing.
>and then leave without killing her?
Could you please watch the film closer in future. Actually listen.
What does his face matter? He's nobody. A generic white male with no name. His boss is dead, there's nothing remaining of his employment as a hitman, and he's leaving with his savings transferred to his retirement overseas. And the billionaire had no idea what he was doing, he didn't even know who the Killer was or why someone might be out for revenge on him.
this is your brain when you only watch dumb action movies.
Fincher makes ONE fun satire film of hitman and the world shits their fricking pants with anger due to being filtered. holy fricking... based.
Would you guys actually believe anything that comes out of a billionaire's mouth?
dunning kruger: hitman addition
It was a shit and a waste of plot, cinematography and talent. No one will remember this due to being a Netflix joint.
Why didn't he go after this nefarious lawyer if he was so set on killing all participants?
wasn't the lawyer the second person he kills in the movie?
Wut
You mean the lawyer he shot in the chest with a nail gun and even killed the secretary of?
>Why didn't he go after this nefarious lawyer
He...did? He shot him with three nails.
Things are certainly making a lot more sense for me now.
Who was it you thought the old black guy in a suit with a law office was?
Some low-level boss of some ambiguous organization that gives The Killer and other assassins jobs. In retrospect, I'm sure if I actually read the door The Killer snuck through, I probably wouldn't have missed that obvious detail.
He was THE boss of said organization, because they don't exactly have a skyscraper with hundreds of employees, it's him, his secretary, and his little rolodex of killers that receive contracts from him and info on the targets. He posed as a lawyer as his supposed job, but was actually heading an assassin business. The Killer's voiceover mentions that he was recruited by him at law school, where the lawyer had been his professor.
There's no grand giant organization like in John Wick, once the lawyer and his secretary are dead, that business is finished.
>Very important VIP doing humiliating dog shit with prostitute
>doesn't ensure the windows are closed
>right across from a building with a view of it
Dumb
she was literally about to close the blinds when he took the shot.
a skilled photographer would have all the photos to sink that guy
its a leap, but that could have been his wife or the guy could have been single. i dont think blackmail was the point
>Basically budget John Wick.
moron.
Kino Movie not like Super Hero John Wick God without unrealistic action
its just john wick but pretentious and sterile
Anon what exactly is it you think makes a movie John Wick?
more like John Wick but less Basedboy and more Heterosexual and less Reddit
the opening 20 minutes are the most reddit thing ever committed to film
The opening 20 minutes when the hitman who constantly fricks up, gets in his own way, and breaks his own rules lays out his claimed rules and philosophy? Maybe you thought his voiceover was meant to be cool and deep?
John Wick is the Basedboy Franchise is MCU of the Action Movies
Other than featuring a hitman, how is it like John Wick?
John Wick invented being a hitman, you see.
>hitman
>emotional
>constantly says he's good at his job but bumbles like mr magoo
>cries at random times
>comically inept but the plot demands he succeed until he fails
>le i love my heckin dogs even if they might kill me meme
did i miss anything?
The template is similar in very broad trope terms (silent killer, vendetta plot) but other than that the 2 characters are utterly different. JW has an idealistic but emotional, almost womanly sense of honor that provokes a protracted turf war; the killer simply wants to avenge his gf, tie loose ends and go back home. There's nothing melodramatic about him.
>cries in a restaurant with one of the people who tortured his gf(q-tip)
>30 day wait for creatine ie seething about bodybuilders but is shown to only do yoga
>scene with his tortured gf
he was melodramatic as FRICK
He didn't cry at the restaurant. His random thoughts are meant to amuse and display his observational mindset. The scene with his gf is brief and stoic. By contrast, John Wick's empty talk and occasional somber pondering seem written by/for teenagers
This is neither a good description of John Wick nor of The Killer.
>is a super professional guy
>doesn't know what happens when he fails a job
>never warns his wife
>lives in some open house in the jungle with no security
>has a loved one some young latino he's taking advantage of
very bad
RT audience scores make no sense to me anymore. You can't convince me that general audiences loved the Woman King so much it had a 99% audience score but this completely innocuous oldschool hitman movie was so offensively bad they all hated it.
RT scores have always been worthless
They do when you realize they're a score from the type of person who uses rotten tomatoes in the first place. You think the girl who makes your latte at Starbucks or the guy next to you on the stairmaster at the gym has an RT account? It's all film Twitter freaks
but the audience scores only fairly recently became this nonsensical on that site. For instance a show like She-Hulk or a movie like The Marvels would never have gotten an 80+% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes 5 years ago.
Dude, audience scores get tampered with all the time to appease big studios (such as Disney). You can't trust either score regardless, anybody that takes that site too seriously is moronic. The only time you might be able to glean anything about a film's quality from RT scores is when its a movie that doesn't have any widespread attention on it.
He really didn't need to step on all those phones. It's pointless. You don't destroy a phone by stomping on it.
would you pick up a garbage phone off the ground?
One man's garbage is another man's treasure
Which is why he was shown removing the SIM card and destroying it separately.
I don't understand the John Wick talk. Like, Nobody, that was like John Wick. it had the same story, the retired killer brought out of retirement, loads of close quartered action scenes shootouts, with a bit of Taken in that older action not known for action hero roles. Albeit with a more comedic bent than John Wick.
But how was this movie anything like John Wick in tone or content? There was only a single action scene in the film. If it was "budget John Wick" shouldn't there have been lots of action scenes playing at doing the John Wick slick gun action? He killed five people in the movie, only one of them in a fight scene. John Wick kills five people per minute on average, and his series revolves around lengthy gun and hand-to-hand battles in inventive situations.
it's because they are NPCs who expected a movie like john wick. when they don't get it, their programming short circuits and they call it "budget john wick" because it wasn't as good as john wick. the movie all movies about hitmen aspire to be, apparently.
I think it's more "hitman featured in film = John Wick" because that's all the reference they have
that's what I said
It's reflects a type of provincial audience that expected the movie to be more of the same fodder but directed by Fincher (as if he were some random journeyman who makes movies for 14 yos).
The movie has a lot more to do with the tradition of silent Samurai journeys or some of the French crime movies starring Alain Delon and others (including Le Samourai btw)
older actor*
It's just the default deflection choice by the morons who like the movie.
People who like and understand the movie only compare it to John Wick to show how stupid and/or infantilized part of the audience has become.
People seetheing over this movie and it was just fine? Wick is the same type of slop and even worse in the newer installments. Apart from the neck snap it wasn't as super hyper tier autistic marvel tier unrealistic power fantasy like wick is.
>Wick is the same type of slop
They are completely different movies.
Yeah wick has marvel tier writing so maybe you are right, this was better.
>300+ replies
holy shit OP and Fincher, you've done it again.
>leaves the pitbull alive
yeah he definitely browses here and knows what we hate
I'm pretty sure netflix have done the numbers and killing a dog, especially a pitbull, is basically ratings death for a movie. Most women will turn the movie off at that point, and if they love their little furbabies they might even write an angry post about it on twitter or whatever. much safer not to kill the dog.
Remember after the failed hit when he sees the well-dressed guy on the plane and it spooks the shit out of him. That was just some random guy, right?
It may have been an air marshal of some sort, or he may have just being paranoid, because he's rattled at that point.
>.....hey.
It seems like a lot of people missed that the film is somewhat of a black comedy.
>Killer blabbering in his voiceover about his calculations for the lawyer to drown being six to seven minutes, giving him the time to maybe extort the names out of him
>lawyer dies while he's thinking of this
There's a lot of moments like that. It's kind of parodying the John Wick type badass hitman.
>result of tech billionaire being shot to death in his own home, moments after ending a call suddenly saying he had to call back: Widespread media coverage, large investigation to solve the crime
>result of tech billionaire being threatened by scary hitman who broke in there with ease and held him at gunpoint before sparing him, but with a warning he could kill him at any time if he made it necessary: the billionaire never mentions this entire thing to a single soul as long as he lives and hopes he never pisses off this scary person again
Does he look happy in the final scene?
The movie does away with the concept of "happiness", which seems cartoonish and naive. He seems content, which is good enough.
He doesn't look content to me.
Kuleshov effect. You saw what you wanted to see and perhaps you were expecting something too on the nose and overly obvious-- which would make no sense in the movie and is a naive expectation in general.
Now rationally consider this: he avenged his gf, cleaned up loose ends, got himself a nice extra insurance of sorts (having the billionaire walk on thin ice/look behind him for the rest of his life), went back to his comfortable house to be with his gf. Does this not sound as contentment to you? It's an optimal situation.
What exactly did you think his eye twitch while he sat there expressionless was supposed to mean?
A glimpse of emotion. Microexpressions are very important in the movie, particularly in the scene with Tilda, and the character was PERFECTLY played by Fassbender, casting him was brilliant and it's clear that he's very much into the role without just going through the motion with an expressionless phoned in demeanor. There is a lot of nuance there: boredom, skepticism, disgust, tiredness and so on.
Yes, a glimpse of emotion, namely "this retirement is not what I want"
Again: Kuleshov effect. You're interpreting that emotion in a way that is possible but unwarranted by what the scene shows. Perhaps it is a hint of longing for his killing activities, perhaps it's letting his guard down a little and realizing he accomplished what he set out to do.
In the very last lines his monologue describes himself as one of the many-- that is, stepping out from that previous world and settling down.
hurr everybody else interprets what they wanna see but only ME only I interpret the correct reality durrr
You got btfo lol
I wasn't what YOU were replying to, you obsessed autist. go to sleep. nobody else seems to like your movie much brah. sorry. not worth killing yourself over or responding to every single person over either.
I can only assume they're all big Morrisseygays. Because if I didn't know going in that was a Fincher film I never would have known while watching. Stupid Smiths music overpowering the Reznor score, sunny Florida & Dominican Republic, nothing about this felt Fincher. He loves that Netflix money apparently and praises them all the time for his creative freedom, but either he completely phoned this meh mess in or he was there in name only and was more of a producer again
Congrats on getting everything wrong and being additionally filtered by The Smiths. You have terrible taste in both movies and music.
As for Fincher's involvement
>The graphic novel "The Killer" (written by Alexis Nolent, illustrated by Luc Jacamon) has been a passion project for David Fincher for nearly 20 years.
congrats on being a gay and having a gay's taste in music and shit taste in film
>Fincher makes a hitman movie
>instead of being about a cool badass super killer wiping out armies of goons, it's about a pretentious butthole who constantly fricks up and his job consists of 90% waiting around doing nothing
Have you not seen Zodiac or something? Why did you expect a typical shoot em up?
Zodiac still felt Fincher. It was good. This didn't and wasn't.
But what is "Fincher"? Again, you received a deconstruction of the super hitman flick, showing a more likely reality of someone who would make anonymously killing for money their profession. Zodiac threw all the expectations of a detective vs serial killer flick out the window, and stuck to reality
WOW SO MUCH DETECTIVE AND GUN BOOM IN SOCIAL NETWORK amirite
The Social Network is neither a hitman film nor a detective film.
That atypical biopic that throws out the usual template most biopics adhere strictly to?
>showing a more likely reality of someone who would make anonymously killing for money their profession.
No you didn't, the whole premise is bullshit. It's based on a french comic book obviously based on Le Samourai, but inferior to it. The entire thing is a fantasy. I don't know what that other moron is saying that it isn't "Fincher" seeing as how he's made a pretty wide variety of films, but if you think anything in this movie is in any way realistic you're the biggest moron on this site.
>shoot em up
OP really fricked this thread with the John Wick comparison.
Was TGWTDT or Social Network a "shoot em up?" No. But they still had that classic Fincher film.
This was dogshit and almost as sad as that one autist defending it to the death in here. WAIT A MINUTE... David, go make BTK season of Mindhunter already you silly homosexual.
classic Fincher feel**
Ok. What is the "classic Fincher film" feel?
Hey Dave, I'm just glad you stopped wasting weeks and million$ to digitally insert another centimeter of dust on the bookshelf in the background that no one cares about. If you wanna waste Netflix money making this milquetoast trash for tryhard up their own ass zoomers go ahead, you earned it bud.
What is the "classic Fincher feel" anon? You have mentioned it three times now.
Your comment is "double digit IQ type seething and trying to make a non-existent point" 101