The Killer

 

As always, If I see a film in a theater, you will read about it here. I noticed several comments on-line that castigate this film as boring or even dreadful. I was very surprised at that evaluation because my experience was far from that. I enjoyed the heck out of the film, it has a slight throwback style that may not be satisfying to adrenaline junkies, but hits the spot with those of us who are interested in plot and character. Which may seem a bit strange because we know very little about the main character of this film, not even his real name, but in the long run, that is the point.

There are plenty of films about paid assassins out there. Most of them are focused on the job at hand or the intrigue behind the murder in the first place. This film essentially does not give a damn about those well worn paths, instead, it focuses on logistics and the kind of character that is needed to be a success in this business. Michael Fassbinder is playing a guy doing his level best to remain faceless and anonymous. We get to see the level of detail that he puts into his work. The meticulous set up and clean up of his job takes the first twenty minutes of the film, and when the job goes wrong, we see what discipline it takes to get away clean.  The movie reminded me early on of the Charles Bronson 70s classic "The Mechanic". In that film, we have a dialogue free opening ten minutes, and it is an excellent primer on how to tell a story visually. "The Killer" does not remain silent in the opening section, the main character is providing a voiceover to his actions. Most of the time he is explaining the principle behind his craft, not the details of it's execution, we see those being played out. 

There are action sequences but they usually come after a slow build up to the scene. For instance, there is a truly brutal fight scene that entails significant jeopardy to the main character, but first we see the stalking of the target. That process involves a lot of sitting in the car, waiting for other characters to act, and then a tentative approach to the subject. When the fireworks start, they are pretty elaborate with frequent changes in who is dominating the combat, and consequences for most of the physical actions. While lacking the perspective that we might have for John McClane, we can still feel the brutality and notice some of the aftereffects. That makes this movie feel a lot more authentic than some of the action cartoons that pass themselves off as drama in cinema's these days. 

I wonder if the reason that some of the people who are not reacting positively to the film comes from the fact that they watched this on Netflix rather than seeing it in a theater. As always, the theatrical experience forces you into a relationship with the film that is substantially different than the one you will have in your own home. The passage of time feels different and more immediate. The absence of ambient noise or side conversations press us into focusing on what is on the screen in a different way. The score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is propulsive without being in your face. The story transitions are smooth and fun to watch as the character makes his way from Europe, to the Dominican Republic, to the U.S. , and there is a running joke about the aliases he uses that some parts of the audience might miss but they got a chuckle out of me each time. 

Up front, the Killer himself talks about how dull his profession can be, because it involves so much waiting and watching. He goes to great lengths to avoid having to improvise. Sure it's fun when some character can Macguyver up a bomb with kitchen chemicals and a microwave, but that would be an anathema to our protagonist, who sticks to the plan, fights only the designated fights, and sees empathy as a weakness. The character has no story arc it is true, the fascination comes from watching how sticking to his foundational process works. It forces him to make choices that other screenwriters would have found a conventional way out of.  While we are spared having to watch him disassemble a body for disposal, we know he is doing it because that is what is called for. 

There are at least two times in the film when we could expect a screenwriter to try and inch the character away from his own manifesto, but the authors of the graphic novel that the film is based on, and the screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker, stay true to their character. The detachment the lead feels from his job, is aty odds with the relationship that powers the majority of the film. As a wounded subject, we might expect there to be emotional justification for his actions. The story never makes a point of his emotions in the murders he commits after the failed original mission. He simply puts his professional face on for a personal retribution that maybe lacks the satisfying punch that most revenge films seek, but nevertheless gets the job done. His confrontation with the Tilda Swinton character is a perfect example of how his professionalism can be seen as dull, but we also get to see it is the reason he is efficient. Director David Fincher allows stories to unfold in their own time. "Zodiac" and "Gone Girl" show us dramatic moments as they might play out, without the theatrics if an edited, rock score propelled sequence. If you are looking for a "Goodfellas" moment, there isn't one. There is just the cool, mannered and meticulous pathology of the Killer and his director.  

3000 Years of Longing

I am not sure why this movie was released the last week of August. It is a quality piece of film making with a thoughtful theme and delicate performances from the two leads. This feels like a Spring or Fall release, not something that you dump with the action/horror trash that makes up the usual fare at this time of year. When the Lion in the MGM logo that came up in front of the film did not roar in the traditional way, I wondered what was happening. Maybe someone at MGM decided it would be triggering, or maybe that Idris Elba had enough lion roars from his film out just two weeks ago. It did make me question the thinking at the studio, and after seeing the film, I believe I was right in thinking someone in marketing has screwed up.

George Miller has been responsible for some odd films over the years. The two "Babe" pictures run in the opposite direction of his Mad Max films, and "Happy Feet", the less said about the better. "3000 Years of Longing" is a non-traditional narrative about narratives. Alithea, the subject of the initial story is a character who studies, records, interprets and investigates literary narratives. The idea that this person should be the one to discover the story revealed when a Djinn gets released from his captivity is a good one. By making her the receiver of the story, she can stand in for the all of us as skeptic and captivated audience. Idris Elba as the ancient Djinn with a story to tell is a more compelling character than the doctor he played in the recent "Beast". It feels odd to have him in back to back weeks as the lead of the major film opening that Friday. The character here is more compelling and he requires the skills of an actor to keep us enthralled in the story.

This movie reminds me of a movie from almost thirty years ago, Wayne Wang's "Smoke". The subject matter is completely different, but the films both feature narrators telling stories that pull us in. The stories may not be essential but they are compelling. What Miller has done is ladled on the visuals to go with the stories that our protagonists are sharing. This works especially well in the setting of the hotel room in Istanbul. As the two characters converse and we see the story being told by the Djinn with magic, color and incredible visual detail. Solomon's musical instrument, the concubines of the imbecile brother who will become king, the inventions of his greatest love, all are amazing images that Miller and his team deserve credit for. The three stories told in this sequence are fascinating, but sometimes they feel arbitrary, like they have to evoke the cautionary tales of wishes being granted. The problem is that the rules seem inconsistent, and that matters because when the location of the story moves to modern London, the film runs out of steam and it does not have a clear set of rules to fall back on.

Tilda Swinton plays the most normal character I have seen her as in a movie in a long time. Her career justifies her willingness to engage in the stories, but the change in her desires at the close of the middle section was abrupt, and the ground rules were ambiguous, in spite of her exposition then and at the end of the movie. As I look back on the film, I see some foreshadowing of the final outcome that I noticed but did not connect to the story. That's because we get side tracked in a totally superfluous side story about a couple of busy body old ladies living next door. Their only reason for being there is to provide a completely unnecessary woke moment, but as a piece of misdirection, it works to make the Djinn's physical shift a surprise. 

In the end, I was glad I saw the film and I liked the slightly melancholy happy ending. The plot is supposed to be told to us as a fairy tale, so I suppose that can excuse some plot contrivances and holes in the logic of the story. I mostly did not care because the two leads engaged in conversation, with the advantage of a visual palate to complete the stories that are being shared, was compelling enough for me. It may be a languid trip for some, but it was a pleasant journey with a nice fairy tale feel.   

The Dead Don't Die

I'm going to be frank, I have never seen a film by Jim Jarmusch before. He has made a dozen films I have heard of and several that never crossed my radar. It was clear from the aesthetic I could see in promotional materials that his style is idiosyncratic and idyllic. I cannot say how representative the current film is of his movies, but I can say that if "The Dead Don't Die" is typical, I don't think I made a bad choice by avoiding his movies. It's not that the film is bad, it is simply not in sync with the way I want my cinema experience to play out. I heard high praise for many of his other movies and if I come across them I might stop down and give them a try, but I will not be seeking them out.

The trailer for this film suggests a comedy full of dry wit and zombie action. They have done a good job selling this movie to an unsuspecting audience. The film's sensibility is very different from the way it plays in the promotional material. This movie is slow moving, just like the zombies. The three main characters are so dead pan for most of the film that it is a relief when one of them finally shouts at another. This is the most passive group of police officers you will ever encounter. The zombie attacks are not particularly horrific, they are just perfunctory and slow. I suspect that what Jarmusch has done is made one of his character pieces and just hung it on the genre here to draw some interest. Well it worked, and now I have seen one of his movies.

Yes, it is a comedy, so you can expect some deconstruction of the genre as a way to develop humor, but it goes further than that. It feels as if the movie is mocking us for watching a horror film in the first place and then subverting our expectations of humor by isolating the jokes so far from anything else that is funny, that you may wonder if it really is supposed to be a comedy. There are so many "meta" moments in the film that feel like a put down rather than a wink or a nod. As the two police officers figure out what is going on by referencing the script and their lines, I began to feel left out rather than included in the joke. There are a few isolated laughs in the movie, but nothing is ever sustained for long and then there are huge passages of time where nothing seems to happen. Three kids driving in a car passing around an energy drink does nothing to enhance the story. Three other kids in a juvenile detention center appear several times in the movie and they do nothing interesting, have no relevance to the plot, and they disappear without any resolution. It certainly feels like something that would be part of an independent film project, but not the kind of independent film I'd want to go to.

The cast is one of the selling points of the film, it is large and packed with performers you might enjoy seeing on screen. The only ones who get much chance to do anything are Tilda Swinton and Adam Driver. In another one of those quirky moments that highlights that indeed the film maker himself is just a hipster from Cleveland, Swinton walks out of the story in an incongruous manner completely detached from the events of the story. The biggest laugh Adam Driver gets is when he shows up at a crime scene in his personal automobile. Meanwhile Steve Buscemi , has to play an exaggerated version of a Trump voter, Danny Glover finally is too old for this shit, and Carol Kane is a one word one joke cameo.

Maybe if you are a fan of the directors style, you will enjoy this film more than I did. I found the on the nose criticism of genre conventions to be off putting and the lack of pacing to be annoying. When the zombies do start to appear, the film picks up for half an hour or so, but then it meanders off onto paths that lead no where and a conclusion that is so self satisfying as to be a disappointment. That's right, zombie movies usually end on a down note, so let's ape that but make fun of it at the same time? I just didn't care anymore. Marketing may make this film Jarmusch's most successful box office result, but it is not a movie that will earn much love from those who see it under false expectations.