David Fincher. Michael Fassbender. An assassination gone wrong. A thrilling chase across the globe. How could this movie possibly be… as mediocre as it is? I love most of Fincher’s work, as do most film fanatics; Se7en, Gone Girl, the Social Network, Zodiac, Fight Club – the list is undoubtedly impressive and some of his films rank among my all time favourites. So I was thrilled to hear about his new project featuring a meticulous assassin whose hit goes awry.
When the film concluded, though, I was left feeling underwhelmed, and somehow slightly betrayed. I was sure I was missing something – did I miss an integral piece of information? And after reading some critical reviews and some podcast episodes, I recognise that there’s a few things that went over my head. Fincher himself is known for being detail-oriented to the point of obsession, often filming dozens of takes and adjusting the slightest detail, and many critics have likened the characteristics of Fassbender’s assassin to the director himself. I feel, though, that if a viewer needs a full background on the director’s working style to understand or appreciate the drive of their protagonist, the film isn’t accessibly entertaining. Fincher has himself has also denied that this comparison was the intent, so, even if that is a fair reading of the film, theoretically it should work without this knowledge. (It doesn’t).
Critics have also applauded the film’s take on consumerism – the appearance of McDonalds, Amazon and WeWork try to tell a story about a modern assassin, whose time and skill is bought, and who, in turn, utilises the easy access of these companies to supply himself with his own needs. This idea, too, is underdeveloped, and is only recognisable when understanding Fincher’s wider works. There is a moment near the conclusion where the idea of ignorant consumerism becomes more clear, but I wanted more; the thread of this idea was no effectively weaved throughout the film.
I also recognise that there’s a dry humour across the whole movie – the cutthroat assassin listens exclusively to the Smiths while carrying out his hits, and his plans, laid out in excruciating detail, often fail. Without spoiling some juicier plot moments, he seems to make obvious errors that even a novice assassin would recognise. And I accept that this is all in service of undermining his inner monologue; he is unreliable, somewhat arrogant, and therefore funny. But that’s the issue – its not quite funny enough. The humour is underplayed too much, and moments that could be gut-busting are barely chuckle-worthy.
The plot itself is also weak. There appears to me to be gaping plot holes that either asks the audience to believe that every character in this movie is a charlatan, which I could accept, but still find, once again, that the humour of this choice is lost, or that there really is just a real fundamental storytelling issue in how the events unfold.
Unfortunately, this has to be one of Fincher’s weaker works. The concept is solid, Fassbender’s performance is fairly effective, and the locations are fun. Beyond that, the Killer fails to live up to its director’s legacy and left me wanting more.
Reel Talk 