Affleck and Alba Join The Killer Inside Me

I have a feeling that Alba won't bare more than what was shown in that trailer. It is disappointing to see them basically revealing the entire movie in that short trailer, because plot twist is probably the main reason people would go see it.
 
There's also a poster out for this aswell.

Its a picture of Affleck wearing a hot smoking either a cigarette or a joint. And smoke is coming out his mouth.
 
The title of this reminds me of something...

Oh yes.

3364310364_16899c6301_m.jpg
 
I heard the beatings in this film are brutal as hell and had some people even actually walking out the theaters.
 
I would like to see Casey Affleck open his mouth to say the lines at least once in his life. He mumbles too much

And what's wrong with Kate Hudson face in that poster ?
 
[YT]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Oq94Nbrupk8&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Oq94Nbrupk8&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YT]

Awesome trailer. Seeing it in the cinema gave me goosebumps.
 
Anyone already saw this movie? I checked it out last week and I have mixed feelings. The movie as a whole seemed rather sloppy, kinda slap-dash put together with some awkward camera angles and the digital look kinda ****s up the whole period setting, much like it did with Public Enemies. The plot is very hard to follow, whole conversations went past where I had no idea what the characters were talking about. Some of these flaws might be intentional though, I felt. As a whole the movie is very interesting and frightening look into the way a psychopath views the world. The voice-over by the main character always sounds self-assured of his rightfullness. Casey Affleck is terrific and terrifying in the lead. He can switch, in a single second, from your friendly neighbour to sadistic murderer with nothing but contempt for the world and everyone in it. The whole movie becomes a sort of haze of psychosis, which may explain why things seem inexplicable because there is no exposition in the classic sense. It's entirely subjective. Now I'm scratching my head as to whether this is bad cinema in the traditional sense or maybe just bold cinema in a different sense. Anyway, this is a movie I definitely want to rewatch or even buy on DVD because it's interesting to say the least. And yes, the violence is absolutely agonizing to watch.
 
Never seen the trailer until now. It looks pretty good.
 
Anyone already saw this movie? I checked it out last week and I have mixed feelings. The movie as a whole seemed rather sloppy, kinda slap-dash put together with some awkward camera angles and the digital look kinda ****s up the whole period setting, much like it did with Public Enemies. The plot is very hard to follow, whole conversations went past where I had no idea what the characters were talking about. Some of these flaws might be intentional though, I felt. As a whole the movie is very interesting and frightening look into the way a psychopath views the world. The voice-over by the main character always sounds self-assured of his rightfullness. Casey Affleck is terrific and terrifying in the lead. He can switch, in a single second, from your friendly neighbour to sadistic murderer with nothing but contempt for the world and everyone in it. The whole movie becomes a sort of haze of psychosis, which may explain why things seem inexplicable because there is no exposition in the classic sense. It's entirely subjective. Now I'm scratching my head as to whether this is bad cinema in the traditional sense or maybe just bold cinema in a different sense. Anyway, this is a movie I definitely want to rewatch or even buy on DVD because it's interesting to say the least. And yes, the violence is absolutely agonizing to watch.

This was my short take on it, I don't think it delved enough into the subject matter and it all felt as if they were out of time when trying to wrap it up.
 
I saw this a few weeks ago. I honestly respect or admire the film's ambition and craftsmanship more than I enjoyed it.

Visually this movie looked great. This had some intriguing aesthetics with the "sunbaked" noir. It is a noir where everything happens in broad daylight in a small town. The irony was rich enough that I loved it.

The characters were also extremely well written, developed and acted. Casey Affleck proves again why he is one of the best character actors of his generation. Following Gone Baby Gone and The Assassination of Jesse James up with this cements him as a great character actor who can take the lead. This was a cool, reserved, completely unnerving performance of one of the most vile sociopaths I've seen on screen. And his narration was hilarious, in a very morbid gallows-humor way, to boot.

Surprisingly the other stand out performance was Jessica Alba. I think it helps her screentime and what she had to do was somewhat limited. But she honestly more than succeeded at developing sincere sympathy and pathos for a ****e. As much an innocent as one can be found in this movie. Ned Beaty, Koteas, the Mentalist guy, etc. also give fine supporitng performances. Kate Hudson was a bit bland, but believable.


Yet, I had serious problems with this movie. Quite a few. They mostly stem from the writing. I suspect this story plays much better on the page as a novel where there is more breathing room between the acts of violence. Here, I think it starts strong with his first murder(s), of who I won't give away, as well as the one in the jail and the hospital sequence in between that created a sort of Double Indemnity vibe. The killer got away with it...but the problems begin to mount with covering up his story. What he is going to do? Everybody knows. Nobody knows. This won't end well...

But the absurdity of how it escalates with the blackmailing drifter, the kitchen scene and then the last hurrah in the house with the final twists in 60 seconds...it was just too much and too over the top.

Lastly the violence was too much. I'm not saying I was morally opposed to it. But as a noir, it was far too graphic leaving nothing to the imagination. And the first person he "kills" with his bare hands left me feeling repulsed to the whole experience. I also felt the inclusion of child rape really twists the narrative too early.

A very mixed film. Aesthetically impressive, wonderfully acted, but all too much. Too violent, too many twists, too absurd. And the end just leaves me more than a bit empty.

An interesting film to watch, but one I never want to revisit.

Not ever.
 
Last edited:
I saw this a few weeks ago. I honestly respect or admire the film's ambition and craftsmanship more than I enjoyed it.

Visually this movie looked great. This had some intriguing aesthetics with the "sunbaked" noir. It is a noir where everything happens in broad daylight in a small town. The irony was rich enough that I loved it.

The characters were also extremely well written, developed and acted. Casey Affleck proves again why he is one of the best character actors of his generation. Following Gone Baby Gone and The Assassination of Jesse James up with this cements him as a great character actor who can take the lead. This was a cool, reserved, completely unnerving performance of one of the most vile sociopaths I've seen on screen. And his narration was hilarious, in a very morbid gallows-humor way, to boot.

Surprisingly the other stand out performance was Jessica Alba. I think it helps her screentime and what she had to do was somewhat limited. But she honestly more than succeeded at developing sincere sympathy and pathos for a ****e. As much an innocent as one can be found in this movie. Ned Beaty, Koteas, the Mentalist guy, etc. also give fine supporitng performances. Kate Hudson was a bit bland, but believable.


Yet, I had serious problems with this movie. Quite a few. They mostly stem from the writing. I suspect this story plays much better on the page as a novel where there is more breathing room between the acts of violence. Here, I think it starts strong with his first murder(s), of who I won't give away, as well as the one in the jail and the hospital sequence in between that created a sort of Double Indemnity vibe. The killer got away with it...but the problems begin to mount with covering up his story. What he is going to do? Everybody knows. Nobody knows. This won't end well...

But the absurdity of how it escalates with the blackmailing drifter, the kitchen scene and then the last hurrah in the house with the final twists in 60 seconds...it was just too much and too over the top.

Lastly the violence was too much. I'm not saying I was morally opposed to it. But as a noir, it was far too graphic leaving nothing to the imagination. And the first person he "kills" with his bare hands left me feeling repulsed to the whole experience. I also felt the inclusion of child rape really twists the narrative too early.

A very mixed film. Aesthetically impressive, wonderfully acted, but all too much. Too violent, too many twists, too absurd. And the end just leaves me more than a bit empty.

An interesting film to watch, but one I never want to revisit.

Not ever.
I agree with most of your review, I just thought I'd respond to the part in bold. I'd also be interested in knowing if you've read the novel, as I know of people who have/haven't and there is a definite difference in opinion of the film between them.

Buy to address the quote in question. I think Winterbottom's loyalty to the novel is this film's greatest strength in terms of character and certainly narration, but for those who haven't read the novel it's also It's greatest weakness. In the novel, as the narrative progresses, it's very hard to tell what is fact and what is fantasy. Lou's steady psychological decline (more prominent and naturally given more time to progress in book-form) allow the reader to realise that many events may be only Lou's perception of reality. The steady self-assured voice-over in the film does it's best to convey this fact, even Winterbottom's persistence in only ever showing all secondary characters in scenes with Lou himself - we never see anything that Lou isn't directly able to recall - doesn't fully put forward the question of "Is this real?" quite prominently enough. By the last 15-20 minutes of the film we are likely, if not surely, deep within the fractured psyche of Lou. He is self-assured and righteous in his narrative throughout, certain he's able to stay one step ahead and consistently remorseless in his acts. The conclusion to the film, and final scene specifically, encapsulates Lou's perception of how events are to/did unfold. Dying in a blaze of glory, embracing the woman he loved, one step ahead of those hunting him.

Just to be clear also, I'm in no way arguing against your opinion or claiming you didn't know that the reality of the ending was to be challenged . I just know that quite a few people who didn't have the benefit of having read the book before hand didn't know how to process the ending and thought this could be useful to future thread-reader's also.
 
This movie definitely got me interested in reading the novel. I'll see if I can pick it up anywhere.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"