The Killer Inside Me

Ironically, I picked this over the documentary 'Armadillo' about the war in Afghanistan, because I didn't feel like watching a truly frightening and disturbing movie that night. I felt like watching something 'fictionally scary'. It seems I should have gone for the war documentary instead, this movie had me wrecked emotionally for days. The story kind of clings, you have to deal with it, but it's complex and hard. It's a challenging movie.

What keeps riddling me about this movie, is how on earth did anyone manage to make me feel sympathetic towards the main character, who's an occasionally psychotic, cynical and brutal sadist? Even when he loses his temper completely with consequences beyond anything you thought you would ever watch on the big screen, you find yourself on his side.

Now, it's not an uncommon ambition for a director to construct 'bad' characters with compelling sides that awaken your sympathy, but this is beyond my comprehension. He's not a character you feel sorry for, he's not playing the victim anywhere, he's a sadist out of control. He plans things carefully to serve his own purposes and explodes in violence. Still, you want him to make it. You are left for hours thinking and discussing why on earth you found yourself supporting this character. Why would anybody?!? I don't know how this was done, it is, as I said, disturbing.

I was thinking about this for days, I'm still thinking about it. There are many story lines to examine in retrospect, there's his childhood, the violence, the biblical figures and references, the forbidden sexual urges, the gender dynamics of the time and how Hudson and Albas characters are both in their own way revolting them. Casey Affleck gives a scarily brilliant performance, and Kate Hudson deserves compliments on her fantastic performance as the classical 'good girl of good family' of the 1950s who hides both a great social insight and a dark side.

The Killer Inside Me is a great conversation starter, my boyfriend and I discussed this for hours (and we are far from an intellectual movie-discussing couple). Americans should be warned though, this is without a doubt one of the most graphical violent Hollywood productions I have ever seen.

If you've followed the history of this film, then you know it was twenty years in the making. The producers who optioned the rights were on a veritable quest. At one point, Val Kilmer was slated to act, Sean Penn, to direct.

Eventually, many Thompson fans consigned the project to limbo, not knowing how passionate the parties involved actually were. (Chris Hanley is the same producer who delivered This World, Then the Fireworks -- one of the most faithful and unapologetic Thompson adaptations.) Having seen Winterbottom's final cut, I'm glad the producers took their time. The screenplay writer and director have made a film so uncompromisingly faithful to Thompson's novel that a few audience members will usually leave the theater during the most graphic scenes.

Make no mistake: This movie is more grisly than anything by Sam Peckinpah, and the subject is as misogynistic as that of Straw Dogs (though it's the character, not the director, who hates women in this case). If you're a person who can't watch or sanction scenes in which women are brutalized, then this is a film to avoid.

If not, then you're ready to see the book represented in its pulpy essence, with excesses and virtues on display.

Psychopathic sheriff Lou Ford is equal parts self-destructive sadist, con man and facade. For him, excessive politeness and long-windedness are forms of veiled hostility. Brutal sarcasm is delivered in a good-natured everyman way. Everything Ford says is double entendre, the punchline, only apparent to him. He ushers people to their doom in the same tone he might use to offer them a drink.

Other film adaptations, from Tavernier's Coup de Torchon to the 70s version of Killer, have missed Ford's quintessentially Southern hostility. Those French and So Cal readings failed to recognize the specific way in which Thompson, himself a Texan, turns the naive good-natured American stereotype on its head. Winterbottom understands it and shows it, as does his lead.

The actor who plays Ford is famous but not yet so ubiquitous that his celebrity obscures the power of Ford's character. Since character carries an unusual amount of weight in Thompson stories, Casey Afflick was a perfect choice: Likable and chameleonic, with an admirable range and a delivery so spent and inviting it will remind you of Bill Clinton's. You don't just enjoy this portrayal of Ford because he's an interesting villain. You actually sympathize with the character's attempts to regain self-control.

When I read a reviewer's description of Ford listening to classical music and reading Freud, I groaned. I thought he'd been reduced to another Hannibal Lecter. The psychopath who resembles a James Bond nemesis and reveals his intelligence by listening to classical music and quoting Nietzsche is an '80s cliché.

Not to worry: Affleck's Ford never talks about culture and he never air-conducts.

From the period-specific tone to the apparent humility and social restraint of the killer -- which made readers sympathize with him even after he committed acts that seemed designed to justify the death penalty -- this film is to Thompson what Wynton Marsalis is to Miles Davis: Reverent to the point of sacrificing personality, but giving back everything in terms of performance, style and formal correctness. The attention to form was particularly appreciated: Having read the book twice, I knew what was coming and still enjoyed the ending.

They read books don't they?

I have a little habit on this site especially when I am unfamiliar with a films content, its director or writer. I look at the IMDb viewer reviews, starting by filtering them with the "hated it" box checked. If people have a good solid reason for hating a film or disliking it, a reason of substance, then I read 1 or 2 of "the bests" but consider twice whether I want to watch it. In the case of this film, I'd already seen it. I looked at the viewer reviews because it was an adaptation of a Jim Thompson novel and I wanted to see how people reacted. Especially because I was surprised, having seen it, by the films low rating.

For those of you who know nothing of Thompson's work I direct you to the Wikipedia article on him. In it, Steven King (who I assume most people on this site know as he wrote the IMDb rated #1 film of all time, "The Shawshank Redemption") said he "most" admired Thompson specifically for three lets... "he let himself see everything, he let himself write it down, then he let himself publish it".

Now I know that the ratings here can be a little skewed. For example, is Inception really the 6th greatest film ever made. Is "Sin City" a better movie than say "Jaws", "Blade Runner" or "The Wizard of Oz" or any number of extraordinary foreign entry's. In the IMDb world virtually every episode of every TV show ever made is always ranked higher than any feature. Look at Jessica Alba's work sorted by rating... Could every episode of Dark Angel have really been that good? Maybe it just means that IMDb viewers prefer short form fiction to the long form. Or as the editor of New York Magazine is quoted to have addressed his staff, "I don't want anything in this rag I can't read in one good crap".

Its a foregone conclusion that lot of people who frequent IMDb spend a good portion of their time being visually entertained and they might not have enough time left to peruse the printed work as much as they aught; Maybe not even enough time to search out some intelligent criticism before they make their viewing choices. But the number of 1 star, I hated it, reviews for this film defy all reason. Sure the subject matter is inherently offensive. But as Andrew O'Hehir said in his Salon.com review, to hate this faithful delivery of Jim Thompson's book, or to complain that "The Killer Inside Me" is full of misogynistic violence is a little like reading "Moby-Dick" and objecting to all the stuff about whaling.

Maybe if people read a little about a film before they invest their 2 bucks and 2 hours they could avoid subjecting themselves to films they won't like and spare us all their trenchant voicing of how they hated London because their vacation there was ruined when it rained the whole damn time they were there.

Paris would be great too, if they spoke more English and... "if you wanted the steak 'why'd ya order the duck"?

This is A GREAT FILM great film, unerringly faithful to its decidedly American literary roots, with great performances by some great actors. And if you find Jessica Alba so one dimensional you want to kill her, maybe that's the point.

Other suggested recent American Rural Noirs of note: Winters Bone (2010) The Frozen River (2008)

To see what a more lyrical Mexican voice has added to the genre: The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005) The Burning Plain (2008)

And of course the Cohen's brilliant noirs: No Country For Old Men (2007) Blood Simple (1984)

Lastly, there is always Tavernier's beautifully exuberant french adaptation of Thompson's "Pop. 1280", "Coup de Torchon", with the story moved from North Carolina to French West Africa. There is a likable comic buffoon in Noiret's playing of the character a little at odds with Thompson's... but if you don't like the French, stay out of the kitchen.

Cant help expecting more.....

The good things -

Casey Affleck and the character of Lou Ford as the baby faced psycho who thinks he is smart but isn't as clever as he believes Plausible violence - It wasn't good to watch but the situations felt real. I am still not convinced it was so necessary to have so much as you can get the point fairly quickly and then it just starts eating up film time which you could probably use better doing other things.

The bad things The ending - was stupid on so many levels. If by some chance it wasn't in his imagination then what are the chances that so many people have no sense of smell... Would have been much better to finish the film 10 minutes earlier. Dialogue. Maybe its just me and maybe it was the cinema but I just didn't catch what was being said a lot of the time. The Elias Koteas character in particular was hard to understand, and with so many little clues and pointers to whats happening and the different relationships its frustrating when you start missing things

The film as a whole felt incoherent, and I cant help thinking that there are much better films covering the same sort of area

Greetings again from the darkness. The film is based upon the work of crime novelist Jim Thompson, who is quite famous as a writer and whose works have often been translated to film. This time oft-creepy director Michael Winterbottom is in charge and comes pretty close to creating a masterpiece. Unfortunately, the bits that fall short, very nearly ruin the film.

Psychological crime thrillers can be the most fascinating genre (see Inception), but only when the lead psycho is relatable in some sense and the story is complete. Here, Casey Affleck gives an outstanding performance as the dude you don't want your daughter to date. There is a deep darkness hidden behind his aw-shucks facade of innocence and cutesy west Texas drawl.

The violence is expected, yet still shocking, when it first rears its head on poor Jessica Alba. We feel the first punch. What happens in this first encounter catches us off-guard and leaves us wanting to know more background on Affleck's character. Instead, we are really only spectators in his plan of violence that seems to have no real goal. Think Natural Born Killers. Heck, even Ted Bundy had a real plan!

The creepiness factor is upped a bit since most everyone associated with the crimes seems to suspect Affleck's character, but no one knows what to do or how to stop him. Elias Koteas and Simon Baker (miscast) are two who try. Personally I wanted more of the Koteas character as well as Ned Beatty, who plays a powerful developer against whom Affleck holds a grudge.

Bill Pullman is tossed in near the end to help wrap things up, but mostly the ending is as unsatisfying as the rest of the story. It is uncomfortable to watch Affleck's character, so devoid of morals and empty of soul, but it feels wasted on a small town deputy sheriff with no vision. Maybe that's not such a bad thing ... but it makes for a much weaker film.