Killing Zoe

'Killing Zoe' is a movie that has grown on me over the years. When I first watched it I didn't think all that much of it, but each time I've seen it since I've liked it a little more, and I'm at the point now where I like it a lot. I don't think it's a GREAT movie, but it's a very good one, and extremely underrated. Roger Avary's connection with Quentin Tarantino has turned out to be more of a hindrance than a help to him. 'Killing Zoe' was frequently dismissed as just another Tarantino clone, which to me is unfair, because a) Avery actually wrote some of 'Reservoir Dogs', 'Pulp Fiction' and 'True Romance' (usually uncredited), and b) though the subject matter of 'Killing Zoe' is similar to say 'Reservoir Dogs', the approach is very different. And let's face it the heist-gone-wrong flick has a long history (the influence of 1950s crime classics 'Rififi', 'Bob Le Flambeur' and/or 'The Killing' on all subsequent variations of it cannot be underestimated), and Tarantino was building on an already established tradition. As well as that the hostage aspect of 'Killing Zoe' brings to mind 'Dog Day Afternoon' more than anything by QT. Anyway, I think this is an interesting movie. The violence is pretty blatant, but apart from that it is a subtle, character driven movie. Eric Stoltz ('Pulp Fiction') and Julie Delpy ('Before Sunrise') are both very good, especially in their first scene together, but the real stand out performance is by Jean-Hughes Anglade ('Betty Blue') who is outstanding. Anglade really makes the movie for me. 'Killing Zoe's reputation seems to be growing as the years go by, and now that the mid-90s Tarantino hype has died down it's about time it was judged on its own merits.

A rough and sometimes sordid movie is a short way to summarize this film. It's about a no-nonsense gang of drugged-out French thieves whose bank robbery attempt backfires into a bloody mess.

For those who object, be warned there are a fair amount of subtitles in here and a lot of f-words. This was a tough gang, and the lead characters are pretty grubby, they aren't really very likable people.

I like Jean-Hughes Anglade's accent and I always like ogling Julie Delpy, although I've seen her look better. The city of Paris looked good with some nice shots in the beginning and at the end of the movie.

Anglade, as the leader of the gang, was brutal but fascinating. My only complaint was the film was too sordid in spots (drugs, language and attitude). but overall, an entertaining crime film. It gets your attention and keeps it.

Killing Zoe played in Seattle theaters for exactly one week in August of 1994 and I managed to see it twice.Everything about this movie worked for me: the writing, the cinematography,the acting, the editing and the music. From the first images rushing through the streets of Paris until the blood-soaked climax, I was mesmerized. I consider myself lucky to have seen it in theaters with a good sound system becauseI have queried friends who have seen it on video and they had a completely different opinion of the film because they had missed key lines of dialog that really go a long way towards investing Killing Zoe with a certain quintessentially 90s vibe of doomed heroin-soaked romanticism, giving it deeper levels than most people are willing to admit.

Eric Stoltz plays a man named Zed who travels to Paris in order to catch up with a childhood friend named Eric (Jean-Hugues Anglade) and help him rob a Federal Reserve bank. Upon his arrival, he sleeps with a call girl named Zoe (Julie Delpy) who he ends up falling in love with. When Zed goes to meet Eric, he ends up spending the night with him and all of his junkie friends who hide out in a run down apartment building with a dead feline near the entrance to their room. They plan to rob the bank the next morning, and Zed is going to be the safe cracker. After much passing out, puking, hallucinating, and a male rape, Zed and the rest of the gang awaken in a drunken daze, already late for their robbery, and then they foolishly attempt to rob the bank while still moderately trashed, hungover, and restless. Naturally things go very wrong very fast, and it becomes no longer about getting the money, but more about trying to survive.

If Roger Avary's intention was to make a truly memorable art house exploitation film, he succeeded with flying colors. I'm pretty sure that this was intention and there's no denying that this is a good film. I have some serious problems with Killing Zoe, however, and those problems have much to do with the first two thirds of the picture. Avary spends a very large portion of the film in this junkie world with these truly atrocious and ugly characters doing ugly things. I felt that too much time was spent in this world. The only likable character is Julie Delpy's character, and she doesn't get nearly enough screen time as she should. As for Eric Stoltz, he pretty much plays the same character as he played in Pulp Fiction, though not anywhere near as much as a prick. His character, Zed, for the most part is a fairly goofy, eccentric, and slight perverted guy. I liked how he wasn't an entirely sympathetic protagonist. His character, for the most part, works. Likewise for his friend Eric, who is a completely horrific villain. He's disgusting, sleazy, skeletal-looking, and a sweaty mess of a man who has little conscience and no morals, and I applaud Jean-Hugues Anglade for playing a role that few actors would have the balls to play. This brings me to my biggest gripe with the film, however. These are the three main characters, but they are also the three most interesting characters as well. Every other character is completely disposable they take up far too much screen time that should have been devoted to the three main characters. To make matters worse, in the third act of the film when the characters actually try to rob the bank, a good portion of all of these characters are killed off almost immediately. While I applaud Roger Avary for crafting such a strong vision of graphic carnage in the third act, I felt that he was betraying the trash quality that took place in the first two acts with these junkie characters getting slaughtered so damn quickly. As the last act of the film stands, most of the characters end up getting killed off almost constantly and with little to no emotion. When it is not a member of the gang getting killed it is either a security guard or an innocent civilian. Somebody is almost always getting killed, often in over-the-top fashion.

What I did love about Killing Zoe was the look of the film. The bank that the film takes place in during the final act is just gorgeous in how claustrophobic it is. The walls of the bank are red, and it only adds to the psychotic nature of the Eric character. The character really is quite terrifying, and the bank that Avary shot in has a perfect interior for these sort of characters. The middle section mostly takes place in real grimy, dirty, dark areas that look completely hellish. Somehow the bank looks like a scarier location than the junkie hideouts, and I liked that. The opening and closing scenes show some beautiful shots of Paris as well, which definitely helped elevate the film even more. I also felt that the final act of the film, despite the gratuitous bloodshed and carnage, really was quite suspenseful and intense. The film is so furious in it's tone and the final act really pulls it all together. At times it is difficult to watch because the audience knows right away that the situation is going to go wrong and the characters are doomed. When the bank robbery actually starts, it is so disorganized and so uncoordinated that a feeling of unhinged maniacal danger sets in immediately. It makes the film a little bit different from other heist films. The characters are all young, hapless, and careless people who have abandoned reality.

Killing Zoe lacks a sense of control, which both helps and hurts the film. On one hand, it certainly helps make the final act of the film that much more shocking and realistic. On the other hand, it is difficult to look part the first two thirds of the film. I do think that this film has an audience, but I also think that it's difficult to call it a good film. It works in a lot of ways. Visually, it's better than it needs to be. The performances are all very strong, not to mention ballsy, and the vision of hell this film paints is pretty tough to shake. It's a rough film, but it manages to have a lot of energy. It is a very flawed film. However, if you're a fan of trash cinema and exploitation, you may want to give this a try. It's a messy film, but it's effective and definitely memorable.

This is another good french movie,I must say that I am surprised that France make so many good movies.This movie has a simple plot about gang who is planning on robbing France national bank.You can say that the movie is devided into two parts, the first is the preparations and the wild night before the bank job.And the the second half of the movie is of the actual robbery.This movie has some scenes that you usually dont see in most movies,I am talking about brutal killing and a cool little sex scene.One reason why this movie turned out the way it did, must have been that they got Quentin Tarantino as their executive producer.And we all know the amount of violence that are in his movies. This is an entertaining movie to watch,but maybe a little brutal for some people.And look out for Jean-Hugues Anglade,he has a powerful way of acting that gets you focused,really cool actor. An other thing about this movie,is that it is not very known,so if you see it, I advice you to buy or rent it because it is quit rare.