El asesino dentro de mí

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

Casey Affleck (Ben Affleck's younger brother) delivers a stunning performance as a psychopathic deputy sheriff; when his charming and well mannered guy appearance disappears the audience's shown violence both "ordinary" and of sexual kind. There's absolutely nothing voyeuristic in these scenes, difficult to see though they might be, on the contrary they're the moments where the movie really gets to make an impact on the viewers. The narrative's very gripping and Winterbottom's story manages to strongly connect on an emotional level. All the characters appear to have a "proximity" to the audience. On the whole the film always makes a strong impact and keeps the noir atmosphere required, furthermore its ability to shock is the key for being truthful and compelling.

Having read the novel by Jim Thompson, I think I can safely say that The Killer Inside Me sets a certain challenge for director Michael Winterbottom, or for that matter a challenge for anyone who wants to adapt it for the screen. It is a story that takes us deep into the mind of a Texas psychopath. Getting inside peoples heads is so much easier on pages than on screen. Winterbottom gives it a game shot, but doesn't quite manage to capture the book's depth and scope. The occasional use of narration (using segments from the book) or flashback, only helps a bit. Anyone who has not read the Thompson will find this movie somewhat hard to follow.

It's worth noting I guess that the movie is a noble adaptation, but for some odd reason, the plot is more convoluted in film format. There is a certain lack of explanation, and this is the film's biggest weakness. That does NOT mean however, that is isn't worth seeing.

As a dramatic thriller, The Killer Inside Me is effective. It is gritty, and grim, with good performances, nicely composed montages, and Winterbottom captures the essence of 1950's Texas fairly well. There is something kind of warm and communal about the town of Central City, the grass is green and the sun is always shining. Ignoring the fact that there is a psycho in the local law enforcement, which is discouraging, this is the kind of place where one might fancy a summer home. The movie comes with an ending that is absolutely devastating (despite being a bit rushy). Overall, Winterbottom makes mostly good decisions, but also a few not so good ones. He throws in country music jingles in places that are quite unnecessary.

I think I can recommend the film, but not without warning. It's tricky, and it needs a bit of a tune up. It's still an evocative drama though, which packs a dirty punch, and leaves you thinking.

This film was disturbing as hell! It'll make anybody who has a soul feel sick and the ending will make you mad for it's implausibility.

I wish I had never saw it.

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.