VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,4/10
22.128
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Lo scassinatore Zed incontra il suo amico drogato dopo undici anni per rapinare una banca.Lo scassinatore Zed incontra il suo amico drogato dopo undici anni per rapinare una banca.Lo scassinatore Zed incontra il suo amico drogato dopo undici anni per rapinare una banca.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 2 vittorie e 1 candidatura in totale
Elise Renee
- Patchoo
- (as Elise Renée)
Ron Jeremy
- Concierge
- (as Ron Jeremy Hyatt)
Gian-Carlo Scandiuzzi
- Bank Manager
- (as Gian Carlo Scandiuzzi)
Gérard Bonn
- Assistant Bank Manager
- (as Gerard Bonn)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
Killing Zoe is definitely an underrated film, which has never received recognition it deserves. Tarantino executive produced the film, but seeing as he has worked closely with writer/director Roger Avary before, most notably Pulp Fiction, we could assume he had a little more in put. Not wanting to take anything away from Avary of course, he is a fully accomplished film maker and this shows throughout Killing Zoe. The script is well crafted, the acting convincing and the framing all very amicable. However, whilst there is nothing bad to say about it, there is nothing to rave about either. The film ticks along nicely, and before you know it you're at the end. The dialogue doesn't snap quite as you would like it too and all the characters seem to be lacking any real urgency that you might expect considering a bank robbery being planned.
All the same, this is a good crime thriller, and very much a part of the early nineties violence invasion. Worth checking out if you're a Tarantino fanatic, or if you really have nothing else to do.
All the same, this is a good crime thriller, and very much a part of the early nineties violence invasion. Worth checking out if you're a Tarantino fanatic, or if you really have nothing else to do.
Compared to the endless tiresome shoot-em-ups like the Schwarzeneggar--Stallone--Seagal type flicks, this movie shows style, class, and sensuality. A tense, edge-of-your-seat movie where for a change you DON'T know how it's going to end. The only flaw in the film is that it has a very low-budget quality with no real scenes outside in France, except at the very beginning at the airport. Everything else looks done in some studio with a few scenic shots tossed in, like a tv show that can't really go abroad and look authentic. But this movie is well worth renting--and beats 90% of the manufactured, formula plastic films next to it on the video shelf. An 8.5 out of 10.
This film is a dark and profound meditation on the violent life and seemingly subsequent redemption of it's main character,E Stoltz, it is however often asked why the film titled 'Killing Zoe', J Delhi's role.
Pay close attention to the fact that her character, in the films bloody climax, has her hand slashed by a crazed French bank robber. He is then smoked by at least a dozen tactical response police officers.
At the end of the film Julie Delphi is in a car with stoltz, who mistakenly thinks Delphi has been hit or injured, she replies that the blood is not hers, and ofers to show 'Z' the sights of Paris.
Earlier in the film the leader of the French gang relates to Z the fact that he has contracted HIV (or in his words Aids) therefore there is a better than average chance that Delphi contracted the virus from him during the aforementioned bloody climax.... Hence the title Killing Zoe!
Pay close attention to the fact that her character, in the films bloody climax, has her hand slashed by a crazed French bank robber. He is then smoked by at least a dozen tactical response police officers.
At the end of the film Julie Delphi is in a car with stoltz, who mistakenly thinks Delphi has been hit or injured, she replies that the blood is not hers, and ofers to show 'Z' the sights of Paris.
Earlier in the film the leader of the French gang relates to Z the fact that he has contracted HIV (or in his words Aids) therefore there is a better than average chance that Delphi contracted the virus from him during the aforementioned bloody climax.... Hence the title Killing Zoe!
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe idea behind making the film actually came about when Lawrence Bender was scouting locations for Quentin Tarantino's Le iene (1992). Bender found a great bank in downtown Los Angeles and informed Tarantino, who said that although the location was no good for Dogs, it would be good for a film set in a bank. Bender called every screenwriter he knew, asking if they had any scripts set in a bank. Roger Avary lied and said he did, then furiously wrote the first draft in under two weeks
- BlooperWhen the robbers are in the back of the van handing out the masks, Eric is handed the same mask twice.
- Curiosità sui creditiThe characters, events and institutions depicted in this motion picture are fictional. Any similarity to actual persons or junkies, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
- Versioni alternativeOriginally rated "NC-17", some graphic scenes of violence was trimmed to be re-rated "R".
- ConnessioniEdited from Nosferatu - Il vampiro (1922)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Вбити Зої
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 1.500.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 418.961 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 30.586 USD
- 21 ago 1994
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 418.961 USD
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti