Kill Me Again

The psychopath Vince Miller (Michael Madsen) and his girlfriend Fay Forrester (Joanne Whalley-Kilmer) kill a mobster and rob his wallet with a large amount. Then Fay double-crosses the abusive Vince and flees with the money to Reno. She hires the needy private investigator Jack Andrews (Val Kilmer), who grieves the death of his wife and owes ten thousand-dollars to loan sharks, to simulate her death telling that she wants to start a new life without her boyfriend. He accepts the offer and produces her fake death. However she betrays Andrews and escapes to Las Vegas without paying the rest of the money, leaving him as the prime suspect of her death for the police. Andrews finds Fay in Las Vegas and they have a love affair. Meanwhile the police, the mobsters and Vince hunt them down.

Despite the flaws, "Kill Me Again" is a great neo-noir film with a sordid story. Michael Madsen is perfect in the role of a psychopath scum as well Val Kilmer in the role of a smalltime private investigator. Joanne Whalley does not have the profile of femme fatale but has a good performance. However, the plot point with Fay teaming up with Vince against Andrews after letting him hide the money is flawed. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Mate-me Outra Vez" ("Kill Me Again")

A 1989 version of a 1940's like Film Noir crime/suspense movie set in the wide open spaces of the Navada and Arizona desert and American Indian Reservations.

Ripping off the mob of $850,000.00 outside of Winnemucca NV. as well as killing one of it's top honchos the two desperado's Vince and his girlfriend Fay, Michael Madsen & Joanne Whailey,take off for parts unknown to wait out the storm of the mob and state police all points search for them. Stopping off at a rest stop Vince is smashed in the head by Fay, as he was answering natures call, who took off with his car and the mob's cash for Reno.

The move "Kill Me Again" then switches to this local Reno Private Investagter Jack Andrews, Val Kilmer, who gets his right pinkie broken by two goons for being late on his loan of $10,000.00 that the mob advanced him. Jack is told by the mobsters that if he doesn't have the money by Wendsday they themselves will donate it to him for his funeral. Not knowing what to do and with no way to come up with the cash Jack get's his prayers answered when the next day. Fay walks into his shabby and smashed-up office with a proposition that may very well save his life.

Fay is willing to pay Jack $10,000.00 to forge documents to make it look like she's officially dead so her boyfriend Vince won't find her. But their's one small thing that the two didn't figure on. The $10,000.00 that Fay's to pay Jack for his services belongs to the Navada Maranot Mob who Fay and Vince riped off. Added to all that the Mob that got ripped off by Fay & Vince is who the loan sharks, who are about to do Jack in, work for!

Val Kilmer even though he has the leading role as Robert Andrews is very unconvincing as the hard boiled and down and out PI. Kilmer is far too pretty and good looking to play the part that a Humphrey Bogart and Robert Mitchum portrayed in the 1940's and 50's. Michael Madsen is near perfect as the psychopathic and sadistic Vince Miller who chillingly toys with his victims, like a cat playing with a mouse, before he brutally does them it.

Joanne Whailey is also near perfect as the femme fatal who manipulates those who fall under her spell, like Vince & Jack, and uses them for her own selfish and greedy needs. The ending of "Kill Me Again" is so predictable that it hits you with a strong dose of deja vu; you more then expected something like that to happen. With those in the film, Jack Vince & Fay, reminding you of many like wise type characters you've seen in film noir movies over the years.

Two crooks (Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and Michael Madsen) kill a man and steal a briefcase full of money. Then Whalley-Kilmer knocks Madsen out and runs off to Las Vegas with all of it. When there she hires a private investigator (Val Kilmer) to fake her death to get Madsen off her trail. Naturally everything goes wrong.

Laid back film noir. It's well done with an intricate plot and plenty of double crosses. It's beautifully shot too. Still I wasn't too crazy about it. The movie is just TOO laid back. Everything unfolds in such a quiet easy-going way that it lacks the tension that a really good noir gives you. It's not the fault of the cast. Kilmer is good and his then wife Whalley-Kilmer is excellent but the direction and editing is done in such a leisurely fashion that it mutes their acting. Even the violence is done in a casual laid-back way! It's not a total disaster and is worth catching but I couldn't stop thinking of how really good this could have been. A 7.

What a sexy woman Joanne Whalley is. I can see why Kilmer grabbed her & married her. In this she's the antecedent of the Linda Fiorentino character in Last Seduction, another wondrously sexy wench. John Dahl has a unique & powerful knack for choosing strong actresses & bringing out the universal vixen in them.

The plot's nothing terribly original but it plays its familiar theme with some nice changes & variations. It has that classic quality that the best "noir" films had: it moves right along & keeps you in the center of the action.

One thing I find curious is that no one (to my knowledge) has ever linked the Michael Madsen throat-cutting scene in this film with the Michael Madsen ear-cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs. Give credit where it's due!

Film noir is one of the oldest and most worked of all the Hollywood genres. Starting as early as 1941 with John Huston's The Maltese Falcon. Other greats include Orson Welles's Touch of Evil and Hitchcock's Notorious. With such a great variety of so-called "classic" noires to see, why would one want to take the time and money to watch an independent film noir by a then unknown director/writer. Simple: the director/writer is John Dahl, and this is no ordinary film noir. In fact, his movies (this was the first of them all) are so well received that critics credit him with starting a new genre called neo-noir.

It starts out like any other noir. Fay Forrester (Joanne Whalley-Kilmer), the femme fatal, and her boyfriend (Michael Madsen) are some small time criminals who rob the mod. They steal a briefcase full of money and kill one of the mod members. Then, Fay, who longs to escape country life and move to Las Vegas hits her husband on the head with a rock, takes all the money for herself, and runs to Vegas. Once she gets to Vegas, she hires Jack Andrews (Val Kilmer) to make it look like she was murdered, offering him, "$5000 up front and $5000 when I'm dead." Jack, reluctantly takes the job. However, once the job is done, Fay skips out of town without paying Jack the final $5000, and to make matters worse, Fay's boyfriend is in town at Jack's office looking for Fay. Now this is where it gets really interesting because everyone is looking to kill everyone else for revenge. It is just a question of who will succeed. The last half of the movie is filled with plot twists and unexpected actions. This, and especially the end, is where this film deviates from what is usually called film noir. This is not to say that the twists are unmotivated or out of character. They very much are. It is just the types of twists and the number of them are uncommon for films preceding this time. The ending is unexpected and pleasurable. But I won't ruin it for you here.

One thing that is particularly true for this movie is the consistency found in each of the main characters. There is no scene that feels out of place within the context of the picture. Also, I have to give a thumbs up to the under-appreciated performance by Michael Madsen. He does one heck of a job as the psycho boyfriend. Another thing that must be mentioned is the great choices for the camera angles by John Dahl. This makes the movie better than it is or should be. He places the camera in places so that you feel either closer or farther from the action, depending upon what sense he is trying to convey to the viewer. He really makes the tension tenser, and the action faster. The audience always gets enough, but never too much. This is just an outstanding example of film directing. The only other directors that have this uncanny ability are Welles, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Tarantino, and Scorsese. In my opinion, this film (which is from 1989) is a major influence on Tarantino and his works. You can clearly see the similarities between their choice of camera angles and what the audience gets to see; however, Tarantino is more graphic face.

While this movie is far from perfect, it is quite good and deserves any true noir fan's time and attention. If you like noires, and in particular, this film, then go check out Dahl's other two good neo-noires: Redrock West and The Last Seduction. I give this film an 8/10.