Killing Zoe

Zed (Eric Stoltz) has only just arrived in the beautiful Paris and already he is up to no good. Having just slept with a call girl (Julie Delpy), he spends a night on the town with his dangerous friends. They all decide to rob a bank the following day. There is only one problem: Zed's call-girl, Zoe, just happens to work at the bank which is to be robbed! I believe this film comes from the same guy who wrote "Pulp Fiction", and the similarities are evident. Although the first half is a strange romance-turned-heist, the film gets increasingly violent as it carries on. This is very much the same style as "Pulp Fiction". (Both also feature Eric Stoltz.) Julie Delpy is interesting here. Although she is more or less reduced to a secondary character, it is interesting how she was something of the "it girl" as far as French women in American movies were concerned. She was not the first or the last, but it seems that at any given time there is always one French actress who is the standard for appearing in American films.

Roger Avary collaborated (as a writer) with Quentin Tarantino in his early projects, so it's no surprise that his own directing debut would be in the same vein: dirty humor, sudden bursts of violence, unlawful and immoral characters, pop references, etc. And it's an impressive debut - if never as outstanding as "Reservoir Dogs". The first half is druggy and draggy, but the second half is arresting (no pun intended). Eric Stoltz is a little bland, but Jean Hugues Anglade dominates the film as an unrelentingly psychopathic villain - he keeps you in a state of nervous apprehension about what he may do next. *** out of 4.

'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.

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 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!