The Killer | A-
“The Killer” marks perfectionist filmmaker David Fincher’s return to the psychological thriller. It stars Michael Fassbender as the unnamed title character, a meticulous assassin who loves a good self-indulgent internal monologue. After a hit goes wrong, his girlfriend is brutally attacked and nearly murdered as punishment for his mistake. Now the Killer must hunt down those guilty for the attack, using modern technology and his crafty intellect. I won’t lie: I am the target audience for this film. David Fincher making an assassin movie in which you follow the routine of a ruthless killer? I’m there.
I’m elated to say that “The Killer” did not disappoint. This was a relentlessly compelling, immaculately detailed procedural flick that puts you right in the disturbing mind of a psychopath. Throughout the film we listen to his internal diatribes about how he keeps empathy out of his life and “sticks to the plan,” which directly contradicts his improvised actions in the pursuit of vengeance. Thus, he’s a hypocrite and an unreliable narrator. I found this dynamic to be incredibly fascinating, and when combined with his 1) great intellect and 2) utter disregard for human life/compassion (outside of his girlfriend), Fincher has crafted one of the most mesmerizing characters of the year. I could watch his daily routine for hours.
Michael Fassbender gives a tour-de-force performance as the title character. His voice is so gentle and almost soothing, which serves as a stark and ironic contrast to the character’s actions. There’s a ferocity beneath his stare and (although this is most likely do to Fincher’s notoriously high number of takes) a sense that he has done all of this so many times before to the point of, as the Killer himself says, “boredom.”
The sound design here is also incredible. Take the Killer listening to music, for instance. The closer we are to his earbuds the louder the music gets, and the further away the quieter it gets, adding that special hint of Fincher realism. Fincher’s frequent collaborators Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross did the score here, and it’s just as unconventional as I hoped it would be. The music actually sounds like the noises of a murder we don’t see. Sometimes there’s what sounds like the gripping of leather gloves around someone’s throat, other times what sounds like distorted screams or breathing. It’s an incredibly disturbing soundtrack that’s certainly not pleasant on the ears but perfectly matches the vibe and energy of the film.
My main complaint with “The Killer” is its ending, which was so incredibly rushed that it felt as if the producer called time and ordered Fincher to cease shooting. The film reached a conclusion that would be interesting if it were more thoroughly explored, but instead we speed through it and I left the movie saying, “wait, that’s it?”
Anatomy of a Fall | B
Justine Triet’s “Anatomy of a Fall” won the prestigious Palme d’Or at the 2023 Cannes Film Festival (essentially its “Best Picture”), an award previously won by films such as “Taxi Driver,” “Pulp Fiction,” “Parasite,” and… last year’s embarrassing “Triangle of Sadness.” After the husband of author Sandra Voyter (played by Sandra Hüller) fatally falls from their home’s balcony with his head bludgeoned by an unknown object, foul play is suspected. The film follows Sandra in the court case to prove her innocence, and secrets are revealed.
The ambiguity is this film’s greatest strength. Triet never definitively tells the audience whether Sandra is guilty or not. We never see the crime and know only as much as the jury. Ultimately that fearless ambiguity makes “Anatomy of a Fall” stand out from other courtroom dramas and allows for fun conversations to be had between audience members after viewing. Nonetheless the film still shines in those court scenes, which have Sorkin-esque snappy dialogue and compelling revelations. The performances are solid across the bard, although I don’t think Hüller is the Oscar-worthy phenomenon many are calling her.
Unfortunately, the film is held back by numerous flaws. Firstly, it is two-and-a-half hours long and it feels like it. The first act is a dull, generic, soulless slog that should have been trimmed to the bone. Once the trial (and ambiguous storytelling) actually starts, the film really gets going, but the pacing never fully recovers. I also found the camerawork distracting. At times the camera is completely still, reminiscent of Todd Field’s brilliantly subdued direction in last year’s “Tár.” However, at other moments Triet will do snap zooms and documentary style photography similar to “Succession.” The styles clash and distract from the tension. Additionally, some shots are legitimately out of focus and/or most of the screen gets blocked by character’s backs. Shocking for such a high-profile awards film.
“Anatomy of a Fall” is merely decent. It is far from a masterpiece and has serious issues in its structure and cinematography. In totality, it works well enough, but without Triet’s brilliant decision to rely on ambiguity the film would be utterly generic and unremarkable.
May December | A-
Todd Haynes’ “May December” follows actress Elizabeth Berry (played by Natalie Portman) as she studies Gracie Athertoon-Yoo (Julianne Moore) for an independent film based on Gracie’s life. Gracie is an ex-felon who had sexual intercourse with 13-year-old Joe Yoo a couple decades back and successively gave birth to their child. After her release, she married adult Joe (played by Charles Melton) and had even more children with him. Gracie became a true crime phenomenon, and throughout the film we watch as Elizabeth observes how Gracie essentially robbed Joe of his childhood and made him into a young, naive boy trapped in a now-36-year-old’s body. The film tackles heavy themes of abuse, manipulation, sexuality, and the immorality of media and the entertainment industry — so it makes perfect sense that the Golden Globes nominated this film for “Best Musical or Comedy.”
Despite “May December” being nothing but people talking in rooms and occasionally backyards, it is endlessly engaging. Samy Burch’s screenplay is incredibly complex yet utterly simplistic. The dialogue feels so real and while her characters are rich on paper, Burch still allows for the performances to expand upon the material and craft wonderfully detailed roles.
Julianne Moore is deeply unsettling and power-hungry as Gracie, especially during one scene when she delivers the most vicious cry I’ve ever seen. Her jaw fires outward with each sob, and her wails are oddly aggressive and predatory. Charles Melton has earned praise as the breakout performance of the film, and it’s obvious why. Despite his massive figure and towering height, he contorts his body to appear invisible and weak, illustrating Joe’s utter lack of control over his own life. So much is delivered through his eyes and body language.
However, I strongly believe that Natalie Portman is the true revelation here. Portman never lets the audience learn who Elizabeth really is. She changes her personality, voice, and attitude depending on who she’s interacting with. While conversing with Gracie and her family, she puts on a soft-spoken, gentle voice to come off as the compassionate and down-to-earth actress. While conversing with her fiancé over the phone, she seems utterly annoyed yet still puts on a facade to hide her infidelities. While conversing with her director, she acts flirtatiously, seemingly out of the desire to obtain more control over the movie. Portman plays Elizabeth with a thirst for manipulation. She constantly alters her persona to extract what she desires from others. People seem like pawns to her. In her own way, Elizabeth is just as unsettling and controlling as Gracie, which is probably why she wants to play her.
Unfortunately, the movie is held back by its aggressively inappropriate score. The music is bombastic and overdramatic, much more suitable for a soap opera or a Victorian-era historical epic than this kind of story. On so many occasions, scenes are interrupted and diminished by the NUH-NUHHHHH, NUH-NUHHHHH. In isolation, the music is actually quite beautiful, but in context of this grounded film it is brutally distracting and adds an almost laughable element of melodrama that undercuts most of the best scenes.