The Killer: What makes a great David Fincher film

Recently, a film critic on YouTube mentioned in his review of Netflix’s The Killer that the film may be seen by some as a “lesser Fincher”. They elaborate further that in the future, when one is looking back at the impressive filmography David Fincher will have – and frankly already has – accumulated up until that point, they would find The Killer to be a fascinating, under-looked, and perhaps not-as-shiny gem. Similar to Scorsese’s Hugo or Spielberg’s The Sugarland Express.

(Credits: NPR)

I think that is the perfect expression for how I feel about The Killer, a film that from beginning to end, seems to remain at a pretty stable, if not almost static pace.

The Killer follows an unnamed hitman, played perfectly by Michael Fassbender, as he tries to deal with the aftermath of a mission gone wrong. Another YouTube critic compares what follows to an “anti-John Wick”, which I think is an equally perfect description of the film.

If the John Wick series swings back and forth with the momentum of a roller coaster, The Killer is a miniature pendulum on the table of a psychiatrist. It aims to calm us down, to ask us to sit in the mind of a killer and watch his procedure. Meanwhile, we are asked to contemplate his narration, which itself contemplates the nature of his humanity.

It is this ironic contrast between his high-minded narration and the mundane nature of his assassination work that makes The Killer mostly intriguing. It is unclear if anyone realized this. But this movie is meant to be a dark comedy. In one scene, we hear the voice of the titular killer, reassured as he is about to conduct a task, certain of his skills, only to be thwarted in the last second. The killer utters a tiny near-breathless “fuck”.

From that point on, there are multiple moments of such ironies. And it is always a delight to see that. I hear some people complain that the narration doesn’t reveal a great deal of insight or growth into Fassbender’s character. But I believe that is Fincher’s intention. We are supposed to see that throughout the film, the killer remains tied to his ego and belief, even when reality proves him wrong at every turn.

This core engine drives the film, and I think reveals the very stuff that makes so much of Fincher’s past films great. Fincher’s visual style coldly observes the characters in his film. He is not good at subjectivity, but good at scrutiny. If he gives us narration, it won’t be honest. He’d expect us to pick up on the contrast between what one believes and how things are.

This core idea that people’s expectations do not concur with reality, and yet we still struggle with, is something we find in most of Fincher’s best films. The stubbornness of human being – a core theme of his. Look at all three characters in Seven; look at the twist of Fight Club; look at the villain of Gone Girl. All these reveal ironic contradictions and upend morality. In The Killer, we see an immoral person adhering to nihilism in an ironically religious way. And Fincher’s camera makes fun of that.

In that sense, the core engine of The Killer is great. The problem is the vehicle parts which surround it don’t work quite as well.

Let us take a look at another great Fincher film – Zodiac. In that film, while the irony and contradiction of human beings are laid bare, the thesis is followed through to the end. Every character follows their journey to its natural conclusion. The problem with The Killer is that while the film seems to be driving home a point regarding the irony of nihilism, it never drives home the point.

Granted, this could be the point in itself. But I find this to be one layer too many. The thesis statement is lost. And the lack of conclusion makes the film feel static, lacking in dynamic, and ultimately quite underwhelming.

Huge chunks of it remain impressive, however. And I think years from now, people will come to see The Killer as a nice little piece Fincher made, among his more impressive artistic array.