mikemdp
This one's a cute, little indie thriller with a silly name and even sillier premise, which succeeds with some endearing performances and creative direction.Selma Blair plays a suicidal snot rescued by accident from her 13-story building leap by an armored car bandit. The deal: She helps him escape, he agrees to kill her later. Hence, the title, the setup and the plot roll all together into one gloppy Cinnabon of a movie.Blair should permanently hire the makeup artist who made her appear, perhaps for the first time, somewhat attractive, despite being required to chain smoke (and, oddly be admonished for it by nearly every male character) throughout the movie.Max Beesley as the hapless bank robber was good in this movie, I think, except I couldn't understand a word he said. He talked faster and more Cockney than Davy Jones on coke.What city is this? Sometimes it looks like New York, sometimes maybe Seattle. Is it raining? Sometimes yes, sometimes, no. Sometimes it cuts to a guy drumming outside on his porch for NO FREAKING REASON.Friends, don't pay attention to that. It's not like this thriller was directed by Ridley Scott, know what I'm saying? Ain't no tautness here. It's a meandering, little independent film with no aspirations to be anything greater, with all the artsy-fartsy trappings and pitfalls you'd expect in a meandering, little independent film. Sometimes the conceits work, but the best you can hope for is that they don't distract too badly (and they don't).That said, the movie would have benefited greatly by a more distinct location. Setting can sometimes become a character in itself, and a film devoid of interesting characters (though interestingly played, which is not the same thing) really needs some attention to detail regarding place. Had the film been set in New York's East Village or some specific Seattle neighborhood, it would have been much more effective. Making the setting vague may have been a creative decision (This could happen anywhere! To YOU!). But my guess is it was budgetary, because the film as a whole comes off like that.Yet, money isn't the make-or-break here. It's really no excuse. Look at the independent horror films of Frank Henenlotter or even the mid-career work of Jonathan Demme, and you'll find a lack of money doesn't necessarily have to translate into indistinct setting. A director's affinity for place can be successfully expressed cinematically on any budget. Just ask Woody Allen.It's the writing. Elmore Leonard would have done wonders with this story. But writer/producer/director Dana Lustig, who's done nothing else you've ever heard of (and probably never will), uses jump cuts and other camera tricks to try to mask shallow dialog, superficial characters with no development, and a deliberately paced plot. Mostly, she fails. (At one point toward the end, the entire movie becomes a two-color blue-black cartoon for about 45 seconds, FOR NO FREAKING REASON.)But Lustig does have a knack for enticing good performances from her actors, even the minor ones (like the elderly bank robbery accomplice who would have been played by Ray Walston, were he still alive). Unfortunately, the movie just kind of forgets about him after awhile. Really, I hope he's OK.Anyway, Blair and Beesley succeed in making their characters endearing to the viewer, even though their lives are wholly distasteful. (Hey, when the viewer is rooting for the violent bank robber and the dour, suicidal homewrecker to get together and tongue-kiss at the end, you gotta thank the actors for pulling that off). Lustig's in debt to these actors because their performances make the audience care and, thus, hold this movie together.And so, this movie is enjoyable, just not as much as it could have been.But coulda-woulda-shouldas don't fly with a piece of art. It is what it is. And in this case, it's worth your while to invest a couple of hours of your time in Kill Me Later.
ebiros2
Despite being made in 2001, this movie is basically about life in times in the '90s when Gen X culture took over the world. Everyone in this movie is so materialistic and selfish. Our heroin Shawn (Selma Blair) find's herself disappointed by life in every way and decides to jump from the roof top of the bank building she works in. As she finishes her last cigarette, a bank robber Charlie (Max Beesley) comes up to her and tells her that if she doesn't cooperate, he's gonna kill her :-) not knowing that that's EXACTLY what she was trying to do. There's sort of a deal struck between the two that if Shawn helps Charlie get away by becoming his hostage, he'll help her out by killing her later (hence the title of this movie).The funny part of this movie is that a supposed rogue Charlie is actually a nice guy compared to the status quo people around Shawn who're all morally bankrupt. Shawn and Charlie decides to take the leap together (no pun intended) and try out for a new life while other people gets their just comeuppances. Selma Blair is at her best in her role as Shawn, and brings the goods to the table in one of the best movie of her career. A feel good movie '90s style.
cowcrazy411
A dark comedy about a depressed bank teller(Selma Blair) who is contemplating suicide when her bank is robbed.Bottle of booze in hand,she is inches away from jumping to her death when the heist goes awry and she finds herself face to face with thief (Max Beesley)Panicking with the law closing in,he asks for her help. She agrees to help him escape if he makes one promise- kill her later.AND SO BEGINS A RUN FOR BOTH THEIR LIVES.Rated R for some language.This movie is really good when you get the chance rent it you'll be glad you did ( well thats what i think )
AnnieThePirate
This movie was good for the down to earth girl that I am. I loved the way it saw the emotions of the characters. I stay up late whenever it's on just to watch it again. I love how it ends and I love the storyline. It was good because the story was different and intriguing, but still had good old-fashioned love that makes you come back for more. I love the lead characters roles, they were magic together.
