Review: The Killer Inside Me

Set in Texas in the 50s, Casey Affleck stars as well-respected Deputy Lou Ford, who has a rather sadomasochistic affair with a hooker named Joyce (Jessica Alba) he’s been asked to run out of town. He’s also engaged to Amy Stanton (Kate Hudson). Joyce is attempting to blackmail a wealthy contractor named Chester Conway (Ned Beatty), whose son is one of her ‘clients. Mr. Conway (Sr.) later meets with Lou to ask him to deliver the blackmail money to Joyce. However, when Lou learns that Mr. Conway’s shonky business activities might have been responsible for a traumatic event in Lou’s past, he concocts another plan entirely involving a brutal murder and subsequent frame job. Unfortunately, that doesn’t end things and so he has to keep on killing to keep suspicion away from him. Tom Bower plays the alcoholic local sheriff (who seems to be a father figure of sorts to Lou), Simon Baker is a cynical DA, and Brent Briscoe plays a pushy, homeless drunk. Elias Koteas plays a union head, and Bill Pullman plays an ambiguous role best left without much description.

This 2010 film from director Michael Winterbottom (the pointless and boring “9 Songs”) and screenwriter John Curran (director of “Stone” and “The Painted Veil”) may turn out to be one of the hardest films I’ve yet had to review. Can an otherwise well-made, well-acted and fairly compelling film be dismissed simply because of the objectionable content in less than a handful of scenes? I mean, everything about this film was interesting and enjoyable...except when we see two actresses getting their brains bashed in, and quite graphically shown. These scenes for me, completely crossed the line into poor taste, but mostly it’s the fact that such gruesome detail was unnecessary, that bothered me. Suggestion could’ve easily gotten the message across just as well in my opinion. I understand that some might suggest that such ugly behaviour needs to be shown (hey, violence is ugly- and here it is, folks), or else it seems sanitised and trivialised, but in this case I don’t care to listen to that argument. Yes, the scene is apparently in the book, but to this extent? I doubt it, and don’t care anyway. I genuinely didn’t think it was necessary and very much took exception to it.

But look, aside from those scenes, this is compelling viewing. Mumble-mouthed or not, Casey Affleck gives a really strong and interesting performance here as an obviously sociopathic lawman. He’s quite scary actually, and has an interesting, Elisha Cook Jr. vibe about him, in that Cook (who played sympathetic characters throughout his career too) and Affleck both seem too baby-faced and meek to play psychos and killers, but that just adds an interesting layer. Affleck plays a sociopath, but not necessarily the world’s smartest or most effective one (He’s a bit like Norman Bates in that sense). And for once I actually liked the use of narration/voiceover in the film. Affleck’s character proves not to be the most reliable of narrators, so it ends up like he’s deluding himself, which is interesting. He’s a soft-spoken nutbag who doesn’t seem to know why he kills, and wavers between even admitting or denying his guilt.

Winterbottom gives us an interestingly bleak, twisted, Lynchian worldview that will definitely appeal to some as Affleck is so outwardly polite and upstanding and so foul and twisted inside. I’ve always been interested in serial killers and such (be it Robert Walker in “Strangers on a Train”, TV’s “Dexter”, or real-life killers like John Wayne Gacy and Aileen Wournos), but I can understand this material not being everyone’s cup of tea, especially with the physical violence against women that I myself objected to.

I liked the cool, 50s/60ish opening title design, with an equally cool version of ‘Fever’ played over them. I’ve always been a fan of title designs in film, a bit of a lost art, really. Having endured his rather ugly-looking “9 Songs”, I was seriously worried about Winterbottom’s approach to filming this noirish story. I was worried that he’d do what Michael Mann did to “Public Enemies” and go all Digital shaky-cam for a genre that it is totally unsuited to (which made “Public Enemies” therefore practically unwatchable). Thankfully, although clearly a handheld film, the camera stays relatively still and cinematographer Marcel Zyskind (“9 Songs”) keeps things surprisingly well-lit. It’s actually a pretty good-looking film, all things considered (it mostly eschews normal ‘noir’ lighting, though), so perhaps the divide between celluloid and digital is closing a bit.

The film also has a top supporting cast, all of whom are perfectly fine. Ned Beatty, an old pro, hasn’t been this good on screen in years, and both Elias Koteas and Bill Pullman are rock-solid. Hell, even Simon Baker is OK. Alba and Hudson, not the most consistent actresses out there, both acquit themselves well. Hudson, in particular, looks by 1950s with brunette here in her best performance since “Almost Famous”, in a somewhat cast-against-type role (The character borders on pathetic, but one must remember whose tale we’re seeing here. This is not a misogynistic film, and anyone who says so is completely dense and missing the point of the film). Alba, meanwhile, is well-cast but I really need to take a stand about something here. It’s about time someone called a spade an effing shovel. We see what is meant to be Jessica Alba’s arse at one point, but the way it’s shot, it could be anyone’s. Alba has a strict no-nudity clause in her contract, as most people are aware. This pisses me off, but not just for perverted reasons. I honestly believe that actresses who don’t mind baring their arses and/or being whipped on film but won’t show frontal are idiots. Idiots. They are and they need to be called on it, as do the filmmakers who acquiesce to their stupid no-nudity clauses. Why sign on to a film with this content if you’re not willing to show it all off? I just needed to get that off my chest.

Based on a Jim Thompson (“After Dark, My Sweet”, “The Getaway”, “The Grifters”) novel, this is a well-made, well-acted, and interesting film. There’s no doubt in my mind there. In fact, this is kinda what I wanted the overrated “No Country For Old Men” to be, aside from the women-bashing (Yes, I know that Jim Thompson and Cormac McCarthy are different authors, so don’t point that out to me). Casey Affleck creates for the screen a really evil, fascinatingly psycho lawman, in a performance he should be very proud of.

It’s a disturbing and adult-oriented film, but a good yarn is a good yarn, and this is a good yarn. It’s awfully uncompromising and I do think Winterbottom crosses the line. I just don’t think it’s fair to dismiss an otherwise interesting and well-made film, at the end of the day. I’m just not sure whether there’s much rewatchability to it, though.

By the way, does anyone else think the title is a double entendre? Or am I just a pervert?

Rating: B-