"Kill Me Later" is a romantic comedy about a suicidal woman (Blair) who reluctantly takes up with a bank robber on the lam (Beesley) if he promises to shoot her once he's made his escape. What follows is busy enough with side plots, action, and snappy patter to keep the waning eye lid open in spite of the movie's many flaws including unnecessary visual effects, loose ends, Kodak moments which don't work, and a speed bump at the midway mark. Okay for sofa spuds. (C+)
30 Reviews
Feel good movie '90s style
ebiros224 January 2006
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.
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.
Kill me later, watch me first
Samiam326 May 2010
It starts off as a comedy, then it becomes a crime comedy, before turning into a romantic crime comedy. If you liked Bandits or Birthday girl, Kill me later is another film I'd recommend, even though it is probably harder to find. Actually, I could recommend the film to any one who is in the mood for some light entertainment without too much sex or violence, but one that is not too sissy or sappy either. It's not great, but it is definitely likable.
Life isn't going so good for loan officer Shawn Holloway. On the day she decides to jump off the roof of her bank building, there is a robbery that goes south, thirty floors below her. One of thee robbers escapes, and takes Shawn hostage. She agrees to cooperate if he kills her once they are in the clear. that idea doesn't go so well either, because he is (for lack of a better cliché) chicken. Thus the two continue their run from the law, and on the way, Shawn starts to fall for this quirky robber.
Although the story isn't super extensive and its dimensions are of middling depth and detail, it gets you going, and you sort of end up caring. Selma Blair is not much of an actress at all, and much of her work is torpid, but this is a fairly good role for her as an average American emo, who starts to get something out of life when a few cute story contrivances come her way and take her on a crazy journey.
Like all films (even great ones) there is room for improvement, in Kill me Later, but the film is strait forward, to the point, and cute/quirky enough to be worth a watch, if by chance this relatively unknown feature finds its way into your life.
Life isn't going so good for loan officer Shawn Holloway. On the day she decides to jump off the roof of her bank building, there is a robbery that goes south, thirty floors below her. One of thee robbers escapes, and takes Shawn hostage. She agrees to cooperate if he kills her once they are in the clear. that idea doesn't go so well either, because he is (for lack of a better cliché) chicken. Thus the two continue their run from the law, and on the way, Shawn starts to fall for this quirky robber.
Although the story isn't super extensive and its dimensions are of middling depth and detail, it gets you going, and you sort of end up caring. Selma Blair is not much of an actress at all, and much of her work is torpid, but this is a fairly good role for her as an average American emo, who starts to get something out of life when a few cute story contrivances come her way and take her on a crazy journey.
Like all films (even great ones) there is room for improvement, in Kill me Later, but the film is strait forward, to the point, and cute/quirky enough to be worth a watch, if by chance this relatively unknown feature finds its way into your life.
Selma is worth checking out
Reggie_Charan11 March 2003
For me, Selma Blair is the reason to watch this one. She's got the creepy, vulnerable quality Jennifer Jason Leigh does so well, but she couples it with a smart-ass attitude. Movie is strongest in the first 40 minutes or so, as the constant running from the authorities gets a bit tedious after that.
A Good Entertainment
claudio_carvalho18 March 2004
Shawn Holloway (Selma Blair) has a miserable life since she was eleven, when her father left her mother and she stayed alone with her problematic mother. Presently she is graduated, works in a bank and is the mistress of her married colleague Matthew Richmond (D. W. Moffett). When she finds that Matthew's wife is pregnant, she decides to commit suicide. She goes to the roof of the building, drinks some vodka, trying to get enough courage to jump to the floor. The neighbors see the scene and call the police to save Shawn. Meanwhile, the bank where she works is being robbed by Charlie Anders (Max Beesley) and two friends of him. When the cops arrive to save Shawn, the heist is in progress and the police shoot one robber, the driver escapes and Charlie runs to the top of the building. There, he does not allow Shawn to jump off and saves her. They make an agreement: she would help him to escape, and he would give US$ 50,000.00 to her and kill her later with a shot in the head.
"Kill me Later" is predictable but a good entertainment; however something is missing to be an excellent movie. There are action, black humor, romance and drama. There are excellent ironical dialogs and the story is very reasonable. Selma Blair is extremely beautiful and well dressed along this film. The black costumes fit very well to her beautiful face and elegant body. Her performance is also great, and there is some sort of chemistry between Shawn and Charlie. Unfortunately, the characters are not well developed. For example, why Charlie went to prison? Who is Charlie? Why Shawn, having a good job, dealing with loan, had not previously reimbursed her father, if this situation was bothering her so much? Why did she want to commit suicide? Just because of her relationship with Matthew and her problems with her parents along her adolescence period? How they escaped in the end of the movie, after jumping from the bridge with the police chasing them? My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): 'Mate-me Depois' ('Kill Me Later')
"Kill me Later" is predictable but a good entertainment; however something is missing to be an excellent movie. There are action, black humor, romance and drama. There are excellent ironical dialogs and the story is very reasonable. Selma Blair is extremely beautiful and well dressed along this film. The black costumes fit very well to her beautiful face and elegant body. Her performance is also great, and there is some sort of chemistry between Shawn and Charlie. Unfortunately, the characters are not well developed. For example, why Charlie went to prison? Who is Charlie? Why Shawn, having a good job, dealing with loan, had not previously reimbursed her father, if this situation was bothering her so much? Why did she want to commit suicide? Just because of her relationship with Matthew and her problems with her parents along her adolescence period? How they escaped in the end of the movie, after jumping from the bridge with the police chasing them? My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): 'Mate-me Depois' ('Kill Me Later')
Cant complain
style_6913 November 2005
I bought this movie for $3 and it was worth every penny. I saw it for $5 and thought maybe if i don't find anything else ill grab it. Then i saw it for $3 10 minutes later, and i thought its gotta be worth $3. It was worth $5 but.
Ill prob watch it once a year but i couldn't complain. Obviously they made this movie with a hundred dollar note with some change left over but it was entertaining. Its a bit funny too. It is definitely worth a look despite the cheapness.
Its got the dumb girl from Wild Things in it. Worth a look I gave it 6/10.
BEST QUOTE: My cigarettes are always there for me
Ill prob watch it once a year but i couldn't complain. Obviously they made this movie with a hundred dollar note with some change left over but it was entertaining. Its a bit funny too. It is definitely worth a look despite the cheapness.
Its got the dumb girl from Wild Things in it. Worth a look I gave it 6/10.
BEST QUOTE: My cigarettes are always there for me
Hostage movies tend to be lame. Unless they're 'Kill Me Later"
ramsbodane8 September 2005
I'm quite happy to admit that I only watched 'Kill Me Later because it starred Selma Blair and I happen to think she's rather cool (despite 'Hellboy', but I'm happy to chalk that down to a bit her right of a laugh at work). Dana Lustig balances out 'Kill Me Later' with all the food groups necessary to make a motion picture work, pulling together some great performances with an original script and well thought out characters. It's theme stems from the tested movie setup: Two people living out the worst day of their respective lives meet. Gradually add hilarious or terrifying situations as required... But this is turned on it's head to satisfy the black comedy needs of 'Kill Me Later'. I'm fairly sure that the intent of the film is not to make suicide seem funny, so your allowed to laugh.
Well, this probably COULD have been a good movie.
BrettErikJohnson31 January 2005
After viewing this film, I felt the compelling need to vent a bit of my frustration. Selma Blair is a fabulous, currently underrated actress and Max Beesley was rather charming in "Kill Me Later". The story, while not exactly original, certainly showed some promise. None of that mattered though...at all.
I don't know what her deal is, but director Dana Lustig has virtually no talent whatsoever as a director. She slowed footage down, sped footage up, reversed footage, used awkward camera angles, used annoying color filters, made a zillion quick cuts, jumped back and forth in the timeline and topped it all off with an obnoxious "modern" soundtrack of blaring junk. I can't remember the last time I saw such an incompetent job of directing a film. Her ego must be huge to toss out the acting and story and put her direction front and center for the audience members to take notice of. It is crammed down their throats.
There are a couple of good scenes in "Kill Me Later" which show what could have and should have been. Unfortunately, just when things would start to show promise, Ms. Lustig would dig into her bag of film school tricks and jumble things up again. It's a shame because Blair and Beesley had good chemistry and you could tell that the film really had a good heart. 3/10
I don't know what her deal is, but director Dana Lustig has virtually no talent whatsoever as a director. She slowed footage down, sped footage up, reversed footage, used awkward camera angles, used annoying color filters, made a zillion quick cuts, jumped back and forth in the timeline and topped it all off with an obnoxious "modern" soundtrack of blaring junk. I can't remember the last time I saw such an incompetent job of directing a film. Her ego must be huge to toss out the acting and story and put her direction front and center for the audience members to take notice of. It is crammed down their throats.
There are a couple of good scenes in "Kill Me Later" which show what could have and should have been. Unfortunately, just when things would start to show promise, Ms. Lustig would dig into her bag of film school tricks and jumble things up again. It's a shame because Blair and Beesley had good chemistry and you could tell that the film really had a good heart. 3/10
LOST POTENTIAL BUT
flimbuff18 November 2002
The guy who described this as having an undeveloped script was right on the money. The sometimes comic yarn about an embezzlement gone awry with a suicidal mistress accidentally drawn into the plot has got a lot of potential and some very watchable performers but the screen writer apparently was in too much of a hurry and the director didn't have any idea where the story was supposed to go in the first place. It is not a bad watch just to see some young performers who evidently took their work more seriously than the producers and directors and hopefully we may see them again.
Underdeveloped script & direction sink film
filfy-224 August 2001
Kill Me Later" has an interesting initial premise: a suicidal woman (Selma Blair) on the verge of jumping off the top of an office building is protects a bank robber (Max Beesley) who promises to "kill her later."
The actual execution of this premise, however, falls flat as almost every action serves as a mere device to move the plot toward its predictable conclusion. Shoddily written characters who exhibit no motive for their behaviors compromise the quality of acting all around. Lack of character depth especially diminishes Selma Blair's performance, whose character Shawn vacillates from being morose to acting "cool" and ultimately comes across as a confused dolt. This is unfortunate, as under other circumstances Ms. Blair is an appealing and capable actress.
Compounding matters for the worse is director Dana Lustig's insistence on using rapid cuts, incongruous special effects (e.g. look for an unintentionally hilarious infrared motorcycle chase at the end), and a hip soundtrack in the hopes of appealing to the short attention spans of the MTV crowd. Certainly Ms. Lustig proves that she is able to master the technical side of direction, but in no way does her skill help overcome the film's inherent problems and thus the movie drags on to the end. Clearly, Lustig has a distinct visual style; however it is perhaps better suited to music videos than to feature film.
The producers (Ram Bergman & Lustig)can be commended for their ability to realize this film: they were able to scare up $1.5 million to finance the film, secure a good cast, and get domestic and foreign distribution. This is no small feat for an independent film. Yet given the quality of the product, the result is a mixed bag.
The actual execution of this premise, however, falls flat as almost every action serves as a mere device to move the plot toward its predictable conclusion. Shoddily written characters who exhibit no motive for their behaviors compromise the quality of acting all around. Lack of character depth especially diminishes Selma Blair's performance, whose character Shawn vacillates from being morose to acting "cool" and ultimately comes across as a confused dolt. This is unfortunate, as under other circumstances Ms. Blair is an appealing and capable actress.
Compounding matters for the worse is director Dana Lustig's insistence on using rapid cuts, incongruous special effects (e.g. look for an unintentionally hilarious infrared motorcycle chase at the end), and a hip soundtrack in the hopes of appealing to the short attention spans of the MTV crowd. Certainly Ms. Lustig proves that she is able to master the technical side of direction, but in no way does her skill help overcome the film's inherent problems and thus the movie drags on to the end. Clearly, Lustig has a distinct visual style; however it is perhaps better suited to music videos than to feature film.
The producers (Ram Bergman & Lustig)can be commended for their ability to realize this film: they were able to scare up $1.5 million to finance the film, secure a good cast, and get domestic and foreign distribution. This is no small feat for an independent film. Yet given the quality of the product, the result is a mixed bag.
Very nice...
msjeangrey6 April 2002
Honestly, the only think I can fault are the direction and editing, which can be a little too "I'm try to be arty, look at me!". The movie itself is wonderful: serious, funny, romantic. The script is sharp and the actors were absolutely wonderful. Highly recommended for anyone in the mood for something strange.
Be warned: You will see definite ripping off of "A Life Less Ordinary" toward the beginning of the film... but if you're gonna steal, it's good to know they stole from something good.
Be warned: You will see definite ripping off of "A Life Less Ordinary" toward the beginning of the film... but if you're gonna steal, it's good to know they stole from something good.
Better than it looks
pinkybanana200012 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILER ALERT***
The plot of this movie is easy to summarize. A suicidal girl is taken hostage, but bonds with the assailant from whom she extracts a promise to kill her once they escape. If it was her plan to die anyway, what does it matter who does it? You would think you could write the rest of the story and the ending. You'd be wrong.
There are not so much plot twists as there are subtle shifts in direction. I like the little oddities. The fact that the thief is English. If this happened in New York, it wouldn't be surprising. But this takes place in Washington state. There is the other little oddity I noticed. They are so close to the Canadian border that, in one shot, you could see the Canada Mail postboxes.
Even though the ending is predictable, how they get there will, once again, surprise you.
Watch it. You'd be pleasantly surprised.
The plot of this movie is easy to summarize. A suicidal girl is taken hostage, but bonds with the assailant from whom she extracts a promise to kill her once they escape. If it was her plan to die anyway, what does it matter who does it? You would think you could write the rest of the story and the ending. You'd be wrong.
There are not so much plot twists as there are subtle shifts in direction. I like the little oddities. The fact that the thief is English. If this happened in New York, it wouldn't be surprising. But this takes place in Washington state. There is the other little oddity I noticed. They are so close to the Canadian border that, in one shot, you could see the Canada Mail postboxes.
Even though the ending is predictable, how they get there will, once again, surprise you.
Watch it. You'd be pleasantly surprised.
Fairly average
mentalcritic8 January 2005
Selma Blair is one actor I normally make an effort to avoid, but she is surprisingly good in this B-level piece. Indeed, I think she was done a great injustice by the slick photo that comes with the Australian DVD of The Sweetest Thing. Her performance in Cruel Intentions was not exactly a highlight on her resumé, either. So when I see her in a vaguely appealing form here, the surprise factor is enough to make me award it a bonus point. Quite possibly, this is all that the film has going for it, as I am struggling to think of another selling point.
The plot, such as it is, concerns a loan officer who works in a big city bank. She's suicidal after discovering her lover is less than perfect and her goldfish is dead. So she goes up to the roof. Coincidentally, the bank is robbed, and she gets taken hostage by one of the perps when things don't quite go to plan. Aiding him in his escape, we follow her as she learns more about this rather charming robber with a passable British accent.
The fundamental problem here is that not enough happens in the midst of all this character development to distinguish the story. Perhaps the problem lies with the DVD I viewed the film on. The dialogue is very indistinct in the 2.0-channel mix that is offered on the Australian DVD. Sometimes the difference between a boring, uninvolving scene and one that has the audience grinding its collective teeth in anticipation is merely a sound mix. So if you're thinking of buying DVDs from the Australian market, be advised that at least indie distributors in America take some pride in their workmanship.
Tom Heaton gets a great cameo as the wounded man in the robbery, delivering one of the few stand-out laughs the film has to offer. The ending is syrupy enough to make anyone in the audience, even those with hyper-productive islet cells, sick to their stomach. Apparently, this feature was based upon a short film. The eighty-six minutes that this feature-length offering take up feel like at least sixteen too much, but I may be biased because of my desire for something noteworthy to happen during a story. The number at the end of the film is equally sugary and over-glazed.
Still, I have seen plenty of worse offerings, so I gave Kill Me Later a five out of ten. Speaking of bad audio, the theatrical trailer on the Australian version of the DVD is encoded several decibels louder than the feature presentation. And they wonder why we parallel import?
The plot, such as it is, concerns a loan officer who works in a big city bank. She's suicidal after discovering her lover is less than perfect and her goldfish is dead. So she goes up to the roof. Coincidentally, the bank is robbed, and she gets taken hostage by one of the perps when things don't quite go to plan. Aiding him in his escape, we follow her as she learns more about this rather charming robber with a passable British accent.
The fundamental problem here is that not enough happens in the midst of all this character development to distinguish the story. Perhaps the problem lies with the DVD I viewed the film on. The dialogue is very indistinct in the 2.0-channel mix that is offered on the Australian DVD. Sometimes the difference between a boring, uninvolving scene and one that has the audience grinding its collective teeth in anticipation is merely a sound mix. So if you're thinking of buying DVDs from the Australian market, be advised that at least indie distributors in America take some pride in their workmanship.
Tom Heaton gets a great cameo as the wounded man in the robbery, delivering one of the few stand-out laughs the film has to offer. The ending is syrupy enough to make anyone in the audience, even those with hyper-productive islet cells, sick to their stomach. Apparently, this feature was based upon a short film. The eighty-six minutes that this feature-length offering take up feel like at least sixteen too much, but I may be biased because of my desire for something noteworthy to happen during a story. The number at the end of the film is equally sugary and over-glazed.
Still, I have seen plenty of worse offerings, so I gave Kill Me Later a five out of ten. Speaking of bad audio, the theatrical trailer on the Australian version of the DVD is encoded several decibels louder than the feature presentation. And they wonder why we parallel import?
well directed piece
vampiresan13 December 2002
This was clearly a work that was low budget and yes perhaps a little rushed - but I get a bit annoyed at reviewers here who whinge on about script development for a film that clearly had a hard time getting any kind of funding at all. Script development is hard to get in even the biggest budgeted films just look at Lord of the Rings if you want to see underdeveloped characters but strangely not to many people shooting that down.
That said this is a nice, gentle film about a bank robbery that is not trying to be Reservoir Dogs or Lock Stock, and I don't think it is so much underdeveloped as less violent. The writer and director have stuck to their own vision and have produced something that they should be proud of for a first feature.
The performances are good and the script and directorial choices are clever and interesting without trying to scream at the audience "Look at me I'm an Auteur"
Certainly worth a look and a good video movie for females who are tired of seeing the male dominated violent heist films.
That said this is a nice, gentle film about a bank robbery that is not trying to be Reservoir Dogs or Lock Stock, and I don't think it is so much underdeveloped as less violent. The writer and director have stuck to their own vision and have produced something that they should be proud of for a first feature.
The performances are good and the script and directorial choices are clever and interesting without trying to scream at the audience "Look at me I'm an Auteur"
Certainly worth a look and a good video movie for females who are tired of seeing the male dominated violent heist films.
obvious low budget movie; short sighted acting, not worth your time
travis898717 May 2005
this movie was clearly done poorly and in a rush. I realize that the funding for any such movie is hard to come by. However if the plot had any kind of original substance someone would have seen that it got the necessary funding, this was not the case and movies like this are not necessary themselves and have no purpose in existing. The plot for this movie has been done and done better i might add, many times before. There is no reason to make a movie that has no chance in competing with any others. i was informed by my computer that i need a minimum of ten lines to submit my comment so the following lines are just bull to fill in space. In my opinion there is no need for anything else to be said about this film. what i've said is plenty and if you wasted enough time reading this review, than for God's sake don't waste more time watching this movie. The only exception to this is if you are the kind of person who likes watching crappy movies that get played on the womens entertainment network at 2:00 a.m. in that case go ahead see what i care.
This movie is a wonderful surprise...contains very minor spoiler
becka32167 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I just happened to come across this movie one night when I couldn't sleep. Since it had Selma Blair in it, I stopped and was immediately drawn in. In fact, I liked it so much that I watched it every time it came on a movie channel the rest of that week. I have been looking for the DVD everywhere and have not been able to find it. The movie follows Shawn(played by the talented Selma Blair), who, after some bad events in her life, has decided to commit suicide. But as she is about to jump off a building, she is kidnapped by a bank robber on the run. The rest of the movie follows the two as they run from 2 detectives trying to catch them. It is hilarious and sad and moving, and the ending was well worth the wait. If you are looking for a fun, suspenseful, as well as offbeat, movie, this is one for you. Definitely worth your time.
I made it through the whole thing!
Molotov_Clocktail17 November 2002
Despite being a 2001 movie, the direction is the kind of 90's art-house style that was considered "old" and out-of-date a few years ago. The cheesy cuts and effects were painful to watch. The script is decent enough, and a few scenes did kind of captivate me (like when the taxi driver brings her to the bridge at night). But the story line with the detective who's sister killed herself and how he was obsessed with suicide was just plain terrible. The performance by the actor who plays Selma Blair's married boyfriend seriously bothered me. I did sit through the whole thing, though, which is rare for the kind of random, what-is-this movie you just find on TV and decide to watch.
Acting puts this dark romance over the top
vpitman-114 January 2002
This is a fairly subtle, intelligent, low-budget ride that's propelled by very good acting and some mother-of-invention film work. Selma Blair does a fine job as a young woman who has had enough and is ready to kill herself at the beginning of the movie, and Max Beesley is both funny and caring as the bank robber who promises to kill her later. Watch it on DVD, and you can enjoy the movie, then listen to the director and producer (both women) talk about the things they had to do to get the movie made on their small budget. If you're into movie-making, it's interesting to hear them talk about the 9 years they kicked the script around and the dozens of drafts for the script and that they finally decided not to sell it when they had a buyer, because they wanted to make it themselves.
One gloppy Cinnabon of a movie
mikemdp23 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Enjoyable
ambizzle36013 July 2003
Kill me Later has a concept that has been done to death. The script is a bit immature, but still very much enjoyable. Both Max Beesely and Selma Blair pull in solid performances in this piece. One thing that's enjoyable about this movie is that all of the characters are generally relatable. Selma Blair's Shawn is utterly pessimistic, While Max Beesely's Shawn is hopelessly optimistic about things. The film may be a little contrived but the ending is a little more realistic. It's sweet, it's funny and at moments, you'll want to cry. An enjoyable film.
Starts Off Bad, But Wait, it Gets Worse...
atomicis6 December 2020
Photography is good but spastic editing ruins that. Music is awful... err, I mean, not to my taste (whining guitar that screams for the viewers' attention).
I did sit through it as is my policy for any films I review here (also to see the scrumptious and funny Sarah Chalke, who has a bit part), but man, this flick just goes nowhere (except tard town). There are so many sophomoric errors in police procedure. The typical male model lead's English accent, the scorned (smoking hot) girlfriend, the M. Emmet Walsh-replacement cop commander who's pestered via phone by his wife, just so much entry-level movie material that I don't know what to criticize first. Oh, maybe the criminal hot-male lead's sashaying out of the bushes after the escape to someplace hot, in a white suit accompanied by a mariachi band? Or the explanations via end credits.
Might be one of the very worst movies I've ever seen. Seriously, how does dreck like this get financed?
Great acting and amazing plotline
tigerasian71127 January 2002
When I heard of the actor Max Beesley and found out he was in a movie with Selma Blair so I rented it @ Hollywood Videos and I watched for about 3 times already. It's a great dark comedy and pretty romantic. I like that it's not like most movies where the main characters are swapping spit for like more than half the movie. The movie is really sweet and I think Selma Blair and Max Beesley are great actor/actress
One or two good ideas, rendered wholly bland as is
I_Ailurophile23 June 2022
It's not 100% terrible. But it's far less than what I was hoping for. I feel bad for Selma Blair.
The first impression that 'Kill me later' makes within the first few minutes, and sustains to some extent throughout, is that it's painfully 90s. Watch male lead Charlie, practicing drums on the edge of a small boat dock for some reason - straight out of an early 90s music video, it seems. Does he have frosted tips, or is his hair just bad naturally? Is there any specific reason Charlie needed to be English, or was that just an incidental result of casting? Some selections on the soundtrack are okay, but too many ruin themselves with annoying vocals, especially those of the nasal, whiny alt-rock variety. Self-indulgent camerawork and editing in the first few minutes, before the movie meaningfully even begins, is just an appetizer for emphatically overzealous camerawork and editing, and questionable sequencing, that defines the feature at large. I suppose someone thought this was a cheeky, clever, novel approach to film-making. I just find it annoying.
The dialogue and scene writing is tiresome, and sometimes stilted and unconvincing as it presents, or even hackneyed. I don't know about Max Beesley, but I know Selma Blair is a fine actress, yet as scene partners they have no chemistry - making the cliched development of a friendship between their characters wholly unbelievable and contrived. I don't know if it's that lack of magnetism between the leads, or poor direction from Dana Lustig, but one way or another the acting here just doesn't pass muster, and the same is true of their co-stars. There are small inclusions throughout that inspire a few happy neurons to fire off - such as the unique footwear that Charlie provides for Shawn at one point - and a few fleeting sparks of good notions, but the weak writing and construction of the picture otherwise quite overshadows any passing value. For kicks, throw in some slow motion that looks like it was lifted out of an episode of 'Unsolved mysteries.'
On top of all this, the premise is only especially relevant to just the first third, and the remaining two-thirds just kind of meander and drag on, even as - with or without the help of the camerawork and editing - it often feels disjointed and sloppy. Infrequent cuts to another of the would-be bank robbers are wholly superfluous (and therefore aggravating) until they're suddenly not, and other supporting characters are sufficiently irritating that they detract from the viewing experience instead of add to the narrative. All this diverts so strongly from what the basic concept had promised that when, later on, we do revisit the suicidal ideations of female lead Shawn - you know, the premise? - they feel out of place. Reveals of character background, and the advancement of character arcs, feel out of place.
I could go on, but honestly, I'm as tired of writing these words as I was of watching the movie before the third act even rolled around. By the time the climax and ending finally emerged, I was entirely unable to care. The comedy and the drama both fall flat, and cancel each other out. The cast mostly seem wasted. The fundamental craft of the feature isn't nearly as smart as it thinks it is - it's rather obnoxious, more than anything else. There were good ideas here, and it could have been a good movie, especially with Blair at the center, but even those moments that should carry ponderous emotional weight become dull and tepid. I guess if you're a diehard fan of someone in the cast there might be a reason to watch this on a very, very, very lazy day, but otherwise, why bother? 'Kill me later' starts out with an entertaining idea, but unfortunately, that's pretty much the best it gets.
The first impression that 'Kill me later' makes within the first few minutes, and sustains to some extent throughout, is that it's painfully 90s. Watch male lead Charlie, practicing drums on the edge of a small boat dock for some reason - straight out of an early 90s music video, it seems. Does he have frosted tips, or is his hair just bad naturally? Is there any specific reason Charlie needed to be English, or was that just an incidental result of casting? Some selections on the soundtrack are okay, but too many ruin themselves with annoying vocals, especially those of the nasal, whiny alt-rock variety. Self-indulgent camerawork and editing in the first few minutes, before the movie meaningfully even begins, is just an appetizer for emphatically overzealous camerawork and editing, and questionable sequencing, that defines the feature at large. I suppose someone thought this was a cheeky, clever, novel approach to film-making. I just find it annoying.
The dialogue and scene writing is tiresome, and sometimes stilted and unconvincing as it presents, or even hackneyed. I don't know about Max Beesley, but I know Selma Blair is a fine actress, yet as scene partners they have no chemistry - making the cliched development of a friendship between their characters wholly unbelievable and contrived. I don't know if it's that lack of magnetism between the leads, or poor direction from Dana Lustig, but one way or another the acting here just doesn't pass muster, and the same is true of their co-stars. There are small inclusions throughout that inspire a few happy neurons to fire off - such as the unique footwear that Charlie provides for Shawn at one point - and a few fleeting sparks of good notions, but the weak writing and construction of the picture otherwise quite overshadows any passing value. For kicks, throw in some slow motion that looks like it was lifted out of an episode of 'Unsolved mysteries.'
On top of all this, the premise is only especially relevant to just the first third, and the remaining two-thirds just kind of meander and drag on, even as - with or without the help of the camerawork and editing - it often feels disjointed and sloppy. Infrequent cuts to another of the would-be bank robbers are wholly superfluous (and therefore aggravating) until they're suddenly not, and other supporting characters are sufficiently irritating that they detract from the viewing experience instead of add to the narrative. All this diverts so strongly from what the basic concept had promised that when, later on, we do revisit the suicidal ideations of female lead Shawn - you know, the premise? - they feel out of place. Reveals of character background, and the advancement of character arcs, feel out of place.
I could go on, but honestly, I'm as tired of writing these words as I was of watching the movie before the third act even rolled around. By the time the climax and ending finally emerged, I was entirely unable to care. The comedy and the drama both fall flat, and cancel each other out. The cast mostly seem wasted. The fundamental craft of the feature isn't nearly as smart as it thinks it is - it's rather obnoxious, more than anything else. There were good ideas here, and it could have been a good movie, especially with Blair at the center, but even those moments that should carry ponderous emotional weight become dull and tepid. I guess if you're a diehard fan of someone in the cast there might be a reason to watch this on a very, very, very lazy day, but otherwise, why bother? 'Kill me later' starts out with an entertaining idea, but unfortunately, that's pretty much the best it gets.
better than average.
roger686827 December 2001
Fast and funny. Selma Blair is terrific. Well written and well directed romantic/adventure/comedy about an unhappy bank loan officer played by Blair who is taken hostage by a bank robber while attempting to kill herself by jumping from the roof of the bank. He promises to kill her later if she will help him escape the police.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
