Good evening. Our film tonight is about a man obsessed with murder. It is a tale of violence, of lies and deceit, of envy and greed. It is, naturally, a love story.
In the year 1960, the film Psycho burst onto theatre screens, beginning one of the greatest decades of change in American cinema with shrieking violins and a blood-curdling scream. The man behind the movie, director extraordinaire Alfred Hitchcock, was as much a public figure as his leading ladies and men. He managed to thrust the unsuspecting (and unprepared) public into violence and perversion that was (at the time) beyond the pale, unlike anything they'd ever seen before in a film. And they came out loving it. Wanting more. So who was the man who pulled it off? What secrets lay inside the unique mind of one of the greatest directors of all time?
"Let's get the director of Anvil! The Story of Anvil to answer that question!" said...someone, apparently.
That's not a knock, mind. Director Sacha Gervasi acquits himself well in this behind-the-scenes story of the making of one of the greatest films of all time. The thing is...it's not, really. Hitchcock might more accurately be titled Hitchcocks, pluralizing the name for the inclusion of one Alma Reville, Hitchcock's wife and creative partner. With the making of Psycho a backdrop, Gervasi chronicles the painful, often tumultuous, but ultimately rewarding relationship between the two British emigrants. Hitchcock was a notoriously difficult chap with which to work, his sheer talent manifesting itself in exacting, often confusingly obtuse direction of his creative staff. Alma's talent matched the great director's, and she was his lifelong editor, script doctor, confidante, and advisor.
Here, the lead roles are played by Sir Anthony Hopkins and Dame Helen Mirren, with the cast of Psycho filled out by Scarlett Johansson (leading lady Janet Leigh), James D'Arcy (mama's boy Anthony Perkins), and Jessica Biel (spurned starlet Vera Miles). The actors all apply themselves whole-heartedly, particularly two: Johansson gives a fantastic performance capturing Janet Leigh's class, warmth, and intelligence, while the other supporting standout, James D'Arcy, perfectly embodies the bundle of nervous energy that was Anthony Perkins. Danny Huston, as a screenwriter and potential wooer of the neglected Alma, turns in the film's only bad performance; he seems to be trying to play to the cheap seats, as though he just wandered in from a film actually made in 1960. It's a performance that clashes mightily with the naturalistic acting on display everywhere else in the film, and doesn't work at all.
But this is Hopkins' and Mirren's show, and they make their roles sing, obviously enjoying playing two of England's favored children. Hopkins is slathered with gobs of makeup and rolls of fat to approximate Hitchcock's unique physique, and while his voice is different, his mimicry of Hitch's signature elocution (combined with the way he embodies the movement of a large man) make him a dead ringer, superficially. But it's his performance as a man, not a historical figure, that sells it. His Hitchcock retains the original's mordant humor and droll aloofness, but infuses a real human being who could easily be mistaken for a character with genuine pathos and fragility. Mirren seems to relish her role as the wind beneath Hitchcock's wings, exuding strength from her eyes as she steels up for any fight that comes, be it from meddling executives or her husband. Their electric interactions are the pulse that keeps Hitchcock alive and vibrant.
The film itself is largely well-crafted, though the subplot with Whitfield Cook (Houston) attempting to court Alma doesn't seem necessary or even handled very well. There's also an oddity to scenes where Hitchcock is haunted by Ed Gein (Michael Wincott), the murderer used by Robert Bloch as inspiration for the original novel Psycho, but this worked as a strange sort of dramatization of the creative process; anyone who's lived with a work in their head knows that the characters in it are rarely silent.
That's largely indicative of this confection of a film as a whole: it's messy and a little odd, but immensely enjoyable. It trundles along at its own pace, in a structured-but-not-really sort of way. Many of the technicals are handsomely mounted (particularly the cinematography by The Social Network's Jeff Cronenweth, and the art and set direction), though it's not flawless. The editing in particular is weak, and when you're making a film about two of the greatest frame-cutters of all time, you'd be best served to bring your A game. But by the time the credits roll, you'll be glad to have spent time with these folks.

Creeper Compendium.
The horror anthology has a chequered history, some are bad but saved by one great segment, others boast a couple of genuine creepers but are undone by one instalment so bad it tarnishes the film forever. And on it goes. V/H/S brings the format into the new age by unfolding its tales by wrapping around the latest craze of found footage.
Six indie directors have produced a picture that was well received at Sundance but has proved to be most divisive with critics and horror fans on internet forums. This will come as no surprise to anyone who knows their horror anthology onions. The usual problems are evident here, a couple of great stories are surrounded by mediocre ones, but at least there is something for everyone, with most bases covered, but that in itself is a problem, all horror fans have preferences, it's a big ask to expect a fan of stalk and slash to love a story about a winged harpy!
Then there is the issue of the found footage format, here recorded on actual VHS. Not everyone is a fan (myself for instance), and much of V/H/S is dizzying and often hard to follow, especially as regards the Tape 56/frame narrative story that cloaks the other five stories as a bunch of no-mark young crims burgle a grotty house and sift through the tapes. It's a format loved by many for its supposed realism factors, I don't get that myself, but for those people this really is up their trees!
Amateur Night (David Bruckner) and The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger (Joe Swanberg) are the standouts. The former is a cautionary tale of frat boys out for sex who get more than they bargained for when they take home the mysterious Lily, the latter an eerie tale unfolded via Skype communication as Emily appears to be a victim of a haunting whilst chatting to her doctor boyfriend.
However, if you ask another fan of the film what stories they feel standout, you may just get two different answers. So as with any other anthology horror, you roll the dice and take your chance, just don't expect genius in every story, for that is purely folly of expectation. 7/10

V/H/S, 9/10. Gory, fun and inventive - if flawed - portmanteau horror pic shot in the cinéma vérité (Cloverfield, [REC], The Blair Witch Project) style.
Like all anthology pieces, some ideas work better than others but V/H/S is packed with good stuff, containing as it does six "stories" (including the wraparound segment that tenuously links them all), each directed by a different up-and-coming bright young thing in horror movies. The wraparound story is by far the worst, and bizarrely it wraps up second-to-last, but still: a bunch of petty-criminal ****ers, presently making small-but-quick bucks from a streaming porn site by attacking innocent women in the street and exposing their breasts for the camera (charming) are hired by a "fan" of the site to carry out a reasonably simple task: break into a house, sneak in, steal a specific VHS videotape (apparently they'll know it when they see it, though this is far from the case), and get out of there. What they find is a largely empty house save for a cellar area chock-full of tapes and one room containing an expired tenant sat in front of a bank of old TVs and video players. They randomly play through a few of the many tapes in order to try and ascertain what they're supposed to be nicking, and that's where the five anthology tales come in; they're what these bellends see on the videotapes.
The stories, then (I'll buzz through these, they're only twenty minutes or so long each, so too much info will be to give the story up):
1. Amateur Night - A trio of lads go out on the razzle armed with some cool camera-glasses, so one of the guys can happily film their evening's debauchery without anyone being any the wiser; superb if you're planning to get a couple of lasses back to your motel room for some gangbang action and film the results. They... well, they probably pick the wrong gal to bring back. I liked this one, despite my nagging fear (placed by this segment in tandem with the wraparound skit and even borne out further - though to a lesser degree - by the other segments) that there might be a nasty undercurrent of misogyny running through the movie. I guess though the simple truth is that when you put a bunch of young male twats in charge of filming ****, they end up venturing up the "amateur porn" route sooner rather than later.
2. Second Honeymoon - Directed by slow-burn specialist Ti West (The Innkeepers, the superb House of the Devil), and this one's typical of his canon. Nothing really happens beyond getting to know - and like - the nice couple doing the usual touristy thing around Arizona/Nevada. Then a girl knocks at their motel room door. Gore-free - almost incident-free - until the very end, this one was nonetheless one of the most effective segments.
3. Tuesday the 17th - In which four kids go into the woods. Where some murders happened once. Ahem. The segment initially most calling to mind The Blair Witch Project being as it is both found-footage style AND set in the woods, this was for me the least affecting of the "watched videotape" tales, not through a lack of ideas (well, let me clarify: it DOESN'T make a whole lot of sense, but I don't mind that at all in short-story form) but because the actors in this segment were the most "actorly", the least honest and realistic. IMO. That said, it moved along at a real lick, it's as gory as **** and the antagonist's "appearances" on the videotape are pretty cool.
4. The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger - Chronicling a sequence of Skype chats (hang on: this tale is being watched on a musty old VHS tape; who's converting their Skype chats to VHS? Ah well, no matter I suppose) between a guy working away and his girl, who is becoming convinced that she's either going crazy, or the house is haunted. Her arm's hurting her, as well... Yeah, this was a pretty good one. Not much in the jump stakes but it had a nice Tales of the Unexpected vibe going on, which is always welcome in these sorts of films.
5. 10/31/98 - Oh-so-simple tale, in which a bunch of guys - and in a refreshing change from the wraparound segment and Amateur Night, NOT a bunch of unlikeable dickheads - are on their way to a Halloween party, and go to the wrong house. Like, REALLY the wrong house. This may well be the best segment of the lot. Certainly the most cool-effects-laden. It was a great way to close out the movie.
Flaws - well, there's that aforementioned misogynistic streak running through the movie (most specifically the first 40 minutes or so). Also, although great ideas and buckets of grue abound and it was a blast to watch at the time, I'm afraid that lasting, visceral scares are thin on the ground, although I attribute that more to the nature of portmanteau films not having long enough per segment to develop real empathy or tension. But the worst flaw, by the proverbial "country mile", is that of all of the "shaky-cam" films I've ever seen, V/H/S is far and away the worst, most vomit-inducing exponent of that trait. Cloverfield didn't really pretend very well to be all that "amateur", [REC] elegantly addressed the problem by having their in-film cameraman be a professional television cameraman, with professional kit, and the Paranormal Activity franchise managed to sidestep the problem with the utility of tripods and fixed camera positions. So the worst I'd seen before this was probably The Blair Witch Project, way back when. But the cameras in V/H/S have been painstakingly made to look as amateur as possible, sadly to its detriment on several occasions. I found myself craning, squinting and frowning to see what the **** was happening a few times when I should have been freaking out at the events unfolding on-screen (somewhere).
Still, despite that: What V/H/S gets right, it gets VERY right (and it does so very often). If you likes your horrors, you need to give this one at least a look. Recommended.

I haven't seen a dramatic movie that talks so clearly about the Black Panther Party, clearly its chief and its members are the conspiracy that was hatched by party members.
The movie talks about the rise and fall of the Black Panther movement. If you are a fan of dramatic films with a flavor of documentaries, you should watch the movie. For a period almost centuries ago, Americans with black skin suffered from obtaining their rights, and this was also forbidden to be reflected in a dramatic, dramatic or documentary film. In America on the issue of racism and addressing it, perhaps because of the demonstrations that took place in America after the killing of George Floyd by the American company and the return of racism again to the American street.
The film begins in 1969, one year after the assassination of Martin Luther King, King. This assassination changed many of the party's priorities and its goal became the overthrow of the US government by announcing the revolutionary struggle. That is why President Nixon decided during this period to eliminate the party by all possible means, legal and illegal.
Many American artists sympathized with the Black Panther Party during this period. For example, the artist Jude Fonda visited the party's headquarters and declared her support for the party. Even the international star Marlin Brendo gave a speech to a large gathering of party members.
Judas and the Black Messiah What is meant metaphorically by Judas in the movie is Bill O'Neal and the Black Messiah is Fred Hampton, and in general it is a projection of the story of Judas' betrayal of Christ and his handing over to the Jews.
Contrary to the image that we see in other films that talk about racism against blacks, the film didn't attack white people, but rather attacked certain American institutions. The movie tried to tell the story honestly without distorting history. We saw white groups join the Black Panther Party, and here the traditional form of this type of film was broken. There is no real conflict between whites and blacks.
There are a lot of revolutionary poetry and social justice, but the script was formulated correctly. The movie did not make us feel like a show movie, but rather it was a logical narration without adding spices. The story was told through the villain or the hero, and this added a new dimension to the movie. The film's director, Shaka King, performed a classy tribute to black women through the character of Deborah Johnson, and we saw how women help the men of the party in thought, knowledge, and armed struggle.
The performance of the actors in general was remarkable and worthy of appreciation, and there was a very beautiful harmony between the characters. Daniel Kaluuya performed the character of Fred Hampton with utmost brilliance and deserved the Golden Globe Award well deserved, as well as the wonderful performance of LaKeith Stanfield, which showed the contradictions of the traitor Bill O'Neal.
The characters I was most impressed with are Bill O'Neal, his looks are full of fear, anxiety, and a sense of shame, especially since Fred Hampton does not know his betrayal. Really It is one of the most successful movies in 2021

Racism has all too often reared its ugly head in recent years with the rise of extremist groups who felt emboldened by recent political climates. As violence leads to protests which can themselves become violent; the perpetual cycle seems unending.
In the new film “Judas and the Black Messiah”, audiences are told the real-life story of Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya) who runs a local chapter of The Black Panthers in Illinois in the 1960s.
The rise of what is perceived as militant groups in the wake of the killings of Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King has caused increased police and Federal actions which have caused many in Hampton’s community to feel they are at war with the authorities and fighting for their very survival against a system of injustice and systemic racism.
When car thief William O’Neal is arrested, FBI agent Roy Mitchell (Jesse Plemons); offers O’Neal a chance to avoid prison and earn some money by becoming an informant. Despite his reservations; O’Neal works his way into Hampton’s inner circle and develops a friendship with the man as he learns of his plans to unify the various factions in their communities.
O’Neal sees how there is more to the Black Panthers as they feed, educate, and assist members of their community and work to contain more extreme elements that look to make statements through bombings and extreme actions.
The threat posed by Hampton draws the attention of FBI Director J Edgar Hoover (Martin Sheen), and plans are developed to take down Hampton and his organization which in turn puts even more pressure on Mitchell and O’Neal.
The movie is a gripping, disturbing, and sure to be controversial look into the lives of the key figures as well as the ongoing debates on racial injustice, police violence, hate groups, and violence in the community.
Director Shaka King attempts to find a balance in the film as there are moments where party members draw their weapons against the police and kill wounded officers. There are also numerous scenes where police beat and shoot unarmed individuals or use excessive force which underscores Hampton’s stance that his community is at war and this is a life or death struggle.
The last time I was so disturbed by a film of this genre was “Detroit” which shocked me with the horrific true crimes that were portrayed and how those involved escaped justice. I thought if as a Caucasian I could be so disturbed and disgusted by the terrifying events portrayed in the film; then they would be truly the stuff of nightmares for people of color.
The cast is very strong and gives memorable performances that show the complexity of their characters. They are not simply a militant and a snitch, but rather complex individuals trying to survive.
“Judas and the Black Messiah” is a very well-crafted film that is equally informative and disturbing and does what good cinema does best; educate, entertain, and inform.
4.5 stars out of 5

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Judas and the Black Messiah was a last-minute addition to this year’s Sundance, which basically changed every list about the most anticipated films of the festival, including my own. The buzz surrounding its Oscar chances, the remarkable cast, and mainly its important narrative based on true events were more than enough reasons to generate an undeniably powerful hype. When I watch movies inspired by real people and/or true stories, I want them to teach me about the historical moment they’re depicting. I want to finish my viewing sessions and know more than what I did at its beginning. I want the film to be enlightening, thought-provoking, and, most of all, impactful.
I’m just a young white man living in Portugal with no previous knowledge of who Fred Hampton was or what he did. The closest I got to learning something about him was during last year’s The Trial of the Chicago 7, but that movie wasn’t even focused on the Black Panther Party, let alone one of his most important revolutionaries. My voice is far from being meaningful in regards to this film, and I will share Black critics’ articles that I find to be worthy of investing your time in reading. However, I do have an opinion about this movie, and I’m in my right to share it. I find Shaka King’s flick to have all of the qualities I mentioned above and much more. One of the best films of the festival, and I’m not risking it by writing it will end up as one of my favorite movies of the year.
In all honesty, I found myself struggling to completely understand Fred Hampton's intent during the first half or so. His goals are clear and can be summed up in simply trying to offer everyone a better life, one that was fair and where everyone was treated equally. My issue wasn't in his motivations or beliefs, but on the violent, murderous path that Hampton was *apparently* inciting people to take - I repeat, I didn't know a single thing about the real story nor Hampton himself. However, Daniel Kaluuya's very first words as the character stuck with me until now - "We're not gonna fight fire with fire, we're gonna fight it with water. We're not gonna fight racism with racism. We're gonna fight it with solidarity. We're not gonna fight capitalism with Black capitalism. We're gonna fight it with socialism" - and he kept developing this idea, which I find incredibly timely.
The scene that ultimately cleared my perception of Hampton's ideas was when William O'Neal takes the latter's most famous speech at the end of the second act in its most literal sense, which leaves Hampton baffled and shocked at O'Neal's interpretation of his words. Hampton's reaction, as well as a more emotional moment with the mother of his child, Deborah Johnson (Dominique Fishback), was the click I needed to fully comprehend the revolutionary's desires. This is one of the best compliments I can offer Shaka King and Will Berson's exquisite, detailed screenplay. It doesn't make Hampton a flawless superhero that never makes mistakes but instead depicts him as a human being who fought for everyone's rights. The latter is closer to being a Messiah than the former.
The intricate narrative might feel a bit too heavy for some viewers, but it packs extraordinarily energetic, inspirational, chill-inducing speeches that I won't forget that soon. Both Hampton and O'Neal raise sensitive themes that will definitely leave the audience thinking and discussing them throughout the year. Despite it being the longest film of the festival, its two-hour runtime feels adequate and well-paced. In addition to this, the terrific, "in your face" cinematography (Sean Bobbitt) focuses on the actors' performances, not giving a chance to the viewers to be distracted with anything else besides the characters' words. The emotional investment in the characters elevates the well-edited (Kristan Sprague) shooting sequences that left me on the edge of my seat (couch), which ultimately serves as a huge praise to the movie's writing.
I left the cast for last. Now, I know 2021 just started, but if Daniel Kaluuya isn't nominated in every single awards show for the respective Best Supporting Actor category, I'll riot. I've yet to witness a less-than-great display from this unbelievably talented actor. Kaluuya is exceptionally captivating from the very first time he shows up on-screen and never drops his level. Lakeith Stanfield is also brilliant as a conflicted William O'Neal, delivering an extremely complex portrayal of someone who has to deal with actions he knows are wrong. Dominique Fishback and Jesse Plemons (Roy Mitchell, an FBI agent) also deserve a shoutout.
Judas and the Black Messiah deserves all the hype it’s been getting and some more. Shaka King and Will Berson deliver a film inspired by true events with all the qualities this type of movie needs: enlightening, inspirational, thought-provoking, and tremendously impactful. Boasting what I’m sure will end up as one of the year’s best performances (Daniel Kaluuya), the story of Fred Hampton and William O’Neal is told through an incredibly captivating narrative, filled to the brim with absolutely epic, riveting, chill-inducing speeches and dialogues that will leave no viewer indifferent. Both characters bring timely themes back to the spotlight, hopefully generating a critical discourse regarding freedom, human rights, and equality. Besides Kaluuya, Lakeith Stanfield deserves massive praise, and I can’t forget about the lingering, character-driven cinematography that elevates every single scene. Final shoutout to Mark Isham and Craig Harris’s unforgettable, addictive score that plays a significant role in the narrative.
Rating: A

> The age of digital gang war.
A German cyber-thriller from the director of 'The Silence'. The second half of the title 'Kein Systen ist Sicher' means 'No System is Safe' in English. So far, lots of films were made on this theme, but nothing was quite delightful as this one. Mainly because of the young cast and the depiction of the contemporary cyber world. With its incredible pace and the exciting storyline, in addition to that, some unexpected twists and turns, the film would easily surpass anybody's anticipation.
It hits the right chord at the right time to bring some of the wonderful scenes. But as usual like any thriller films, the third act was its strength where it peaked that caused to flip its narration to the different facet. There are positives and negatives in the hacking business, but what I witnessed in this was some kind of digital gang war which directly affected the law-enforcement agency. A virtually conflict between two gangs for their superiority over the cyber's underworld. That means don't imagine like an online game between two, but beyond that.
Usually the hackers are the sidekicks for the film's main characters. That's how most of the films depicted them and we know it. But there are some films that highlighted them on the first priority base, yet no film convinced me their genuine acts, both, virtually as well as physically to achieve their goals as in this one. I meant this film was not all about programming, cracking passwords, stealing data, releasing viruses, definitely not about a computer geek,
But yes, it was something like that whose world changes after encountering a small gang like him. They're all experts in different fields and together unstoppable, who later form a team nicknamed CLAY to make friend with the world's number one hacker MRX. After under-appreciated and humiliation, the CLAY dares their icon and urge to take his place, but the plan terribly fails. That's how the story takes a grand venture that brings the secret police into frame to expand its plot to a more interesting conclusion.
> "When the life gives you lemons, ask for salt and tequila."
The balance between all its contents were awesome. Not the whole time they sit in front of the computer and do the stuffs, but there many real outside world adventures. Because there's a belief among us that everything can be done playing with the computer keyboard which proved wrong here. Besides, there was a small slice of romance, and the magic trick which briefly illustrates the film's important phase that holds the key to understand the happenings. The overall narration was a flashback that opens in a police station where our main hero of the story was investigated. He himself compares with the superheroes and the hacking ability is his superpower.
Its not only the racy pace, but the energetic performances by the young actors was also the reason for the film's uplift. From the technical aspect, it was superbly written, directed and edited film. In some way, the film also resembles 'Fight Club' and 'The Usual Suspects'. Looks like the lead character was a big fan of those films and that's how it got influenced. I would have said many things about this film comparing with those two, but I'm trying to avoid the spoiler and it is possible only if I never brought this topic into here. But anyway, this film was one of the hardest nuts to crack what's coming next.
Talking about the twist, it feels like the same old tricks from some of the old Hollywood blockbusters. But you should be patience till the film to end, because that part matters a lot. Probably that's where anyone who watched it will decide how much they liked it. The film generated its own trademark with the black hood and the white mask which already got a cult status among its fans. The rock music was awesomely matched with this theme.
There is a Hollywood version is coming, but I'm hoping for not to mess it up like the majority of remakes does. In the mean time, I'll look forward to an announcement of a possible sequel, because films like this should end in a trilogy. Especially in the todays film business, trilogies are the greatest achievements that followed by the original film's success. If you had loved this film and after seeing the way it ended you won't say no to that. This film is not for IT techies alone, but anyone would enjoy it. Surely I recommend it for who're interested in crime, thriller.
8/10

This is a bad joke without a punch line.
The Killing is directed by Stanley Kubrick who co-adapts to screenplay with Jim Thompson from the novel Clean Break written by Lionel White. It stars Sterling Hayden, Marie Windsor, Elisha Cook Jr, Vince Edwards, Jay C. Flippen and Coleen Gray. Music is by Gerald Fried and cinematography by Lucien Ballard.
Ex-con Johnny Clay (Hayden) has a plan to make a killing at the racetrack, with some special inside help he plots to nab $2 million in an intricate robbery. It looks a good thing, the right people are in place, but there's a potential spanner in the works in the shapely form of Sherry Peatty (Windsor), the unfaithful and devious wife of one of the robbers.
Cheaply made by Kubrick and his producer partner James B. Harris, The Killing is a lean and mean mid 50's film noir. Poorly received at the box office and met with indifference by critics upon release, it's a film that has come to be noted as hugely influential - more so as Kubrick's reputation has grown over the passing years. Clocking in at under 85 minutes, film is told in a fractured narrative structure that at the time was viewed as an oddity. Story is constructed around crosscut flashbacks as the robbery is planned and then executed, with Kubrick's direction as meticulous as the actual robbery itself. It's not hard to understand why confusion was an issue back upon its release, but this is something that now comes off as something of a masterstroke, and this even if Kubrick was forced to tinker with the final product where it was decided to add in a voice-over to aid those troubled by the nonlinear narrative (which the director despised).
In spite of some problems, such as the cheapo sets and some stiff performances from secondary characters, The Killing is quintessential film noir. Kubrick thrives on filming his characters in cramped surroundings, the use of angles very effective, and Ballard photographs superbly for the low-key interiors, thus the mood is perfectly set. Story is filled out with hapless characters, where destinies are defined by greed, betrayal and the devils trump card - that of bad luck. As is normally the case with the best film noir, it's a dame who holds the key to the misery here. Sherry Peatty (Windsor excellent) is cold and utterly bitch like. She has a hold over her cuckolded husband George (Cook Junior never better) that would be easy to detest, that is were it not for the fact George is so pitifully weak! From that coupling bursts a doom and bleakness that underpins the story, rendering the film with a fatalistic sheen.
The Killing does have a dated feel to it, but only slightly (and not remotely irritatingly) so. While there's no denying that the budgetary restrictions - the voice-over and some less than good performances - stop this being the masterpiece of the crime genre some of us want it to be. However, it's a damn fine film, that's tense, exciting and very compelling, and it does deserve to warrant a place on a favourite list of any self respecting film noir fan. 8/10