sankhan99 As the fan of modern noirs which are often called Neo-Noirs I must say John Dahl knows how to make one. He is master of this genre. Good thing about him is that he focuses more on making movie entertaining rather than other aspects. Title in review is one of the example but IMDb users again have not done justice with another Neo-noir and rated it very low as usual.Movie is a wholesome entertainment. Look and feel of the movie is fantastically dark. Putting the highway in the movie even made it best. Characters are well constructed and they all mean business and also are desperate. Some great twists and turns but if you see lot of suspense thrillers then probably you will guess them beforehand. But still that doesn't mean you will not enjoy the movie. This is sort of movie which will glue to your seat for whole time. Pace of movie is good and you will Not find a single boring moment in it.I strongly recommend this movie to neo-noir lovers and also highway thriller lovers will equally enjoy it. So watch it.

elshikh4 Actually I sat to watch an indie kind of movie because I respect that kind as the effective reaction to the extreme big movies of Hollywood or as the true reaction against its pure crap sometimes ! But unfortunately the result was something as pure as the same old crap ! OH MY GOD !.. It's the seventh hundred undeclared remake of the Film-Noir classic (Double Indemnity - 1944) !! So why ? Just why ?! I would give you a list of more and more movies before and after which made the same sin and remade that immortal movie. And the thing is not the idea of the remake itself (despite the numerous number !) inasmuch as its QUAITY.. THE QUAITY YOU PEOPLE ! I began to think that every single movie has the name of (Val Kilmer) on it must mean a total disaster ! Or maybe I'll be aware more when they present a character of unbelievable femme fatale played by unbearable fatal actress ! Alhough (Joanne Whalley) made good performance but she is not that hot at all, so I was shouting all along (Vaaal ! Forget about her.. You deserve better !) and I hoped all the time to be in his shoes because by that way it would be no movie at all as I'll never be seduced by THAT girl ! So regarding that I sat to watch just to see at least a small good movie you'd guess my feelings after the destroying of that desire when I discovered the matter of the Double Indemnity ! But I followed it anyway to watch the efficacy of that new "double" ! Though I've witnessed the destroying of that desire too ! Because in despite of some very strong music and creative cinematography they treated the story so tritely to make it highly predictable with nothing to entertain. It didn't achieve a grade but being customary, and didn't make anything smarter than the 699 other remakes that we've watched before ! So for one who grew up watching too many American movies & TV shows with too many twists, it was so damn easy to find out early about the couple of surprises at the end because simply I've learned from the best, but obviously the makers of this...didn't !

The_Void Even to this day, it's regrettable that the film noir tradition had to die out at the end of the fifties; but all is not quite lost, as since the release of Chinatown in 1974, there has been a steady stream of 'neo-noir' thrillers being released, and while generally not as good as their ancestral counterparts; they usually make for decent films. Kill Me Again is one such thriller; that, while suffering from a number of problems, does a good job in reminding us film fans of the classics from the forties and fifties by creating a good noir atmosphere, which is fused with a typical noir plot line. The film that it takes the most influence from definitely seems to be Billy Wilder's classic "Double Indemnity", as it follows themes of a man being dragged into a plot by a woman and death for profit. The plot follows a woman who escapes her jealous boyfriend after the pair steals over eight hundred grand from some mobsters. He isn't too pleased about her taking his cash, however, and despite her efforts of hiding by hiring a private detective to fake her death; jealous boyfriend remains on her tail.The film starts off well - the plot is set up nicely, and hints at a thrilling ride to come. The middle, too, is well done and remains thrilling while taking in the familiar noir elements. It's the ending that really, really lets the film down, however. The ending is probably the most important part for any film - as it is this that is going to stay in the audience's mind after the credits role; but the filmmakers here haven't realised that. The twist is one the most clear cut cases of having a twist in the film just for the sake of having one. It makes absolutely no sense given what has gone before, and this is matched by the abrupt ending that follows straight after. And then, just so it gets a little bit worse; we get 'treated' to a sappy final conclusion. To it's credit, the cast does well; with Val Kilmer taking the starring role. I'm not a massive fan of this guy, but he usually performs well, and he looks the part here. He is joined by his then-wife, Joanne Whalley and the always excellent Michael Madsen tops off the central trio. It's always great to see Madsen in films, and the role here is an obvious prelude to his career making performance in Reservoir Dogs. Overall, this isn't an essential film - but it's good up until the ending, and I enjoyed it so it gets a thumbs up on the whole.

Robert J. Maxwell Joanne Whaley is a deceitful slut in this complicated neonoir thriller, and Val Kilmer is the private eye she manages to suck into her scheme to steal money from Michael Madsen who has just stolen it from the Mafia. There are multiple murders along the way. In the end everybody gets dead except for Kilmer who makes off with the entire stash. I don't know why the plot let him get away, because he's done all kinds of illegal stuff and proved himself as untrustworthy as anyone else. But the narrative has established him as just about the only sympathetic character in the movie -- his wife recently died in a drowning, for instance.The natural locations around Lake Mead are splayed out across the screen in gorgeous color. You really want to dive into the electric blue of that man-made lake. Urban settings are less well realized.The story line is involved and not very plausible. This babe, Whaley, conks Michael Madsen over the head with a rock while he's at the urinal, which is among other things very bad manners. What's she doing in the men's room anyway? What kind of a movie IS this? After Whaley and Kilmer have been together for a while, Madsen finally catches up to them, threatens and beats Kilmer, and rapes Whaley who manages to find a gun and appears to shoot Madsen multiorgasmically. But no! Madsen shows up for the climax of the film and he and Whaley fall into each other's arms and laugh. I guess he's forgotten about getting bashed in the urinal. And I guess he's still alive because Kilmer didn't bother to check and see if Whaley had REALLY shot him after being raped. Are you following this? Good, because I couldn't. Oh -- and I also must have missed the part in which Kilmer gets to take the money out of the attache case and fill the case with junk, including a can of Spam. In fact -- well, okay, I admit it. I lost track of the money per se once or twice during the film. I'm also not certain why we are left to assume that, at the end, Kilmer can be presumed to be safe from both the Mafia and the police. I'm sure there's some reason because I am a mechanical determinist.Performances. Whaley is suitably sluttish and very yummy. She looks a little and acts a lot like Natalie Wood and is about the same size. I rather liked her appearance -- that saucy ever-jiggling bosom, those big dark eyes looking outward in two slightly different directions.Whatever "charisma" means, Val Kilmer hasn't got it here. He recites his lines as if reading them from a cue card on an afternoon drama. There is no animation in his delivery or his movement. He seems bored by having to speak. And he has prissy good looks that are repugnant. But, man, did he come awake for some roles in later movies, doing for instance a splendid job in "Heat." But here he seems to be playing his instrument with a mute.Poor Michael Madsen, a nice guy in real life apparently. But if you've seen "Reservoir Dogs," you know what he's like here, slavering over the prospect of torturing bound prisoners with lighted cigarettes, automatics, a hunting knife, a baseball bat. Sometimes he switches from one application to another in the middle of a schtick.I was kind of in the mood for it and was pretty much disappointed by it, but I can see why someone in a less demanding mood might enjoy it. It doesn't really seem to deserve much applause.