Zed (Eric Stoltz) has only just arrived in the beautiful Paris and already he is up to no good. Having just slept with a call girl (Julie Delpy), he spends a night on the town with his dangerous friends. They all decide to rob a bank the following day. There is only one problem: Zed's call-girl, Zoe, just happens to work at the bank which is to be robbed! I believe this film comes from the same guy who wrote "Pulp Fiction", and the similarities are evident. Although the first half is a strange romance-turned-heist, the film gets increasingly violent as it carries on. This is very much the same style as "Pulp Fiction". (Both also feature Eric Stoltz.) Julie Delpy is interesting here. Although she is more or less reduced to a secondary character, it is interesting how she was something of the "it girl" as far as French women in American movies were concerned. She was not the first or the last, but it seems that at any given time there is always one French actress who is the standard for appearing in American films.
105 Reviews
Assured directing debut by Roger Avary
gridoon202412 May 2019
Roger Avary collaborated (as a writer) with Quentin Tarantino in his early projects, so it's no surprise that his own directing debut would be in the same vein: dirty humor, sudden bursts of violence, unlawful and immoral characters, pop references, etc. And it's an impressive debut - if never as outstanding as "Reservoir Dogs". The first half is druggy and draggy, but the second half is arresting (no pun intended). Eric Stoltz is a little bland, but Jean Hugues Anglade dominates the film as an unrelentingly psychopathic villain - he keeps you in a state of nervous apprehension about what he may do next. *** out of 4.
A film of 2 haves.
richieandsam10 April 2013
KILLING ZOE
I liked it... but it was a film of 2 halves.
The first half of the movie was just average at best. A group of people that get together to arrange a bank robbery, but most of the first 45 minutes was just them getting wasted on drugs and messing about around Paris. This part of the movie dragged on a bit. It was OK, but more could have happened. But the second half was awesome. The bank robbery.
When the entered the bank, the movie really picked up the pace.
Zoe is the receptionist in the bank that the group hold up...the problem is, Zoe is also a hooker that one of the robbers has fallen in love with. He didn't know she worked there.
The cast was good though. Eric Stoltz, Jean-Hughes Anglade & Julie Delpy really do well. I connected with the characters these guys played. There were even some good supporting roles too. Especially Gary Kemp. Who would have known that the guy from Spandau Ballet could be a good actor. He was really good in the Krays too.
There was one scene in the movie though that made me laugh. Someone gets shot and has about 200 bullets shot at him from a few guns all at the same time... yet he did not go down! He still stood there for about 30 seconds after. I am pretty sure he would have gone down a long time after that. Also, there is a brilliant comical scene with a cat. :)
There was a really good raw feel to this movie that I loved... Tarantino usually has that feel with his films. I suppose this has it because he was Executive Producer.
All in all this film was good. I will give it 7 out of 10.
A slow first half, but a great second half and ending.
For more reviews, please like my Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ordinary-Person-Movie- Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl
I liked it... but it was a film of 2 halves.
The first half of the movie was just average at best. A group of people that get together to arrange a bank robbery, but most of the first 45 minutes was just them getting wasted on drugs and messing about around Paris. This part of the movie dragged on a bit. It was OK, but more could have happened. But the second half was awesome. The bank robbery.
When the entered the bank, the movie really picked up the pace.
Zoe is the receptionist in the bank that the group hold up...the problem is, Zoe is also a hooker that one of the robbers has fallen in love with. He didn't know she worked there.
The cast was good though. Eric Stoltz, Jean-Hughes Anglade & Julie Delpy really do well. I connected with the characters these guys played. There were even some good supporting roles too. Especially Gary Kemp. Who would have known that the guy from Spandau Ballet could be a good actor. He was really good in the Krays too.
There was one scene in the movie though that made me laugh. Someone gets shot and has about 200 bullets shot at him from a few guns all at the same time... yet he did not go down! He still stood there for about 30 seconds after. I am pretty sure he would have gone down a long time after that. Also, there is a brilliant comical scene with a cat. :)
There was a really good raw feel to this movie that I loved... Tarantino usually has that feel with his films. I suppose this has it because he was Executive Producer.
All in all this film was good. I will give it 7 out of 10.
A slow first half, but a great second half and ending.
For more reviews, please like my Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ordinary-Person-Movie- Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl
Underrated caper flick. Not a great movie, sure, but still a very good one.
Infofreak12 May 2003
'Killing Zoe' is a movie that has grown on me over the years. When I first watched it I didn't think all that much of it, but each time I've seen it since I've liked it a little more, and I'm at the point now where I like it a lot. I don't think it's a GREAT movie, but it's a very good one, and extremely underrated. Roger Avary's connection with Quentin Tarantino has turned out to be more of a hindrance than a help to him. 'Killing Zoe' was frequently dismissed as just another Tarantino clone, which to me is unfair, because a) Avery actually wrote some of 'Reservoir Dogs', 'Pulp Fiction' and 'True Romance' (usually uncredited), and b) though the subject matter of 'Killing Zoe' is similar to say 'Reservoir Dogs', the approach is very different. And let's face it the heist-gone-wrong flick has a long history (the influence of 1950s crime classics 'Rififi', 'Bob Le Flambeur' and/or 'The Killing' on all subsequent variations of it cannot be underestimated), and Tarantino was building on an already established tradition. As well as that the hostage aspect of 'Killing Zoe' brings to mind 'Dog Day Afternoon' more than anything by QT. Anyway, I think this is an interesting movie. The violence is pretty blatant, but apart from that it is a subtle, character driven movie. Eric Stoltz ('Pulp Fiction') and Julie Delpy ('Before Sunrise') are both very good, especially in their first scene together, but the real stand out performance is by Jean-Hughes Anglade ('Betty Blue') who is outstanding. Anglade really makes the movie for me. 'Killing Zoe's reputation seems to be growing as the years go by, and now that the mid-90s Tarantino hype has died down it's about time it was judged on its own merits.
Underrated, but by no means missing out...
dodgee_693 June 2005
Killing Zoe is definitely an underrated film, which has never received recognition it deserves. Tarantino executive produced the film, but seeing as he has worked closely with writer/director Roger Avary before, most notably Pulp Fiction, we could assume he had a little more in put. Not wanting to take anything away from Avary of course, he is a fully accomplished film maker and this shows throughout Killing Zoe. The script is well crafted, the acting convincing and the framing all very amicable. However, whilst there is nothing bad to say about it, there is nothing to rave about either. The film ticks along nicely, and before you know it you're at the end. The dialogue doesn't snap quite as you would like it too and all the characters seem to be lacking any real urgency that you might expect considering a bank robbery being planned.
All the same, this is a good crime thriller, and very much a part of the early nineties violence invasion. Worth checking out if you're a Tarantino fanatic, or if you really have nothing else to do.
All the same, this is a good crime thriller, and very much a part of the early nineties violence invasion. Worth checking out if you're a Tarantino fanatic, or if you really have nothing else to do.
It seems people are repulsed right away.
ad202015 November 2000
Which I have to think is the movie's intention, so that the themes presented here are really covered up by the desensitization that the movie embellishes in, you have little things in this movie that points to themes of extremist humanity. I haven't seen this movie in a LONG time, but I can remember it revolving around Eric Stoltz's Zed is a person balanced between purity and desolation, whereas Julie Delphy as Zoe represents his purer side and Jean-Hugues Anglade as Eric represents desolation. And you can see that in the hostages vs. the druggie robbers. All the hostages getting killed as well as Eric doing what a screwed up person would do to get rid of Zoe would explain the title, if anybody really didn't get it. I gave it a 8 however, there is little substance, although it's obviously there, but it's still entertaining in it's own right!
Attention-Grabbing French Crime Film
ccthemovieman-121 March 2006
A rough and sometimes sordid movie is a short way to summarize this film. It's about a no-nonsense gang of drugged-out French thieves whose bank robbery attempt backfires into a bloody mess.
For those who object, be warned there are a fair amount of subtitles in here and a lot of f-words. This was a tough gang, and the lead characters are pretty grubby, they aren't really very likable people.
I like Jean-Hughes Anglade's accent and I always like ogling Julie Delpy, although I've seen her look better. The city of Paris looked good with some nice shots in the beginning and at the end of the movie.
Anglade, as the leader of the gang, was brutal but fascinating. My only complaint was the film was too sordid in spots (drugs, language and attitude). but overall, an entertaining crime film. It gets your attention and keeps it.
For those who object, be warned there are a fair amount of subtitles in here and a lot of f-words. This was a tough gang, and the lead characters are pretty grubby, they aren't really very likable people.
I like Jean-Hughes Anglade's accent and I always like ogling Julie Delpy, although I've seen her look better. The city of Paris looked good with some nice shots in the beginning and at the end of the movie.
Anglade, as the leader of the gang, was brutal but fascinating. My only complaint was the film was too sordid in spots (drugs, language and attitude). but overall, an entertaining crime film. It gets your attention and keeps it.
Surprisingly decent, actually
The_Void16 March 2005
Killing Zoe is the feature film debut from Quentin Tarantino's ex-friend and collaborator on Pulp Fiction, Roger Avery. Avery is less talented than his ex-friend, that's beyond question and it shows in this movie; which despite not being bad at all, isn't brilliant either. The first thing you'll notice about it is it's European styling, which emancipates from the fact that it's set in Paris and it's cast of actors, who hail from across Europe (and the world). We've got French, British, Japanese and most probably more. The plot is Reservoir Dogs-ish, with a bunch of men planning a bank heist. We follow Zed (Erik Stoltz), an American that has just arrived in Paris and hooked himself with a hooker. He's in on the robbery of course, but before he gets there he's taken on a night out around Paris, for drugs, drinking and god only knows what else. Naturally, the film is cool as anything; and this appears to be the entire point of the movie as the plot lacks bite, charm or anything resembling a point.
Killing Zoe gains credibility for being very entertaining, and you'll wonder where the time has gone while watching this movie, which is never a bad thing. Of course, it is, in effect, a waste of time; but if you enjoy watching it, it hardly matters. The film is continually unpleasant, with violence, gore, swearing, nudity and the rest of the gang featuring heavily, which will no doubt offend some - but certainly not me. Eric Stoltz takes the lead role, and does well with it; even if he does never really impress, and at times even looks uncomfortable. Julie Delpy is the title character and she doesn't impress either; she'd prove her worth a year later in Before Sunrise, of course, but here she doesn't really impress. Jean-Hugues Anglade, who does impress as the lead villain, steals the show. He's loud, brash and over the top; making every scene he's in a delight. Avery's direction is solid for most of the movie, but he appears to get a little big headed towards the end when he throws in lots of little tricks that aren't all that good. However, this is certainly a decent movie and fans of Tarantino will probably think "it's awesome!"
Killing Zoe gains credibility for being very entertaining, and you'll wonder where the time has gone while watching this movie, which is never a bad thing. Of course, it is, in effect, a waste of time; but if you enjoy watching it, it hardly matters. The film is continually unpleasant, with violence, gore, swearing, nudity and the rest of the gang featuring heavily, which will no doubt offend some - but certainly not me. Eric Stoltz takes the lead role, and does well with it; even if he does never really impress, and at times even looks uncomfortable. Julie Delpy is the title character and she doesn't impress either; she'd prove her worth a year later in Before Sunrise, of course, but here she doesn't really impress. Jean-Hugues Anglade, who does impress as the lead villain, steals the show. He's loud, brash and over the top; making every scene he's in a delight. Avery's direction is solid for most of the movie, but he appears to get a little big headed towards the end when he throws in lots of little tricks that aren't all that good. However, this is certainly a decent movie and fans of Tarantino will probably think "it's awesome!"
Generation X Heist Movie
raegan_butcher15 December 2003
Killing Zoe played in Seattle theaters for exactly one week in August of 1994 and I managed to see it twice.Everything about this movie worked for me: the writing, the cinematography,the acting, the editing and the music. From the first images rushing through the streets of Paris until the blood-soaked climax, I was mesmerized. I consider myself lucky to have seen it in theaters with a good sound system becauseI have queried friends who have seen it on video and they had a completely different opinion of the film because they had missed key lines of dialog that really go a long way towards investing Killing Zoe with a certain quintessentially 90s vibe of doomed heroin-soaked romanticism, giving it deeper levels than most people are willing to admit.
A Good, Honest Job
Piper-1017 February 1999
Cute, original, and funny, but lacking in a coherent structure. Avary's film has a lot of spontaneity, character, and wit--traits that made Tarantino such a big success--but he lacks Tarantino's most off-putting characteristic: Avary doesn't seem to want to be better than he is, nor hipper than he is. The flaw of his style is that "Killing Zoe" lacks enough serious development. After getting into the bank, the movie flattens out. It's still a romp, but I wouldn't say it's a fully-realized picture.
Ouch! It's amateur night.
ombret20 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
What an atrocity. I am not one to demand total verisimilitude from a movie, but the plot and screenplay of "Killing Zoe" are so artless that I found myself wincing through the entire (mercifully short) ninety minutes of the film.
Readers of these reviews will by now have figured out the plot: Zoe, a call girl who falls in love with American safecracker Zed, is also an employee at the bank that Zed will help rob in a high-stakes Bastille Day heist.
The film strains one's credibility from the get-go. Zed and Zoe's night of magic is highly prosaic, and Zoe's claims to have experienced the orgasm of a lifetime would seem to reflect the screenwriter's lingering teenage fantasies more than any actual on-screen chemistry. Zed's complete indifference when his friend Eric throws Zoe out of the hotel room hardly sets the stage for their later strong attachment.
In act two, Eric's band of bohemians--drug-addled losers leading a marginal life of petty crime--prepare for their big heist with a night on the town. Here Roger Avary's main goal seems to be to prove that he knows something about drugs. A secondary thread involves convincing us (by endless repetition) that Eric is really, REALLY glad to see his old friend Zed again. Really glad. Eric's devil-may-care, over-the-top flamboyance and affection for Zed isn't even remotely believable--check out, for example, his phony bemusement at discovering a dead cat in his apartment building. Development of the characters who will accompany us through the rest of the film is an afterthought.
The heist is a disaster--understandable, since the plan is laughable and the criminals are complete amateurs. This is where Avary continues to pay tribute to his idol Quentin Tarantino by showing that he can be more violent than violent. In reality, though, he's just more boring than boring. To build up the excitement, there is an extra security guard hidden inside the main safe. This was boring in video games, and it's boring now.
Zoe is taken hostage during the heist but despite our expectation that she'll play a pivotal role, she just sits pretty. Or more precisely, Avary fails to do anything with her. In literally the last five minutes she springs to life, breaks the hostage situation and saves the grateful, but still dazed Zed from suffering any consequences of his crime. Why she doesn't mind his involvement in the crime--or why she gives a damn about him at all--is impossible to tell. After all, she's had no chance to see that he's any more decent than the rest of the gang.
Throughout, the dialogue is stilted and phony. Much of it is in French. As a native speaker, I can certify that it doesn't ring even remotely true. Eric's sugary-sweet discourse, rapidly alternating with tough-guy boasting, is meant to be at turns charming and scary, but is instead just grating. Meanwhile his scaredy-cat accomplices are more Scooby-Doo than Thomas Crown. When Eric is gunned down in a ludicrous example of excessive force, we can all breathe a sigh of relief: like the bank hostages, we will soon be freed from this miserable ordeal.
Readers of these reviews will by now have figured out the plot: Zoe, a call girl who falls in love with American safecracker Zed, is also an employee at the bank that Zed will help rob in a high-stakes Bastille Day heist.
The film strains one's credibility from the get-go. Zed and Zoe's night of magic is highly prosaic, and Zoe's claims to have experienced the orgasm of a lifetime would seem to reflect the screenwriter's lingering teenage fantasies more than any actual on-screen chemistry. Zed's complete indifference when his friend Eric throws Zoe out of the hotel room hardly sets the stage for their later strong attachment.
In act two, Eric's band of bohemians--drug-addled losers leading a marginal life of petty crime--prepare for their big heist with a night on the town. Here Roger Avary's main goal seems to be to prove that he knows something about drugs. A secondary thread involves convincing us (by endless repetition) that Eric is really, REALLY glad to see his old friend Zed again. Really glad. Eric's devil-may-care, over-the-top flamboyance and affection for Zed isn't even remotely believable--check out, for example, his phony bemusement at discovering a dead cat in his apartment building. Development of the characters who will accompany us through the rest of the film is an afterthought.
The heist is a disaster--understandable, since the plan is laughable and the criminals are complete amateurs. This is where Avary continues to pay tribute to his idol Quentin Tarantino by showing that he can be more violent than violent. In reality, though, he's just more boring than boring. To build up the excitement, there is an extra security guard hidden inside the main safe. This was boring in video games, and it's boring now.
Zoe is taken hostage during the heist but despite our expectation that she'll play a pivotal role, she just sits pretty. Or more precisely, Avary fails to do anything with her. In literally the last five minutes she springs to life, breaks the hostage situation and saves the grateful, but still dazed Zed from suffering any consequences of his crime. Why she doesn't mind his involvement in the crime--or why she gives a damn about him at all--is impossible to tell. After all, she's had no chance to see that he's any more decent than the rest of the gang.
Throughout, the dialogue is stilted and phony. Much of it is in French. As a native speaker, I can certify that it doesn't ring even remotely true. Eric's sugary-sweet discourse, rapidly alternating with tough-guy boasting, is meant to be at turns charming and scary, but is instead just grating. Meanwhile his scaredy-cat accomplices are more Scooby-Doo than Thomas Crown. When Eric is gunned down in a ludicrous example of excessive force, we can all breathe a sigh of relief: like the bank hostages, we will soon be freed from this miserable ordeal.
An overlooked bloody gem.
suzy q1236 March 2001
I love this movie. I just rented it again, and was not disappointed. Sure, it's bloody (Tarantino produced it) and nihilistic and all that, but it's also got a wonderful sense of anarchy that most films are afraid to commit too. As Emanuel Levy says in his book about independent cinema ("Cinema of Outsiders), "it promises to take off in unexpected directions but it's major distinction is it's gift for hysteria and pompous existentialism." It's all flash and blood and Julie Delphys breasts and guns and just a helluva lot of fun. Great out there performance by Jean-Hugues Anglade as the insane French bank robber and Eric Stoltz as the moral center (!?) of the madness. This film is even more fun when you've had a pint or two beforehand.
From badly executed drama to funny gangster comedy
Ryu_Darkwood27 March 2008
You can completely skip the boring and utterly annoying first hour to go to the second half. The drama in it is really lame. They try to spice it up with controversial topics ( AIDS, hookers ) but in the end that is just to cover up the lack of good ideas to make an innovative action movie. From a bad executed drama it suddenly turns into a nice gangster comedy like Reservoir Dogs. Everything just leads up to the robbing of the bank and the dark humor that goes along with it. Okay, so it's all a bit clichéd, but who cares...? This is not world class cinema, but it is good enough for a boring Saturday eve. Just don't watch it with too many expectations. And don't think that something produced by Tarantino makes it into a new Pulp Fiction, it just doesn't.
Damn, I just wasted my money......
orbit6630 December 2005
If you watch the documentary extra, you'll note that the director is totally inexperienced and was actually a co-worker bud of Quentin Tarantinos in a video store. Put two and two together and you realise Quentin is doing a favour for his old bud, despite the bud being rather talentless. Was that harsh? Well see this film and you'll realise it isn't. Too slow in the beginning, too nonsensical in the middle, and too slow to end. That about sums it up. Eric Stolz & Delpy were the only two showing some charisma. And Kemp actually put in an OK performance. But the rest was real bad. One instance of plot stupidity was when "lead robber" accidentally leaves his mask off during the raid. So what happens? Well the other robbers decide they may as well remove theirs too! What great thinking. The violence was relentless and insane. But not in a "cool" way. Rather in a farcical way. I wondered if this was meant to be a comedy. More fool Tarantino for having his good name connected to this garbage. More fool me for watching it.
A solid exploitation art-house thriller, though not without flaws
LLAAA48376 August 2008
Eric Stoltz plays a man named Zed who travels to Paris in order to catch up with a childhood friend named Eric (Jean-Hugues Anglade) and help him rob a Federal Reserve bank. Upon his arrival, he sleeps with a call girl named Zoe (Julie Delpy) who he ends up falling in love with. When Zed goes to meet Eric, he ends up spending the night with him and all of his junkie friends who hide out in a run down apartment building with a dead feline near the entrance to their room. They plan to rob the bank the next morning, and Zed is going to be the safe cracker. After much passing out, puking, hallucinating, and a male rape, Zed and the rest of the gang awaken in a drunken daze, already late for their robbery, and then they foolishly attempt to rob the bank while still moderately trashed, hungover, and restless. Naturally things go very wrong very fast, and it becomes no longer about getting the money, but more about trying to survive.
If Roger Avary's intention was to make a truly memorable art house exploitation film, he succeeded with flying colors. I'm pretty sure that this was intention and there's no denying that this is a good film. I have some serious problems with Killing Zoe, however, and those problems have much to do with the first two thirds of the picture. Avary spends a very large portion of the film in this junkie world with these truly atrocious and ugly characters doing ugly things. I felt that too much time was spent in this world. The only likable character is Julie Delpy's character, and she doesn't get nearly enough screen time as she should. As for Eric Stoltz, he pretty much plays the same character as he played in Pulp Fiction, though not anywhere near as much as a prick. His character, Zed, for the most part is a fairly goofy, eccentric, and slight perverted guy. I liked how he wasn't an entirely sympathetic protagonist. His character, for the most part, works. Likewise for his friend Eric, who is a completely horrific villain. He's disgusting, sleazy, skeletal-looking, and a sweaty mess of a man who has little conscience and no morals, and I applaud Jean-Hugues Anglade for playing a role that few actors would have the balls to play. This brings me to my biggest gripe with the film, however. These are the three main characters, but they are also the three most interesting characters as well. Every other character is completely disposable they take up far too much screen time that should have been devoted to the three main characters. To make matters worse, in the third act of the film when the characters actually try to rob the bank, a good portion of all of these characters are killed off almost immediately. While I applaud Roger Avary for crafting such a strong vision of graphic carnage in the third act, I felt that he was betraying the trash quality that took place in the first two acts with these junkie characters getting slaughtered so damn quickly. As the last act of the film stands, most of the characters end up getting killed off almost constantly and with little to no emotion. When it is not a member of the gang getting killed it is either a security guard or an innocent civilian. Somebody is almost always getting killed, often in over-the-top fashion.
What I did love about Killing Zoe was the look of the film. The bank that the film takes place in during the final act is just gorgeous in how claustrophobic it is. The walls of the bank are red, and it only adds to the psychotic nature of the Eric character. The character really is quite terrifying, and the bank that Avary shot in has a perfect interior for these sort of characters. The middle section mostly takes place in real grimy, dirty, dark areas that look completely hellish. Somehow the bank looks like a scarier location than the junkie hideouts, and I liked that. The opening and closing scenes show some beautiful shots of Paris as well, which definitely helped elevate the film even more. I also felt that the final act of the film, despite the gratuitous bloodshed and carnage, really was quite suspenseful and intense. The film is so furious in it's tone and the final act really pulls it all together. At times it is difficult to watch because the audience knows right away that the situation is going to go wrong and the characters are doomed. When the bank robbery actually starts, it is so disorganized and so uncoordinated that a feeling of unhinged maniacal danger sets in immediately. It makes the film a little bit different from other heist films. The characters are all young, hapless, and careless people who have abandoned reality.
Killing Zoe lacks a sense of control, which both helps and hurts the film. On one hand, it certainly helps make the final act of the film that much more shocking and realistic. On the other hand, it is difficult to look part the first two thirds of the film. I do think that this film has an audience, but I also think that it's difficult to call it a good film. It works in a lot of ways. Visually, it's better than it needs to be. The performances are all very strong, not to mention ballsy, and the vision of hell this film paints is pretty tough to shake. It's a rough film, but it manages to have a lot of energy. It is a very flawed film. However, if you're a fan of trash cinema and exploitation, you may want to give this a try. It's a messy film, but it's effective and definitely memorable.
If Roger Avary's intention was to make a truly memorable art house exploitation film, he succeeded with flying colors. I'm pretty sure that this was intention and there's no denying that this is a good film. I have some serious problems with Killing Zoe, however, and those problems have much to do with the first two thirds of the picture. Avary spends a very large portion of the film in this junkie world with these truly atrocious and ugly characters doing ugly things. I felt that too much time was spent in this world. The only likable character is Julie Delpy's character, and she doesn't get nearly enough screen time as she should. As for Eric Stoltz, he pretty much plays the same character as he played in Pulp Fiction, though not anywhere near as much as a prick. His character, Zed, for the most part is a fairly goofy, eccentric, and slight perverted guy. I liked how he wasn't an entirely sympathetic protagonist. His character, for the most part, works. Likewise for his friend Eric, who is a completely horrific villain. He's disgusting, sleazy, skeletal-looking, and a sweaty mess of a man who has little conscience and no morals, and I applaud Jean-Hugues Anglade for playing a role that few actors would have the balls to play. This brings me to my biggest gripe with the film, however. These are the three main characters, but they are also the three most interesting characters as well. Every other character is completely disposable they take up far too much screen time that should have been devoted to the three main characters. To make matters worse, in the third act of the film when the characters actually try to rob the bank, a good portion of all of these characters are killed off almost immediately. While I applaud Roger Avary for crafting such a strong vision of graphic carnage in the third act, I felt that he was betraying the trash quality that took place in the first two acts with these junkie characters getting slaughtered so damn quickly. As the last act of the film stands, most of the characters end up getting killed off almost constantly and with little to no emotion. When it is not a member of the gang getting killed it is either a security guard or an innocent civilian. Somebody is almost always getting killed, often in over-the-top fashion.
What I did love about Killing Zoe was the look of the film. The bank that the film takes place in during the final act is just gorgeous in how claustrophobic it is. The walls of the bank are red, and it only adds to the psychotic nature of the Eric character. The character really is quite terrifying, and the bank that Avary shot in has a perfect interior for these sort of characters. The middle section mostly takes place in real grimy, dirty, dark areas that look completely hellish. Somehow the bank looks like a scarier location than the junkie hideouts, and I liked that. The opening and closing scenes show some beautiful shots of Paris as well, which definitely helped elevate the film even more. I also felt that the final act of the film, despite the gratuitous bloodshed and carnage, really was quite suspenseful and intense. The film is so furious in it's tone and the final act really pulls it all together. At times it is difficult to watch because the audience knows right away that the situation is going to go wrong and the characters are doomed. When the bank robbery actually starts, it is so disorganized and so uncoordinated that a feeling of unhinged maniacal danger sets in immediately. It makes the film a little bit different from other heist films. The characters are all young, hapless, and careless people who have abandoned reality.
Killing Zoe lacks a sense of control, which both helps and hurts the film. On one hand, it certainly helps make the final act of the film that much more shocking and realistic. On the other hand, it is difficult to look part the first two thirds of the film. I do think that this film has an audience, but I also think that it's difficult to call it a good film. It works in a lot of ways. Visually, it's better than it needs to be. The performances are all very strong, not to mention ballsy, and the vision of hell this film paints is pretty tough to shake. It's a rough film, but it manages to have a lot of energy. It is a very flawed film. However, if you're a fan of trash cinema and exploitation, you may want to give this a try. It's a messy film, but it's effective and definitely memorable.
Very good but treated unfairly .
shadowman12314 November 2005
Killing Zoe is truly a really good film from a time from when I was just a little kid but what I can say about the film is one thing for sure as a lot of people are saying on the IMDb is that this film is treated quite unfairly due to the fact that it has that Tarintino name on the DVD box . And with that said people already have expectations and hopes for the film and then are probably let down because it does not live up to the hype . Let me just say that this movie indeed has some Tarintino elements but it IS BY NO MEANS A QT FLICK !!! On the whole it one of those leave your brain at the door movies that provides to be good fast paced entertainment which has 2 other major film elements and they are Resivour Dogs and Dog Day Afternoon but in its own way is a wacky piece of work with a lot of hardcore drug taking , joking about and a bank heist in which everything could go wrong, did go wrong ! There is not much Chracther development in here so don't expect much and the movie starts of really quickly and ends really abruptly as well . I want to give this movie a 7 but unfortunately it did not really go the whole distance so instead it gets a 6.5 from me . On the whole worth a check out , you might like it , you might not , on the whole I enjoyed it . P.S. - For all the Julie Delpy fans , you get to see her tits !
Highly violent entertainment
itamarscomix4 October 2005
It's easy to discuss 'Killing Zoe's problems; they are, after all, plentiful and in clear view. It's hard to deny, though, that it's an incredibly entertaining movie. It's important not to be misled by the treacherous phrase 'from the creators of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction'; Killing Zoe was directed by Roger Avary, who may has a co-writer's credit on Pulp Fiction but his part in it was quite small; in Reservoir Dogs all his actually did was write the radio dialog that runs in the background. Quentin Tarantino was executive producer, but clearly had no influence on the creative side of the movie. The presence of Tarantino's name on the Killing Zoe DVD is a double-ended sword; on the one hand, it's what made me notice it and pick it up in the first place, and I'm sure it helped a lot in the film's sales when it was first released. On the other, it inevitably creates some high expectations, and these can hinder your enjoyment from the movie, as they did mine. Because while Killing Zoe shares with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction some themes of crime, drugs, sex and honor among thieves, it shares none of Tarantino's witty, sarcastic edge and cultural awareness.
If, however, you remember to steer clear of these expectations and if you like this kind of movie, of course then you're bound to enjoy Killing Zoe. It's a fast-paced, entertaining crime story with lots of violence, some sense of humor, some sex and a lot of atmosphere. Very good performances are also given by the beautiful Julie Delpy ("the prostitute with a heart of gold") and Jean-Hugues Anglade ("the psychopathic sadist"), who plays one of the coolest villains of the 90's (who's more than a bit similar to Gary Oldman's fantastic Agent Stansfield from 'Leon'), and these two almost make up for the unimpressive leading man we have in Eric Stoltz who, though he made a fine career for himself playing small character roles in fantastic films from Pulp Fiction to Singles, had not proved himself as a capable lead since his breakthrough performance as a disfigured boy in Mask who plays a rather unlikable and uninteresting hero.
Killing Zoe is a featherweight film with absolutely no depth to the story or characters, that generally likes waving around the sex and violence for the sake of sex and violence, which are sometimes unnecessarily excessive (like the far too long sex scene at the beginning, or the gory image of the dying man near the end); it's not a very intelligent crime movie, and it won't stick with you, but it's great entertainment, with fantastic atmosphere, and for any fan of the genre one who is not easily offended (and you'll be amazed at how dirty a dirty joke sounds in French even if you don't understand one word) - it's well worth seeing. Keep your expectations low, and you'll have lots of fun.
If, however, you remember to steer clear of these expectations and if you like this kind of movie, of course then you're bound to enjoy Killing Zoe. It's a fast-paced, entertaining crime story with lots of violence, some sense of humor, some sex and a lot of atmosphere. Very good performances are also given by the beautiful Julie Delpy ("the prostitute with a heart of gold") and Jean-Hugues Anglade ("the psychopathic sadist"), who plays one of the coolest villains of the 90's (who's more than a bit similar to Gary Oldman's fantastic Agent Stansfield from 'Leon'), and these two almost make up for the unimpressive leading man we have in Eric Stoltz who, though he made a fine career for himself playing small character roles in fantastic films from Pulp Fiction to Singles, had not proved himself as a capable lead since his breakthrough performance as a disfigured boy in Mask who plays a rather unlikable and uninteresting hero.
Killing Zoe is a featherweight film with absolutely no depth to the story or characters, that generally likes waving around the sex and violence for the sake of sex and violence, which are sometimes unnecessarily excessive (like the far too long sex scene at the beginning, or the gory image of the dying man near the end); it's not a very intelligent crime movie, and it won't stick with you, but it's great entertainment, with fantastic atmosphere, and for any fan of the genre one who is not easily offended (and you'll be amazed at how dirty a dirty joke sounds in French even if you don't understand one word) - it's well worth seeing. Keep your expectations low, and you'll have lots of fun.
2 movies in one -
BrashFink14 March 2002
This movie can be basically divided into two parts, the opening part where Zed runs around Paris with drug crazed maniacs and the KILLER bank heist at the end. The first half drones on and on with these characters who are all losers and no one cares about them. These peoples personalities could have been summed up in 15 minutes, not the 40 or more spent on it. By contrast, the second half is great. Very Typical of the writer/director's work with Quentin Tarantino in the past. Clever ending
Very good but not perfect
asterix-519 June 1999
One of the better movies i've seen in recent weeks. acting was good, the music did well to add to the feeling of the scenes, camera effects were good. but there were a few small things that bothered me that probably no one else would have noticed otherwise. for one, at times the sound effects were cheap. i recall in at least one fighting scene, the punching sounds made me think i was watching a looney tunes cartoon. i also thought the fade-to-black routine was a bit overused. there are other ways to change points-of-view or make breaks in thought. and what's up with the police not caring about the hostages' well-being?? was this paris or pluto? kinda strange to give the cops that mentality, and yet, when they encounter the villain, they hesitate to shoot him. there are a few other minor things that made me wonder, but overall i enjoyed this movie. i gave it a 7.
doubled my heartbeat
vreemdmuzikantje19 August 2005
Saw this movie twice. First time was a about ten years ago, when I was still a teenager. Almost forgot about it, but when i saw it again I realized this movie really shocked me at that time, and I even must admit that it still does. It starts off kind of slow, but that's just a tease for what's about to come. Don't watch this if you're weak at heart, not that it is that explicit, but the violence is kind of brutal, no sentimental bullshit, no mercy. If somebody ever asks me to rob a bank, I definitely say no. I almost wanted to give this a 9/10, but mmm, the first part should have been just a little more intriguing. Once they're in the bank, oh man!
bank robbery genre
SnoopyStyle4 February 2016
Zed (Eric Stoltz) arrives in Paris, goes to a hotel room and has sex with call-girl Zoe (Julie Delpy). His lowlife friend Eric (Jean-Hugues Anglade) pulls Zoe out of the shower and throws her out of the room naked. Eric is the leader and Zed is the safecracker. Their group goes to rob a bank where Zoe happens to be a worker. Zed is shocked that people are getting killed right from the start and the job goes wrong.
Coming out at around the same time, this was overshadowed by Pulp Fiction. It certainly isn't as well-written or well-constructed. Zed is a slacker-type and isn't a compelling lead character. His druggie self is low-energy and isn't that interesting. The first act with Julie Delpy is memorable but the middle is completely forgettable. The bank robbery regains some interest.
Coming out at around the same time, this was overshadowed by Pulp Fiction. It certainly isn't as well-written or well-constructed. Zed is a slacker-type and isn't a compelling lead character. His druggie self is low-energy and isn't that interesting. The first act with Julie Delpy is memorable but the middle is completely forgettable. The bank robbery regains some interest.
A Movie That Goes Horribly Wrong
joebuck9040513 October 2002
Yet another entry in the seemingly endless series of films about a crime that goes horribly wrong. (The original such film from the 1950's, "The Killing" by Stanley Kubrick about a botched racetrack heist told from multiple viewpoints was clearly a big influence on Quentin Tarantino and his former friend Mr. Avary).
When I rented this movie a few years ago, I absolutely hated it. It has no redeeming value; I don't even recall any clever dialogue. It was a dud at the box office and for good reason. I am puzzled by some of the positive user comments and wonder if those users have ever seen a movie that they didn't like.
Rightly or wrongly, the French come off very badly in this film. The bank robbery itself is very violent. If only there were some good dialogue, the violence would not be so offputting.
Killing Zoe is a bad way of killing time.
When I rented this movie a few years ago, I absolutely hated it. It has no redeeming value; I don't even recall any clever dialogue. It was a dud at the box office and for good reason. I am puzzled by some of the positive user comments and wonder if those users have ever seen a movie that they didn't like.
Rightly or wrongly, the French come off very badly in this film. The bank robbery itself is very violent. If only there were some good dialogue, the violence would not be so offputting.
Killing Zoe is a bad way of killing time.
Killiing Zoe
cultfilmfan2 March 2005
Killing Zoe, is about an American safe cracker named Zed, who travels to Paris, to meet up with a childhood friend of his. His first night in Paris, he hires a prostitute named Zoe, to stay with him. Zed, and Zoe connect with each other and become friends before they are rudely interrupted by Zed's childhood friend Eric. Eric, takes Zed out for a night on the town where they go to bars and do numerous different drugs. Eric, and his friends plan to rob the bank the next day and Zed, will be the safe cracker. While at the bank everything seems to go OK with the robbery until people start dying and Eric, starts to show his wild side. Also, Zed soon finds out about this and also finds out that one of the hostages is Zoe, who happens to work at the bank. This complicates matters. Winner of The Best Film and Critics Award for the film's writer/director Roger Avary at The Mystfest. Killing Zoe, has good direction, a good script, good performances by everyone involved, good original music, good cinematography and good production design. Killing Zoe, has stylish direction and some really good dialogue and is also interesting and intriguing and it becomes more and more compelling and fascinating as the robbery goes on and the film has a lot of action and becomes very entertaining. Director and writer Roger Avary, wrote and directed this film before he won the Oscar for co-writing Pulp Fiction, and he does show great potential as a great writer and director. He also demonstrated this in 2002 with the very underrated Rules Of Attraction. While he has not gotten the same type of credit as Pulp Fiction's co-writer and director Quentin Tarantino, Roger Avary has talent all his own and will make it big in the movie business in years to come and I look forward to further projects he comes out with.
An Good Crime Movie
loveablejohn-4662924 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was pretty good with excellent performances by the cast along with a script that was well written and it had a spectacular ending but the profanity used was really graphic especially the joke told during the bank robbery.The special effects and the cinematography were both excellent. I especially liked the way they kept switching between the sex scene and the old horror movie on the TV plus the drug use in the jazz club scenes were both disturbing and funny.
Killing Zzzzzzzzzzzz ... Boring!
nicver14 January 2002
Who wrote this flick? An uninspired 15 year-old?
Could have been written by one of the kids who did the Columbine shooting.
Totally nonsensical, not funny all, boooooooriiing...
Plus this: the French do not put their flag everywhere. You do not walk into a French bank and see the tricolore flag displayed like that. Even on Bastille day.
I have nothing against the blood bath thing. It's just that none of this is either credible or funny. Or parodic, or anything like that.
Ok, those who liked this flick will tell you I must be some type of fascist, so forget about my comment.
Could have been written by one of the kids who did the Columbine shooting.
Totally nonsensical, not funny all, boooooooriiing...
Plus this: the French do not put their flag everywhere. You do not walk into a French bank and see the tricolore flag displayed like that. Even on Bastille day.
I have nothing against the blood bath thing. It's just that none of this is either credible or funny. Or parodic, or anything like that.
Ok, those who liked this flick will tell you I must be some type of fascist, so forget about my comment.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
