The Killing Gene

Good movie

I saw this film for the second time about two years ago. The first viewing blew my mind. While there is some heavy-handedness in the film, in general this borders on a great thriller. It is one of the best such films I've seen.It has great suspense which builds and builds until the murderer, who becomes known, reveals the motive for a horrific payback for the gang's crimes.The premise of the story is intriguing. Members of a violent (and markedly amoral) gang are being murdered, and the murderer has etched WdeltaZ into the bodies. The "formula" refers to a theory of imprinted human behavior which causes man to exhibit "abnormal" behaviors in intraspecies; these behaviors are humiliation, violence and killing. (See Konrad Lorenz' On Aggression, a layman's book based on his scientific, Nobel-prize winning work. I think this has got to be one of the sources the screenwriter used from his Psychology 101 course!) In the beginning of the film, in an animal experimentation lab, we are given this premise of innate aggression among primates.Two detectives are assigned to the gang deaths, one a seasoned veteran and the other a rookie. The lead detective is haunted by a case of rape and murder which he failed to solve. This failure prompts his intense desire to solve the current crimes. Though Skarsgaard and George are competent in their detective roles, I found the other characters, especially Pierre ( the always remarkable Tom Hardy), more compelling. Selma Blair's is the single truly outstanding performance. SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!In 1961, a study on human behavior known as "The Milgram Experiment" was conducted. It created a firestorm of controversy. The screenwriter was no doubt familiar with this widely publicized experiment, too. The experiment involved two randomly selected people who were told they would be paid for playing roles of teacher and student. The teacher would ask questions, and if the student answered the question incorrectly, the teacher would apply electrical shocks from 15 volts to 450 volts. The administrator and the learner were conductors of the experiment -- only the "teacher" had no knowledge of the real purpose of the study. The "teacher" could not see the "learner," only the electric shock generator. The objective of the experiment was to determine the extent of pain one person would inflict upon another. The researchers wanted to know how long someone would continue to give shocks to another person if they were told to do so even if the shock would seriously hurt him [Stanley Milgram]. As the voltage increased from 15 to 450 volts, 65 percent of the "teachers" applied full voltage three times. (The researchers had expected between 1 to 2 per cent of the "teachers" to inflict the highest pain.) The "learner" played an audio tape of increasingly painful outbursts until the last three charges when the response was silence. Whenever the "teacher" wanted to stop, the administrator said he could not stop,,with increasing pressure of mild statement to stern command, he was ordered to continue to increase the shocks until the study ended. That 65 per cent of the "teachers" obeyed the administrator was an outcome totally unexpected by the administrators.Now why am I going into all this psychological stuff? Because it has everything to do with the storyline especially in the resolution of the conflict. What causes the behavior of the gang members to inflict extreme violence upon others? Is it in our nature -- or in our nurture? What causes the behavior of the victim who delivers the payback for their crimes? Revenge in a hideously cruel punishment -- or in the imitation of the violence inflicted upon the victims? The film provokes some heavy thought, that's for sure.I wrote this review not so much to comment on the story, which I think has been pretty much covered by others here, but to write about the underpinnings of the screenplay. I don't know if the screenwriter is familiar with the behavioral theories above, but I think he must be. I saw clear similarities between the facts and fiction of aggression in human behavior. The conclusion of the film is brutally graphic. I remember thinking, omg, how can one person do that to another?! Isn't the payback a bit of overkill? But, looking at the provocation for the revenge, the same question came to mind. At some points, I felt my stomach tighten. It is not just the physical "Q&A" in the final scenes that appalls us but the terrible consequences meted out for "wrong answers." Rather than endure more physical pain, Pierre, for example, gives up the one person who loves him and whom he loves: his grandmother. What is the film saying when it leaves us feeling that certain punishments, no matter how cruel, are perfectly justified? Brrrrrr. Goosebumps!I really like this movie. I have it in my collection, and after writing this "review," I think I'll watch it again tomorrow!PS: I ought to state that the Milgram Experiment's original purpose was to examine the motivation for war crimes committed by the Nazis during WWII, specifically, the explanation that the torturers were "only following orders."

I just discovered this movie, and it does not flinch. It made me feel the same way that Se7en made me feel after walking out if the theater the first time I saw it. I was very "pleasantly" surprised at the intense nature, though the subject material is extremely disturbing. Great movie, definitely not for the faint of heart.

Hmmmm, there were a few too many holes, for example, we see how the killer got the victims into the van, but how did they get them out of the van (passed out, dead weight and some pretty big guys), into the kill room, and all set up? I kept waiting for a surprise partner because it just didn't seem feasible for the murderer to do it all.The plot of the film is Saw-like in nature, how much would you go through to save your loved one until you finally just flip the switch (literally) and let them die to end your own agony? The serial killer is targeting a gang of thugs, who "inspired" the killer after their owb brutal gang rape, torture, and murder of the victim's family member. Fast forward several years (?), and one by one this group is getting brutally tortured and killed along with a loved one.Questions, why let the supposed ring leader of the crime go? If you're out for revenge for a horrific crime, wouldn't you punish the ring leader the most? I get it, he killed his loved one quickly and didn't endure as much pain as the others, but I don't see why you would let them just walk away. He didn't seem to have much guilt so the killer was just set to let him live the rest of his gang leader days, what?! The killer also let another of her rapists go with the body of their loved one, again, I was like what?! I felt bad for all of the loved ones that had to die, but the gang all had it coming.There was also a little bit of old school versus new school in the police force. I know Stellan Skarsgard is a good actor, but he seemed to be phoning it in. Melissa George was also not entirely believable as the lone female, let alone rookie, detective in a precinct full of idiots. So the cop storyline fell flat for me. There was also a massive plot twist that I didn't see coming that left me kind of glad that ALL of the bad guys were taken out in some way...I foresee the lone female survivor will probably end herself by overdose.P.S. If you're buying for Tom Hardy, he has a small part but make sure you watch the special features. He was acting his butt off in his torture scene, but they cut it out, stupid director lol.

This is the most amateurish concoction of nothingness I've ever watched. I don't know what galls me more -- that I paid to watch it or that I actually sat through it hoping for some redeeming moment to justify the expense. If these "actors" are currently on strike, they should stay out and find jobs they're actually capable of doing. Apparently there were no writers or directors involved. Even the audio was annoying. I'm a movie addict -- I watch as many as ten a week, sometimes, more. And I'm retired, so I'm not some kid with little viewing experience saying this. I've watched my share of indies and often enjoy them. So when I say this is the WORST OF THE WORST I've ever seen, you can take it to the bank.

Let me hasten to say that I do not really "love" this film. It is not a "lovable" film. But I think it is an admirable one. It succeeds in creating a genuinely heroic figure in a genre that is normally satisfied simply to shock and repel. I won't risk revealing any "spoilers." [In fact, I would discourage anyone from watching the disc's Special Features prior to watching the film, since one of the Special Features actually discusses the identity of the murderer.] I will simply say that this is a graphically violent film that achieves something approaching the level of genuine tragedy. Anyone who enjoys this film should definitely check out Shankland's later films, CLAPHAM JUNCTION and NO NIGHT IS TOO LONG.

ottimo soggetto. grande significato dell'amore che va ben oltre il genere horror indicato. consiglio la visione a chi sa guardare oltre le immagini

A GREAT FILM TO WATCH.THERE IS A LOT OF ACTION AND GOOD STORY LINES WITH IT.GREAT VALUE FOR MONEY.

Film carino...niente esaltante...lo compraro solo perche'recitava TOM HARDY ....anche se aime'in questo film fa'solo una piccola parte...peccato perche'e'l'attore piu'valido del cinema!

CONSIGLIO VIVAMENTE L'ACQUISTO DI QUESTO BLU-RAY PERCHE A DIFFERENZA DI SAW, DOVE INVECE SI VEDE SOLO VIOLENZA UN PO FINE A SE STESSA, QUESTO HA UNA STORIA VERA E PROPRIA, UNA LOGICA CON DIVERSI COLPI DI SCENA. DAVVERO BELLO, VEDETELO

dopo averlo visto...non ti resta nulla o quasi. non lo consiglio, un mix mal riuscito di vari film splatter. a questo punto meglio il capostipite del genere "saw l'enigmista"