ThiefHott Too much of everything

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Pjtaylor-96-138044 'Kill Me Three Times (2015)' actually starts to come together quite nicely in its third act, which is strangely given an eponymous label under the guise of being the flick's final 'story' - despite the picture having a single, and entirely insular, narrative that only varies from a 'standard structure' in the way that its second act takes place chronologically before the first. In this final movement, each disparate element barrels towards one another in a purposefully frustrating and fairly satisfying way. However, it's during this phase that the only real characters come into focus, revealing their true nature as either despicable and ultimately disposable or consistently undeveloped and bizarrely heralded (by the picture) as heroes. It's a shame that their true intentions or personality often prevent you from rooting for or even empathising with any of them, until they all start disappearing from the plot and you're left with the unsatisfying, standard 'good guys' to root for despite the fact they've been absent, and as brutal as the other players, for much of the run-time. 5/10

jayneflakes I picked this one up because I saw it had Simon Pegg in it and I have been following his work since Spaced. Before we get too far into this, I will add that I found the film entertaining, there were some moments that I genuinely laughed at. However, there were also a couple of places where the film sadly misses quite hard.The convoluted plot makes several twists and turns before we meet a truly evil Bryan Brown, who sadly is wasted before he can shine in this story. He plays his role with real brooding menace, I will admit that I really wanted to see him develop into a scary bad guy. It was literally a shot in the throat when he is taken out of the story in a really silly way and does not even let off a shot. Such a waste of a truly talented man, playing a really dark character. I felt that the atmosphere that Brown gave off could have led him to the sort of cold darkness of Anton Chigurh, one of my favourite bad guys.Simon Pegg was wonderfully vile throughout, subtly slimy and adding layer upon layer to his character, the almost, but not quite professional hit-man. However, the numerous failed close up shootings seem incongruous with a man who is apparently able to shoot a target from a long distance through the wrist. As a dark comic character though, he is despicable and very enjoyable.The rest of the cast were simply OK, leaving Pegg and Brown as clearly the better players here. A usually good Alice Braga, seemed like she was coasting through a fair bit of this film, which was a shame. She is usually a natural and empathic actress, but I felt very little for her character in this movie.One aspect of the film that I found hilarious, although I doubt it was intentional was the boot of the hit man as he stepped from the car. How many times have we seen this shot in a serious film? Maybe it was a deliberate cliché, but the film did not seem clever enough for such an in joke. Just before the end of the movie I realised that this one reminded me of one of Pegg's other films. Who Saw Big Nothing? Another story of some criminals who fail to get away with the crime, resulting in a plot twisting caper. Yeah, there are some similarities, but so what? They both have their funny moments and both movies are guilty of wasting an otherwise excellent actor who could have added more to the story.If you see this one on the cheap section of the supermarket DVD shelves, then pick it up. You can put it on your own shelf next to Big Nothing, just like I did.

Marc d'Entremont Mercurial assassin Charlie Wolfe is recruited to get rid of a business owner's cheating girlfriend, but soon discovers he's not the only one targeting his prey. Get ready for three tales of mayhem filled with blackmail, murder and revenge. This relaxing, sun-filled beach town is about to get bloody.Kill Me Three Times by director Kriv Stenders killed me at least 90 times, which is the entirety of its run time. This must sound a little harsh for a movie that contains some unquestionably brilliant cinematography and pretty reputable actors, but you'll understand what I mean if you watch it. It does its best to stand out with its own style, but one can only hear the same repeated espionage music track a hand full of times before they start to cringe. Truthfully, whoever was hired as the Music Department Supervisor should be ashamed of approving the redundantly annoying soundtrack they used to support this quirky action thriller.On the bright side, this flick did sport a pretty interesting form of non-linear storytelling with the multiple points of view associated with its own title. The special effects department also pulled off some pretty beautifully disgusting bloody moments, the film's scenery was exquisite and Simon Pegg did bring a hint of fun to the mix. Unfortunately these stronger traits weren't enough to erase the sense of boredom I felt throughout the lackluster twists, streaks of flat jokes and tiresomely dramatic arches.You'll have to pardon this obvious and somewhat cliché pun, but what can I say except this movie completely misses its mark. Bam! I said it, ha-ha. If a fine mix of black comedy and violent gun blazing action is your thing, you're better off sticking to Edgar Wright's Hot Fuzz or Michael Davis' underrated Shoot 'Em Up.

mannin11 Loved, loved, loved this movie! With all the garbage being churned out by American production companies, pushing name actors to the forefront and delivering nothing but third rate entertainment, Kill Me Three Times was a delightful charmer. So many reviewers have compared this to a Tarantino rip-off. Maybe these reviewers need to expand their horizons and start accepting some movies as pure entertainment, which is what this is. With a definite lean towards comedy, this film is such a p*ss taker it constantly tweaks the funny bone, even in the most violent of moments. Strange to relate, while everyone else was referring to Tarantino, who seems to be the obligatory name plucked out of the hat, nobody referred to the Coen Brothers -- whose Blood Simple drifted into this viewer's consciousness at one or two gory moments. Time for the majority to pull their boots out from the mud and remove their Tarantino horse-blinders. Of course the Coen Brothers pre-date Tarantino so I suppose their movies must be considered passe by the new breed. But getting back to the movie in hand -- is is a great movie? No. Is it an entertaining charmer? YES! Is it ten times better than most of the garbage being churned out by Hollywood today? Hell, yes. Would I recommend it to friends? Yes. Will I watch it again? Absolutely. I'm flattered that my taste is different to everyone else's and I'll trust my own judgment rather than following that of the majority of posters who have a predilection for whatever junk Hollywood churns out, no matter how rotten it is. I loved this movie.