Killer thriller, killer message

I've heard people go on & on about how this film had post-production problems, sat on a shelf, was re-edited and whatever else. As such, they say it doesn't flow well. Don't believe it. "Killshot" is very professionally-made with kinetic style and I never got the sense that the story didn't flow, regardless of what they edited out, re-edited or what have you. The story's easy to follow and makes sense.

Mickey Rourke is always a highlight even though he essentially plays the same character, which I guess most actors do. His character in "Killshot," Bird, is the same likable, brooding one seen in "The Wrestler" (2008) and "Passion Play" (2010) with the variation that he murders people for a living.

Yes, that's a big difference and it does cause the viewer to disapprove of him but it's hard to hate him, unlike his two-bit partner, Richie. Somewhat likable or not, the Rourke character HAS to pay for his misdeeds (or should, at least).

Speaking of the twerp partner, Joseph Gordon-Levitt shines here as a scumbag with almost zero redeeming qualities. Someone does something to him at the end and you just can't help saying "THANK YOU."

Thomas Jane is always a solid masculine protagonist as is Diane Lane in the feminine department. The film is just as much about the potential reestablishment of their relationship as it is about the thugs trying to find them. But this is definitely a thriller/drama. You get a lot of quality drama interrupted by sudden and intense thrills.

Meanwhile the eastern locations are exemplary and the score's nice and atmospheric with a great song on the soundtrack -- "Monkey" by Low.

But what about the "senseless violence" and the questionable motivations of Bird or Richie? The movie is an interesting examination of these characters and the wisdom or folly of their chosen (dubious) careers -- Bird older & wiser, to a point, and Richie young & rash.

Bird has a rule about not letting anyone see his face and live when carrying out his 'work.' Since this rule and a couple of others have kept him alive & well up to this point (well into his 50s) he rigidly lives by them, no exceptions. In other words, he's a legalist. (Keep in mind that legalists aren't always of the religious variety). His dedication to his personal rules is emphasized in the narration at the outset and is obviously an obsession; it's both a strength and a weakness.

But why on Earth does Bird team-up with Richie? Because he is impressed with Richie's reckless oomph, plus the kid reminds him of his little brother, which he feels guilt over (his death is depicted in the prologue). Thus Bird decides to mentor Richie on a whim. However, by the end he sees there's no hope for the foolish twerp. In other words, he realizes he made a mistake taking the kid under his wing. Is this 'dumb' or a reflection of real life?

As for Bird's questionable motivations for killing certain people, like the AmerIndian dude, there are answers if you think about it. Remember, he's legalistic about his rules and therefore obsessed with them to his own detriment, not to mention the detriment of others, except for a rare moment or two when he surprisingly reveals there's still some humanity in him.

So this flick isn't just about wild thugs and the corresponding shallow thrills, it has human interest; it has psychological depth.