Убей меня три раза (2014) Online

Some of the reviews of this movie are puzzling (its also hard to take some of them seriously with the embarrassing misuse of the word 'to').

I don't see that anyone connected to this flick attempted to make an earth shattering film.. It was just a fun ride for me. I had a good time with this movie.

In general I thought it was acted well. The music punched the Tarantino parallel, and added a fun tone. I thought it was worth seeing for sure..

I guess if you go in expecting a Tarantino flick, you will be disappointed - and evidently displeased that a movie would resemble one.

'KILL ME THREE TIMES': Three Stars (Out of Five)

A black comedy crime-thriller, starring Simon Pegg; as a hit-man hired to kill a businessman's cheating wife. The film was directed by Kriv Stenders and written by first-time feature film writer James McFarland. It costars Alice Braga, Sullivan Stapleton, Teresa Palmer, Luke Hemsworth, Callan Mulvey and Bryan Brown. The movie is surprisingly dark and brutally violent; but it's not as funny, or as shocking, as it wants to be.

Pegg plays Charlie Wolfe; an assassin for hire, and private investigator, working in Western Australia. When a successful motel and bar owner, Jack Taylor (Mulvey), suspects his wife, Alice (Braga), of cheating on him; he hires Wolfe to find out. After Charlie brings back info, that's not to Jack's liking, Jack hires him to kill Alice. While Charlie is attempting to complete the assignment, he finds out that another couple (Stapleton and Palmer) wants her dead as well. Things get complicated, and the story is told from three different points of view.

Pegg is fantastic as the movie's main villain; and it's nice to see him playing against type for-a-change. The supporting cast is all adequate as well, and the directing is decent. The script is somewhat clever, and it also has a few nice twists, but it's nothing too memorable. The film is entertaining enough, while you're watching it, but it doesn't offer much more than that.

Watch out movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaTQgKVh7fQ

I do not understand why this title has so low rates. I have to admit I am a big fan of Simon Pegg that in this movie is great, but beside that this movie deserve a watch and it's really entertaining. The cast is good and the plot is nice and if you ever wonder why crime doesn't always pay....well you must watch it.

Location, music and the overall direction is perfect for the plot but the most intriguing part is the way it's designed, with the beginning telling the end (even the title..) and the point of view from different angles and times.

OK it's the same old story since Double Indemnity or Postman rings twice with a twist of Tarantino and McCarty point of view so if you expect something completely new you could be disappointed but if you just want to spend sometime relaxing and having fun, well, this is a right one !

I have a habit of rarely being able to finish a movie. If I am bored, I just cannot go through with it. I was intrigued by the trailer of Kill Me Three Times and so despite the IMDb rating and poor reviews I started watching it. And it was the right decision. The movie kept me glued and I was not expecting anything too complicated. It told a simple fun story that had its own twists. Loved it. Recommended if you want a lighthearted action comedy. The acting is good and the plot slowly opens up to keep you on it. Does not deliver memento style story. But this is entertaining nonetheless. Loved Pegg and his beginning commentary. Would have loved it more if it continued a bit more throughout the movie.

Too many people are trying to critique "Kill Me Three Times", its not the Godfather or Scarface, just watch the movie and enjoy. I believe it was well put together and had some funny moments. A lot questionable situations occurred but nothing too far out of the realm of possibility I say. Enjoy the Murphy's's law of which is the film story line.

I need ten lines of info, so I going to ramble on nothing in particular. The movie was good, people are trying to decipher the movie too much instead of just watching and enjoying. Have to say I loved Simon Pegg and his role he played. I also believe for the movie the cast was well put together.

Sorry for the pun in the header, could not resist.

Will make this review short and sweet.

Yes, indeed, it is possible to do a "film noire" in color with a modern theme. Look at BLUE RUIN (also reviewed by your humble scribe.) No seriously, go watch it, I will wait here patiently for you to come back. A truly great film, that one.

That said, this is not a successful attempt on par with Blue Ruin. This is not a successful attempt at all.

I have nothing against Pegg in a heavy dramatic role (other than the fact that viewers and reviewers seem to "assume" that if Pegg is in the film, this must be a comedy or a drama-comedy. I don't think so.) What I am against is any film that tries so hard to succeed it gives the viewer a giant headache. In fact the non-stop "caper film" sound track could give you a headache all by itself, assuming it was sold separately, which I hope never happens.

Three stories, three takes of the same story, an ending where the beginning should be -- heady stuff even if you actually ARE Quentin Tarantino.

Not for amateurs.

Loved the Toronado. Great car. The actors were all interesting and tried to do the best they could with the script. Wasn't enough.

With it's upbeat music and sunny weather KMTT is much darker than it seems at first sight. More Fargo than anything else, it is a 'comedy of errors' - if murder can be funny. The cast delivers well, though Simon Pegg as the bad guy is better than most with his laconic and slightly creepy character. The plot and pacing are competent, as are the photography and editing. Still, somehow, KMTT can't quite seem to make up its mind whether to be humorous or serious; there are actually a couple of rather nasty bits that are delivered in an off-hand way. Fairly predictable, but all the same the way it is done is tidy enough. It's worth watching for some light entertainment, just don't expect to remember it the next week.

"What your talking about is a one way street. Once you start there is no going back." Charlie Wolfe (Pegg) is a professional hit man that has just been given a job to kill the wife of a client. What he thinks will be an easy job soon becomes harder when he realizes he isn't the only one trying to kill her. This movie had flashes, and reminded me a little of Pulp Fiction. The way the movie skipped around and you got more backstory with each successive scene, while the movie is moving forward at the same time. This is not the typical Simon Pegg role, but he was a good choice for this. The movie took a generic hit-man idea and really did something with it to make it feel new and exciting. This is nothing all that amazing, but it is a really fun movie to watch and a good way to spend an hour and a half without having to think too hard. Overall, exciting and entertaining. A fun rental that is worth seeing. I give this a B.

First off, there are violent deaths in the movie. There is a lot of graphic violence, but it isn't overdone for the style of movie it is. When we see someone try to shoot for their head and miss, instead hitting the neck, it shows it as an example. The beautiful thing about this action comedy is that it takes influences from Quentin Tarantino and cult classics such as Ravenous when it comes to the brutality of the action. However, there are no torture scenes for the sake of torture. While the brutal action is not for some, it is equal in the level of gore to movies such as the Die Hard series or Lethal Weapon series. The movie is able to keep more of a comedic pace due to not having excess torture and alike scenes. But for us action fans, it doesn't shy away from the reality of getting shot.

I see this movie being reflected on more positively over the years. Its a movie that for the right person can be watched multiple times. I plan to re-watch it at least a few times myself.

People who would not like this but expect to would be people who didn't like Simon Pegg's earlier films such as Hot Fuzz. I enjoyed that myself, but a lot of people didn't.

The action is spread out among comedic moments that also take influence from movies such as Snatch. The movie, titled Kill Me Three Times, is not expected to be a movie where characters really die at a realistic pace. Its basically implying that someone in the movie (no spoilers) or some people in the movie just won't die despite realistically being killed off already. I'm refusing to say which character(s) because this keeps my review spoiler-less.

For fans of this type of action comedy, it is a 9/10. For the market that Kill Me Three Times tailors to, it couldn't have done a better job. That's why I am giving this movie a 9/10. Though it can't be expected to win Academy Awards, its an excellent b action/crime/comedy. I enjoyed it the first time around more than I enjoyed the first Fast and Furious at release.

I appreciate that its obvious that the cast had a lot of fun making this movie, while not failing to submerse the viewer in an enjoyable theatrical performance.

For those who would enjoy this style of film, you'll probably watch it a few times at the very least. While this movie may not be for loyal action movie fans, it is not intended to please everyone.

Enjoy if you can handle brutal action and have a dark sense of humor.

A Tarantino inspired? film that lacks that director's touch to be something special. The plot involves complications that make sense given the characters. There are a couple of plot contrivances that stretch reality but aren't totally off the wall. The acting is fine but without the pizazz that makes Tarantino's characters so interesting. The main faults with KMTT are the lack of imagination in the cinematography and the pace. Careful editing could have taken a few minutes off the film, watching folks drive especially gets a bit old. Most of the scenes could have a bit shorter, for example someone opening a safe doesn't need to be seen several times. We get that safes have combinations and get opened. The comic timing, therefore, falls short and what could have been a very good movie is just above average. I can't quite give it a six, but a 7 seems too high. Call it 6.5.

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.

A compulsive gambling man-child of a dentist, indifferent and strangely philosophical hit-man, plucky yet unlucky surfer girl, scheming and invasive chief of police, jealous and possessive playboy husband, studly yet brain-dead mechanic, money-grubbing Lady Macbeth of an administrative assistant, and beautiful, moonlit strands of Australian ocean shorelines, combine in this enthralling, dark and loopy comedy. Each of the incompatible and mismatched characters wants what the others have, and cannot see that they may have enough inside and around themselves. "I am sick and tired of having barely enough," pleads one "I want more, and so should you." "You don't love me," laments another, "you just want to control me." They double cross, misunderstand and backstab each other until only one of them is left standing. Simon Pegg, always entertaining in his repeat roles as a hapless and conniving conman, performs skillfully again here as the hit-man. Despite its brevity and a certain amount of shallowness, the film is engaging, insightful and fulfilling. Seen at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival.

Kill Me Three Times more like Kill This Movie Three Times so it doesn't get a full release.

The story is about a professional hit-man who botches a contract and has to deal with three big problems: murder, blackmail and revenge - all revolving around him.

I'm the kind of person who likes to watch movies that are well known to everyone and the others that are low budget and never heard of before by mostly everyone. I came across Kill Me Three Times before it was even release worldwide, it had some critics reviews from some kind of film festival somewhere but I still had a little interest in it and at the time it only had one photo and no trailer. Now it's got it's worldwide release and wow this movie got a beaten chewed up by critic calling it "A disease and a pure mess". I was surprised of how much backlash this movie got and as I'm speaking right now this has a 9% on Rotten Tomatoes. And after seeing the movie I can see what people were saying, this movie was trying to hard to be something that it's not.

The whole movie feels like it's trying to hard to be like Quentin Tarantino films with the dialogue trying to be down to earth and original but this movie doesn't have Tarantino himself to pull of his magic. And the style of the movie has a little touch of Tarantino as well and yes I know I keep bringing up Tarantino but that's honestly what was in my head through out the film.

Simon Pegg did fine in this movie and so did the other cast as well, nothing really special but nothing god awful.

I can't really say anything else that I thought was good in the movie. The writing was blah, the directing was a bit chopper and overall Kill Me Three Times is bland and forgettable.

You know that dull period every year when you wait and wait for a blitz of summer movie attractions? Well, this is that period. Unfortunately for the general movie going populace, this is also the period when inferior film distributors peddle substandard films that otherwise wouldn't stand a chance alongside summer blockbusters. If you're thinking Kill Me Three Times falls square into this category, you're catching on quickly, and here's more on why you should save your money for films that are really worth it.

Using a non-linear approach in storytelling, director Kriv Stenders and debutant screenwriter James McFarland sets this humdrum crime caper somewhere on the picturesque shores of Western Australia. Straight off the bat, I'll say that cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson's stunning combination of aerial panorama and vivid topography is worth a mention, but precious little else I can think of. Hawked as an action-thriller, McFarland's ruse is the intersection of central character Alice (Alice Braga) through a time-shuffling three-part segment that gets absurd by the minute. Everyone wants Alice dead, starting with her abusive husband Jack (Callan Mulvey), his sister Lucy (Teresa Palmer) and her dentist husband Nathan (Sullivan Stapleton) who owes money to a lowlife cop. So they come up with a half-hatched plan to kill Alice, switch dental records, and claim insurance money. But when Jack hires professional assassin Charlie (Simon Pegg) to kill Alice, the latter sets mayhem in motion and they all drop like flies. And just like that, the film ends before it begins.

One doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that Stenders is a Tarantino fan. Aren't we all? It's always pleasing to pay homage, but provided the story and concept stays the course. Instead, McFarland's setup is indecisively wedged between action-thriller and obscure comedy. One can argue that such is the concept behind Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown but those films were instant cult classics. Meanwhile, Stenders is not even close, and instead settles for a final act with gratuitous blood-letting. And speaking of comedy, funny man Pegg isn't so funny anymore. Sporting a handlebar mustache and equipped with an opening scene explicative that is supposed to be funny, Pegg is totally miscast even if he is trying his hand at more serious stuff.

Kill Me Three Times is the type of film cinema chains would rather boycott but screens it only because they are forced into some sort of dodgy contract with nefarious film distributors. It is also the type of film you are forced to watch only because you have seen everything else on the cable network. Even then, watching paint dry would be a better option. But hey, don't just take my word for it; the title says it all – either die watching this film, or avoid it like the plague. Better still, boycott this film for the greater good of cinema and save those precious pennies for the movie event of the year - Avengers: Age of Ultron. You can thank me later.

This film tells the story of a private investigator who is hired to investigate the suspected infidelity of a bar owner's wife. Many unexpected complications occur, and things get out of hand very quickly.

I like Simon Pegg's films exactly because of the way "Kill Me Three Times" is. The story is a little grim but done in a funny way, hence it is still comedy despite so many people dying. The most funny thing is the irony of the events that happen to Alice, the unfortunate main character who is wanted dead by many people.

I enjoyed watching "Kill Me Three Times". I hope there will be more films like this one.

-Kill Me Three Times (2015) movie review: -Kill Me Three Times is a much anticipated indie film following contract killer Simon Pegg who gets involved in this one job that turns out to be a part of two other murder/blackmail/revenge plots revolving around a bunch of idiots.

-Kill Me Three Times is like if Quentin Tarantino directed Burn After Reading, but it turned out to be not as good as Burn After Reading. So Kill Me Three Times did not live up to the anticipation.

-The story was interesting and functional, but it has been done before and it has been done better.

-The pace was fine.

-The acting: Simon Pegg did a good job and he was convincing and funny. The supporting cast includes Teresa Palmer (the girl from I Am Number Four), Alice Braga (the girl from Elysium), some guy, Hemsworth #3, and Callan Mulvey (Crossbones from Captain America 2). However none of them were that good. They were functional, but some of the performances, like Luke Hemsworth, were just bland.

-The characters were pretty shallow, but funny. There was no motivation for most of the things that happened, partly because there was no backstory or setup for the things that happened. However seeing this conglomerate of idiots and Simon Pegg's killer meet in Tarantino fashion was pretty enjoyable.

-The music was fun and Tarantino-influenced. BUT it was the same two pieces over and over and over again through the entire film, giving it a repetitive feel.

-The film was funny and, even though it was flawed and had a lot of bland elements, tried hard to be entertaining. I was mildly entertained through much of the film, so I am going to say that Kill Me Three Times would be worth watching on Netflix.

It was a hot and humid atmosphere, I thought they shot in Italy. Then came to know it was an Aussie flick when a dead kangaroo was shown. So Simon Pegg in an Australian film, that directed by one of my favourite dog movies 'Red Dog' famed filmmaker. On this, it was a mixed feeling to me. A comedy-thriller, a good time pass movie. The film editing and the screen presentation were what made it look a better flick. If it was told from the starting point to the end as a single line, then it would have been very ordinary.

Barely there are eight actors, that mean it is a limited cast movie that takes place in the isolated location. All about love, cheating, crime, money, completely about the dark side desires. There are a couple of twists, that is only because of the bend in the storytelling. At the Beginning, the three different stories were told one after another that set in the same timeline. The first one was to introduce a hit-man, followed by a woman who cheats her husband and the finally a dentist couple who was threatened by a loan shark.

There are no good guys in the story. All of them has some issues and they want to get rid of it from their lives. So the plot begins to explode once they committed to their plans that does not go as it should be. When a series of mistakes and characters and their situation overlaps with each other, that lead to the finale.

There are some minor plot holes, if you don't compare it with the Hollywood blockbusters like critics then possibly you would enjoy it. I won't suggest it if you are looking for a Tarantino style masterpiece. It is a little dark- comedy from the down-under that has its own value despite there are some similarities with other flicks.

6/10

This is a alright rental, it's not a really good rental but it's decent enough. It's not as terrible as some critics claim it to be. Sure it's not all that original for that twist and turn and every connects near the end type of movie. But it's decent enough for it to make it worth a watch. Despite me hating all of the characters in this movie. So the plot is about a hit-man named Charlie Wolfe played by Simon Pegg getting entangled or intentionally gets into a mess. Simon Pegg's role in this is basically tailing other characters, spying on them then snarling and chuckling in a creepy awkward manner every time he sees something bizarre. The director of this movie seems to have been really inspired by Pulp Fiction, but the whole thing just doesn't mesh together all that well. And the characters and dialogues is more annoying than interesting. But it was a watchable flick and despite it not having a immensely immersive story it was a okay effort. Lastly I thought it was cool how Sullivan Stapleton could play such a badass in "300: Rise of an Empire" and such a weak cowardly loser in this. Simon Pegg playing the lead role as a hit-man and Sullivan Stapleton playing the somewhat villain I thought this would be a good movie, but it's decent at best.

6/10

They probably wanted to make a movie Pulp Fiction "like" but it didn't look fast enough or just the sequencing went off !!! ,, but to be fair the plot and some of the execution was good with a couple of unexpected surprises so i have to say it went just 50% okay till the ending where in this style of movies you gotta hate happy ending but they just had to do it and make an awful ending for an almost average movie. The screenplay was good even though it'll seems a bit like a Tarantino rip off with maybe a bit newer more explosive cars but i think it'll sound like a new awesome style for the kids who never saw Pulp Fiction but they won't know it is no where near Awesome unless we tell them in the reviews :D.

It also looked weird seeing Simon Pegg in an all serious role, i'm used to seeing him in a awkward tense characters so i would watch "Hot Fuzz" and "Shaun of the Dead" again an again without even give it a single thought rather than replying one minute of this movie.

As for Casting, who doesn't love Simon Pegg and he was indeed good here but considering that i'm a huge fan of his so seeing him here was kinda just not full of expectations ... i also expected more of "Alice Braga" than just being dead in a car then just appeared to be not but maybe that's what the role states so i don't know how to judge her ... the others were just "there" for the movie .. like the acted okay , read their script and that was it with no memorable moments or highly praised facial expressions.

Overall,, the movie was watchable considering there were some surprises that you don't see in the trailers so things go a little unexpectedly but it's not the type of movies that WoW you in any way neither in the comedy part nor in the thraction(thrill/action) ;)

Charlie Wolfe is a 'fixer' who gets a call to which he answers that he'll be there in an hour. Alice wakes up and arranges an appointment with her dentist Natahn through his wife/assistant Lucy. But instead, Nathan and Lucy drugged Alice and kidnaps her, all while Wolfe peeks from a far. At the road Nathan stops for gas at Dylan's shop. Nathan and Lucy then put Alice in Lucy's car, set it on fire and let roll into a ravine and explodes. Lucy spots money on Alice's bag and keeps it. The story goes backwards to Alice's husband Jack who's looking jealous at Alice. Lucy is at Jack's and she gives her Wolfe's card. Jack orders Wolfe to tail Alice, who had previously gone from Jack's place with Jack's money. Wolfe finds out and records Alice's affair with Dylan. The next day Wolfe shows the video to Jack, who gets angry and orders Wolfe to kill Alice.

Meanwhile, Lucy accepts Alice's call and then reassures Nathan of his will to their plan. A policeman Bruce, who has been extorting money from Nathan and Lucy, comes and muscles out Nathan's payment commitment. Wolfe follows Alice for the kill and he spot Nathan and Lucy on their scheme. It's shown that Alice actually wakes up and avoided the explosion. Nathan and Alice quarrels about Alice's money but they keep at last. Wolfe meets Jack confirming Alice's death. Bruce finds Lucy's burning car and comes extorting extra money from Nathan. Nathan receives an anonymous message of someone seeing them carrying Alice's body. He then sets up a meeting with the sender, who is Wolfe. At the meeting Wolfe ends up killing Nathan, saying to him that he'll complete the work by killing Lucy. Wolfe comes to collect his payment from Jack, Jack finds that his money is gone and assumes Alice has taken it.

The next day, Dylan comes barging in asking about Alice disappearing. Dylan ends up killing Jack and leaves. Wolfe comes to Jack's after killing Nathan, only to find Jack dead. Bruce comes and finds Wolfe with Jack's corpse and Wolfe kills him. Dylan didn't really leave, and he follows Wolfe as soon as Wolfe come out of Jack's. Wolfe arrives at Natahn and Lucy's, where its revealed that Wolfe and Lucy had been conspiring together to get all the money, even though Lucy curses him for killing Nathan, which disabling them from claiming the insurance money from killing Alice. They quarrel, and Wolfe says he's leaving her. At the door Dylan comes pointing a gun at Wolfe, but Wolfe slaps Dylan's hand, making him shoot Lucy dead. Wolfe shoots Dylan, but only hitting his shoulder. Alice comes out of nowhere and clobbers Wolfe with an axe. Alice and Dylan leaves with Jack's money.

The story is very intricate even though it's only about the relationships of only a few characters.Maybe it's because the not-so- good acting level, or maybe because the overwhelming scoring, or then again maybe it's just me but all the characters strike as devious ones even from the very start.

It's quite strange that having Simon Pegg on board, and also his role is a significant character, yet this movie can only achieve quite a low overall at the comedic side. It's so because the movie feels so serious and only Pegg's role has his character filled with humor. Sad to say, the humor mostly centers in Charlie Wolfe's dialog lines, which makes it so predictable after a few minutes into the movie.

The movie somehow also tries a bit at Tarantino-styled blood and gore kill scenes. The scenes with Bruce and Lucy dying, and also the fight between Nathan and Wolfe feel very much like a tribute to Tarantino's preferences. But suffice to say that this effort also wanes out because by doing so the movie makes it clear that it doesn't really have a single focus of what to present to audience. Is it the intricate story, those blood and gore kills, or Pegg's humor?

The overall acting is not so good in my opinion. Simon Pegg's performance is the most fluent acting job in this movie. Teresa Palmer and Sullivan Stapleton are quite nice to see but they really lack the face expressions to convey their roles' characters. Callan Mulvey and Alice Braga as experienced names also didn't put out better acting as they should, let alone Luke Hemsworth.

My say for Kill Me Three Time (2014) is only a score of 5/10. Is it entertaining? For me the intricacy of the story is enough to make this movie feel entertaining, despite all it's flaws. Unfortunately I won't be giving a recommendation to go and see it in the cinemas. Save your money instead.

I do not know why this film has such low reviews. It is not a big budget film but it is well made and funny throughout (if you like dark humour). The casting is excellent and Simon Pegg puts in a deliberately understated performance as the only professional killer among a whole bunch of nasty individuals. I have watched this again and again, because I notice a new nuance every time I view. Watch and enjoy. There are decidedly humorous but cringe-worthy moments throughout the film and the "I'll be there in an hour" catchphrase of his hired-killer has added significance towards the end (not really a spoiler - watch what I mean!) Lovely performances from many great actors/actresses - Simon Pegg is excellent - Bryan Brown is just so unlikable. The plot twists are fantastic. Watch and enjoy!

It's the coastal community of Eagles Nest, Australia. Alice Taylor (Alice Braga) fears for her life from her husband Jack Taylor (Callan Mulvey). She's having an affair with Dylan Smith (Luke Hemsworth). Jack hires Charlie Wolfe (Simon Pegg) to spy on her and then for him to kill her. The movie starts with Charlie killing a man. Meanwhile, corrupt policeman Bruce Jones (Bryan Brown) is demanding payment for gambling debts from Nathan Webb (Sullivan Stapleton). Nathan is a dentist and his wife Lucy (Teresa Palmer) is his receptionist. They come up with a scheme to kill Alice, switch dental records with Lucy, and collect the insurance. Charlie photographs them kidnapping Alice and blackmails them. Bruce also blackmails Nathan for half of the insurance profit. Alice had taken a gun and $250k from her husband. It's a multi-layered crime story that is told one layer at a time.

It's a complicated interconnected modern crime story that better directors have been doing. Those other movies have better dialog and cooler moves. Pegg playing against type is a little interesting. Unraveling the layers is somewhat compelling early on. However, the movie becomes less compelling as more is revealed. Despite all the mayhem, this isn't fun enough. This is not good enough.

The film starts off with three killings of which we know nothing about. It is told as sequential flashbacks, pardon my oxymoron. Charlie Wolfe of "Wolfe Superior Solutions" is a private detective and hitman. He is hired to keep tabs on a cheating wife (Alice Braga) by a successful bar owner (Callan Mulvey). Luke Hemsworth plays her boyfriend. Nathan Webb (Sullivan Stapleton) is a dentist who knows horses less than he thinks which causes some pecuniary issues which needs immediate attention. His wife Lucy (Teresa Palmer) is his receptionist and is aware of the problem.

This is a grindhouse film which follows the formula. It has quirky characters, F-bombs, blood squirts, sex, and nudity (Alice Braga). Being filmed in Australia it is light on the sex and nudity. Had I had never seen a grindhouse before, I would think this would be a great film. The problem is that this film falls into the pack. The twisty plot was not predictable, but expected. Acting and dialogue was good for the genre. I was mildly entertained in spite of the positive qualities.

'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

I recommend this one to movie lovers for its clever plot. I have never seen such a clever plot that keeps twisting throughout the whole movie. To be honest, I wasn't expecting much out of this movie, given the British accent. Don't get me wrong! It's just that I'm not familiar with the British movies as much as I am with American movies. I just don't get the British way of rending movies. I salute the writer for this clever plot. It's really gripping. At the beginning, I didn't really get what was going on, but later I realized that something smart was being done on the screen. Some real entertainment. Don't miss out on this one.