.jpg)
Mike Mendez’s Killers is not the kind of film that lets you walk away unscathed. Released in 1996, the movie emerged at a time when the indie scene was still riding the wave of Tarantino-inspired grit and raw, low-budget energy. But while some may lump it in with other hyper-violent crime films of the era, Killers distinguishes itself by digging deeper into the dark psychology of its characters. Mendez’s directorial debut is a bleak, unrelenting dive into the minds of two deeply broken men, and while the film isn’t perfect, it’s an impressive first feature that showcases the filmmaker’s willingness to get his hands dirty—both figuratively and literally.
Killers follows the story of two serial killers, Raymond (Dave Larsen) and Kyle (David Gunn), who embark on a brutal killing spree across the Midwest. The duo, though united by their violent tendencies, have distinct approaches to their horrific deeds. Raymond is older and more calculating, a veteran of depravity who derives a sick satisfaction from his acts of terror. Kyle, on the other hand, is a volatile, erratic force of nature—a younger man with seemingly no direction but an overwhelming desire for chaos.
Their paths cross with a middle-class family—Mindy (Tamara Clatterbuck), her husband, and their young daughter—whom they take hostage in their home. What begins as a home invasion spirals into a relentless psychological and physical nightmare. Mendez plays with the audience’s expectations by focusing not just on the killers, but on the breakdown of the family’s dynamic as they are forced to confront their captors in a situation that feels increasingly hopeless.
The film refuses to give you anyone to truly root for—Mendez intentionally subverts the typical "good versus evil" dynamic by revealing the darkness lurking beneath every character's surface. While the killers are undoubtedly sadistic monsters, the film doesn't shy away from exploring the flaws and moral compromises of the family itself. This layered approach elevates Killers beyond mere shock value, offering something far more introspective.
From the very first moments, Killers establishes a sense of dread that never lets up. Mendez strips away any semblance of comfort, throwing the audience into the deep end of violence, depravity, and hopelessness. There's no gradual build-up here—by the time the first act ends, you're already knee-deep in blood, and the film only accelerates from there.
What makes Killers particularly unnerving is the way Mendez handles the violence. Yes, the brutality is explicit and often difficult to watch, but it’s not designed purely to shock or titillate. Instead, Mendez uses violence as a tool to explore power dynamics, morality, and how the worst of human nature emerges in extreme circumstances. The home invasion scenario is a claustrophobic backdrop that pushes everyone involved—both killers and victims—to their psychological breaking points.
Mendez’s direction is lean, efficient, and often startling in its intimacy. He isn’t afraid to let the camera linger on the aftermath of violence, forcing the audience to sit with the consequences of what’s unfolding. Unlike some of the glossier, more stylized crime films of the era, Killers feels grimy, low-rent, and authentic in its depiction of human suffering.
The two leads, Raymond and Kyle, are the film’s most compelling elements, portrayed with disturbing conviction by Dave Larsen and David Gunn. Larsen’s Raymond is a quieter sort of evil—a man who has long accepted his twisted worldview and operates with a chilling calmness. There’s a method to his madness, and that almost makes him more terrifying. He doesn’t kill out of rage or passion; it’s just part of who he is. His cool detachment contrasts sharply with Gunn’s Kyle, whose wild, unpredictable energy brings an additional layer of tension to the film.
Kyle is the kind of character that’s hard to take your eyes off, even when he’s committing horrific acts. Gunn imbues him with a sort of tragic nihilism—he’s the younger of the two, and while his actions are unforgivable, there’s a sense that he’s searching for something, some sense of meaning in the chaos he creates. His relationship with Raymond is complicated, almost paternal, and Mendez smartly uses this dynamic to dig into themes of control, power, and manipulation.
Where the film truly becomes unnerving is in how Mendez refuses to let the audience view the killers as one-dimensional monsters. They are, in many ways, reflections of the world around them—lost, angry, and consumed by violence because they see no alternative. It’s uncomfortable and challenging, but Killers forces viewers to confront the idea that evil doesn’t always come from a supernatural source; sometimes, it’s born out of a broken society.
The family at the center of the story, particularly Mindy, serves as a counterpoint to the killers, though Mendez also doesn’t shy away from showing their imperfections. Mindy is forced to make increasingly difficult choices as the situation worsens, and Clatterbuck’s performance helps ground the film in a kind of grim realism. Her arc, while tragic, reflects the film’s central question: How far can someone be pushed before they, too, cross a line?
It’s clear that Killers was made on a tight budget, but that scrappy, low-budget aesthetic works to the film’s advantage. The grainy, often handheld camerawork adds a layer of immediacy and rawness, making the violence feel more intimate and unsettling. The film has a gritty, almost documentary-like quality in its most intense moments, which amplifies the tension and unease.
The production design is minimalist but effective, especially in the confines of the family’s home, which becomes a prison for both the killers and their victims. The space feels claustrophobic, adding to the sense that there’s no escape from the horrors unfolding within. While some of the effects may lack polish, Mendez’s direction and pacing compensate for any technical shortcomings. If anything, the rough edges contribute to the film’s relentless atmosphere.
Beyond the bloodshed and mayhem, Killers has more on its mind than simple shock value. Mendez’s film is an examination of the thin line between civility and savagery, between morality and corruption. At what point does violence become a part of us? Can we ever fully escape it, or is it lurking beneath the surface of every person, waiting for the right trigger?
Mendez also touches on the way violence is commodified and consumed, particularly in the media and entertainment. The film seems to be commenting on the desensitization of society to horrific acts—how we, as an audience, are willing to sit and watch these brutal acts unfold on screen, detached and entertained, even as the characters are destroyed by them.
Killers isn’t for everyone. It’s a brutal, uncompromising film that drags its characters and audience through the darkest corners of the human psyche. But for those willing to stomach its relentless approach, it’s a bold and confident debut from Mike Mendez, a filmmaker unafraid to push boundaries and explore the moral complexities of violence. Killers may not have reached the cult status of Mendez’s later films, but it remains a raw and unsettling piece of 1990s indie cinema that proves Mendez was a director to watch from the very start.
Bonus Materials
- Audio commentary with director Mike Mendez and horror scholar Michael Gingold
- Original promotional trailers
- Liner notes booklet by critic/writer Heather Drain
- Alternate Ending
- English subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing
Killers is available at MVD for 15% off!!!!