#1  
Old 09-21-2012, 12:16 PM
Killing Them Softly



Directed by Andrew Dominik

Written by Andrew Dominik

Genre: Crime

Plot Outline: Jackie Cogan is a professional enforcer who investigates a heist that went down during a mob-protected poker game.

Starring: Brad Pitt, Scoot McNairy, Ben Mendelsohn, James Gandolfini, Richard Jenkins, Ray Liotta, Sam Shepard, Slaine

Rated R for violence, sexual references, pervasive language, and some drug use

Runtime: 97 minutes


You lucky fuckin' UK schmoes.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-21-2012, 12:20 PM
I. Want. This.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-21-2012, 03:09 PM
I'm living in America, and in America, we get our best films after the Brits.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-21-2012, 03:25 PM
...but we still, get 'em.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-21-2012, 03:44 PM
97 minutes.......did not see that coming.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-21-2012, 04:07 PM

I'm seeing this cause Slaine is in it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-21-2012, 10:05 PM
Great review by Kermode - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBXNe...eature=g-all-u. Apparently the pacing is extremely tight!

Reeeeeeally psyched for this film.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-22-2012, 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
Great review by Kermode - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBXNe...eature=g-all-u. Apparently the pacing is extremely tight!
Nice to see somebody else loves them some Kermode. It's weird too, because he's such an unambiguously bad and obnoxious person, yet these seem to be qualities that make him a great and rather endearing film critic.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-22-2012, 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
yet these seem to be qualities that make him a great and rather endearing film critic.
This is why I like him. I first heard of him through a mention by Bourne101, about Inception review, been listening since. I like him.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-22-2012, 01:47 PM
I'm looking forward to the movie but what an awful title.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-22-2012, 02:02 PM
I haven't seen his first film, but The Assassination of Jesse James alone was enough to put Andrew Dominik on my list of directors whose work I'll see no matter what. Killing Them Softly looks fantastic, and knowing that it has the Mark Kermode seal of approval just makes me even more excited for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG View Post
I'm looking forward to the movie but what an awful title.
I thought so, too, till I saw this clip.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-22-2012, 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Nice to see somebody else loves them some Kermode. It's weird too, because he's such an unambiguously bad and obnoxious person, yet these seem to be qualities that make him a great and rather endearing film critic.
The thing that makes him so great (on top of being hilarious) is that he really knows his shit. I'm pretty sure he did his PhD in English with a thesis on horror fiction. There aren't many out there like him. I don't always agree with him, but damn is it fun to listen to him. He has also recorded commentaries on some DVDs and has done some documentaries on a couple of films (The Exorcist and The Shawshank Redemption). He was also interviewing Herzog when they both got shot at (Herzog got shot), so there's that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
Great review by Kermode - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBXNe...eature=g-all-u. Apparently the pacing is extremely tight!

Reeeeeeally psyched for this film.
I knew Jesse James was his favorite of 2007, so I made sure to tune in to the show to hear his thoughts on this one. It's a great review, for sure. It has been unanimously praised in the UK. Not a single negative review on RT. I wish the release date didn't get bumped, but it gives me something to look forward to at the end of November.

Last edited by Bourne101; 09-22-2012 at 03:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-22-2012, 03:13 PM
One of mine most anticipated of the year.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-03-2012, 04:49 PM
Any UK Schmoes see this yet?

Here's an incredible new poster:

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-03-2012, 05:41 PM
That's an inspired design! Also very 70's, down to the font. Makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-03-2012, 07:35 PM
Fucking A. I'd hang that on my wall.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-04-2012, 12:15 AM
Brad Pitt is strumming their pain with his fingers,
Singing their life with his words.
Killing them softly with his song,
Killing them softly with his song,
Telling their whole life with his words,
Killing them softly
with his sonngg........
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:05 AM
Opens in NZ on Oct 18th, I'll be there opening night
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-05-2012, 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post

Y'all niggas had enough?
Gimme some more



Y'all niggas want the wild shit?
Gimme some more



Yo Spliff where the weed at?
Gimme some more

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-18-2012, 04:34 AM
Killing Them Softly (9/10)
From the moment it started I knew this was my kind of film. The direction, cast, acting, editing, cinematography and the dialogue are all top notch. Not too sure how general audiences will take it, evident from my girlriend who found it too talky and all the negative comments I heard around me as the credits rolled. However most film buffs, I believe will love it. Mendhelson is a stand out but all the cast deliver. Not as good as Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, but still great, none the less. Dark, violent, gritty and smart but at times laugh out loud funny.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-23-2012, 07:23 PM
Great flick. Dialogue was great (a lot of hilarious moments too: "Jesus, that's what you fucking got, diswashing gloves?"). I really liked how long Andrew Dominik allowed himself to linger on scenes and shots without at all ruining the pacing. Definitely deserves a nod for best adapted screenplay.

Hey Hucksta, what shades of Tarantino (if any) did you get from this film? It really felt like something that might've come out of 90s Tarantino if he had been far more focused and cleverly paced. It's very weird to see a film that does so well what every terrible I'm-going-to-be-a-filmmaker wannabe usually puts down on paper as their version of a crime thriller.

Spoiler:
America's not a country, it's just a business. Now fucking pay me.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-23-2012, 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Great flick. Dialogue was great (a lot of hilarious moments too: "Jesus, that's what you fucking got, diswashing gloves?"). I really liked how long Andrew Dominik allowed himself to linger on scenes and shots without at all ruining the pacing. Definitely deserves a nod for best adapted screenplay.

Hey Hucksta, what shades of Tarantino (if any) did you get from this film? It really felt like something that might've come out of 90s Tarantino if he had been far more focused and cleverly paced. It's very weird to see a film that does so well what every terrible I'm-going-to-be-a-filmmaker wannabe usually puts down on paper as their version of a crime thriller.

Spoiler:
America's not a country, it's just a business. Now fucking pay me.
Yeah, kind of early Tarantino vibe, but more withdrawn in the style department [though still stylely as hell, but not as 'loud', if you get my meaning] and smarter, small crime film kind of along the lines of Reservoir Dogs, with conversations between criminals to rival Pulp Fictions.

Also your spoiler, in the film was just awesome
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-23-2012, 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hucksta G View Post
Yeah, kind of early Tarantino vibe, but more withdrawn in the style department [though still stylely as hell, but not as 'loud', if you get my meaning] and smarter, small crime film kind of along the lines of Reservoir Dogs, with conversations between criminals to rival Pulp Fictions.

Also your spoiler, in the film was just awesome
Yeah, it's weird: even though it's Tarantino-esque, it's a movie Tarantino could never make. Certainly more visually interesting than anything he's made. The themes are also probably more intriguing and intelligent (on the one hand it was a little frustrating how often and how loudly you're beat over the head with the parallel, on the other hand, after the film, I couldn't really think of a way they could have not done that without forfeiting the raison d'etre of the film). With a little more time though I'm now starting to think Jean-Pierre Melville is almost probably a better comparison than Tarantino.

Anyhow, I'm very interested to see how this film is received. It's only after watching it and reading all the comments online that I'm realizing people had serious problems with the pacing, the lack of (sustained) violence, the seeming skips of the plot and pointless characters. While none of these points came to me independently, I can certainly understand them now that I've read them. I guess the cineastes could probably go either way on the movie during awards season.

Last edited by Gordon; 10-23-2012 at 09:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-23-2012, 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Anyhow, I'm very interested to see how this film is received. It's only after watching it and reading all the comments online that I'm realizing people had serious problems with the pacing, the lack of (sustained) violence, the seeming skips of the plot and pointless characters. While none of these points came to me independently, I can certainly understand them now that I've read them. I guess the cineastes could probably go either way on the movie during awards season.
Yeah most of my cinema seemed to not like it, I lapped up every second of it haha
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-24-2012, 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Yeah, it's weird: even though it's Tarantino-esque, it's a movie Tarantino could never make. Certainly more visually interesting than anything he's made. The themes are also probably more intriguing and intelligent (on the one hand it was a little frustrating how often and how loudly you're beat over the head with the parallel, on the other hand, after the film, I couldn't really think of a way they could have not done that without forfeiting the raison d'etre of the film). With a little more time though I'm now starting to think Jean-Pierre Melville is almost probably a better comparison than Tarantino.
It's interesting you mention Tarantino. When I read the script, I felt that it read more like a Coen Brothers film with a side of... something else. I guess some of the dialogue is reminiscent of a Tarantino film in that we get to hang out with gangsters and listen to them shoot the shit, but other than that I didn't find it very Tarantino-esque. I agree that it's a movie Tarantino could never make, but it's also a film I don't think he would want to make. Tarantino is extremely nonjudgmental of his characters, whereas the story that Dominik is telling with the parallels to the American economy, bailout, etc. makes it very difficult for him not to judge the characters. Tarantino leaves a lot up to the audience, whereas Dominik has an unwavering opinion of his characters and the country they live in (at least with Killing Them Softly; Jesse James was an entirely different thing). Ultimately, I dig both approaches.

Last edited by Bourne101; 10-24-2012 at 08:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-26-2012, 11:16 PM
Wonderful film. I'm with Hucksta G, this film is straight up my alley. My kind of flick too. Andrew Dominik seals the deal for me in being one of the best working filmmakers today. Now if only this guy didn't wait years between films!! However, if that's what it takes in him choosing the kind of projects he does, then that's the sacrifice I'm willing to endure.

I can see how the general audience who aren't film buffs can get bored with this. The pacing of it is deliberately slow, but the great thing about it is that within each segment, there's always some kind of payoff. Whether it's tension throughout, or an awesomely edited sequence, or stylishly shot scene...etc etc. The last speech by Brad was on the money, and a perfect way to end the film that makes an impact.

Also, I don't really see any Tarantino influence in the dialogue, if anything there's that roundtable shot - that actually isn't Tarantino's invention anyway, I've seen it before Reservoir Dogs in Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters" - other than that one little camera sequence, this film is its' own thing entirely. It felt more like a stage play, in vein of Glengarry Glen Ross, which is actually not a bad comparison - even thematically. But what I mean by that is that, that film has essentially the same kind of dialogue driven scenes, and the same kind of pacing. Another comparison to be made is something I saw on IMDb where I saw someone mention it feels like a violent version of a Sidney Lumet film - and I agree with that.

Loved it. Can't wait to see it again

9/10
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-27-2012, 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
I guess some of the dialogue is reminiscent of a Tarantino film in that we get to hang out with gangsters and listen to them shoot the shit, but other than that I didn't find it very Tarantino-esque. I agree that it's a movie Tarantino could never make, but it's also a film I don't think he would want to make. Tarantino is extremely nonjudgmental of his characters, whereas the story that Dominik is telling with the parallels to the American economy, bailout, etc. makes it very difficult for him not to judge the characters.
Not just the rapid-fire back and forth dialogue scenes. It's the whole mood, atmosphere, plot development, etc. But obviously I don't want to come across like I am overemphasizing this aspect of the film; it's definitely its own thing, and I think there is no real overt Tarantino influence: certainly Dominik is too skilled as a filmmaker to be interested in the sort of genre fetishization which preoccupies Tarantino. However, George V. Higgins, Elmore Leonard, and David Mamet all perfected this very particular school of dialogue heavy crime story which Tarantino was rather openly mimicking in the 90s, and which here Dominik takes and directly reinterprets through his own lens. The product is totally different filmmakers making their own totally different thing, and yet the ghost in the machine is the same for both. I find this sort of interesting from the view point of film theory, and I think the resulting similarities cannot go unmentioned.

Last edited by Gordon; 10-27-2012 at 11:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-29-2012, 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post

Also, I don't really see any Tarantino influence in the dialogue, if anything there's that roundtable shot - that actually isn't Tarantino's invention anyway, I've seen it before Reservoir Dogs in Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters" - other than that one little camera sequence, this film is its' own thing entirely. It felt more like a stage play, in vein of Glengarry Glen Ross, which is actually not a bad comparison - even thematically. But what I mean by that is that, that film has essentially the same kind of dialogue driven scenes, and the same kind of pacing. Another comparison to be made is something I saw on IMDb where I saw someone mention it feels like a violent version of a Sidney Lumet film - and I agree with that.
Yeah I also thought it seemed like a play, similiar to Glengarry, but I actually enjoyed this more. Also I don't think any one was saying the film was influenced by Tarantino, just drawing similarities . This is definitly a film that stands on its own. Gordon says it better in the post above me
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-30-2012, 11:48 PM

Just got back from seeing this and damn did it deliver. It wasn't as preachy as I was led on to believe at all either.

Pitt is once again awesome and Jackie Cogan might rival Tyler Durden as his coolest character yet.

I'll add some more thoughts on it later (too tired right now)

9/10
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-01-2012, 12:22 AM
The film of the year till this point.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-01-2012, 02:17 AM
Extremely mixed bag for me. A tight and darkly funny crime thriller is nearly ruined by Dominik's thematic obsession. There is an overabundance of heavy handed political and economical commentary that felt insulting in its unnecessary repetition. The first 20 minutes are terrific, but once Pitt hits the scene in a surprisingly minimal and thankless role (the film belongs to Gandolfini and Scoot McNairy) the obvious chitchat and constant use of video and audio recordings of political discussion becomes almost too much to handle. I appreciate the look into the lives of "gangsters," as it were and how their job is just like any other and has the same concerns, issues, etc. and this material handled the subtext well. It's depiction of a cynical, recession-laden, and violent America is chilling. But everything is is in excess of what is already made clear. The film's form and style is beautiful (if not a bit overdone in a certain drug induced haze), and there are visceral and exciting moments. But someone needed to tell Dominik to calm down and trust his audience a bit more.

This surprises me, as Assassination of Jesse James was my favorite film of the previous decade and everyone else on the board seems to have loved the film. Another one this year I'm just not in line with it seems, although the critics are more mixed than you fine lot.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-01-2012, 11:06 AM
Killing Them Softly - 8/10 or ****/***** stars

Andrew Dominik's latest directorial effort Killing Them Softly is a lean, mean, gritty crime film, depicting the lives of pathetic, low-level criminals, the harsh consequences of their poorly thought out criminal activities, and the relationships shared between criminals and hit men. Although the film is graphically violent at times, this is a dialogue-heavy crime film, and occasionally darkly funny. The performances are great, with the stand-out being Brad Pitt as Jackie Cogan, a cold-blooded, yet charismatic and sensitive hit man. Narratively speaking, it's rather simplistic, but thematically speaking, it's complex. What I found most intriguing and surprising about the film is its political edge, which, in a way, explains the actions, motives, and beliefs of the characters. Despite a brisk 97-minute running time, Killing Them Softly is a complete film, leaving the viewer with plenty to think about after the end credits. This is not your average crime thriller, and that's what makes it one of the best films of 2012.

Strider

Last edited by Strider; 12-01-2012 at 11:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-01-2012, 03:30 PM
Loved it. Andrew Dominik called the documentary Salesman an inspiration for the film, and boy is he spot on there. The sense of desperation he creates through the writing, acting and cinematography becomes almost unbearable as the film slowly builds its way to Pitt's powerful final line. Yes, the film is on the nose, but I almost think it is necessary that it's done this way. The film was originally titled Cogan's Trade, then changed to Killing Them Softly. I think the most appropriate title would be "Reality Check".

Last edited by Bourne101; 12-01-2012 at 08:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-02-2012, 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
(if not a bit overdone in a certain drug induced haze)
I disagree with this. That scene was extremely effective and right up there with other depictions of drug-induced highs such as GoodFellas, Requiem for a Dream and Enter the Void.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
But someone needed to tell Dominik to calm down and trust his audience a bit more.
Audiences that give A Cinemascores to Here Comes the Boom and Alex Cross cannot be trusted to take in even the most unsubtle of messages.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-02-2012, 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
a message that needs to be heard.
What message is that exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-02-2012, 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
What message is that exactly?
*insert dialogue from final scene and conversations between Jackie and Driver about why Markie needs to be killed, among other things*
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-02-2012, 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
What message is that exactly?
This is America, and in America, you're on your own.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-02-2012, 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
I disagree with this. That scene was extremely effective and right up there with other depictions of drug-induced highs such as GoodFellas, Requiem for a Dream and Enter the Void.



Audiences that give A Cinemascores to Here Comes the Boom and Alex Cross cannot be trusted to take in even the most unsubtle of messages.
Well it's not as if they loved this one, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

We continue to disagree, but I will say that my opinion on one film has shifted considerably after a 2nd viewing and I firmly agree with you on it now. More to come...
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-02-2012, 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Loved it. Andrew Dominik called the documentary Salesman an inspiration for the film, and boy is he spot on there. The sense of desperation he creates through the writing, acting and cinematography becomes almost unbearable as the film slowly builds its way to Pitt's powerful final line. Yes, the film is on the nose, but I almost think it is necessary that it's done this way. The film was originally titled Cogan's Trade, then changed to Killing Them Softly. I think the most appropriate title would be "Reality Check".
I don't know how much of a reality check this film gave me. Mostly, it just made me feel like the two hours I spent watching it could of been spent more productively doing something else. The acting, editing techniques, and cinematography were to be admired, but the script just plodded along a predictable and inevitable path without any surprises or energy to it. The message of the film falls very short of a shocking revelation or a worthwhile commentary on the status of post recession America and its occupants.

Most of us in this country are smart enough to know we're on our own, that's pretty much what capitalist society is all about. While many of us, (myself included) may never taste the type of desperation depicted in this film, I like to think that most of us aren't, (or ever could be) cold and calculating criminals and murderers either. This film gives an incredibly skewed portrayal of post recession America. If anything, the only thing you should take from this film is the message, stay out of certain parts of Louisiana.

5/10
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-02-2012, 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
*insert dialogue from final scene and conversations between Jackie and Driver about why Markie needs to be killed, among other things*
I mean I enjoyed it tremendously, and obviously he was presenting his viewpoint and giving us an illustration of desperation and violent individualism. But some sort of capital-m Message that everyone needs to hear? I didn't really see one. That's why I'm curious exactly what it is this film presents that you think is important for audiences.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump