#41  
Old 12-02-2012, 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
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.
It's not skewed, it's a parallel. Jenkins represents the indecisive political leader that cannot relate to the people he is leading and who is willing to bail someone out even at the almost certain risk of it leading to the same problems happening again. He lies to himself that it will lead to any kind of long term benefit. Gandolfini represents the insecure, whiny American. Pitt represents the voice of reason, the guy who isn't consumed by the idealistic notions being vomitted in the flowery speeches of political leaders. The guy who isn't willing to lie to himself, unlike Jenkins and Gandolfini.

Last edited by Bourne101; 12-02-2012 at 03:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-02-2012, 03:47 PM
Only $7 mil for an opening weekend? Wow! 7th place. What went wrong here?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-02-2012, 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Only $7 mil for an opening weekend? Wow! 7th place. What went wrong here?
Not the fast-paced thrill ride that some probably expected, very bleak, harsh commentary on America, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-02-2012, 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Only $7 mil for an opening weekend? Wow! 7th place. What went wrong here?
It's not really a mainstream accessable film, not really surprised there.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-02-2012, 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
It's not skewed, it's a parallel. Jenkins represents the indecisive political leader that cannot relate to the people he is leading and who is willing to bail someone out even at the almost certain risk of it leading to the same problems happening again. He lies to himself that it will lead to any kind of long term benefit. Gandolfini represents the insecure, whiny American. Pitt represents the voice of reason, the guy who isn't consumed by the idealistic notions being vomitted in the flowery speeches of political leaders. The guy who isn't willing to lie to himself, unlike Jenkins and Gandolfini.
That is a skewed perspective on the state of things. It represents nothing more than the overly cynical perspective of certain filmmakers and writers on this country. Who exactly is this film criticizing politically wise? Bush? Obama? Politicians in general? If you asked different people, they would probably give you several different opinions on the same politicians and their choices. All this film does is generalize on everything, and to an annoying extent. It certainly remembers to criticize the blunders of capitalism and the American government, but at the same time it forgets two of the most important aspects of this country: diversity and individuality. Basically, you can call the perspective being toted by this film the glass-half empty way of looking at things.

Also, Pitt never seemed like the voice of reason in this to me. He seemed like some typically jaded asshole who was completely out for himself, much like a coporate CEO. Right and wrong didn't apply to his character, he only cared about benefits and drawbacks. Sure, he was no bullshit, but the only thing he seemed to represent was the typically selfish American. Just another stereotype that doesn't necessarily point out a larger truth about America.

Not trying to say everything was peachy at the second recession, but as movies sometimes do, this went a bit overboard with its social commentary, (IMO).
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-02-2012, 05:52 PM
I'll risk sounding stupid, but I'll say that there may be more than meets the eye on a first viewing with this particular film. I think only through a few rewatches may it really make a whole lot more of sense to people than on a first time. I don't think everyone got, or still gets Kubrick's 2001, or his entire filmography just by watching things once. I watched the Cannes panel for this film and a few other interviews with Dominik, and like Bourne already analyzed, there's more depth to this film, and each character represents a certain idea or archetype.

That being said...

Kermode also nails it pretty well with his review about how "everything is a transaction" there are no friends, or partners, it's all just a big business. If you want to go deeper with it. I'd say the film's intention is to show how Capitalism as a system, at least in America - has absolutely no morals about anything. The line about "...and in America, you're on your own" doesn't just mean you're on your own financially, and whatever holes you get dugged in because of the average being screwed, but "on your own" meaning at all, emotionally - there are no friends, even if they 'seem' like friends.

That's also why Pitt at the end said what he said, the last line "Now fucking pay me" - even though he was cracking jokes with Jenkins an hour earlier in the car, seeming like they're friends and partners - in the end, it's all a facade, everything. None of it matters - only money.

This is all the film's about in my mind. It's showing you the shallowness of America
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-02-2012, 07:50 PM
It seemed like most of my theater did not like it, there were only ten people in there but I am sure I was the only person who loved it. I pretty sure people thought I was crazy because I was laughing a lot and I heard a few chuckles but for the most part nothing. The woman that was coming out of the theater behind behind me said to her husband "well the that was different", other than that people were not saying much. I got a little bit of Coen Brothers and Tarantino vibe with this movie.

I haven't listened to Kermode's review but it seems as if he hit the nail on the head with this movie. It is a very cynical look at America ans it's citizens. That said I think Pitt's last line should go down in the history of great lines, it sums up the movie perfectly. My initial rating is 9/10 but it may go up, hell Assassination of Jesse James got an 8 from me the first time and now I have it has a 10 and it is my top five from the last decade.

Last edited by Frosty_86; 12-02-2012 at 08:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-02-2012, 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty_86 View Post
It seemed like most of my theater did not like it, there were only ten people in there but I am sure I was the only person who loved it.

My initial rating is 9/10 but it may go up, hell Assassination of Jesse James got an 8 from me the first time and now I have it has a 10 and it is my top five from the last decade.
Same experience, here.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:17 PM
I'm in the same boat with my theater experience. Had about 10 people walk out, you could see some people got visually irritated during Gandolfini's scenes. I loved it. It's been one day and its stuck in my head.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsumoto View Post
I'm in the same boat with my theater experience. Had about 10 people walk out, you could see some people got visually irritated during Gandolfini's scenes.
Yeah, it was hilarious. One couple left after the opening credits (maybe they were at the wrong movie?), and during Gandolfini's scenes, people just kept looking at each other, looking very uncomfortable. Once one couple got up, people just started filing out. I've never seen anything like it. Practically had the theatre to myself when all was said and done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsumoto View Post
I loved it. It's been one day and its stuck in my head.
I know, eh? There are so many images and lines that have stuck with me. The opening credits are some of the best I've seen in a long time. Almost like a horror movie or something.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-03-2012, 12:16 AM

The whole movie felt like it was an excuse to build up to that speech that Pitt gives at the end. I didn't give two shits about any of the characters. I don't mind movies where there are no likeable characters but nobody here is interesting either. What was Ray Liotta even doing in this? He had so little to do. And the Gandolfini character was superfluous. You could have written him and out and it wouldn't have changed the story at all. The whole movie just pointless and dour and cynical. I really didn't like the movie at all. It was not fun nor interesting. I hate the way the two Ray Liotta scenes were shot. That part just felt so gimmicky. The way they show the bullets come out in slow motion, and the way the camera lingers on him getting beat up. Ugh. What a disappointment!

4/10
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-03-2012, 01:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
And the Gandolfini character was superfluous. You could have written him and out and it wouldn't have changed the story at all.
I think he was in many ways arguably the most important character. He wasn't pivotal to the straight forward factual interpretation one may have of the story, but outside of that very very narrow sense of looking at the movie there is no way he could be written out.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-03-2012, 02:41 AM
I suppose in terms of the movie's themes he may be important, but from a narrative perspective, all his character did was eat up screen time.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-03-2012, 07:45 AM
At 97 minutes Killing Them Softly is one of the shortest mob films i have ever seen,but crams in a lot
of colorful characters,stinging and raw dialogue coupled with brutal violence.Scoot McNairy as Frankie and
Ben Mendelsohn as Russell are 2 low level crooks who look like they should be taking showers for a month instead of
robbing an illegal card game run by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta) at the behest of Johnny Amato (Vincent Curatola)
The robbery leads to hitman Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) being called in to track down and take out anyone that was involved.
KTS interestingly uses the 2008 Presidential election and the economic collapse as a parable to whats
playing out on the gritty streets. Pitt,including Richard Jenkins as Driver, the aforementioned actors, and a handful of other character actors
are great but its James Gandolfini as Mickey a hit man who likes his alchohol and prostitutes but cant stop talking about
his wife who is threatening to leave him is the standout.

Even with its short running time KTS drags a bit but still held my attention and definitely entertains.


Scale of 1-10 an 8½
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-03-2012, 11:13 AM
A film that wears its allegorical themes on its sleeve is an interesting concept for a film. There’s something bubbling underneath a typical plot on a movie about the economy, crime, or society in general. But, for that message to stick onto the viewers and make them understand and appreciate the film as a whole, the message needs to be handled delicately. Sure, there can be a movie script that provides an on-the nose view in terms of the film’s allegorical message, or maybe handled more deftly, never spelling the idea out to the audience on hand. These two techniques are used for director Andrew Dominik’s latest film of George V. Higgin’s novel about the crime syndicate coming under hard times within their systems, and a group of characters all caught in the middle of it. But, while Dominik has some good ideas on the state of America symbolized through mobsters and low lives, the film never comes together to provide a worthwhile film experience.

The problem with this film is that Dominik handles its characters as more of a playwright view than fully realized characters. Not to say that this technique is a bad idea on film, as director William Friedkin utilized that type of characterization in the entertainingly dark film Killer Joe, but here Dominik simply uses this film to place characters as symbolic standpoints for the film’s message. The film revolves around a robbery by two low lives (Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn) on a card game run by the mob, to which the crime syndicate hires an enforcer (Brad Pitt) to root out who could have been the culprits of the robbery. Now, a crime story like that seems a bit thin (coupled to the fact that the film’s run time is 97 minutes), but there’s always meat to add to the film’s script if a director and screenwriter have a vision that is interesting to say and engage in.

That vision for Dominik revolves the concept of the dying American dream, where it’s no longer about unity among brotherhood and business, but rather the need to find a way to make a quick buck. Everyone is either out of themselves in Killing Them Softly, or helping one another in the hopes that, personally, they will come out with their own pay day. That ideal is no truer than McNairy’s Frankie and Mendelsohn’s Russell; two low lives who take up the offer to rob the mob’s poker game. These two represent opposite sides of the individual American, one who wants to make something of themselves on the business side, while the other is happy where he is. McNairy nails the Boston-accented Frankie, a somewhat well groomed guy who wants to make a score, but that’s about it. As for the Australian Mendelsohn, he’s the more interesting of the two robbers. A completely disgusting drug addict that takes up the robbery with not much care, he’s the latter of the group who wants to do something with the money he has, even if the business proposition doesn’t seem like a very worthwhile investment.

As for the mob infrastructure, there are different shades that are represented by Pitt, Richard Jenkins, and James Gandolfini. They each make up a different aspect of the economical world in America. Here, the mob isn’t portrayed as this tough-as-nails organization that will cement a guy and throw them to the fishes, but rather an organization that likes to cut corners and finances to ensure that the job is done. Richard Jenkins is the cypher of that organization, the go-between guy who’s just trying to his job, and having to deal with the “paperwork” in a sense. Pitt and Gandolfini portray the low-level hit men of the organization, each with their own outlook on their profession. Pitt is the more aware of his scenario as Jackie, an enforcer who has his own principles in terms of killing, as well as a penchant of knowing how this business runs. Gandolfini plays Mickey, a seasoned veteran of the mob game that has become withered to the world around him, and no longer seems to be the professional that he once was.

Now, as you can see, Dominik certainly has these piles of layers to form a film that is more than just the average crime drama, but more of a look at America, particularly surrounding the 2008 election and economic recession. But, while Dominik has these puzzle pieces; he can’t seem to put them together to make the film interesting. There are film techniques and visual cues that are arresting and engaging (the opening sequence and a scene involving a heroin stupor was particularly memorable), but the film’s themes and story never achieve to keep to that kind of level. In a sense, the ambition that Dominik wants to make with his themes and symbolic characters either come across as on-the nose, or not particularly interesting. One scene involving a monologue by Gandolfini perfectly encapsulates that arm’s length that Dominik keeps the majority of his audience. I get what he’s trying to do, I appreciate what he’s trying to do, but I don’t find it engaging.

And that’s the ultimate problem with Killing Them Softly. When a film tries to attain an allegorical vision, that vision needs to be something that should feel viable, interesting, and complete. The actors are all admirable and Dominik can certainly shoot the hell out of the film, but the script’s allegorical message just can‘t sustain itself to be engaging. The film is not an ultimate failure, but it sadly doesn’t achieve the goals that it hoped to deliver to the audience.

6.5/10
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-03-2012, 06:35 PM
I was worried about the on the nose political themes, and while they were overt I never really found them obnoxious or off-putting, I actually found the concept kinda original and refreshing... I mean every gangster movie usually has some political subtext so why not try completely submerging it in it. I thought it was just a good, tight, simple little crime movie and I liked the quirky characters. I do agree with ilovemovies that the over-stylized violent scene with Liotta was bad, inconsistent and shallow. 8/10
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-04-2012, 05:25 PM
Killing Them Softly is easily one of the better films I have seen this year..It was also nice to see Brad Pitt at the top of game acting cool as ever.A slick as shit gangster flick that was perfectly paced and beautifully shot..an easy 9/10
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:26 PM
Seeing this one in 45 minutes. So stoked.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
Seeing this one in 45 minutes. So stoked.
I hope you like it
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hucksta G View Post
I hope you like it
Loved it!

I still haven't gotten around to seeing Jesse James again (didn't like it the first time) but I want too because it's such a schmoe-darling of a movie here. I was a bit cautious with Killing Them Softly because of it, but now it just makes me want to revisit Jesse James. Killing Them was amazing. It's like a string of potent conversations that are carried by the best ensemble of acting I've seen all year. Gandolfini should be an awards-contender especially. He is fantastic.

Loved the broken America idea, how fucked up and pointless a lot of things are, and it also has probably the best ending monologue of any movie this year.

The operatic visuals of the violence in that one scene with Liotta was excellent, just wish the dummy wasn't so obvious from some angles, but it's a great slap in the face to all these filmmakers who are stylizing violence for the sake of style and nothing else. Plus it was a nice breather from all the talking.

Definitely not the most cinematic movie of the year, but when you have a script and acting force like that, it doesn't need to be. (Very much like Lincoln in that way actually)

The only thing that I didn't buy is that hired goons would be listening to politics on the radio :P A bit "in your face" with the political/economic climate, but doesn't go overboard.

4 stars, 8/10
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-06-2012, 04:38 PM
The more I think about it, the more I realize that I was really bothered by the fact that this film seems to be a hate letter to the current state of America and capitalism. I don't know why it irks me to such a degree, I've never been a hardcore patriot, although I do like and appreciate my country. I guess what really sucks is that there are thousands of hardworking and fair minded people in this country, yet it seems the image being presented to other countries of the world is that America is just a business.

This film is content to blanket everyone's motivations in the US under one primary motive: greed. While there is certainly a great deal of that going on, (I'm looking at you Wal-mart) it doesn't sum up America, or capitalism for that matter.

What's kind of funny about a lot of movie-goers out there is how eager they are to have a film wrap up a really broad and complex issue in a neat little bow, and how quickly they accept it as truth. Take Fight Club for example. Many people still hold the messages and themes of that film as gospel, when in reality it's just a fucking movie. It may have had a good point or two here and there, but just because you may like to buy items from a shopping catalog or purchase coffee from a big coffee franchise doesn't make you a sheep.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-06-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
The more I think about it, the more I realize that I was really bothered by the fact that this film seems to be a hate letter to the current state of America and capitalism. I don't know why it irks me to such a degree, I've never been a hardcore patriot, although I do like and appreciate my country. I guess what really sucks is that there are thousands of hardworking and fair minded people in this country, yet it seems the image being presented to other countries of the world is that America is just a business.

This film is content to blanket everyone's motivations in the US under one primary motive: greed. While there is certainly a great deal of that going on, (I'm looking at you Wal-mart) it doesn't sum up America, or capitalism for that matter.

What's kind of funny about a lot of movie-goers out there is how eager they are to have a film wrap up a really broad and complex issue in a neat little bow, and how quickly they accept it as truth. Take Fight Club for example. Many people still hold the messages and themes of that film as gospel, when in reality it's just a fucking movie. It may have had a good point or two here and there, but just because you may like to buy items from a shopping catalog or purchase coffee from a big coffee franchise doesn't make you a sheep.

Although not the only reason why I dislike this movie very much, I definitely agree with you. As I said, it's a very ugly and cynical movie.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-06-2012, 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
it's a very ugly and cynical movie.
Justifiably so.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-06-2012, 05:27 PM
Not everyone is just out for themselves like the Brad Pitt character suggests.

It's funny because in times of great need like hurricanes and such, I think we are often a very giving country and do what we can to help each other out.

Last edited by ilovemovies; 12-06-2012 at 06:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-06-2012, 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
It's funny because in times of desperation like hurricanes and such, I think we are often a very giving country and do what we can to help each other out.
Times of desperation? You're referring to natural disasters. I don't see many people being helped out in situations where the desperation is caused by some of the shitty principles of the country.

Last edited by Bourne101; 12-06-2012 at 06:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-06-2012, 06:09 PM
People have donated money, items, canned foods, etc. I know there are plenty of areas that are still devastated by Sandy, but that's unavoidable in any major natural disaster like that. I think we are a country that does tend to be there for each other when it's truly needed mostly.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-06-2012, 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
The more I think about it, the more I realize that I was really bothered by the fact that this film seems to be a hate letter to the current state of America and capitalism.
How dare someone do such a thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
What's kind of funny about a lot of movie-goers out there is how eager they are to have a film wrap up a really broad and complex issue in a neat little bow, and how quickly they accept it as truth.
No one is saying this. I think some people just appreciate a movie that provides a different perspective and doesn't sugarcoat anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
People have donated money, items, canned foods, etc. I know there are plenty of areas that are still devastated by Sandy, but that's unavoidable in any major natural disaster like that. I think we are a country that does tend to be there for each other when it's truly needed mostly.
As I said, I'm not talking about natural disasters.

Last edited by Bourne101; 12-06-2012 at 07:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-06-2012, 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
How dare someone do such a thing.



No one is saying this. I think some people just appreciate a movie that provides a different perspective and doesn't sugarcoat anything.



As I said, I'm not talking about natural disasters.
Look, I'm all for social commentary, even if the commentary being presented differs from my own take on the subject, but IMO this film is way too harsh with its critique. It's overly cynical to the point of ugliness and disgust, and it does not accurately parallel the country I live in. Every country has its flaws, but America is multi-faceted; a country of many different people, traditions, and customs. You can't finger point and boil everyone and everything in it down to selfishness and greed.

And my point about how quickly people accept something in a movie as truth still stands. All this movie does is generalize, it has no justification for the degree of cynicism it directs towards America. Some people don't wait for evidence or credible arguments though. To them, generalization and blanket statements suffice as rational thought.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-06-2012, 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
IMO this film is way too harsh with its critique.
No, it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
it has no justification for the degree of cynicism it directs towards America.
Don't make me laugh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Some people don't wait for evidence or credible arguments though. To them, generalization and blanket statements suffice as rational thought.
The irony in this statement is fucking glorious.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-06-2012, 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
No, it isn't.



Don't make me laugh.



The irony in this statement is fucking glorious.
Stay classy now.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-06-2012, 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Stay classy now.
I don't mean to be so harsh, but I think it's extremely naive to think that his critique is too harsh/unjustified.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-06-2012, 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Look, I'm all for social commentary, even if the commentary being presented differs from my own take on the subject, but IMO this film is way too harsh with its critique. It's overly cynical to the point of ugliness and disgust, and it does not accurately parallel the country I live in. Every country has its flaws, but America is multi-faceted; a country of many different people, traditions, and customs. You can't finger point and boil everyone and everything in it down to selfishness and greed.

And my point about how quickly people accept something in a movie as truth still stands. All this movie does is generalize, it has no justification for the degree of cynicism it directs towards America. Some people don't wait for evidence or credible arguments though. To them, generalization and blanket statements suffice as rational thought.
I know I brought this up in my earlier post, but I'll bring it up one mo' again, just because...

I think all of you may be too positive in your life about things, or maybe, you just ignore it.

What Dominik is criticizing here, is NOT just Capitalism and America. Well shit, YES it's set in the US so obviously it's taking place here. What he is criticizing is also RELATIONSHIPS, in general. Yeah, it's a crime film, but that's just the surface. Sure, it's very cynical, yes - but it's also very close to reality. Now wait a minute...I can hear the bandwagon in the distance go choo-choo saying "It's YOUR reality" but I think I've been on this earth long enough to be able to read people, and tell things apart. It's cold out there, and if you were down on your knees begging for help, it would take MANY people to pass you by before there's one person who would extend you a hand. The idea of everything being a transaction is very much a reality. It's nice to be hopeful in the comfort of a home and say "that's not true" But Dominik is exploring just that, he's criticizing JUST that. The shallowness of people, the relationships are virtually nonexistent.

If you want to go deeper, it's the 1000+ friends on facebook, it's egoism masked as "help" - you can take The Social Network and Killing Them Softly and you'll have a perfect double feature.

The criticism is valid, while cynical. I don't think Dominik meant to generalize and entire population of the US, or any Capitalist countries, I think people should be smart enough to discern things like that. But in order to bring something up to people's attention, one must make a statement that has an "oomph" to it. It's like John Doe said in Se7en "Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention."
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-06-2012, 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
It's cold out there, and if you were down on your knees begging for help, it would take MANY people to pass you by before there's one person who would extend you a hand.
Exactly. Sure, people will donate money or canned food after a hurricane (generally don't have to get your hands dirty to do this), but if someone gets shot or is in trouble or is in a situation that they can't get out of because they are oppressed, is there going to be someone or something there to help them? Not likely.

One of the best examples of this in the film is when Pitt is walking across the street into the bar and someone gets shot on the street and he doesn't even flinch, he just goes about his business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
I don't think Dominik meant to generalize and entire population of the US
Agreed.

I don't think the film is some definitive argument for what is wrong with America, but I think it brings up some interesting ideas and presents them in a powerful way.

Last edited by Bourne101; 12-06-2012 at 08:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-06-2012, 10:03 PM
I'd just add that the film wasn't about nice or goodhearted people who donate to charity and send canned goods to children in need. It was a crime film about low lifes who steal purebred dogs and resell them to get heroin.

A redeeming character would have felt forced in this film. Where psycheoutsteve would see balance, I'd see an unnecessary trope & cliche.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-07-2012, 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
I'd just add that the film wasn't about nice or goodhearted people who donate to charity and send canned goods to children in need. It was a crime film about low lifes who steal purebred dogs and resell them to get heroin.

A redeeming character would have felt forced in this film. Where psycheoutsteve would see balance, I'd see an unnecessary trope & cliche.
Please, don't speak for me and assume what I would want to see from a film like this in terms of satisfying my interpretation of a balanced criticism on America. I don't need cliches, but I don't think an overdose of cynicism does any justice to the US either.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-08-2012, 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Please, don't speak for me and assume what I would want to see from a film like this in terms of satisfying my interpretation of a balanced criticism on America. I don't need cliches, but I don't think an overdose of cynicism does any justice to the US either.
No need to take it so personally, it was just one of the things that could have shown a more balanced criticism. You never gave an example, so I threw that in there. My apologies.

If the majority of the US-related films that were released year after year were giving an unfair look at America, I'd agree with your last statement. Truth is, there are loads of films that put America on some kind of pedestal so a bit of an overdose of cynicism that only shows one section of American culture is exactly what is needed. It's exactly what makes Killing Them Softly an important film.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-08-2012, 06:45 PM
Best film of the year.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-08-2012, 06:47 PM
This and Cloud Atlas are films that I'm definitely going to pick up on dvd/blu-ray to get my head around it. I was physically exhausted (which really isn't a good way to watch a movie) when i saw these films so a second viewing is definitely in order, I think.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-08-2012, 08:34 PM
Very disappointing

Masterful direction/cinematography, very light on plot...
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
very light on plot...
Yeah, that was also kind of a problem with me too. It just goes from point a to point b with little conflict. I mean, I guess the Gandolfini character being a shell of his former self was a minor conflict, but it wasn't enough for me. The whole movie just felt kind of pointless to me.

Spoiler:
And I know it was part of the plan obviously, but Pitt killing Mendelsohn at the end just made me HATE him. So did his last monologue to Jenkins.
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