Killing Them Softly (Dominik, 2012)

[Dent]

Well, that was cheery and heartwarming.

As someone who loved what Dominik did with Jesse James, this did not live up to that. There are parts that are pretty dull, in all honesty, though there are parts that are fantastic as well the heist, the murder of Liotta's character . And, boy, does this HAMMER HOME its themes. This is definitely the pessimistic version of America (and humanity in general - the main theme of the film beyond America being a "business" is that you cannot rely on any other human being, ever) in comparison to, say, Lincoln's positive vision, but Domink doesn't seem to trust the audience to get it, so he constantly has Bush, Obama, and McCain on television or on the radio in the background during scenes talking about the economic catastrophe of 2008, and the final scene of Pitt and Jenkins in the bar on Election Night 2008 is basically Dominik screaming the final lines that Pitt's character has. I mean, I don't have a problem with the themes that Dominik is necessarily expressing or the cynicism with which he's expressing them but, boy, you can only yell it at the audience so many times before you say "OK, I get it, are you going anywhere other than this place you've already gone with it?" In this case, the answer seems to be "not really".

There is really some pretty remarkable filmmaking, cinematography, editing, and soundwork on display, and Scoot McNairy in particular gives a very strong performance. I also liked Pitt and Jenkins, and was amused by Gandolfini's rather pathetic character. But, yeah, this is nowhere near the greatness that is Jesse James. It just hammers its themes home too overtly without any subtlety, and there are a number of parts that just feel dead, narratively (I almost started to laugh in the scene where Mendehlson keeps zoning in and out because it just got so fucking ridiculous with the repeated shots that Dominik keeps pulling). Watchable, but disappointing.

[forizzer69]

I will wait for it to come online and download it. I don't know if that's shitty of me or not, but that will be how I see it because I'm simply tired of seeing movies that say nothing but I love cinema and I am idealistic and always hope a director I like has made a film I will love so I am torn. (This is the pre-screener leak defense.)

Was that a ramble? What I want to say is that I read your review and I thank you for it. Based on your review, I believe I would also feel a bit chaffed leaving this film.

[Aurelius]

What I find.... strange is that the 'America is a business' message is brought as a negative one (which I agree with, by the way), yet it is championed, certainly in the last scene, by the central character who for all intents and purposes is the 'good guy' in the story. This is a really cynical and negative film, and while I certainly share the cynicism, it's such a strange starting point for the film. And I'm not even talking about Dominik smacking us left and right with his themes.

On the technical side I found this quite excellent, certainly the cinematography, although a bit too indulgent at times. Loved the shot from the camera mounted on the car door, probably the one thing that I vividly remember from this after six months.

[Dent]

Oh, that shot with the camera on the car door - if it's the one I'm thinking of - was fucking amazing. It's so quick, and it's just a total "whoa, THAT was cool" moment. Totally agree both about the cinematography and its indulgence.

And yeah, I certainly don't have a problem with cynicism or films taking a cynical POV (one of my all-time favorite films is The Third Man, which doesn't exactly paint the rosiest picture of humanity). But yeah, like you said, Domink chooses such a strange starting point for this POV and then just hammers you with it relentlessly, while getting to the point of basically yelling "DO YOU GET IT?!". And yes, Cogan is basically almost this warrior-philosopher, the one man who goes and gets things done when they're necessary to do (as compared to "New York Mickey," who is set up as this hardened killer but is just a dried-up whiny, boozing, boring ass), and the cynicism in Cogan just crawls over the rest of the film. The whole thing feels so scummy and vile in atmosphere, it's really something.

Also, man, what a waste of Sam Shepard.

[Cédric]

This was my biggest disappointment of the year, granted I had pretty high expectations after TTAJJBTCRF.

[haqyunus]

I didn't like it at all. It has certain small-ness to it. It comes of sort of a minor effort. And yeah, I had such high hope too after TAOJJBTCRF. In spite of being so heavy-handed and obvious, it is surprisingly dull, humorless and tedious. Vincent Curatola was the only stand-out for me, even in his brief scenes. Scoot McNairy was just

[Spielberg_Fan]

Your reactions are disappointing. I love TAOJJBTCRF, and I thought the trailers for this one looked great. I'll still check it out at some point probably.

[haqyunus]

What I find.... strange is that the 'America is a business' message is brought as a negative one (which I agree with, by the way), yet it is championed, certainly in the last scene, by the central character who for all intents and purposes is the 'good guy' in the story. This is a really cynical and negative film, and while I certainly share the cynicism, it's such a strange starting point for the film. And I'm not even talking about Dominik smacking us left and right with his themes.

On the technical side I found this quite excellent, certainly the cinematography, although a bit too indulgent at times. Loved the shot from the camera mounted on the car door, probably the one thing that I vividly remember from this after six months.

As you said that it is highly cynical and pessimistic movie. So, I think that it meant that the the workers, the masses, the 99% or whatever you want to call them, are hitting back at the leaders with their own strategy. They have adopted the same 'negative' mantra are playing the game.

[Aurelius]

Who knows? The film is so unclear about who represents what and such. Take the discussion between Pitt and Jenkins in the car, complaining about the bureaucracy of the business, all the rules and the forms and the etcetera. I thought all this sort of 'no regulation, less government' crap was a right wing talking point?

[haqyunus]

Who knows? The film is so unclear about who represents what and such. Take the discussion between Pitt and Jenkins in the car, complaining about the bureaucracy of the business, all the rules and the forms and the etcetera. I thought all this sort of 'no regulation, less government' crap was a right wing talking point?

Yes, and Pitt does exactly that. He looks out for himself. 'Every man for himself', laws like Castle Doctrine etc. are right wing mantras. When Jenkins sounds surprised (representing in a way the powers-to-be as well), Pitt cynically reminds them that isn't this they all wanted? Less regulations, no oversight and it is about personal profit at end of the day. So he (Pitt) is simply doing that: looking out for himself. So, what I got from the movie was that all these people in power right now who are supporting less government should be forewarned. It can bite them back in their ass anytime. At least this is my take.

[Aurelius]

But then again I posit my idea that Pitt is portrayed as the 'good guy' (or at least the least 'bad guy' ) in the film. So, right wing mantra = good?

[haqyunus]

But then again I posit my idea that Pitt is portrayed as the 'good guy' (or at least the least 'bad guy' ) in the film. So, right wing mantra = good?

No, not good. I don't think there is as such a good guy/entity in the movie. Even if you want to label him 'good' then it is in a way of extremely flawed and fallen manner. He only comes of as sympathetic because he represents the worker class, the 99% who is standing up for himself, albeit in a wrong way. I also see his speech at the end a sort of acceptance that his whole attitude is more of an undesirable necessity. He has to do it to survive in the current world! I think , his character is sort of a cautionary lesson for both the leaders (obviously) for the silent and abiding masses as well. That if no one takes action then everyone of you will end up on the wrong side, corrupted and self-destructive. The society will end.

[ldw]

I found the film disappointing with it's heavyhandedness.

Pitt's character is talking at the end to the person who basically represents the corporate mentality. He is acknowledging this is a dog-eat-dog America and he is not about the be fucked over by people like Jenkins. That does not mean he thinks it is right. He is a cynic. However just because someone is a cynic does not mean that he agrees with what he sees. In a passage earlier in the film, he offers Gandolfini's character both jobs because he senses that character needs assistance. This would be a charitable act considering it is $ 15,000.00. He is twice repulsed by actions concerning tips. Once when an accomplice goes to palm a tip and later when Gandolfini's character won't tip the prostitute/is rude to her. This is not in any way to say Pitt's character is a good guy. He is anything but. But his comments at the end are more about how he sees the world as being (business over community) and not necessarily what he believes in.

[Aurelius]

Then maybe I have a problem with Pitt's acing, because I sure interpreted it as though he does believe in them.

[shooter_mcgavin]

Killing Them Softly (B) - It might borrow too much to other crime/gangster films and the story might often distract than intrigue but it delivers it's point of how cynical society well and is further elevated by the stellar performance of Scoot NcNairy.

Yeah Scoot NcNairy was amazing here his performance was just something to watch you actually felt bad for the person knowing he got himself into a big rut. I don't want to spoil the movie but even early on during the robbery his portrayal of Frankie was confused, scared, and was to the point of breaking down out of intimidation, uncertainty, and fear.

I might be alone in this but I am putting Scoot NcNairy in for my personal ballot this year. No question ask.

Who knows? The film is so unclear about who represents what and such. Take the discussion between Pitt and Jenkins in the car, complaining about the bureaucracy of the business, all the rules and the forms and the etcetera. I thought all this sort of 'no regulation, less government' crap was a right wing talking point?

I'd say it's more to do with the few with power dictating the fate of others. Like the US Bail Out you hear in parallel, it's people deciding not what's right or wrong but what is necessary for what they see as the "greater good".

[lazarus]

This just didn't work. I'd like to say I understand what Dominik was trying to do, but the juxtaposition of the political with the plot was about as amateurish as I could imagine. Intentionally abrasive is one thing, but it didn't add up to anything.

Perhaps this is nitpicky, but the idea that these two young punks are listening to political talk radio? Come on. I'd rather have seen Pitt sitting in a hotel room and seeing some debate on TV, providing some context for his outburst at the end.

The heroin scenes? Totally gratuitous. What was the point of that? This film isn't about drugs. When Tarantino did a drugged-out scene in Pulp Fiction, it fit because it wasn't the only diversion? Dominik has this political subtext (although "sub" isn't really the right word) and then takes time out for some cool audio-visual effects to show us how weird heroin is?

Also, one Gandolfini monologue is fine. Gives the character some depth. But then Pitt visits him in the hotel room and we get ANOTHER long story. Who cares? The acting is good but just seems unnecessary, especially when we know next to nothing about Cogan. And speaking of the "main" character, his name is mentioned ONCE in the whole film, and very much in passing by the two young guys. If you're not paying attention, easy to miss. If you asked every single person who walked out of this film, I'd be surprised if any who hadn't read about the source material could tell you who Pitt played.

I'm being very negative here, but I did enjoy the film while watching it. The techs were very good. It just had very little weight to it; added up to nothing despite the thematics.

[shooter_mcgavin]

^^^ I kind of agree, I can't help but feel that I could see Pulp Fiction ripped off from my eyes. Which is a shame because the things they did "as their own" like the robbery scene was pretty darn brilliant in execution.

[MVP of West Hollywood]

A near masterpiece IMO. Just love everything about Dominik's filmmaking. Visceral yet extremely focused

I don't think this is necessarily negative about capitalism. I saw Pitt as the free market, meaning he efficiently takes out the weaklings in the market who made the wrong decisions, risks, etc. The movie constantly juxtaposes the doomed characters' choices with Pitt's. Squirrel decides to roll with Russell in the heist despite seeing he's an unreliable mess, but Pitt recognizes Gandolfini can't be trusted to do this job and gets rid of him. Frankie is too overcome with emotion to recognize the danger of Pitt asking him to come along, while Pitt is totally anti emotion. Pitt represents the stronger market forces wiping out the weaker market forces who are less sharp to recognize risk, less able to use their head instead of their heart, or like Gandolfini just having been around too long to have it anymore, etc. I don't know if this film necessarily then painted capitalism as bad, I saw it as more of a "It is what it is. Deal with it." situation.

One thing I'll say is I agree with the complaint that Pitt potentially leaving 15k on the table by hiring Mickey just because he didn't want to kill someone he knew, was sort of a hole. With that said they eventually used Gandolfini as a way to show Pitt sharply assessing the situation by getting rid of him, so in the end it's still used to show Pitt's effectiveness/un-emotional decision making