Cogan's Trade
Starring: Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Ray Liotta
Release: Set for September 21, 2012
Director: Andrew Dominik (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Chopper)
Storyline: Jackie Cogan is a professional enforcer who investigates a heist that went down during a mob-protected poker game.
Figured a trailer will come along shortly. I apologize if someone already posted about it but I couldn't find the thread.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.screenrant.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FBrad-Pitt-in-Cogans-Trade1.jpg&hash=6aea7aba1eb05ed7065b75bf8bd8f3a4c42aa6f0)
No official poster yet but this is what's popping up everywhere. Promising film.
^this image alone makes me wish Andy D got to Cormac's Counselor. He was trying to get Cities of the Plain going not long before, had hopes. Had hopes.
This movie's already bad ass.
New photos from the set (not stills from the film itself), including first look at Gandolfini, Liotta, Richard Jenkins. Also, official release date has been set for September 21st. So, trailer come summer?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefilmstage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FCogans-Trade-The-Film-Stage2.jpg&hash=990e9df0a41f1859cd191684f77958791bb3c9cf)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefilmstage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FCogans-Trade-The-Film-Stage5.jpg&hash=b04b8bb06181fe69a1fd37548500b61bf6de3059)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefilmstage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FCogans-Trade-The-Film-Stage3.jpg&hash=8f5155ae5d9e59c9bbd95d62930afc0f5d583e45)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefilmstage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FCogans-Trade-The-Film-Stage6.jpg&hash=4c90f916df5d28aa5132bda7f09f08f98c4eaa6c)
And here's the link to the pics if you wanna read their little write up:
http://thefilmstage.com/news/first-look-james-gandolfini-ray-liotta-richard-jenkins-with-brad-pitt-in-andrew-dominiks-cogans-trade/ (http://thefilmstage.com/news/first-look-james-gandolfini-ray-liotta-richard-jenkins-with-brad-pitt-in-andrew-dominiks-cogans-trade/)
Andrew Dominik's 'Cogan's Trade' Starring Brad Pitt Now Titled 'Killing Them Softly'
Source: Playlist
The past week or so has seen a handful of new movie titles get assigned to movie's. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's directorial debut is now known as "Don Jon's Addiction," David Chase's period based music movie is now called "Not Fade Away" and Kathryn Bigelow's Osama Bin Laden thriller fresh (working) title "Zero Dark Thirty." And those are all fine changes, nothing too shocking and keeping in line with what those films are about. But yet another movie has been given a new moniker, although we're less pleased about this one.
Variety writer Jeff Sneider has tweeted that Andrew Dominik's "Cogan's Trade" has been given a new, much more generic title of "Killing Them Softly." We suppose The Weinstein Company thinks that "killing" is much sexier marquee word than "trade" -- and they may be right -- but now the movie sounds like any generic, straight-to-DVD actioner. The original title had the sort of pulp sheen of the material (and was the name of the book it's based on) but now it just all sounds much more rote.
Anyway, the film is led by Brad Pitt and is a comic crime caper/thriller based on the George V. Higgins novel about a mob enforcer (Pitt) trying to track down a pair of junkies who've ripped off a poker game. A ridiculously great cast including Ray Liotta, Richard Jenkins, James Gandolfini, Scoot McNairy, Ben Mendelsohn, Bella Heathcote, Sam Shepard and Garrett Dillahunt are along for the ride, and frankly whatever this is called, we'll be watching anyway.
"Killing Them Softly" will hit theaters on September 21st.
"Killing Them Softly" makes it sound like a straight-to-video erotic thriller starring Michael Madsen and Mili Avital.
Quote from: polkablues on March 03, 2012, 12:24:33 PM
"Killing Them Softly" makes it sound like a straight-to-video erotic thriller starring Michael Madsen and Mili Avital.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250468/
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2FAbout-a-Boy-Screencaps-about-a-boy-14328622-620-320.jpg&hash=0bf888eea16727480ab3292c657fdfb29561b998)
"The worst part was when they closed their eyes."
Quote from: MacGuffin on March 03, 2012, 11:34:01 AM
Andrew Dominik's 'Cogan's Trade' now titled 'Killing Them Softly
Joseph Gordon-Levitt's directorial debut is now known as "Don Jon's Addiction,"
David Chase's period based music movie is now called "Not Fade Away"
and Kathryn Bigelow's Osama Bin Laden thriller fresh (working) title "Zero Dark Thirty."
According to this trend, this will be the year of cryptic three-word titles.
Therefore I can confidently predict that the official title for The Master will be:
New Unread Posts
Quote from: polkablues on March 03, 2012, 12:24:33 PM
"Killing Them Softly" makes it sound like a straight-to-video erotic thriller starring Michael Madsen and Mili Avital.
Honestly, I don't think it sounds all that bad anymore. It sounds sorta Pulpy.
Quote from: Pubrick on March 03, 2012, 09:25:07 PM
Therefore I can confidently predict that the official title for The Master will be:
New Unread Posts
So it'll be dissapointing and really nothing new?
I'm sure most of you have seen this, but for those who haven't:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiwskzvhYag
First clip!
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.moviefanatic.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2Fkilling-them-softly-poster_404x600.jpg&hash=ee2e827dee16c88860f68539ca5725091248b66d)
Trailer (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/watch-first-trailer-for-andrew-dominiks-killing-them-softly-starring-brad-pitt-20120801?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed)
Quote from: wilderesque on August 01, 2012, 07:34:11 PM
Trailer (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/watch-first-trailer-for-andrew-dominiks-killing-them-softly-starring-brad-pitt-20120801?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed)
Looks like a blast.... particularly the part around the 1:02 section of the trailer.
Excited for this picture.
Finally, a movie me and my brother can bond over :cry:
Awesome! :bravo:
not watching that again!
holy shit, the fat guy that was throwing people around and getting hit by the exploding car is George Carrol aka Slaine - he was my supervisor at Emerson College's mailroom when we were both lads. good for him.
Wow that exploding car shot, that was incredible.
Andrew Dominik always delivers.... and Richard Jenkins is one of the most underrated actors of our times...
Also, this Brad Pitt kid seems pretty good. I'm there.
Just watched this tonight, I have a feeling that most people are going to hate this film, it's definitely not for everyone.
But I'll just say it, I fucking loved it.
I have to watch it again though because it's obvious Dominik is using this crime story as some kind of allegory of the 2008 US financial collapse, and unfortunately I couldn't catch all the dialogue.
The microcosm of Cogan's trade reflecting the macrocosm of American capitalism. It's not really what I was expecting, but I love it.
And this movie has GREAT shots. And the music, ahh, great tracks. The scene in which it cuts to Johnny Cash's 'The Man Comes Around' is my favorite.
It's pretty funny too, sort of in the same vein as Chopper.
But a lot of people are going to hate this, I can just tell. Also I saw this on 35mm, and it fucks DCP over badly, the image is incredibly vivid and bright, the flicker film creates is unbelievably absorbing, wish all theatres had retained their superior old projection systems.
Seems like a pretty solid review to me. Why exactly are people going to hate it? The violence?
Nah it isn't the violence, it might be because it's incredibly different, like it's really not what your expecting. It wasn't at all what I was expecting.
Don't go in there expecting Jesse James.
Anyway I really need to see it again and then I'll be able to get my thoughts aligned.
Anyone else love the poster campaign on this??!! Best I've seen in a long time. I've actually noticed it with this one. Most movie advertising seems to overlook or just not care about that shit anymore but they nailed it. Where did this movie go?
Can't wait any longer for this, good little interview:
Andrew Dominik Talks The Anger Of 'Killing Them Softly', Downplays The "Mythical" Long Version of 'Jesse James'
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/andrew-dominik-downplays-the-mythical-long-cut-of-jesse-james-talks-the-anger-of-killing-them-softly-20121127
The movie's about as subtle as a nut shot, but it also hits as hard as one. Brad Pitt seems a little out of his depth throughout the film, especially when he's one-on-one with actors acting their asses off like Richard Jenkins, James Gandolfini, and Scoot McNairy, but the last scene makes the rest of the performance all come together in hindsight. The last scene, and last line in particular, are perfect.
On a side note, I was going crazy trying to figure out where I recognized Ben Mendelsohn from, until I looked him up and realized he was one of the actors that I absolutely hated in Dark Knight Rises. He's 10,000 times better in this, possibly because he's using his real accent.
Quote from: polkablues on December 01, 2012, 02:23:25 PM
The movie's about as subtle as a nut shot, but it also hits as hard as one. Brad Pitt seems a little out of his depth throughout the film, especially when he's one-on-one with actors acting their asses off like Richard Jenkins, James Gandolfini, and Scoot McNairy, but the last scene makes the rest of the performance all come together in hindsight. The last scene, and last line in particular, are perfect.
On a side note, I was going crazy trying to figure out where I recognized Ben Mendelsohn from, until I looked him up and realized he was one of the actors that I absolutely hated in Dark Knight Rises. He's 10,000 times better in this, possibly because he's using his real accent.
He's also from Animal Kingdom if you've seen that film, I recommend it if you haven't.
This movie left me dazed. I found the sound and camera focusing(?) in the film incredibly creative. Noise from background conversations or traffic or whatever would momentarily weave into the foreground of scenes and the filmmakers were never scared of letting the picture go fuzzy. In many ways it reminded me of Punch Drunk Love and it's use of sound and focus.
And there's the acting which is nearly perfect. I struggled at first to find the purpose of Gandolfini's character but I realize now that he's just another gear in a failing machine. One story within a much larger, sadder one.
I agree with Polka on the topic of the film's subtlety. It almost seemed as if the film was pointing fingers. And I guess it was. All of the unabated grimness was kind of refreshing in a way.
The music!! Especially during the great slow-motion sequence. Masterful.
going to see it tonight, and based on what you're saying doc, I can't wait. everything you described is why i loved jesse james.
What a fucking great film. If I was editing it, I'd change a thing or two as it's not flawless. but fuck man, fuck.
Quote from: DocSportello on December 03, 2012, 02:02:46 PM
This movie left me dazed. I found the sound and camera focusing(?) in the film incredibly creative. Noise from background conversations or traffic or whatever would momentarily weave into the foreground of scenes and the filmmakers were never scared of letting the picture go fuzzy. In many ways it reminded me of Punch Drunk Love and it's use of sound and focus.
And there's the acting which is nearly perfect. I struggled at first to find the purpose of Gandolfini's character but I realize now that he's just another gear in a failing machine. One story within a much larger, sadder one.
I agree with Polka on the topic of the film's subtlety. It almost seemed as if the film was pointing fingers. And I guess it was. All of the unabated grimness was kind of refreshing in a way.
The music!! Especially during the great slow-motion sequence. Masterful.
SPOILERS
Everything you said is spot on. I'd remove, (1) about 20% of the political stuff. I think it should be heavy in the film, as to address doc's point about the failing machine, but I think it went a tasty taste too far, (2) the fade in, fade out stuff with the heroin I'd also cut back to happen one or two less times than it does, (3) recast Pitt, not to say he fucks up the film, he's actually quite good in it, but as far as the weakest link, it goes to him, and (4) improve the final speech that Pitt makes right before the credits (strangely I'd make it more dramatic and less dramatic beat to beat leading to the final line)
Everything else was pretty amazing. did anyone else think the main guy we started with is reminiscent of Casey affleck in Jesse James? If they made this movie fives years back I'm pretty sure he would have had that role.
I think I loved this film for the very same reasons why people will think it's boring. It's amazing how many scenes have characters talking, then are interupted, then continue the conversation and this repeats a few more times. It created a sense of great danger. makes me think about changing my point about the heroin, but I won't because I think it's the only time the movie misstepped this running device. They might seem like red herrings but it really puts you in the tone in all the other scenes. the robbery scene is a great example, one of the best. I was so tense. guys keep lowering their hands and you're like fuck this shit's gonna get raw, and it doesn't. great tracking shots as they leave too.
Just how violent are the violent scenes? Is it on par with say Drive? I don't know if I'm just getting whimpy in my old age but I have a really hard time stomaching lots of guns and extreme violence in movies. I've seen Drive twice but I have yet to fully open my eyes during the elevator scene.
SpoilersQuoteI'd remove, (1) about 20% of the political stuff. I think it should be heavy in the film, as to address doc's point about the failing machine, but I think it went a tasty taste too far, (2) the fade in, fade out stuff with the heroin I'd also cut back to happen one or two less times than it does, (3) recast Pitt, not to say he fucks up the film, he's actually quite good in it, but as far as the weakest link, it goes to him, and (4) improve the final speech that Pitt makes right before the credits (strangely I'd make it more dramatic and less dramatic beat to beat leading to the final line)
I'd have to agree wholeheartedly with points (1) and (2). I'd say, with the removal of some of the political stuff, it would cut down on distraction and at the same time open the film up to be about more. It would give the movie room to breathe. Like when they're about to lay the beat-down on Ray Liotta and it's on their car radio. It's actually a cool way to set up a scene, and I think if there hadn't been quite so much of the political talk leading up to it, it would have been much more effective. As for the herion scene the fade-outs were indeed too many, but it's funny the thing that got to me was the choice of "Heroin" by Velvet Underground for that scene. It seemed at first to be a tad on-the-nose for my liking. But after I realized that it was only the instrumental part and I wasn't going to hear Lou Reed sing the obvious "heeeeerooooin" in my face, I was cool with the song choice.
When it comes to (3) and the casting of Pitt I was pretty indifferent. The film seemed to have the supporting cast acting collectively as the lead in a way and Pitt was just the guy that none of them ever wanted to cross paths with, and in that sense he was as hard-hitting as I wanted him to be. Also, he looked fucking badass. It's like he opened his closet in the morning to 10 identical leather jacket/denim outfits, grabbed his hair pomade and his pistol, and started taking names like the Johnny Cash song says. Perhaps there was someone better for it, but I dunno, he looked iconic in the role to me.
Quotedid anyone else think the main guy we started with is reminiscent of Casey affleck in Jesse James?
I absolutely thought of Casey Affleck, except for me it was his character in Good Will Hunting, mainly due to the accent. But now that you say it I can totally see the Robert Ford character comparisons. They both share a similar vulnerability. The scene in which he and Brad Pitt meet in the bar? That totally could have been Robert Ford, scared and shaking in the shadow of Jesse James.
QuoteJust how violent are the violent scenes?
I'd say not as bad as Drive, but similarly spread out. Certainly nothing quite as bad as the elevator scene. But then you could watch it and disagree so if you do my apologies. Anyone else care to explain?
SPOILERSQuote from: DocSportello on December 04, 2012, 10:59:54 AM
It seemed at first to be a tad on-the-nose for my liking. But after I realized that it was only the instrumental part and I wasn't going to hear Lou Reed sing the obvious "heeeeerooooin" in my face, I was cool with the song choice.
so funny one of my friend's i was with said "you know I'm a little sick of movies cutting to lou reed as a goto for heroin scenes." it's true, but hot damn it worked, and it suits the rest of the needle drops in the film.
Quote from: DocSportello on December 04, 2012, 10:59:54 AM
Quotedid anyone else think the main guy we started with is reminiscent of Casey affleck in Jesse James?
I absolutely thought of Casey Affleck, except for me it was his character in Good Will Hunting, mainly due to the accent. But now that you say it I can totally see the Robert Ford character comparisons. They both share a similar vulnerability. The scene in which he and Brad Pitt meet in the bar? That totally could have been Robert Ford, scared and shaking in the shadow of Jesse James.
True. However the reason I mention Jesse James is because it's the same director as Killing Them Softly; it seems that this guy loves these vulnerable man-child type roles. They both have the same cuteness masking a lot of violence. You kinda feel they're in way over their heads, but then the next breath you see the maliciousness and envy.
Quote from: DocSportello on December 04, 2012, 10:59:54 AM
QuoteJust how violent are the violent scenes?
I'd say not as bad as Drive, but similarly spread out. Certainly nothing quite as bad as the elevator scene. But then you could watch it and disagree so if you do my apologies. Anyone else care to explain?
You put spoilers up top, so there is a chance he won't read this.
I skimmed and read it without spoiling myself. Thanks!
Shoot! My bad cbrad
I really enjoyed this. Such a slam-bang little movie. The whole plot is centered around this 'get in, get out' structure that all of the characters share in their motives. I loved the authenticity of the locations and the dialogue. It felt like the most realistic Tarantino movie ever made.
Best cinematic experience I've had all year. Going down in the books as one of my Top Ten of 2012, right after Sinister :twisted:
SPOILERS
Quote from: socketlevel on December 04, 2012, 12:48:33 AM
I'd remove, (1) about 20% of the political stuff. I think it should be heavy in the film, as to address doc's point about the failing machine, but I think it went a tasty taste too far, (2) the fade in, fade out stuff with the heroin I'd also cut back to happen one or two less times than it does, (3) recast Pitt, not to say he fucks up the film, he's actually quite good in it, but as far as the weakest link, it goes to him, and (4) improve the final speech that Pitt makes right before the credits (strangely I'd make it more dramatic and less dramatic beat to beat leading to the final line)
I'm with you on all of this
(1) we see presidential speeches happening on what, 4 TV's? No one cares about politics that much. I got tired of seeing Bush's face. At least mix it up with some different government figures, or newsreports about the economy, maybe?
(2) Yeah, I wasn't sure if the Casey Affleck guy was supposed to be on heroin too or not the first few times. Then it held on the Aussie's face for the last ones and it became obvious it was just him. ( Also annoyed with the Velvet Underground. 'Things We Lost In The Fire' went so overboard with it. Love that group, but it's been like 50 years. PICK A NEW BAND!!! )
(3) Let's face it, the dude can't handle accents
(4) I think you're right. If he'd have beaten around the bush a little bit that last line would be much more cutting.
also, was anyone supposed to be from New Orleans in the film? If I hadn't been so aware that it was shot in Louisiana, I'd have sworn this is set in Baltimore. I guess those are kind of similar accents, but I got all tripped up because of it.
Quote from: Reelist on January 06, 2013, 04:45:19 PM
(1) we see presidential speeches happening on what, 4 TV's? No one cares about politics that much. I got tired of seeing Bush's face, at least mix it up with some different government figures, or newsreports about the economy, maybe?
To me, this is the only thing that was wrong with the movie. Had Dominik done it with a bit more sublety or a bit more diverse, it would've been brilliant. But 10 minutes in, I was already tired of him constantly hitting me over the head with the same thing over and over again. But aside from that, it was everything I expected it to be. Gandolfini's unfunny-never-ending scenes almost killed the whole movie, but I'm willing to overlook that. That slow motion scene was fucking fantastic (could probably rank for best use of slow motion of all time. All hyperbole aside) and love the way he uses the old timey music and creates tension and suspense with those steadicam shots during the robbery.
To be honest, the movie is worth a watch just for that final line.... What a beauty.
In a way, it reminded me of the ending of "Eyes Wide Shut". Both are perfect endings in my opinion.
Awesome film from start to finish. Difficult sure, at times exasperating with it's talkiness, but beautiful to look at and just plunge in and navigate it. I wasn't even that bothered with the hammering on our heads concerning the parallels between criminals and the economic meltdown or this or that, because it helps the film to earn it's ending. To be honest I was a little taken aback yesterday when I saw it. So I went and rewatched it. Knowing the full story in advance and where it was going helped a lot in my enjoyment. Fantastic.
Andrew Dominik can mise en scène the fuck out of any director alive right now. Dude knows how to set up a frame, maybe better than PTA. So many shots you're just like "YES, that's how I want to do it."
The political stuff, yeah I agree with most of you. I'm all for heavy-handedness. Subtlety is overrated and I love how loud and angry the film is but goddamn did he overdo it. It takes you out of the movie.
The slo-mo sequence was amazing filmmaking but totally gratuitous. There was no point to it.
Polka is right about the ending. Probably the best last line in the last few years. It made me all goosebumpy.
Yeah, it got annoying towards the middle sections of the film- did Dominik not realise that a lot of the the political jibber jabber was already portrayed very well through the characters and dialogue?
I quite liked it. Shot very, very well by Greig Fraser.
I have all the same complaints, but I think I still love the movie. It's just so meaty and well-done. Not near the very top of my list, but I need to rewatch it.
The heavy-handed political stuff was cringey but overall tolerable I guess, because this thread warned me about it, and because it's somewhat fleeting. More than that, my biggest challenge was basically all of the James Gandolfini content. And there's so much of it. I didn't buy Gandolfini's performance, his dialogue is sort of bad, his story is boring, and it feels like it occupies 1/3 of the movie. Why not use that time on Brad Pitt's character instead? Such a waste.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on April 02, 2013, 04:17:19 PM
I have all the same complaints, but I think I still love the movie. It's just so meaty and well-done. Not near the very top of my list, but I need to rewatch it.
The heavy-handed political stuff was cringey but overall tolerable I guess, because this thread warned me about it, and because it's somewhat fleeting. More than that, my biggest challenge was basically all of the James Gandolfini content. And there's so much of it. I didn't buy Gandolfini's performance, his dialogue is sort of bad, his story is boring, and it feels like it occupies 1/3 of the movie. Why not use that time on Brad Pitt's character instead? Such a waste.
Most of the folks in the film are losers. These are very desperate people. Gandolfini, I imagine summarises the condition of a lot of the characters. Even the tough hitmen are useless, broken wrecks without direction- which I guess plays into the whole state of the country thing. It seems a bit aimless but I guess it's there to illustrate that sort of misery. Pitt was more of an observer, very much unwilling to be caught up in it- but at the end, you see that perhaps he is.
the film was was filled with random snippets, all over the place.
contextually I find it baffling that he use both Obama and W. snippets. In a linear sense, it's just plain stupid. But apparently that has to bow down to power of allegory, or something.
Apparently those in the lower-to-middle class are listening/watching C-span reruns from the past 10+ years. I'm pretty sure it was all used all diagetic sound, right?
Maybe that not relevant, since it's an allegory, and maybe Dominik didn't want to seem like he was picking a side by having both parties in there, but Jesus Christ man, Kill me a little softer next time, from a distance, rather than blasting political speech all over your whole film.
I loved the opening title sequence with Obama's speech. I felt if he just kept that and omitted the rest it would have been fine.
Quote from: ©brad on April 03, 2013, 10:23:37 AM
I loved the opening title sequence with Obama's speech. I felt if he just kept that and omitted the rest it would have been fine.
Yeah, stylistically that was brilliant.
Yeah, I found it hard to believe these down and out thug types would have the least bit of interest in politics. They'd be watching the game.
Anyway, Dominik's good with criminals and that's clearly his speciality but it will be interesting what his Monroe biopic/book adaptation will be like.
"He went on to say that the film is "about her whole life. It starts when she's seven and it ends when she dies." He also compared it to "a Polanski descent-into-madness-type movie," which sounds pretty much excellent. He added to that by saying, "It's very pseudo-Freudian. The lines between fantasy and reality become very blurred in the story." "
That sounds pretty cool.
I wouldn't say that the plot device is completely useless, because I do agree with Brad and Lotto, but, I just feel it was a bit forced, like many others have noted. also, it does slow waaaaaay down in the middle and get unnecessarily talky, like others have also mentioned, but there were some great camera moves and lush scenery throughout, which kept my criticisms at bay throughout the film.
thought about it a while after seeing the film and I realized how overrated it is and how hungry we've been for another great crime film that'll mirror what we're taking for granted on TV these days - and I'm now lumping films like Drive and Killer Joe into this category as well. I really don't think any of it holds up and I think Dominik is the wrong guy for this kinda material as he still makes choices that are too ethereal. I don't know, maybe he's not experienced enough in the genre. I just feel like none of the sequences in the film, under scrutiny, has the freshness that it first promises. The better bits of the film are bits that are more obviously reminiscent of other films (such as the slo mo shootout in a car plus the rain plus a good soundtrack - three genre staples put to good use). But what we really want (and I'm speaking for every living person now) is something like Un Prophete or The Sopranos or a Kintano flick or that new one from Korea that's supposed to be great.
American gangster films have just been torn for a while, between directors showing off their flourishes and a story that rings true. When compared to the gangster films from Europe and Asia or even on American television, it's all been a little thin. Even Scorsese's The Departed feels a bit childish compared to the Hong Kong version (though his filmmaking was way better). In short, we just don't have good genre directors in the US.
Quote from: Lottery on April 02, 2013, 05:18:05 PM
Most of the folks in the film are losers. These are very desperate people. Gandolfini, I imagine summarises the condition of a lot of the characters. Even the tough hitmen are useless, broken wrecks without direction- which I guess plays into the whole state of the country thing. It seems a bit aimless but I guess it's there to illustrate that sort of misery. Pitt was more of an observer, very much unwilling to be caught up in it- but at the end, you see that perhaps he is.
This is why it's so brilliant. this is not a normal crime film. it doesn't want to be that. you know how a lot of times genre films are strictly about their plot and universes to comment on a bigger situation? this is not it. this one wants to make it clear that the world this criminals live in is collapsing from the top.
I agree with you Alexandro, this is most definitely not your average crime film, though it had no choice but to be advertised as such. However, I understand this is not the films fault and this is all beside the point.
I enjoy your outlook because this film doesn't really give the audience a ton of stake in the people who commit the crime, instead it's focused on those who are hired to solve the problem much like you've already pointed out.
Quote from: Alexandro on April 05, 2013, 01:41:37 AM
this [film] wants to make it clear that the world these criminals live in is collapsing from the top.
It's all about the criminals. But not about the crimes they commit, which is interesting.
Another aspect about the film I enjoy is that there are very few details, though they are important ones, with regards to the money itself. For instance, I like that the money is being gambled in a back-alley card game of sorts, you know behind the scenes, out of the public eye, OFF THE BOOKS!! This is a fantastic use of metaphor, though it's subtle in there. I like that there had been a previous robbery and then Liotta admitting to setting it up. That's not only a fantastic plot device, it's another great use of metaphor.
I think I've underestimated or underappreciated Dominik, but man, how do you justify that nailing-over-the-head political speech. I mean, I LOVE the idea, just not crazy about the execution, and i am speaking specifically about the political speech as a way to promote the themes this film is meant to explore. It most definitely could have been used more efficiently, but that's something that is really easy to say. At this point I'm really just echoing everyone else, but boy this film was so much fun to look at, I just think Dominik knows exactly what he's doing and I should trust that, I'm just not sure it works. I should give it a few more views.