Killing Them Softly

[©brad]

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.

[DocSportello]

Spoilers

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'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.

did 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.

Just 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?

[socketlevel]

SPOILERS

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.

did 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.

Just 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.

[©brad]

I skimmed and read it without spoiling myself. Thanks!

[DocSportello]

Shoot! My bad cbrad

[Reel]

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


SPOILERS

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.

[Frederico Fellini]

(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.

[Frederico Fellini]

[Alexandro]

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.

[©brad]

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.

[Lottery]

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.

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

[Lottery]

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.

[Neil]

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. 

[©brad]

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.