No, but I do love having my own opinion and letting others have theirs.

Quoted from Felipe No, but I do love having my own opinion and letting others have theirs.

Nothing wrong with that at all, bro.  Seriously.

Just wondering, though, as I said, I have a very high tolerance when it comes to entertainment, and although I may complain about this or that, I rarely if ever consider leaving, but I sure did here, over and over.  And a fiend of mine actually did walk out.  And we have the very rare F on Cinemascore.

I'm just wondering what it possibly was that you "loved" about this.

Felipe, I guess you and me won't be going to see any movies together, huh?  

It wasn't the hype and praise, I don't think.  I went into the movie absolutely blind, all I knew was the title.

Plus, that F on CinemaScore doesn't mean anything.  Look at the CinemaScore on Alex Cross, for christ's sake.  

While I thought the Obama speeches came on a little strong, I connected with the message in this film. I think everyone is an actor to some degree. Even when helping others, people are usually doing themselves a favor in one way or another.

There is nothing wrong with that. If I'm feeling shitty and I anonymously give a poor child something they wanted for Christmas, is this a completely selfless act? No. I got something out of it internally.

This is not a bad thing, but people like to pretend they are a community when really they are only a community until it is no longer convenient to be a community. This movie illustrated that pretty well, I think.

And it entertained me.

Just came out of the theater a few hours ago. Whew. There's a lot here to digest.

This one was easy to admire, but a bit difficult to love. It's not a perfect film, but it says a lot. As many of you mentioned, the political metaphors are pretty thick. But what exactly are those metaphors? I feel like I need more time to think about the answer to this question.

Things I enjoyed: the theme of corporate america VS the streets (and how the the two are related/influence each other), brad pitt, the scenes with pitt and jenkins, ray liotta, the dialogue between Frankie and Russell, cinematography, and the scene where ray liotta gets the p iss  beaten out of him (so realistic yet uncomfortable to sit through)

The things I didn't enjoy: Mickey (the movie comes to a grinding halt when he launches into his monologues. I'm fine with one or two monologues, but he...just...keeps....talking...and...it...never...ends), the story (not that deep or intriguing), the mother f ucking CGI blood (I honestly hate that s hit)

right now i'm trying to take it all in. i'm trying to figure out what it all means. what does each character represent? i realize that pitt represents "the old way" of doing things. and in an ever changing landscape, he's having a hard time navigating (and existing within) corporate america. but take characters such as Mickey or Markie. who do they represent? and most importantly, what is the story trying to tell us?

the fact that i'm not sure (amidst it's heavy handedness) might be part of the problem.

however i loved the backdrop. incredibly unique and a much needed comparison. a film of the times for sure (or rather 4 years ago). amazing how we're looking back already.

I honestly don't know why audiences rated this an F. and my apologies Jeff, but I can't call this one a complete failure...especially when you compare it to films such as Epic Movie or Malibu's Most Wanted. Those films are garbage. This one at least aspires to have some merit. Sounds like you're more disappointed than anything. Which I could definitely see.

On the other hand, I can't say this movie is the most amazing film I've seen this year. It could have been this year's Drive, but needs some work.

http://books.google.com/books?.....&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA

The film is based on the above book, and it seems to be a very literal adaptation. Higgins was a lawyer/journalist who worked many years in the Boston court system, and his work is praised for its gritty, realistic dialogue. He followed it with many novels of similar style and setting and is supposedly the inspiration for author Dennis Lehane as well as Quinton Tarrantino.

An odd thing about the novel is that it's almost all dialogue. Not surprisingly, then, so is the film.

I went into the movie having read Jeff's review and one review in the Globe which raved about it. So I was open to both possibilities.

I would say in this case Jeff was mostly correct in the harsh assessment. This is not the way to do a story. But there was some value in it.

Let's start with what I did like. The dialogue is sometimes over the top, but is also very interesting and at times believable. The character portrayals were at times brilliant, particularly Gandolfini. I liked the unforgiving, broken city atmosphere that always reminded me of where I've spent most of my life.

Some of the scenes were excellent from an artistic standpoint. The scene where he killed Ray Liotta was pretty cool.

And they spent time in at least 4 bars...like I do in my scripts!

But there are major problems, and part of this might stem from the director being the writer, though I don't know anything about him. The reason I say this is because no writer would get away with a script like this.

The story is basically cynical vignettes of urban criminals. It's Pulp Fiction, but without the humor, the adrenaline, the wit, the entertainment. And importantly, without giving us any reason to care even a little about a single character. In Pulp, the Samual Jackson character goes through a redemption, so we root for him. The Travolta character fails to change, but he gives us reason to want him to. And the Bruce Willis guy does the selfless, heroic thing in the end.

Here, there are no good guys or bad guys. No guys you want to succeed for any reason. And no color, in character or landscape. That's how Higgins wrote, and that's what the director wanted. Cynicism is the theme, and it's thrown in your face the whole film as we constantly hear Bush and then Obama in the background, a backdrop of grandiose, empty words against a brutal reality.

6 people were in the theater while I was there. 3 left in the middle.

The scene where one of guys is doped up on heroin and talks to his partner is one of the longest and most annoying of its kind. God I wanted it to stop.

I think the film has some merit, but only if you know what you're going into. This should come with a warning: indie style. Because most people that see this movie expecting to see a regular movie are going to be so annoyed it will be a long time before they go to the movies again. And that hurts everyone.

Well spoken and thought, Kev.  Seriously...I think I agree with most of your comments.

As I said, my buddy walked out of this thing and I don't think he's ever done that.  3 of 6 walked out of your showing.  That says alot.  It says a real lot.

But then again, I can see how some could try and like or love it.  If you buy the dialogue, which I did not, you could easily play along with this, as it's different, it's gritty, it's violent when there's a break in the monotonous nothingness that makes up 94% of the runtime.

And I'll tell you what, just so everyone knows I'm not just hating on this for the Hell of it...if the movie delivered in the finale, I would have felt much different about it.  Almost in a strange way, like Wolf Creek, which I'm a huge fan of.  If WC didn't deliver about 45 minutes in and ride well to the sunset, I would have hated it.

In the end, Killing Them Softly just did not deliver at all, or in any way, and it was such a tedious, boring, annoying, a...n...d...s...o...s...l...u...g...g...i...s...h in its delivery...

ARGH...

Good review, Kev!

It was funny,the three people that left were older ladies. Like 60s at least. The whole time I'm thinking what are they doing here? Must be here to see Brad Pitt. Or Anthony Soprano. Then they left.

I don't know this director's history. But it did occur to me that had he been just a writer, it would have forced him to write a different script. There would have been characters you wanted to succeed, even if they were bad guys. There would have been some structure. There would have been something that kept the reader turning the page, and therefore the asses in the seats.

And what about Brad Pitt saying he likes to kill from a distance? I guess he didn't really mean that. Not that we were in the least bit surprised when he killed the dude. Or even cared one way or the other.

Also, the trailers presented Pitt's character as the ultimate pro hit man. I didn't see that kind of skill. I saw carelessness. I mean he had one of his planned victims, I guy he didn't know, in on a hit, driving the getaway car! Seemed pretty reckless to me.

The dialogue is taken pretty straight from the book I think. The novelist spent years around those kind of guys in Boston. But it was also written in the late 60s. We talk much cooler now!

Yeah, Kev, the writer/director, Andrew Domink also wrote and directed Pitt's other big flop, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.  And Pitt's ProdCo was behind this...and that.

Why this is what they wanted to make?  I can't answer that question.

I love how this thread has basically been set up as to where one can be the most antagonistic by being the most positive.

I thought this was excellent. I loved the performances, the dialogue, the filmmaking (including the heroin scene), I was actually intrigued by the message/theme/whatever you want to call it, and ultimately found it to be a pretty smart and refreshing subversion of the genre. I thought the casting of Ray Liotta and James Gandolfini was an especially sharp spin on audience expectations, let alone just straight up cool for enabling big time actors to play roles usually given to unknowns.

Having had to sit through so many films that I despise only to see them lauded by the general public, I dare say I even enjoy the dissent the film's received because better believe a lot of people still saw it and came out satisfied.

I did think the Obama/McCain background noise was laid on especially thick. For an indie film, I was surprised how blatant the "subtext" was. That was about my only gripe, really, and even so, I'd prefer they'd have scaled it back rather than done away with it outright.

That said, I can understand why people would have a hard time liking this one. I also think the distribution of the film was something of a blunder. Washington DC has more than its share of indie theaters and yet this ended up playing alongside Twilight and all the other current AMC attractions. Clearly, this wasn't meant to be a mainstream film, especially considering the Weinsteins pushed back its release date because they thought The Master was more of a moneymaker and that was an even slower film with considerably less violence.

At the same time, if one were to browse RottenTomatoes for two minutes, one would be more likely to approach the film with realistic expectations. If you've got time to watch a given 2+ hour film, you've got time to figure out whether or not it's really worth your while.

As is evident in my review, I was aware of both the negative and positive reviews of the film. I went to it with the attitude of a writer hoping to learn from it, and in that I was not disappointed. And I did appreciate, as mentioned, the characters, the dialogue, the gritty shots, and some of the film techniques.

The heroin scene I was ok with at first. And then it kept going and going and going. I was ready to pop a vein myself. That should have been edited down, unless audience annoyance was the goal, like Andy Kaufman reading The Great Gatsby to audiences who wanted to see Latka.

A strange approach to tell people that criticize a film that it's their fault for not knowing that going into it.

Sometimes it's cool among a certain type of crowd to like a certain type of thing, or at least think they do. Like people that used to praise Andy Warhol when he produced paintings of Campbells Soup cans. Not saying that has happened here, just that sometimes it does.

I's happened here for sure.  The critics are the same way with everything Brad Pitt touches.

Quoted from leitskev As is evident in my review, I was aware of both the negative and positive reviews of the film. I went to it with the attitude of a writer hoping to learn from it, and in that I was not disappointed. And I did appreciate, as mentioned, the characters, the dialogue, the gritty shots, and some of the film techniques.

I actually did mean to mention that you, specifically, had gone in with two different frames of reference. For some reason, I neglected to do so. You're correct indeed.

Quoted from leitskev A strange approach to tell people that criticize a film that it's their fault for not knowing that going into it.

Mmm. Yes and no. Obviously, everyone goes into a film with expectations. It's inevitable. But I'd argue that one shouldn't go into X expecting it to be Y. I thought the reviews were pretty apparent that this was a slower dialogue driven film with an agenda, if you will. Even equipped with that knowledge, you can go into a slow film expecting it not to be that slow or into a politically thematic film expecting it not to be that in-your-face. Maybe the theme happens not to be as well-executed as the reviews said or the dialogue isn't as sharp. Not exactly the viewer's fault.

But going to see Killing Them Softly and saying it's too cynical and doesn't have colorful characters to root for like in Pulp Fiction... pretty sure the reviews could've hinted this wasn't exactly gonna be a romp.

I think the biggest mistake made here was watching the trailer.  Going into the movie blind, I came out extremely satisfied.  A few days later I saw the trailer and thought, "Man, I would've been pissed."  Same thing happened with Drive, it promised one movie and delivered another (even if the movie was really, really good).

Gage, I had seen the trailer before, but really had no idea what I was in for, other than an R rated Brad Pitt movie about gangsters that had good word of mouth.

Same deal with Drive, actually.  I missed it at the theaters and saw it on Netflix or a movie channel.  I knew nothing about it, other than good word of mouth.  I did not like Drive, either, although I'd have to say I liked it much better than this stinker.

It's funny to me, actually when I read peep's reviews, saying how much they enjoyed the theme or what have you...as if one needs to spend 2 hours of total boredom to be "enlightened" with such hogwash.

I've said this so many times, but don't think I'm gong to stop - I base movies on entertainment first, and the movies positives and negatives second.  As in, a movie can be balls to the wall action and excitement, but if it's stupid, doesn't make sense, or unrealistic but with a tone of reality, I'm not going to praise it...at all.

I'm actually starting to wonder if certain people need to have these themes shoved down their arses, because they're not seeing such things play out around them in everyday life?  And I'm being totally serious.

I guess when it comes down to it, personally, I have no interest in such malarkey because I am already very aware of such themes and lessons, and don't need any heavy handed deliveries to make me think.

Does that make any sense to anyone?  Am I possibly on to something?