All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
There is no reason a film cannot have talky characters and at the same time give an audience a reason to care what happens to them. Not good story telling, generally, when you could care less about a single character. And I'm not sure how one could have plucked any of this from reviews out there online.
I didn't expect this to be Pulp Fiction. You are drawing the wrong conclusion from my words. But Pulp Fiction was an attempt to create a window into the normal routine and everyday lives of hit men and gangsters. As does this film.
Pulp Fiction understands, though, that the story has to entertain as well. Recreating a kind of gritty reality is cool, and an impressive achievement. But it's not story telling. Having these characters talk about getting laid is not enough to humanize them for us. Not enough to make us want to see what happens to them. Not enough to make us care when something does. Those are essential aspects of story telling.
There is nothing wrong with cynicism as a theme. But for it to be an effective theme there should be a story that makes us care about the characters. It's not that the film is too cynical. It's that the cynicism has little power because it's just kind of there. Empty. It's like there were tremendous components for a story here, and it's all just waiting for someone to take the pieces and assemble one.
I really don't have an issue with your review of the film, James, and agree with much of it. I was kind of torn on the film myself as I really appreciated certain parts. The thing I didn't understand was why you couldn't just give your opinion of the film and avoid, well, let's say provoking, those that were critical of it. People leaving theaters, though not conclusive, is a strong sign that the film falls short.
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 actually think it's the total opposite. People see things play out around them in everyday life and are interested in seeing real life applied to a cinematic context. KTS's still a gangster film at its base. It's got gangster characters, gangster dialogue, brutal violence, a heist, etc. Whether you think it worked or not, it's all there. But the interpretation's different and some people dig that. Dare I say, some people were entertained. It's not all about learning something or being "enlightened."
You could argue that you're supposed to go to the movies to get away from everyday life but simply put, not everyone's entertained the same way. Some people don't need to leave the world at the theater door to have a good time. Some films expect audiences to work with them, especially if they're slow-paced or understated, and some people are willing to do that.
Not a good business model if you want to be a professional screenwriter but I think it's the truth.
There is no reason a film cannot have talky characters and at the same time give an audience a reason to care what happens to them. Not good story telling, generally, when you could care less about a single character. And I'm not sure how one could have plucked any of this from reviews out there online.
I didn't expect this to be Pulp Fiction. You are drawing the wrong conclusion from my words. But Pulp Fiction was an attempt to create a window into the normal routine and everyday lives of hit men and gangsters. As does this film.
Pulp Fiction understands, though, that the story has to entertain as well. Recreating a kind of gritty reality is cool, and an impressive achievement. But it's not story telling. Having these characters talk about getting laid is not enough to humanize them for us. Not enough to make us want to see what happens to them. Not enough to make us care when something does. Those are essential aspects of story telling.
There is nothing wrong with cynicism as a theme. But for it to be an effective theme there should be a story that makes us care about the characters. It's not that the film is too cynical. It's that the cynicism has little power because it's just kind of there. Empty. It's like there were tremendous components for a story here, and it's all just waiting for someone to take the pieces and assemble one.
I can't say you're wrong but I definitely found the film entertaining regardless and I think if it were written more along the lines you described, I probably wouldn't have felt the same way.
I believe you made a reference to "indie style." I'll take that.
I really don't have an issue with your review of the film, James, and agree with much of it. I was kind of torn on the film myself as I really appreciated certain parts. The thing I didn't understand was why you couldn't just give your opinion of the film and avoid, well, let's say provoking, those that were critical of it. People leaving theaters, though not conclusive, is a strong sign that the film falls short.
Eh. I suppose the thread sorta irked me. I've honestly gotten burnt out on arguing films with other people so I try to bite my tongue nowadays. There was a particular other film that came out earlier this year where I not only disagreed with its criticisms but found them totally illegitimate/wrong (that was not the case with KTS). But I left it alone. This one just seemed to have gotten trashed for the sake of people expecting it to be a classic gangster film which it clearly wasn't supposed to be, not to mention the thread didn't really sink in the portal the way most reviews do; obviously, I came in two pages late.
I recently saw The Avengers. Lightyears from my thing but I couldn't find any quibbles that were in line with what it was supposed to be. The only difference between The Avengers and KTS is that The Avengers conforms to what's more widely accepted as a good film.
I honestly think comparinig KTS to Pulp Fiction is like comparing apples to oranges. KTS paints a realistic portrait of today's (or 2004's) gangster landscape. Pulp Fiction is pure entertainment. A gimp would never show up in KTS' world and I hope it never does. Now both films have intelligent dialogue, gritty violence, etc. But they're intelligent in their own right. In a way, it would be like comparing Ass of Jess James (I know what I just said) to Django Unchained. Pulp Fictions is how we would like to think hit men and gangsters act while KTS depicts how they actually act.
Once again, the biggest problem here, it seems, is audience expectation. As James said, the film was marketed (and distributed) incorrectly. This is why so many audience members gave it an F on cinescore. This film would have faired much better if it played in the indie theaters. In fact, we probably wouln't be having this conversation if it didnt play in our local AMC's.
But this conversation brings up an interesting point...our expectations going into films. Whose fault is it? Personally, I think we should go into films completely unbiased. But that's impossible. No matter what film you see, you're going to have some sort of expectation going into it (based on the film's marketing). Films will never be EXACTLY what we expected them to be. But that's not the movie's fault. Nor should we take it out on the film. And it sounds like James is trying to point that out.
So expectations aside, KTS was a great film. The more I thought about it, the more I enjoyed it. Now you can disagree with me. But just because other people walked out of a film doesnt make it a failure. And just because you were disappointed with the film doesnt mean you can dismiss it entirely. Because there were a lot of elements that made this film worth watching. But hey, I know the feeling. I f ucking hate Magnolia...but I do respect it.
I have a great appreciation for film criticism in the sense that everyone's entitled to their opinion and we shouldn't dismiss every film as subjective just so we don't argue. Where's the fun in that? To that extent, you can't expect anyone to like a film they're flat out not going to like.
You also can't expect everyone going into a film to be a cineaste. Not everyone is going to know who Andrew Dominick is, let alone what his films are like.
And at the end of the day, you can't 100% count on a review or even an abundance of reviews to predict what your moviegoing experience is going to be like. That leap of faith is always there.
But let's say 60-75%. You can still get a good idea from reviews. Even a really good idea. Any responsible critic, whether they liked the film or not, will explain that the bulk of the film is Brad Pitt talking to a mafia lawyer. A lawyer, guys. Perhaps a red flag that this isn't going to be Scarface.
Of course, it's your prerogative to actually take the time to go through the reviews but it's also your money and if you didn't like the film you went in cold to see, you can't say the resources weren't there.
I don't think there's any right or wrong to all this. I'd simply say it's better to do your research. That's where I'd stand as far as expectations go.
James, in response to your last post, I do understand what you're saying, but it doesn't work with everyone or even close to everyone.
There's lots of peeps out there who are just movie people. I'm one of them. I don't purposely attempt to watch movies I don't think I'm going to like, but I do give all sorts of films a chance, whether it be at the theater, on Netflix, movies channels, or renting DVD's and Blu-Rays.
I like the experience of watching movies - period.
There are countless movies that are not up my creek that I can and will say were good movies and that sometimes, I actually even enjoy them. I do know what makes a good movie. I can tell almost instantly if a movie is going to suck just by the look and/or the opening dialogue and action.
And I'll tell you what...I had and still have nothing against this movie and no reason to bash it, but I did know within mere minutes that this was going to suck some form of animal balls. I hope I was wrong, but it continued to suck throughout, culminating in pretty much a non ending, even. There's just no excuse for that.
Something that could be gleaned from my earlier posts, but I'll reiterate: I did not go into this blind. In fact, in addition to seeing Jeff's review, I had read a lengthy review in the Boston Globe, and then found the book on which this film is based(linked to further above) and read about a third of it. I think that qualifies as doing one's homework.
As far as the expectations I carried, again, I was open, because I had read Jeff's hard criticism and the glowing Boston Globe review.
As far as this being based on modern gangsters. Well, not exactly. The book was written in the 1960s, and the movie, though set in the present, is a very literal adaption of the book, right down to the dialogue.
Disagreeing with someone's review is fine and even welcome. I read other people's reviews and my mind is always open to being changed. I could read McClung's opinion or explanation of a film and it could influence me. I am open to it.
I do, however, think there is a certain 'culture' of film people, just as there is in other aspects of the art world, where their appreciation for certain film is not developed in isolation and reflects more than just their individual tastes. They are part of a clique, and the clique looks at things a certain way, so they look at things consistent with that. When Warhol convinced the art world that his soup cans were in vogue, suddenly the art world loved his soup cans. And he laughed all the way to the bank.
So I think perhaps some of those "cineastes" brought their own expectations to the film, and the film only had to confirm what they expected to succeed. They wanted soup cans, and they got them.
I don't view things the same as Jeff, and that's not a knock on him in any way. He works hard in life, wants a film to wow and entertain. Nothing wrong with that. I happen to find films that explore certain arguments or philosophical viewpoints interesting. To each his own.
I didn't find that this film entertained, explored or stimulated. All it did was portray. And in the early going, I was very impressed. I liked the way the petty criminals and heroin addicted thugs were portrayed. But nothing more arose out of the story. There not only was no entertainment, but no moral or intellectual considerations were explored in any serious way. And actually that's why the constant Bush and Obama speeches are present.
The film is suggesting, I think, that at the street level, the struggle for life goes on oblivious to what is going on at the top where Presidents and Congresses play. Oblivious to and unaffected by. And there's nothing wrong with that point, but if it weren't for the constant political speeches we wouldn't know that was the point. And more important, we don't care, because at no point does the film emotionally engage the audience. It doesn't arose one single emotion throughout the entire film.
BTW: I used to know a leg breaker who was very similar to the Gandolfini character. He wasn't too bright, was often emotional(was actually generous), and used to go to other cities to perform "jobs" and tended to blow all the money there on "massages". Unlike Gandolfini, he was actually a lonely unmarried guy who lived above his dad.
Something that could be gleaned from my earlier posts, but I'll reiterate: I did not go into this blind. In fact, in addition to seeing Jeff's review, I had read a lengthy review in the Boston Globe, and then found the book on which this film is based(linked to further above) and read about a third of it. I think that qualifies as doing one's homework.
As far as the expectations I carried, again, I was open, because I had read Jeff's hard criticism and the glowing Boston Globe review.
I do, however, think there is a certain 'culture' of film people, just as there is in other aspects of the art world, where their appreciation for certain film is not developed in isolation and reflects more than just their individual tastes. They are part of a clique, and the clique looks at things a certain way, so they look at things consistent with that. When Warhol convinced the art world that his soup cans were in vogue, suddenly the art world loved his soup cans. And he laughed all the way to the bank.
So I think perhaps some of those "cineastes" brought their own expectations to the film, and the film only had to confirm what they expected to succeed. They wanted soup cans, and they got them.
I suppose I'd agree though I wouldn't attribute that to the majority of the film's good reception by any means.
Right off the bat, what's with all the political speeches and billboards?!? I get whack-a-moled with theme before I can even get comfy on the couch!
Brad Pitt has ONE SCENE in the first forty minutes of the movie?!? Of course, he's crammed into every shot in the friggin trailer.
In the end, I felt kinds slighted by the marketing on this one. The theme's hammered into me repeatedly. It feels like the characters are in service to theme... I tend to prefer it the other way around.
E.D.
LATEST NEWS CineVita Films is producing a short based on my new feature!
Lol, Brett. And in case anyone somehow ever missed the theme, Pitt's last words: "America is just a business".
Man, why not "It's all about the money."
Or "Follow the money." or "Love is a battlefield"or "We can dance if we want to."
It's shallow, well worn tripe masquerading as something deep and meaningful.
Cynicism for the sake of cynicism. Cynics always think they're smarter than everyone else, so they don it like armor. Hang out in deeply aromatic cafe's.
I think the idea behind the political speeches here is that it's all the same, below and above, just at different levels. The mob, like the country, is run like a business. Yawn. The same wisdom comes from players in the NFL locker room. "It's all a bizness, man."
And this is not an attack on anyone who liked the film, because there is much to appreciate in it. I did like the gritty character portrayals. A lot, actually. And I even liked much of the settings: broken concrete, empty lots, and shadows beneath highways. Felt like home!
Didn't hate it but certainly didn't love it. The constituent elements on paper were there, but the execution fell down - not quite sure where. The suggestion for Pitt to play the Liotta character was a good one - definitely would've provided an unexpected angle. In many ways, that character is like the little brother of Macy in Fargo, and played by Pitt it would have been very interesting. I love Liotta, but felt it was a lazy casting choice to put him in this film. The same laziness that saw Gandolfini playing on type. Films like this require performances that leave an indelible mark - sadly that was missing here.
The political commentary was a little shoehorned in and largely lacking any real coherence to the plot.
I do agree with James, that this film need not be 'entertaining' like Pulp Fiction (or even Goodfellas) because it's not designed to be that type of film. The assumption that this film is like a fly to sh*t for "cineastes" is something I disagree with. Pretty sure those types would not be flocking to a Brad Pitt movie, irrespective of how indie it is and how well regarded Dominik is.
Ultimately, it's not really a 'like to like' for "cineastes" - it's just a few scenes and casting choices away from being excellent. As it stands, it's just ok.
I thought the movie was excellent as a whole. The beginning did start slow, but I loved the opening sequence. Once Pitt got more screen time and the story shifted to him, it realized it's full potential and got going. Pitt was excellent, Liotta was great, and so was Gandolfini, though there really isn't a reason for him to have been there. I'd call this one a diamond in the rough. Definitely not for everyone, though.
Coming Soon: "Cannes": An up-and-coming filmmaker debuts a controversial film, and events quickly spiral out of control "Lone Wolves": Two best friends, one an alcoholic, try to create their own mob by kidnapping a local bar owner, who happens to be an actual Irish mobster.