SPOILERS

This movie absolutely sucks!

END SPOILERS

Unreal..absolutely unreal.

$15 Million budget, which has already been made back overseas.  I can't foresee more than a $15 Million BO here at the NABO.

Mind numbingly dull and completely uneventful.  Dialogue that thinks it's really smart and hip, but in reality is annoying as all fuck.

I've literally never walked out of a movie before...never really even considered it.  I considered it here...often.  I stuck it out, but in hindsight, wish i had left as literally nothing of any importance occurred.

All you theme lovers, go line up to see this...please.  You'll just love how they have a backdrop of Obama and Bush hashing out the 2008 election - oh wait...I mean McCain and Obama with Bush also spouting some mumbo jumbo about the state of America.  BULLSHIT!

You know...seriously...in all seriousness...how and why was this made into a movie?  Why did Andrew Dominik ever write it?  Why didn't someone...anyone say, this is really dull and uneventful?  You know how you read crappy scripts with scenes that have absolutely no reason to be in them?  Check this fucker out - it's jam packed with them.

I honestly can't put into words what a complete waste this was on every level imaginable.  I really can't.

Talk about something with ZERO repeat viewing qualities, and this turd should hog the conversation.

Maybe Brad Pitt and Andrew Dominik have some secret relationship going on.  I don't know why else he'd sign up here.  Oh My God, this thing sucks the high hard one.

Shockingly, the theater was packed for a 10:00 AM showing, but you know what?  When this ended - very abruptly, I may add, the theater was silent at first...then the groans started up.  I exited as quickly as I could, because I was insanely angry that crap like this can be made.

Rotten Tomatoes somehow has this at like 70% approval.  Huh?  For reals?  WTF?  Maybe the critics who reviewed this favorably also have some strange relationship going on with Andrew Dominik.

I'll leave you with this.  I'll never, ever set foot in a theater again if I see Andrew Dominik's name associated with a movie.

Pure shit, shat out of a dead dog's ass.  Unwatchable almost for me.  TERRIBLE!!!!

I just read a really positive review of it in the Boston Globe.

Means nothing. People obviously really differing on this one. I have heard Pitt mentioned as Oscar candidate here.

Oscar-worthy?  Unreal.

There's nothing wrong with Pitt's performance, understanding that he had to work with what he was given, but if he's up for an Oscar here, then what little faith I still have in the Academy will be gone forever.

This is pretty easily the dullest, slowest, most plodding movie I've ever sat through...and that's actually saying quite a bit.

This thing is pure shite, hardened in the AZ sun for 2 weeks, then put in a blender with all the rain water collected in those 2 weeks in AZ...and guess what you have?  The same piece of dried up shite you had to begin with.

Quoted from Dreamscale Unreal..absolutely unreal. ... it's really smart and hip... ...go line up to see this...please.   ...Check this fucker out... ...Oh My God... ...the theater was packed for a 10:00 AM showing...

So...you're saying you liked it then?

Well played.

I'd honestly prefer to watch a turtle walk 100 yards in an empty grassy knoll.

I will check this out...

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is one of my favorites.

By the way, I'm pretty sure Brad Pitt's company made this, so that explains his presence.

I loved this film, thought it was the best I've seen in quite awhile.  Opening sequence hooked me and then the early-Tarantino dialogue kicked in, and I was totally drawn in.  Thought the cinematography was great, dialogue, characters and acting were all fantastic and the action was executed well.

I also didn't think it was boring at all.  The movie really relies on talking heads, but the dialogue and acting were so magnificent I didn't care.  I admit that the grittier scenes in the ghettos has more strength and appeal than the James Gandolfini scenes in bars and hotels, but James Gandolfini had an excellent character.

As for the politics, that's really what this movie is about.  The whole thing strikes me as a metaphor for the economy crisis of 2008, but represented on a street-noir level.  And when I say "strikes me", I mean with a sledgehammer, because the politics in this movie are pretty heavy-handed.  After almost every scene there's some radio broadcast of McCain or Obama talking, and they always explain what we're supposed to be seeing: the political metaphor.

It does end abruptly, but I kinda like it that way.  The movie was lean, only around an hour and a half, and I think Dominick really considered the perfect length for this movie.  Apparently the first cut was two and a half hours, imagine that.

The end is also the most indulgent part of the movie (literally a political rant from Brad Pitt).  So I didn't really dig that, but the last line is fantastic.

Overall, I loved it.  Even if you don't like the politics, you can still appreciate is as some well-made hard-boiled fiction.

Seems the crowds agree with Jeff's assessment, as this movie scored the dreaded F on cinemascore.  It also flopped pretty badly at the box office.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/box-office-report-brad-pitts-killing-them-softly-050000896.html

That's good to see.  Thank you, Ryan.

This thing deserved an F all the way.

I am utterly shocked Gage gloated over this and said he actually loved it.  I honestly don't see how that's possible.

A buddy of mine also saw this Friday and he did literally walk out after an hour and 15 minutes.

A true stinker in all regards.

I haven't seen it for myself, but it figures that fucking Owen Gleibermann gave it a 100 on Metacritic. I can't stand that guy and his stupid smug smile.

Quoted from Dreamscale A true stinker in all regards.

You see, I just don't get this.  Surely there was something redeemable for you in it.  Could you elaborate?  Didn't you think that the acting was at least above average?  How about the cinematography?

Is it the lack of drive that the plot had that turned you off?  I agree that the plot was lax at points, but to be honest, this was a character-driven movie.

Gage, it was shockingly slow, dull, and had zero payoff.  The dialogue itself was irritating and annoying and not nearly as "smart" as it thought it was.

Every single second Gandolfini was onscreen, it was for absolutely no reason, as he did nothing and made no difference being in the story.

Just because a dish has lobster in it, doesn't mean it's necessarily good.  This dish shouldn't even be fed to starving homeless folk.

I loved this movie. I understand why audiences are not enjoying it, but I love it.

Pitt's monologue at the end wrapped everything up in a bow at the end.

People act like a community to get what the want, but in the end, it's every man for himself.

Felipe, do you also love watching flat white paint dry in empty rooms?

Whenever I hear that someone "loves" a movie, I try and figure out why.  I can't here at all.  There is nothing to love.

I honestly think fanboys of whatever or whoever get caught up in hype and critical praise.

This Andrew Dominik hack n ow has 2 major fails under his belt, both with Brad Pitt, and both Brad's worst box offices since he became a star.

What a crock...

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

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

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?   ;D ;D

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.  ;D

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?id=e3VZXS8qrXcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=george+v+higgins&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Cva4UO-MGPCH0QHM-oDQBA&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?

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.

Quoted from Dreamscale 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.

Quoted from leitskev 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.

Quoted from leitskev 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.

Quoted from Dreamscale suck some form of animal balls.

Irrelevant, but that's excellent, I'll definitely have to use that in the future.  ;D

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.

Quoted from leitskev 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.

Acknowledged, once again.

Quoted from leitskev 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.

Brad Pitt and Ray Liotta should have exchanged roles.

Either way, I'll see it (and will probably like it, regardless) because Ray Liotta is in it.

I caught this over the holiday weekend...

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. :P

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.

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.

Dude, you are a complete donkey.  One of the best scripts (and movies) I ever read/seen!

Seriously, stop doing downers before you go to the movies.  Eat more popcorn.

Quoted from Dreamscale SPOILERS This movie absolutely sucks! END SPOILERS Unreal..absolutely unreal. $15 Million budget, which has already been made back overseas.  I can't foresee more than a $15 Million BO here at the NABO. Mind numbingly dull and completely uneventful.  Dialogue that thinks it's really smart and hip, but in reality is annoying as all fuck. I've literally never walked out of a movie before...never really even considered it.  I considered it here...often.  I stuck it out, but in hindsight, wish i had left as literally nothing of any importance occurred. All you theme lovers, go line up to see this...please.  You'll just love how they have a backdrop of Obama and Bush hashing out the 2008 election - oh wait...I mean McCain and Obama with Bush also spouting some mumbo jumbo about the state of America.  BULLSHIT! You know...seriously...in all seriousness...how and why was this made into a movie?  Why did Andrew Dominik ever write it?  Why didn't someone...anyone say, this is really dull and uneventful?  You know how you read crappy scripts with scenes that have absolutely no reason to be in them?  Check this fucker out - it's jam packed with them. I honestly can't put into words what a complete waste this was on every level imaginable.  I really can't. Talk about something with ZERO repeat viewing qualities, and this turd should hog the conversation. Maybe Brad Pitt and Andrew Dominik have some secret relationship going on.  I don't know why else he'd sign up here.  Oh My God, this thing sucks the high hard one. Shockingly, the theater was packed for a 10:00 AM showing, but you know what?  When this ended - very abruptly, I may add, the theater was silent at first...then the groans started up.  I exited as quickly as I could, because I was insanely angry that crap like this can be made. Rotten Tomatoes somehow has this at like 70% approval.  Huh?  For reals?  WTF?  Maybe the critics who reviewed this favorably also have some strange relationship going on with Andrew Dominik. I'll leave you with this.  I'll never, ever set foot in a theater again if I see Andrew Dominik's name associated with a movie. Pure shit, shat out of a dead dog's ass.  Unwatchable almost for me.  TERRIBLE!!!!

Dude, you are a complete donkey.  One of the best scripts (and movies) I ever read/seen!

Seriously, stop doing downers before you go to the movies.  Eat more popcorn.

Quoted from sharper1 Dude, you are a complete donkey.  One of the best scripts (and movies) I ever read/seen! Seriously, stop doing downers before you go to the movies.  Eat more popcorn.

You sure told him.  ::)

Quoted from Zack You sure told him.  ::)

;D ;D ;D