Killing them Softly

[Starkers]

Just wondered if anyone else had seen this? I went to see it last week and thought it was surprisingly good. At times the allegory is hammered home a little too unsubtly (The film mirrors the financial crisis of 2008 by focusing on a similar crisis in the criminal fraternity), but on the whole I liked it, and I have to say, it’s rare I’ve seen Hollywood be so brutally honest about the American Dream, or a founding father, Brad Pitt’s speech at the end is awesome.

[od0_ital]

It hasn't opened here yet, but I'd like to see it. Ray Liotta is almost always awesome.

[Starkers]

^Aha, I didn't realise that. Liotta is very good in it.

[the G-man]

Apparently, it was pushed back in the US to increase its chances during awards season. I was a little surprised, insofar as the last I knew it was still set for September release. I had thought perhaps it was one of those films that came and went before anyone knew it.

[Starkers]

Interesting, always feels a little odd to see something before the States does, unless it's something like Bond which we tended to always get first, at at leadt at the same time.

As for awards? I'm not sure, I liked it a lot but I'm not sure it's that good...adapted screenplay might definitely be a possibility though.

[the G-man]

the G-man wrote:

---

Apparently, it was pushed back in the US to increase its chances during awards season. I was a little surprised, insofar as the last I knew it was still set for September release. I had thought perhaps it was one of those films that came and went before anyone knew it.

Ouch. Looks like it pretty much did come and go in the U.S.

• Brad Pitt's Killing Them Softly opened nationwide to a soft $2.5 million, coming in No. 6 and earning a rare F CinemaScore....Killing Them Softly likely will open to $7 million, a disappointing number even though the movie cost only $15 million to produce.

I noticed a really odd trailer for this on TV about a week ago. It tried to make Pitt's character look like a traditional action hero. I wonder if that isn't part of the reason for the "F" grade with audiences: they went in expecting "Brad Pitt's Die Hard," or "Ocean's 1."

[the G-man]

the G-man wrote:

---

I noticed a really odd trailer for this on TV about a week ago. It tried to make Pitt's character look like a traditional action hero. I wonder if that isn't part of the reason for the "F" grade with audiences: they went in expecting "Brad Pitt's Die Hard," or "Ocean's 1."

This article speculates that's exactly what, in part, led to the "F":

• Although the film played the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year and earned decent reviews from critics, it was advertised as an intense action thriller instead of the slower paced art film that it really is. That kind of disconnect between marketing and the actual product usually leads to lower audience grades, but 'F's are rare. (Previous films to receive the dishonor include 2009's "The Box," 2002's "Solaris" and this year's "The Devil Inside.")

[od0_ital]

Saw it yesterday, and it was pretty much what I was expectin' from the trailer that I saw for it.

It hasn't really drawn a crowd at the theater I work at, though...

[Robert Maxwell]

the G-man wrote:

---

This article speculates that's exactly what, in part, led to the "F":

• Although the film played the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year and earned decent reviews from critics, it was advertised as an intense action thriller instead of the slower paced art film that it really is. That kind of disconnect between marketing and the actual product usually leads to lower audience grades, but 'F's are rare. (Previous films to receive the dishonor include 2009's "The Box," 2002's "Solaris" and this year's "The Devil Inside.")

That makes sense. I saw a trailer for it in the theater once, and while the editing of the trailer gave the impression of an action thriller, it also seemed too brooding to really be one, so I wasn't sure exactly what it was supposed to be. The trailer just wound up confusing me and not telling me much at all, and so I had no interest in seeing it.

Bad marketing can torpedo an otherwise decent film.

[OdoWanKenobi]

I saw it, and I was underwhelmed. Maybe it was how unsubtle the metaphor was. Maybe it was that I've seen Gandolfini's character in so many other movies and it's worn thin. The plot is very point A to point B without a lick of suspense. The dialogue was well written, but it was in service of characters and a plot that just didn't click for me.

[Drago-Kazov]

I probably won't watch this. Juging by the reviews it's too preachy.

[zakkrusz]

I went last week because my friend wanted to see it. I would place the film in the mediocre range. I was just not able to get into it that much and found it mostly boring. My friend didn't like it either and he's the one who wanted to go.

[Starkers]

OdoWanKenobi wrote:

---

I saw it, and I was underwhelmed. Maybe it was how unsubtle the metaphor was. Maybe it was that I've seen Gandolfini's character in so many other movies and it's worn thin. The plot is very point A to point B without a lick of suspense. The dialogue was well written, but it was in service of characters and a plot that just didn't click for me.

Yes it was a bit sledge hammery in places, I managed to ignore that somewhat. Shame as the metaphor would have been much more subtle if they'd cut all the news/radio reports out.

Maybe I was just in the right mood to like it at the time, I found the characters engaging (even though they were, to a man, scumbags) and I liked the tone.

I think Galdofini playing the same old character was kinda the point. I took it to be the big man still acting like he's king of the world, like he's the man in charge, when actually he isn't. I kinda assumed it was a metaphor for America in general?

[Aeronef]

Saw it this afternoon. Very good film--well-written, well-directed, and well-acted. One of the best neo-noirs I've seen in a while.