Killing Them Softly

Could not agree more - it was like someone tried to make a bad version of a Tarantino movie.

OMG who the hell green light this thing? What a POC this was. After watching one of the worst movies ever last week with the Man with Iron fist I thought ok can't get any worst than this. Well, this maybe not worse but what the hell was this thing? I had no idea WTF they were talking about. It was obvious they were ripping off a little bit of Goodfellas and Pulp fiction but holy sh*^ this was so dumb....very, very bad.

The "boss" has informed me this movie will go in the player tonite (damn Brad Pitt!)
Will get back tomorrow.

Perhaps Richard Jenkins will get you through it.
He's always good, but the film is a snooze.
Ale.. Lad, that's the ticket

Having actually seen this movie at the theater when it came out, the problem seemed to be that there wasn't enough Brad Pitt in terms of minutes on the screen. And the supporting actors, although good or perhaps very good, could not carry the film on their own. Then there was the big Mcguffin that turned out to be irrelevant to the movie, but managed to stretch it out for at least another 15 or 20 minutes. It was certainly a big disappointment and hopefully Brad Pitt will do a lot better in World War Z.

Hell no...couldn't take it anymore. Plus I asked my uncle who watched it 1st and he enjoys any movies on cable and he said it didn't get any better with Pitt so I hit the eject about 45 min which is about my threshold I give for any movie.

This is a unique movie.
I can't really recall another film quite like it....

I was reminded, at times, of last year's Drive with Ryan Gosling.
The difference is Killing Them Softly actually delivers something worth revisiting....while Drive just ran out of gas, leaving me with no motivation to go around again.

Terrific performances from the majors.

Superbly shot, with memorable techniques and images and an awesome sound mix to boot.
For example, there is a beatdown by 2 guys on one done with such visceral camerawork it caused me to flinch a bit.
There is also a "hit" that was almost surreal, as well as a scene of a junkie being higher than a kite trying to hold a conversation with someone who wasn't.

The AV of the BD is superb.

This is a movie I will be re-watching very soon.

Glad to see Im not the only one who enjoyed it. I didn't see it as trying to be Tarantino-esque as some have suggested, and in fact I find it refreshing not to have hit men portrayed as cool uberwitty guys spewing snappy dialogue. Call me crazy, but I liked seeing a sense of weight and guilt put on guys whove made a living out of killing people. Cynical but still cognizant of their livelihoods, I thought Pitt and Gandolfibi were great

The only connection is these characters are criminal low-lifes, but are far from the typical Tarantino goodfellas.

Wow oink, I think we have in common with most films but did not see this in a million years you would enjoy this. Just to show movies are so subjective like art and every one that you can enjoy is a plus.

Btw as for being Tarantino-esque rip off...does Reservoir Dogs ring a bell? Jackie brown

Sometimes I just like to be contrary....

It does have a certain Tarantino vibe.
For me, the difference is there is significantly less black humor and the characters are not as "sharp" as QT usually paints them.
With this movie, the characters appear more realistic, more like the kind of people actually involved in this stuff (IMO).

At times, what was happening on-screen, such as the long static camera shots of the characters simply talking, often created an illusion of a documentary.
Very cool, very clever filmmaking.

If it weren't for the heavy handed polotics, which put too much of a date on the movie. But beyond that, I loved it. It felt less like a Tarantino movie and more like a Melville esque crime thriller.

Sure, there is a date-specific environment as the "wallpaper."
FWIW, I think it added to the movie, as it became a background upon which the essential story was played out..

Of course, YMMV.

I liked and disliked the political "wallpaper". I think it added something to the movie, for better or worse, that while irritating, made it more interesting. It still felt completely disjointed and tacked on, and the movie would have been better had it been less frequent(it was kinda ridiculous towards the end), but somehow it made me like the movie more. I appreciate when an artist has a point to make and isn't afraid to make it, even if I don't agree with it. It also helps that I personally feel the movie was very well done. I'll be buying the blu.

I thought it was kinduva an original approach for a movie like this, and it actually affected the plot and the characters actions.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

It was a very original approach to a not original story. The angle, combined with the shooting style of the movie, made it very interesting for me.

+1

I'm not sorry I watched it at all, but in the end, it feels like some good ideas for a movie that he just couldn't quite put together. It's still always a pleasure to see a decent movie without obvious studio checklist items (artificial tension>resolution, obligatory chase scene in the third act etc.)

The acting by the players were great but I'm not interested in any of these low lives, or the politics behind some of the scenes. The novel itself got mixed review as well.

How Hollywood can get these kinds of garbage produced was beyond me. The cursing and violence were definitely reminiscent of Tarantino.

It did not help after watching the 2nd half of Lawrence of Arabia either. Thank god it was rental.

What "politics?"

That's why it was given an "R" rating.

If anything, it's better than the Man with the Iron Fist.

As for the politics, did not care for it as a backdrop to the movie.

MWTIF was just numbingly stupid, KTS was more numbingly boring to death and confusing.

Sorry, but I am not getting it....

Hate to talk about politics since it's a whole can of worm.

I would prefer the director turn off the TV or the dialogue with Obama, Bush and McCain on the background. Personally I found it very distracting. Our country got enough problems and we got plenty of blame to spread around, including us the voters.

On the other issue, it's R rated but I found our world is slowly desensitize to violence. Though it's a work of fiction, I could take blood and gore much better in 30 Days of Night or Underworld much easier. Maybe it is just me; the depressive violence aspect of the movie hits hard, one of the strengths of this movie.

It's more economics than politics really (yes, you can separate them.) In the features, the director talks about it. I'm a lefty so I didn't really notice, but I guess some people are bothered by it. The Richard Jenkins character is an analog for a corporate suit. Here's an early article about the movie.

+1

Economic bad times are part of a Capitalistic Society, as all of us know.
Most folks learn of it impersonally via media outlets, just as "CNN" can be found playing in airports, so it can be found in bars.
This formed the tablecloth upon which the drama of the movie was served.
For example, remember the excellent scene of bargaining over the amount of payment?
Jenkins and Pitt discussing/negotiating about the why's and what for's of costs?

Depressive violence + depressive economics = the soup du jour in Killing Them Softly.