User Reviews

There is more wordplay than gun-play here and it is a Neo-Noir, hard-boiled, unfettered attempt at gritty realism. Some of the extended dialog scenes are pretty good but not quite excellent. There is some rambling and pointless exchanges with little pay-off.

But there are some serious, reality sound bites that give us the same thing. There is that continuous backdrop of Political rambling rhetoric that mirrors the Character's innate ability to speak much and say little.

This is an against the grain try at alternative, smart Cinema with just enough stylized graphic violence to make it obvious that this has Artistic commentary and not Documentary style Cinema Verite on its mind. Overall it is a well done and interesting kind of side-step from the usual whiz-bang editing and shaky Camera stuff that has become so common.

This is slow, bordering at times on tedious, but never a bore. It is well crafted but does not quite reach that level of great Prose transferred to great Film. But it is a good try at a very difficult, rarely achieved process that creates the best of this kind of thing.

Watching Killing Them Softly put me in mind of the great crime caper film of the Seventies, Charley Varrick. That's the one where Walter Matthau and some accomplices pull off a bank heist in a small out of the way bank in an obscure New Mexico town. Only the bank is a place where syndicate money is held and laundered. Joe Don Baker is the hit-man sent after them and he loves his work. Fortunately at least for Walter Matthau he's smart enough to outwit Baker. Killing Them Softly has no Matthau among the targets as the tale is told from hit-man's point of view.

The hit-man or at least one of them is Brad Pitt and he gets no pleasure in his work, it's a business like any other. He wants to be well compensated for his services. In fact he wants to Kill Them Softly which to him means taking them out with a rifle with scope because he doesn't want to hear their pleadings. Or by surprise in one case where everyone knows its coming, but the victim.

Two real criminal losers Ben Mendelsohn and Scoot McNairy are hired by Vincent Curatola to rob an illegal gambling establishment run by Ray Liotta. With Liotta you can see a bit of his Henry Hill from Goodfellas, with Hill running just this kind of place as he headed into middle age in the mob.

The reason for this target is that several years earlier Liotta ripped his own card game off, but eventually was forgiven when the gambling started booming again. Curatola is sure the mob will look right at Liotta again. Not that they don't look at Liotta again, but they're smarter than that. They always are.

Once the caper goes down in comes Pitt, but also with a few competitors, James Gandolfini being one. That's where Pitt starts negotiating his deal.

Brad Pitt gives a good performance here, but for me the real stars are McNairy and Mendelsohn. You will rarely losers with a capital "L" portrayed on the screen as they are with these two. In a way they ought to be put out of their misery for their own good. Still you feel sorry for them somewhat.

Interesting mob movie with some deep black comic overtones.

This is a film that looks outstanding. It has that feel of the best seventies cinema. The acting similarly is outstanding but still, a few things stop it from being the stone cold classic it could have been.

The cracks started to show when Cogan(Pitt) has his first talk with Mickey(Gandolfini). It's the latest in a long series of head to heads that play out more like acting master-classes than anything relating to the film. That scene effectively breaks the spell and reminds us that we are watching "good quality acting" combined with "a good script".

The film seems to go off the rails after this. Any charm or involvement is soon stopped by another showy scene from the director who seems more concerned with showing off his film making skills than actually making a good film.

The final thing that jars is Brad Pitt. He had the same effect on Fight Club. Pitt is too big a star for a film like this. He simply doesn't convince as the cynical cold blooded killer. Why would such a man spend that much time on his physical appearance for instance?. A more earthy, hard boiled actor could have made the character believable.

Not a bad film but overbearingly condescending at the finale (which I won't spoil here). The film that went before doesn't earn that pay off and its impact isn't felt on the screen. Which makes the end deeply unsatisfying.

Shame really as with more editing and less egos involved, this could have been so much better.

The idea of film being used as a medium for political themes and socio-economic commentary is nothing new, even recently with films such as Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and Margin Call aiming to tackle the 2008 financial crisis. But few films have been as unsubtle as Killing Them Softly. Set to the backdrop of the 2008 election, the criminal underworld of an American city has been hit by its own financial crisis after a mob poker game is robbed by two criminals (Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn). With no trades or money being moved, a mob manager (Richard Jenkins) brings in a fixer, Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt), to solve the situation. But none of his actions brings back confidence, whether right or wrong. Writer/director Andrew Dominik admirably uses a gangster story as a metaphor for the financial crisis, but the handling was atrocious. Dominik has no faith in his audience to draw these connections, and even worse, come away with its own conclusions; he opts to spoon-feed us the cliff notes as we watch. This is most evident with the constant use of speeches by George W. Bush and Barack Obama made at time, enforcing the parallels Dominik wanted to make. There are constant references to terminology used at the time, particularly the theme of bringing back confidence to the world, the theme that public perspective is more important than actual actions and we are reminded that the gangster world's situation is the same as the financial world's one. This forceful approach does not allow us to see a natural story. Killing Them Softly is a very dialogue-driven film that breaks the old cinematic maxim of "show, don't tell." We are told that the mob has turned corporate and that there is a crisis, but we do not get to see it. It would have been more interesting to see mob bosses arguing and coming up with theories and seeing that gangsters were unwilling to make any deals in the midst of the crisis. Killing Them Softly ends up rather dull as a result. There are some moments that show what Dominik is capable of: the robbery scene was filled with tension and things felt like they would actually kick off. Whenever violence was used in general, it was incredibly grim and brutal. There is a highly stylised moment when Cogan commits his first assassination, completely played out in slow motion — a brilliant little sequence. The film hits hardest in these scenes. The big saving grace of Killing Them Softly is the acting. There is a great cast with Pitt, Jenkins and James Gandolfini being the biggest draws. They were committed actors doing the best they could, elevating the dry material provided with excellent delivery and chemistry. Pitt and McNairy played the most likable (and I use that term loosely) characters, and were the most well-drawn and conflicted characters in the film. McNairy was the most human, reacting naturally to his situation, and Pitt is able to be cold-hearted and professional when he acts upon his deadly task. Killing Them Softly is a film that feels its political parallels are enough of a mask for it to be seen as an intelligential masterpiece, but it feels too demeaning to have everything spelled out like that, which was made worse given the story played second fiddle to these political parallels. There was potential for a great film if there was a good re-write, but it ends up being one of biggest disappointments of 2012.

This movie was done in a style that was quite unique from your standard issue shoot 'em up or Scorsese gangster movie in a number of ways I found refreshing. It slowed down the pace of dialogue scenes to a relatable and believable level, made the violence far more realistic, and didn't overdo the music. Those who can't handle too much, or too realistic of violence won't like this movie.

Some might feel the dialogue makes the movie drag just a bit, but if you like realistic filmmaking, they've made it feel as if you're sitting in on actual conversations. The scenes and cuts are long but are livened up with the fairly constant scummy-ness of the characters. James Gandolfini seemed to prattle on a little too much but I suppose that was the point.

The violence can be summed up as unsentimental; much of it can be defined by the difficult achievement of not falling into played out Hollywood clichés. There are no heros in this movie as the director doesn't use cheap tricks, like voiceovers, disproportionate screen time, or happy music to convince you that one criminal is worth rooting for over the others. There is no glorification or demonization of violence, as it is depicted without the influence of music, and the audience can decide for themselves about what is being shown. There are no Schwartzenegger-style shoot outs, as the violence is usually sudden but brutal and loud. Every gunshot is closer to being as loud as real life, so you get a little jolt with every shot like being at a gun range.

The use of music is also played down and important in making both the violence and dialogue distinct. There is some music which gives the movie some energy, but overall far less than the average Hollywood film. This adds an element of suspense as the music doesn't give away what is about to happen in every scene (like a movie with ominous music when something bad is about to happen, etc.). The lack of music also allows the audience a semblance of neutrality in what they are observing; characters are allowed to be likable without being good.

This is the sort of movie you could expect if the hero was removed and you only had the villains and thugs left over--it is far less boring.

Killing Them Softly (2012)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Three idiot, wannabe thieves rob a mob run cards game and make off with a ton of cash. Then Jackie (Brad Pitt), a hit-man, is called in to figure out who was behind the robbery and to take care of them. KILLING THEM SOFTLY is being called by many a masterpiece and by many others as one of the worst films of the year. I think most people are really going to hate this film because it's just so different from other stuff out there but I'm going to fall somewhere in the middle of the two groups. While I enjoyed the style and the performances, at the same time the film just takes way too long to really get to where it's going and there are some other questionable things that I'll comment on in a bit. What I did like about the picture is that it's pretty brutal and ugly in regards to its violence and characters. The film really doesn't show any of the characters in a good light as the "good" guys are bad and the bad guys are really bad. There's never an attempt to make you connect with these people or enjoy what they're doing. The film also benefits from some wonderful characters actors. Pitt, James Gandolfini, Richard Jenkins, Scoot McNairy, Ben Mendlesohn and Ray Liotta all fit their roles nicely and deliver very good performances. This is especially true of Gandolfini and Liotta. The problem with the picture is that it just has way too many moments where things seem to really get dragged out. Another major problem is that the film tries to be too much like Tarantino. The scenes early one with the two thieves talking dirty about a wide variety of objects is just going to remind people of PULP FICTION. The dialogue here offers up some funny stories but it's not good enough to really grab one and bring them into the picture. KILLING THEM SOFTLY certainly has a unique look and feel to it but in the end it adds up to very little. The Bush-Obama bits of dialogue thrown in throughout the movie also add up to a big nothing, although I'm guessing the point was that even low-life criminals have bit hurt by the economy.

Andrew Dominik's third feature is an interesting, often entertaining but also frustrating crime thriller which reunites the Australian film-maker with Jesse James star Brad Pitt. The film features severe brutality and wonderful performances but the elements that should have stayed in the subtext are beaten into the audience as much as much the hapless characters.

Adapted from George V. Higgins' novel and set in New Orleans against the back drop of the Wall Street Banking Crisis and the 2008 Presidential election, Killing them Softly is a crime thriller with a socio-economic message not so much on its sleeve but carved on its forehead. Scoot McNairy (Monsters) and Ben Mendelsohn (last seen in The Dark Knight Rises) play two naïve crooks who agree to rob a Mob-protected high stakes poker game for a local small time gangster named the Squirrel (The Sopranos' Vincent Curatola). The bosses suspect Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta), the game's manager who is more guilty for his negligence than his complicity. Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt), an efficient and clinical hit man is brought in by a mysterious lawyer (the ever great Richard Jenkins) - with connections to an unidentified network of authorities inside and out of the underworld - to clean up the entire mess.

Dominik seems to relish in deconstructing audiences perceptions of gangster-genre veterans such as James Gandolfini, Curatola, and Liotta. The three are somewhat weak characters who are simply small fish in a very big and dangerous pond. Liotta particularly is a quivering, cowering tragic character – completely removed from the swagger he exemplified in Goodfellas. Gandolfini too retains some of his magnetic threatening persona but he is a hit man with a broken heart and a broke n liver from his alcoholism and penchant for prostitutes. The rest of the supporting cast is superb with Sam Shephard, Richard Jenkins and Slaine (seen in Ben Affleck's The Town and Gone Baby Gone) all delivering strong but all-to-brief contributions to the film. Pitt is maintaining his consistency with another confident and compelling performance. He imbues Cogan with empathy – exemplified by his tact of assassinating his targets "softly" – yet he is direct and unyielding in his objectives. His speech at the climax of the movie set against Barack Obama's election victory speech is electrifying and among Pitt's finest work.

Killing them Softly is a violent film. The beatings are rough and severe and you feel every punch – every broken tooth, every crack in the jaw, every smashed nose. The gunshots are loud and frightening. The gangster life is in no way romantic or glamorous. It's a kill or be killed environment and those who hesitate to be ruthless and driven in their mission are victims. It's a Darwinian environment where "hope" and "change" are just words printed on dilapidated billboards.

The plot of the film is very simple but Dominik rather slows down the action and focus on the characters. It's almost surprising the film ends when it does as one does not know what to expect or where the story is heading. There is an uncertainty in the pacing of the film that is quite apparent. Furthermore, rumours that Dominik's original cut was 2 and half hours (the finished film is a brisk 97 minutes) give weight to the belief that Dominik had much more ambitious plans. It's easy to speculate about the reasons for such a massive cut to footage (studio pressure perhaps) but Dominik seems to mistrust his audience to "get" the sub textual themes and motifs. It's painfully apparent that the heist and subsequent fallout is an allegory for the Economic Crisis and the cutthroat crime underworld is not dissimilar to corporate America. Dominik doesn't believe in understated or subtlety but Killing them Softly is an entertaining ride nonetheless. One cannot help ponder whether this film was destined for something much, much more.

This is a movie that I did not personally like, but I know for a fact that there are certain people that this movie was made for.

This is extremely dialogue heavy and I can only like excessive dialogue to a point. I also felt like the dialogue was just words instead of things I can think about. I felt like the words were just going in one ear and out the other.

There are also so many characters in such a short time that I had to rewatch the earlier scenes to actually grasp the whole plot. As for the plot, it seemed very poorly paced.

Everything aside, the great scenes were great. I love the car drive conversation before the robbery and I think that the ending was enjoyable.

I think that my favorite part of this movie were the actors and their characters. Everyone played a different character and I felt like the characters worked well with each other. I especially liked seeing James Gandolfini and Ben Mendelsohn in this movie.

The last thing is that the sound design in this movie is very unique and hit-or-miss. I personally found it an interesting change, but it could definitely be irritating for some.

Overall, you should give this movie a try because on the off chance that this is your cup of tea, you'll love it.

This movie was so bad, I decided to create an IMDb account finally and hopefully save other people from being duped by the positive reviews.

Simply put, this is a movie that never needed to be made. There is almost no story to it and what little story there is is told in a horribly long and drawn out way. This includes lots of conversations between characters that have absolutely no relevance to the plot among other things. One of the biggest pointless inclusions in this movie is the frequent clips of Bush & Obama credit crunch speeches that are spliced in virtually everywhere in this film. Although the movie is set right around 2008, there's no relevance to the story at all and it's almost like Brad Pitt is trying to make a political point but isn't really clear on what the point is. I'm confident they could've edited this down to a short story and told us the entire story in 10 minutes and it would've been enjoyable. Instead, it was 90 minutes of waiting for it to get going. I don't need big action to keep my simple mind entertained, but I do like my movies to have a good plot and a sense of movement. Lawless for instance doesn't move incredibly fast, but you are glued the whole time. This movie has none of it and I was not surprised at all to see 3 people walk out just over half way through as I was thinking of doing the same thing myself.

I really like Brad Pitt and I would struggle to think of a bad movie he's been in up until this one came along. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone even if it's free. I only wish I could have the 90 minutes of my life back.

With all the dragging on of some scenes, the constant soundbytes of the 2008 presidential campaign, the abrupt ending, a lot of pointless dialogue, I'm just not sure of what to think of this movie.

There are two separate scenes where James Gandolfini's character is just dragging on and on and on about his ex-wife for what felt like 20-30 minutes. You think he might finally shut up about it but he keeps on talking about it. There are a few other scenes with dialogue don't move the plot forward or contribute to it. And sometimes the dialogue itself is just plain dumb.

I see other reviewers talking about how violent this movie is. I assure you that the claims about this movie being brutal or very violent are way overexaggerated. I think movies like Casino and Goodfellas are more violent than this. This must be their first time watching an R rated film.

There was so much potential with this movie had there been a different script writer and director, but it is what it is. Since I can't decide on any rating I'll just give it a 6. Watch it by yourself because watching it with someone else will ruin any good mood.

I liked the way the film started with a very bleak and down-to earth approach to the whole set-up. Some interesting low-life characters planning a robbery always catches my attention. If anything, it steps up a gear when Brad Pitt enters the scene and I'm really beginning to get into it. Sadly, it wasn't to last, when the James Gandolfini character appears it does take a bit of a dive. He seems a bit of a wasted character; only there to pad the thing out a bit. It's a shame because I really liked Gandolfini as an actor and felt this was not a fair reflection of his talent. Some very interesting effects were used and I found these very interesting. The use of slow motion in one particular assassination scene was quite breathtaking. There is also a scene depicting the world from a drug addict's point of view that looked pretty strange too. Over all, it's one of those that I think I'll have to watch again to fully appreciate. For now, I liked it, but didn't fall in love with it; I'm sure a future viewing may fix that one way or the other.

SteelMonster's verdict: RECOMMENDED

My score: 7.2/10.

You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

The film proves that a 90-minute film can still be boring. This is an introspective slice of life involving hit men hitting one another. The grisly whacks are separated by long actor's exercises, which prove that the actor can play his character well. It is a major shame these characters were not used in any remotely interesting way.

My theory is that the filmmakers discovered they had only a 70-minute film and then decided to add the essentially irrelevant dialogue--many scenes of two actors sitting and talking. And there's a drug scene with a slo-mo hallucinogenic effect, similar to numerous films released around 1970. And there is a slo-mo killing. Slow, slow, slow. The poor script is not helped by the uninspired direction and camera set-ups.

The only reason I stayed for the whole 90 minutes was that the film was shot in New Orleans, though evidently it is set in Boston. There are no identifying landmarks.

If you are expecting any kind of action film, look elsewhere. And don't assume that the excessive political commentary will endear this film to any Obama supporters.

If you want to watch Scarface - go watch Scarface. This movie isn't. KTS is a 180 from the majority of crime classics and their many copycats.

The factor that clumps most crime genre flicks together is the top-down perspective. For instance, in the Departed it was the rats joining up with the heads of their respective sides of the law - Costello and Queenin. The same with Pauli in Goodfellas, the Don in Godfather.

KTS splits apart because it is a film about crime from the perspective of the prey. The opening shot is a junkie in a cold, wet New Orleans wind, lost in a whirlwind of trash against harsh white sky. This is the view of hopelessness - its also the familiarity of many post-disaster neighborhoods. These characters absorbed into the criminal underworld, not because they are evil, but because they haven't many other options and they're too dumb to know the danger they are in. This is the what KTS communicates to us with the background broadcast of the '08 elections and financial meltdown.

When bullets fly in this film - you feel it, because you feel for the characters, which is why having Cogan as its opaque center is so blisteringly effective. He is pragmatic, unapologetic and a completely objective lens to see through. He is the balance between the corrupt political overcast and slime at the bottom of the barrel.

"America isn't a country. It's a business."

Cogan is the the cleanup for the corporation. He snips the buds, ties up the loose ends. He is the inevitability of the business world.

"They are all nice guys."

The humanization of the characters drains you as one by one they slip into darkness. Cogan's jaws open and you understand that the characters are rats in a labyrinth, they are all gears that will eventually be discarded. The soundtrack rhetoric quite fluidly illuminates the movies' greater statement. With all the economic jargon in a ping-pong propaganda game there are people sleeping out on the streets - and a hungry dog has to eat. And all the way up the food chain, through a shady poker game in the back of some shut-down strip mall, to the podium and our new elected president, everyone is a hungry dog here.

This is a methodical film that takes its time with each individual scene. It plays with time and space, slowing down, drifting in and out and then exploding. Cogan walks through the sparks and smoke, he is our escort in understanding the nature and design of things, and he does with an unforgettable composure.

The elements of the film - acting, cinematography, etc, adapt to its scope and drive, the purpose that the makers sat down and did it. Each end does its job, and considering where you end up there's not much room for improvement in any area. Is it the Godfather? No. But its something completely different, and for what KTS was intending to accomplish, it was excellent.

Don't be deterred by the negative reviews, but don't go in expecting the recycling of Scorsese and Copella. This a picture of its own kind, of its own vision. Let it move you.

Killing Them Softly is about a trio of thieves who rob the wrong people and end up with the gang and a hit-man (Brad Pitt no less) on their trail. The advertising describes it as a 'black comedy/drama,' although I found little to laugh at during the whole thing. It seems like its trying to be a homage to 'overly-talkie' films like Quentin Tarrintino writes, but sometimes the dialogue simply went nowhere.

The actors are all great. It has a stellar cast who do their best, plus the cinematography is all top notch. There's some, but not as much as you may have been led to believe, violence in it. If you've heard this is a violent film, they're probably referring to one particular scene midway through the film. Apart from that, there's actually very little else that will shock you visually.

So it has good actors, a good setting, quirky dialogue and a premise that, although not totally original, is certainly watchable. I can see how some people liked it. Although, not everyone did. Some may say that the only thing missing from such greatness is a story. The narrative doesn't really have much focus and flits back and forth from different people leaving you wondering where you'll be next.

And then there's the politics. Throughout the film we're constantly seeing the 2012 presidential election campaign on TV screen. Apparently (and I have to confess that I didn't get this) the whole film is an allegory of modern America, i.e. one character represents the American public's sense of despair and apathy, while another represents the American public's sense of knowing what's really happening, but knowing they can't do anything about it and so on.

There's a lot to like about Killing Them Softly. There are some very good bits here and there. But then that's the problem - for every good scene there's a dull one that either goes on for too long or doesn't go anywhere.

Not bad, but could have been better.

Yet another great film being given a bad name by "reviewers trying to do us a favour" (really??? like you're a shepherd and we're all sheep here???). If you're going to read a review, here's one that speaks in all fairness and without trying to glorify it.

'Killing Them Softly' is a contemporary multi-narrative crime drama that oversees what crime has become to the mafia since we've seen what years of recession have done to America, post 9/11. It's a film you have to settle into and to watch and listen carefully, yet it provides us with storytelling style very similar to the likes of Quentin Tarantino and classic Danny Boyle.

It also makes good use of some classic conventions and you may notice a little bit of Mean Streets, Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, Chopper, Pulp Fiction, Trainspotting etc.

When ex-convict Frankie and his Australian heroin-addict friend Russell are employed to hold up a mafia poker game in their rundown dead end town, they get away with it, though causing the local economy to collapse and putting mob boss Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta) in the frame.

The dons send mob enforcer Jackie (Brad Pitt) over to deal with it and to set an example, he methodically sets about cleaning up in due fashion.

That is the plot, pure and simple, but aside from that, 'Killing Them Softly' is more a film about the bleak, harsh reality of crime in the modern day American towns that the government has all but abandoned and it is therefore about the sheer dead-end desperation of a certain breed of people.

Unemployment, recession, drug addiction, violence, desperation, failing health, wilful self-destruction and the disgusting manner in which people regard each other with - it all adds up to one great stark reality. The only way that the government has succeeded in destroying organised crime is by destroying its own country's economy. Desperate people will do anything to survive knowing that, if they give up, they are as good as dead. And that sets the tone for this movie from beginning to end.

Not surprisingly in hindsight, this film has no real lead characters, but universally supporting characters that serve the story until its bitter ending where we are treated to a summary in words between two characters. This helps to give a sense that nobody is of any real importance to each other, which is true to the nature of most of its characters.

If you like your crime movies real, you'll love this. I'm so surprised at how seamless it is, and also how easy it is to watch despite how well acted and intense it becomes. Dark, gritty, grimy, filthy, absurd, depressing and yet bold with a few good laughs!

When Brad Pitt was a rising star around 20 years ago, he appeared in a smaller scale film directed by Robert Redford. At the time Pitt was touted as the next golden boy of cinema to follow in the footsteps of Redford.

A decade later both Pitt and Redford appeared on screen for the first time in Spy Game. Redford admitted at the time he wanted to see how Pitt had progressed as an actor in the intervening 10 years.

It will be true to say that Pitt has followed the Redford play-book somewhat. He has realised there is more to being just a movie star and look for the next box office popcorn hit. Pitt has taken on risky projects from Fight Club, Seven and Babel to crowd pleaser's such as Ocean's 11 trilogy or Mr and Mrs Smith.

Killing me Softly is a film noir and an independent film with political nuances which merge as the film concludes. Its setting is the autumn of 2008 during the banking crisis and US Presidential elections as we see extensive news clips throughout the film.

Pitt plays a hit-man called Cogan who is hired by the mob to rub out two hoods who robbed a poker game. Cogan likes to kill his victims without warning so not giving them an opportunity for fear or despair. An act he describes as killing them softly.

The film is a low key affair. There is plenty of swearing, violence and Pitt although being the main star is actually a part of an ensemble piece.

James Gandolfini, Ray Liotta and several others all have scenes to shine although the actors playing the two hoodlums quickly get irritating. You actually cannot wait for them to get shot. Sam Shepard makes an all too brief cameo.

The film's noirish plot can become a little confusing if you do not pay enough attention. The violence might be off putting for some. Other's might be left flummoxed as to why we have so many news stories on the financial crisis and the US elections.

It rewards you at the end but the message sort of got lost in the violence and stories of bad guys many who have no redeeming features.