Thursday, December 6, 2012

Killing Them Softly


I’m half-tempted to dub 2012 The Year of the Enigma Film. Perhaps “enigma” isn’t right, maybe “polarizing” is more accurate. But what I’m getting at is that 2012 seems to be cinematically defined by films that have divided.

I’m not sure I’ve heard of anyone liking Holy Motors. I’ve read several reviews of love, and just as many of hate. For every person who considers David Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis a disastrous waste of time (like me), there is a Top 10 list to argue otherwise. The Master, Cloud AtlasLincoln, hell, all the back to Haywire, people can’t seem to find common ground this year. And you know what? I dig it. It’d be boring as shit if we all agreed on what’s gold and what’s garbage. Now, to add to the separation, we have Andrew Dominik’s Killing Them Softly, a comedy crime drama to end all comedy crime dramas.

Killing Them Softly was released overseas months ago, and the response it received from many movie minds I value was unanimously positive. When it hit here last Friday, a huge stink was caused due to CinemaScore’s F rating for the film. (CinemaScore is, basically, a company that pays people to stand outside movie theaters and ask moviegoers to grade the film they’ve just seen. So, while Killing Them Softly received an F from the American public, this is the same public that gave both Alex Cross and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 grade A’s. So there’s that.)
About six minutes into Killing Them Softly, I knew precisely why my foreign friends loved it and many Americans hate it: the film is slow, laboriously conversational, crude, and in no way the action shoot ‘em up that its trailers have promised. Oh, and star Brad Pitt isn’t in it half as much as you’d think. Now, while what I’ve just described may not tickle the fancy of domestic audiences (including several people I saw the film with, who left long before the final credits cued), it is a film that is perfectly suited to my tastes.

Killing Them Softly begins in a way I’ve never seen a film begin. The credits are scored to inexplicably unsettling musical tones, which are feverishly crosscut with a man in silhouette walking out of a tunnel. When we’re on the man, we hear ecstatic cheers nearly drown out a speech given by (then) Senator Barack Obama. Cut to credits, haunting music. Cut to man walking, Obama speech. Back and forth and back and forth. An eerie intro that paves way for something destined to be different.
The man walking is Russell (Ben Mendelsohn, perfect in Animal Kingdom, better here) a greasy thief meeting his paranoid partner, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) to discuss a job with a local thug. The job in question is knocking off an underground card game run by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta, bloated and flawless). Once the game is successfully robbed, the charming, cold, and calculating Jackie (Brad Pitt, continuing his impeccable roll) is brought in to find those responsible. And that’s the film. Kind of.

I’m glossing over details, because that’s where the beauty lies. Point in fact, Killing Them Softly never makes watching it an easy experience. As is evident in his masterful, criminally ignored The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Andrew Dominik would much rather talk about something, than do something. The (many) conversations that the (many) layered characters partake in during this film are extended and seemingly superfluous. Often, they aren’t even talking about the film’s story at hand, but rather, the whore’s they’ve screwed, the heroin they’re going to buy, or the nabbed dogs they’re going to sell.

Now, while I can see how this method of movie conversation can throw some (most…?) viewers off, I’d argue that this intense level of character development allows the viewer to really know the film’s characters, as opposed to just what they aim to do. Must movies gives us the what, rarely do we fully comprehend the why.
Take, for instance, James Gandolfini’s character, Mickey, in this film, who is brought in to help Jackie whack those who need whacking. Gandolfini is in two scenes in Killing Them Softly, and I know more about him than I do about most movie characters in films released this year. His desperation and anger and dread and self-loathing – a lot of that comes from Gandolfini being a very good actor, but much of it is in the weighty script.

This is a different kind of film for a different kind of audience. Personally, I can’t tell you how refreshing I find a movie that takes risks; a movie made by an outsider who somehow painted a more accurate picture of America (and the tarnished American dream), better than most Americans do. Killing Them Softly certainly isn’t for everyone, and it certainly doesn’t pretend to be. By the end (the glorious, perfectly-timed end), I was sitting back, marveling at something I had never seen before, and likely won’t see again for many years to come. A

28 comments:

  1. Good review. I have to see this.

    I totally think this is the year of the enigmatic Film. Or in my case, "year of the films that baffle me because I have nothing to compare them to".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! Ha, that may be a better way to describe this year in film. Such unique pictures all around. Crazy shit.

      Delete
  2. A brilliant analysis... one that carries a breath of fresh air and is closest to my estimation of the movie.

    Here's my review of Killing Them Softly:

    http://www.apotpourriofvestiges.com/2012/10/killing-them-softly-andrew-dominik-parable-american-capitalism.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, thanks so much man, really glad you dug the review.

      Off to scope yours out now, thanks so much for stopping by!

      Delete
  3. Good to hear you enjoyed it! I liked it but got a little bored in the 2nd half. I loved Mendelsohn (I'm biased though!) and his character was cracking me up so much. I know there is more of a message to take in but I was happy I was able to understand at least the tip of the iceberg. Great review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man! I can totally see how people would be bored by the second half, the first half, or all of it period. A very very different kind of filmmaking. TONS of "messaging" going on here, no doubt... all of which I won't even pretend to be an expert on. Loved the film regardless though.

      Delete
  4. Fuck CinemaScore. Why would I pay attention to their idiotic bullshit? I thought this was a really good movie. Sure, it was flawed but it made a lot of sense into the criminal underworld.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fuck 'em indeed! Mo'rons. I agree, a really good flick that exposes the criminal underworld quite well.

      Delete
  5. "Bloated and flawless" - LOL! I loved the character development too. Also, the drug scene was done in a way I've never seen a drug scene done to really bring the audience into the experience. Alex, you are a great writer and this is a masterpiece of a review. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aww thanks Fly! That means the world to me. That herion scene was remarkable, I've never seen anything like that either. Usually, the director relies on the actor to sell it (which Mendelsohn did), but those added effects were trippy and perfect. Glad you liked the movie!

      Delete
  6. Good review Alex. I can see why the regular, movie going audience wouldn't fall all over this like the critics have, but still, AN F!!?!? It's sort of like a cheaper-version of a Tarantino movie and that's what I liked so much about it. It builds and builds-up it's tension through conversations that seem like they don't go anywhere, that is, until the violence comes out of nowhere and it makes a whole bunch of sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Dan! Yup, I agree 100% with you assessment here. Having extended conversations that seemingly go nowhere is destine to polarize an audience, but count me as being on the plus side. It just worked. In all the best, most sincere ways. (For me.)

      Delete
  7. I enjoyed the drama and performances, and the direction of several scenes of rising tension was masterful, but this film felt like less than the sum of its parts to me.

    The political speeches and commentary in the background were unnecessary and distracting, and the same has to be said for Gandolfini's character, not that this takes away from the actor himself, as he certainly sold himself well, albeit that this role wasn't a stretch for him.


    Some films get better in your mind as time goes on, and some get worse. This was the latter for me. I walked out thinking 3 1/2 - 4 stars, but it loses half a star each time I think of it. This says the negative aspects stayed with me longer than the positive, but to be fair to the director, at least it has stayed with me, and I still enjoy debating the film five or six weeks later. Full credit for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're definitely not the first, second or last person I've heard not dig the political commentary and some (or all) of the performances. I'm not sure if the political speeches were necessary but, by the end, I knew exactly what Dominik was trying to achieve, and I was stunned.

      I think staying power is one of the most crucial aspects to loving a film. Sorry this one has all but left you; only getting more intense for me.

      Delete
  8. I really enjoyed this movie and in particular some of the longer scenes filled with dialogue that will live longer with me than the memory of the movie itself.
    I loved both major scenes with Gandolfini, he owned that character in every way.
    The tension in the 'hold up' scene with McNairy and Mendelsohn was epic and God I loved Brad Pitt's quote as the movie ends, now I just have to find a way to use it myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice man, glad you liked this one. I really though Gandolfini completely stole the show. Best performance of the film in my opinion. That man plays sleaze like no other.

      Oh Christ, that hold up scene was unbearably tense - so masterful. And the punchline at the end, I mean, God. Damn.

      Delete
  9. Boom! Loved the film. Can understand some viewers' frustration, but I found the dialogue exchanges to define these characters and relay different levels of the criminal world - the lowlives desperate for a buck, the highly-payed but sloppy hitman who wallows in excess and the true professional who gets screwed out of his cut because he has to clean up after EVERYONE. One of the best endings of the year, too. Expert performances across the board. Some of the politics lack subtlety, but there's a lot more depth to this simple plot than you'd expect - and every line says just as much as the gun-toting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree: the politics were initially off-putting but it added so much more than movies with similar stories set out to achieve.

      This flick, really from its first frame, had me completely floored. I was on edge the entire time, and I love that the tension never fully broke (by, you know, having a giant shootout or something). It just hit for me in all the proper ways. You were spot-on here!

      Delete
  10. Man, that's a brilliant way to describe film in 2012. You forgot to mention Cloud Atlas though. ;)

    Glad to hear the cast is in fine form. I'm a fan of TAOJJBTCRF, so I hope I like it as much as you did. Should be seeing this very soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shit, Cloud Atlas, the personification of polarization. Just amended the review, HAD to include it. Good call! You and I often have similar taste in films (not always, but often), so I'll be damn curious to hear your thoughts.

      Delete
    2. Nice, and thanks man! Having seen it now, I'd say it's a solid, if uneven, film (A-), but I want to see it again. By the way, can we start the Best Supporting Actor campaign for Scoot McNairy? He was terrific!

      Delete
    3. McNairy was so good. Loved the hell out of his work. I really thought everyone here was in top form. Killed it.

      Delete
  11. Yeah, I went to see this with my flatmate (we both do film studies - although I also study creative writing - he doesn't seem to really have much interest in film as an artform, though). I liked it, he didn't, and your review's definitely made me wanna watch it again (not sure about an A grade, but whatever). Brutal, socially-conscious, cynical, and intriguingly mundane. When they give Ray Liotta that beating? Most violent scene I've watched this year, and fuckin' right that Gandolfini is great in this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, that Liotta beat down was fucking relentless. I've gotten my fair share of ass whoppings, and that was one of the more realistic I've seen. Not excessive (like baseball bats to the face over and over, crowbars to the neck, etc) and Liotta's pain was SO accurate.

      Gandolfini was a pathetic force of nature, loved him. I honestly didn't expect many people to love this as much as I did. It just worked for me. Thanks, as always, for your groovy insight.

      Delete
  12. Awesome review! I'm really looking forward to this one - Pitt rarely stars in bad films and Jenkins and Gandolfini are always great to see on screen.

    I agree about polarizing year in cinema - it sure is interesting, I love it when things get heated and usually when people hate and love films they write about them a lot which in both cases can provide insight into things in those movies I completely missed.

    As for the Cinemascore - awww, Breaking Dawn...I gave it B, it was fun movie, aware of what it was and entertaining. Haven't seen Alex Cross yet but it looks hilariously bad and that is always fun.

    It's interesting how you wrote that there is a lot of talking here and you liked it, but with Lincoln you had an issue with it. I'm waiting for both so I wonder if I will also like one and dislike another :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I'll be really curious to hear what you have to say about this one. Have a feeling you'll either love it or detest it.

      Cinemascore... hey, people like what they like, and that's cool. But Killing Them Softly is not an F movie. Period.

      Good comparison to the plentiful dialogue here compared to Lincoln. I found that every single thing that came out of the characters' mouths in Killing Them Softly was wholly interesting, whereas in Lincoln, it was repetitive and incomprehensible. I definitely understand that the manner of speaking back in Lincoln's day was far more grandiose than it is now, but wow, words have never been closer to putting me to sleep than they did there. So bored.

      Delete
  13. Excellent review. Just got back from seeing this the cinema, my first trip there in a while, and I have to say that while I didn't love it, it sure was really enjoyable and fantastically well-made. Not enough Ray Liotta though, haha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man! I think I'm one of the very few people who fuckin' loved this movie from start to finish. I really enjoyed every aspect of it. But yeah, you can never have too much Liotta.

      Delete