Cogan: Killing Them Softly

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.