Terrible, just terrible - Righteous Kill (2008) Discussion

[–] Muzzle_of_Bees 15 years ago

I think "Terrible, just terrible" pretty much sums it up.

The basic plot idea/theme could have made for an above average cop drama, but they tried to make it into a suspense/thriller. With just a ridiculous (and ridiculously foreshadowed) twist ending. Totally cheap ploy to have the narration of much of the movie be De Niro reading Pacino's little diary. Just cheap. And it doesn't appear that it fooled many either.

And De Niro and Pacino were terrible in it.

reply

[–] Robert_Scott 15 years ago

Why do people think they're impressing anybody when they say the twist was obvious AFTER they watched the movie, especially without providing any evidence. That's an automatic opinion invalidation in my book.

reply

[–] Muzzle_of_Bees 15 years ago

It's customary to discuss or review a movie after viewing it. How would anyone be able to discuss the twist before seeing the movie? Unless the trailer gives it away, one would have to see the movie to discuss. I don't remember the trailer.

I understand your point - it's easy to say "I totally saw it coming" in order to sound cool.

However, you're wrong about my apparent attempt to "impress" anyone. This movie was poorly made/written and it didn't take me long to think Man, they're really trying to make us think it's De Niro, I bet it's really Pacino.

Here's my "evidence"...

They made us believe it was De Niro, literally from the start - the tape of him reading what was apparently his confession. And yet, the murders were from the killer's POV, hiding the killer's identity from the viewer. That screams "It's not who you think it is" to me. So, if they wanted us to think it was De Niro, but were saying it's not really him, then I wonder who else it would be? Maybe the other legendary actor co-starring?

That was all I needed.

reply

[–] Robert_Scott 15 years ago

Fair enough. What impresses me though is when somebody calls the twist while they're watching the movie for the first time. It's too easy to state reasons why after watching it but I'm not saying it was impossible to figure out either.

For similar reasons you stated it was Rooster, I thought it was Turk the whole time. I knew the part at Spider's studio was a set up but I thought for sure it was going to be revealed that Turk was the killer after we stopped suspecting him...kinda like in Disturbia. You can believe there was a feeling of borderline astonishment when Rooster dropped his notebook making me realize I was wrong. Not only did I think the way everything leading up to the twist was clever, I also really liked the way the story explained Rooster's motivation and overall M.O. so I have to say it was a very well written movie.

reply

[–] Muzzle_of_Bees 15 years ago

I thought that Pacino's motivation for the killings was actually pretty good. The whole loss of faith after framing that one killer and his loss of faith in his "hero" De Niro, or whatever. I don't really remember exactly what he said, but I remembered it being pretty good and actually somewhat redeeming to an otherwise disappointing movie.

But overall, I just thought this was a major disappointment.

reply

[–] Robert_Scott 15 years ago

That's too bad because this movie really had a positive impact on me. DeNiro and Pacino were perfectly cast for this concept as they seemed to channel all my favorite performances they've ever done in what could almost be interpreted as an exaggerated representation of their career rivalry.

I know a lot of people claim that these two great actors' chemistry is the only good thing about this film but I think this film is a solid enhancement for these two to shine in their signature roles. Far from disappointing not to mention I gained a deeper appreciation of Heat after watching this.

reply

[–] mikexploitation 15 years ago

i was reading the exchange between you and 'muzzle' and i have to say, beyond any critical analysis, it's actually nice to see civil discourse as opposed to troll speak. So thank you for that.

that said, I just watched this last night on cable and I really wasn't impressed. it looks like both of you agree on the strength of Rooster's motivation. I frankly have mixed emotions about it. On the one hand, as a struggling screenwriter I went to bed overjoyed that hollywood would actually pay a writer for this...as the viewer, I kinda wish I had my time back.

Here's why.
(spoiler alert. )

I felt I was being manipulated from the very start. I felt like the perfunctory 'seeds' were sown in the first act as if the writer was checking them off a worksheet, establishing: loss of faith, hero adulation, and the nature of justice, all setting the stage for a movie which looks like it came out of a cop drama chop shop.

i'm sorry to say the speech Rooster gave really fell flat for me; here's a man who's been on the force for over thirty years, a man who can play three opponents in chess simultaneously, but yet he's weak-minded? he's really just a thin shell of a man who throws everything away in the twilight of his career/life for a sociopathic impulse? oh yea, and he leaves poems (that kinda suck).

and the 'why' i got is lost faith. He sees his partner taking a perp down illegally, and apparently his mental state is so tenuous that his adulation can actually drive him to totally reverse that which held his faith in the first place. again, he's totally weak-minded. The abridged version of the speech I heard is this:

Rooster (to turk): I saw you do something so bad that I lost my faith. So now that my faith's gone, I'm going to do something worse and go kill people...

it's the kind of naiveté i'd expect from a kid confronting his father ...but an old man? An old man who has thirty + years experience under his belt? has he not seem the depravity of man in all those years with the NYPD? is he really not set in his ways? I would have bought it if he'd been doing it for years, leading two lives... but, to just turn like that?

I'm sorry, I really wanted to like this movie. maybe I missed something, I really hope I did. I love these guys, and I love their work (most of the time). It was a real shame they got wrangled into this mess.

reply

[–] bas1311-1 15 years ago

Really good explanation of the movie. I too watched it the other night and thought it was so poorly written and constructed that the whole thing was just a complete mess. I think you hit the nail on the head about feeling manipulated. The entire movie felt like a manipulation that went nowhere and ended with Rooster's unbelievable and forced motivation for the killings.

reply

[–] thomas-1258 15 years ago

Beholding Pacino and de Niro together for the first time, with the exception of "Heat" where they rarely shared the frame, in a crappy piece like this was heartbreaking. Nothing less.

reply

[–] rob_lavender 14 years ago

I don't know how to do that cool red, blurred-out "SPOILER" text, so you'll have to bear with me here:- there's spoilers under this paragraph!

*********

I personally didn't see the twist coming, but it didn't catch me off-guard either. I was watching, thinking this is quite formulaic, but at least I'm enjoying the performances (as little as I liked the film, the acting wasn't bad in itself). Then the twist came, and I thought well Jeez, I should have known: every film since The Usual Suspects that lacks in originality attempts to make up for it by adding a rug-pulling twist. As if audiences will say "Wow, I didn't like that film, but then something different happened to what was obvious and so I liked it in the end!". Obvious/not obvious, these things do not a good film make.

Don't get me wrong - The Usual Suspects was an amazing ending. So was The Sixth Sense, and any other number of "Twisty"-ending films. And I know TUS wasn't the first, either. But it triggered a movement in Hollywood whereby they'd give a crap film the green light if it had a 180-spin at the end.

I'd have respected this movie a lot more if they'd have stuck to their guns and had De Niro the killer.

Just my opinion, but what the hey. Incidentally, while watching, I spoke to a friend and unwittingly said everything (albeit not as well written) and gave a same mark out of 10 as the review found here by someone called joanwweiiiii. Dig it out, it saves me ranting on any further.

reply

[–] forthesafetyofpuppies 11 years ago

You do realise you spoiled a different movie in there, right?

___
Loneliness has followed me my whole life

reply

[–] PseudoFilmCritic 15 years ago

I thought it was Carla Gugino but I didn't expect it to be Pacino. A so/so police drama with nothing special up its sleeve. De Niro was boring to watch after a while...Pacino seemed tired. Only John L. and Donnie Wahlberg seem willing to give this a lift.

Films are not reality. Reality is not film. Film is only an approximation of reality.

reply

[–] sayan-jucse 15 years ago

Towards the end of it, I just wanted Pacino to shout out "If I were the actor I was ten years ago, I'd take a flamethrower to this set!"

Alas, gone are the days of such breathtaking acting by these two classy gentlemen :(

Impossible is Nothing!!!
http://www.google.com/profiles/107026374417347101320

reply

[–] Aegrimonis 11 years ago

by sayan-jucse:

Towards the end of it, I just wanted Pacino to shout out "If I were the actor I was ten years ago, I'd take a flamethrower to this set!"

Made me laugh out loud.

sic mors liberat omnem animam

reply

[–] t-basham69 10 years ago

Towards the end of it, I just wanted Pacino to shout out "If I were the actor I was ten years ago, I'd take a flamethrower to this set!"--sayan-jucse :)

And if Jack Nicholson had played Pacino's role, I would have expected him to shout out: "This film needs an enema!!!"

reply

[–] shervman 15 years ago

You know what you're absolutely right, I should have known with the same director as 88 minutes (without a doubt Pacino's worst movie ever), I wasn't going to see anything spectacular; but I still succumbed to the idea that you have De Niro and Pacino, wow, this must be like Heat! Well guess what it wasn't!

To all the people who actually say they enjoyed this movie I'd like to say "Good for you, now go and watch some of their older films because apparently you ain't seen nothing!"

reply

[–] mikexploitation 14 years ago

Couldn't agree more.

reply

[–] rockinbone 15 years ago

Agreed...people who like this must have not seen a amovie in the last 30 years. Maybe this would be best as a seperate topic, but which movie ie worse, this or 88 minutes?

I'm not that proud of everything I've done, but I'm not that ashamed, either.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 10 years ago

Well, in my lowly and wretched opinion, '88 MINUTES' was a dung soaked, fetid travesty that sucked camel balls (and I frigg'n LUST passionately after Leelee Sobieski!!! ) However, in all honestly I totally loved this one! Sorry to be contrary to the tone of most of this thread, but I found the film to be brilliantly done, well acted, cleverly edited, and most engaging.

But... with that said, I truly believe that this was just an odd anomaly of some kind. I seriously do NOT think that this total $h|t director, Avnet, will EVER do anything worth anything again...

I have over 5000 films, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!

reply

[–] Fitvideo 14 years ago

Yes indeed , it left me feeling like I had just watched a sort of rehash of Jennifer 8 ... many similarities, all completely implausible ...

I doubut I shall watch anything again by the director.

regards

Fitvideo

reply

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

Nope, it´s not really terrible at all - as a matter of fact, it´s probably one of the most unremarkable, mediocre films I´ve ever seen. It´s got zero original or interesting thought in its tiny little head, but one can say the same thing about every 9 movies out of 10, anyway.

That much is true though that without the dynamic duo of Pacino/De Niro carrying the load, it woulda been completely worthless & pointless - their constant presence & combined talent alone add at least 2 more stars to the rating. And although far removed from days when they used to perform magic, they´re both pretty good actually.

The last 20 minutes are - surprise-surprise - the best part of the thing, relying solely of the acting prowess of its iconic leading men. 6/10.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] the_darkness_of_poetic_humor 14 years ago

I will forever and truly for eternally eradicate this movie from my celluloid. I'll just act like it was never made and just always remember the only pairing of these two actors should've been in Heat and that should've been it.

So knowing that, I can care less about this film and just keep thinking to myself Heat was the only movie Al Pacino and Robert De Niro was ever in....yeah.

reply

[–] Gibski 14 years ago

i don't think it was obvious that they knew this thing was a stinker

i think they really gave it their best and their full commitment - as true professionals.

reply

[–] Prismark10 14 years ago

Next time Pacino sees Jon Avnet coming I hope he runs the other way very fast.

I find it hard to believe that a NYC cop lost his faith because his partner stitched up a child killer.

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] willianswalker 12 years ago

This movie made me want to watch it to the end. It was above average. Not a knock out by any means, but very watchable.

reply