MovieChat Forums > Killing Them Softly (2012) Discussion > This had to be one of the worst written ...

This had to be one of the worst written films of all time

posted 11 years ago by LamontSmith
17 replies | jump to latest

This film was painful and it had nothing to do with the cast or the cinematography.

This was a big budget, star-studded student film if I've ever seen one. A Tarantino wannabe with unnecessary and uninteresting violence, drawn out speeches from EVERY CHARACTER trying to hit on snappy dialogue that just came out dry and unrealistic.

This film tried way, way too hard to be cool without just GETTING ON WITH IT and letting us form that opinion for ourselves.

My Lord.

"My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness." - The Dalai Lama

[–] everlone_2000 11 years ago

Yeah, I agree. The endless anecdotes were really tiring. Even the great Gandolfini struggled to liven up his long speeches, but watching that smackhead Australian expounding about his dog-heist business and his most recent lay and his plans to become a dealer... that was pure torture. The only exchanges I really enjoyed in the film were the ones in the car between the hitman and the middleman.

The thing about Pulp Fiction, is that even when its dialogue seems rambling and inconsequential, it's always giving you valuable information. I don't think there's any exchange in that film that isn't relevant to subtext, story, or character.

Here, it seemed like the 20 minute speeches existed mainly so that the film could grind its way up to the 90 minutes mark required for it to be consider a full-length feaure.

[–] deepcovergecko 11 years ago

Same exact thing I was thinking when watching this junk, big time Tarantino wannabe

Snootchie Bootchie

[–] Vertigo_Comix 11 years ago

How exactly can a movie based on a novel that was published when Tarantino was eleven be a "big time Tarantino wannabe"?

Especially when all but about five lines of dialogue were pulled straight from said book?

All kids play those games, and the minute they stop... they begin to grow old.

[–] everlone_2000 11 years ago

How exactly can a movie based on a novel that was published when Tarantino was eleven be a "big time Tarantino wannabe"?

Especially when all but about five lines of dialogue were pulled straight from said book?

If you watch Killing Them Softly, you'll find out.

[–] Vertigo_Comix 11 years ago

I did watch it.

And what I saw was an incredibly faithful adaptation of a book that was published when Quentin Tarantino was a child.

All kids play those games, and the minute they stop... they begin to grow old.

[–] everlone_2000 11 years ago

OK - cool, so you should see the point then. Pulp Fiction was a loving homage to - well - pulp fiction (clue in the title, I think?) so it makes sense that a wannabe would return to the original inspiration when seeking to produce a Pulp Fiction knock-off.

For comparison consider the 1985 movie King Solomon's Mines. That movie is a total Raiders of The Lost Ark wannabe. It's based on a book written in in 1885, and the book is the kind of story from which Raiders drew its inspiration, but the film of that book is nothing more than a Raiders knock off.

[–] Robot-Werewolf 11 years ago

Explain what it is that made you consider this a Pulp Fiction knock-off.

In terms of tone and narrative structure, they're hardly similar.

[–] Vertigo_Comix 11 years ago

Except that King Solomon's Mines was clearly a cheap cash grab made solely for the purpose of luring in people who liked Indiana Jones. This is supported by the fact that it was released a year after Temple of Doom and the story changes they made to put it more in line with Indiana Jones(Hello, Sharon Stone).

On the other hand Killing Them Softly sticks so startlingly close to the book it's adapted from that, almost every single line of dialogue is pulled straight from the book. And the entire book is just chapter after chapter of people talking punctuated every now and then by brief bursts of violence, just like the movie. There isn't a single scene from that movie that wasn't in the book(actually, I think Russell's arrest was only mentioned offhandedly). There's also the fact that this came out 18 years after Pulp Fiction, not a couple of years afterward like King Solomon's Mines.

It's not Andrew Dominik's fault that Quentin Tarantino decided he wanted to rip off George V, Higgins' writing style and it's not his responsibility to drastically change Higgins' original concept so that people won't compare the film to the works of the Holy Father of All Cinema, Quentin Tarantino.

All kids play those games, and the minute they stop... they begin to grow old.

[–] chicago85 11 years ago

I thought the background seemed familiar. Then I saw it was based on a book by George V. Higgins. In 1973 I watched "The Friends of Eddie Coyle" with Robert Mitchum, Peter Boyle and others. It was also about low level gangsters in the same area. Higgins was a US Attorney in real life who prosecuted this kind of people and wrote novels on the side.

Eddie Coyle was better than this movie. Peter Boyle played Dillon in it.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] douglas111 11 years ago

Probably they worst film I have ever seen. I am trying to think of a worse film and I cannot. Utter violent sexist rubbish with no plot. It has not a single redeeming quality other than that it ends.

[–] cian_jm 10 years ago

How was this anything like Tarantino?

[–] the_la_baker 8 years ago

How was this anything like Tarantino?

Because it is dialogue heavy and has violence.
Seriously.
Thats as deep as people claiming that nonsense can analyze a film.

Quite sad.

[–] trifocal_skink 7 years ago

Most of the rambling from Gandofini could have been cut

I mean 99% of it was inconsequential to the plot

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

The plot was not the point of the movie ... the last 5 minutes of the movie was the point.

[–] chilone (17252) 4 years ago

No. It was very good.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

The plot was not as good as Tarantino, but the movie had good dialog and at least more of a point than QT's nihilistic comedies. So, in a way, as a "little" movie, not a movie I would even normally like, I thought it was good. Seems like Quentin put you up to that comment.