MovieChat Forums > Killing Them Softly (2012) Discussion > Did every miss it's point?

Did every miss it's point?

posted 11 years ago by gilbertpm
124 replies | jump to latest

This movie is a political allegory. You should have been connecting the dots from the moment you heard the political speeches. Go back and watch it again, fools.

Richard Jenkins represents the indecisive, inscrutable government.
James Gandolfini represents the bumbling, whiny, stupid American people.
Brad Pitt represents the voice of reason that resides in each one of us suppressed. Only his character knows the harsh truths but refuses to lie to himself like Gandolfini or Jenkins.

I cannot believe so many people missed the point of this movie. Beautiful allegory. Great artistry. But if there isn't enough gansta rap music, copius drug use, a Die-Hard-like shootout, and a pair of tits then people don't pay attention.

It's time for everyone to go back through their high school's or community college's "literature through film" class. Wise up.

And people wonder why the Fast & Furious and Twilight sagas do so well... Ignorant, easily entertained people. Idiocracy.

[–] MycroftHolmes 11 years ago

Just because it is an allegory that does not mean it's good.

What we have here is failure to communicate!

[–] TylerDurden87 11 years ago

Just because it's an allegory doesn't mean it's bad, either.

IMO, the film had a lot of very funny scenes and lines. They may not be in everyone's tastes, but the conversation about *beep* goats and dogs made me laugh in it's believability and grotesque nature.

Gandolfini, who may have been kind of a waste of time character on the surface, did a hell of a job and his scenes were engaging and interesting.

And as an allegory, I found it great. What a solid comparison to make between the actions in our economy and their aftermath, and those in the mob. Was it obvious? Sure. Was it preachy? Arguably. Is that bad? Not on it's own. It's making a *beep* point. And even when it was so obvious, there are a lot of mush heads that still don't get it. And it was using political soundbites in a very intriguing way to draw comparisons and commentary on the scenarios and characters, that wouldn't have existed had they been more subtle.

[–] MycroftHolmes 11 years ago

The OP pretty much said that because it's an allegory it was good. Being an allegory doesn't make it good.

What we have here is failure to communicate!

[–] Rebel_With_A_Cause_94 11 years ago

It was impossible to miss the point with the way the film beat you over the head with it's message. People didn't like this film because the characters weren't interesting, a poor sense of direction, and a plot just wasn't all that interesting.

Let Freedom Ring!

[–] kmartin173 11 years ago

LMFAO. Whether people could "understand" it as well as you or not it was still a lousy movie. People don't pay money to be preached to for 2 hours, they prefer to be entertained and this movie was mildly entertaining at best.

[–] silvergloss 11 years ago

When those who actually appreciate a good film or recognize one are outnumbered by those who only like things that go "boom" it becomes an episode of Twilight Zone. Suddenly you are the normal looking one and everyone else has turned into some human/pig hybrid.

[–] SCameraman 11 years ago

I agree 100% A perfect political allegory wasted on a dumb audience who demands nothing more then tits, violence, cheesy action, and cliche dialogue.
I hear all this talk about people calling the movie boring, or walking out of the theater, “worst movie of the year.” Gives me the feeling that good cinema is truly dying. They can’t get enough of Twilight but give em’ a superbly written, acted, and tastefully executed film. Nope, want nothing to do with it.
This is my favorite film of the year. Imagine, a mob movie with believable characters and real dialogue. I can’t wait to see it again. I hope to God the cinematography will be nominated by the Academy but I wont hold my breath.
As for this movie being boring and people wanting to leave: I had to piss 30min into the movie and I waited for what seemed to be a good time to go, and it never came. After every scene I said to myself, “I’m so glad I didn’t miss that.” All the way to the end. Pitt’s last line… damn near made me want to raise my fist and say “F yeah, Andrew Dominik.. F. YEAH!

To top it off, I actually had the chance to view a 35mm print of this film.. a rare treat these days.

[–] cjbussey81 11 years ago

Overall, I thought it was a great straight-up crime film, stylized in its cinematography, yet dirty and meandering enough to retain a large measure of verisimilitude.

My real problem with the political allegory was that it felt completely unnecessary to the story; the book was published in the mid-1970s, another period of acute economic anxiety and malaise in America, so part of me understands why the filmmakers felt comfortable in transposing the story into late 2008.

However, small-time crooks taking down what they naively assume will be an easy score and then suffering horrific consequences does not altogether invite political or historical commentary; it's a story as old as time. Smarter, bigger, more ruthless fish always eat dumber, smaller, more ingenuous ones. The superfluous injection of political commentary into a street-level crime story was inelegant and, rather than contributing to the telling of the tale, subtracted from my enjoyment of it.

"You can keep the gum."

[–] MisterWhiplash 11 years ago

I don't think I could've said it better myself. The only time I really thought the political allegory was interesting (if not exactly 'strong') was at the very end with Pitt's little tirade about Jefferson, and when Bush is giving his speech as people put up their money during the card game robbery (I like anything that shows Bush *beep* over people, even the criminals, since he's the big cheese of them all). But any other time a politician spoke on TV or talk on the radio, it was just too much. Don't these folks listen to, I dunno, music instead of the news?

My official blog: http://cinetarium.blogspot.com/

[–] LeeVing88 11 years ago

"My real problem with the political allegory was that it felt completely unnecessary to the story". My thoughts exactly

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locustreign-1 11 years ago

but the main point is:
people dont like it, when they have the feeling they are getting attacked for just not liking a movie.

i dislike it, when people dont like a movie, they call it bad direction.

dominic andrew is a very good an self-conscious director and this movie is after jesse james profing it again.

[–] NICOnIt 11 years ago

Have you considered the possibility that the movie is flawed due to this all simply not being executed well enough? Or possibly the fact that your beloved allegory is completely forced & overdone?

No you don't have to be an intellectual to understand this film. Yes, the fact that it is a political allegory is painfully obvious.

Maybe some people are missing the point. But maybe the point just isn't that good.

[–] intheclouds7483 11 years ago

I did get the whole allegory and still didn't like this movie. It seemed as though the director was trying to do too much and couldn't make up his mind about what kind of movie he wanted to make. It felt almost like Requiem for a Dream for a little bit and then crossed over into Quentin Tarantino's style of dialog. Not worth the hype.

[–] whitehawk417 11 years ago

Wow, well said!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitehawk417 11 years ago

Apparently, you didn't enjoy the movie. I enjoyed it. It was a genius work of art all the way through. So what if you got it, who cares if you got it so fast that you are the most intelligent person who ever watched the movie, and you're SO intelligent that you couldn't enjoy it. Apparently, you're so sensitive that you go to movies get a beating, then you go on IMDB to give everyone else a beating for liking a good film.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]