Killing Them Softly
In the interests of balanced viewpoints....
This film had a terrific cast, but it really wasn't very good. The slim story isn't enough to fill the relatively sparse running time, and there are far too many hugely talky sections which seem to be there just to give the actors a chance to act. In particular, James Gandolfini's character is absolutely unnecessary and occupies two lengthy dialogue sessions. Gandolfini is very good, the character is deeply unpleasant, and that part of the film leads nowhere.
But there are also other areas where far too much time is taken to achieve not very much - the dialogue between Frankie and Russell where Russell is descending slowly - very slowly - into a narcotic haze, for instance.
I would not have minded so much if there had been some pace, some excitement, or even something attractive to look at. But this is a slow, tedious, drab film with no sympathetic characters and an over-exaggerated idea of its own significance. The political commentary might have meant something if you are American: I'm not, so it just wasted more time. And I would have quite liked an ending. Never mind, maybe next time.
Well, the book it's based on, and the others in that trilogy, are dialogue driven. Similar to Elmore Leonard's stuff. Also similar to Quentin Tarantinos directorial style. He was heavily influenced by both writers (Leonard and Higgins).
It's a crime noir film. It's not supposed to be uplifting or cheery and no one is looking for sympathy or should be redeeemed. That's the point.
I'll give you the point on the political subtext. It really didn't add anything. I think this was a throw-in to make it more modern as the novel was set in the 70's. If they had kept the time period to the 70's and scrapped the whole Obama vs Bush thing it would have made more sense.
Anyway, if you didn't like this than you won't like The Friends of Eddie Coyle. That was a better film than this one.
