BEFORE: I spent most of yesterday working on my boss's taxes, getting numbers to his accountant, and today I've got to start filling out my return. Half the battle is done, since last weekend I did the "big sort", but now it's time to start putting some numbers on paper and try to come up with an ending figure that's not too bad. I always withhold a little extra from each paycheck, thinking that one of these years that's going to be enough to balance perfectly, but it never is. C'est la vie.
Linking from "8MM", James Gandolfini carries over this time.
THE PLOT: Jackie Cogan is an enforcer hired to restore order after three dumb guys rob a Mob-protected card game, causing the local criminal economy to collapse.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "In Bruges" (Movie #1,345), "Snatch" (Movie #314)
AFTER: This is another one of those films that probably looked really good on paper, when it was being planned. We'll cast an A-level star, plus half the cast of "The Sopranos", throw in a heist and a couple of killings, what could possibly go wrong?
About the only thing that could torpedo that would be if the director tried to make some kind of "arty" statement, and that seems to be what happened. From the very first shot, there's an attempt to juxtapose the seedy Boston (?) underworld with the 2008 Obama/McCain presidential race, and I can't quite fathom the reason for doing this. Was it just to set the scene, which would firmly establish some sort of timeline for the events depicted? Obama is a senator at the start of the film, and it ends on election night, I think, so that means the whole plot plays out over several months...
Or was there some kind of connection being drawn between criminals and politicians? And if so, was it trying to depict politicians as just another form of criminal, or worse yet, try to justify the actions of thieves and hitmen through some sort of capitalist framework? That would be sort of morally unforgivable. Though I suppose with the price of a hit changing according to market conditions in the underworld, you could study this film from an economic point of view, but you'd be completely missing the point.
My point is, if you're going to mix crime footage with political speeches in the background, make sure that the end result forms the point you're trying to make. Oh, but before that, make sure that there is a point you're trying to make. I've found that that helps.
The title stems from the hitman's claim to prefer his killings to be done "softly", but I could also see no evidence that they were done any less brutally than one might expect, so was this meant to be an ironic statement, or was this a statement made that couldn't be supported in any way? And if that's the case, then why make the statement and not follow it up?
Also starring Brad Pitt (last seen in "Troy"), Ray Liotta (last seen in "Muppets From Space"), Richard Jenkins (last seen in "Jack Reacher"), Scoot McNairy (last seen in "Argo"), Vincent Curatola, Ben Mendelsohn (last seen in "The New World"), Max Casella (last seen in "Blue Jasmine"), with a cameo from Sam Shepard (last seen in "The Notebook")
RATING: 4 out of 10 shell casings
No comments:
Post a Comment