steveo122 Like a Bukowski poem set to music and sung by Tom Waits, a rancid, deep dark comedy of errors in an urban hell. An amazing ensemble of great actors. Philip Seymour Hoffman, John Turturro, Richard Jenkins, Eddie Marsan and many more of some of the finest drunks and lowlifes you'll see on film. Christina Hendricks, unfortunately, is out of place and out-skilled. The script walks with a limp and probably has a disease.

dansview What is it with this love affair people have with movies about east coast urban ethnics? I'm so sick of it. At least Deniro branched out a bit.Here's another story about inner city white Catholics drinking, fighting, and screwing. OK, we get it already.Hoffman is so fat. It's really remarkable that he looks the same in every film. He's short, has no muscle, and has that enormous beer belly. You would think he would have the discipline to alter his look for different roles. I don't buy him as Italian or whatever the heck he was supposed to be. But he is talented in his understated way.John Turturro as a greasy inner city thug? There's a stretch.If both the murdered kid's parents are reasonably calm people, how did he wind up being almost like a feral alley cat? That seemed unrealistic.I do get it that the dilemmas that Hoffman goes through are just vehicles to highlight the different characters in the neighborhood and the overall vicious cycle of it all.But in these movies, you rarely see anyone engaged in anything other than a stereotype. Where was the parish priest? Does anyone work a normal job? Does anyone play an instrument or coach little league? Generally speaking, working class Catholics do get into a lot of mischief world wide. I'm not disputing that. But even in a neighborhood like the one here, there are plenty of exceptions. Although we don't see them.The most interesting aspect was the question of whether the columnist truly respects a certain dignity in the people, or is simply an educated elitist lampooning them for educated readers. Even he isn't sure. Furthermore, he is as sleazy as them. He drinks, he's a horn dog, and he's lazy. In some sense, he sees himself ironically in the people he is writing about.I think he was trying to explain that irony to the lady when he says that he's 60 and the city loves him.As others have said, there was no indication of it taking place in modern times, but also no obvious references to retro culture. I suppose the fact that people read a print paper for their information says it all.If you don't mind gratuitous violence, ugly sex, and loads of profanity, give it a try for its characterizations and atmosphere. I wish I hadn't.

TxMike A found this on Netflix streaming movies. I was anxious to see one more PS Hoffman movie.First a note about the title. There is a 3 square block area of mostly Irish-Americans in South Philadelphia called "Devil's Pocket", said to have originated with a local priest saying the neighborhood kids were so bad they would steal a chain out of the devil's pocket.So for this fictional story they used the name "God's Pocket" but it is a loose reference to the same area. The story involves men who steal to make their businesses profitable. For example Philip Seymour Hoffman as Mickey Scarpato runs a meat market but in one scene he and his friends intercept a refrigerated truck to steal the sides of beef. They don't seem like crooks, it is as if that is just a way to do business.The running theme in this movie involved Mickey's stepson mouthing off at work in his construction job and being killed by an older man hitting him with a pipe on the back of the head. Everyone lies and says it was an accident, a piece of equipment swung and hit him. But the mother, Christina Hendricks as Jeanie Scarpato, just "feels" that a cover-up in involved.This gets the local newspaper man involved, and he gets involved in more than the story. Then Mickey has an issue with the local mortician who convinces Jeanie that he needs the $6000 casket, for which Mickey can't pay. So the body ends up in the back of Mickey's refrigerated truck until he can somehow raise the cash.What makes the movie worthwhile is the script and the acting. It is a madcap, quirky, somewhat dark comedy, where the con men have to run off to Florida in the end and hope the cops never find them.

writetopcat The acting is good. I only gave it a 6 out of 10 for other reasons. The story revolves around a couple of part time criminals named Mickey and Bird. Mickey has a kind of crazy son in law who wants to be a tough guy. At work he puts his knife to an old man's throat and threatens to kill him, and breaks the skin on his neck. The old man clubs him on the back of the skull, killing him. The cops are told a crane hook came loose and hit the kid in the back of the head. The kid's mom doesn't believe it happened that way, just from intuition. Mickey and Bird both gamble, both are short on money. Bird owes about 20 grand to a bookie. I will let you see the rest for yourself. One reviewer said this is a film about real people. I suppose. But I have to say I don't know any people like the ones depicted in this film. Just about everything these guys do is stupid and their lives are really screwed up. It's not just those two. The undertaker is screwy and a real jerk, the kid was a nut case, the journalist is an alcoholic who often fails to write his column because of his drinking. Just about every main character and most of the minor characters are screw balls. Even the hired muscle can't rough up a guy, they get their asses kicked instead. The writers use these glaring foibles to deliver the dark humor. It is very subtle. But this film is really more of a drama; to me, it isn't really a comedy. I have never run into people who screw up everything in their lives as much, make as many really stupid decisions, as the people in this film. I just don't find that funny in a drama. A lot of people do I guess. I tend not to like films with self destructing characters. So I gave it a six.