TheGDfather What a great movie!! I will start with that. And I've seen a lot of movies over the years. And frankly after 2001 I'm not impressed. The movies have got too corporate and the acting is always... eh. I notice this movie didn't really have any female actors in it, unless your count the hooker. And she was short lived. But wow I was in a surprise with this movie. No bad acting. The acting was great all over the board. This just what I like to see in movies. Violence to the point where its subtle and truly unexpected but expected. You knew somebody was going to killed, heck you may even predicted they are going to get killed but by who and how sometimes eluded me. I know some people will be turned off by the politics in this but I kind of liked it. The director tied it in to the movie. I guess people come to reviews to get a real detail of what they are going to see and its really nothing surprising. It's a mob movie, great acting, cussing and some famous actors. Thats it, but its about two guys who hit s table full of poker players which is ran by the mob. And mob wants people to die for it. There really is nothing to give away. You have to watch how it unravels. And to be honest it has a boon dock saints feel to it.I almost gave it an 8 but there was no women in this and it would have added to the story instead of one alcoholic telling about his struggles. I know some people maybe left dangling at the end but I felt it was completed. I honestly think this movie didn't make much do to advertisement. I lot of movies really don't advertise right. If you want to watch a great movie with some interesting twist, this is it.

Pjtaylor-96-138044 Excellent writing and performances perforate this oddly structured and slowly paced piece, one which doesn't introduce its anti-hero protagonist for quite some time and, as such, fails to establish a proper connection with him in the way that's necessary for the total destruction of every other developed link to this world to work. When 'Killing Them Softly (2012)' works, it really works and there's a frankness about the picture that allows even the most mundane of scenes to almost instantly draw you in. It's just the lack of discipline - or perhaps a sheer determination to shove in tons of not-so-subtle Obama-election-era American commentary - that often makes the overall experience a disjointed and somewhat dysfunctional one. 6/10

jameslinton-75252 This film could have been so good. It has Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini and Ray Liotta in main roles, but it never really came together. I was vastly disappointed when I watched this.Firstly, I was severely disappointed with Gandolfini's contribution who hardly appears in this film, despite being a phenomenal actor who was one reason why the Sopranos was so good.I also felt that the film tried way too hard in being arty and the time and effort it put into this could have been better spent elsewhere.Maybe I'm being unfair, this film wasn't all bad. It was funny at times. It made me laugh on occasion. Once or twice. Once.Read my full review here: http://goo.gl/pFHffd

epat When I heard they'd made a movie based on Cogan's Trade, I was eager to see it even tho the cockamamie title put me off. I consider Friends of Eddie Coyle to be one of the all-time classic gangster films & always wondered why none of George V Higgins' other crime novels had ever made it to film. Most of Higgins' plot exposition emerges thru dialog anyhow, so his books seem ready-made for film.Killing Them Softly turned out to be not quite in the same league as Eddie Coyle, but it might have been if they hadn't tried to fix what wasn't broken. Admittedly, a large part of my dissatisfaction with many a movie stems from knowing the books they're based on. Having just re-read Cogan's Trade for maybe the 6th time or so, I knew the story inside out. That's always a problem when they base a movie on one of your favorite books: you've built up clear images of each character & setting in your mind. You also know what's coming next, which can rob the action of considerable impact. Still, if the book's good, you want to savor it on film.This was well cast & acted, with Brad Pitt as hit-man/fixer Jackie Cogan, James Gandolfini as a subcontracted killer reluctant to ply his trade & Vincent Curatola in a small but pithy part as the conniving Johnny Amato. Higgins' original 1974 novel was transposed to the Obama era, which certainly makes sense from a producer's standpoint — you save money not shelling out for '70s cars or masking anachronistic street scenery — & maybe that wasn't such a bad thing. Not what I would have preferred, but the story wasn't specifically tied into the '70s, so yeah, OK. And I do have to admit those voice-overs of Obama justifying the infamous Wall Street bailout added a nice touch of irony.My real gripe, what really spoils it for me, is that absolutely extraneous monologue in the bar at the end. Up till then, they'd stuck pretty close to the original & made a pretty decent movie out of it. But then they have Cogan react to a televised Obama speech by spouting off about Thomas Jefferson being a slave-owner & America being not a country but a business. Not that I disagree with the political sentiment expressed, but it just doesn't belong, it seems to have just parachuted in out of nowhere.Presumably they tacked this on in a gratuitous attempt to make the movie somehow more relevant for today's audiences, but it adds nothing to the story & today's relevance very quickly becomes yesterday's obscurity anyhow. Higgins' real mastery was always in the dialog, but some utterly deluded hack with a political axe to grind thought he could improve on Higgins. The sad part is that those in charge — who should have known better — let him try.