"Killing Them Softly", capitalism or death

Killing Them Softly

Yeah, I know, the title of the post is pretty bizarre for what it looks like another neo-noir thriller. Noir thrillers are not odd, they usually use (overuse I dare to say) some very determined and classical pattern with slight or more radical ("state-of-the-art", "cool" are also words that come to my mind) visual variations, putting style ahead of substance. But "Kiling Them Softly" is different. Is the first "capitalist thriller" I have ever seen. You must be thinking, what the hell is a capitalist thriller? Let me try to explain myself.

"Killing Them Softly" is, on the surface, a pure thriller dealing with the criminal world. An using a recurrent topic/premise: what in the mafia jargon is called a "contract".  Jackie Cogan is an enforcer recruited to solve a situation (meaning killing the responsible) created by three guys who robbed at a mob protected card game. But the unsurprising, common ground of the premise quickly reveals much more.

It is obvious, since almost the beginning the movie is not really interested on the robbers. They are amateurs and pretty dumb (one of them just a scum), therefore fated to a dramatic end. But director Andrew Dominik adapting George V.Higgins' novel "Cogan's Trade", want to talk about something much more bigger than a crazy robbery. They use that scenario as a metaphor of capitalism, with the United States as the evident background. Well, maybe I should rephrase this paragraph, maybe this is about a crazy robbery after all. The biggest, most despicable and crazy robbery mankind is suffering.

What Jackie Cogan is paid to do is not eliminating three stupid guys, but restore the collapsed local criminal economy. Cogan and the unnamed driver with whom he has the arrangements discuss about murders, but mostly about economy (every dollar counts, more in this choking economic crisis context) and the "public image" that has to be rebuilt. Their capitalist structure, the status quo, has to be preserved by all means. Does it sound familiar to you? It does.

In that context, violence is just a tool, another mean to reach the desired end. Cogan, portrayed with a disarming naturalness by Brad Pitt, could be a gangster, but also the perfect public relations. The film has some violent  scenes, not many, but is mostly a movie about conversations. Criminals wearing suits and ties talking about the needed steps to be taken. Did I hear bankers and politicians? The driver, played by the always perfect Richard Jenkins is an accountant, that's for sure, and you'll see Obama too many times on the screen to just think is a coincidence. Remember than words can also be weapons.

Unfortunately, "Killing Them Softly" somewhat fails as a movie. It has a peculiar, off-beat pace that harms its dynamism. Without it, some scenes seem to be there to make fun, a peculiar, deadpan humour that is, but they don't mix that well as a whole. And to my understanding, director Andrew Dominik makes terrible mistakes of presenting several relevant elements in its narration to abandon them later on. Mickey's character (another great performance by James Gandolfini) and Dillon's ghostly role are the two most blatant examples. It was just a (bad) editing choice? It might be the first film in ages in which I have the feeling the movie is too short... for what it wants to say.

Capitalism or death. But let's try your murder to be as delicate as possible.... Damn it again, doesn't sound familiar to you? Failed movie, but brave, risky, smart, well acted and thought-provoking.

SCORE: 6,5/10

"The Rum Diary", Depp's failed homage to Dr. Gonzo

The Rum Diary

I'm a devoted fan of Hunter S.Thompson, and therefore I loved "The Rum Diary", the novel. Knowing the friendship between Johnny Depp and the Dr. Gonzo, and the personal interest the box office star had on the project, I was really expecting to watch the film. Unfortunately, and although it might work as an entertaining movie, occasionally eccentric, doesn't meet the expectations.

To me it is hard to relate the majority of the film with the book Hunter wrote. It seems to me Johnny Depp's and director's Bruce Robinson main focus was to serve an homage to the writer and American counterculture icon. But I highly doubt the Dr. Gonzo would have liked a tribute that looks and has all elements of a Hollywood blockbuster. A bit of comedy, a romance, a serious plot taken in a very lightweight way, a hero (a bit unusual, but a hero nevertheless) and a happy ending.

If I remember correctly (and I'm pretty sure I do), "The Rum Diary" wasn't a romantic story, which makes the whole affair with Chénault (sorry to say, but Amber Heard role is completely empty) a bit...excessive. Quite frankly, to me the novel was a quite dark one, where drugs, booze, surreal and very dangerous situations gave the tone of an explosive dark comedy. But as I understand from Hunter's literature, behind the grotesque, there was a quite depressive vision of the world. Not to mention that Hunter's period in Puerto Rico was frustrating for him. Something the movie doesn't show at all.  

More worrying issues while watching the movie (comparing it to the book). The disappearing of Yemon's character. The almost irrelevant importance of the "San Juan Star" environment, in particular the local bar (Al's), which on the book was the place where all the newspaper staff gathered and wasted their time. And painfully, the end, miles away from the novel, and really really flat.

Ok, if obviously failed as and adaptation/homage, then let me try to review quickly  "The Rum Diary" just as a film, as if I didn't know anything about Hunter and his novel. Then this is sort of an adventure movie, with an unlikely hero, journalist Paul Kemp (Hunter's alter ego), played with Johnny Depp, who does an ok job, an  impressive cast to benefit from, but sadly not developed to their entire potential, something to regret having great actors as Aaron Eckhart, Richard Jenkins and Giovanni Ribisi, an awkward tone and a plot that weights, with serious problems of balancing, between a political/corruption case and a romance (with loads of alcohol), with director's Robinson deciding to go for the easy one. Did I say the end is flat and disappointing? 

Don't get me wrong. Overall, "The Rum Diary" is not a bad film, but it is unremarkable, and in my opinion, it is fair to say the potential of Hunter's story has been a bit too much for director's Robinson, resulting in a very far from the homage the Doctor Gonzo deserves.  

SCORE: 5,25/10

"Friends with Benefits", friendship, sex and clichés

Friends with Benefits

Dear film advertisers and people who write the synopsis on pages like imdb. Please stop lying. Allow me to use "Friends with Benefits" as an example.

While trying to avoid the clichés of Hollywood romantic comedies, Dylan and Jamie soon discover however that adding the act of sex to their friendship does lead to complications. IMDB

That's simply a huge, ridiculous lie. "Friends with Benefits" has many weaknesses, but if I had to name just one, it would be precisely how predictable and unoriginal this is. To the point of being a pretty boring film, in particular in its second half.

Let's say it clear: sorry, but a movie with the premise of can men and women just be friends? is very far from being new. And that's what we have here. Two young persons, Dylan (Justin Timberlake) and Jamie (Mila Kunis), tired of disappointing relations, that start building a friendship. Then one day they start to have sex. Just sex (don't really get the buzz about the sex scenes) + plus friendship, they try to convince themselves. But, of course, that complicates everything. New? Umm... Well, no.

At least, for a while, although predictable or unsurprising, the film was easygoing and dynamic, with a lightweight, modern pace that could have been appealing if maintained longer. Being a romantic comedy, I would say that won't make you laugh that much, but at least it can entertain you. The problem is that pleasant part only lasts for a bit more than 30 minutes. The remaining hour and a half is just boring, no matter the "bundle" designed by director Will Gluck looks pretty or cool.

Despite the zero depth, there's nothing wrong to say to the actors, because in my opinion they are ok considering how lame is the material they have. There's chemistry between them, and when their dialogues are not forced, the movie flows, even with some charm (that happens in the aforementioned first 30 minutes of the film). But unfortunately, Timberlake and Kunis don't go further than their shallow roles. What really annoys me is the existence of characters so unfortunate as Dylan's father. Are the writers adding an illness just to have a serious, dramatic note on the film? It doesn't make sense. Not to mention how awful is misusing such a great actor as Richard Jenkins (same can be said about Patricia Clarkson). He is just an example of how badly used are the secondary roles, between blatant clichés (Dylan's sister, played by Jenna Elfman, his eccentric friend played by Woody Harrelson) and the plain silly (Bryan Greenberg's role).

Sure, "Friends with Benefits" is not awful or offensive. But is mediocre and unremarkable.

SCORE: 4/10