Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

frankadamswizard I can understand why a lot of people don't like this movie, it's wordy like "Sports Night" or "The West Wing" and the wordiness often seems pointless. A lot of people don't like the late George V. Higgins' books and this is based on "Cogan's Trade". All of his books are wordy and his characters are complex people. Like in real life there's often a fine line between good and bad and there's often many shades of gray. Heck, Higgins is the only male fiction writer (I actually read very little fiction) who can spend a half page describing what a character if wearing or the decor of their home. I'd almost bet that every coat worn by any of his characters has a brand mentioned.While the stories are often complex, and the resolution not always clear, I've always found his books engrossing. Everyone in them is a politician, a cop, a crook (sometimes simultaneously) or some type of public figure. Almost all take place in New England which is mostly where he lived and practiced law. Maybe because I have a pretty active imagination but I swear I can "hear" the different accents in his characters; an Irish guy who grew up in "Southie" regardless of his station in life "sounds" different that a 10th generation banker who sails his 50 foot sailboat and vacations in the Caribbean.I feel that in "A Choice of Enemies" he gave the best description I've ever read or heard of how "practical" everyday politics operates, or should. That is a book that I've recommended to a dozen or so people and only two of them ever read it, one of them after quitting after 25 or so pages and starting again 8 months later.The only other book of Higgins that was made into a movie was "The Friends of Eddie Coyle", his first novel, which starred Robert Mitchum and Peter Boyle. Although I haven't watched it in years I remember it being more straight up story telling and a "cleaner" crime drama. I first heard of Higgins when in about 1974 Playboy Magazine excerpted "The Diggers Game". Being 26 and in the military a lot of my friends and I read Playboy. In discussing this there were multiple interpretations of what ultimately happened at the end of it.I enjoy Higgins' way with words and I've adopted several of his phrases into my lexicon. Describing a character's sailboat; "it wasn't small but it wasn't real big either. It would sleep six, f**k four or fight two". If you've ever had a fight with a spouse on a driving or flying trip you'll know how small that is. Another favorite is about the difference between the FBI and other cops; "Nah, we're not the Mounties. We not only get our man but his brother in law and a couple of guys from his bowling team." And of course I've always applied "Bomber's Law" whenever I see anything going on that isn't easily understood. You'll have to read "Bomber's Law" to find out what the law is.You may have noticed that this "review" is less about the movie and more about Higgins. I intended it to show what type of author wrote the original story and not what to expect from the film. I decided to write this after reading an article about how CinemaScore has only ever had 19 "F" grades. The article describer "Killing Them Softly" as being "European". I guess by that they meant that it doesn't explain every little detail to the audience because they assume the audience are not all idiots.

SimonJack "Killing Them Softly" is based on a 2012 novel, "Cogan's Trade," by George V. Higgins (1939-1999). Higgins was someone with a varied career and interests. He is best known for his crime novels. "The Friends of Eddie Coyle" (1970) was made into a blockbuster film of the same title in 1973, starring Robert Mitchum. Before his full-time fiction writing, Higgins worked as a reporter for the Boston Globe and Associated Press. And, before that he got a law degree and served in government positions working on organized crime. So, he clearly had the background and experience to write books on the subject. I haven't read his 2012 book by the same title as this film, and am not interested in doing so. I don't know if the movie follows the book, but the film is little more than a portrayal of one hardened, detached hit man killing three guys, one at a time. Brad Pit is the mob's hit man, Jackie Cogan. There's very little of interest in this movie – it's a running dialog between characters leading up to the "contract" being fulfilled. What acting there is isn't very good. I can't imagine the book holding anyone's interest if it was at all like the film. This is just another modern vulgar and dark film about characters living in the underworld. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this sort of stuff. It may be rated "R," but we know that it won't stop adolescents from watching it at home, with or without parents. So, to some kids this might just be a portrayal of how easy it is to kill someone. One would hope not, but that's about all the message this film had that I could find. It's too bad the stars who go back at least a couple decades don't shy away from stuff like this. They might try their hands at dramas or other films that require acting. Unfortunately, this film isn't a recommendation for Brad Pitt, Richard Jenkins or Ray Liotta. It's another one I found in the cheap bin at the store, so I'm going to be more wary of such films in the future.

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.