Righteous Kill, Or Righteously Awful
.
This is the trailer
So after seeing Righteous Kill last night, I have to say that I was actually impressed with the film. My first thought of this film was 2 old aged actors trying to get back at the glory days but after leaving i was impressed with their roles. One thing I noticed was the aging on Al Pacino, it seemed as if his skin was about to melt off of his face. Dinero on the other hand looks the same from when he was in meet the faukers.
What surprised me was the way in which Al Pacino’s charater (Rooster) was played, personally I have never seen Pacino in this type of persona which you would take serious but he also had a comical edge with it.The movie presented a number of twists and turns throughtout the movie that made it quite shocking who the killer was in the end and so i dont spoil the ending I wont disclose that information. Good movie to watch.
Righteous Kill
...Camouflage Culture... 
September 14, 2008 at 6:54 am
Actually I thought that was classic Pacino delivery. If anything, De Niro and Pacino were playing caricatures of every role they have ever played in their respective careers. Also, De Niro and Pacino have also looked very old for some time now.
Anyway here are some things i learned from this movie (as well as similar films):
Black people sell drugs (although the dealer is played by 50cent)
Blonde girls like to party and snort coke
The superior officer is always a heavy set white guy
Russians are not human (see Snatch, The Punisher, etc.)
All cops are Catholic
I’m not necessarily against these depictions because I know why they’re there. Imagine if the characters were shuffled around, it’d probably be harder to follow. It’s unfortunate we have these preset stereotypes which allows films like this to exploit them. All in all, though i liked this film. It wasn’t “Heat”, but it was solid.
September 15, 2008 at 4:00 am
these are two of the best actors of our genre..
September 15, 2008 at 7:36 pm
wait… 50Cent is in this movie?????
*SOLD*
September 15, 2008 at 7:46 pm
THEKINGOFEUROPE wrote: “I’m not necessarily against these depictions because I know why they’re there. Imagine if the characters were shuffled around, it’d probably be harder to follow. It’s unfortunate we have these preset stereotypes which allows films like this to exploit them.”
This is the meat of the post, illustrating the psychological conflict that our culture generates. A tremendous amount of energy is bound up in the logic.
The following bit o’discussion is about *language* and needn’t necessarily be interpreted as a critique of the author.
RE: “I’m not necessarily against these depictions…” hmmm. I’m not really against X because I know why it’s there. Does knowing how something works have a direct relationship to one’s ethical stance before it? If you *know* that a given piece of technology is produced via slavery or environmental abuse, should you still use that technology because it serves a purpose in your life?
Stereotypes serve a purpose.
RE: “Imagine if the characters were shuffled around…” !!! IMAGINE THAT! Obviously the screenwriter and casting directors figured that we’d be unable to comprehend the film without stereotypes — or perhaps if the drug dealer and the whore didn’t come in pre-processed packages we’d be less tempted to pay all of our attention to DeNiro and Pacino.
The Audience is (assumed to be) stupid?
RE: “It’s unfortunate we have these preset stereotypes…” Unfortunate for whom? If the audience doesn’t mind their presence then there’s no problem.
Who or what exactly is being exploited here?
September 17, 2008 at 5:56 am
I figured I should probably clarify some things.
RE: “Does knowing how something works have a direct relationship to one’s ethical stance before it? If you *know* that a given piece of technology is produced via slavery or environmental abuse, should you still use that technology because it serves a purpose in your life?”
You make a good point and as much as I’d like to agree with you I cannot because I don’t follow it in my personal life. I know how bad the meat industry is to animals and how much blood has been shed for oil, but meat and gasoline are things i cannot currently do without. Sometimes the need/want overrides concern. Maybe that’s not the best stance to take, but it serves me well. I’m sure you can also think of something in your own life you use without giving much thought to the negatives that go into producing it or knowing those negatives, using it anyway.
RE: “…or perhaps if the drug dealer and the whore didn’t come in pre-processed packages we’d be less tempted to pay all of our attention to DeNiro and Pacino.”
She was an attorney not a whore. Although, i guess she could also be a whore, they didn’t elaborate further on that aspect of her character. I’m not saying the audience is stupid, but rather this is what stereotypes are used for. We all have these ingrained blueprints (especially true in American culture) of certain people and things. When asked to describe your typical drug dealer, the majority of those asked will not be describing some pretty blonde woman. If the dealer were atypical we might pay more attention to them than is needed. I’m sure you know every part of a scene in a film (the mise-en-scene) is painstakingly thought out before it is released and this includes every aspect of every character as well. As 50cent’s character was inconsequential to the overall plot, I’m sure the creators of the film decided to go with an atypical representation of a drug dealer (what better way than with a former drug dealer). This is simply a trick that exploits our perception of what is in front of us that has been used for decades. The fact that it plays off of these stereotypes (which in turn allows them to thrive) is what is unfortunate.