Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

[Sven]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/movie%20pictures/before-the-devil-knows-youre-dead-1.jpg

Just saw it. Very entertaining B-movie that didn't hit home its depiction of life's evil and sorrow nearly as hard as it wanted to. Good performances, mostly, though I'm still trying to figure out Marisa Tomei's ditzy wife. Lumet filmed her with a lusty lens... not quite sure what he was going for.

It's a movie made of cliches and recognizable movie moments, which was kind of welcome. It exists in a cinema world, with very little recognizability to any kind of reality. That artifice is both welcome (without it, the film would be far, far too miserable) and a shame (makes some of the actions, characters, plot points, etc, somewhat predictable and laughable). The lack of resolution with Hank was bothersome and the final scene was ludicrous and stale.

All in all, I liked it, but it's a far cry from prime Lumet.

[Ezee E]

Seeing it at the festival. Looking forward to it.

That and No Country For Old Men on the same day. Oh man.

[eternity]

Marisa Tomei's Boobs/10

[lovejuice]

i will probably watch it next week. looking forward to.

[number8]

I really want to also.

[Benny Profane]

I really liked this film, especially the structure. The narrative flips (literally) back in time and scenes played before are shot from different angles and extended later on to provide more insight into the characters and further the plot. It doesn't feel like a modern film, yet it's done with modern touches.

It's a film of desparation that starts at a low point and tumbles steadily downward throughout with a big belly flop at the end. Let's just say, there's nothing nice about it, but damn if you aren't fully gripped. I disagree with iosos in that the film isn't plausible. I think each move made by these characters is fully logical given the circumstances. If I saw an expose on a case like this on Dateline, I'd be shocked, but not surprised.

Also, Tomei is topless about 50% of the time. Her super-mega-hotty-ness is almost the most implausible piece of this puzzle. What is a woman like that doing with all these losers??? The other headliners give excellent performances, Finney and Hawke in particular, and there's a great cameo by Michael Shannon, who many of you may know as Greg from 8 Mile.

Definitely the best film in '07 that I've seen, although I admittedly have only seen a handful.

Highly recommend

[Sven]

I disagree with iosos in that the film isn't plausible. I think each move made by these characters is fully logical given the circumstances.

I liked the film as well, though not nearly as much as you. And I didn't mean to suggest that the film itself isn't plausible, so much as it is made up entirely of things we've seen in other films. Every moment is entirely predictable, every development unsurprising. It's very "B" in that its characters are broad outlines that never extend past their types. PSH is always fat and vulgar, Ethan Hawke always whiny, Tomei always ditzy, Harris always the benevolent old woman, Finney the gruff and sad old man (the movie is a triumph of type-casting, though). The plot has its way with these types, and then it climaxes very ludicrously.

It connects with reality mostly in the same way that noir connects with reality--you can recognize that some people are scum and then the credits roll.

Another fairly major complaint is that brief scene between PSH and Finney that tries to establish the entire plot being predicated on Finney's being a bad father. Talk about an underdeveloped cop-out.

Still, the movie was juicy and entertaining. Mostly I wish the ending wasn't such a fantasy.

[Raiders]

Hm, I actually more or less agree with iosos here. Though I would rank it among my favorite of his in terms of craftsmanship. It's one tense, beautifully weighted film, even if most of the characters didn't register as strongly as in Lumet's very best films.

[Benny Profane]

The plot has its way with these types, and then it climaxes very ludicrously.



Are talking about the pillow suffocating scene as the climax? If so, I didn't see it as a climax, more of a weak ending. Although after some reflection I thought that it was more of a mercy kill than a vindictive maneuver. PSH was breathing through a tube, likely permanently crippled, about to be charged with multiple homicides and spend the rest of his life in jail or death row. If it was what I think it was, I think it improves the ending, though not by enough to call it a great ending by any means.

As for the characters never changing or showing a different side, I disagree, there were subtle moments when they broke free of constraints. Even if I did agree, I'll take a film with small change in personalities over a film full of Joyce-like epiphanies, as to me it seems more realistic. Especially since the plot offers them nothing other than desperation and the time-frame is relatively short.

And I also disagree that the entire plot is predicated on Finney being a lousy father. I thought it added an interesting element, but the events likely would have transpired regardless.

[Sven]

Are talking about the pillow suffocating scene as the climax? If so, I didn't see it as a climax, more of a weak ending. Although after some reflection I thought that it was more of a mercy kill than a vindictive maneuver. PSH was breathing through a tube, likely permanently crippled, about to be charged with multiple homicides and spend the rest of his life in jail or death row. If it was what I think it was, I think it improves the ending, though not by enough to call it a great ending by any means.

I'm talking about everything up to PSH pointing the gun at Hawke onward. But mostly, yeah, the pillow bit. That scene hadn't built up enough pathetic courage necessary to justify the obvious over-affection of it (walking off into a hallway and then washing the film white was a big eye-roller for me). It was limp. And we really hadn't seen any kind of characteristic in Finney that would conclude in such a drastic action. On paper, sure, he was sad, and didn't love his son as much as he wanted to. But to cap off this otherwise benign old man's role in the film with the murder of his own son was grasping straws. I thought about the mercy killing bit, too, as it would've coincided with the decision to take his wife off child support, but the last half of the film, Finney is fueled by a need to vindicate, and washing the film into whiteness at the end is a baptism of sorts... like justice has been served.

Plus, what happened to Hawke? I'm very curious because he was probably the most interesting and complex character, in my book. Kind of sad when your movie's most interesting character is played by Ethan Hawke.


As for the characters never changing or showing a different side, I disagree, there were subtle moments when they broke free of constraints. Even if I did agree, I'll take a film with small change in personalities over a film full of Joyce-like epiphanies, as to me it seems more realistic. Especially since the plot offers them nothing other than desperation and the time-frame is relatively short.

I don't need complex characters. However, these characters seemed particularly 2-dimensional. It kind of worked for the film's pulpy B-movieness, and sure, there're nice little touches here and there (my favorite character was the robber he enlists, played by Brian O'Byrne, and how his ruthlessness has been tempered with time by being a family man). But ultimately, the film is not realistic in the slightest, if only by the simple virtue of the impossibility that PSH and Hawke could ever be mistaken for brothers. Ha ha.


And I also disagree that the entire plot is predicated on Finney being a lousy father. I thought it added an interesting element, but the events likely would have transpired regardless.

It was a dramatic crux, telegraphed at the end of the second act, which normally is the moment where the character's development becomes complete. This is a structural thing. We go "aaaaaah" because we finally see why PSH is such a loser: he didn't feel loved as a kid.

[Sven]

Hm, I actually more or less agree with iosos here. Though I would rank it among my favorite of his in terms of craftsmanship. It's one tense, beautifully weighted film, even if most of the characters didn't register as strongly as in Lumet's very best films.

I agree about the craftsmanship being strong, although I thought it was more crafty than expressive (as it is in Serpico, Dog Day, Q&A, and the like). I was kind of annoyed by the shuffled jump-though-time effect. Didn't seem to fit with the low-key somberness that the film otherwise achieved. Mostly it was the sound-effect that irritated me.

[lovejuice]

i like it, especially the ending with hawke. the unresolution is what makes the movie strong. while a message lumet wants to hit home is "crime doesn't pay," he doesn't shy away from presenting one simple truth, "in short run, it does, occasionally." besides, hawke's character is such a wimp and a fool i don't think he's going to last very long after his last scene.

and yes. tomei is glorious in her nakedness.

only thing that doesn't work for me is

tomei and hawke having an affair. it doesn't quite add much to hoffman's suffering, or change the dynamics between brothers.

also i'm not that big a fan of the structure. one can argue, it's the only way this movie can work. i still prefer a more chronological presentation in which each characters' stories are weaved together instead of, as it is, their taking turn under the spotlight.

[Sven]

i like it, especially the ending with hawke. the unresolution is what makes the movie strong.

How do you figure this? Because I find it one of the film's most glaring faults.

And I agree about the affair thing. It's effect is rather negligible.

[Ezee E]

Tomorrow I will be seeing this.

[lovejuice]

How do you figure this? Because I find it one of the film's most glaring faults.


i know that from your post. :)

as mentioned, it gives a more realistic and disturbing feel to the film. to put it simply, in real life not all bad guys get caught. i like it that the film doesn't try to tie together everything too nicely. also i bet hawke isn't going to last very long; i'll even be surprised if he can take himself out of the apple. the movie shows us enough evident that this guy is inept, and while we don't see what karma-ic end is awaiting for him, it's not hard to figure.

one thing that i agree with you, though, i'm not too hot on
finny killing hoffman either.
it's somewhat predictable, and doesn't quite add up. the movie is supposed to be immoralistic, but this last scene is more morally ambiguous.

i talk with my friend from film school, and he mentions how lumet's directing is very by the book. as if he's an embodiment of every film school teachers in the us combined. we both agree though this is a good thing. in a time where we see more fail than successful experiment. a movie that tries to hide its director is a wonderful old-fashioned welcome.

Scott says it right. lumet directs his film with prose not poetry. i want to add, a simple prose is hundred times better than a bad or even average poetry.

[Torgo]

Good film!

I, for one, liked the resolution of Hank's character. While it would have been interesting to see the outcome of his child support dilemma, I liked that he
dropped the stolen drug money at Dex's place. However, I wonder if he was more concerned about the money incriminating him, or if he thought that Bobby's wife and daughter deserved the money more than he did.
Also, until the end of the movie, I had assumed that the opening scene depicted Andy and Gina's successful getaway to Rio. Even when he was in the hospital bed, I still thought he had another trick up his sleeve. Since I was (obviously) wrong, it made the ending all the more devastating.

[chrisnu]

Watched this tonight. I think I understand what you're saying, iosos. Some of the characters' decisions make sense because we've seen other movies where the same actions have been taken. I did enjoy how the film bent back on itself, and chronicled events from different perspective. I'll agree with iosos that it was the jarring effect of bouncing back that bothered me most. I think that a simple flashback would've been a better fit for the somber tone.

Also agreed about the connect-the-dots psychology with Andy. Hoffman does his absolute best to make it work, and it make sense because I know I've seen movies were similar cause-and-effect leaps have been taken. It's just too precise. People are unpredictable, and don't always know why they're doing what they're doing. The film didn't allow for much of that.

The affair didn't add much of an angle, other than some added dramatic weight to the climax. It was almost expected. I also think the sister character could've been excised entirely.

What I found most interesting was how Andy used Hank to try and get what he wanted, and then absolve himself from responsibility when things go wrong. Hank is being manipulated, but he's complicit because he's willingly becoming a pawn.

Although the ending may have seemed out-of-character for Finney, it was successful in its manipulation of the audience. I wanted that bastard do die.

Geez, this was depressing.

And yes, Tomei was indeed very hot.

[Ezee E]

What started off as a clever, unpredictable character thriller, turns into a predictble, cliched, and silly thriller once Albert Finney's character starts getting dedicated scenes. How I wish it just stuck with Hawke (who I've always liked) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (in one of his best performances.) Marisa Tomei had a ton of potential, but leaves a little too early unfortunatly.

The scene with her leaving is quite hilarious though.

Ah man, I thought I was watching a masterpiece for a while.

[Mysterious Dude]

Did anyone notice the scene where Chris's brother tells her to go wait outside, and she does? I thought the treatment of the female characters showed a lot of Sidney Lumet's "old man".

[NickGlass]

Did anyone notice the scene where Chris's brother tells her to go wait outside, and she does? I thought the treatment of the female characters showed a lot of Sidney Lumet's "old man".

I think the whole film shows a lot of Lumet as an "old man." From the structure, to the idea of greed, to the images of divorce and homosexuality, to the depiction of drug use (which is, you know, just a character detail, really), the film reeks of an old man trying very hard to conceptualize how the "modern" world works. It feels like Lumet is in the 70s or 80s, yet is trying to make a film about contemporary (21st century) times. The result is almost laughably stale.

Edit: I just read the first post and find it funny that both iosos and I use the adjectives "laughable" and "stale." So, so appropriate.

[Rowland]

I just enjoyed this as an engrossing B-movie. The plot dishes out new developments at an involving pace, Lumet's direction is refreshingly crisp and weighty without being showy, the score is atmospheric, and all of the overacting is fun. Michael Shannon's appearance was a pleasant surprise too. I'd agree though that the attempt in the closing reel to elevate the story into operatic tragedy doesn't work half as well as it should. And fades to white almost universally piss me off.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I found the film pretty silly. The flash back and forth seemed completely pointless. Can anyone enlighten me? What did that bring to the table that chronological editing wouldn't have? I thought the backbone of the story was fairly unbelievable (I can't see an old woman grabbing a gun and shooting a robber. Why risk your life for insured jewelry?), as was pretty much the entire finale. It was one absurd moment after another, culminating in a ridiculous closing scene. And leaving Hawke's character unresolved was a huge misstep.

However, Marissa Tomei was unbelievably gorgeous. I've always found her attractive, but sweet jebus! Lumet should never have let her put on clothes. Another misstep on his part.

[DavidSeven]

Not much of interest going on here beyond Tomei's unreal body (she's 44; are you kidding?). It's aesthetically bland as Lumet has tended to be even when he was good, and the narrative device becomes unbearably tiresome at times. I was convinced that this two hour affair was ending soon when I looked down at my watch and realized I was only halfway through. That about sums it up.

[Amnesiac]

Before The Devil Knows You're Dead is a B-movie?

[Kurosawa Fan]

You ask me, it's a D-movie.