JustaFied
04-13-2004, 01:21 AM
As a big Coen Brothers' fan, I was somewhat surprised to hear that they were re-making the classic Alec Guiness film "The Ladykillers". First of all, it didn't seem the original was necessarily in need of being re-made, especially with the setting being moved to the American South. Also, this makes the second straight film where the Coens have adapted someone else's script (they reworked much of the script for "Intolerable Cruelty" but still share writing credits with two others). I consider the Coens to be two of the most original, creative writers in the pictures today, and I wish they would stick to their own source material.
Possibly, they wanted to work with Tom Hanks, and they wanted to make a commercially successful film. Their films to date have enjoyed considerably more critical success than commercial success, which goes to show that the American public don't know shit (to use the parlance of our time). Well, commercial success may have escaped them on this film also; so far it's only registered around $30 million at the box office, which has got to be a low for a Tom Hanks movie.
My opinion of the movie: I would have liked it much more if I hadn't known it was a Coen Brothers flick. That in of itself raises the bar very high for me. In general, as a film, it was funny, clever, touching, and had a great soundtrack. As a Coen Brothers film, it was probably at or near the bottom of my list.
Like the 1955 original, this film seems to me to be little else than a screwball comedy caper about a foiled robbery attempt. In that regard, it's enjoyable and humorous but doesn't really resonate beyond that. Coen Brother films usually have more bite.
Most of the characters seemed rather two-dimensional, and many of them weren't nearly as funny as they were probably intended to be. The Marlan Wayans character did little beside spew curse words, and one character had literally a five minute running dialogue on his irritable bowel syndrome. Did they really intend that to be funny, or was it intended as a reflection on the preponderance of stupid fart jokes, etc. that keep showing up in movies?
Hopefully the Coen Brothers get back to writing their own stuff now. I love their movies. In his review of "The Ladykillers" in The New Yorker, Anthony Lane basically said that the films of the Coens simply re-create a film genre, and nothing more. I disagree. Their ability to create believable characters and to write sharp, clever (and wickedly funny) dialogue is just as strong as the beautiful cinematography and perfect set pieces found in their films.
I read somewhere that one of their possible projects was to be a WWII film (Pacific Ocean setting), starring Brad Pitt, and containing little to no dialogue. Who else but the Coens could pull off something like that? Maybe that's what they've got up their sleeves right now. Well, bring 'em on, as our Commander in Chief likes to say...
Possibly, they wanted to work with Tom Hanks, and they wanted to make a commercially successful film. Their films to date have enjoyed considerably more critical success than commercial success, which goes to show that the American public don't know shit (to use the parlance of our time). Well, commercial success may have escaped them on this film also; so far it's only registered around $30 million at the box office, which has got to be a low for a Tom Hanks movie.
My opinion of the movie: I would have liked it much more if I hadn't known it was a Coen Brothers flick. That in of itself raises the bar very high for me. In general, as a film, it was funny, clever, touching, and had a great soundtrack. As a Coen Brothers film, it was probably at or near the bottom of my list.
Like the 1955 original, this film seems to me to be little else than a screwball comedy caper about a foiled robbery attempt. In that regard, it's enjoyable and humorous but doesn't really resonate beyond that. Coen Brother films usually have more bite.
Most of the characters seemed rather two-dimensional, and many of them weren't nearly as funny as they were probably intended to be. The Marlan Wayans character did little beside spew curse words, and one character had literally a five minute running dialogue on his irritable bowel syndrome. Did they really intend that to be funny, or was it intended as a reflection on the preponderance of stupid fart jokes, etc. that keep showing up in movies?
Hopefully the Coen Brothers get back to writing their own stuff now. I love their movies. In his review of "The Ladykillers" in The New Yorker, Anthony Lane basically said that the films of the Coens simply re-create a film genre, and nothing more. I disagree. Their ability to create believable characters and to write sharp, clever (and wickedly funny) dialogue is just as strong as the beautiful cinematography and perfect set pieces found in their films.
I read somewhere that one of their possible projects was to be a WWII film (Pacific Ocean setting), starring Brad Pitt, and containing little to no dialogue. Who else but the Coens could pull off something like that? Maybe that's what they've got up their sleeves right now. Well, bring 'em on, as our Commander in Chief likes to say...