>For me, very, very basically put, good storytelling is when,
>from beginning to end, I never question the way in which the
>story is being told.

Yes, that's good storytelling but I don't think good storytelling always equals entertaining. There are many films that are cohesive and complete in their storytelling yet also completely boring. Meanwhile there are other films that are entertaining even though their storyline is flawed.

>I mean, would you rather eat a bowl of cereal where the milk
>never materialized (The Hudsucker Proxy)? Or one where the
>cereal was allowed to get soggy (The Ladykillers)? One is
>incomplete. One is overdone. Only one would be easy to get
>through though. (Not a perfect metaphor? Sure. ha)

For me the metaphor is that you are saying that cereal is always better with milk, and ignoring the fact that some times the milk is sour.

>>However, this kind of overlooks the bigger point which is:
>The
>>Hudsucker Proxy was a hiccup in a run of good films. Right
>>now, I'd say No Country for Old Men is an obvious peak in a
>>run of mediocre films.
>
>I invite you to revisit The Man Who Wasn't There.

And I invite you to look at your own list. When The Man Who Wasn't There Came out, it was 6th out of 9 Coen Brothers films. How exactly is that a peak? It looks more like a peak now that three of the four films after it have been worse but that only supports my initial point that the reason people keep saying that the Coens latest film is "good but definitely one of my least favorite Coen Bros. films" is because the new films have consistently been in the bottom four. The only film to come out this decade and avoid that distinction is No Country for Old Men.