Ethan Coen got off a quotable. (Burn After Reading)

Ethan and brother Joel often get criticized for being smug and detached. These are insults that have been hurled at their movies, their interviews, and even their acceptance speeches. In each case, critics would say, this aloofness is really the bi-product of a self-satisfying elitism. While there are "feeling" characters like Marge in Fargo or Billy Bob Thorton's Ed Crane that could rebut part of that above argument, the public image of the brothers themselves as a sort of conniving, condescending duo remains a popular one. Many interviewers, journalists, Q&A-session attendees, etc. have attested to these sorts of antics. Anyway, after another apparently less-than-successful question-and-answer period for their new film, Burn After Reading, showing at the Toronto Film Festival, Ethan Coen had this to say:

"Look, it's just an odd situation. I mean, you make a movie because you find something about the story and the characters to be compelling and think the film should speak for itself, and you don't have anything to say beyond that because you don't think about it in other terms, or at least any journalistic terms, but then here you are one day, sitting in front of a bunch of journalists, and they're asking you to say something that isn't self-evident from the movie and you're stumped, and sometimes they think you're being coy or elusive, but the fact is you just don't have anything else to say."

(source: http://tinyurl.com/64j7yp)

I thought that was a pretty honest and respectable response that should protect them from any criticisms about their unwillingness to give the perfect interview answer. Now, as for their movies, chances are the usual suspects will come out for Burn After Reading to tout their favorite talking points once again. (In fact, some of them already have.) Overall, reviews coming in from Toronto and Venice have been mixed so far, ranging from "I laughed a lot and didn't like it" to "I hardly laughed and loved it." Hmm . . . Anyway, I know there's a BAR trailer post somewhere out there now, but I guess I was trying to call dibbs on the "official post" (ha) as the movie will debut this coming Friday at a theater hopefully near you.

This teaser trailer is still my favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIfz4PTkIkM

This is only a story because journalists wrote it. It burns them up when people don't take entertainment reporters seriously...but I can't imagine taking them seriously either. I don't take them serious now, and if I was a famous filmmaker I can't imagine I'd take them any more seriously.

I think the quote was disingenuous, you can always find something to say if you want to. But why should he want to?

...says Wrongthink

Real talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12JJv6yCk7Q

Current Rotation:

Shad - TSOL
Onra - Long Distance
Cool Kids - Tacklebox
Shabazz Palaces

That night with Ethan pointing out just how little he had to say and him and Joel together doing a kind of anti-Cuba Gooding Jr. acceptance thing, some viewers of the telecast left with a sour taste (especially if they had not liked No Country to begin with--maybe that's the key). And I'll I was trying to mention is how this perceived smugness has been a criticism aimed at them and their movies over and over, with BAR's impending release being just the latest target / point of discussion.

>I think the quote was disingenuous, you can always find
>something to say if you want to. But why should he want to?

It seemed sincere to me. Their common response when it comes to why won't they indulge in people's deep analysis of their films is a shrugging, giggling "we're not interested." Conversely, Ethan's comments from the press conference demonstrated a great deal more thought, forwardness, and awareness than we've seen usually from him / them. That's why the quote stood out to me and why I've attempted to use it as a jumping off point to introduce discussion about their latest movie.

Their interviews are pretty amusing to me.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

But if his review for VCB was a rave, and I loathed that movie, then I guess this is a recommendation really. (He's never been a fan of the brothers either way.)

Here are a couple gems from his write-up:

http://www.observer.com/2008/arts-culture/coen-brothers-burn-after-reading-too-hot-handle

"Joel and Ethan Coen’s Burn After Reading, from their own screenplay, strikes me as one of the most willfully awful movies I’ve ever seen."

"Here the Coen brothers have repeatedly crossed the line to get some easy laughs out of otherwise witlessly malignant dialogue."

"Burn After Reading has hit rock bottom for me. See it at your own peril."

"Except for Miller’s Crossing (1990) and Fargo (1996), the Coen brothers have generally left me with the impression of mean-spirited academic film nuts with little feeling for their hapless victims of terminal clumsiness and ineptitude."

It's kind of like, why bother reviewing them?

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Wondering why The Women didn't get an anchor.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Pros:
- Brad Pitt is the best character in the movie. Definitely his funniest performance to date, and one of the only time (fuck it, THE only time) where I stopped thinking in a film, "Oh look, here's Brad Pitt acting.
- George, John, and Tilda all put in solid work. Clooney in particular puts on a very interesting performance.
- Richard Jenkins... the audience LOVED this character, and every time he's on screen, you feel for him.
- The CIA scenes had people howling.
- Most people I saw it with didn't like the ending. I liked it very much. It's certainly the type of ending an exec would go insane with frustration over (Andrew Sarris went insane over it above).
- The laughs are fairly consistent. Not a ton of gut busters, but consistently funny.
- Carter Burwell's score IS consistently funny.

Cons:
- Frances McDormand, one of my favorite actresses, was mugging the whole film, contorting her face into funny shapes in an attempt to make the audience care about her one-note character. Kind of a shame, since you care about her less than any of the other big-name actor's roles. And when George Clooney and Brad Pitt are believable, and Frances McDormand is the one you roll your eyes at and say, "She's mugging," then you've got a problem.
- While this film is still enjoyable, it's definitely a bottom 5 Coen Brothers flick, maybe bottom 3. That's not saying much, but on occasion you find a patch of dialogue or an event as absurd as something from The Big Lebowski, and you think, "I wish this film was as good as that." It's not a fair criticism, but it's to be noted to all the Coen fans out there.

Conclusion: A funny, unconventional comedy from the Coens that is never dull and packs a great Brad Pitt performance. It falls short of greatness, but it went over well to the sold-out crowd I saw it with (except the ending, which many people won't like).

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>Pros:
>- Brad Pitt is the best character in the movie. Definitely his
>funniest performance to date, and one of the only time (fuck
>it, THE only time) where I stopped thinking in a film, "Oh
>look, here's Brad Pitt acting.


Even 'Snatch'?

☺☻

"i'm doing good, can i put my face in your buttcrack?" (c) P.Inf

"frankly, I think it's foolish to have a cat or a baby, but whatever" (c) veritas

@kingofthings

Honestly, outside of JK Simmons and the score, I didn't think there was anything all that great about this film. I definitely disagree about Pitt. He had some moments but I wasn't all that impressed with him. Nowhere near his Snatch performance. Hell, it wasn't even as good as Floyd IMO.

The audience I watched it with was silent for most of the film. The ending got big laughs (as did the earlier JK Simmons scene) but other than that it was pretty quiet.

I think it's the worst Coen Brothers film that I've seen (I didn't mind Intolerable Cruelty as much as others). It felt like the Coen's version of Ocean's 11, a let's just have fun this time type venture, but it didn't really work.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

it basically summed up how most people probably felt when walking out, but thats what was cool about it to me.


Tanya Morgan "The Bridge EP"
instoresnow
http://www.vonpea.com

SPOILERS ahead

>Pros:
>- Brad Pitt is the best character in the movie.

Although he was funny trying to act all calm and knowing with Malkovich in the car and did physical comedy well enough in the gym scenes, I thought the pinnacle of his performance came mostly when he was rather quiet and still (or at least not so boisterous) while waiting outside the Cox apartment. That entire section of the film, from when he's spying from outside, then trying to look unsuspecting snooping in the front, and then attempting to plan a getaway from the upstairs closet, was great. Suspenseful and funny and quite well-directed it was. And that look on Brad's face right before Clooney's first discharge of his weapon was splendidly goofy.

>-Clooney in
>particular puts on a very interesting performance.

Next to J.K. Simmons, Clooney's was probably my favorite performance. While he was your standard idiot early on, like at the dinner party, it wasn't the kind of one-note type of thing I had half been expecting. He pulled off a number of different attitudes and tones, and they were all convincing. And who knew he could chop carrots so intensely. (When Tilda says they're for a salad, I almost lost it.)

>- Richard Jenkins... the audience LOVED this character, and
>every time he's on screen, you feel for him.

I guess he was Burn After Reading's Donnie. When the camera lingered on his sad face after McDormand's Linda brushed him off one last time, you knew he was done for.

>- The laughs are fairly consistent. Not a ton of gut busters,
>but consistently funny.

The divorce guy who was hired by Clooney's wife was quality. "No, it's a rock band."

But there were little clever touches throughout that were never played up or made big like they would in your standard comedy, e.g., McDormand mispronouncing the Russian dude's name or Clooney emerging from Swinton's apartment in running gear. All that being said, one of the Coens made a comment in a recent interview that, after seeing the TV promo spots just recently, they were surprised it was being sold so vigorously as a comedy.

>- Carter Burwell's score IS consistently funny.

Burwell's score, the opening and closing satellite views of the earth, and the title credit fonts were all nice little pokes at the Bourne genre.

>Cons:
>- Frances McDormand, one of my favorite actresses, was mugging
>the whole film, contorting her face into funny shapes in an
>attempt to make the audience care about her one-note
>character.

She only really annoyed me in the initial doctor scene. I wouldn't say she was outstanding elsewhere, but that was the only instance where I was distracted by her. Also, I'm not sure if you meant to imply this or not, but I don't think her Linda Litzke was ever meant to be anything but a self-serving, rather shallow character (apparently based on Linda Tripp). I mean, in the end, she sold out Chad, Harry, and Richard Jenkins' character all for a series of cosmetic surgeries. In the previous two Coen Brother films which she had prominent roles in, Fargo and The Man Who Wasn't There, she was a caring, humane, honest policewoman and a philandering wife who deceived but was broken by guilt. In either case, she was more complex and had strong redemptive qualities if you were looking for someone to get attached to as an audience member. For better or worse, that was not the goal here.

>- While this film is still enjoyable, it's definitely a bottom
>5 Coen Brothers flick, maybe bottom 3.

I would need to watch it again to give it a fair comparison to everything else of theirs that I have seen, but I'd rank 'em like this:

01.Fargo (1996)
02.No Country for Old Men (2007)
03.Barton Fink (1991)
04.The Big Lebowski (1998)
05.Blood Simple (1984)
06.Raising Arizona (1987)
07.The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
08.Miller's Crossing (1990)
09.O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
10.Burn After Reading (2008)
11.The Ladykillers (2004)
12.The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
13.Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

>>Pros:
>>- Brad Pitt is the best character in the movie.
>
>Although he was funny trying to act all calm and knowing with
>Malkovich in the car and did physical comedy well enough in
>the gym scenes, I thought the pinnacle of his performance came
>mostly when he was rather quiet and still (or at least not so
>boisterous) while waiting outside the Cox apartment. That
>entire section of the film, from when he's spying from
>outside, then trying to look unsuspecting snooping in the
>front, and then attempting to plan a getaway from the upstairs
>closet, was great. Suspenseful and funny and quite
>well-directed it was. And that look on Brad's face right
>before Clooney's first discharge of his weapon was splendidly
>goofy.

Agreed. I think folks will sleep, but Pitt did some really really fine work in this flick.

>>-Clooney in
>>particular puts on a very interesting performance.
>
>Next to J.K. Simmons, Clooney's was probably my favorite
>performance. While he was your standard idiot early on, like
>at the dinner party, it wasn't the kind of one-note type of
>thing I had half been expecting. He pulled off a number of
>different attitudes and tones, and they were all convincing.
>And who knew he could chop carrots so intensely. (When Tilda
>says they're for a salad, I almost lost it.)

That one-liner had my audience roaring.

>>- Richard Jenkins... the audience LOVED this character, and
>>every time he's on screen, you feel for him.
>
>I guess he was Burn After Reading's Donnie. When the camera
>lingered on his sad face after McDormand's Linda brushed him
>off one last time, you knew he was done for.

There were multiple audible "aww"s in the audience for him, and his demise might have been what sent so many people into disliking the ending-- likable character dies horribly, everything else is narrated after the fact in one scene, zoom out.

>>- The laughs are fairly consistent. Not a ton of gut
>busters,
>>but consistently funny.
>
>The divorce guy who was hired by Clooney's wife was quality.
>"No, it's a rock band."

A really fucking hilarious little role.

>But there were little clever touches throughout that were
>never played up or made big like they would in your standard
>comedy, e.g., McDormand mispronouncing the Russian dude's name
>or Clooney emerging from Swinton's apartment in running gear.
>All that being said, one of the Coens made a comment in a
>recent interview that, after seeing the TV promo spots just
>recently, they were surprised it was being sold so vigorously
>as a comedy.

Agreed.

>>- Carter Burwell's score IS consistently funny.
>
>Burwell's score, the opening and closing satellite views of
>the earth, and the title credit fonts were all nice little
>pokes at the Bourne genre.

I was the only one laughing at loud at some of those music cues. A really great score.

>>Cons:
>>- Frances McDormand, one of my favorite actresses, was
>mugging
>>the whole film, contorting her face into funny shapes in an
>>attempt to make the audience care about her one-note
>>character.
>
>She only really annoyed me in the initial doctor scene. I
>wouldn't say she was outstanding elsewhere, but that was the
>only instance where I was distracted by her. Also, I'm not
>sure if you meant to imply this or not, but I don't think her
>Linda Litzke was ever meant to be anything but a self-serving,
>rather shallow character (apparently based on Linda Tripp). I
>mean, in the end, she sold out Chad, Harry, and Richard
>Jenkins' character all for a series of cosmetic surgeries. In
>the previous two Coen Brother films which she had prominent
>roles in, Fargo and The Man Who Wasn't There, she was a
>caring, humane, honest policewoman and a philandering wife who
>deceived but was broken by guilt. In either case, she was
>more complex and had strong redemptive qualities if you were
>looking for someone to get attached to as an audience member.
>For better or worse, that was not the goal here.

Oh I understand that, I just think that out of several dumb characters that lack in likable qualities, her performance was the one that sank to the bottom of the pack. I often felt like she was playing the laugh harder than the others, whereas someone like Pitt, who was getting all the laughs, was just trying to play his role with a sublime yet realistic goofiness, and let the laughs come as a result. But yeah, I was surprised that I found her performance so muggy, and I was never drawn to watch her on the screen as much as I was for any of the other characters.

>
>>- While this film is still enjoyable, it's definitely a
>bottom
>>5 Coen Brothers flick, maybe bottom 3.
>
>I would need to watch it again to give it a fair comparison to
>everything else of theirs that I have seen, but I'd rank 'em
>like this:
>
>01.Fargo (1996)
>02.No Country for Old Men (2007)
>03.Barton Fink (1991)
>04.The Big Lebowski (1998)
>05.Blood Simple (1984)
>06.Raising Arizona (1987)
>07.The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
>08.Miller's Crossing (1990)
>09.O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
>10.Burn After Reading (2008)
>11.The Ladykillers (2004)
>12.The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
>13.Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

My rankings are very similar. They'd go:

1. Fargo
2. No Country For Old Men
3. Barton Fink
4. The Big Lebowski
5. Blood Simple
6. The Man Who Wasn't There
7. Miller's Crossing
8. Raising Arizona
9. The Hudsucker Proxy
10. O Brother Where Art Thou? (actually, this might slip beneath Burn After Reading upon multiple viewings)
11. Burn After Reading
12. Intolerable Cruelty
13. The Ladykillers

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>The divorce guy who was hired by Clooney's wife was quality.
>"No, it's a rock band."

>A really fucking hilarious little role.

Haven't we heard that joke about a thousand times before? Why did you think it was so much funnier here?

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I actually thought that part was pretty off, especially the delivery.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Snatch most definitely is. Hell, even his brief scenes in True Romance were much funnier.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.itsallthewaylive.net

www.twitter.com/allthewaylive

>Pros:
>- Brad Pitt is the best character in the movie. Definitely his
>funniest performance to date, and one of the only time (fuck
>it, THE only time) where I stopped thinking in a film, "Oh
>look, here's Brad Pitt acting.




you haven't figured out his hand gesture?
he has a peculiar hand gesture thing he does
almost every movie
which just brings me rigt back to him
love him to death but you saying that made me realize it's been awhile since he's gotten lost in character ...and i don't think this was one of them
fun character though it was...
*runs on treadmill while pumping arms*
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

i know everyone's enamored w/ pitt's performance, but i think clooney stole the show.
__________________________
http://malkthewalk.blogspot.com

like many people here, Pitt was my favorite character in the movie but Clooney role was real good as well, i really like his character probably cause his fleshed out the most.

It wasn't that much of a comedy like the trailers led on but it was pretty funny. Nothing that great though. Its definitely one of the weaker Coen Bros. movies imo.

it was very slow.

it wasnt that funny... i laughed, but not as much as I hoped I would.

Malkovich was great. Whenver he says "fuck", his delivery is the best in hollywood.

and i think the trailer was misleading. it looked a bit like the big lebowski in the trailer, yet I would call that a comedy, where this was not a comedy.

probably would not recommend this. its not bad, but I expect greatness from the cohen's and im a big fan of their work that I have seen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.itsallthewaylive.net

www.twitter.com/allthewaylive

It reminded me of an Ealing comedy. Not so laugh out loud hilarious as it is really, really sharp and clever.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

Basically all the negative criticism I'm reading here is the virtually the same that I heard directly after every Coen Bros movie, including The Big Lebowski:

-funny, but I didn't laugh as much as I thought
-good but definitely one of my least favorite Coen Bros. films...
-The ending left me unsatisfied and disappointed.

I've seen all of their flicks except half of Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. Oh and I've yet to see this one, but I will soon. I think one of the features that permeate in almost all of their films is that first, the humor really seems to take multiple viewings to really come out...or at least their will be plenty of humor that takes a while to digest. Next To Wes Anderson, I can't think of many other directors who make movies that almost require repeated viewings to be fully appreciated, just because they ride on so many subtleties.

Two...aren't they notorious for making endings that somehow screw with audience expectation, or at least go against what you want or think you're going to see at the end. Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country For Old Men, Raising Arizona, Barton Fink--they all kind of leave you hanging or partially unsatisfied by the end. I think it forces you to, well either hate the movie, or realize that the driving plot devices--usually some large amount of money, and who's going to get it--is really beside the point, and that it's all about those little details.

Anyway, just an early thought. I'll probably see it this week.

The Coen comedies since Lebowski are: O Brother, Intolerable Cruelty, Lady Killers, and Burn After Reading. To me those are almost locks for the bottom five of Coen Brothers films. And the movies have gotten progressively worse. Burn After Reading might be the first film that is definitely better than the previous effort.

As for the ending, I know the conventional wisdom is to always show things happen but in this case I think hearing about the ending was funnier.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

they have been in a steady decline with their material. i attended screenings at my school of their entire filmography and i can say that for the shining exception of No Country For Old Men, they haven't been putting out that good of material.

It's all either average movies or slight above average. Nothing is great or outstanding in any way except No Country For Old Men.

I wasn't expecting extraordinary from Burn After Reading but I was still disappointing with what I thought was just a mildly entertaining movie that didn't do much for me.

I thought that was up to par, if a little...low key. But definitely good.

I think the worst is just that Intolerable cruelty and probably The Ladykillers proved that they weren't above total screw ups.

Save the probably's and just see the damn thing.

>I think the worst is just that Intolerable cruelty and
>probably The Ladykillers proved that they weren't above total
>screw ups.

Oh, and to me, even though The Ladykillers might not be nearly as ambitious or "high art" as The Hudsucker Proxy, it's still a more cohesive, complete and therefore entertaining movie. There are large chunks of that latter film that simply do not work, particularly with Jennifer Jason Leigh and especially with her relationship with Tim Robbins's character (all the magic and whimsy that the brothers tried to latch on to from their 30's/40's influences absolutely failed). So while The Ladykillers is far from a success, and its chinks in the armor may be many, those mistakes are more miniscule in comparison. I write this to say 1) They had gotten tripped up before the 2000's and 2) I don't feel that The Ladykillers deserves its title as the "worst Coen Brothers movie." That's clearly Intolerable Cruelty, which is an entirely different kind of failure than either Hudsucker or Ladykillers could ever dread to be.

>Oh, and to me, even though The Ladykillers might not be nearly
>as ambitious or "high art" as The Hudsucker Proxy, it's still
>a more cohesive, complete and therefore entertaining movie.

Cohesive and complete does not necessarily equal more entertaining. For me, The Hudsucker Proxy was uneven but The Ladykillers was consistent like a flatline. I'll take an uneven film with some great moments over a film that's consistently below average.

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.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>Cohesive and complete does not necessarily equal more
>entertaining.

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. That's vague, I know, but it's like if telling a story is some version of "character does this; next, character does that; then, other character does something; afterwards, characters have this happen . . .", at the point, let's say, where "character does that", if that aspect of the plot is bungled, then that's an entire storytelling strand gone awry. It's not an aside or a throwaway joke; instead, it's part of the overall structure of the story, and it being flawed sabotages all other strands.

Again, that's still vague probably, but in The Hudsucker Proxy I had that kind of issue with JJL's performance (I seldom get distracted by bad acting, but it was an example of a failed performance throughout) and the unimaginative way her character was thrust into the Hudsucker world as no more than a poorly-developed archetype, a clumsy plot device. It was such an unfeeling, cold portrayal and characterization that at the moment when she kisses Tim Robbins' character, it demonstrated awkwardness and inspired eye-rolling, instead of the warmth and magic found in the mix of screwball classics like His Girl Friday that influenced it in the first place. And that's a large chunk of the movie that fell clear off the screen, not to mention how Paul Newman was wasted and the narrative structure fumbled. So, while it may have its winning qualities, namely production design and especially the kids-hula-hoop sequence, it was missing too much to ever come together. And because the storytelling lacked that essential cohesiveness and was dragged so far down, it's not something I would want to sit down and watch again. It would be a chore to get through many of those aforementioned passages.

>Ladykillers was consistent like a flatline. I'll take an
>uneven film with some great moments over a film that's
>consistently below average.

Now, The Ladykillers? Is it dumbed-down? Sure. Are some of the characters more bland or predictable than the usual Coen Brothers sort? Sure. But, again, I think Tom Hanks' performance and character (they do the Southern gentlemen terrifically, and Hanks did it more than justice), Irma P. Hall's well-intentioned but crotchety, suspicious but clueless, Bob Jones University-donating elderly woman, some rich visual qualities, a great use of music, and a clever series of deaths (say what you will about the IBS details in JK Simmon's character, it paid off in the end) make it more than average. I could sit here and talk more about its faults, but just about every major critic has done that already. . . . And, once more, those faults are less damning to me than those found in The Hudsucker Proxy or Intolerable Cruelty (where, from beginning to end, it's all damned).

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)

>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.

>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.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

And that's why I regretted including it after I hit reply. But basically what I was saying and what I really wanted to focus on is the fact that I feel the faults in Hudsucker to be more problematic and fateful than those missteps found in The Ladykillers. Now, if you feel that JJL's character / performance / relationship w/ Tim Robbins worked, then that's you. And if you think it didn't work but didn't need to work for the movie to be worth sitting through, then that's you. Fine. It wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed.

>>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.

The cereal could have been magott-ridden. You could have been lactose intolerant. It wasn't a perfect metaphor, I understand, but I was trying to capture something that could be incomplete versus something overdone. The former is the bigger crime for me.

>>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.

The Coen Brothers haven't made just one good film, or just two, or three, or . . . The first five on my list--four if we're adjusting the time to 2001 and earlier--are, in my mind, four-star all-time classics. Raising Arizona and The Man Who Wasn't There are personal favorites settled in at 3.5. Miller's Crossing and O Brother are in the 3/4 area. Hudsucker Proxy is in the 2-2.5/4 range, with The Ladykillers a notch above and Burn After Reading around there (though probably likely to go higher, as most CB films improve with additional viewings).

Anyway, just because they set a classic standard many times over before The Man Who Wasn't There doesn't mean The Man Who Wasn't There is any less of a great film. It may not be as "great" as those other "greats", but that's the kind of quibbling that makes rankings an ugly thing. So it's a stellar example of their brand of filmmaking not because what came after or in spite of what came before it, but because it's a good movie, in its own context. Fuck a compare and contrast.

Just like Frances McDormand in Burn After Reading does not give a good or bad performance because she gave a good or bad ones earlier in her career with Joel and Ethan. It's good or bad in its own context.

So, I don't really know what I'm arguing anymore, nor do I want to do it for much longer.

IMO, The Hudsucker Proxy is worse than two of the last four movies they've done.

IMO, No Country is better than all but one of the first four movies they did.

They've been both better and worse in earlier times.

Okay, and . . .?

I don't think they've hit a creative dryspell.

If anything, they're more hit-and-miss with their comedies, which, as a genre, tend to be harder to successfully construct and more divided amongst audiences (sense of humor is quite subjective). And it just so happens they've done comedies three of the last four times out the gates.

Again, I don't know what we're proving or how this even started.

Something . . . something . . . something . . . clusterfuck.

...maybe you should stop and re-read the post you're responding to. You might just realize that almost everything you're rambling about is irrelevant.

A) You are arguing specifics; I'm speaking generally. You wrote: "it's still a more cohesive, complete and therefore entertaining movie." I pointed out that that logic doesn't hold. A film can be cohesive and dreadfully boring, making it less entertaining than an uneven film. Maybe you don't think Ladykillers was dreadfully boring, that's a matter of taste. My point is that the simple logic of Cohesive + Complete = Entertaining is quite simply wrong.

B) It's funny how you brought up a strawman, made a bad metaphor about it, and then continued to argue in support of it yet I'M the one focusing on the wrong thing.

I never said the problem with Ladykillers was that it was overdone. That was your strawman. That is why I brought up a different metaphor (but left it at one sentence since I didn't want to focus on metaphors which almost never work in discussions). Unfortunately, you ignored it and just continued arguing about "something that could be incomplete versus something overdone. The former is the bigger crime for me." And the latter has nothing to do with this discussion.

C) The bottom line (and where this discussion started) is that when people say a Coen film is "good but definitely one of my least favorite Coen Bros. films...", it's because it is TRUE! You can cop pleas all you want but three of their last four films have been three of the worst four movies they've ever made. That's it. Nobody is even really arguing against that.

I never said they hit a creative dryspell, I never said certain films were without merit. For someone who doesn't want to argue, you certainly make up a lot of arguments on your own.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>...maybe you should stop and re-read the post you're
>responding to. You might just realize that almost everything
>you're rambling about is irrelevant.

I went back and re-read how this all started, and I remembered that I was actually replying to BigWorm and trying to express two points exclusively to him:

1. The Ladykillers isn't as bad as everyone says.

2. There are two worse Coen Brothers films, including The Hudsucker Proxy.

And then you jumped in. I never had a younger brother, so thanks for that.

>A) You are arguing specifics; I'm speaking generally.

Well, my first post in this whole string of replies started off talking about specifics, specifically about The Ladykillers and The Hudsucker Proxy, as stated above. So it wasn't me who tried to change the parameters of this back-and-forth.

>You
>wrote: "it's still a more cohesive, complete and therefore
>entertaining movie." I pointed out that that logic doesn't
>hold.

Doesn't hold for you, maybe, but I still don't feel it's errant thinking, especially when applied to the situation (The Hudsucker Proxy) I applied it to. Maybe we could test it with every other film ever, but I'd like to think I don't have the time for that.

>A film can be cohesive and dreadfully boring, making it
>less entertaining than an uneven film.

Boredom is more a judgment / response of the film-goer.

If a film is cohesive, that's more a quality of the film.

>My point is that the simple logic of Cohesive + Complete =
>Entertaining is quite simply wrong.

I wasn't setting up such a simple equation. I know the word "therefore" was there, but let's not make this quite so pissy a semantics issue. The lack of cohesion, where the storytelling strands are heavily frayed and do not fit together, which can make for an exhausting viewing experience (DEPENDING ON THE VIEWER, of course), is an issue that has sabotaged many a movie before, including, in part, The Hudsucker Proxy. Said it once, still believe it.

>I never said the problem with Ladykillers was that it was
>overdone. That was your strawman.

Fair enough, I didn't mean to say that you felt The Ladykillers was overdone. That was a criticism many had of it, so, since I initially was replying to Big Worm, who hadn't seen it and likely was only exposed to that line of criticism, that's why it was in my mind.

>That is why I brought up a
>different metaphor (but left it at one sentence since I didn't
>want to focus on metaphors which almost never work in
>discussions). Unfortunately, you ignored it and just continued
>arguing about "something that could be incomplete versus
>something overdone. The former is the bigger crime for me."
>And the latter has nothing to do with this discussion.

Yeah, because as little as I liked my own metaphor, I like yours less. (And what I wrote back still corresponded to what I've been saying throughout, regarding Hudsucker and Ladykillers.)

>C) The bottom line (and where this discussion started)

Nope, my discussion didn't start there, like I already said. I slid in at 33. If I had wanted to reply 22 or 23, you would have seen a response there.

>when people say a Coen film is "good but definitely one of my
>least favorite Coen Bros. films...", it's because it is TRUE!
>You can cop pleas all you want but three of their last four
>films have been three of the worst four movies they've ever
>made. That's it. Nobody is even really arguing against that.

Even if you wanna rank them in the bottom part of their filmography, that's because they had an amazing streak before that. So, so what if something is good but not great? That seems really petty and myopic, but I guess I tend to cop pleas to avoid just that kind of myopia.

>I never said they hit a creative dryspell

Wouldn't the belief that 3 of their last 4 films have been their worst seem to suggest that they're on a bad streak as of late? You are going to tell me that is an assumption I'm making, right? Fine, because I suppose when people speak in generalities, they do get the benefit of hiding behind the vagueness of their arguments.

For both of you:

SoulHonky- in terms of a "Coens dry spell," it's hard to disagree when outside of NCFOM, their pre-2000 films are classics for the most part, whereas their post-2000 films fail to hit the "classic" watermark they set for themselves. But their dry spell is still better than 95% of filmmakers' best.

Ricky- I tend to reward the stuff that works in Hudsucker more than the stuff that works in Ladykillers. I too enjoyed Tom Hanks and Irma Hall (and George Wallace) very much, but it feels so ambitionless to me, and that's part of what I love about the Coens, their ability to stretch convention. I guess one could say the end of Ladykillers is unexpected, but I remember finishing that film and actually thinking, "If this wasn't a Coens flick, I wouldn't have been a fan." Hudsucker tries for something big, and yes, it hits some serious speedbumps. But I tend to enjoy that one, for all its imperfections, more than Ladykillers.

And I might get shot at for this one, but I'd give Intolerable Cruelty another chance, a film that, for while it seems at times fairly conventional, really stretches the definition of comfort for a romcom, has some dark moments/characters and boasts a punchline-filled script that hits more often than misses. It's still a lower-echelon Coens flick, but I hear it dismissed quite easily a lot, when I think it doesn't have characters as uninteresting as Ladykillers' supporting cast, or failed ambition as floptastic as parts of Hudsucker.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>SoulHonky- in terms of a "Coens dry spell," it's hard to
>disagree when outside of NCFOM, their pre-2000 films are
>classics for the most part, whereas their post-2000 films fail
>to hit the "classic" watermark they set for themselves. But
>their dry spell is still better than 95% of filmmakers' best.

YET AGAIN, I never said the Coens had hit a dry spell. I simply was responding to BigWorm's comment that seemed dismissive of people saying that the latest Coen movies have been "good but definitely one of my least favorite Coen Bros. films". The bottom line is that three of the last four Coen films have been three of their four worst and even Man Who Wasn't There was arguably a bottom four Coen film when it came out.

You can read into that all you want in order to defend the beloved Coens but I was just pointing out that the "good but not one of their best" complaint is completely valid.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>Even if you wanna rank them in the bottom part of their
>filmography, that's because they had an amazing streak before
>that. So, so what if something is good but not great? That
>seems really petty and myopic, but I guess I tend to cop pleas
>to avoid just that kind of myopia.

OK, point blank. If someone said the latest Coen Brothers films have been "good but definitely one of my least favorite Coen Bros. films" would you be dismissive of that, would you act like it's not a valid point or would you admit that it is basically a solid way of describing those films? Sure you'd just to their defense and say the earlier films were great but the bottom line is that the latest few films were good but definitely not the best Coen Bros. films.

You act like I'm attacking the Coen Brothers when all I am doing is pointing out that Big Worm was dismissing something that most people hold to be true.

>>I never said they hit a creative dryspell
>
>Wouldn't the belief that 3 of their last 4 films have been
>their worst seem to suggest that they're on a bad streak as of
>late? You are going to tell me that is an assumption I'm
>making, right? Fine, because I suppose when people speak in
>generalities, they do get the benefit of hiding behind the
>vagueness of their arguments.

LOL. What is vague about my argument? My point was simply saying that the latest Coen Brothers films didn't rank amongst their best and many would argue were some of their worst work.

You are defending the Coens from an attack that nobody was making, you started making up all of these other arguments, trying to look deeper into the issue. Again, for someone who doesn't like to argue, you are completely making this up.

Seriously, you've been unable to admit your initial post was poorly worded (blaming me for pissy semantics), defended your strawman (Oh yeah well OTHER people felt that way about it), and now have made up an argument and seem to be blaming me for not being interested in anything more than the very specific claim that I was refuting.

You are blowing this entire thing out of proportion and defending yourself by calling others myopic.
----

As for Ladykillers vs. Hudsucker vs. Intolerable Cruelty, it's all subjective as to which one is worse. You are arguing as if you can prove Ladykillers isn't the worst movie. And the best part of this whole thing is that your entire argument is: Ladykillers isn't the Coen's worst movie; it's their third worst. Really?!

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

AND I thought Jennifer Jason Leigh was great in the role.

That movie was a really great throwback to His Girl Friday, and both Frank Capra and Preston Sturges films.

The cinematography, writing, acting, the whole thing was spot on.

...

I really liked it. Laughed consistently. I thought it was definitely more of a comedy than anything else. Having worked at the CIA, it was pretty fun to see a movie that really captured the fact that the environment there is 100% Office Space/The Office/Dilbert. Only thing I didn't care for was the graphic violence. Never really sure what that's meant to accomplish in movies like this.

------------
stylez formerly dainty

>Only thing I didn't care for was the
>graphic violence. Never really sure what that's meant to
>accomplish in movies like this.

mind you i'm a huge fan of tarrantino
loved sin city

but this dunno seemed unnecessary, while it upped the level of absurdity i'm not sure it was worth it
what was the point
to maintain my attention? to get a laugh? to promote sympathy...nah...to get a laugh?
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

Especially when the hard bodies manager got chopped down. It was already a tense scene seeing the one character completely uninvolved and the most sane individual amongst the ruckus catch the mistaken identity and then brutally slain. It was such a shocker to me. It really ripped you out of the film for a second like "woah... *look around theater*"

I thought Brad's brain splitting closet stunt was an excellent climax for the film tho!

☺☻

"i'm doing good, can i put my face in your buttcrack?" (c) P.Inf

"frankly, I think it's foolish to have a cat or a baby, but whatever" (c) veritas

@kingofthings

>Especially when the hard bodies manager got chopped down. It
>was already a tense scene seeing the one character completely
>uninvolved and the most sane individual amongst the ruckus
>catch the mistaken identity and then brutally slain. It was
>such a shocker to me. It really ripped you out of the film for
>a second like "woah... *look around theater*"
>
>I thought Brad's brain splitting closet stunt was an excellent
>climax for the film tho!

oh no
no no
nonono
oh damb
like the first was shocking
the second hurt
=(
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

>the second hurt

Especially if you saw The Visitor. The first thing my wife said, after a period of stunned silence was, "All he wanted to do was play the drums."

----
I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.

>>the second hurt
>
>Especially if you saw The Visitor. The first thing my wife
>said, after a period of stunned silence was, "All he wanted to
>do was play the drums."
>

i actually haven't but that is too funny
dang it it slipped off my list
i'll get back on that
thanks
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

>>"All he wanted to
>do was play the drums."
>

*~.~:~.~*~I~*~.~:~.~*

The whole film was a shit storm of a hyperbole.

☺☻

"i'm doing good, can i put my face in your buttcrack?" (c) P.Inf

"frankly, I think it's foolish to have a cat or a baby, but whatever" (c) veritas

@kingofthings

good movie...i really enjoyed it.

so fucking ridiculous...so fucking stupid...but i think those are kinda the points.


http://myspace.com/shamelessplug
http://shamelessplug.muxtape.com
http://twitter.com/shamelessplug
http://myspace.com/dumhi
http://myspace.com/theyesyesyalls
http://letswaterboardseanhannityforfun.blogspot.com

"Wel tah PiePie cahtakya awda"

Ok, so she drops off Clooney on the Arlington Memorial Bridge and says that they just went 5.2 miles in the car. That's a pretty easy drive. Straight shot and maybe 1.5 miles. Then we see him running by the Tidal Basin. First off, there's no way that she drove by the Tidal Basin coming from Georgetown like that to get to the Arlington Memorial Bridge. But let's just say somehow she did. On foot, from where she dropped him off to around the Tidal Basin is about 1.5 miles. Now the next shot, we see him coming over the Key Bridge into the District, so he would have to cross over into Virginia in order to do that. So he would have had to circle the Tidal Basin and cross over into Virginia, presumably over the 14th Street Bridge. There's a trail along the GW Parkway, so we'll say he takes that. Then he's coming across the Key Bridge and somewhat illogically goes west and up 35th Street when Olive is like 10 blocks east. He then takes a right on Prospect and seems to cover a lot of ground quickly. That whole route has got to be around 7 miles. Bullshit.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

So they can do some re-shoots to fix this for the Special Edition DVD release.

Tom Cruise drives from the Bay Bridge into DC in like 5-10 minutes (they don't specify which Bay Bridge, it was filmed at in Norfolk which would be 3 hours but if it's standing in for the one in Maryland that's like an hour), then he drives into D.C., exits into Southwest and magically ends up at a hospital on the other side of the river in Arlington.

they never get NY right
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

It's like, hey, this shit is right there! I guess it would be even weirder at the lowes in georgetown.

peace
mike

http://theonlyblogthatmatters.wordpress.com
http://www.last.fm/user/mdrohan/

I get people's beefs with it...but I really thought it was a great little movie. I'm also surprised everyone in the theater seemed to "get" it. I mean, it wasn't complicated, but that humor can either be interpreted as incredibly stupid or hilarious.

Anyway...I dug it. Tilda's character was whatever to me, but I thought everyone else was cool. Pitt was fantastic, Clooney was quite good as well, and Malkovich had me dying. I thought the ending was GREAT, and all the CIA scenes were fucking hysterical. It was an incredibly watchable, fun flick...and, while it might not be as good as Fargo, NCFOM, The Big Lebowski, or Barton Fink...it is a really good Coen flick (better than O Brother, The Man Who Wasn't There, Hudsucker Proxy, etc. for sure).

------------------------------

17x NBA Champions

I would see it again with friends! lol

☺☻

"i'm doing good, can i put my face in your buttcrack?" (c) P.Inf

"frankly, I think it's foolish to have a cat or a baby, but whatever" (c) veritas

@kingofthings

malkovitch was hilarious. actually he, clooney and pitt all were.

i was rolling from the opening scene. no one else seemed to think that it was funny at first, but they got into it later on. i think the intro of clooney's character got people going.

i loved how they built stuff up like it was going to be all diabolical and chilling, and then the silliest shit happens.

and great ending, the people next to me looking around yelling "WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING!!!" set me off even more.

i couldn't put the actors back in character


like for me it was
oh snap clooney shot pitt

haha malkovitch is doing aerobics

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

how about you write SPOILERS in your subject.

This post was paid for by the following.

www.twitter.com/13Rose
www.debunkthemyth.org
http://dashaunworld.wordpress.com/
www.mothergreen.com

Remember MJ The Great!
PSN: ThirteenRose

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~

http://unodostres.etsy.com

http://playvicious.com/

The characters were such a rediculous variant of normal people you couldn't help but laugh. From Brad Pitt's happy go lucky gym trainer, to Malkovich's uber elitist mid-life crisis character, to Clooney's pathetic reluctant womanizer. Every character's interaction with one another was a mini sitcom unfolding. Each character had three dimensions to them, even Pitt's character, although it was much more subtle. Tilda Swinton's character was the only two dimensional character but she fit in there so much more serving as this extra layer to Malkovich's character. lol

☺☻

"i'm doing good, can i put my face in your buttcrack?" (c) P.Inf

"frankly, I think it's foolish to have a cat or a baby, but whatever" (c) veritas

@kingofthings

and am not going to waste the energy discussing why.
i just wanted to get it off my fucking chest.
worst thing i've seen from the the brothers coen.

-------------------------------

A lot of you players ain't okay.

We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board

Ignoring the fact that I just don't agree with Bart's opinion here, I'm not really sure how professional it is for an editor of a trade magazine to really attack someone like this.
---

MEMO TO ETHAN AND JOEL COEN:

The one word that scares artists the most is this: Cold.

Guys, you know what “cold” means: No offers. No audiences. That’s why I want to congratulate you: You’ve turned cold into hot.

Your movies are beyond cold. They’re downright frosty and “Burn After Reading” is a prime example. You guys don’t write characters, you write caricatures. As Richard Corliss puts it in Time, your portrayals “betray a condescension, almost a contempt”.

Most of the top critics complained that “Burn” was too cynical even for their tastes, but the film still rolled to a $19.4 million opening weekend – your strongest ever. So you proved your talent for alchemy, turning “cold” into “hot.”

You did it last year, too, with “No Country for Old Men,” another chilly movie. What I admired about “No Country” was your solution to the third-act problem. Since you couldn’t think up an ending, you simply stopped shooting. You should have done the same with “Burn” because the ending doesn’t work there, either.

Your consistency carries into your media interviews as well. Your behavior with the press reflects the same pattern of condescension -- you make no effort to respond or even to connect. As a result, your media presence, too, is frosty.

But then again, cold has turned into hot for you guys, so stars like Brad Pitt and George Clooney line up for minor parts in your movies. Again, both of their characters were caricatures, but their presence helped open the movie.

Though things are going great for you now, I wonder if you would nonetheless consider a change in tone to shake off the chill. Several possible steps are worth consideration.

--You could do the unthinkable – make a movie in which someone actually cares for someone else.

--You could go your separate ways for a movie – maybe sibling rivalry would be good for the work.

--You could sit down with a script doctor and ask him to explain how to write a third act.

Remember, your career, too, may have a third act some day, so it might be a cool idea to do a little prepping. It’s possible that cold may actually turn out to be, well, cold.
---

I already questioned Variety's review, which said one of the problems of the film was that "the uncustomarily overbearing score by Carter Burwell... has been dialed up to an almost grotesquely exaggerated extent, making for a film that feels misjudged from the opening scene." (Um, if it feels misjudged, maybe you did indeed misjudge it). After a hatchet job like this, it's hard to think that these guys might just not like (and could possible have it out for) The Coens.

It's also funny that today Bart bemoans all of the downer films in this down time. Well, by that logic, wouldn't an overly cynical film fit in to this time of heightened cynicism in regards to our government?

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

I never thought of some of those flicks he helped put out during his time at Paramount as "uppers." He should know just as much as anyone the correlation between downer films and audiences living during a downer time.

I agree that this shit is not just unprofessional, but it reeks of sour grapes and/or personal vendetta. He shoulda thought twice before submitting this shit.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

shit, why can't people in general just admit when they don't get something?

- Dub

I give rappers the biz for being m-izza-a-archaic.

> What I admired about “No Country” was
>your solution to the third-act problem. Since you couldn’t
>think up an ending, you simply stopped shooting.

It's not like they were adapting a book or anything, geez. I'm so sick of explaining the ending to people that now I just look down on people that didn't get it even though I know it's mean, foolish and arrogant and I'm commonly only one of those three adjectives.

...says Wrongthink

Real talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12JJv6yCk7Q

Current Rotation:

Shad - TSOL
Onra - Long Distance
Cool Kids - Tacklebox
Shabazz Palaces

- Dub

I give rappers the biz for being m-izza-a-archaic.

Brad in the head. And I was mid-laugh because of that dopey look Pitt had when he peeked out of the curtains. I never went from full-laugh to WTF so quick.

And, I couldn't help but LOL when Malkovich shot and hacked up the gym manager. I don't know if it was supposed to be funny but I laughed.

I got the same laugh out of Clooney smashing that sex chair he built.
---------------------------------------
http://i37.tinypic.com/5x8u9k.gif

The OKP® King of the Late Pass™
---------------------------------------

http://myspace.com/shamelessplug
http://shamelessplug.muxtape.com
http://twitter.com/shamelessplug
http://myspace.com/dumhi
http://myspace.com/theyesyesyalls
http://letswaterboardseanhannityforfun.blogspot.com

"Wel tah PiePie cahtakya awda"

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

I actually thought that Clooney was funnier than Pitt, I guess I attribute that to: a. my heavy Clooney bias; and b. (as was previously mentioned) the fact that he seemed to have more of a character than Pitt...

I also thought that Malkovich was fantastic, such a hilarious self-important loser... we also needed more scenes with JK Simmons, that guy is insane...

I wasn't so enamored with Frances McDormand's performance, however, but I can't put my finger on why... same for Richard Jenkins... Tilda was eh as well...

But overall, it was fine. I understand people's issues with the ending, but I didn't necessarily have to see what happened to some of the characters...

Also, someone asked why Clooney's shooting of Pitt had to be so violent... well, it's because the Coens are sadistic bastards, there's really no other reason, lol... but I wouldn't have them be any other way, they like fucking with audience expectations, that's their thing, so I didn't have a problem with it... just like I didn't have a problem with the off-screen death of Josh Brolin in NCfOM...

I'll leave the "top 5/bottom 5 Coens brothers" debates to the rest of you (and apparently it was already quite heated in here), but this felt like it was intended to be: a nice, sadistic little toss-off after the heaviness of No Country for Old Men (they actually wrote this movie as they were making that film, btw)...
________________________________________________________________________
"I don't want a president I can have a beer with, I want one that can think." - Aaron Sorkin

If someone read that reply after seeing its title, they deserved the spoiler.
---------------------------------------
http://i37.tinypic.com/5x8u9k.gif

The OKP® King of the Late Pass™
---------------------------------------

But then again, most of their films are tied together by "Greed causes things to go terribly awry."

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Pitt's greatness in the movie is over-rated. Malkovich was the ish though. I get the critics complaint, I cared more about the characters then the filmmakers did. But I won't be the deep in my criticism, I just didn't laugh that much. Would have enjoyed it on video, but not worth me going the theater.


01.Fargo (1996)
02.No Country for Old Men (2007)
03.Miller's Crossing (1990)
04. Barton Fink (1991)
05. O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
06. Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
07.The Big Lebowski (1998)
08.The Hudsucker Proxy (1994
09. The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
10.Burn After Reading (2008)
11.The Ladykillers (2004)

Haven't seen all the way through

Raising Arizona (1987)
Blood Simple (1984)



**********
My new favorite photographer http://cwhateyec.com/

Every man must know Teedra http://www.myspace.com/teedramoses

*SPOILERS*













It was entertaining, but it didn't feel like everything totally came together right, and that at times, the right characters weren't paid attention to enough. It was also in a weird space-- not quite "light" fare, but funny and silly, but then semi-morbid and sick. They should have kept brad pitt's character in longer/the whole time, he was the funniest part of the movie.

I don't know, i'd probably rate it at like a 6.5

peace
mike

http://theonlyblogthatmatters.wordpress.com
http://www.last.fm/user/mdrohan/

I love the way Coen's throw curve balls at the audience. I guess some people hate that because it's not your typical formulaic H-Wood fare, but fuck that, I love the rebellious anti-establish ethos of films like this. It makes your head spin and your body shutter, which is at the core of what filmmaking should be able, to get reaction, emotion and the intellect aroused.

Well done.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*Effasig*

FREE CHAI VANG!

YOU'VE READ MY FILE NIGGA (c) Jack 'Mufuckin' Bauer



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

..............

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

People calling eachother 'fucker' or describing their situaton by saying 'fuuuck'
Could have done with stronger jokes

Apart from that it was really good
Very memorable
Love the pemise of the plot

The graphic nature of the violence makes me question their maturity as storytellers though

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>The graphic nature of the violence makes me question their
>maturity as storytellers though

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide