28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[transmogrifier]

Instead of doing anything pressing or responsible today, of which I have a bajillion, I watched Burn After Reading (excellent), The Ladykillers (ecstatic), Fury (masterful), and Die Hard 2 (ridiculous).

Great day indeed.

Die Hard 2 > The Ladykillers

[Sven]

Die Hard 2 > The Ladykillers

Following your own footsteps in arguments past, this leads me to conclude that you think:

Harlin > Coens

You = epic fail.

But seriously, it's my favorite Die Hard film. However, there's no denying its ludicrousness.

[Qrazy]

Mackendrick's Ladykillers > Better than anything else being discussed

[transmogrifier]

Following your own footsteps in arguments past, this leads me to conclude that you think:

Harlin > Coens

You = epic fail.

But seriously, it's my favorite Die Hard film. However, there's no denying its ludicrousness.

No, that was Qrazy's crazy idea - that liking one particular film over an other was an automatic judgement on the entire output of the respective directors.

Though Die Hard 2 is better than three, maybe four Coen films - Raising Arizona, The Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty......perhaps Oh Brother.

[Winston*]

Well, this weekend my media viewings consisted of several episodes of The Venture Bros and about half an hour of Jaws 3.

On this basis, I'm going to have to declare: television cartoons > movies

[soitgoes...]

Well, this weekend my media viewings consisted of several episodes of The Venture Bros and about half an hour of Jaws 3.

On this basis, I'm going to have to declare: television cartoons > movies

If you had seen Jaws 3 in theaters when first released, then you would have witnessed it in all its 3-D glory. Floating bits of stupid humans coming at you just as it would in reality with the added benefit of a strange blue-red hue > any cartoon.

[soitgoes...]

Will be curious to hear what you think of the Akerman. I was so surprised at how engaged I was by it, ditto with Les Rendez-vous D'Anna. Can't wait to see more of hers.

It was great. It is a surprisingly engaging film. Once I felt the longing to hear Akerman's voice read one of her mother's letters I knew I was hooked. I like how towards the beginning her camera is distant, removed from everyone. As the film progresses she becomes more bold, but never fully integrated into being a New Yorker. Her mother's letters might be drowned out by everyday life, but in the end they are still the only thing she connects with. And the last scene...

[balmakboor]

It was great. It is a surprisingly engaging film. Once I felt the longing to hear Akerman's voice read one of her mother's letters I knew I was hooked. I like how towards the beginning her camera is distant, removed from everyone. As the film progresses she becomes more bold, but never fully integrated into being a New Yorker. Her mother's letters might be drowned out by everyday life, but in the end they are still the only thing she connects with. And the last scene...

Yes, Akerman does have a way of ending her films with...

[Qrazy]

No, that was Qrazy's crazy idea - that liking one particular film over an other was an automatic judgement on the entire output of the respective directors.

Though Die Hard 2 is better than three, maybe four Coen films - Raising Arizona, The Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty......perhaps Oh Brother.

No that was your misinterpretation of what I said so you still equal fail. Also Raising Arizona is one of the Coens better films.

[B-side]

I wasn't a big fan of In Praise Of Love either. Gorgeous looking film, but oh-so empty.

[Sven]

which I really enjoyed, even if I'm not completely sure its misanthropy is in the right place

Its misanthropy is a difficult, difficult thing.

With The Ladykillers, however, the humor is lame (IBS? Really, Joel and Ethan?), the performances miscalculated and...well, I don't remember much beyond that. I tried to watch some of it on some movie network recently and I didn't make it past 10 minutes. It's nearly indescribable; I just find it putrid.

Well, you'd have to do better than to point to one of the multitudinous gags to indicate its lame humor. Not that I even see anything inherently wrong with using IBS as a point for laughs. As for miscalculated performances, if you want to get into a row about this, without specifics to address, all I can say is that you're a hundred percent wrong (if we're going to be using objective terms like "calculation"). I'm sad that you don't remember much about it, because I would like to, through dialogue, emphasize the film's strengths, which are precisely in its imaginative gags and impeccable characterizations (remember, this is a cartoon). I would also add its visual sumptuousness, atmosphere, and strange fibers of moral explication. I think it's great.

But I do agree with Q: Mackendrick's is better.

[Amnesiac]

Also Raising Arizona is one of the Coens better films.

Really? From their oeuvre, I've seen O Brother, Where Art Thou, The Big Lebowski, Miller's Crossing, Fargo, No Country For Old Men and most recently, Burn After Reading. I'm not including The Ladykillers because it has been far too long since I last saw that one. Even so, all the other ones I listed are leaps and bounds ahead of Raising Arizona.

I actually just posted about how little I thought of Arizona in the Burn After Reading thread:

Just as a side-note, I happened to watch Raising Arizona for the first time after coming from home from this one last night. And, yeah, I really didn't think that much of it aside from a few points of mild interest, viz. an unashamedly campy premonition of Anton Chigurh and Nicholas Cage having a nightmare about Ghost Rider. A bit too wacky, I guess.

And I think it was because most of the characters were extremely dim, unlikable, self-interested and full of faulty logic and reasoning. But, I guess someone could make the same argument for the characters in Burn After Reading ... yet, it works for that film. Why? Is it because no one steals babies and packages of Huggies in the Coens' latest? I don't know. While Burn's characters may be dim, and perhaps occasionally unlikable, they never really tip over the precipice into true irritation ... there's always a certain bemusement and symapthy to be had. Their foibles are funnier and more interesting. I guess it has a lot to do with what NYTimes reviewer Manohla Dargis notes about Burn; that it centers around "three favorite American (and Hollywood) preoccupations: money, sex and self." Well, Arizona has two of those things - did it need more sex? Either way, I can understand greed, a propensity for self-delusion, and over-all witlessness as defining character traits ... but when these traits are being exercised by Cage and Holly Hunter's characters in Arizona, it got a bit grating. Petty convenience store robberies and whacked out plans to steal people's babies and some implacable and campy Hell's Angels biker? None of this struck a chord with me.

I mean, these are both films about desperate, wanting, unintelligent people who are prone to regression and bad habits. And yet I enjoy what one group of dolts is doing over the other. Better characterization? The absence of Burn's well-choreographed jumble of characters, story-lines, incidents, coincidences, and serendipity? I guess there's something appealing about Burn's wider canvas. Maybe that's a big part of it.

Or maybe I would have been easier on it had I watched it before their latest offering.

In case you don't want to read my little cross-post there, the verdict is basically this: I really didn't find much to like about it. Still, I'm curious to hear what validates it as top-tier Coens fare for you.

[Sven]

Forgive me, Spinal, for invoking your words, but nearly everything I want to say, you say here:

The Coen Brothers first comedy, Raising Arizona, is still their funniest film to date. With delightfully outrageous commitment, Nicolas Cage, Holly Hunter, John Goodman, Frances McDormand and the rest of the cast lay out the groundwork for a comedic style that ranks among the most popular in cinema today. Borrowing liberally from Preston Sturges and then layering on a modern sensibility, the Coen Brothers pack their film with wonderfully outrageous characters and situations, yet ground it all in genuine human emotions and desires. The Coens get loads of help from a few key contributors in establishing their delirious comedic rhythm. The mood is established early on with Carter Burwell’s half-yodeling theme promising a comedy that will be the very definition of ‘rollicking’. Editor Michael Miller pieces together an expository opening that provides more laughs before the credits roll than most comedies have in their entire run-time. Cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld takes us down grocery aisles and through baby nurseries, punctuating the more active sequences with bold, yet carefully orchestrated motion. Watching all of these elements come together is to watch the creation of Coen comedy, one of the more delightful pleasures for the modern cinemagoer.

There is no question that the Coens have requested performances somewhat divorced from reality; however, these exaggerations spring from a core truth that is essential to making the comedy work. Let me offer an example. Through desperation at not being able to produce a child themselves, H.I. and Ed (a recovering criminal and a former cop respectively) plot to abduct one quintuplet away from the Arizonas, a wealthy family that has already been blessed with more than they can appreciate – or “more than they can handle” as Ed puts it. With severe coaxing, Ed convinces H.I. to break into the Arizonas’ residence and return with a toddler. While the farcical antics within the mansion are wonderfully executed, it is Ed’s reaction afterwards, holding the child in her arms that makes the scene. Hunter starts with very real feelings that can overwhelm a new parent and then ratchets them up to a comedic level than surprises us, yet feels appropriate within the film’s established tone. Another such moment occurs when Frances McDormand’s character, Dot, drills the new parents on the preparations they have made for the child’s future. It comes within the context of an outrageous comedy; yet no drama that I have seen has captured that sense of exhaustion and worry quite so well. H.I. and Ed are characters driven by greed, yes, but also by the notion of an America beyond their grasp and symbolized by the loudmouthed businessman, Nathan Arizona.

[Morris Schæffer]

Instead of doing anything pressing or responsible today, of which I have a bajillion, I watched Burn After Reading (excellent), The Ladykillers (ecstatic), Fury (masterful), and Die Hard 2 (ridiculous).

Great day indeed.

Potentially so, but stuntwork and FX are both masterful and so what I saw was something intensely thrilling and climactic. I think it's one of the great sequels.

[Amnesiac]

The Coen Brothers first comedy, Raising Arizona, is still their funniest film to date.

What about The Big Lebowski? I also got more laughs out of Burn After Reading, and that wasn't even as committed a comedy as Lebowski.

The Coen Brothers pack their film with wonderfully outrageous characters and situations, yet ground it all in genuine human emotions and desires.

Genuine human emotions and desires? Check. Outrageously annoying characters and dull situations? Check.

The Coens get loads of help from a few key contributors in establishing their delirious comedic rhythm. The mood is established early on with Carter Burwell’s half-yodeling theme promising a comedy that will be the very definition of ‘rollicking’. Editor Michael Miller pieces together an expository opening that provides more laughs before the credits roll than most comedies have in their entire run-time.

Yeah, the opening was pretty good. I guess I could concede to that ... even if I find this statement a bit hyperbolic. It established the tone fine enough, but it wasn't exactly a laugh-riot paragon of comedy.

Cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld takes us down grocery aisles and through baby nurseries, punctuating the more active sequences with bold, yet carefully orchestrated motion.

Really? ...

There is no question that the Coens have requested performances somewhat divorced from reality; however, these exaggerations spring from a core truth that is essential to making the comedy work. Let me offer an example. Through desperation at not being able to produce a child themselves, H.I. and Ed (a recovering criminal and a former cop respectively) plot to abduct one quintuplet away from the Arizonas, a wealthy family that has already been blessed with more than they can appreciate – or “more than they can handle” as Ed puts it. With severe coaxing, Ed convinces H.I. to break into the Arizonas’ residence and return with a toddler. While the farcical antics within the mansion are wonderfully executed, it is Ed’s reaction afterwards, holding the child in her arms that makes the scene. Hunter starts with very real feelings that can overwhelm a new parent and then ratchets them up to a comedic level than surprises us, yet feels appropriate within the film’s established tone.

Yeah, I can't say I really felt the same way about Hunter holding the child. I guess there was a balance of heart and comedy, but it didn't do much to compel my interest or admiration. I guess it was because I couldn't sidle up to the idea of these bovine folks merrily stealing someone's kid and scuttling over to their trailer park home. There's an absurdity there to appreciate if you're in the right mood, but it also left me feeling a little cold in regards to these people. I couldn't buy it. It was too out there, their reasoning and justification too petty, their attitudes too dimwitted. I did not enjoy what they were doing. I guess there's an understandable sentiment there, an inexorable desire for the completion of the family unit, but it's not exactly potent. It's buried underneath these harebrained shenanigans and characters who push the boundary on annoyance, similar to the cast of My Name Is Earl.

Another such moment occurs when Frances McDormand’s character, Dot, drills the new parents on the preparations they have made for the child’s future. It comes within the context of an outrageous comedy; yet no drama that I have seen has captured that sense of exhaustion and worry quite so well.

What?

H.I. and Ed are characters driven by greed, yes, but also by the notion of an America beyond their grasp and symbolized by the loudmouthed businessman, Nathan Arizona.

This is a nice thought. But it doesn't save the movie from meandering in a dull subplot involving two escape convict bafoons whose tactlessness and stupidity quickly become more irritating than amusing. And punctuating their ridiculous attitudes with tiresome and cliche gags like 'where's the baby?!' doesn't exactly provide a saving grace. I can't excuse the film for not sticking to a coherent sense of realistic continuity, either. That whole Hell's Angels biker thing really felt a bit too silly. Regardless of whether it is intentional camp which fits in with the 'rollicking' energy of the film, I still found it to be one of Arizona's questionable excesses. Same goes for the contrived dialogue from Nathan Arizona when they decide to return Junior. And, not really caring for these dimwitted characters or their attitudes, I couldn't even bother to get invested in the film's closing moments ...I can applaud Cage's dream for offering an intriguing ambivalence and an effectively elegiac tone, but it's still centered around two characters who were always more grating than ingratiating.

[Spinal]

There is nothing that gives me greater joy than seeing a point by point rebuttle to something that I have posted. Gosh, I love that.

[Sven]

There is nothing that gives me greater joy than seeing a point by point rebuttle to something that I have posted. Gosh, I love that.

I feel guilty now. :cry:

[Amnesiac]

There is nothing that gives me greater joy than seeing a point by point rebuttle to something that I have posted. Gosh, I love that.

Heh. Sorry?

Since you didn't voluntarily post that, I guess I should have waited for your consent before diving in. Or ...something.

[Watashi]

Die Hard 2 better than Die Hard?

[

Show Spoiler

Only on Motherfucking Matchcut

]

[The Mike]

I just saw Raising Arizona for the first time this week. Had I seen it before Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou?, The Man Who Wasn't There, and No Country for Old Men; I'd have thought it was among the Coens' best works.

[Qrazy]

Really? From their oeuvre, I've seen O Brother, Where Art Thou, The Big Lebowski, Miller's Crossing, Fargo, No Country For Old Men and most recently, Burn After Reading. I'm not including The Ladykillers because it has been far too long since I last saw that one. Even so, all the other ones I listed are leaps and bounds ahead of Raising Arizona.

I actually just posted about how little I thought of Arizona in the Burn After Reading thread:



In case you don't want to read my little cross-post there, the verdict is basically this: I really didn't find much to like about it. Still, I'm curious to hear what validates it as top-tier Coens fare for you.

Because I find it bears most of their strengths (dark humor, almost cartoonish stylistic and narrative sensibilities as well as a light touch and joy for filmmaking) and fewer of their weaknesses (pseudo-profundity, hollow metaphors, and moments when their dark humor veers into cruel territory). I have trouble taking the brothers seriously so I appreciate it when they don't take themselves too seriously.

[Amnesiac]

Because I find it bears most of their strengths (dark humor, almost cartoonish stylistic and narrative sensibilities as well as a light touch and joy for filmmaking) and fewer of their weaknesses (pseudo-profundity, hollow metaphors, and moments when their dark humor veers into cruel territory). I have trouble taking the brothers seriously so I appreciate it when they don't take themselves too seriously.

I can see the cartoonish stylistic and narrative sensibilities and the light touch. I think some of that might have rubbed me the wrong way this time around. But, regardless, I think I can understand (but not agree with) your last point - you prefer the Coens' output to be more silly and irreverent because you don't think they're capable of effectively reaching anything higher than that.

I can totally see the cruel territory they tend to tread on, coating many aspects of their films with a certain sadistic delight. Still, I'm of the mind that such cruel territory serves a purpose greater than downright mean-spiritedness.

But now I'm really curious about which hollow metaphors you've encountered in their films?

[Qrazy]

I can see the cartoonish stylistic and narrative sensibilities and the light touch. I think some of that might have rubbed me the wrong way this time around. But, regardless, I think I can understand (but not agree with) your last point - you prefer the Coens' output to be more silly and irreverent because you don't think they're capable of effectively reaching anything higher than that.

I can totally see the cruel territory they tend to tread on, coating many aspects of their films with a certain sadistic delight. Still, I'm of the mind that such cruel territory serves a purpose greater than downright mean-spiritedness.

But now I'm really curious about which hollow metaphors you've encountered in their films?

Perhaps hollow wasn't precisely the right term... more so vague and open ended metaphors which paint with too wide a brush and lack the thematic precision which they formally possess... I'm thinking specifically of some dream sequence moments in The Big Lebowski, a bit of Hudsucker Proxy, and elements of Barton Fink. I don't think the metaphors in any of these cases are meaningless, they just lack precision in my book.

[Qrazy]

I can see the cartoonish stylistic and narrative sensibilities and the light touch. I think some of that might have rubbed me the wrong way this time around. But, regardless, I think I can understand (but not agree with) your last point - you prefer the Coens' output to be more silly and irreverent because you don't think they're capable of effectively reaching anything higher than that.

I can totally see the cruel territory they tend to tread on, coating many aspects of their films with a certain sadistic delight. Still, I'm of the mind that such cruel territory serves a purpose greater than downright mean-spiritedness.

But now I'm really curious about which hollow metaphors you've encountered in their films?

I dunno it just doesn't seem all that purposive to me to shoot up a cow or to create a whiny mafia boss son for the sole purpose of slapping him around.

[Rowland]

Mind Hunters > Die Hard 2