(Coen Bros) How long?

Started by my dead dog, May 28, 2003, 08:43:47 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

my dead dog

May 28, 2003, 08:43:47 PM
Ok,

most of us love the Coens, thats a given. What I'm curious about is this: how long can they carry it off? They have not made a bad film yet, and in my opinion they are the most consistent film-makers in Hollywood. The guys are magicians; every time I go to see a new release of theirs I am filled with adrenaline, speed and a tiny slice of dread that questions whether they will pull the rabbit out the hat.
I am thinking of Danny's speech from Withnail & I, and I am wondering, 'How long can they hold onto the balloon?'
What do you think?
"Everything's happening so fast. It's all in such high gear that sometimes it doesn't feel like me"

Ghostboy

#1
May 28, 2003, 09:42:29 PM
If you, like me, are of the opinion that they haven't made a bad film yet, then odds are they'll never fail you (or me).

modage

#2
May 28, 2003, 10:30:45 PM
hmm that is an interesting question. i would like to think that they will never make a bad movie, but as i posed in the scorsese forum, why is it that all great artists lose their way at some point?  it seems that anyone around long enough will eventually screw up.  why is it that great artists cannot be great forever?  perhaps because the Coens have each other to watch each others backs, maybe it wont happen.  but odds are, if they continue to take chances and try new things, at some point things wont pan out.  whether it will be "bad" or just "not as good" is obviously yet to be determined.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#3
May 29, 2003, 12:30:55 AM
Quote from: my dead dogOk,

most of us love the Coens, thats a given. What I'm curious about is this: how long can they carry it off? They have not made a bad film yet, and in my opinion they are the most consistent film-makers in Hollywood. The guys are magicians; every time I go to see a new release of theirs I am filled with adrenaline, speed and a tiny slice of dread that questions whether they will pull the rabbit out the hat.
I am thinking of Danny's speech from Withnail & I, and I am wondering, 'How long can they hold onto the balloon?'
What do you think?

they fell off with the man who wasnt there

i loved fargo lebowski O brother

and the early stuff like arizona and blood simple

But man who wasnt there felt forced

godardian

#4
May 29, 2003, 12:54:25 AM
I actually felt that Man Who Wasn't There was a return to form; O Brother felt more forced to me (though that's not the first word I would use, just in comparison).
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#5
May 29, 2003, 01:07:04 AM
Quote from: godardianI actually felt that Man Who Wasn't There was a return to form; O Brother felt more forced to me (though that's not the first word I would use, just in comparison).

how was o brother forced ??

by retrun to form, you are saying that you liked it because it was weird and o brother was bad because it was a solid real film, and not loaded with gimmicks

the best part of O brother was that people who were afround in the 40's cold watch it and enjoy it, and people of today who are into films that are a little more deeper then vin diseal flicks can dig it

the old people point i was making is they were trying to re create that era and bullseye. They failed with hudsucker

how would you call that film forced ??? it flowed so well

godardian

#6
May 29, 2003, 01:10:28 AM
Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan
Quote from: godardianI actually felt that Man Who Wasn't There was a return to form; O Brother felt more forced to me (though that's not the first word I would use, just in comparison).

how was o brother forced ??

by retrun to form, you are saying that you liked it because it was weird and o brother was bad because it was a solid real film, and not loaded with gimmicks

the best part of O brother was that people who were afround in the 40's cold watch it and enjoy it, and people of today who are into films that are a little more deeper then vin diseal flicks can dig it

the old people point i was making is they were trying to re create that era and bullseye. They failed with hudsucker

how would you call that film forced ??? it flowed so well

Yes... a little too well, maybe. To me, their playfulness (what you call their "gimmicks") are what give their films live and uniqueness. That's why I love Hudsucker so much. O Brother didn't have quite as much of it as I'd hoped, though more has appeared on subsequent viewings.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#7
May 29, 2003, 01:15:06 AM
quirks i like, but they have to flow

its a subversive thing SLIP IT IN

but the man who wasnt there, the weird things stood out like a sore thumb

lebowski was very weird and yet it flowed

i love when directers throw in weird neat things

but make it work let it flow

look at Boogie nights and magnolia, so much cool shit going on

my dead dog

#8
May 29, 2003, 06:26:33 AM
Man Who Wasn't There was weird alright. I really liked it, but it definitely felt different... can't place how. It was dark, but not in the way Blood Simple or Fargo were, it was bleaker somehow. Too cold?
    I still think they're fantastic film-makers, i'm just curious about where they go. My real concern is the lack of Buscemi in their most recent projects. Last time i looked he wasn't posted in the cast for Ladykillers  :(
    Bring back Steve! He da man!
"Everything's happening so fast. It's all in such high gear that sometimes it doesn't feel like me"

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#9
May 29, 2003, 08:10:13 AM
too cold

lacking heart

the commantary was fun and the extras

children with angels

#10
May 29, 2003, 08:27:27 AM
I'd like to just go with what Billy Bob Thornton says on the The Man Who Wasn't There DVD: "some people just don't suck".

I think the Coens are good enough so that there will always be things to appreciate in their movies, even if you don't love every one. I was severely disappointed with Oh Brother the first time I saw it, but if you watch it again and again there are inevitably so many things to find joy in, just because of the intelligence, visual flair and sense of humour of the minds behind it.

Same with Man Who Wasn't There. First time I was somewhat disappointed, but the more you watch it the more you like it: that's the measure of a good film in my book. As for it being cold, I think there's a certain coldness about pretty much all of the Coen films (see Emotional Attachment thread), but I agree, perhaps it was even more obvious in this movie. However, I think that made it more tragic: the silent welling up of emotion under the surface of Ed Crane, never released... I think the movie is pretty affecting (in that strange way that Coen movies are: not through chracter so much but through distance).
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

Ernie

#11
June 10, 2003, 07:39:07 PM
Me personally, I don't think they're without a bad film. I think they have made one bad film. The only one I hate of theirs is Fargo, that is their lone bad film. There's so little going on compared to their other films, it kills me how dull the movie is. The accents suck too. And trust me, I am a fucking LOVER of accents, love em...the only ones I don't like are the Fargo one and the canadian one...not that I don't like canadians, I just don't really like their accent.

Other than that though, their films range from don't-know-what-to-think-yet (Hudsucker, Barton Fink)...to mediocre (Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn't There)...to PERFECTION (The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona, O Brother) in my eyes. They're really really great filmmakers.

modage

#12
June 10, 2003, 11:59:19 PM
Quote from: ebeamanMe personally, I don't think they're without a bad film. I think they have made one bad film. The only one I hate of theirs is Fargo, that is their lone bad film. There's so little going on compared to their other films, it kills me how dull the movie is. The accents suck too. And trust me, I am a fucking LOVER of accents, love em...the only ones I don't like are the Fargo one and the canadian one...not that I don't like canadians, I just don't really like their accent.

Other than that though, their films range from don't-know-what-to-think-yet (Hudsucker, Barton Fink)...to mediocre (Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn't There)...to PERFECTION (The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona, O Brother) in my eyes. They're really really great filmmakers.

little going on?  well, first of all, its a TRUE STORY.  and the fact that all that crazy shit actually happened is facinating.  i think the characters in that movie are as wonderful as anything else theyve ever done.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

MacGuffin

#13
June 11, 2003, 12:10:28 AM
Quote from: themodernage02little going on?  well, first of all, its a TRUE STORY.  and the fact that all that crazy shit actually happened is facinating.

Ummm...sorry to break it to you, but:
http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/fargo.htm
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Cecil

#14
June 11, 2003, 12:22:39 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: themodernage02little going on?  well, first of all, its a TRUE STORY.  and the fact that all that crazy shit actually happened is facinating.

Ummm...sorry to break it to you, but:
http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/fargo.htm

oh shit... so wait, does this mean that the commentary track on blood simple could be fake as well?
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions