The Ladykillers

[MacGuffin]

Raising 'Ladykillers': Coens hit remake trail with black comedy update

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Some filmmakers tiptoe around the word "remake." Others delicately suggest their film is more a "revisitation" or "reimagining," afraid of being scorned for filching someone else's ideas. The Coen brothers guffaw over such euphemisms.

"Listen, this is a remake," says Joel Coen, who joined with brother Ethan to write, produce and direct The Ladykillers, starring Tom Hanks in an update of the 1955 Alec Guinness black comedy.

Leave it to the Coens, though, to call it a remake while infusing it with so much of their own warped, absurdist humor and macabre yet funny imagery that it feels entirely original.

After last fall's nearly normal Intolerable Cruelty, the George Clooney-Catherine Zeta-Jones romance that was the Coens' most mainstream film yet, the brothers are back in their oddball America where such wicked little yarns as Fargo,The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink could only exist.

In The Ladykillers, Hanks takes on the Guinness role as mastermind of a gang of daft thieves, who rent rooms from a sweet old lady as a base of operations and then bumble through attempts to knock her off when she uncovers their plan.

Hollywood is churning out remakes by the dozen these days, but that didn't disturb the Coens. "We don't think about it in those terms," Ethan Coen says. "We wouldn't have done it if we didn't think we could have fun with it."

They had not seen The Ladykillers in years, though they borrowed one of its memorable closing lines — "Who looks stupid now?" — for their 1984 debut, Blood Simple.

The Coens took the "bones of the plot" and ran with it, transplanting The Ladykillers from London to the Deep South and creating a more active heroine than the porcelain-teacup widow of the original.

Irma P. Hall co-stars as a slightly batty, devout Southern Baptist who discovers her dandy of a tenant (Hanks) and his buddies (Marlon Wayans, J.K. Simmons, Tzi Ma and Ryan Hurst) have tunneled from her cellar into a casino and cleaned out its cash vault.

Propelling the action is an invigorating collection of church tunes gathered by music producer T Bone Burnett, a soundtrack that could rouse interest in gospel the way Burnett's work on the Coens' O Brother, Where Are Thou? did for roots music.

Hanks delivers a wildly eccentric performance as a caped, toothy "professor" with a rat-quiver laugh, a passion for dusty literature and a heart of ice (the Coens viewed Hanks' character as a cross between Col. Sanders and 19th century actor Edwin Booth). Like Guinness in the original, Hanks creates an effeminately creepy heavy, but in an entirely different manner, without the slightest trace of imitation.

The Coens have always equally shared writing, directing and producing, but The Ladykillers is the first of their 11 films on which they share all three credits. Previously, Joel, 49, has taken the directing credit and Ethan, 46, the producing credit, while screenplays were credited to both.

They felt compelled to share credits this time, since the movie originated elsewhere and had three other producers, including Barry Sonnenfeld, who was the cinematographer on their first three films —Blood Simple,Raising Arizona and Miller's Crossing.

The Coens' process has been the same from the start, the two alone in a room talking out a script while one of them types it.

"The only kind of a rule is we show up," Ethan says. "We go to the office every day when we're writing, or supposed to be writing. It's not always productive and there's a lot of procrastinating, just staring at the wall, like any other writing. But we just make ourselves go to the office every day for more or less the whole day."

On set, directing chores are allotted to "whoever is closest to the question being asked," Joel Coen says. They edit most of their films under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes.

They often cast the same actors, among them John Turturro, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi and Joel Coen's wife, Frances McDormand, who won the best-actress Academy Award for Fargo (that film also earned the Coens the Oscar for original screenplay).

The Coens made super-8mm movies together growing up in Minnesota. Joel went on to film school at New York University while his brother studied philosophy at Princeton.

After college, Joel got his start as an assistant editor for Sam Raimi on The Evil Dead, and he and his brother collaborated on scripts in New York City.

The Coens have a small, loyal fan base, and occasionally their films connect with a broader audience. O Brother, their biggest moneymaker, took in $45.5 million.

But much of the general public simply does not get the Coens, and some critics gripe that their flamboyant characters could not exist in the real world.

"Well, they don't," the brothers say almost in unison, laughing.

"We don't do realism, and if that's what you go to the movies for, you're not necessarily going to like our stuff," says Joel.

"But who goes to the movies for that?" Ethan says. "Mainly, people go to movies for kind of the Hollywood pablum, which isn't the real world, either."

"Right, they go for what they think is realism," Joel says. "They see Heat, Michael Mann, cops. It's gritty realism, when in fact it's just obviously not."

"Let me tell you the movie that really struck me," Ethan concludes. "Pretty Woman is about a businessman that comes to L.A. and hires a prostitute to accompany him to all his business meetings, functions, that he has. It's a huge mainstream success. My God, that's realistic? People say we're weird?"

[modage]

I love all the Coen brothers movies. To start hypothesizing their decline is ridiculous. I think a better way to look at it would be to think that people who might not ordinarily go to see the brothers talents might like this one, and go back through the catalogue. Then there'll be all the more people to complain about the good old days when the Coens didnt make movies that appealed to a broader audience.

no its not.  2 shitty movies in a row can be considered a decline.  its not that they're making good movies that are now appealing to a wider audience, they're making movies (if ladykillers is anything comparable to intolerable cruelty) that are awful, even by 'normal movie' standards.  (i doubt that anyone would describe any of their earlier works as 'really bad UPN sitcom'.

i never saw Intolerable Cruelty and i am NEVER going to see The Ladykillers.

Then you aren't allowed to express yourself about the films. Please shut up.

sure he is.  actually i wish i could trade places with him, if i had the willpower to stay away, and leave my coens untarnished with this junk.  

I liked Intolerable Cruelty quite a bit.  Does that mean I'll like Ladykillers?

but would you say its one of  your favorite coen films?  like, would it go in your top 3?

No, I wouldn't say that but Coen Bros are a pair of filmmakers whose movie I will always give a chance, but they don't always work for me.

Worked: Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona, Intolerable Cruelty
Kind of worked, but not as much as others claim: Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, The Man Who Wasn't There
DIdn't work at all: O Brother Where Art Thou

still need to see Barton Fink.

oh.  you might like this one then?

[cine]

i never saw Intolerable Cruelty and i am NEVER going to see The Ladykillers.

Then you aren't allowed to express yourself about the films. Please shut up.

sure he is.

Uh, no, I wouldn't think so.

[SoNowThen]

I love all the Coen brothers movies. To start hypothesizing their decline is ridiculous. I think a better way to look at it would be to think that people who might not ordinarily go to see the brothers talents might like this one, and go back through the catalogue. Then there'll be all the more people to complain about the good old days when the Coens didnt make movies that appealed to a broader audience.

no its not.  2 shitty movies in a row can be considered a decline.  its not that they're making good movies that are now appealing to a wider audience, they're making movies (if ladykillers is anything comparable to intolerable cruelty) that are awful, even by 'normal movie' standards.  (i doubt that anyone would describe any of their earlier works as 'really bad UPN sitcom'.

i never saw Intolerable Cruelty and i am NEVER going to see The Ladykillers.

Then you aren't allowed to express yourself about the films. Please shut up.

sure he is.  actually i wish i could trade places with him, if i had the willpower to stay away, and leave my coens untarnished with this junk.  

I liked Intolerable Cruelty quite a bit.  Does that mean I'll like Ladykillers?

but would you say its one of  your favorite coen films?  like, would it go in your top 3?

No, I wouldn't say that but Coen Bros are a pair of filmmakers whose movie I will always give a chance, but they don't always work for me.

Worked: Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona, Intolerable Cruelty
Kind of worked, but not as much as others claim: Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, The Man Who Wasn't There
DIdn't work at all: O Brother Where Art Thou

still need to see Barton Fink.

oh.  you might like this one then?

Hehe, lists are fun. I'm a Coen fan who hated Fargo, and was totally lukewarm over O Brother and Miller's Crossing. And no, I don't think IC is top three, but I still like it. Not every movie can be "the best" movie. Like, Color Of Money is not Scorsese's best movie by a long shot, but it's still a great, fun, breath-of-fresh-air picture.

[ElPandaRoyal]

i never saw Intolerable Cruelty and i am NEVER going to see The Ladykillers.

Then you aren't allowed to express yourself about the films. Please shut up.

sure he is.

Uh, no, I wouldn't think so.

Giving an opinion and not knowing what we're talking about is never something to be taken seriously. You could say that the trailer or the conditions that originated these movies or the cast doesn't appeal to you, but without seeing it, you can never say it's bad, good or that those were some good waffles

[Henry Hill]

am the first one to trash a film without seeing it? wow! i was expressing the opinion that i know i will hate it (sorry hanks). i didnt say any of you  will hate it. i was just saying that for the people who see it and wish they hadnt..then i am sorry. now i will shut up.  

[jonas]

I don't care what the reivews say, etc... I'm going to see this movie anyway. The Coen's have still yet to disappoint me and I've seen ALL of their work.

I think the Ladykillers looks pretty darn good.

[ElPandaRoyal]

am the first one to trash a film without seeing it? wow! i was expressing the opinion that i know i will hate it (sorry hanks). i didnt say any of you  will hate it. i was just saying that for the people who see it and wish they hadnt..then i am sorry. now i will shut up.  

I know what you were trying to say. I just said you can say a film doesn't appeal to you, but that's it. You can't criticize it if you haven't seen it... right? And, please, don't shut up.

[modage]

alright i saw this.  *(sigh).  being a huge coen fan since birth, i couldnt help myself even though i thought/heard/knew it might/would be bad.  it was okay.  not terrible, but not really anything i'm excited about watching again.  just so 'blah' it makes me want to puke.  what happened to my precious coens?  had a few similarities with the original, but was pretty different.  watching hanks devour the role was the most fun part of the film.  a lot of the jokes i just did not think were funny.  perhaps they were aimed at a more 'urban' audience who thinks 'hippedy hop jokes' are funny.  perhaps the problem with the last two films is the casting?  like, there were NONE of the big coen regulars (john tutturo, john goodman, holly hunter, francis mcdormand, steve buscemi) in them, and therefore, were bad.  theres just got to be a reason for this.  i feel bad for hanks getting to work with them on one of their worst films.  hopefully he'll get another swing when they get back to their 'roots'.  as far as its grosses, i doubt itll do very well considering again, how weird it is, and how mainstream audiences feel about weird.  nice bruce campbell cameo though.

[Ghostboy]

What themodernage said.

I think there were five really good scenes in this: two of them being where Hanks recited Edgar Allen Poe, one of them consisting of the final moment on the bridge, and the other two having already made haste from concrete memory, leaving only ephemeral traces of pleasure, thus perhaps inspiring you to wonder 'were they, in fact, great at all, seeing as how they now evade recollection?.' This may well be true, but I know I laughed out loud, heartily, at least twice.

Also, they sort of reprised the inhaler joke from Intolerable Cruelty. It was hilarious the first time. Speaking of Intolerable Cruelty, that and this film are two in a pair.

[Kal]

I agree. I liked the film and it was an ok 100 minutes, but I'm glad it wasnt longer. It was funny at moments and I liked Hanks and his character (the laugh was great). And I liked the type of Coen ending which was funny. But this wasnt anything special or appealing to see another time or get the DVD. Its one of those movies that go unnoticed in the career of both the Coens and Tom Hanks.

I wanted to see Jersey Girl but the next showing was in like 50 minutes and I didnt want to wait so much so it was ok... but I would see another movie this weekend if I were you (Eternal Sunshine which I already saw, Jersey Girl, I dunno...)

[SiliasRuby]

but I would see another movie this weekend if I were you (Eternal Sunshine which I already saw, Jersey Girl, I dunno...)

How about "Scooby Doo 2"?

[Ravi]

The movie is funny at times and is rarely boring, but as a whole it didn't come together for me.  Some of the humor was not of my taste, such as the portrait of the old lady's dead husband.  It was an old gag and seemed out of place here.  Roger Deakins provides some nice cinematography.

[modage]

And I liked the type of Coen ending which was funny.

the ending was almost exactly the same as in the original.  

But this wasnt anything special or appealing to see another time or get the DVD.

i know.  and isnt that sad, that even the most hardcore coen fans have to say this about one of their films?  what a sad sad state of affairs.

[godardian]

And I liked the type of Coen ending which was funny.

the ending was almost exactly the same as in the original.  

But this wasnt anything special or appealing to see another time or get the DVD.

i know.  and isnt that sad, that even the most hardcore coen fans have to say this about one of their films?  what a sad sad state of affairs.

Yes, I completely agree that it is sad... and it's frustrating, too, to see those little Coen touches- visually and character and plot-wise- and wonder why they won't really indulge us (as they did last with The Man Who Wasn't There, which I adore) instead of wasting so much time on jokes that are no more funny than Urkel?