Category Archives: The Coen Brothers

A Second Viewing, A Second View: Inside Llewyn Davis

Leave a reply

SPOILER ALERT: This review is filled with SPOILERS for “Inside Llewyn Davis.” If you don’t want SPOILERS for “Inside Llewyn Davis,” do not read beyond this point. I put SPOILERS in bold/caps lock because you see, I’m trying to make a point. 

A Coen Brothers film can be great on one viewing, but no Coen Brothers film has been truly watched until it has been seen at least twice.

So far, I have gotten a mixed consensus from the few people I know who have seen “Inside Llewyn Davis.” For every time it topped a bestof list or got an A+, it also got a negative review. But Joel and Ethan Coen never really get full acclaim across the board, except in the cases of “Fargo” and “No Country for Old Men.”

The legacy of “Inside Llewyn Davis” will take time to sort out, but I figured now was an appropriate time to sort out a few things about the film that you and me, but mostly me, might have been having trouble with. Here is my SPOILER heavy rundown of “Inside Llewyn Davis”:

On Llewyn Davis Himself: Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) is, as Jean (Carey Mulligan) so lovingly describes him, an asshole. She sure does like to call him that. Llewyn doesn’t intentionally try and hurt others around him (mostly), but he doesn’t really consider how his actions might hurt others in the future. He is more careless than thoughtless. 
On That Note, Llewyn is Kind of an Idiot: Part of the reason I wanted to see “Llewyn Davis” again was because of the technical difficulties during my first screening. One of them cut out a small but pivotal moment, where Llewyn accepts his money for “Please Mr. Kennedy” upfront, and cheats himself out of royalties. He needs the money right away in order to pay for Jean’s abortion and his manager simply won’t help him here. 

Some have said that Llewyn is plagued by bad luck. More accurately, he creates a lot of his own bad luck by being stubborn and uncooperative. Then again, he is also thrown into a lot of situations like this one, where either choice he makes will be a bad one. 

Llewyn Might Be an Asshole, but it “Takes Two To Tango”: The Coen Brothers don’t like to let anybody off easy. Llewyn is surrounded by a lot of jerks, and a lot of well-intentioned hacks. Jean doesn’t blame herself for the fact that she cheated on her husband and might be carrying Llewyn’s baby. No, it’s all Llewyn’s fault. Every time he brings this up, it is as if she didn’t even hear him. One of the defining traits of a typical Coen Brothers’ character is that they seem to be talking to themselves most of the time. For the most part, Llewyn can try and let his music, rather than his actions, speak for him, it would certainly make him look much better.

That Cat: The multiple cats that stroll in and out of “Inside Llewyn Davis” serve many purposes. I would like to say that they serve as a means of motivation for Llewyn. Whether it is the Gorfeins’ cat or the other cat, they are the one thing on this planet Llewyn has control over, and the one thing he really seems bent on helping. Yet, just like with Jean, he gets no thanks whenever he does provide. Even if cats could talk, they probably wouldn’t thank him. That is how cats operate, you see.

Mainly though, a cat is simply perfect comic relief. Mrs. Gorfein’s very weird relation with Ulysses was more pronounced this time (watch what she does with her tongue at one point). “Where is his scrotum, Llewyn?” has made me laugh way too hard on both occasions. The cut to black immediately after it is also perfect.

Comedy Plus Tragedy Equals…: As usual, Joel and Ethan Coen take tragic situations and fill them with comic characters.

Random Questions: How does Llewyn know the Gorfeins? (Likely Answer: Mike was their son) What did Llewyn hit when he was driving on the highway? (Likely Answer: A random tabby cat, and not a goat as my dad thought)

The Chicago Trip: Some might say that the Chicago detour was too long, or even completely unnecessary. In my humble and possibly incorrect opinion, Llewyn needed that trip as much as the audience needed to see it happen.

In any other film, Llewyn would have knocked Bud Grossman’s (F. Murray Abraham) socks off and gotten the gig. Then on the way home, he would have decided to take that awkward first meeting with his son. Instead, Bud doesn’t see any potential and Llewyn passes the exit to Akron. The rejection shows that even when people are pushed this far, there is the chance that they still won’t make it. Some people just won’t get what you do. While this is sad and cynical, there is something very necessary about understanding the life of a failed artist. One can learn more from failure than success.

If these things worked out for the better, this would be a different film. It would be okay, albeit cheesy, and probably directed by Adam Shankman.

Oscar Isaac: I don’t know if he will win, but I am rooting for him to take home the Academy Award for Best Actor.

John Goodman: Somebody with movie power please get an Oscar campaign started for him.

What the Film Lacks in Character Development, it Makes Up for in Back Story: “Inside Llewyn Davis” is the first film of its kind that I would actually watch a prequel to.

The Chicago detour ultimately means less time spent with the characters introduced during the first act. Unlike most writer/directors, the Coen Brothers work best with flimsy characters that border on being one-dimensional. Llewyn is a fairly selfish man, and all that matters about the other characters is how they have somehow factored into Llewyn’s life. Through this, we learn a lot about their past, and that tells us a lot about who they are today. Most of these characters are not meeting for the first time. We are barging in at a very random moment in their lives, so now we have to adapt. We are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. This applies to the audience watching as well as to the characters on screen.


That Moment: When Llewyn looks at a poster for “The Incredible Journey,” and you realize that “Homeward Bound” is a remake. 
That Ending: “Inside Llewyn Davis” starts and ends in the same place. The same event is shown twice and on both occasions it carries two different meanings.

Basically, Llewyn performs at The Gaslight. He is called outside to meet a “friend.” A shady man proceeds to beat him up. The first time we see it, we know basically nothing about it. It is a confounding event. The second time we see it, there is much more context. Llewyn made fun of the man’s wife. He has once again failed to connect with people. This time, it is very tragic.

Before he gets punched in the face, it almost looks like “Inside Llewyn Davis” is about to end happily, even though we know what is actually going to happen. Llewyn has his most successful performance in the entire whole film. For the first time, he really seems to connect with an audience. After a spectacular rendition of “Hang Me, Oh Hang Me,” Llewyn belts out “Fare Thee Well.” Remember, “Fare Thee Well” was a song he would duet with Mike. Earlier in the film, listening to Mrs. Gorfein chime in with Mike’s verse was painful for Llewyn. He could not even finish the song (also for reasons of selfish pride, but let’s not get into that now). The second time, Llewyn gets through the entire song without a hitch. This is like his moment of redemption. But when you’re a character in “Inside Llewyn Davis,” unlike other films, you will actually have to face the consequences of your actions. Then the punch came.

As Llewyn leaves the bar, unaware of what is about to happen, he happens upon the now familiar sight and voice of Bob Dylan. Dylan is not what Bud Grossman would call a moneymaker, but the fact that Dylan’s insane lyrics and scratchy voice connected so much is almost a miracle.

As Llewyn gets beaten up, you can still hear Dylan singing “Farewell” inside The Gaslight. Yet, Llewyn sits outside in an alley. He is cold, bloody, and defeated. No matter how close he gets to great success, something will bring him down unexpectedly. He is doomed to be a perpetual outsider.

Llewyn Davis strikes me as one of those artists who won’t become famous until long after he is gone. “Inside Llewyn Davis” is a sad yet beautiful portrayal of potential both squandered and fully realized. Some people make it, and some people do not. When you don’t make it, sometimes it is your fault, and sometimes you can’t avoid it. There are some people who will get so close to being Bob Dylan, but instead end up lying in an alley with no house, jacket, or furry animal to return to.

Some people thrive on this chaos, and some people, well, they are Llewyn Davis, and they cannot be described in so few words.


Movie Review: Inside Llewyn Davis

Leave a reply
Cat in the big city. Image via Rotten Tomatoes

Yes, Joel and Ethan Coen have given us a musical biopic. It doesn’t mean they had to give you one about a real musician. Or even make the movie you wanted to see.

“Inside Llewyn Davis,” the Coen Brothers’ first film in a very long three years, is a welcome return to the big screen. It is the perfect awards season film that is also an anti-awards season film. It’s a tale for the holidays that wears its icy heart on its sleeves.

Like most Coen Brothers films, “Inside Llewyn Davis” is based on something else, but how much it’s based off of that thing is questionable. Davis is based on Dave Van Ronk. Most the songs in the movie are his, but Davis’ personality is different. This mystery just adds to the charm.


“Inside Llewyn Davis” takes place in the winter of 1961 and follows, well Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac), a struggling folk singer who is just trying to get his voice heard. Llewyn is very talented and he has even released a few albums, yet no matter what he does he can never quite reach success. He has no permanent roof over his head, a cheap manager, and a former love interest who is convinced that he is the worst person on earth.

Adam Driver’s character on “Girls” would also wear that outfit.

And maybe he isn’t so great. The Coen Brothers don’t like perfect and kind protagonists. That is part of what makes all of their films so interesting: they are more interested in the people who keep on going, despite never quite getting what they want.

“Inside Llewyn Davis” is damn near close to perfection, and I get the sense that it is a result of all the right people meeting at the exact right time. Isaac’s musical ability coincides beautifully with his acting talent. Justin Timberlake continues to show why he is more talented than all of us. Meanwhile, as Llewyn’s ex, Carey Mulligan serves as Llewyn’s reality check. She sure gets a lot of mileage out of the word “asshole.” Together, the three of them bring new life to old tunes, and make 1960s Greenwich Village feel so alive. Just like “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” before it, you will want to buy the soundtrack the minute you get home.

Mainly, this film would not have been possible under any other writer or director. The Coen Brothers have one of the most distinct voices in modern cinema. Every time they portray the past, it is a past that did not quite exist: it is a Coen Brothers universe filled with unfortunate circumstances and off-beat, mumbling side characters.

While every Coen Brothers film has a sense of humor, “Inside Llewyn Davis” might be the funniest one they have done in years. Usually, it takes multiple viewings to find the humor in their films (“A Serious Man,” for example, becomes more of a comedy than a drama the more times you watch it). There is an unavoidable humor to John Goodman’s mean-spirited Roland Turner, and so many jokes mined at the expense of the oblivious kindness of the Gorfeins. Still, I refuse to ever call the Coen Brothers mean-spirited.

“Inside Llewyn Davis” relishes in its musical moments because the Coen Brothers, in collaboration with T-Bone Burnett and Marcus Mumford, are so good at recreating the magic of watching a live performance. Yet, “Inside Llewyn Davis” is also an anti-musical. The songs do not teach lessons or move people to tears. “Inside Llewyn Davis” uniquely portrays a performer who’s central problem is that he cannot connect with others. Watching a portrayal of artistic failure might be sad, but it is important to know that sometimes those with talent can go completely unnoticed. Llewyn is honest and authentic, and those seem to be the exact qualities that get in the way of his success.

“Inside Llewyn Davis” is often so grim yet it never feels tragic to watch. It does not follow a fluid plot but rather a series of situations that Davis is thrown into. The film is never meandering or dull, especially when this dark world is populated with such colorful characters. “Inside Llewyn Davis” strays away from all of the directions that similar films would have taken. The Coen Brothers don’t want to give you the ending that will necessarily satisfy you; they want to show you the world as they see it through their eyes as filmmakers.

After watching “Inside Llewyn Davis,” you too might realize that there might just be no better way to view a film from now on.

Brain Farts From The Edge

  • I went to a screening riddled with technical issues. There were sound and image problems, so the film had to be started over. Then, the reels had to be changed manually. Every time, a reel ended, we had to sit there and wait for the next reel to change. I definitely need to see this film again straight through. However, watching it this way was definitely an interesting experience. Call this a Coen Brothers Grindhouse experience.
  • Once again, the Coen Brothers nail the regional accent, dialect, and attitude. 
  • The Coen Brothers love them some characters with hard to pronounce/spell names.
  • “Inside Llewyn Davis” is set in 1961. In the Coens’ universe, that is exactly 20 years after “Barton Fink,” and just a few short years before The Dude would occupy various administrative buildings and smoke a lot of thai stick.
  • The cat itself is a great extra character. His name, which I won’t reveal, probably has a symbolic meaning which I have no idea of.
  • That ending. Will have to discuss it further in a spoiler-heavy review.
  • My favorite song in the film: the beautiful and moving rendition of “Five Hundred Miles.” I do have to give Adam Driver some credit for his hilarious vocal contributions to “Please Mr. Kennedy.”
  • I still am not sure whether or not this is intentional, but this poster for the film looks remarkably similar to this poster for “Taxi Driver.” It makes sense, as “Davis” has the mentality and feel of a 70s film as well as Scorsese’s understanding of New Yorkers. 
  • People Who Look Exactly Alike: Oscar Isaac, David Krumholtz, Jake Johnson
  • I like how Garrett Hedlund immediately left “On the Road,” took mumbling lessons from Rooster Cogburn, and then walked right onto the set of “Inside Llewyn Davis.”

Six Movies You Won’t Want to Miss in December 2013

Leave a reply
Image via Business Insider

Well, it’s almost Thanksgiving again. And you know what that means: time to start thinking about Christmas!

December is always an exciting movie month. Its when the less explosion-y blockbusters come out, and the small movies that normally wouldn’t get much publicity finally get the spotlight. This looks like a particularly good December that will hopefully make up for some of the more lackluster months of 2013. Come on Hollywood, this is when you get to show everyone that movies are still relevant!

In order to ensure a great holiday season, here are the December releases that I am most excited to see. Join me in the excitement, people. It’s the least you can do since, you know, I can’t celebrate Christmas:


6. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

As a director, Ben Stiller has become more and more ambitious. “Walter Mitty” looks more serious than funny, and I know that Stiller is up to the task, both in front of and behind the camera. Mostly, this looks like an exciting adventure story that could appeal to just about anybody. There is something about Sean Penn’s weird finger summoning that makes me crack up every time I watch the trailer. However, I will forget I ever saw this, because “Walter Mitty” also stars Adam Scott, who plays a huge d-bag in it. Adam Scott seems like such a nice guy, but he also plays d-bags better than just about anybody else.

5. Her

I am willing to forgive Spike Jonze for “Where the Wild Things Are,” partly because this is the same guy who also directed “Being John Malkovich” and “Adaptation.” Also, “Her” looks so strange yet so fascinating. Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with a computer voiced by Scarlett Johansson? Relevant social commentary? No further questions.

4. Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

Sure, America didn’t need a sequel to “Anchorman.” But Americans also don’t need most of the things that we have. I would be lying though if I said that I didn’t shriek with excitement the moment I saw the first trailer for “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.” To put it simply, “Anchorman” might just be the comedy of my generation; ask just about anybody my age about it and they will immediately start to quote it by heart. “Anchorman” is to the ’00s what “The Jerk” was to the ’70s and “Airplane” was to the ’80s.* Comedy sequels do have a bad habit of getting it wrong. For now, I am confident that “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues” won’t be anything less than hilarious.

3. The Wolf of Wall Street

Finally, it is safe to say that “The Wolf of Wall Street” will be released in 2013, and will also be eligible for the 2013 Oscars**. More importantly though, I will finally get to see “The Wolf of Wall Street,” which I have been anticipating for months. Here’s a story of Wall Street corruption that will probably be a lot more entertaining (or certainly funnier) than “Wall Street.” I mean, there’s flying midgets and a chimpanzee in roller skates. Reportedly, “The Wolf of Wall Street” is three hours long, which would make it the longest film Martin Scorsese has ever directed. 46 years into his career, and Scorsese still finds ways to top himself.

2. American Hustle

David O. Russell has been on fire lately. His last two films (“The Fighter,” “Silver Linings Playbook”) were wonderful, and it seems like he’s found a batch of performers that just know how to work with him (sorry, Lily Tomlin). The trailer itself, from fat Bradley Cooper to “Good Times Bad Times,” gets me excited enough (even if it’s hidden all evidence that Louis C.K. is also in it). David O. Russell has become one of those directors who is consistently exciting to watch, and his name alone is enough to get me to race over to the nearest theater. Speaking of directors who meet that criteria…

1. Inside Llewyn Davis

Joel and Ethan Coen. That’s about all it takes for me to get excited for a movie. To make it even better, “Inside Llewyn Davis” is about the Greenwich Village folk scene in the 1960s. Then, to make it even even better, this marks yet another collaboration between The Coen Brothers and John Goodman, who haven’t done a movie together in years. If there’s one thing that the Coen Brothers are definitely good at, it’s directing John Goodman in a period piece.

Did everyone in the ’60s have facial hair?
*Maybe those aren’t the right movies for those times. I am just assuming they are. Maybe its actually “Animal House” for the ’70s, and “Ghostbusters” for the ’80s? Somebody please confirm. 
**Good! Getting a gold statue of a bald man handed out by an old bald man is the most important thing in life! But really, I want an Oscar. Where can I buy one?

Eight Nights of Hanukkah, Eight Nights of Movies: Night #4

Leave a reply
A Serious Man

This is a ser- I’m a ser- I’m, uh, I’ve tried to be a serious man, you know? Tried to do right, be a member of the community, raise the- Danny, Sarah, they both go to school, Hebrew school, a good breakfast…


“A Serious Man” begins with the blast of Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody to Love,” linking the past to the present, and drowning out a dull Hebrew school lesson. In this day and age, what does it mean for a Jewish man to be a serious man? If you are looking for a movie that is both religiously faithful and an existential mind trip for the halfway point of Hanukkah, then look no further. This is the first and probably the last movie you’ll ever see that’s based on both the Talmud and Schrodinger’s Cat.

Who else could have made a movie like this than Joel and Ethan Coen. It is based partly on their own childhood growing up in a Jewish family in a mostly Jewish suburb of Minneapolis, and the rest is a lot of things that could have happened, but probably didn’t. “A Serious Man” begins with a short parable that takes place in a shtetl. It might explain every one of the following events we see, or none of them. Maybe it is what the Coen Brothers say it is: their attempt to create their own Jewish fable. The rest of the movie focuses on Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a father who goes through a crisis of faith after his wife leaves him and he begins to lose his children to the 60s. No one, not even a string of rabbis, can provide him with guidance.

“A Serious Man” is funny not in a haha kind of way, but more in the kind of way that if you watch it multiple times, the ultimate mind f**k of it all is kind of hilarious. This is the Thinking Man Jew’s kind of movie. And that is not to say that anyone can’t like this movie. However, some people might not appreciate “The Goy’s Teeth” quite as much. For those who are passionate people watchers, especially of the Jewish kind, this movie gives a prototype of every Jew you can think of. Some will find stereotypes, others will find hilarious objects of affection.

“A Serious Man” definitely will not inspire as much joy and laughter after a candle lighting as say, a Woody Allen or a Marx Brothers movie, but it will definitely inspire fervent debate and conversation. If you are really curious about what that cut to black at the end means, I only have so many answers. Instead, I would refresh on your Bar Mitzvah torah portions. And then pick up some physics textbooks. Philosophy might work, too.

If this movie makes you crave for from the Coen Brothers tonight, I would check out “The Big Lebowski” immediately afterwards. It’s a great movie but that’s just like, my opinion, man. 

Ten of ’10: The Best Movies of the Year

3 Replies

It’s that time of year again. No, it’s not time to light the menorah, open gifts from under the Christmas tree, or, do whatever people do on Kwanza. It is time to somehow take every single movie this year, compare them, and somehow rank them against each other. It may be confusing, and it may be extremely unfair, but it’s something every critic must do.
However, I see this as less of a chore and more of a privilege, as every good movie is worth talking about an infinite number of times. While I originally thought this year was not the greatest year for movies, I found I was quite mistaken when looking back. There may not have been an “Inglourious Basterds” this year, but there were many other films that followed very closely in its tracks of greatness.
Still, I had a tough time deciding what film to choose for number one this year, because there actually were many worthy contenders. There were some films that broke out of typical Hollywood cliches and created stunning pieces of entertainment. Others explored the excitement, loneliness, and selfishness brought about by the Digital Age in quirky and unique ways. 2010 was the beginning of a new decade, and therefore the potential for a new era of filmmaking. What will the predominant style be? I cannot say because if the biggest films of this year say anything, it is that ambiguity is in.
I can now safely say I’ve seen enough movies in 2010 to make my list. So here it is, the ten best films of 2010:

1. Black Swan- There are few words that could ever truly do justice to this film. But for a movie this good, it’s worth a try. “Black Swan” is the kind of psychological thriller that has been told so many times. Yet, what sets this one apart is that it actually has something new and effective to say. “Black Swan” is the greatest achievement in cinema in 2010 because it simply made up the best movie experience possible, doing so little and accomplishing so much. Darren Aronofsky’s look behind the scenes of a ballet may not be totally realistic, but it was a perfect metaphor for the artistic process. “Black Swan” also comes with the best female acting of the year. Natalie Portman’s wounding performance constantly oscillates between evil and innocent, yet never lands on just one. “Black Swan” leaves the viewer with so much to chew on with only some closure. It may be ambiguous, it may not make sense, but in the end, this film will never leave your head. It leaves you with something, and it leaves you with nothing.

2. The Social Network- What’s the best way to make a movie about Facebook not seem totally lame and self-indulgent? Hire Aaron Sorkin as a writer and put David Fincher in the director’s seat. “The Social Network” is one of the most polished films of the year. While it has been labeled as factually inaccurate by most, it still remains powerful for a generation raised on the internet. The screenplay, this year’s very best, moves at lightning speed, forcing the viewer to think quickly in order to keep up with the banter. Best of all, “The Social Network” provides one of the best characters in recent memory: Mark Zuckerberg. He spends most of the movie being a cold, stuck-up, and manipulative genius and miraculously ends the film as a haunted, semi-pathetic anti-hero. Even if it isn’t very accurate, “The Social Network” is still the most informative and relevant film of the year.
3. Inception- Now that all the hype and backlash have subsided, it’s time to once again talk about the sheer genius of “Inception.” With “Inception,” Christopher Nolan proved once again that there is a place for intelligence in mainstream cinema. Think about the scene in which the streets of Paris fold over, or the scene in which Joseph Gordon-Levitt fights the laws of gravity. “Inception” was the most thoughtful, well-crafted, and best of all, original blockbuster to come out in years. It was like a giant breath of fresh air circulating through the summer smut. Still, most people can only think about one thing: did that top fall or not? The real question should be this: if it did or didn’t fall, why would it matter?


4. 127 Hours- Is Aron Ralston a bad person because he decided to go on a dangerous nature expedition by himself, without letting anyone know where he was heading? Maybe not a bad person, but certainly one deserving of his own film. “127 Hours” may be one of the finest achievements in Danny Boyle’s career. Boyle is the rare filmmaker who can make over-directing stylish and meaningful rather than overt and excessive. The film is commanded by an extraordinary performance by James Franco, who gives the phrase “one man show” a whole new meaning. Once that final scene rolls around, if tears aren’t streaming down your face, then you might just be the one who’s a bad person.


5. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World- “Scott Pilgrim” is 2010′s misunderstood masterpiece. People were probably turned off because it looked like a corny video game, or because they now hated star Michael Cera. To truly appreciate “Scott Pilgrim,” one must throw all expectations out the window. “Scott Pilgrim” is mashup satire, covering a wide variety of topics ranging from video games, to comic books, to hipsters and Asian fangirls. It perfectly hits all of its targets, without totally hating on them. Think of the whole thing as “Mortal Kombat” meets “Kick-Ass” meets that dude at the Vampire Weekend concert.


6. Kick-Ass- There was yet another underrated graphic novel adaptation this year. “Kick-Ass” took on the superhero genre by becoming a superhero film itself. In that nature, it succeeded at being both satire and the subject it was satirizing. It’s also hilarious and marvelously shot. If there’s one thing that can’t be forgotten about it, it’s Hit-Girl. In the breakout role of the year, Chloe Moretz manages to be more mature than her superiors. She also drops a c-bomb and slices someone’s legs off. If there is one thing that truly sets “Kick-Ass” apart, it is how absurdly, delightfully over-the-top it is.


7. The Kids Are All Right- This is good, honest, comedic writing at its very finest. “The Kids Are All Right” stars Julianne Moore and Annette Benning as a married couple on the verge of a familial crisis. “The Kids Are All Right” is funny at all the right moments and in the end, surprisingly sweet and unpredictable. The real magic here though is that this is the first film to be popular with mainstream audiences that barely makes a big deal out of homosexuality. It is simply a normal part of society. Good luck even finding if the word “gay” is mentioned once throughout the entire movie.


8. Toy Story 3- Pixar almost always ends up in the top 10 list. Not because it is common courtesy, but because they actually deserve the repeated honor.”Toy Story 3″ is possibly the most emotional personal film Pixar has ever created, even topping the opening sequence of “Up.” “Toy Story 3″ is the rare sequel with an engaging and original story. Most of the jokes will be just as hilarious to adults as they are to kids. But really, nothing “Toy Story 3″ did from a filmmaking perspective overly impressed me. It is the fact that “Toy Story” first came out when I was a child, and ended when I got ready for college, just as it did for the film’s Andy. When the final credits for “Toy Story 3″ rolled, it wasn’t just the end of a great film series: it was the end of my childhood.


9. True Grit- The latest film by Joel and Ethan Coen isn’t a genre-defying mind-bender along the lines of “No Country for Old Men” and “A Serious Man.” It isn’t a flat-out masterpiece like “Fargo” or “Blood Simple.” And it isn’t even in a category of its own like “The Big Lebowski.” “True Grit” is a pure genre film, and it brings out the very best of a great genre clinging for life. It includes a few great performances, mainly Jeff Bridges in full Dude element, and Hailee Steinfeld, this year’s other great breakout performance by a teenage girl. I have always seen The Coen Brothers as directors with mysterious motives. The motive is here is no mystery though. With “True Grit,” the Coen Brothers have created their first piece of pure, mainstream entertainment.


10. MacGruber- “MacGruber” had absolutely no right to be this funny. It is based off a decently funny concept, and stars a decently funny comedian. Yet, here I am, talking about the best comedy of the year. It managed to perfectly satirize the action movie genre without constantly winking at the audience. It contains a lot of random gags (the license plate), and a lot that are just too dirty to ever be funny (those sex scenes), yet they are anyway. “MacGruber” is an example of correct execution. It contains a daring style of comedy that is unfortunately taken for granted.


Other Contenders: The Fighter, Shutter Island, Fish Tank, Cyrus, Greenberg, The King’s Speech, The Town, Hot Tub Time Machine
Still Need to See: Animal Kingdom, Blue Valentine, Exit Through the Gift Shop, How to Train Your Dragon, Rabbit Hole, Somewhere
Worst of the Year: Robin Hood

Movie Review: True Grit

2 Replies

“True Grit” begins like any other Coen Brothers movie: with a pretty image set to mysterious background narration. Is this going to be another typical Coen experience? Not exactly.

“True Grit,” the rare western that actually takes place during the days of the wild west, is told in a fittingly traditional fashion. This is quite a radical departure for a pair of directors known for constantly pushing the storytelling envelope. However, that is part of the reason this film feels so interesting. Despite being a remake of an adaptation of a book, it still manages to remain unique.
I may not be the best person to review this movie, as I haven’t seen the original version of “True Grit,” nor have I read the book. Maybe that won’t matter, as those who have seen the original film claims it has little to no resemblance to the latest version.
Regardless of the version, “True Grit” takes place in what looks like somewhere between Colorado and Montana in the late 1800s. Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is a young girl looking to hunt down Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), the man who ruthlessly killed her father. To pull this off, she hires Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), a one-eyed, former U.S. Marshall with a reputation for shooting things and chugging whiskey. Accompanying Cogburn for the kill is the often hot-headed, yet wise LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), who’s name shouldn’t be confused with the name of a certain actor from “Even Stevens.”

But, I digress. While Cogburn and LaBoeuf set off to find Chaney, they reluctantly let Mattie join. What follows is a long journey through the American West that leads to much danger and self-discovery.


It is very easy to go ahead and dismiss “True Grit,” as many others have been doing. Most say the Coen Brothers are capable of much better than this, and that is true. They are capable of making films that become cult classics, and others that go onto win Best Picture. “True Grit” will probably do neither. However, that doesn’t stop it from being a solid, highly entertaining movie.

While “True Grit” wasn’t as amazing a collaboration between the Coen Brothers and Jeff Bridges can be, it reminded me how much I missed the western genre. The genre hasn’t necessarily died, it has just gone in a new direction, often telling tales that take place in the modern day (i.e. “No Country for Old Men,” “The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada”). There hasn’t been a truly great “old” western since “Unforgiven” in 1992. Perhaps the success could spur a much needed rebirth in the genre.


What I found interesting about “True Grit,” something one would rarely see in a western outside of the 1960s, was some subtle commentary, or at least cognizance, of racism. There definitely wasn’t supposed to be a big point made out of it, but it’s good to see every once in a while the acknowledgment of Native Americans, and how poorly they were treated.

Despite how different this film is from other Coen Brothers films, this is unmistakably their film. There is that distinct focus on the landscape, highlighted by Roger Deakins’s breathtaking cinematography. There is also that attention to the little details that distinguish them from all other filmmakers. This is one of the few westerns I’ve seen where the characters actually talk appropriately for the time period. Those accents may be impossible to understand, but a little historical accuracy never hurt anyone.

A great Coen movie is also about its characters. And that, “True Grit” has a lot of. Despite what the commercials will make you think, Rooster Cogburn isn’t quite the main character. The film is really about Mattie Ross. Without the right actress, Ross could’ve just come off as whiny and annoying. But in her debut, Steinfeld nailed it. In a way, she resembles the performance of Hit-Girl in this year’s “Kick-Ass”: she is smarter and more skilled than her superiors but in a way, overcompensating for her young age. In a world full of illiterate southerners, her knowledge outshines everyone around her. She is this film’s Marge Gunderson.


I’m sure though that the reason any devoted Coen Brothers fan saw this movie was for Jeff Bridges, seeing as the last time the directors and the actor collaborated, “The Big Lebowski” was created. “True Grit” lacks the wit and twisty intelligence “Lebowski” offers. Nonetheless, it proves that this is a collaboration that works. The directors have a certain vision in mind, and the actor follows it perfectly.

Bridges shows in “True Grit” that he is one of those actors that has gotten even better with age. In “True Grit,” he shows what kind of performance he is most capable of: the outsider who is aware of his isolation from society, but celebrates it while ignoring all of his possible flaws. In his transition from Dude to Rooster, he trades joints for rolled up tobacco, and has no problem doing so.

Really the only performance I had any problem with in “True Grit” was that of Damon. He is usually a fine actor; one who is always watchable. However, it seems like here he was barely trying to pull of an accent. That is a shame, because when he gets into his roles, he can be truly extraordinary (see “The Informant”).

I want to celebrate “True Grit” for what it is rather than what it isn’t: an extremely solid piece of entertainment that may not outshine the rest of these directors’ body of work, but certainly outshines many of its contemporaries. I am not going to forget “True Grit” for a few small things; like that little amazing scene when Mattie bravely crosses the river. It is also hard to forget the weird things, such as the man dressed in full bear costume, or the other man who communicates through farm animal sounds. Why were these things included in the film? Who knows. The best parts of any Coen Brothers film are the parts left unexplained.

The Top 10 Movies of 2009

3 Replies

In a recent tweet, Roger Ebert proclaimed 2009 as “one of those magic movie years like 1939 or 1976.” Some might say that’s a bold statement, but I say it’s not too far off. Of all the movie years this decade, 2009 ranks second only to 2007 (the year of “There Will Be Blood,” “No Country for Old Men,” “Michael Clayton,” “Knocked Up,” etc.).
Yes, there was much trash this year. From toy commercials like “Transformers 2″ and “G.I. Joe” to death porn like “The Final Destination” and the ugliness of “The Ugly Truth,” 2009 indeed showed just how low Hollywood was willing to go just to make a buck. But beyond much preposterousness, creativity abounded.
There was something many filmmakers this year, both mainstream and independent, showed that set 2009 apart: bravery. Filmmakers were so willing to be bold that the best films were beyond great. Some of the boldest moves included the changing of history, the willingness to not make simple conclusions, and an inclination to show that the world is unfair and sometimes, the hero just can’t win. Oh, and add some CGI blue cat monkey people to the mix.
This year gave us some amazing new talents (Marc Webb, Neil Blomkamp) and some old pros doing what they do best (Quentin Tarantino, The Coen Brothers, James Cameron).
2009 gave us an eclectic mix of Basterds and aliens and corporate a-holes. Here now, are the ten best films of the year 2009:
1. Inglourious Basterds- It’s been almost half a year since “Inglourious Basterds” came out, and I still can’t think of a better movie that has come out since. “Basterds” is a World War II movie that only Quentin Tarantino could ever pull off: philosophical, extremely violent, and funnier than you could ever imagine. Tarantino shows off a rare ability to make vast stretches of dialogue as exciting as epic battle sequences. Brad Pitt, Eli Roth and Diane Kruger give career best performances while Melanie Laurent proves herself as a worthy leading woman. The real scene stealer, though, is Christoph Waltz, who portrays a Nazi as calm and casual as he is sadistic. In the end, “Basterds” amazes me in its audacity to both change history and turn such serious subject matter into a fun B-movie. This is a medium for Tarantino to show us both his love of movies and the insane universe in which he inhabits. It’s a universe that, in a perfect world, would truly exist. Read Review
2. A Serious Man- Some films just grow on you. “A Serious Man” is one of them. “A Serious Man” is both the most mature and the meanest film Joel & Ethan Coen have made to date. It tells the story of the suffering but well intentioned patriarch of a 1960s middle class Jewish family. “A Serious Man” is the most personal film of the Coen Brothers’ career and it shows in the perfection of every little detail of the era and culture. Michael Stuhlbarg is perfect in the role of Larry Gopnik, flawlessly portraying the character’s flawed nature and vulnerability to an almost hilarious effect. The Coen Brothers have created a film that offers no easy conclusions and will keep you talking and talking about it. It will one day be looked as the quintessential film about the Jewish American experience. Read Review ; Extra Analysis
3. Up in the Air- “Up in the Air” is one of those rare films that strikes the perfect balance between comedy and tragedy. Jason Reitman managed to create a film about a man so far disconnected from other human beings that is both relevant social commentary and a future classic. “Up in the Air” shows the downside of a corporate life, and that even though flying solo can satisfy some people, nothing compares to the feeling of being (and remaining) connected to others. Read Review
up_in_the_air_1.jpg image by The_Playlist
4. (500) Days of Summer- Far and away the best romantic comedy to come out in years. “(500) Days of Summer” is a standout in its genre for its willingness to bend the rules and be unpredictable. It’s not necessarily a love story, but a story about love between Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zooey Deschanel). It’s told completely out of order because whichever way the story is told, this relationship will inevitably head toward disaster. “(500) Days of Summer” scores on creativity and on having the best use of a Hall & Oates song you’ll ever see. Read Review; Extra Analysis

5. The Hurt Locker- To date, most films about the Iraq War have tried and failed. That is, until “The Hurt Locker” came about, a film that connected quite simply because it offered a truthful, apolitical view of a war nobody quite understands. The film has an eerie documentary feel, and Kathryn Bigelow directs each action sequence with the utmost care and precision missing from most mainstream action films today. “The Hurt Locker” is not so much a film about Iraq, or a film about the hell of war, but rather about why men fight. Read Review
6. Precious- As so many before me have said, “Precious” tells the story of the girl you might walk by on the street and completely ignore. “Precious” is at times one of the toughest films to watch for its raw realism. However, sitting through it is almost a revelation for exactly that reason. Lee Daniels has created a film that will open your eyes to a world you knew existed, but like to pretend it didn’t. Amazingly, “Precious” also provides a bright ray of hope in such a dark world. Gabourey Sidibe gives a fine breakout performance as the titular lead. However, Mo’Nique truly steals the show as Precious’ abusive mother. She gives off the kind of brutal hatred that is at times too painful to watch, but too powerful to ever look away from.
GET ON THE BUS Gabourey Sidibe delivers a powerful performance in Precious Precious: Based on the Novel \'Push\' by Sapphire, Gabourey \'Gabby\' Sidibe
7. Fantastic Mr. Fox- What kind of world do we live in where a movie made for kids, but is even more suitable for adults, fairs so poorly at the box office? Forget ticket sales, “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a marvel, and proof of Wes Anderson’s wide range in directing ability. Anderson opts for old fashion stop-capture animation which quite ironically, makes its animal characters seem even more human. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” shows Anderson as the master of mise-en-scene. While kids won’t get the deeply existential questions Mr. Fox poses, make no mistake, this is the perfect movie for every member of the family. Read Review
8. Avatar- James Cameron, the most ambitious director of this generation, created what is quite possibly the most ambitious sci-fi epic to date. What set this film apart is its landmark special effects and use of motion capture technology which turns the Na’vi into creatures with a tangible, human quality. But what amazes me most about “Avatar” is the new world Cameron created for it. Each detail of Pandora is so vividly realized that it might as well be a real place. This is the kind of imagination missing from blockbusters nowadays, and the reason why I hail “Avatar” the “Star Wars” of our time. Read Review
9. District 9- Watch out, because the moderate-sized country at the southernmost tip of Africa has just given birth to a new filmmaking force to be reckoned with. Neil Blomkamp’s film is a thrilling and sometimes even funny sci-fi mockumentary about aliens landing in Johannesburg, and then being segregated by frightened humans. It works as both social commentary and awesome sci-fi entertainment. This new classic boldly sets an anti-Apartheid theme in a country scarred by Apartheid and uses its aliens to convey the theme. While “Avatar” is the best sci-fi film of the year, “District 9″ is the most original. Read Review
10. The Hangover- I needed one legitimate comedy for my list. After much thinking, I decided I’d go with what was the most hilarious and surprising film of the year. “The Hangover” is a great comedy because nearly every line is funny. The characters are beyond funny, and are enhanced by the believable chemistry between the actors. What makes “The Hangover” worthy of the top 10 is how it manages to be both a gross-out comedy and a mystery at the same time. “The Hangover” at first seems like it’s going to be the typical bachelor party in Vegas flick, but in the end, it’s a perfectly tuned satire of the idea of Vegas and the reality of it. That and tigers. And babies in sunglasses. Read Review
Other Contenders: Up, Adventureland, Invictus, Bruno, Star Trek, I Love You, Man, Dare, We Live in Public
Worst Movie: The Final Destination (3D)
Still Need to See: In the Loop, An Education, Moon, The Blind Side, Paranormal Activity, Big Fan, A Single Man, Observe and Report
Most Underrated: Adventureland
Most Overrated: 2012
Biggest Disappointments: Public Enemies, Where the Wild Things Are

On A Second Viewing: A Serious Man

Leave a reply

Warning: May contain some brief, spoiler-ish details. Proceed with caution.
After I first saw “A Serious Man,” I knew I liked it. I mean, how could I not like a film by the Coen Brothers?
However, there were a few things still bothering me. Well, mainly, it was that ending. Abrupt endings can be annoying, but I never hate them. All they involve is mulling over, and extra viewings. This was the case for “A History of Violence” and “No Country for Old Men.” It was also the case for “A Serious Man.”
But let me backtrack, so you can see the ending for yourself. I’m going to backtrack all the way to the beginning, to the mystery of the dybbuk. The Coen Brothers have repeatedly said that this story has no meaning, but I believe that there is something in there. There are three possible theories to this scene:
1) The couple were Larry’s ancestors. Stabbing the dybbuk unleashed a centuries long family curse.
2) The man was not really a dybbuk. His unfortunate death mirrors Larry’s struggle of how bad things always seem to happen to those who just try and commit mitzvahs.
3) It’s both. Or neither.
It could be any of those answers. But the more I think about it, the more I believe it is the last one. That’s the one that breaks the lock, and provides that any answer be correct. In the end, the dybbuk walks out into the snow. The Coen Brothers never show us whether or not he died or just kept on into the night, getting ready to haunt more unsuspecting citizens. What this scene truly does is act as a mini movie in preparing us on what is to come. “A Serious Man” will not be like the typical film that provides you with answers. Here’s one where you’ll have to come up with the answers on your own. And it won’t be easy.
A technique the Coen Brothers use constantly throughout their films is repetition. One line repeated in this film is Larry’s insistence, “I haven’t done anything!” And this here, is the point of the film. Why is Larry suffering? True, he hasn’t done anything wrong, but he hasn’t done anything right.
One of the many things I got out of the film a second time around is just how deeply funny it is. The humor doesn’t always lie in one-liners, it lies mainly within the situations. There are many instances where you shouldn’t be laughing, but you do anyways. Will you feel bad for laughing at some of Larry’s ridiculous misfortunes? Then again, the film does tell us in the very first shot to take every minute with “utmost simplicity.”
In my first review, I gave praise to the film’s three leading men, Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, and Fred Melamed, but not as much praise as they deserve. While Kind was cast as the annoying relative he always plays, he manages to still make him as atypical as possible. Meanwhile, Melamed seems like a lock for best supporting actor as Sy Ableman. He is (if I’m reading the film right) the serious man of the title. And he plays Sy that way, portraying him with utmost scrutiny. He commands every shot he is in, taking it over, moving around characters by his own wishes and just carrying this feeling that he knows everything.
Then of course, there’s the other Oscar lock, of Stuhlbarg as Larry Gopnick. This is Stuhlbarg’s first big leading role, but he takes it like a pro. In the scene where Larry’s wife discusses a divorce, his pitch goes up to a high, whiny voice; giving Larry an almost lovable childlike ignorance.
The Coen Brothers are famous for emphasizing their characters’ quirks. Stuhlbarg basically does that for them, as he gives Larry a sort of chicken walk, especially in the scene where he waddles across his look, getting a peak at the forbidden temptation that lies just over a small white picket fence.
While that serious man in the title could refer to either Sy or Larry, there is yet another important (soon to be) man in the mix: Danny Gopnick (Aaron Wolff). He lives a life opposite of his father, only caring about smoking joints and watching “F-Troop” rather than trying to be a mature, serious man. However, he, like every character, eventually faces just consequences for their poor actions.
A large controversy I’ve discussed with many people about this film is what kind of audience it was meant for. The idea that only a Jew could appreciate it is one I am beginning to find quite unfair. Just because I wasn’t raised Catholic, does that mean I can’t be stunned by the christening scene in “The Godfather?” Just because I’m not Italian, does that not mean I can’t be entertained by the wedding in “Goodfellas?” While maybe only those who were born Jewish will understand the anxiety of preparing to have a Bar Mitzvah, the Coen Brothers opened up a door to the Jewish culture. They are inviting you to stay and look around.
Now, there’s one point from my last review I’d like to correct. In my previous review, I seemed to stick to the theory that Larry’s story was a reflection of the story of Job. Well, it’s only half that. The other half is the possibility that Larry’s story reflects existentialism, rather than the existence of God. Larry’s miseries could be a test from God. Or they could just simply be life’s plan for him, and there’s nothing he can do about it (this scene reflects this idea).
Also in the mix, you could see Larry as a 1960s Jewish version of Hamlet; a man spending too much time overthinking life and trying to avoid a situation that simply cannot be avoided. He could even be a figure straight out of a Kafka* story: a good man who is so overburdened by a world that demands too much responsibility out of him.
It’s simply possible that “A Serious Man” is every single one of these ideas. Or none of them. This makes the film a sort of “choose your own adventure” like story but this time, you have to choose your own theme. The Coen Brothers have thus constructed the rare film that’s a totally different experience to each and every member. Yep, the way a film should be.
But maybe the Coen Brothers, who are the absolute masters of trickery, are just leading us into a giant trap. They awaited as critics and audience members alike overanalyzed every aspect of the film to death when they were missing the film’s real point: the danger of overanalysis. In the film, we learn in the end that the mystery of the goy’s teeth is solved once the dentist forgets about it. Perhaps Larry’s problems would have been nothing to him if he just, took a deep breath and forgot about them for a while.
So for now, I’m not going to fall for the trick. I leave the rest of the interpretations up to you.
*Tip for Aspiring Writers: A Kafka namedrop always makes you look smarter.
For further reference, here are a few great articles about the film:
I know I’ve written a lot here, but I still didn’t even get to touch on Larry’s neighbors, physics, respecting privacy, the wisdom of youth, and the film’s representation of connections within the Jewish community. Oh well, it doesn’t look like this is the last time you’ll be hearing about “A Serious Man.” Until then, I want you all to take a few minutes and enjoy one of the most meaningful parts of the film: the power of “Somebody to Love”:

Movie Review: A Serious Man

Leave a reply

The very first scene of “A Serious Man” is a short fairytale set in a Polish shtetl. While one can spend hours figuring out how this fable connects to the rest of the film, interpretation is futile. Directors Joel and Ethan Coen have repeatedly stated that this story had nothing to do with the rest of the film. So, why put it in? Because, we have officially entered the world of the Coen Brothers, a world like few others; a world where they can do whatever they like.

How does one make the sudden leap from 1800s Eastern Europe to 1960s Midwestern America? Simply, with the stunning jump from a snow covered village to the inside of an old headphone blasting Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody to Love.” It’s a transition that reminded me of Kubrick jumping from dawn of man to the space age in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” This is the very first glimpse of the world we’ll be looking at for the next two hours.
“A Serious Man” is the Coen Brothers at their most schadenfreude. The unlucky schlub they focus on this time is Larry Gopnick (Michael Stuhlbarg). Gopnick is a physics professor at a Minnesota college in 1967. He embodies the “nice Jewish boy” that all Jewish mothers hope their daughters will someday marry.
While Larry tries his best to be a mensch, his life is an utter mess. His wife (Sarri Lennick) plans to divorce Larry and leave him for the too-nice-for-his-own-good Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). His son (Aaron Wolff) spends more time getting high than studying for his Bar Mitzvah and his daughter (Jessica McManus) totally resents everything about him. Meanwhile, Larry’s brother Arthur (Richard Kind) can’t find a place to live. Elsewhere, he is tempted by a bribe and a seductive neighbor. In order to sort out his problems, he seeks the help of three very unhelpful rabbis.
When comparing “A Serious Man” to all other Coen Brothers films, it seems so similar but yet very different. It is quite possibly their most personal film. Not only does it mark their first film set in their homeland of Minnesota since “Fargo,” but it’s also the first time they’ve chronicled their childhood growing up in a suburban, Jewish, middle class family.
One of the most distinctive trademarks of a Coen Brothers film is its emphasis on each character’s quirks. Usually, these quirks, involve the accents, behaviors, or dialects of a certain area. However, the Minnesotans of “A Serious Man” don’t talk in that Scandinavian accent like the ones in “Fargo.” This film is more focused on the quirks of the Jewish community. The Coens focus on the hilarious habits of referring to non-Jews as “goy,” overly congested voices, or the habits of making weird nose sounds [Editor’s Note: Just spend a day with me, and you’ll understand this].
The Coen Brothers do not rely on these stereotypes as a way of being mean-spirited or self-loathing, but rather as a loving tribute to their people.
One of the greatest creative risks the Coen Brothers took in making this film was compiling a starless cast of mostly theater actors. This decision pays off, as the audience feels not so much focused on the actors as they are on the characters. Stuhlbarg steals the show as Larry. He makes Larry’s struggles seem too painfully real. Melamed turns Sy into someone you want to hug and punch at the same time. Perhaps the most recognizable actor in the cast is Kind, who is best known as Larry David’s annoying cousin on “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Here, he is typecast as the bothersome relative but he manages to bring a level of depth to Uncle Arthur and helping create of the more emotional scenes the Coen Brothers have ever shot.
The second creative risk the Coen Brothers took here lies in the story itself. The plot never really goes anywhere in terms of action. And without giving much away, I’d just like to say that things just have a way of getting worse and worse for poor Larry.
Often the Coen Brothers are criticized for being so hateful toward their characters and making fun of them. However, they are filmmakers, and therefore observers. Why not mock someone when they do something that is, well, ridiculous?
One thing I sometimes tend to tire of in films are Biblical references. That’s mainly because directors will throw in an image of some guy laying with his arms spread out, call it a Jesus metaphor, and then beg for an Oscar.
However, the Coen Brothers are not like that. They use Torah stories and Jewish myths to create a story that questions but doesn’t deny the existence of god, one that tries to determine how one can keep the faith in such a cruel world.
I unfortunately don’t know enough Biblical tales to point out exactly which ones were used here. Many have pointed out that Larry embodies Job, another good person whose constant suffering was a test by God. I found the story to be an allusion to Adam & Eve. Larry’s nearly perfect suburban street could be his Eden, while the temptations of money and adultery are his equivalent of the Tree of Knowledge.
At the end of the film, audience reactions seemed mixed. Maybe the reason I liked the film so much wasn’t just for a Coen bias, but because of a deep personal connection to it. I remember the days of listening to recordings of my Torah portion to prepare for my Bar Mitzvah and even more so how surreal the actual day felt.
You can be either Jew or Gentile to enjoy the darkly comic “A Serious Man.” It’s a film that will entertain, frustrate, and infuriate. Most importantly, there is not one answer to the films religious questions about life. It does what a great movie should do: rather than interpret itself, it lets the audience member interpret it instead. Does the film believe in God? Is the film existential? What does that tornado mean? To all this, I say; oy vey.
Unfortunately, this deeply intelligent film is only playing in a few places nationwide. To see it for yourself, either head to New York, or write Focus Features a letter and beg them to release the film in your hometown already. It’ll be a much more enjoyable evening than the one you’d have seeing “Couple’s Retreat.” Also, leave all interpretations of the very open-ended ending in the comments. I’m still very confused by it as well.
If You Liked this Movie, You’ll also Like: Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country for Old Men, American Beauty, Blue Velvet, Lolita, anything really, really, Jewish

The Coen Brothers & The Dude Reunite: Yay(?)

Leave a reply

Normally, I’d be jumping for absolute joy when hearing that The Coen Brothers and Jeff “The Dude” Bridges will be making their first movie together since “The Big Lebowski.”

Great start, right? Well of course, there’s two sides to everything. Variety reports that it will be a remake of the 1969 John Wayne Western “True Grit.” Unfortunately, I can’t provide much detailed analysis of “True Grit” because I haven’t seen it yet. What I do know is that it’s about a drunken U.S. Marshal who helps a 14-year-old girl find her father’s murderer. Also, this film earned Wayne the first and only Oscar of his career (likely to make up for snubbing his performance in “The Searchers”).
Now, I pretty much always express outrage when Hollywood decides to remake classics. While someone had the decency to kill that “Rosemary’s Baby” remake, that proposed “Bonnie & Clyde” remake has yet to be shot down. And while I’m not surprised that someone like Michael Bay (who was on board for the “Baby” remake) would try and ruin a classic, I would never expect it from the Joel and Ethan Coen, who have come up with some of the most amazingly original stories of the past 30 years.
There isn’t really much good to remakes, but some people do defend them. Often, they can be good, but that’s in the rare circumstance where the director takes the old film and puts a new spin to it that’s entertaining and unique. Perhaps the Coen Brothers are just the people to do that. It already seems that they’re planning on telling the story from the girl’s perspective (apparently in the original, the story is told from the perspective of Wayne). Not only that, but the Coen Brothers shoot most of their best films west of the Mississippi. Adding their unique eye to regional accents and mannerisms probably couldn’t hurt the film either. They can also shoot a pretty good shootout, too.
So, take this project as you will. While I know the Coen Brothers are capable of inventing their own stories, I’ll still probably line up for anything with the names Coen and Bridges on it.
I couldn’t think of a good “Lebowski” quote to randomly incorporate into the article, so this clip is just about as good: