![]() ![]() As you can imagine, this film's story concept is nothing special, being mostly fluffy with only an ambition for wit, rather than meat, which is distancing enough without being largely defined by characters who, even on paper, are thinly drawn and unlikable in a lot of ways. In terms of quality, however, well, I don't know what to tell you, because, like everyone else, I didn't see "Crimewave", but I can tell you that this film is decent on its own, no matter how hard it may be to keep from comparing this flick to others.īy this time, the Coen brothers had made their share of filmmaking breakthroughs, but here, they don't simply fail too innovate, but have a tendency to underplay satire to the point of making the tropes feel more trite than self-aware, and when these thematic conventions meet structural conventions, you end up with a surprisingly formulaic telling of a tale of limited consequence to begin with. They must have been throwing someone off with this collaboration, because this film was a critical disappointment, and, boy howdy, was it ever a financial disappointment, and yet, compared to "Crimewave", it's a successful as, well, "The Shawshank Redemption". Shoot, if you ask me, I'd say Rami owes the Coens again for this film, because I don't know if the Coens and Raimi have quite the same taste in slapstick. Well, I don't exactly know why they had to go through the trouble of having the script co-written by Sam Raimi, who was still on a high from "Army of Darkness", unless Raimi owed the Coens for getting them to co-write "Crimewave" when they were up-and-comers who couldn't afford big flops like that. I joke about how the Coens are expected to do straight pictures, but "Barton Fink" was quite the colorful black comedy, and keep in mind that the Coens also had "Raising Arizona" under their belt by this time, so over-the-top comedy was more expected than dry dramas like "Blood Simple". You know, I think that you should probably figure out what you're in for when you find that this business-themed period piece is about the invention of the hula-hoop, and even approaches such subject matter loosely, but hey, if anyone can make subject matter like that interesting, well, the Coens wouldn't be my first choice, even if "Blood Simple" was already ten years old by the release of this film. Not their best, but it's hard not to be charmed by it.īy this time in 1994, the Coen brothers were still on something of a high from the biting drama "Barton Fink", while Robbins was wrapping up with "The Shawshank Redemption", so, of course, the only natural progression from there is a screwball comedy. It is a little long and a little clumsy, but it's a fun movie. It's story is silly, and frankly kind of stupid, but I think it's supposed to be, and for what it is it works. The fast-paced dialogue that you really have to pay attention to and quick blink-and-you'll-miss-it visual gags are often brilliant, and the movie is just damn gorgeous in it's expressionist visualization of New York. As sort of a tribute to old school screwball Hollywood the movie is fun. I still really liked what the film was doing. As is though, it's still a Coen film, and they don't really make bad films. I feel like with another script rewrite, and some tightening of the editing and cutting the time down, it could be a great film. It seems to be searching for a type of comedy that the Coens would later perfect in movies like Burn After Reading, but this is definitely the beta version of that. ![]() ![]() There's times when it races, and times when it sort of just drags. ![]() The biggest reason for that being it somehow stimultaniously feels overstuffed with too much while also being kind of dull. I'm going to be honest here, this is one of the Coen's lesser films in my opinion. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |