I’m fascinated by the Coens. I saw Blood Simple when it was new, and dismissed it as “pretentious.” That was the word I used back then if something was a little different from whatever I was used to. At some point I got interested in them, and I went back to Blood Simple and now it seemed really good.
After I saw a few Coen winners in a row, I saw Raising Arizona and didn’t like it. It was packed with the smarty pants type of attitude that had initially turned me off about their debut.
I’ve never been willing to go back to that one, but I liked all their others very much until the one you suggest was the beginning of a slack period. I was troubled by how much i didn’t like that one. I couldn’t figure out where they went wrong. It just didn’t seem to work.
I did like Hudsucker, a lot, and Miller’s Crossing is a movie I can watch over and over, even though I gather some people hate it.
I like the obvious later ones everybody likes, pretty much. I thought Burn was a little thin but not bad; if a newcomer had made it I probably would have been more impressed. I didn’t like what I saw of the Ladykillers, probably because I was a huge fan of the Ealing original, and it seemed lame to me that they remade it. Although I thought their True Grit remake was better than the original, which wasn’t really that good except for Wayne.
Not many misfires for me, ultimately, and the only reason even their few clunkers bug me is that they’re so on point when the movie is good. With some artists, I really love even the lesser work, but with the Coens, when I don’t like one of theirs, it REALLY rubs me the wrong way.
Why is this, I wonder? I feel like you’re touching on the reason here, but I’ve only skimmed this because I haven’t seen the film you’re digging into. I should probably see it.
I’m fascinated by the Coens. I saw Blood Simple when it was new, and dismissed it as “pretentious.” That was the word I used back then if something was a little different from whatever I was used to. At some point I got interested in them, and I went back to Blood Simple and now it seemed really good.
After I saw a few Coen winners in a row, I saw Raising Arizona and didn’t like it. It was packed with the smarty pants type of attitude that had initially turned me off about their debut.
I’ve never been willing to go back to that one, but I liked all their others very much until the one you suggest was the beginning of a slack period. I was troubled by how much i didn’t like that one. I couldn’t figure out where they went wrong. It just didn’t seem to work.
I did like Hudsucker, a lot, and Miller’s Crossing is a movie I can watch over and over, even though I gather some people hate it.
I like the obvious later ones everybody likes, pretty much. I thought Burn was a little thin but not bad; if a newcomer had made it I probably would have been more impressed. I didn’t like what I saw of the Ladykillers, probably because I was a huge fan of the Ealing original, and it seemed lame to me that they remade it. Although I thought their True Grit remake was better than the original, which wasn’t really that good except for Wayne.
Not many misfires for me, ultimately, and the only reason even their few clunkers bug me is that they’re so on point when the movie is good. With some artists, I really love even the lesser work, but with the Coens, when I don’t like one of theirs, it REALLY rubs me the wrong way.
Why is this, I wonder? I feel like you’re touching on the reason here, but I’ve only skimmed this because I haven’t seen the film you’re digging into. I should probably see it.