Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Any fans of the Coen Bros.?

111 posts in this topic

I believe the 1st Coen Brothers film I saw was "Raising Arizona". I remember when it twas filmed here in Phoenix, Arizona back in 1986 & Phoenix went nuts.

 

As I grew Older, and go into film, & when "_Fargo_" came out that is when I went nuts for them!

 

I love the the Last Lines of the film "_Fargo_" which always gets me to catch my breath!

 

Marge Gunderson: So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it.

 

After that I watched and bought every single Cohen Brothers Film!

 

It's a toss up between "_The Hudsucker Proxy_" & "_Blood Simple_" which film I love most!

 

They did 1 short film called: _Tuileries_ which can be seen in the film _Paris, je t'aime_ . Another bit of interesting work for the Brothers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice pics, FF. Thanks.

Anyway, just saw "Burn". I can't say it's one of my favorites, but I did enjoy it. It almost seemed to be a subversive "screwball comedy", without the good intentions.

Doesn't Tilda Swinton look almost exactly like she did in "Michael Clayton"?

And didn't Frances score the "Antone Suga hair-do"?

One common denominator in this film from many of their others, is that while every character is cross-involved, not a single one has the slightest clue what is going on, or why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I suppose you could call *Burn* sort of a black screwball comedy. And Tilda does seem to be trying something very similar to *Michael Clayton*, only more so -- if that is even possible.

 

But more than anything you have a bunch of very talented actors having great fun with the material, and all but winking at the camera and asking "look at what we're getting away with!" ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But more than anything you have a bunch of very talented actors having great fun with the material, and all but winking at the camera and asking "look at what we're getting away with!" ;) "

 

I always like Brad Pitt better when he's doing character, or off-center roles. "True Romance", "Kalifornia", and now this. I mean, I like some of the mainstream stuff, but I always get a kick out of him when he "goes South".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=mickeeteeze wrote:}{quote}

> I always like Brad Pitt better when he's doing character, or off-center roles. "True Romance", "Kalifornia", and now this. I mean, I like some of the mainstream stuff, but I always get a kick out of him when he "goes South".

 

Well in this one, he went deep South. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree- I think Brad Pitt longs to be a character actor.... he is much more interesting to me as a chooser of movies than he is as an actor. His choices are quite diverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think Brad Pitt longs to be a character actor.... he is much more interesting to me as a chooser of movies than he is as an actor. His choices are quite diverse."

 

Yeah. That's got to be some kind of "weird dilemma". Once he scored in the Redford film, and the "Legends" movie, he could pretty much bank on getting a lead role every year, thanks to his good looks and popularity with a generation of women. But I think successful ventures into this character stuff sets him up well for later on down the road. Let's see......he "sends up" his good looks in this one. I mean, he plays a "bimbo" here, right? He's also done the "trailer trash serial killer", "the stoner", and let's not forget "the innocent vampire", that's a little different. And while it's been a long time, I also liked "A River Runs Through It".

And while the "Oceans" series is not my cup of tea, they are entertaining for what they are.

Come to think of it, Clooney has done some interesting stuff, too, although I believe he's more of the classic leading man. Brad Pitt is so much more "boyish good looks". I sometimes wonder how James Dean would have made out had he lived. Maybe the same. After all, Jett Rink was a character role, right?

And to digress a little further, I believe this was Marlon Brandos biggest flaw. He continued to choose lead roles, and play them like a character actor. It made a shambles of his career at times, never mind some of the films, but it seems to me that was his approach. I mean, look at "Mutiny", or "Golden Eye", or even "Missouri Breaks", lots of others. Man, that guy must've Pee'd a lot of big money people off.

Anyway.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=mickeeteeze wrote:}{quote}

> And to digress a little further, I believe this was Marlon Brandos biggest flaw. He continued to choose lead roles, and play them like a character actor. It made a shambles of his career at times, never mind some of the films, but it seems to me that was his approach. I mean, look at "Mutiny", or "Golden Eye", or even "Missouri Breaks", lots of others. Man, that guy must've Pee'd a lot of big money people off.

> Anyway.....

 

I think that, like Orson Welles, Marlon Brando got to a point where he just did almost anything he felt like or anything he could get away with, without a care in the world for what people might think or if it ticked off the big-money people. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that both were very highly creative and more talented than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think that, like Orson Welles, Marlon Brando got to a point where he just did almost anything he felt like or anything he could get away with, without a care in the world for what people might think or if it ticked off the big-money people. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that both were very highly creative and more talented than most."

 

Yes I agree, although I would say that even in some of his 50's leading roles, he showed signs of character role styled acting. "Sayonara" is pretty understated for leading man stuff. He did that turn in "Teahouse", and lets face it, him doing "Guys and Dolls" had to be one of the riskier moves a guy in his place could have made, at that time.

It's an interesting topic anyway. Maybe I'll finally break down and get my "Brando" thread going in the "Favorites" section.

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=mickeeteeze wrote:}{quote}

> "I think that, like Orson Welles, Marlon Brando got to a point where he just did almost anything he felt like or anything he could get away with, without a care in the world for what people might think or if it ticked off the big-money people. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that both were very highly creative and more talented than most."

>

> Yes I agree, although I would say that even in some of his 50's leading roles, he showed signs of character role styled acting. "Sayonara" is pretty understated for leading man stuff. He did that turn in "Teahouse", and lets face it, him doing "Guys and Dolls" had to be one of the riskier moves a guy in his place could have made, at that time.

> It's an interesting topic anyway. Maybe I'll finally break down and get my "Brando" thread going in the "Favorites" section.

> :-)

 

You really should start that Brando thread. I like him a lot but maybe I'm not as passionate about him as you or other Brando fans. And do you think making "Guys and Dolls" was really all that risky, back when musicals were much more popular overall? I mean obviously it was a change of pace for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

".......do you think making "Guys and Dolls" was really all that risky, back when musicals were much more popular overall?...."

 

Yes, I do. Brando loved music, but was no singer! Playing against Frank! Outside of (possibly?) some "Actors Studio" exercises, there is no evidence he had any notion at all what to expect or do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=mickeeteeze wrote:}{quote}

> ".......do you think making "Guys and Dolls" was really all that risky, back when musicals were much more popular overall?...."

>

> Yes, I do. Brando loved music, but was no singer! Playing against Frank! Outside of (possibly?) some "Actors Studio" exercises, there is no evidence he had any notion at all what to expect or do.

 

Fair enough. I don't know whether or not people back then were particularly surprised, but I suppose some of them might have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Come to think of it, Clooney has done some interesting stuff, too, although I believe he's more of the classic leading man. Brad Pitt is so much more "boyish good looks". I sometimes wonder how James Dean would have made out had he lived. Maybe the same. After all, Jett Rink was a character role, right?

 

 

I can't believe you are comparing George Clooney and Brad Pitt to the likes of James Dean and Marlon Brando. I don't think that Clooney or Pitt have anything on their resumes that is close to the groundbreaking films of On the Waterfront, Streetcar, Wild One, Rebel w/o a Cause, East of Eden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not compare? I don't believe anyone was comparing their acting - simply their way of choosing a role. So, what's wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe he missed my point Wendy. I will say it's refreshing to see someone defend Brando/Dean, etc, on these boards, even if he missed my point. That sometimes falls as my job around here, and to be honest with you, I've grown tired of doing it.

Anyway, to you Stephen, no I don't see Clooney or Pitt as important film figures like Brando and Dean, especially Brando. However I do see a "As Brando is to Dean, Clooney is to Pitt" type relationship, as pertains to roles. A very generalized statement, more about looks, than anything else. Thats all I was saying.

I'm not dismissive of film actors today, maybe once upon a time I sort of was, but no more. People work within the confines of their situations. The state of film today, for better or for worse, "is what it is". The only guarantee about old films is they generally can't make new old films. The interesting thing about the Coens is they clearly are film buffs, and they are forever dropping little clues, or bits of business that show that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=mickeeteeze wrote:}{quote}

> The interesting thing about the Coens is they clearly are film buffs, and they are forever dropping little clues, or bits of business that show that.

 

That is my feeling, as well. And anyone who loves *Sullivan's Travels* as much as I do must have loved the fact they'd make a movie called *O Brother, Where Art Thou?* - I just wish they'd gone ahead and made *Ants in Your Pants of 1939* as well! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I will say it's refreshing to see someone defend Brando/Dean,

 

That's all I was ranting about. I find very few films and actors today that really hold my interest. As I said before in regard to this thread my criticism of the Coen Bros. is based on the fact that I think their films are well worth seeing and discussing.

 

Message was edited by: Stephen444

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my hubby and i are partial to 'raising arizona'. it's one that never gets old, and holly hunter and nicholas cage have seldom been better. the babies are so cute, too! oh and john goodman, he was also very funny in this one.

 

trivia: randall 'tex' cobb is from abilene, texas!

 

anita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I might revive this thread after having revisited Miller's Crossing this weekend and enjoyed it even more than I did when it first came out. This is one of the Coen's very best, in my book, and it's also the first Coen Bros. movie that I was lucky to watch in a theater during its initial release. The movie is now approaching its 20th anniversary, and I think that not only has it _not_ aged, it has even gotten better with time.

 

I'll probably be posting in much more detail later on in the Gangster & Noir forum, because ultimately it's a homage to that whole genre, but for general observations in a thread that will hopefully be a bit more visible, this seemed like the place to go.

 

There are too many great things about Miller's Crossing to do them all justice in one post. I think I should obviously mention the great screenplay, cinematography, evocative production design (with marvelous attention for period detail) and excellent score; the acting is first-rate across the board. Has Gabriel Byrne ever had a better part than this? And could any living actor possibly portray an old-fashioned gangster boss with as much gusto as Albert Finney? I'm tempted to answer "no" to both questions.

 

Millers-Crossing.jpgmillers1.jpg

 

There's much more, of course, with Marcia Gay Harden's droll turn as Verna, a cold-hearted femme fatale, and the up-and-coming, ambitious gangster played with great brio by Jon Polito. John Turturro and Steve Buscemi make the most of their short screen time and create memorable characters with just a scene or two, and the great Frances McDonald has a great cameo as the Mayor's secretary.

 

For those who haven't seen it, or who watched it a long time ago, here's the trailer to hopefully bring back a few good memories:

 

 

big-1845_2_Miller_s-Crossing.jpg

 

P.S. For true Coen fans, there's one or two references to Barton Fink in this movie; the Coens reportedly had a bit of writer's block while working on this screenplay so they wrote Barton Fink in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I am a particular fan of the Coen Brothers. Some of what I know of their work isn't quite my cup of tea. I did stumble across "No Country For Old Men" last week and found it strangely compelling and just strange, which I guess might be standard for them.

 

First rate casting. I'll give them that. From Tommy Lee Jones to the overly creepy Javier Bardem to a wonderful little cameo from Barry Corbin it is a great list of actors.

 

A simple enough story well flsehed out but along the way some things fall too easily. This was primarily in Harrelson's part. And the ending is a little weird for my taste but an interesting film.

 

Sorry to interrupt the "Miller's Crossing" discussion but would be interested in hearing other opinions as this may be one I'll have to watch again and would like things I may need to watch for on a second viewing.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote}

> Sorry to interrupt the "Miller's Crossing" discussion but would be interested in hearing other opinions as this may be one I'll have to watch again and would like things I may need to watch for on a second viewing.

>

> Thanks

 

You weren't interrupting, it was just something I posted because I just watched it over the weekend.

 

As for No Country for Old Men, there have been a lot of interesting interpretations about the movie's theme, which I can dig up if you're interested. Some of them revolve around the inevitability of death, and whether the Javier Bardem character is a symbolic Reaper.

 

I'll try and find those and when I do I'll edit this post and add them here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us