The Coen Brothers

[jmt225]

Anybody else find these guys extremely overrated? I mean, these two won countless awards for two of the shittiest movies I've ever seen in "Fargo" and "No Country for Old Men". Then, another film I personally consider to be a horrible piece of shit they created years ago, "The Big Lebowski", has garnered this huge cult following, which I'll never understand. I'm also not too fond of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", while I'm at it.

Now, granted, I haven't seen every Coen Brothers picture, and I'm sure there might be one or two on their resume that I would dig (in fact, "Burn After Reading" doesn't look too bad), but I'm just going to focus on the three films that are the most highly praised to come from them and I want whoever reads this and feels differently, tp explain to me why these movies are good to you.

Fargo - Out of this complete piece of shit, there was only one part I liked and that was Steve Buscemi trying to fix the reception on his television. Outside of that, I found nothing remotely humorous about it, nothing remotely exciting about it, and most importantly... I didn't feel one ounce of sympathy for any of the characters. I couldn't care less if anyone of those annoying fuckers died or not. On top of that, the plot was stupid and the dialogue was completely uninteresting. Also, the accents are shit. It makes you believe that if the Coen brothers made this movie in my hometown, every one would sound like some ******ed redneck like in that piece of shit "Waterboy". All in all, the film is just trash.

The Big Lebowski - This is better then "Fargo", but still nothing special. The plot is workable, but since the characters, outside of John Goodman's character, Steve Buscemi’s character and the old guy who played the big Lebowski's character, are all terribly miscast, it makes the movie and concept of it complete garbage. Jeff Bridges was such a terrible choice for "Dude" and solely ruined the movie for me, to be honest. And every single one of the bad guys were lame as fuck as well. Every single one of them. This really is a movie that ultimately ends up to me as one that had a ton of potential since there was some funny dialogue and a somewhat interesting plot, but got turned into crap since the Coen Brothers didn't cast it correctly.

No Country for Old Men - Now, this one if worse then "Fargo". Oh my God what a piece of shit. I'll never, for the life of me, get what the big deal of this movie is about. Just like The Big Lebowski, nearly 95% of the characters were miscast, and fucking just like Fargo, the plot is ******ed, there are no exciting moments considering the piece of shit is suppose to be suspenseful, and there was no way I could ever feel any sort of emotion for any of these characters. Why the fuck am I rooting for James Brolin? What the fuck does he do that is suppose to get me caught up into this flick and hope he kills the bad guy and gets away with his money? Absolutely nothing, that’s what. The villain in this trash, is the most over hyped character I've ever seen in a movie. Joker by Ledger deserved the hype, but this guy? He had a cool weapon, but that was about it. He was more annoying to me then he was scary. The entire time I'm sitting there wanting to beat his ass myself, instead of actually rooting for Brolin or one of the most overrated actors in the history of cinema, Tommy Lee Jones, to kill the guy. And then the ending... I shouldn’t even have to comment on if you’ve seen this. But, spoiler ahead, just in case. We don't know if the annoying bitch, who looks she’s twelve-years-old instead of someone old enough to be Brolin's wife, dies, we get a stupid ass car crash when the cars were going what seemed very slowly, in which case wouldn’t have caused as much damaged as the movie made it seem, and we get a long, drawn out boring speech from Jones. Damn… everything about this movie is just terrible to me, plain and simple. Everything.

So, there you go. I absolutely loathed all three movies and I'm very interested in seeing if there's anyone who feels the same as I do, or if the majority of you completely disagree with my opinions and preferences. If so, can't wait to hear your explanations on why these movies aren't trash and what makes them intriguing to sit through, for you personally.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Man, I used to think you were cool. The Coen's are not overrated. Not in the slightest.

Fargo - Out of this complete piece of shit, there was only one part I liked and that was Steve Buscemi trying to fix the reception on his television. Outside of that, I found nothing remotely humorous about it, nothing remotely exciting about it, and most importantly...

It's a black comedy. The humour is very subtle. The accents of most of the cast point out that the film isn't to be taken seriously.

I didn't feel one ounce of sympathy for any of the characters. I couldn't care less if anyone of those annoying fuckers died or not.

There's only one main character that's supposed to have any redeeming features, Marge Gunderson. The pregnant woman.

On top of that, the plot was stupid and the dialogue was completely uninteresting.

The plot is great, so great it works for many other films.

The dialogue is awesome too: I need unguent.

Also, the accents are shit.

They're supposed to be.

It makes you believe that if the Coen brothers made this movie in my hometown, every one would sound like some ******ed redneck like in that piece of shit "Waterboy". All in all, the film is just trash.

If it's set in the same place as you live then the chances are you really sound like that. Ever listened to what your voice really sounds like? It's weird, and you don't like it.

The Big Lebowski - This is better then "Fargo", but still nothing special.

It's the best film ever young man.

The plot is workable, but since the characters, outside of John Goodman's character, Steve Buscemi’s character and the old guy who played the big Lebowski's character, are all terribly miscast, it makes the movie and concept of it complete garbage.

That's all the main characters, bar one. So the film is really cast well. Bit part cast member can be played by anyone really. It's only the leads that need great casting. A film will survive with a miss cast small role, but it'll struggle if the main parts are miss cast.

Jeff Bridges was such a terrible choice for "Dude" and solely ruined the movie for me, to be honest.

You are the only person I've ever read say that.

And every single one of the bad guys were lame as fuck as well. Every single one of them.

The paedophile? The nihlists? Really?

This really is a movie that ultimately ends up to me as one that had a ton of potential since there was some funny dialogue and a somewhat interesting plot, but got turned into crap since the Coen Brothers didn't cast it correctly.

You could be the only person ever who thinks that.

No Country for Old Men - Now, this one if worse then "Fargo". Oh my God what a piece of shit. I'll never, for the life of me, get what the big deal of this movie is about.

Creat cast, taken from a good novel, good bad guy, slow burning, anticlimatic ending. Pretty much what you want in an Oscar winner.

Just like The Big Lebowski, nearly 95% of the characters were miscast,

Who dod you want, George Clooney?

and fucking just like Fargo, the plot is ******ed,

Drug deal gone bad mixed with The Terminator?

there are no exciting moments considering the piece of shit is suppose to be suspenseful,

Slow burners don't have exciting moments. Brokeback Mountain wasn't missing a Texas shootout.

and there was no way I could ever feel any sort of emotion for any of these characters.

You aren't supposed to.

Why the fuck am I rooting for James Brolin?

You're not.

What the fuck does he do that is suppose to get me caught up into this flick and hope he kills the bad guy and gets away with his money?

You expect him to get away with the money, but he doesn't. Great plot twist.

The villain in this trash, is the most over hyped character I've ever seen in a movie.

I think you've been desensitised by all of those hyper, charismatic villains.

He had a cool weapon, but that was about it. He was more annoying to me then he was scary.

Is he supposed to be scary? He's not a monster, he's just a killer. The same as Woodey Harrelson in Natural Born Killers.

And then the ending... I shouldn’t even have to comment on if you’ve seen this. But, spoiler ahead, just in case. We don't know if the annoying bitch, who looks she’s twelve-years-old instead of someone old enough to be Brolin's wife, dies, we get a stupid ass car crash when the cars were going what seemed very slowly, in which case wouldn’t have caused as much damaged as the movie made it seem, and we get a long, drawn out boring speech from Jones. Damn… everything about this movie is just terrible to me, plain and simple. Everything.

The bad guy gets away, Tommy Lee jones leave his job incomplete. Great ending, like life. The bad guy wins.

So, there you go. I absolutely loathed all three movies and I'm very interested in seeing if there's anyone who feels the same as I do, or if the majority of you completely disagree with my opinions and preferences. If so, can't wait to hear your explanations on why these movies aren't trash and what makes them intriguing to sit through, for you personally.

There have only been two below average Coen films.

 

[jmt225]

Man, I used to think you were cool.

It's a black comedy. The humour is very subtle. The accents of most of the cast point out that the film isn't to be taken seriously.

There is a no humor to me. I find nothing about the film funny (except, like I said, Buscemi getting pissed at the TV). "Happiness" is a good 'black comedy'; Wes Anderson makes funny, enjoyable 'black comedies'; "Fargo" was just pure crap to me.

There's only one main character that's supposed to have any redeeming features, Marge Gunderson. The pregnant woman.

And I couldn't have cared less about her. She was annoying.

The plot is great, so great it works for many other films.

The dialogue is awesome too: I need unguent.

I just don't get it. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

If it's set in the same place as you live then the chances are you really sound like that. Ever listened to what your voice really sounds like? It's weird, and you don't like it.

That's not true man. Sure, I've heard guys who sound like Cajun rednecks, but it's rare. It's a different day and age. I've been to places outside of where I live and I've met people I told them where I'm from and the first thing our of their mouth, "You don't sound like you're from Louisiana." You know... how the fuck am I suppose to sound? Seriously. Like those fuckers on "Waterboy"? Come on now. That’s the bad thing about stereotypes.

It's the best film ever young man.

You really think so?

That's all the main characters, bar one. So the film is really cast well. Bit part cast member can be played by anyone really. It's only the leads that need great casting. A film will survive with a miss cast small role, but it'll struggle if the main parts are miss cast.

But see, that's my problem with "The Big Lebowski". I thought Jeff Bridges was no where near being the right guy for that part. Brad Pitt in "True Romance" had a role very similar to Jeff Bridges in "The Big Lebowski" and was ten times better at it. Bridges just got on my nerves.

You are the only person I've ever read say that.

Well, I'll be the first to admit I have a different taste then most.

The paedophile? The nihlists? Really?

Yes.

You could be the only person ever who thinks that.

Maybe so.

The reason I made this topic was because I got into an argument with my mom, of all people, about these guys. She basically has the exact same opinion as you. I wanted to see how others feel.

Creat cast, taken from a good novel, good bad guy, slow burning, anticlimatic ending. Pretty much what you want in an Oscar winner.

Never read the book; it's probably better. Other then Woody Harrelson and the two old women in the movie (the mom, and the fat bitch at the trailer park with the attitude), I didn't like anyone in the cast. Brolin sucks, Tommy Lee Jones like I said in my first post is extremely overrated, the broad looked like a little kid, and the bad guy... I just couldn't get into.

Who dod you want, George Clooney?

I'm not a big Clooney fan... but I'll tell you this much, his performance in "From Dusk 'Til Dawn" > Every performance in every Coen Brothers movie I've ever seen.

Drug deal gone bad mixed with The Terminator?

That sounds like a great deal. Wish "No Country for Old Men" was actually like that.

Slow burners don't have exciting moments. Brokeback Mountain wasn't missing a Texas shootout.

Yeah, but it had unique characters that made you care for them.

You aren't supposed to.

Which is a problem.

You're not.

Which is another problem.

You expect him to get away with the money, but he doesn't. Great plot twist.

It would've been a great plot twist if they actually found a unique way for him not to.

I think you've been desensitised by all of those hyper, charismatic villains.

No, I haven't. You brought up The Terminator. Fucking T-1000 from "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" is one of my favorite villains of all time. I also love Kevin Spacey in "Se7en".

Is he supposed to be scary? He's not a monster, he's just a killer. The same as Woodey Harrelson in Natural Born Killers.

Look, I probably would've enjoyed his performance more hadn't got praised like did, but it set my expectations too high and the dude didn't live up to it.

And you don't have to be a monster to be scary. Clubber Lang and Ivan Drago were human and they weren't ever murderers, but they were still scary as shit. Like, you looked at them and said to yourself, "I would never mess with those motherfuckers.", and that's how Bardem's character was suppose to be since Harrelson put him over as such. But the guy wasn't intimidating one bit; he just had a cool gun. I wanted to kill him myself the entire time, which I guess would have been a great thing if there was actually a good guy in the movie I could get behind to kill him for me. For example, "Gladiator". I despise Russell Crowe, but how could you not love the Maximus character? And how could you not want him to kill Commodus? That's how these characters are suppose to be like. I'll admit that Bardem did a good job of making me want to see him dead because A) I thought he was a pussy and B) he got on my nerves. But there was just no one to root for to kill him and that ultimately ruined the movie entirely for me. The slowness of it could've easily been fixed with a likeable good guy, but not only wasn't Brolin that type of guy, but the writing also made him a bit of a jackass.

The bad guy gets away, Tommy Lee jones leave his job incomplete. Great ending, like life. The bad guy wins.

I don't mind that the bad guy wins, just the way it was done.

Also, the movie is anything but "like real life". You're not the only person I've seen say they like the ending because it's "like real life", but there is plenty of shit about the movie that is far fetched and nothing "like real life".

There have only been two below average Coen films.

Which one's do you consider them to be? They might be the only two I end up liking, lol.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

There is a no humor to me. I find nothing about the film funny (except, like I said, Buscemi getting pissed at the TV). "Happiness" is a good 'black comedy'; Wes Anderson makes funny, enjoyable 'black comedies'; "Fargo" was just pure crap to me.

You didn't find Steve Buscemi's foot poking out of a shredder amusing? Or the women describing him as ''funny looking''?

And I couldn't have cared less about her. She was annoying.

She's preganant. If she'd died it would have made the film totally different.

That's not true man. Sure, I've heard guys who sound like Cajun rednecks, but it's rare. It's a different day and age. I've been to places outside of where I live and I've met people I told them where I'm from and the first thing our of their mouth, "You don't sound like you're from Louisiana." You know... how the fuck am I suppose to sound? Seriously. Like those fuckers on "Waterboy"? Come on now. That’s the bad thing about stereotypes.

Stereotypes have to come from somehwere. just because you don't sound like that, doesn't mean others don't. It's also exaggerated.

You really think so?

It's my favourite, but not the best film ever, no.

But see, that's my problem with "The Big Lebowski". I thought Jeff Bridges was no where near being the right guy for that part. Brad Pitt in "True Romance" had a role very similar to Jeff Bridges in "The Big Lebowski" and was ten times better at it. Bridges just got on my nerves.

Brad Pitt isn't in a comedy in True Romance. He's a comedy interlude.

The reason I made this topic was because I got into an argument with my mom, of all people, about these guys. She basically has the exact same opinion as you. I wanted to see how others feel.

Your Mum is right.

I'm not a big Clooney fan... but I'll tell you this much, his performance in "From Dusk 'Til Dawn" > Every performance in every Coen Brothers movie I've ever seen.

Dusk Till Dawn is enjoyable, but his performance his him as a bad guy. He's hardly stretching himself. If he did another bad guy role now it would blow DTD away.

That sounds like a great deal. Wish "No Country for Old Men" was actually like that.

It is. What do you see the story as?

Yeah, but it had unique characters that made you care for them.

Gay people aren't unique, love isn't unique nor are cowboys.

Which is a problem.

Not at all. If every film had characters with redeeming features then films would get boring.

Which is another problem.

He's the real main lead, despite what the poster might tell you. There's no problem with having a bastard as your male lead.

It would've been a great plot twist if they actually found a unique way for him not to.

It's totally out of the blue, it's a great way of killing him off.

No, I haven't. You brought up The Terminator. Fucking T-1000 from "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" is one of my favorite villains of all time. I also love Kevin Spacey in "Se7en".

Both have gimmicks.

Look, I probably would've enjoyed his performance more hadn't got praised like did, but it set my expectations too high and the dude didn't live up to it.

The winners of awards are frequently wrong, but the nominees are more often than not, spot on.

And you don't have to be a monster to be scary. Clubber Lang and Ivan Drago were human and they weren't ever murderers, but they were still scary as shit.

Clubber Lang is the bad guy because Rocky is such a good, good guy.

Ivan Drago is a Russian. It would have been more of a stretch if he'd been a normal bloke.

Like, you looked at them and said to yourself, "I would never mess with those motherfuckers.",

Boxers are tough. I think that couple be part of the job though.

and that's how Bardem's character was suppose to be since Harrelson put him over as such.

Murderers aren't tough. They just kill people.

But the guy wasn't intimidating one bit; he just had a cool gun.

He's just a man. You've probably met a murderer in your life. You just don't know it. It's because they're your average guy/girl on the street.

I despise Russell Crowe, but how could you not love the Maximus character? And how could you not want him to kill Commodus?

He wouldn't be half as sympathetic if his family hadn't been killed.

That's how these characters are suppose to be like.

There are no rules man.

The slowness of it could've easily been fixed with a likeable good guy,quote]

Or a musical number.

I don't mind that the bad guy wins, just the way it was done.

How else does a bad guy win? There was no need for a big shootout. Been there, done that.

Also, the movie is anything but "like real life". You're not the only person I've seen say they like the ending because it's "like real life", but there is plenty of shit about the movie that is far fetched and nothing "like real life".

You can have real life elements in any film.

Which one's do you consider them to be? They might be the only two I end up liking, lol.

Intolerable Cruelty & The Ladykillers.

 

[jmt225]

You didn't find Steve Buscemi's foot poking out of a shredder amusing? Or the women describing him as ''funny looking''?

Not "Laugh out loud" funny like the TV scene.

She's preganant. If she'd died it would have made the film totally different.

I didn't want her to die, lol. I just didn't like her.

Brad Pitt isn't in a comedy in True Romance. He's a comedy interlude.

But he still played the role to perfection I thought. And it just seems to me the way Pitt came off should've been what Bridges character was suppose to be, but I thought he dropped the ball with it.

Your Mum is right.

My mom does indeed rule, but her taste in movies is a tad bit effy.

Dusk Till Dawn is enjoyable, but his performance his him as a bad guy. He's hardly stretching himself. If he did another bad guy role now it would blow DTD away.

What makes you think that? I haven't seen anything from Clooney that would ever make me think he could top his character from "From Dusk 'Til Dawn".

It is. What do you see the story as?

Just as some lucky jackass finding some money and then some douche trying to kill him because the jackass makes too many idiotic mistakes.

Gay people aren't unique, love isn't unique nor are cowboys.

Yeah, but all those things put together made for an interesting/original story that was quite enjoyable.

Not at all. If every film had characters with redeeming features then films would get boring.

Well, that's true I guess..

He's the real main lead, despite what the poster might tell you. There's no problem with having a bastard as your male lead.

I don't think so either, but in this role, I thought Brolin's character could've saved the entire movie from the borefest it was.

It's totally out of the blue, it's a great way of killing him off.

I agree you don't expect it, but I don't buy the logic that since it's different and unexpecting, that automactically makes it good. I wasn't expecting Mae Young to give birth to a hand, but it was still shit regardless.

Both have gimmicks.

You wouldn't call Bardem's weapon a gimmick? Or how about his ridiculous voice? If that's not a gimmick, then what is?

The winners of awards are frequently wrong, but the nominees are more often than not, spot on.

Not all the time.

Clubber Lang is the bad guy because Rocky is such a good, good guy.

Ivan Drago is a Russian. It would have been more of a stretch if he'd been a normal bloke.

I disagree with both of those statements. No one could've pulled Clubber Lang off as good as Mr. T did; same case with Dolph Lundgren playing Drago. Those characters were cast and written perfectly. While I begrudgedly buy into the argument that the killer in "No Country for Old Men" was cast right, I still think his part could've been written a lot better.

Murderers aren't tough. They just kill people.

He's just a man. You've probably met a murderer in your life. You just don't know it. It's because they're your average guy/girl on the street.

Yeah, but murderers are still intimidating. This might be a bad example but it's the first that comes to mind off the top of my head, but you look at a guy like 'O-Dog' from "Menace II Society". You watch him and probably think that in a one on one fight, you could kick his skinny ass, but at the same time, you also think that you would never want to piss off a crazy motherfucker such as that. I didn't get that feeling with Bardem's character, especially with such a far fetched beginning.

He wouldn't be half as sympathetic if his family hadn't been killed.

But you had that fear for Brolin's character for most of the second half of the movie: that his 12-year-old looking wife was going to get killed. Just threating to kill someone's wife is enough to gain sympathy for the main character, but I just couldn't feel for Brolin because he was a prick in the movie. Maximus wasn't.

Also, have you ever seen "A History of Violence"? Now that's a fucking great movie and one's who style can be compared to "No Country for Old Men". Viggo Mortensen was a great good guy, and fucking Ed Harris and William Hurt were tremendous bad guys. For "No Country for Old Men", I should have felt for those characters that I felt for the characters in "A History of Violence", but I didn't. Brolin isn't half the actor Mortensen is and his character in "No Country for Old Men" wasn't written half as well as Mortensen's character in "A History of Violence" was. Same case for the bad guys in each film.

Or a musical number.

I actually liked that there was no music to be honest. Just wish the movie was better for such a neat idea.

How else does a bad guy win? There was no need for a big shootout. Been there, done that.

I don't know man. I can't think of something right at this moment, but it still could've been done in a much better way. Him dying a death we don't see due to some mean old bitch mouthing off to a Mexican in a suit we never see beforehand... just doesn't go over well with me.

Intolerable Cruelty & The Ladykillers.

I never bothered with either. Thought about watching "The Ladykillers" since I thought the pair of Tom Hanks and Marlon Waynes seemed interesting, but never got around to it.

The only way I would've checked out "Intolerable Cruelty" was if Catherine Zeta-Jones had a nude scene or something, lol.

 

[X]

The fact that you didn't even mention any of the Coen Brothers early work (their BEST work) already proves to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

Blood Simple? Classic. Raising Arizona? Classic. Barton Fink? Classic. Miller's Crossing? Classic. Should I continue?

And to criticize Fargo? Are you kidding me? Your "movie fan" card has officially be revoked.