Comments on: A Few Thoughts on The Ladykillers

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:48:03 +0000

Jandy, I like The Hudsucker Proxy better than this one, there’s something about Paul Newman playing comic-dastardly that tickles my fancy, but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea either.

But, as you say, completeness is important.

By: Jandy

Jandy — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:33:01 +0000

This and The Hudsucker Proxy are the only two Coen films (aside from A Serious Man) that I haven't seen. I really kind of don't even want to watch this one - I love both the Coens and the original Ladykillers too much. I guess I'll have to see it sometime just for the sake of completeness.

By: Rick

Rick — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:11:39 +0000

About the type thing: yeah, I missed that connection. It’s been so long since I saw the original, that I barely remember the plot, much less the characterizations.

By: Rod

Rod — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 03:32:06 +0000

I had the odd fortune to watch this before catching the original. What was labored and slouchy here proved to be something like perfection in its original guise, which was heartening, because I generally find the Ealing films far too cutesy. I think it’s worth pointing out vis a vis the costuming that as the original presented a rogue’s gallery that was a compendium of British types, from Herbert Lom’s pinstriped sharpie to Sellers’ Cockney spiv to Guinness’ shifty faux-savant, up against the darling little old granny, so it was appropriate to populate the remake with some common seedy American types. Southern colonel dress and a retro black mammy make sense in such a set-up, which hinges on a clash of cliches. It’s just the over-loudness of the execution that hurts it. It badly lacked was the quiet menace of the Mackendrick film, which gave the original its punch, especially in Guinness’ freaky characterization; Hanks was far too sane and self-satisfied. But then, I’m no particularly big fan of the Coens, and prefer them when in funny mode over pretentious.

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:37:51 +0000

I know that Hanks was supposed to be over the top, but it didn’t work for me. You’re right about one thing, though: he was surely weird.

Actually, you’re right about another: there were some stunning visuals. Even when the source material isn’t the best, they have impeccable framing and compositional sensibilities. And Deakins, of course, is the best.

By: bill r.

bill r. — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:51:18 +0000

I can’t really defend this movie too strenuously — or Intolerable Cruelty, which I would say is their “worst” — but I did like it more than you, and I thought one of the best things about it was Hanks. That’s right…Hanks! He’s incredibly over-the-top, but in a much more interesting way than everyone else. He’s strange and funny, and I loved the Edgar Allan Poe stuff. Of course people don’t dress like that anymore: that’s the point! He was born in the wrong decade, or century. That’s what his character is, along with being devious and all that.

Plus, there are some absolutely beautiful shots in this film. There’s a shot of Hanks on the bridge, near the end (before he gets conked on the head) that is really stunning. Roger Deakins FTW.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:44:35 +0000

Joke? JOKES? The Wood Man is no laughing matter. Any more.

By: Randy J. Arnold

Randy J. Arnold — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:11:07 +0000

Hey…take the Woody Allen jokes outside….

Randy

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:17:43 +0000

Yeah, that’s what I thought at first as well. But with this one, it seems their usual impeccable sense of tone and how far to go without going over the top deserted them. Perhaps it all began with the horrible miscasting of Hanks …

By: Reel Whore

Reel Whore — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:13:37 +0000

I own this basically for the same reason. I love all things Coen. This just didn’t work as well as their others. Intolerable Cruelty didn’t either. My wife and I came to the conclusion they need to stick with their own material from here on out.