09-14-2008, 07:35 PM
Hmm... no big endorsement. It was ok - very Coen Bros. I can't tell if they come up with a bunch of highly idiosyncratic characters and then wrap a story around them, or they come up with some crazy story, then sprinkle these characters in as seasonings.
It's very much in the flavor of Fargo, or their first movie "Blood Simple". It takes a long time to build the story and then put the pieces in motion. Once "it's happening", it's fun, but most of the bits hang like a rimshot. There are good bits, but it wasn't that memorable.
Wasn't impressed by Brad Pitt's performance. Malkovich was OK. Clooney was OK. Frances McDormant was OK. They've all done better work.
--tg
PS: I've been on some Coen Brothers kick for the last few weeks. I saw "No Country for Old Men", then I saw "Blood Simple" (which was very low budget, but I would recommend it for all its plot twists), and now this one...
It's very much in the flavor of Fargo, or their first movie "Blood Simple". It takes a long time to build the story and then put the pieces in motion. Once "it's happening", it's fun, but most of the bits hang like a rimshot. There are good bits, but it wasn't that memorable.
Wasn't impressed by Brad Pitt's performance. Malkovich was OK. Clooney was OK. Frances McDormant was OK. They've all done better work.
--tg
PS: I've been on some Coen Brothers kick for the last few weeks. I saw "No Country for Old Men", then I saw "Blood Simple" (which was very low budget, but I would recommend it for all its plot twists), and now this one...