Scribe & Green on the BIG screen

There are far too many people out there writing “reviews of movie-films & articles about them with absolutely no clue what the hell they’re talking about." Here are 2 more of them! (Well, one of us knows what the h___ we're talking about, but we'll leave it up to you to decide who that is...) Ultimately, can two people as opposite as Scribe and Green agree on anything?? That's where the fun begins. Won't you join us? (Every now and then we'll add a guest review, just for kicks.)

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Blood Simple

SCRIBE'S YOU GUYS MADE MILLER'S CROSSING??? REVIEW:

Every so often, I am truly baffled by a film's critical reception and this was one of those times. It is hard to believe that this is the film debut of one of the finest fim making teams in movie history.

Simply put, it's a barely watchable student film project filled with loathsome characters whose only virtue seems to be advancing the skeletal plot along to its limping climax.

Contrary to Green, I didn't find the acting horrible. In fact, M. Emmet Walsh was suitably creepy in his role as the hired killer whose experience is questionable. But the film drags and drags, lacking all the trademark witty and philosophy of later Coen Bros. films like Fargo and The Man Who Wasn't There.

The only reason this film was so awe-inspiring at the time is because the Eighties was a dumping ground for safe, sanitized movies that made people feel good...Reagan era, anyone? Anything that appeared gritty and anti-establishment was embraced with welcome arms back then.

Thank God this film didn't stop the Coen Brothers from being among my favorite film makers but I really, really wish I'd never watched this one.


* out of *****

GREEN'S "I'M GONNA WANT THAT PICTURE BACK" REVIEW:

Marty (Dan Hedaya) doesn’t like that his wife Abby (Frances McDormand) is sleeping with Ray (John Getz) who was working for him at his bar. So what’s a man to do? Hire Loren Visser (M. Emmett Walsh), a sleazy hit man, to kill his wife and her lover. But when blood is involved, nothing is ever simple, especially when the unexpected happens.

This not so subtle film debut from some dudes named Coen really put their names on the Hollywood map, and they’ve built nice little careers on this foundation. The movie is watchable, but I still have some issues with it, even after seeing it twice.

The acting is flat out horrible. The characters' dialogue sounds wooden and hollow. Are we given a reason to care about these people? I couldn't find one.

Are there intelligent people living in Texas or are they all hicks? From this movie you wouldn’t think so, except for Meurice (Samm-Art Williams) and he has only four or five lines of dialogue in the whole movie!! Seriously, if you come across a man who has obviously been shot and has been bleeding all over the place for gawd knows how long, do you try and clean it up and move the body into the back seat of your car so you can have incriminating blood stains all over it? I don‘t think so. No, if you’re smart, you either turn around and walk away, call the police or both. Instead you decide to put your fingerprints all over the room snooping around.

How exactly does Ray know where to find the gun that shot Marty? Why weren’t there any flies or maggots around the dead fish sitting on the table after a few days? If you’ve been shot in the chest, have lost a lot of blood and have been tossed into the back seat of a car like a sack of moldy potatoes, are you really going to have the strength to get out of the car and start crawling away? Are you even going to be alive after all of that? *shakes head*

I have no issues with the premise of the story, which is not new or unique. The screenplay is seriously lacking in character development and drags in several places. The most entertaining sequence of the whole movie is at the very end (last 15 minutes or so) and I won’t spoil it for you.

I did find it interesting to see a young Frances McDormand, the most well known of the cast, who doesn’t look much older than 22 or 23 in this film - but was actually 26 at the time of release, a mere quarter century ago. M. Emmett Walsh (who I agree is very creepy here) and Dan Hedaya have built solid if unspectacular careers. John Getz has spent the majority of his career in bits and pieces of television roles rather than focusing on the big screen, so it’s not surprising that I did not recognize him.

For a first writing and directing effort this film is okay. I'm not a huge fan of the Coen brothers but I do respect their later work. Fortunately, they have gotten much better as film makers with age and experience, which is a good thing.

Finally, the DVD version I watched was labeled as the Director’s Cut and was released in 2008, yet the run time of this version was shorter by three minutes (99 minutes down to 96 minutes) - according to IMDb. What about extras? Well, there weren’t any!! Not a one. Isn’t the intention of a director’s cut to include loads of special features, extended and deleted scenes, cast and crew interviews, etc? This was disappointing to say the least.


** out of *****

Blood Simple (1985, R, 99 minutes), starring Dan Hedaya, John Getz, Frances McDormand, M. Emmett Walsh and Samm-Art Williams. Written and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen.

Labels:

7 Comments:

At 20 March, 2010 15:51 , Blogger Tim said...

Wow, I'm actually surprised you gave this film such a crappy rating. I thought you'd be filled with high praise for it because I know you like the Coen brothers' films.

 
At 21 March, 2010 14:19 , Blogger c nadeau & t johnson said...

Normally, yes. But this movie really sucked ass.

 
At 21 March, 2010 16:20 , Blogger American Guy said...

"Isn’t the intention of a director’s cut to include loads of special features, extended and deleted scenes, cast and crew interviews, etc?"

No. I've always thought of the director's cut as an opportunity for the director to make some changes that are different than what the studio insisted on for the original release. Sure, usually this means adding extra scenes that endedd up on the cutting room floor, but too often this is just a vanity exercise. My hunch (without having seen this film) is that the brothers watched this again, thought 'hey - it'd work better if we cut this or that scene' and made changes appropriately.

Plus being that special features are often along the lines of 'the making of ...' you're not going to see these added for films that didn't have the featurette done at the time of production. Stuff like voiceover commentaries are painfull to watch and don't add to the experience, so leaving them out would actually be a welcome relief.

 
At 22 March, 2010 09:48 , Blogger c nadeau said...

I'm not even sure the version I watched was the director's cut.

 
At 22 March, 2010 10:10 , Blogger Tim said...

Most director's cut editions I've seen have added in scenes that were shot but didn't make the theatrical release for time considerations. For example the three LOTR films extended cuts are considerably longer and make the film more complete. Even George Lucas' retooling of the original Star Wars trilogy added value (and a few minutes of length) to the films - but in more subtle ways.

Even if a "making of" featurette wasn't done at the time of shooting you could still assemble the cast and select crew and have them recount memorable moments in the production, especially where it was the Coen's debut film. And you would certainly expect to see some deleted scenes on the DVD for optional viewing if not reinserted into the movie itself.

 
At 23 March, 2010 15:30 , Blogger c nadeau said...

I can't imagine there were any additional scenes that could have redemmed this piece of crap.

 
At 28 September, 2010 14:10 , Blogger Simon said...

See I watched this in the theatre when it first came out. When the Coens were unknown. I still think its great. One of their best.

I like the slow pace. But then I'm old.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home