Saturday, October 4, 2025

The Ladykillers - The Coens Go Gospel

Despite my love of the Coen Brothers, there are a number of their films I’ve been dreading writing about to the point that I almost decided against doing this series. The Ladykillers, along with Intolerable Cruelty and Burn After Reading, make up a trilogy of Coen comedies that I simply don’t have much to write about (yet I’ll still stretch this out to nearly 1,000 somehow). Though I’m still holding out hope for Burn

The Ladykillers is unique in their filmography for a few reasons, though. First, it is widely considered their worst film. I don’t like thinking about any of their movies as the “worst” because it makes it sound like a bad movie, and I don’t think they’ve made a bad film. Even with that qualifier, Ladykillers is not my least favorite Coen film. And when we add in the solo efforts, I’m not sure this is even bottom five for me. 


Your enjoyment of this, much like any comedy, depends on what you find funny. If you find Tom Hanks really going for it, speaking verbosely as some kind of sinister Colonel Sanders, then this might be for you. Or maybe you like Marlon Wayans and J. K. Simmons telling each other to fuck themselves multiple times. Or maybe you just like dark comedies. If that’s the case, as it was with me, then you might like this. It’s unlikely to be a favorite, but there’s fun to be had with it. 


Tom Hanks deserves quite a bit of praise because he is truly going for it. His interactions with Mrs. Munson (Irma P. Hall, carrying the film in her own right solely in her flummoxed reactions to Hanks’s bullshit) are great, and there’s a musicality to all the nonsense he spouts throughout. He even gets one of the great Coen waffle/pancake lines: “We must all have waffles forthwith!” And that’s saying something. It wouldn’t be saying something for any other filmmakers in cinematic history, but it’s something for the Coens. 


Wayans and Simmons worked the most for me, however. Simmons alone is great (“Easiest thing in the world!”), especially anytime his beloved Mountain Water…I mean Mountain Girl is brought up. But when he and Wayans start going after each other, it’s hilarious. They devolve to “fuck you”s so fast I can’t help but laugh. 


Aside from the wacky characters and dark humor, the movie looks great (Roger Deakins). And the Coens were trying something with the use of gospel music in the film (more on that later). So why is this so hated? Partly, it was despised at the time of its release because it’s a remake. I remember many reviews condemning it for being much less funny than the superior British original. I get this mentality, and god knows I’ve bitched about remakes plenty of times throughout the years. But that didn’t matter to me at the time or now. For one thing, I had never seen the original, and even after I watched it soon after seeing this, I didn’t find it all that amazing. I rarely find old comedies truly funny; I just prefer more modern humor. 


Other than the remake aspect, I can understand the humor not working for most people. But the fact that it’s the most hated in their filmography gives it a dubious honor for me personally because this was the first film of theirs I saw in theaters. But it wasn’t the first Coen film I bought a ticket for. As I recalled in my O Brother article, I bought a ticket for that film but snuck into Blow (only to get kicked out). I do like this movie, but I wish I could claim Big Lebowski or something as my first theater experience.


Finally, the Coens seemed to be trying to recapture the magic of the O Brother soundtrack phenomenon with this film. The only special features on the DVD are about the gospel music in the film, and there’s even a mid-credits sequence (a first and only, I believe, for them) featuring a performance at the church. Obviously, nothing about this film took off, so the gospel music fell on deaf ears. 


I’m not a big fan of gospel music, myself, but I am a fan of Bob Dylan, and there is a bit of a connection there. First, Mrs. Munson talks about a young Jewish man with a guitar who visited her church years ago. This could possibly be a reference to Dylan, who famously went gospel for three albums (Slow Train Coming, Saved, Shot of Love). That phase, much like this film, was met with disappointment and anger. 


As the years have passed, however, some people, myself included, have come around on Dylan’s gospel era. Perhaps others will eventually do the same with The Ladykillers. Sure, Dylan’s gospel stuff isn’t my favorite, but there are a few songs I enjoy immensely from those albums. Much in the same way, Ladykillers isn’t my favorite Coen film, but there are plenty of elements that make it a fun one. And some could argue The Ladykillers is like Dylan’s gospel era; in other words, his worst (I would argue his worst era is the Great American Songbook era [though I don’t know that it’s technically considered an era]). But if you give it some time and another chance, you might find a few bright spots, like Tom Hanks demanding waffles, or J. K. Simmons telling Marlon Wayans to go fuck himself.

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

One Battle After Another - Time Doesn't Exist, Yet It Controls Us Anyway

I’m dabbling with submitting reviews for a local newspaper again, so the first part of this is my spoiler and vulgarity-free thoughts on One Battle After Another. I’ll go free-form in the Random Thoughts section. 

As a huge fan of Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood is one of my favorite films of all time), One Battle After Another is easily the most anticipated movie in recent memory. That anticipation coupled with the nearly universal early praise for the film worried me: could this film possibly live up to its expectations? To be brief, yes. But I’ll give you the long-winded answer, too.


One Battle is one of those special films that can be entertaining completely at face value, but you can also apply theories to it. The basic storyline of an ex-revolutionary-in-hiding forced to come back to action to try to save his teenage daughter is enough to make the nearly three hour run time feel brief. But there’s also a metaphor for parenting in general to appreciate.


The film never stops. An extended prologue introduces us to the French 75, a group fighting against the immigration policies of the country. They attack detention centers and blow up government buildings. This aspect of the story will undoubtedly trigger some viewers, but I promise this is not a preachy film. There are white supremacists and revolutionaries and detained immigrants and that might offend some viewers, but that’s also the world we live in, so I don’t know why it would. And that’s the point of the film, in a way. This world is one battle after another, and things don’t change that much. That is why it isn’t preachy; it’s simply stating that it is what is, and this is a story about people fighting those battles.


Maybe I’m wrong and no one will care (so far, I haven’t seen much outrage about the film, but then again, I don’t think the people it would anger even know it exists, much less want to watch it). I found the setting effective as it puts the immigration crisis in the background of the film as this tense spectre surrounding everyone involved.


Tension is one of the strengths of the film. Leonardo Dicaprio (the aforementioned ex-revolutionary) spends pretty much the whole film flailing and failing to find his daughter. He is constantly moving even though he doesn’t seem to be aware of where he is or where he is going at any given moment. That, coupled with Jonny Greenwood’s predictably great score, give the movie a constant sense of unease as anything can happen at any moment. But it’s also funny because Dicaprio has become so inept and burnt out over the years that he can’t even remember the codewords and phrases necessary to get information from his former group. The comedy is the lifesaver of the film, otherwise it would be an exercise in tense misery.


Dicaprio’s inability to accomplish much of anything for most of the film presents the metaphorical aspect: parenthood. You don’t need to be a parent yourself to understand Dicaprio’s struggle in the film. His sole goal is to protect his daughter, but he’s unable to both because of his own failings and a world he can’t control. That’s parenting for everyone, even people who aren’t former revolutionaries. You want the best for your children, and you want them to always be safe. But, especially as they get older, things get out of hand. You can’t be with your kids all the time, and even if you could be, you can’t stop every bad thing from happening to them. But you can try. As the film title states, it’s one battle after another.


This wasn’t at the forefront of my mind while watching the film, however. It’s far too fast-moving and entertaining to give you time to dwell on deeper meanings (all that came later, thinking about what I had just seen). It’s cliché to call a film a “ride,” but it truly is, sometimes literally. There’s a uniquely filmed car chase near the end of the film that was one of the best in recent memory, accentuated by the IMAX presentation I saw the film presented in. 


One Battle is easily the most action-packed film of Anderson’s career, though that’s a low bar to top. But it’s not just car chases and shootouts. There’s a propulsion to the film that Anderson’s previous films lack (that’s not a dig at his other movies, it’s just that his later films are more meandering). Every character in this film is constantly moving to some goal with no time to think about it. The villain of the film, Sean Penn (weirding it up to try to get another Oscar), is like a creepy Terminator constantly moving in on his target. 


Penn is equal parts unnerving and goofy, and is likely to gain the most awards season attention. But everyone in this is great. Dicaprio has perfected his neurotic rageaholic character at this point. Benicio Del Toro provides plenty of comedy as an aloof sensei. Teyana Taylor fully embodies a revolutionary. And Chase Infiniti handles the tricky job of portraying someone both vulnerable and capable. 


It all adds up to one of my favorite films of the year. And the more I dwell on it, the more I like it. Perhaps one aspect will put it over the top for me: this is possibly the only film of Anderson’s that made me tear up. I'm a sucker for parental stuff in movies these days, but I don’t think it’s just that. He created this relationship between Dicaprio and Infiniti that feels real. I didn’t just want things to work out for them because they were the “good guys” of the story; I wanted these characters to make it because they earned it. Anderson detractors often accuse his films of being cold, but I can’t imagine that argument being made for this film.


One Battle After Another lived up to the hype for me. It’s 161 minutes of humorous tension, and I immediately wanted to watch it again when it was over. I can’t think of higher praise than that.


Random Thoughts


Still not seeing much in the way of MAGA outrage at this movie (once again, I think it’s simply flying under their radar since it doesn’t star Dean Cain or Kevin Sorbo), but I am seeing a few IMDb reviews that claim they are posting simply because the movie is too hyped up, and they want to bring the score down because the movie is just good, not great. I can understand that, and that’s partly the point of my review. Yes, movie people are high on this, maybe too high. And maybe I am, too. But I don’t think so. The only evidence I have for this is the fact that my wife dug this movie, and she doesn’t know who Paul Thomas Anderson is. Every aspect of the movie worked with her because it’s a good movie, not because she “wanted” to like it because it’s big on Letterboxd. I guess time will tell.


On that same note, a lot of folks are ranking PTA or at least alluding to where this would rank for them. I’m not doing a ranking on him any time soon, but I will say at the moment that this would probably be top five. I’m thinking maybe: 1. There Will Be Blood 2. Boogie Nights 3. The Master 4. One Battle After Another 5. Inherent Vice …fuck it…6. Magnolia 7. Punch-Drunk Love 8. Phantom Thread 9. Licorice Pizza 10. Hard Eight (but mainly because I haven’t seen it in years). 


That’s just off the top of my head, and it would probably change if I did a complete rewatch. But this movie’s place in a PTA ranking has nothing to do with how good it is. So a movie not being as “good” as Boogie Nights or There Will Be Blood is disappointing? If so, then might as well stop making fucking movies because that’s a high bar. 


I think this movie is getting hyperbole because it resonates with the world we currently live in more than any other PTA film ever has. His contemporary movies (Hard Eight, Magnolia, and Punch-Drunk Love) haven’t been tied to the moment they were made in. This is a movie of the time, and people wanted it, and maybe they even wanted to like it. The fact that it’s also funny with some action and excellent performances elevates it that much more. I kind of wish I could be a contrarian and tell everyone to calm the fuck down about this one, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. And more importantly, I like when I enjoy a movie. I don’t want to hate shit or be disappointed in it. I love movies, and when a really fucking good one comes out, I really fucking like it. All I’m saying is it’s okay to like something even when it’s overhyped. There are plenty of killjoy dildos in the world; no need for another one.


All that written, it’s okay to not like this movie. But if you’re only reviewing it or scoring it in response to other people’s thoughts on it, then fuck off and come up with an original or personal reason for your opinion.


I only made it about halfway through Vineland before I watched the movie, but I can still confirm this is a loose adaptation, and I’m glad. I’ll finish it, but I find Vineland very hard to get into. I just need to be in the right mood for Pynchon, and right now I’m just not in it.


Concerning Pynchon adaptations, this is wildly different from Anderson’s work on Inherent Vice. That film, which I’ve grown to absolutely love, is probably too faithful to Pynchon’s text. Characters mumble a lot, and much of the dialogue is taken directly from Pynchon, including all the “ums” and “uhs” and generally odd wording. It can be tough to decipher while reading and impossible to parse while watching. But there’s a musicality to it that worked in Inherent Vice. Here, Anderson admittedly cherry-picked elements he connected to and crafted his own story out of it, and the film is ten times more accessible than Inherent Vice because of it. It doesn’t make it automatically better, but just different and more audience-friendly.


I loved seeing Kevin Tighe in this. Of all the great casting choices in this, I never expected to see the bar owner from Road House in this, especially since I thought he was long dead.


Seeing Sean Penn survive the gunshot and car crash cracked me up so much. Then for him to show up all disfigured to still apply to the Christmas Adventurers Club with a “semen demon” story floored me. That stupid look on his fucked up face as he died was the chef’s kiss. 


So great to have Jim Downey deliver the “semen demon” line.


What a fucked up weird room for the white supremacists to meet in. It’s like a wildlife exhibit in a suburban tunnel system. Truly evil.


Del Toro saving Bob but getting busted for a DUI is great. It just shows how relaxed he is with this whole revolutionary thing, and it's further evidence that there is nothing really to be won here, just keep fighting. And fuck it, have a beer or two while you’re at it.


I’m not a big car chase guy (I mean, I’ll suck Ronin’s dick like any other good little cineaste, but it’s not something I look for in a film), but Anderson’s use of car POV and hills made this one special. And watching it in IMAX almost made me a little sick to my stomach…in a good way. 


I guess it’s kind of a good thing that this movie is doing just okay. That way, it hasn’t become the subject of a political debate like I thought it might. Yet. If this wins Best Picture, or even just gets a ton of noms, I’m sure it’ll still be used by morons as evidence that the Hollywood Elite hate America and want violence across the nation. 


All the out of touch white supremacists had some nice old-timey vocabulary peppered in: teeny-boppers, reefer, etc. These pieces of shit still use 1950s terminology because that’s what they want America to be.


I could have used more French 75 stuff. There’s not nearly enough Wood Harris in this. Or Junglepussy.


Thursday, September 18, 2025

Intolerable Cruelty - ...

I’ve been dreading this one. Not because I dislike it, but because I couldn’t imagine I’d have much to say about it…and I was right, which is why I kept the ellipsis for a title of this article when it was originally meant to be a placeholder.

Intolerable Cruelty isn’t a bad film, and it’s not even a Coen-for-hire film (which it sometimes gets saddled with), but it’s just not my thing. I can appreciate the acting, the comedy, and some of the weird Coen touches, but I just don’t enjoy this one all that much, and I don’t plan on ever watching it again. 


It all comes down to comedic taste, and I am not a screwball comedy guy and, despite this being one of the only Coen films to take place in the present, this is a straight up 1930s/40s screwball comedy. It’s the type of comedy I can appreciate but doesn’t make me laugh. The interaction about Kirshner, the “have you sat before her before?” scene, the silly names, etc. It’s all very amusing, but I find it more tiring than funny. Once again, this is just my taste in comedy; I can understand plenty of people finding this to be their most underappreciated film.


I truly have nothing else to add beyond some DVD special feature stuff and random thoughts, so I’m not going to make myself pad this out to a thousand words when a couple hundred will do it. Intolerable Cruelty just isn’t for me.


DVD Special Features


This is a relatively bare bones release featuring standard making-of doc, which was interesting just because it mentions that the Coens weren’t originally going to direct but it just somehow happened. 


There’s a short segment on the fashion of the film. Okay.


Then there are the “Filmmaker Approved and Arranged” deleted scenes and outtakes. By far the most interesting aspect of the release. Not because the scenes are interesting, but because of the ones the Coens apparently approved. First up is a supercut of Paul Adelstein saying “Everyone eats berries.” Then a George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones outtake compilation. And, finally, the train footage Rex Rexroth watched while bouncing around with women. This was definitely them just fucking with the DVD people when they came to them for input.


Random Thoughts 


Were pool guys just plowing through Hollywood housewives in the ‘90s and early ‘00s? Between this and Airheads and Extract (just off the top of my head; I'm sure there are a lot more), it seems like more of a common problem than it probably really was.


“That's my Daytime Television Lifetime Achievement Award!”


The “gizmo,” or “Intruder” has to be a predecessor for Clooney's device in Burn After Reading.


“When Marilyn and I first met, we were crazy about each other. Not emotionally, of course.”


I want a subscription to Living Without Intestines Magazine.


The senior partner is easily the most Coen element in the movie.


Billy Bob Thornton is playing such a wildly different character than he did in the Coens’ previous film. It's funny that he went from a character who barely talked to one who wouldn't shut up. I'm sure the casting was a little in-joke for them.


Sunday, September 7, 2025

The Man Who Wasn't There - The One and Only Coen Commentary


I own almost every Coen Brothers movie on physical media, and something that is immediately clear is that they are not very interested in talking about their movies. They show up for the occasional special feature interview (mostly for the Criterion releases of their films [Blood Simple, Miller’s Crossing, No Country for Old Men, and Inside Llewyn Davis]), but for the most part, they leave their movies to the viewers. So a director’s commentary is most likely out of the question. In fact, it’s so abhorrent to them that for the DVD release of Blood Simple they made up a film historian character and wrote a script for him for the commentary. That’s a lot of work to get around having to talk about your own movie. After that, there’s just the Roger Deakins commentary on the Fargo disc. So imagine my shock when I saw that there was a commentary for The Man Who Wasn’t There featuring Joel and Ethan and star Billy Bob Thornton. To date, it’s their only commentary. So I felt it necessary to check out, along with the other special features, and report on. But before I get into that, I wanted to share my personal interpretation of this forgotten, beautiful Coen Brothers film.

UFOs and Gullibility


Thornton’s Ed Crane is one of the quietest characters in film history. Without his narration, he comes across as nearly mute. Silent characters, and people in general, are sometimes perceived as smarter than the “gabbers” (as Ed calls chatty people). But I’ve always taken issue with this. It’s an asset to hold your tongue when you don’t have anything to say, sure, but that doesn’t mean you’re automatically some deep, philosophical type. Ed, however, fancies himself as such. But I disagree.


While Ed might seem to be a bit smarter than all the people chattering away around him, he actually buys into a lot of bullshit and makes plenty of mistakes. In his defense, everything he does is part of his quest to find meaning in life, but he’s too gullible about it. 


Ed buying into the dry cleaning scheme sets everything in motion. Jon Polito isn’t even selling him on it that hard. He’s just another customer gabbing away during a haircut. But something about this futuristic new laundry method sparks something in Ed. Knowing his wife, Doris, was cheating on him didn’t spark anything, but dry cleaning did. 


It’s impossible to know if the dry cleaning investment was a scam since Big Dave killed Polito. But regardless of that, it’s still a foolhardy investment that upends Ed’s world all done over a traveling salesman’s soft pitch in a barber’s chair. 


The events set in motion by that investment through blackmailing lead to Ed killing Dave, and Doris killing herself in jail. But none of this brings him meaning, and he seems to just be drifting through everything. Two things snap him out of it: Birdy (Scarlett Johansson) and Ann Nirdlinger (Katherin Borowitz). 


Birdy playing the piano skillfully sparks something again in Ed. He thinks he’s witnessing a prodigy that her drunk father (a great Richard Jenkins) is oblivious to. Ed takes it upon himself to take Birdy to music teacher, who breaks Ed’s spirit by explaining that Birdy is certainly capable, but she lacks the heart to make a musician. Ed is further crestfallen when Birdy admits that she doesn’t even care that much about music, and things literally spiral out of control when Birdy misinterprets Ed’s attention as sexual in nature and attempts to give him blowjob on the ride home, leading to a car wreck.



After the car crashes, a hubcap that looks like a flying saucer rolls along the road, bringing us to Ed’s final attempt to find meaning. The UFO stuff can appear as some Coen randomness on a first watch, but of course it’s more than that. It’s first brought to Ed’s attention when Ann, looking straight out of Plan 9 from Outer Space, shows up to tell Ed that she knows Dave’s death was all about an alien encounter they had while camping a year before. At first, Ed, rightfully, thinks Ann is having a breakdown over Dave’s death, but the seed is planted.


Once Ed is put on death row, his need for meaning brings back the UFOs. He has a dream in prison in which a UFO shows up. He goes out into the yard, sees the spotlight of the UFO, then it just leaves him there rather than saving him from prison and showing him another world than the one he knows. Ed then goes to his death, staring at haircuts and wondering what will come next, if anything. If not for Ann, he wouldn’t have even considered the possibility of aliens. 


Just before his death, however, there is a seemingly mundane flashback. A tarmacadam salesman (Shooter McGavin himself, Christopher McDonald) approaches Ed, going into his spiel. Ed doesn’t seem too interested, but he’s also not getting rid of the guy. Then Doris pulls up, immediately rips up the salesman’s pamphlet and sends him on his way. As she walks past Ed, she seems disgusted that he had let the salesman get that far. Inside, they sit silently until Ed starts to try to say something, and Doris stops him. This is their marriage, and this is how Ed has been kept in check all these years. 


This scene, or variations of it, has probably happened dozens of times in their marriage. Some salesman or con artist approaches silent Ed, then Doris swoops in to stop it. Without Doris to stop Ed with the dry cleaning plan, everything fell apart. Doris knew that Ed was gullible and couldn’t help himself when someone approached him with something new and seemingly meaningful.


Ed is definitely a deep thinker, as evidenced by the hilarious “You ever wonder about it?” conversation he attempts to have about how hair just keeps growing. But as Freddy Reidenschneider (the always great Tony Shalhoub) points out, paraphrasing Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle: “The more you look, the less you really know.”


Trying to find meaning in life may seem like the smart thing to do, especially in the face of constant nonsensical chatter. But the more you search for meaning, the less you find as you miss what’s right in front of you. I’m not saying the film is suggesting that Ed just needed to pay more attention to his wife (though that would have prevented a few deaths). But it’s certainly suggesting that searching for meaning is pointless and, in fact, destructive, especially when you’re gullible enough to try to find meaning anytime someone approaches you with something as banal as dry cleaning. 



Special Features


Aside from the commentary, there are deleted scenes, an extended interview with Roger Deakins, and a behind-the-scenes featurette.


The deleted scenes are hilarious. One is just Shalhoub’s opening argument minus the Thornton narration.


The rest are three haircuts given their own listing as a “scene”: the Timberline, the Duck Butt, and the Alpine Rope Toss. Literally each one is a three second shot of a haircut.


Then there's the pivotal “Doris’ [sic] Salad,” which is a shot of a wedge salad being placed on a plate. 


When shit like this happens on one of their physical releases, I assume it's a joke, then there’s this line from the behind the scenes featurette from Ethan Coen: “The whole barber thing was really just a backdrop. The story didn't sort of catch fire [Joel starts laughing next to him] until we added the dry-cleaning to the mix. Then we knew we had something we could take and pitch to all the studios.”


These guys will do interviews and whatnot, but they’re going to drop in some deadpan jokes like that.



The One and Only Commentary


It’s shocking how normal of a commentary it is. Though it does have the rare problem of the film being a little too loud making it hard to hear the commentary at times. I was hoping for a full on performance featuring clearly made up stories and jokes. But it’s pretty straightforward. It is nice to watch a movie along with them, because you hear them crack up at their own movie, and it’s infectious. Watching this with the commentary definitely made me see this as more of a comedy. Aside from that, here are some highlights I came across:


Billy Bob Thornton claims he was smoking real unfiltered cigarettes during the shoot, then he would go to his trailer and smoke more, and he even smoked while doing the voiceover sessions. He claims this experience helped make him quit smoking. Though I don’t know it it stuck or not.


They joke about making an Ed Crane talk show 


The soldier being eaten by the Japanese story came from Barry Sonnenfeld's dad. No telling how long they were sitting on that one. 


“I love the dialogue you guys wrote for this movie.” - Billy Bob

“None of it for you!” - Joel, I think


Good for Billy Bob remembering that Abraham Benrubi was also in U Turn.


There was a deleted scene (unfilmed) in which Ed, the night he kills Dave, wakes up to a flying saucer being outside and tiny ant-like aliens come out. They opted for the Ann UFO story. If they had gone with this route, then my gullibility theory goes right out the window. Its existence even as a deleted scene still messes with it, I guess, but I’ve always found that movies can have multiple interpretations, so I’m sticking with it.


Ethan says they did a take of the police officers telling Ed about Doris being arrested in which “Ed fled the interview.” I just like that he used the same terminology as in Fargo.


This commentary was recorded on January 8, 2002. I know this because Thornton mentions that Dave Thomas died that morning.


Thornton fluffed his pants up to make it look like he had an erection while watching Birdy play the piano.


The commentary loses some steam in the back half, with multiple moments of them just watching the movie. You even hear them shuffling around in their seats during these quiet moments.


But it picks up during the credits with Billy Bob claiming he met Roderick Jaynes, the Coens’ fake editor. The Coens play along, referring to Jaynes as kind of a rough character.


They finish talking about a dude interviewing them at Cannes named Guy Pines, but “Pines” is pronounced “penis,” and how ridiculous it is to go with that pronunciation.