@ Mr Wise- yes. I, having been terrorized by a neighborhood dog as a kid, recognized both the craft and the realism of that sequence. great stuff. Hitchcock approves.
Two Plus Two, I thought your why you dislike the Coens was very interesting, I disagree to a degree, but it they were interesting observations.
So, just saw True Grit and it only once again confirmed my thoughts on the Coens. They know what they want to do in films and they go out and do it. I was again impressed.
…….because they consistently make good movies….no matter what the genre (……??)
I like them because maybe I would never have started to watch movie if it wasn’t for them.
coz they’re likeable
I’ve never really understood why so many people love them. I’m not saying it’s wrong to or that it’s bad taste, but they’ve never quite worked for me. I’ve liked moments in their films, and often their style is very interesting, and their dialogue amusing. But somehow I usually leave feeling that they got caught up in the stylization and technicalities and lose a lot of story. I always feel very distant when watching their films.
wit and distinct style, their writing is along with Tarantinos the finest in last twenty years.
It’s rare that a director can eschew conventional tone but still seem so meticulous and controlled as the Coens do. Usually, the marks of “control” are highly conventional, even to the point of being cliche… whether it’s gritty and hyper-realistic, or indulgent stylization, or minimalist and artsy. The Coens’ best work never lands in any of these “credibility” boxes, and yet it remains highly credible.
Their quirky/offbeat quality seems to persist through all their work. Even in something brutal, like No Country for Old Men, there’s a sense of purity and control to the motions of the story that give it their unmistakable offbeat “style.” Llewellyn Moss has his key talk with Chigurh from a payphone in a hospital gown. His last conversation is a flirtration and rejection of a girl at his hotel. Woody Harrelson’s Carson Wells is the smarmy second-string to Chigurh’s gravitas; the final meeting between Anton and Carla Jean is surreally civil, like a family talk, which makes the confrontation more grotesque. All these details are reinforced by the set and costume design, the camera work, and the performances of the actors.
I like them because they haven’t sold out yet. You can tell they still get excited about creating stories.
I think they are one of the few filmmakers making quality mainstream films. I don’t always like their films, but I don’t leave their films feeling like it came out of a cookie-cutter or that it was a cheap attempt to make money. They are talented filmmakers that occasionally make a really good film. If their films represented a typical Hollywood film, I’d be happy.
Are they mainstream films? Or has Hollywood realized a buck can be made on them?
A Serious Man was not mainstream at all, neither was No Country for Old Man.
Most of their films can be found at any movie theater in America, and I think their films (I think Barton Fink would be an exception) is accessible to mainstream audiences. I think it’s un inaccurate to call say they make “Hollywood films.”
I like them because, like in True Grit, they mine comedy out of bleakness.