Rating: 
Summary: Very funny remake, It cracked me up
Review: A remake of a 1955 Alec Guinness film, The Ladykillers transfers the action from London to America's rural South. Tom Hanks takes over Guinness' role. And directing duties land in the laps of O Brother Where Art Thou? masterminds Joel and Ethan Coen. When good Southern church-going widow Marva Munson first lays eyes on Professor Goldthwaite Higginson Dorr III, Ph.D., she's not too sure what she's lookin' at. Besides, she's pretty distracted by the fact that her seemingly dapper-if not a bit dopey-gentleman caller just let her beloved kitty escape through the half-open door. Once the feline is safely back inside (with Dorr's generous assistance), she learns that Dorr wishes to rent a room. She agrees. He gallantly informs her that he plays ancient Renaissance music with a group of colleagues, and requests to use her root cellar for practices. She can't see any harm in that-as long as they're not playing any of that nasty "hippity-hop" music-so the deal is struck. What follows is part black comedy, part madcap caper and part morality tale. And it's spiced up by exceedingly vibrant characters. Dorr is an eccentric professor-type obsessed with dead languages and the writings of Edgar Allan Poe. He's the mastermind of the heist. Assisting him are Gawain MacSam (a trash-talking ne'er-do-well with a short fuse), Garth Pancake (a bumbling munitions enthusiast), The General (a grimly lethal excavations expert) and Lump (a decidedly dim-witted muscle-man).
"We really like the original movie," says Ethan Coen. "It's a strong story premise. It just has good bones. We ripped out the spine of it, kept that and threw out everything else." Back in the '40s and '50s, when the Hays Movie Production Code was in place-and the original Ladykillers movie was produced-films were allowed to show criminal behavior only if it was done in such a way as not to make viewers sympathize. Consequences were big back then, as evil men generally reaped what they sowed. The Coen brothers' remake sticks to that ideal, and despite the film's cynically comedic underpinnings, moviegoers leave the theater thinking about what exactly the wages of sin are. The Hays Code also barred the use of scores of profane and crude words. It's in this realm that the new incarnation of The Ladykillers goes out of control. Had it been released a half-century ago, throngs of outraged moviegoers would have literally ripped its prints from their reels to stop the ruckus. But forget decades-old social standards. Even applying modern artistic sensibilities, I'm left feeling that what I heard while I watched this otherwise masterful movie utterly destroyed its credibility, tore up every layer of its delicate nuance and scribbled haphazardly all over its colorful characterizations.
Rating: 
Summary: A Coen Bros. Movie in every respect....
Review: As a disclaimer, I have never seen the origional "Ladykillers". To me, I don't think that makes much of a difference in my opinion of the film. This is a total Coen Brothers film- Everything about it is Dark and twisted- You find yourself laughing at things that usually don't make you laugh, like killing people.... This is the magic of the Coen Brothers. What really makes the film funny is the way each of the characters are so completely different in thier own stylized way- My only knock on the film is the language, which is so constant and at times blatantly unneccesary you have to wonder what they were possibly thinking- Perhaps the most F- words I have ever heard in a movie, so many it gets annoying. Still, this movie is proabably closest to Fargo as a Coen film because it finds dark humor in murder, which I know sounds horrible, but it quite enjoyable. It is definatly worth seeing.
Rating: 
Summary: A CLUMSY FEATHER IN THE COENS' OTHERWISE STRIKING CAP
Review: Despite a riveting central performance from Irma Hall, an invigorating gospel soundtrack, and a few situations that echo the Coens' better works (Fargo, Raising Arizona or even The Hudsucker Proxy), Ladykillers is a would-be wacky romp that never develops the comic energy it so desparately needs to take off. It's remake that, like most remakes, falls flat despite many of the Coen brothers' usual elements of occasionally funny blowhards, visual gags, inventive camera work and florid language (a lot of the swearing was absolutely unnecessary). In fact, the movie just plain drags in the middle of its 100+ minutes. Tom Hanks is convincing as usual, but this is perhaps one of his oddest roles to date, a miscalculation from start to finish. One wonders what is becoming of the Coens, given other recent misfires such as Intolerable Cruelty. Skip this tripe, or rent it out when it's out there if you are a diehard Coens fan.
Rating: 
Summary: So disappointing
Review: I expected this movie to display the same sense of humor as "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", but I was sorely disappointed. There are some funny moments, but Marlon Wayans' unnecessary profranity is so jarring, it disrupts the comedy before it can get started. The best scenes are the dialog-free establishing shots where you'll enjoy the excellent cinematography characteristic of the Coen brothers movies. Second best is Irma P Hall's performance. She's wonderful, especially in her solo scenes or those talking to the sheriff. You really wish the Coen's had thrown away the script, fired all of the "ladykillers" and just rewritten the movie around Irma and the Mississippi setting.
Rating: 
Summary: a Tax Write Off film for Tom Hanks
Review: I gotta Believe that Tom Hanks did this Film for a Tax Credit because I can't belief in Good faith he would agree to be in this Mess of a Film.it ain't funny at all¬hing works at all.I had to turn this mess off.
Rating:
Summary: not so funny
Review: i was bored in the first ten minutes then turned it off. not as funny as the trailer made it out to be. however, i do like the black lady's character. she was the best part.
Rating:
Summary: The Funniest Movie I Have Seen in So Many Years!
Review: I went into this movie today thinking it might be off-beat and interesting because it's a Coen Brothers film, but I had no idea how much laughter I was in for. I literally left the theater with a laughter headache. The rest of the audience was very vocal, from the older black ladies beside me to the younger viewers below me, everyone was laughing constantly and it helped me laugh in spots I don't think I would have if they were quiet. Tom Hanks delivers one of his best performances ever, and it was nice to see him in a comedy once again. His Professor Dorr is not even close to the original 1955 Alec Guiness performance, but it's not suppose to be. He makes it his own, bringing an interesting creepiness to the character that is over the top at times and believable and charming at others. Since the Oscars recognized Johnny Depp's talents in "Pirates of the Caribbean" by giving him a nomination, maybe they won't overlook this performance by Hanks even though it's in a comedy. All the supporting cast members are great as well, especially Irma P. Hall as the old fashioned and generous old lady lending a room to the Professor. She was funny at times with her simple logic (opposite of Hank's Dorr which is always complicated) and her scenes with Hanks were some of the best in the movie. Marlon Wayans got a few chuckles out of me, but his character really overkilled it in the foul language department and I was glad when he was finally shut up for good towards the end. I must also mention the costumes, music (mostly up-beat Gospel), and the wonderful cinematography. If your in the mood for an extremely dark and funny comedy, look no further than "The Ladykillers."
Rating:
Summary: A disappointing, often unfunny entry from the Coen Bros...
Review: I'll raise my right hand and swear that I'm a huge fan of the Coen bros. I savor every quirky moment of The Big Lebowski, I believe Fargo is one of the best movies ever made, and I think that Barton Fink and Miller's Crossing are classics waiting to be discovered. So why did I dislike The Ladykillers so much? I honestly don't think it was a case of being let down; even a lesser Coen entry (Blood Simple) has its interesting, entrancing qualities. So why is this movie so lame? It sure as hell starts off promising: Tom Hanks, as Professor Goldthwait Higginson Dorr, spews off Coen-esque words with innate skill and Irma P. Hall is hilarious as Mrs. Munson, the old lady who lets Dorr board in her home. They have a curious little chemistry, Dorr and Munson, and their scenes of dialogue elevate the movie. And then the real plot sets in, with supporting character after supporting character. And to boot, some of them don't even fit into the movie at all - Marlon Wayans is especially ill-fitting as a foul-mouthed casino-boat worker who seems to have no other purpose but give the movie an R-rating. But wait! Let's throw in some jokes about Irritable Bowel Syndrome, more cultural stereotypes, and a third act that drags on and on and on and what comes out is simply the worst Coen film I've seen. This movie could have been so much better, and in fact, it's not horrible. There's geniune comedy in it, but too often it's shrouded by the overly-confident directors urging us that we should be laughing our asses off at things that aren't that funny (black churches are hilarious! dumping multiple people into the river is funny even after the 5th time!). If only they'd deployed the subtlety and atmosphere that makes nearly all of their movies great. I wanted so much to like this movie, but when you're done with it after an hour, it's impossible. GRADE: C
Rating:
Summary: The Coen's are on a two film losing streak
Review: It's a three film streak if you decide to include on of their contributions to the Garfield script, a film that has funny moments, but fails to capture the true fun, and charm of Garfield. This film comes after "Intolerable Cruelty" which had the potential to be a very good film, but wasn't. All of these movies had their moments, but "Intorlerable Cruelty" comes out on top as the most entertaining of the bunch as it actually gets you to feel certain emotions and then takes them away and makes you feel bad about them. "Ladykillers" had a terrific cast, a great film to base this upon and some great repetitive humor at times, but it doesn't add up because the Coen's don't trust the storytelling to bring out the humor and they had to add jokes that just didn't quite fit and they disrupt the continuity of the story. One such joke, or should I say character, is the bomb expert with Irritible bowel Syndrome played by J.K. Simmons. That he's a bumbling fool is one thing, and that he has attacks of the bowel at inopportune times is another, but that he also has a mountaineering fellow IBS wife named Mountaingirl. It was just too much. So was Tom Hanks character who simply talks too much and the Coen's take him seriously which is evidenced by their shot selection. A more cheesy actor could get away with this, but Hanks goes for the con man who's so good that he falls for his own cons when he talks about them. The problem is that they're too long winded to be considered funny by anyone and the fact that he plays them straight makes it worse. The Coen's could've at least cutaway frequently to show the disparate reactions among the people listening: his crew and the dupe's. I felt that the ending was at least more humorous than "Intolerable Cruelty's" with Cedric the Entertainer getting his own reality show which is beside the point. Hopefully, their next movie will focus more on the story because I think that they allowed the success of "The Big Lebowski," which had a plot that was, in and of itself a joke to get to their heads.
Rating:
Summary: Uncle Tom's Boo-boo
Review: It's funny how things work out, but this movie is remarkably similar to "Soul Plane", which I watched yesterday, in at least five areas.
1. It is supposed to be funny, but doesn't quite make it
2. It is jam-packed with stereotypes
3. It has an actor who really doesn't belong there (Tom Hanks)
4. It contains potty and other low forms of humor
5. The plot makes no sense whatsoever.
Tom Hanks is great as Professor Dorr, especially after apparently kissing the Blarney Stone and swallowing a dictionary, but he's like an island in a sea of flotsam, with the very notable exception of Irma P. Hall, who steals most of the movie from him.
As a comedy, it doesn't really cut it, the characters being too dysfunctional, the slapstick boring and tired, and the plot - Lord help us - the plot, so flimsy that it requires a series of irritable bowel movements to keep it anchored.
The scheme is for Dorr and his merry men to tunnel through his landlady's cellar to steal the takings from the office of a nearby offshore gambling riverboat. Naturally things don't quite go according to plan, leaving a lot of people down in the dumps. The high point of the movie is the church choir, who provide a spark of life to the otherwise dull middle section.
Tom, when they asked you to play a criminal Colonel Sanders, and sent you that script, you should have told them to cluck off.
Amanda Richards, January 16, 2005
|
