A Serious Man (2009) User Reviews (430)

I don't understand it so I will dismiss it as worthless and return to the familiar.

[splodgeroonie · 8/10 · 16 May 2012]

I can see why many people would dismiss this. Like the reviewer who watched "52 minutes" and turned it off because none of the characters were likable so it would be a waste of time to continue.

Those who expect life to be a series of plausible outcomes, logically following some kind of cause and effect order are always disappointed by honest works of art, not to mention life itself. One of the very themes of this film are those kinds of people and their need to cling to some sort of tradition, structure, and belief in order to deny their fear.

Another theme was perspective and perception. That what may seem mundane and meaningless may be filled with the most profound meaning and that which we place so much value in may be worth absolutely nothing.

"Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you."

If you can enjoy a movie that leaves you with questions as much as one that attempts to provide answers then I highly recommend a viewing.

Nobody Understands the Laws if the Universe

[Jisk · 8/10 · 18 October 2019]

From the shtetl to the suburbs, the forces that run our lives are a mystery to us. We think we understand some of these laws, and try to live our lives according to them, but we are just barking up the wrong tree. Because sometime at some point, as the "serious man "finds out, life is going to kick our ass. Religions don't understand anything anymore than our hero of the film does. We are all just guessing. That's what this movie is about. It's pretty brilliant, acerbic, and downright cynical. A dybbuk could appear at your door anyday of the week, or a car crash could end you, or you could get diagnosed with cancer, or a tornado could come and sweep you away. There are laws that determine these things, but they are beyond our comprehension. And the things we choose to worry about are inconsequential. Life is capricious and will end you when it feels like it. Don't even try to figure out and religions don't understand it anymore than anyone else.

Magnificent. The Coen Brothers take a detour.

[rooprect · 8/10 · 8 January 2011]

Let me say up front that most fans of the Coen brothers' early films might be disappointed if they're expecting "Fargo", "The Big Lebowski" or even "O Brother". Unlike those movies, here we don't have a lot of plot, comedy or action. The message of the film is very challenging, and it requires a lot of thought to figure out what they're saying.

I'd say this movie is for fans of the recent American films "Synecdoche NY", "Doubt", and the recent Japanese films "Departures", "Yureru" and of course the classics by Kurosawa like "Rashomon". What I'm saying is that this is a film that tackles philosophical questions of perception, faith, and in particular, uncertainty.

If you've had some physics, you're in for a real treat because much of the theme centers around Schrödinger's "Uncertainty Principle", briefly touched upon in the Coens' excellent 2001 film "The Man Who Wasn't There". Here they give us a more powerful dose. If you've never heard of this principle, don't worry, you can look it up on Wikipedia or you can accept my synopsis of it, which I'll warn you might be flawed because I ain't no physicist:

The Uncertainty Principle (or "Schrödinger's Cat") proves mathematically that certain events are unknowable. It proposes the idea of a cat that might be alive or dead, but we cannot know without looking inside the cage. At the same time, the minute we look inside the cage, the cat will be killed by a toxic gas. The bottom line: we can't know the answer. Ever.

From there, the movie explores how different people react when confronted with the unknown. Some form prejudices. Some fall back on faith. Some become faithLESS. And some just don't care.

This is a beautifully crafted film that shows us the nature of human beings in that respect. No, there's not really a story. But it does even better than that: it challenges our minds to see elements of our own lives within the life of this ordinary schmuck. I am truly amazed at the Coens' accomplishment, and I hope they continue in this direction in the future, though I'm sure it may hurt their mainstream appeal.

If you see this film & like it, I think you'll really enjoy the other films I've listed as well as the Hungarian masterpiece "Werckmeister Harmonies", anything by Wim Wenders ("The End of Violence" touches on the same Uncertainty Principle) and Orson Welles' "The Trial".

Seriously Good.

[aciessi · 9/10 · 19 March 2018]

Only the Coen bros. could think of something as marvelous as taking the opening lyrics of "Somebody to Love" by Jefferson Airplane and turning them into a Jewish proverb. Somehow, after an hour and a half of pure mishegas from the perspective of a real schlemiel, those lyrics sounded just right coming from Rabbi Marshak. A Serious Man was most notably a surprise dark horse nomination for Best Picture in 2009. In most award-seasons, A Serious Man is the kind of film that you'd wish was nominated in every category.

It's a humble project for the Coens, but don't ever underestimate what they can do. A Serious Man is a serious picture that makes you laugh and squirm at the misfortune of Larry Gopnik. An average mid-western Jewish man searching for reason in a time where there is none. Tested is he to make peace with HaShem when all around him is moral decay and temptation. The Coens strength is in their characters, which in this film are as rich as they've ever been. I was fascinated by Arthur Gopnik, a borderline autistic man who discovers a map of the universe while tending to his sebaceous cyst. Perhaps my favorite character was Sy Ableman, a self proclaimed "serious man" from the community who Larry's wife is cheating on him with. His purposely affected anglo-saxon accent nearly killed me. It's the littlest eccentricities of people that the Coens always explore and exploit and it's eternally delightful.

One of their best

[guypotok · 2 November 2009]

My wife and I saw the film last Friday. We talked about it for an hour over dinner and again in the evening. The more we discussed it the better we liked it.

It helps to be familiar with the paradox of Schrodinger's cat, a staple of quantum physics, which can be found on Wikipedia, before you go see this film. You might also want to understand the quantum concept of duality.

The entire movie examines Gopnick and his world==and to a lesser extent that of his teenage son--in light of these aspects of quantum mechanics. I could not find a single scene that did not address uncertainty and/or duality. The attempt to discern traditional religious meaning in this world is humorous in itself. The opening presents the paradox and is crucial to the rest of the film.

Unlike the local review for the film which described this as a "typical Coen Brothers film" and "weird" and "no closure at the end", I found this film to be quite literal and true to the principles of uncertainty and duality. The two major characters both find closure, and in retrospect, there is clearly a beginning, middle and end to the story the brothers wanted to tell.

But the movie continues after the closure, just as life continues on a daily basis, setting up another expectation of continual uncertainty.

Not being Jewish, I no doubt missed some of the double entendre and humor in the tradition. I would have liked to understand the Hebrew passage of the bar mitzvah ceremony, for example, and how it relates to the core theme of the film. But the movie is universal in its appeal, if you understand the basic concept of quantum mechanics upon which the film is based.

I rate this as one of their best films due to its intellectual foundation. Much more important to me than No Country.

A typical Coen Brothers film

[peter-j-downey · 7/10 · 25 January 2015]

A Serious Man, by the Coen Brothers, tells the story of a physics lecturer (Michael Stuhlbarg), Larry Goepnik, as each part of his life crumbles around him; making him question everything he once had faith in.

Once again Joel and Ethan delve into ancient texts to tell a modern parable about the disconnect between religion and science using the Book of Job as their mirror tale. Each tragedy shows us how Larry is torn between his profession and his heritage. Stuhlbarg's interpretation of this character is the strongest part of this film; little nuances of touching himself and, a definite sense of discomfort throughout made me empathise with Larry in every scene. Even the facial movements of Larry illustrates the strain being placed upon this man.

The dialogue in the film could be poetic at times, but there was a constant drive towards narrative, and it left me feeling removed from connecting with anyone but Larry. The scene where Larry is being told by his wife's lover that he has to move out felt comic but cold, and the majority of other scenes kept this tone. And since the plot was a bit episodic, this made the tragedies feel unreal and repetitive.

The Coen's direction also felt tired compared to their other films. Typical Coen brother tracking shots, their usual portrait shots, action shots contained to one characters reaction; nothing new. The care and inventiveness that I would usually expect wasn't there. I suppose it being the fourth film from the two in a three year period, they just didn't seem wholly engaged in it. One particular scene where they are tracking a shot down a hall to a crying woman as her crying gets louder, it didn't add any further character development and wasn't interesting but felt like a "Coen" shot.

Thematically the film was alright, and there are some interesting things that could be analysed, but it was was underwhelming and at times a bit vague in what they were actually trying to say. The ending of the film was indicative of this; 2 interwoven scenes concluding two plots, adding more tragedies to Larry's life but giving nothing to the audience except these tragedies and a feeling of resignation. Being this direct in the treatment of your subject can be dull, and I was left unsatisfied.

So nu? Who understands this "Schroedinger's Cat"?

[srcann · 10/10 · 12 October 2009]

****SPOILER ALERT******

Several reviewers have commented on physics representing logical certainty. In this movie, the opposite is true, and I believe that is the fulcrum upon which this modern story of Job rests. Modern physics strikes at the very heart of faith, mystery and law

The dybbuk! The husband is caught in the world of the material and cannot believe that the rabbi before him is a spirit, but his wife...she is not fooled! She believes that the world is filled with mysteries, and her faith in this leads to decisive action--saving them??

"Schroedinger's Cat" is a modern mystery, and it is the single subject that Larry is teaching in his physics class. "Bracket k bracket and it is equal," he says with finality, thinking that he has demonstrated the order of the world neatly. But "Schroedinger's Cat" is the ultimate expression of the rules of order, or G-d's work, leading off the cliff into the abyss of mystery.

In the example Schroedinger published in 1935, a cat is in a box with a "diabolical apparatus" which kills the cat if a random subatomic particle decays. Modern physics, being invented at the time, made the absurd prediction that until you opened the lid to check, the cat was in some sort of blurred probability space of being alive/dead, and it only became actually dead (or alive) when you opened the lid to check. Observation changed reality. The cat is in a mysterious state, beyond our comprehension or belief until we look. Do we have faith? Einstein didn't. He countered stating that "G-d doesn't play dice with the universe!" Schroedinger was doubtful, but insisted that the mystery was simply inescapable. This is the foundation for a rich allegory, indeed.

"I don't understand the mathematics, but I understand the stories," Larry's Korean student insists. "No, if you don't understand the math, you don't understand the physics. Even I sometimes don't understand the stories," Larry shoots back.

And in this lies the nub of the tale. Larry understands the rules--and follows them. His life is dreary and takes a seeming nose dive. Plague after plague arise and he is perplexed. One rabbi says "We all question the existence of hashem ("his name" = G-d) and then we see the wonder in...the parking lot." HE GETS IT!! For him it is faith. Even the friggin' parking lot is a divine miracle! The next rabbi weaves a deeply mystical tale with a banal ending. Larry is outraged. "What does it mean?" "How do I know. G-d does't owe us an explanation. The responsibility is the other way around," the rabbi responds. They each have their own understanding and advise. The young rabbi is not yet wise and advises faith. The next rabbi acknowledges mystery, but says it is beyond us to understand, so be a good person, "or a better person." "God doesn't owe us an explanation. The responsibility runs the other way."

It soon becomes clear that the Korean student and his father have a razor-sharp understanding of the "Schroedinger's Cat" story and thrust the paradox into Larry's life with a vengeance. If only Larry understood the paradox.

But he understands logic and rules. His faith is shaky, but he follows the rules. Sy doesn't believe a G-d is watching him, steals his friends wife, and G-d strikes him down in his path.

Even Larry's brother, believes in a crazy half-physics, half-Kaballah mystery and he actually wins card games with it, but he breaks the rules and is a pariah.

The last rabbi will not even talk to him. The most direct response of G- d being questioned by a doubting subject.

At the end, Larry feels he is through his trial and "opens the box" to check to see if there is a G-d there. Surprise! There is! He opened the box by breaking the rules. The cat is dead. All his plagues had only been in some sort of blurred probability space of having happened/not happened; his marriage, his tenure the whole chain of events. It was not until he tested G-d by breaking a rule that the very real G-d of the bible smote him and his eldest son down.

The original Job had actual punishments and kept his faith. Our modern Job has existential punishments and ends with a lack of faith. We must have faith, recognize the mysteries or obey the law according to our capacity, but to do none of these is an abomination.

Quantum Physics Aside

[SweetWilliam63 · 7/10 · 29 January 2019]

There are two ways to watch this movie: One, taken at face value as a slice of life movie presented in the typically painful dark comic stylings of the Cohen Brothers. In which case, the writing, acting, story line (and lack of deus ex machina there in) about a put upon drudge in 1960's suburban Minnesota will not disappoint. Trust me. Go on. Enjoy. Or, 'B', informed by the many breakdowns and analysis provided by the internets in which case you may find yourself going "Oy Vey!". The first way, at face value, is how I like to watch movies. It is, in my humble opinion, art in it's purest form. I like a good denouement phase as will as the next guy but when you have to have someone else explain it in order to appreciate it, it morphs into something else. Having said that, I was intrigued enough by what I watched the first time to watch it again informed by the cheat sheets on quantum physics, the uncertainty principle, Werber Hiesenberg, and the super-posiition. This latter perspective did provide some resolution and undoubtedly enough impressive fodder for my next cocktail party but it also left me in the "super-position" of unfixed propability and unable therefore to identify the movie as being 'good' or 'bad'. Ha! See what I did there?

I Don't Understand

[truemythmedia · 10/10 · 8 August 2019]

This was one of the movies I watched that really opened my eyes to what film could be... not only does this film tell a hilarious story, it simultaneously conveys some of my own fears and doubts about the chaos and uncertainty of the universe around us in a way that is totally palatable. I saw this movie three times in theaters (it was free due to my employment at the theater, but still, that's a lot of time to spend with Larry Gopnik), and every time I was amazed by the new details I picked up... I also came to thoroughly enjoy watching the audience's reactions as the film came to a close, when, almost invariably, someone in the crowd would mutter disappointedly, "That was it?" while I sat there grinning ear to ear.

Reflecting on the meaning of life

[filipemanuelneto · 6/10 · 29 June 2017]

Although they sometimes provide us with almost incomprehensible films and this is quite unpleasant, the Coen Brothers deserve my respect for the very skillful way they usually balanced themselves, with one foot in intellectual cinema (which spends more time in festivals than in theaters) and another foot in the common commercial cinema. In this case, I confess that I was expecting something different, although I do not know exactly what I was expecting.

The film has a very simple yet effective structure, clearly inspired by the biblical story of Job: Larry is a respected Jewish teacher who teaches at a Jewish college, is married, and has a couple of children. But his life quickly turns into an ordeal: his wife has a lover and asks for a divorce; His children only think of them and the younger one uses drugs; His job at school is put at the stake after a dissatisfied student causes him some problems... this dilemma makes Larry turn to his faith and seek an answer to the simpler question: "Why". The Jewish rabbis are unanimous: this is an answer we almost never get. The audience understands the story but the subliminal message is so subtle that it can pass alongside. The ending, open and sudden, displeased me because I was waiting for a conclusion. Only later I understand that the end of the movie comes when we least expect it, just like the end of our life.

Religion and philosophy are always present. However, it's not one of those films that you need to have a PhD to understand, although it's complex and tries to provoke some reflection. It's also far from being preachy because, as I easily realized, religion is almost an element of humor and parody. Nor could the irony of the Coen Brothers be absent. In addition to all the jokes around religion, there is also harsh criticism of our society. All the people in the film appear to be honest, serious and reliable but this, as the film subtly reveals, is an illusion. Each one has its sins and things that they want to hide, but they are "serious men".

A Torture Chamber for Losing Time

[robert-broerse · 3/10 · 17 January 2010]

The only thing fairly remarkable or remotely intriguing about this film is the opening wherein a Yiddish-speaking Jew of the 19th century invites (accidentally) a dybbuk (evil spirit in the shape of a man) into his family home. The ominous turn of events and the wife's sensible solution to the situation is comical and you would think the film would build on such an interesting prologue.

Alas, like reading the Book of Job without the good parts (namely the philosophical arguments and the poetry, let alone a resolution), A Serious Man feels like an exercise in viewing torture. (What is it about 2009? The Road and A Serious Man both belong in the category of 'agonizing to watch...).

Maybe the brilliance of this film lies in that you think at any minute this honest, good, hard-working Jewish man will crack and finally take on the world that is besetting him as opposed to questioning G-d. But for much of the film, our lead character, Larry Gopnik, a professor, husband, father of two, brother of socially-inept Adam, there is little here that happens, let alone satisfies a viewing audience.

It has been awhile before I watched a film wherein I continually battled with myself over whether I should continue or simply walk away. I wanted to walk away...

What made this film the most unbearable is how each periphery character rarely ever showed their humanity - Larry's Son and Daughter are simply cretins, the former a typical high school student with bully problems and marijuana indulgence (also he orders records of the month and leaves the bill for his father) while his daughter's only needs in life seem to be her hair and going out. There is no dimension to either of them while their mother, Larry's wife is a loveless shrew that remarkably makes Larry pay for his rival's funeral, an arrogant friend of the family named Sy. Throughout the first half of the film, Sy and Larry's wife are in love, working on Larry to get a kosher divorce.

After awhile, I lost sympathy for the lead, not because of his wife and family, but because he had wandered into a cinematic world lacking humanity, let alone real people. The Coens have not crafted a movie, let alone a film but an alternate universe, a torture chamber of bland direction and characterization. It has been awhile since I watched a film where I felt I despised so many characters. Ideally, supporting characters are there to create relationships, to reveal the complexity of human life. It seems everyone here is just another means to stab the lead and bludgeon him with their inane presence. Even the rabbi who refuses to talk to him feels less like a person as opposed to a forced story development.

If you were the kid in school who didn't torture earth worms or pull butterfly wings off Monarchs, then you might not like this debacle, another pseudo-film from the Coen Brothers.

Natural and excellent next step for the Coens' cerebral probing of life's toughest questions

[Movie_Muse_Reviews · 10/10 · 21 October 2009]

The Coen brothers have developed critical acclaim for making black comedies/awkward tragedies that depict small-time people getting in way over their heads, who for one reason or another are motivated to do things out of the ordinary because the natural order of the world and society has wronged them in some way.

"A Serious Man," however, is about a man who doesn't do anything, to whom bad/annoying things happen. This story of a confused suburban Jewish man in the '60s wrestling with life's meaning is therefore an important step in the evolution of the Coens' theme-driven film-making. Borrowing on an autobiographical context (Minnesota, Judaism, etc.) for the brothers, it moves on to greater cosmic questions but with the same quirky and ironic spirit that have garnered the Coens all their deserved attention over the last 20 years.

Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is that one Coen brothers character in every movie -- you know, the innocent one who manages to suffer a seemingly unfair fate (think Steve Buscemi in "The Big Lebowski" or most recently Richard Jenkins' character in "Burn After Reading") -- only he gets to pilot this film. In that spirit, an unknown Stuhlbarg is cast in the lead (although he was clearly up for the challenge). Larry is a mild-mannered math professor with a family in an ideal suburban home only his wife wants a divorce and his kids are nightmarish. Little by little the annoyances of his life pile up from the foreign student trying to bribe him for a passing grade while simultaneously suing him for defamation to his socially immature brother (Richard Kind) who won't leave his house.

Larry seeks answers from the rabbis in his community to understand the mess his life has suddenly become. One rabbi tells him he needs a change of perspective, another tells him the story of "The Goy's Teeth," a hilarious bit about a dentist who tries desperately to make meaning of a Hebrew message engraved in a patient's teeth only to find he was better off not worrying about it. None of their advice seems to help at the time -- but it's dead on. The Goy's Teeth scene in particular is one of the brilliant moments where the Coen brothers let you know pretty clearly what their intentions are with the film while giving you something to laugh about. That's their strength and it's all over "Serious Man."

Much like "Burn After Reading," this film is one that makes a thematic point out of the audience's attempt to squeeze meaning out of everything. By turning Larry into a Job-like figure to whom inexplicable misfortune happens, we're forced to put everything into perspective. When Kind's character, Arthur, has a tantrum in the middle of the night wondering why God has given him nothing and he points out that Larry has kids and a job, suddenly our perspective changes. Suddenly everything we thought mattered in this film and was of critical importance is really not such a big deal. Our desperate search for answers in both our lives and in this film, our tendency to over-analyze and derive reason from everything comes to a halt; the Coen bros. have worked their magic again.

"Serious Man" is one of their best in recent memory because it not only feels rooted and personal for them, but it moves toward a greater discussion of previously treaded upon themes and plots from their previous work. It is a challenging film and those who have struggled with the Coen brothers before will struggle again, but for the cerebral and intellectual moviegoer it's outstanding.

The truth is, we don't have all the answers to make sense of life's events (or a story's plot points) and neither do the Coen brothers. One insignificant character in the film who appears to have an answer to just one of Larry's myriad of minor problems dies instantly with hysterical irony. Don't go into "A Serious Man" looking for answers, go into it looking for a change of perspective. ~Steven C Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com

Very tiring to watch as he gets pushed around

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 6 January 2014]

It's 1967 Bloomington, Minnesota. Larry Gopnik is a meek physics professor. His kids are annoying brats. His brother Arthur (Richard Kind) is an unwelcome house guest. His wife Judith wants a divorce. His student is constantly pestering him.

The Coen brothers are skilled filmmakers. But not everything they do is always to my taste. And this movie doesn't speak to me. I'm not Jewish. I don't understand this character. I wonder if we're suppose to laugh at the guy. I'm certain not going to laugh with him. His patheticness is incredibly tiring. It's a dark comedy with few laughs. Mostly it left me scratching my head. I found watching this a rather frustrating experience as he is assailed on all sides. Everybody has a sad sheen of annoyed anger. It is beautifully shot, and expertly filmed. I just don't get this guy.

Unsatisfying, unamusing dark "comedy"

[cherold · 3/10 · 27 October 2012]

The phrase "dark comedy," which turns up in most descriptions of this movie, is an interesting one. It is technically accurate - the movie is deeply pessimistic and told in an exaggerated way through situations and characters that are exaggerated to the point of caricature. So you have to call it a black comedy, even though it's not actually funny.

Instead of being funny, the movie is mainly just depressing. The main character is a Jewish milquetoast who is battered by life on all sides and seems incapable of fighting back, responding to clear injustices not with outrage but with stammering confusion. You just want to yell, "man up!" But instead of manning up, he seeks help from a series of unhelpful rabbis.

The Coen Bros. clearly mean to say something with this movie, but I don't know what, and the non-ending leaves no clues behind. It is a movie that seems to consider all of life futile. I have mixed feelings about that message, but I would find it more tolerable in a comedy that was funny ha-ha rather than funny weird.

Universal but also particularly Jewish

[mjx847 · 10/10 · 16 August 2016]

I think this film is just about perfect. Two pieces of advice: the Yiddish fable that is the prologue is, in my opinion, just there for atmosphere and fun. Enjoy it and forget it. The film takes place in Minnesota not Europe.

Two. Check out the Bonus feature on Yiddish and Hebrew words BEFORE you watch the film. Jews will know them. The rest of us won't.

Bottom line: this film will make you laugh and also make you think. However, there is no right way to "get" this film. One thing I do notice. The film is far more irreverent toward Judaism than "Hail Caesar" is about Catholicism. But then the Coens did not grow up Catholic. They grew up Jews! They know what they are being irreverent about while Catholicism is, to them, more exotic and even spiritual. From a distance.

Self-indulgent nonsense

[imdbbl · 10 January 2010]

It is 1967, and Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a physics professor at a quiet Midwestern university, has just been informed by his wife Judith (Sari Lennick) that she is leaving him. She has fallen in love with one of his more pompous acquaintances, Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), who seems to her a more substantial person than the feckless Larry. Larry's unemployable brother Arthur (Richard Kind) is sleeping on the couch, his son Danny (Aaron Wolff) is a discipline problem and his daughter Sarah (Jessica McManus) is stealing money from his wallet in order to save up for a nose job. While his wife and Sy Ableman blithely make new domestic arrangements, and his brother becomes more and more of a burden, an anonymous hostile letter-writer is trying to sabotage Larry's chances for tenure at the university. Also, a graduate student seems to be trying to bribe him for a passing grade while at the same time threatening to sue him for defamation...

"A Serious Man" is the the latest comedy by the Coens brothers's and it turned out to be one of the worst films I had the displeasure to watch this year. The film is essentially a dark comedy, which seems to be the Coens favorite genre, but with emphasis on the dark. Burn After Reading, the Coens previous film, was also very dark but at the same time, extremely funny. A Serious Man doesn't deliver any laughs whatsoever, and seems to be filled with inside/personal jokes. In Brudges is another good example of a well done black comedy, even thought tragedy ensues, we can't help but laugh. By now, I hope it's clear that I enjoy dark humor as much as the next guy but there's just no humor at all in A Serious Man. I could have still enjoyed the film, had the story been well written but it wasn't. It's a conglomerate of silly situations and awkward moments glued together with no resemblance to an actual story. A modern retelling of the Book of Job? Perhaps. A well written story? Absolutely not.

The film didn't deliver on any level and ended up being painfully dull. The reviews for this film have been so positive, and it was so well received by the critics that those who hated the film will be, I'm sure, immediately accused of "not getting it". Maybe you do have to be fully aware of the Jewish culture, or a big fan of the Coens brothers to actually enjoy the film but, as I stand, A Serious Man is a terrible film, that apart from the great set and wardrobe, has no redeeming qualities.

2/10

Life sucks, then things get even worse.

[TOMASBBloodhound · 7/10 · 11 March 2017]

This is a skillfully crafted, yet ultimately impenetrable film that will not be for all audiences. For my money, Coen brothers film really run a wide gamut in terms of how good they are. You have some spectacular efforts (No Country for Old Men, Fargo), some very good efforts (Raising Arizona, Blood Simple.), overrated fare (Big Lebowski), and some downright tedious (Burn After Reading). A Serious Man would rate above average in terms of the Coen catalog. It is funny, dark, richly-textured, but it really ends abruptly and doesn't seem to have a specific point. Beware that this review is written by a "goy", and much of the Jewish symbolism and possible inside pool are unknown to me.

After a Yiddish prologue that takes place in a Jewish village many years prior to the main events of the film, we are then introduced to man with many, many problems living in late 1960s Minnesota. The Coens' own upbringing is obviously the inspiration for the world this man, Larry Gupnick lives in. He seems like your average mild- mannered college physics professor, and that's exactly what he is. But for reasons we never really understand, EVERYTHING bad that could happen seems to be happening to him. His wife is leaving him for a pompous widower, his children are ingrates, an Asian student is attempting to bribe him and accuse him of defamation all at once, a neighbor is encroaching on his property, an annoying relative has moved in.... you name it. Is this all a punishment from God? If so, why? Who can he turn to for help? Lawyers? Too expensive, considering his wife has emptied their bank account. The rabbis of their synagogue? They talk in circles, and don't seem capable of offering any helpful advice. All we are left to do as an audience is feel sorry for Larry. But we are basically left in the dark as to what he has done, if anything, to deserve it all.

The film is an interesting character study, but where it really shines is in the detail of its production design. Its as if the Coens took every detail from all of their family albums or home movies and crafted a world for these characters that only someone who lived in this environment could have captured. I love No Country for Old Men, but even that film did not convince me it was happening in 1980. They did much better this time around. The son's bar mitzvah ceremony (while he was stoned) is perhaps the film's most memorable scene, and probably based on one of the most memorable events of their own lives. Overall, a very good but mysterious film. Coen fans will appreciate it a lot more than casual viewers. Don't expect to figure out the meaning of life by the time the credits roll, however. 7 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

A Serious Film

[jafdc · 9/10 · 26 October 2009]

You may have to be a believer (Jewish or Christian) to like this film, although some secular (at least middle-aged midwestern) Jews and others may find it worthwhile for the period details. It is a modern version of the book of Job, which--of course you remember--contains a prologue in which God and Satan bet on whether Job will remain faithful and Satan then strikes down Job's flocks, children, and health; a series of speeches by three comforters with Job's responses; a speech by Elihu who is unhappy with the advice of the three comforters; the Lord himself answering Job directly out of the whirlwind ('who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?'); a final submissive speech by Job ('I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye see thee, wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes'); and an epilogue in which Job receives more flocks and children (...) than he had before.

The book and the film address what (Christian, at least) theologians call theodicy, or how bad things can happen in the world when God, who supposedly controls everything, is supposedly good. For nonbelievers (if you have any interest in the subject), the best way to think of this is perhaps to ask yourself whether the universe (the Creation) is on balance a good thing ('and God saw that it was good'). If so, then perhaps we somehow have an obligation to live moral lives and (as Jews and Christians think of it) to follow God's law. If not, then perhaps it's every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost.

The Coens' answer, if I understand it correctly, comes out of the whirlwind at the end in the voice of Grace Slick. I personally prefer God's original response with its paean to astrophysics and evolutionary biology--'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? ... Gave you wings and feathers unto the ostrich? Who leaves her eggs in the earth, and warms them in the dust, and forgets that the foot may crust them or that the wild best may break them...; because God has deprived her of wisdom, neither has he imparted to her understanding'--which essentially asserts that Creation is wonderful and a package deal. But the Coens' very different answer, while oddly Christian in emphasis, is fully consistent with both the 1960s zeitgeist and with the midwestern Jewish community that they have so meticulously recreated.

If you like this film, you really need to see it twice. But without giving anything away, if you see it once, be careful to pay attention to (i) the bribe that, like Schroedinger's cat, is alive and dead at the same time and (ii) the whirlwind at the end. This is a great film.

h-bar

[bigmidas · 7/10 · 6 August 2019]

I'd like to review this film, but I'm busy working-on The Mentaculus.

"I didn't do... anything!" exactly

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 3 October 2009]

The Coen Brothers give to its frazzled protagonist Larry Gopnick a line a few times during the course of A Serious Man, "I didn't do anything!" that is more than just an homage to Franz Kafka - it's ripping him off basically. This is not to say Larry is quite in the same predicament of Joseph K. Then again, I wonder if Larry would prefer no explanation to the if-it-wasn't-for-bad-luck-I-would-have-no-luck status over the kinds he gets to his troubles. He has a divorce pending and his wife leaving with Sy Ableman (seriously, Sy Ableman!), he has a South Korean student who may be simultaneously bribing him and suing him for defamation, he has a brother who has a cyst/no job/gambling troubles, two kids who more or less are just typically dysfunctional teens (the boy on his way to be Bar Mitzvah and smoking enough dope to acknowledge more than once that it's 1967), and his sexual repression is practically taunted by the foxy Jewish woman next door who sunbathes nude. And what does God have to say about this? Oh, don't get him started on trips to the Rabbi - frankly, he'd have better luck with Anton Chigurh.

A Serious Man is a movie to take seriously as art, but at the same time the Coens aren't above pulling out their usual all-stops to make this a hilariously weird and awkward movie. Perhaps a better way to compare is that it's like if Curb Your Enthusiasm starred an average shmo who doesn't have quite the sense of humor of Larry David (and, perhaps, is even cursed by his bloodline via the opening scene in the movie... or maybe not, I'll get to that in a moment), and who keeps getting s*** on from all directions (not coincidentally perhaps Richard Kind appears in both show and movie). It's such a funny movie that I have to think back to Big Lebowski and O'Brother Where Art Thou to remember when I laughed so hard. Maybe its the predilection for Jewish jokes that sting so, or maybe its the originality with the storytelling. As far as a black-as-Jewish-death comedy, it works completely.

As for being a masterpiece of a film... I'm still not completely sure. Sometimes the Coens' movies are instant classics (No Country for Old Men, Blood Simple), and others take a little while to grow on a viewer (i.e. Miller's Crossing, even Big Lebowski was a grower and not a shower for me). A Serious Man may fall in the latter category; it's such a personal film, maybe more than anyone done before if only for the time and place and particulars of the characters in a Jewish-suburb of Minnesota, and its such an oddity in their catalog of work. Watching Larry on this existential odyssey of "WTF" nears Bergman proportions - there's even a scene where a character's death affects a woman in much the same way as the father Ekdahl's death in Fanny & Alexander - where religion is tested to the fullest and most harrowing of emotional schemes. Where is God when Larry needs him? Everywhere? Nowhere? Screw Larry, he didn't pay his (son's) Columbia Records account!

But for all that succeeds in A Serious Man, such as a completely masterful sequence (a contender for my single favorite sequence of any movie this year) where a Rabbi describes a harrowing and pointless and uproarious story of a dentist and a Goy's teeth, or when Larry's son is stoned out of his mind when reading the Torah at his Bar Mitzvah (a first in cinema history, combining marijuana, Roger Deakins' use of a lens-baby, and Hebrew), and its creative characterizations and shocking nightmare scenes, it's an unsettling film, and not always in the best ways. It's a film that, as one could argue in their past films, is at war with if not the audience directly then with audience expectations. We might expect A Serious Man to just be about this man's downward spiral in his life, but what then to make of that (cool) opening scene all in Yiddish and (admitted by Joel Coen) to not really have a whole lot to do directly with the rest of the movie, or, for that matter, the end of the movie which just... ends.

As far as 'f***-you's' to audiences go, it certainly is funny and startling in comparison with No Country for Old Men (almost like the Coens are saying 'yeah, knock this one this time, we *dare* you!), and if I get an f-you from filmmakers I'm glad it comes from them. But... you will either need more than a viewing for it to sink in, or you'll curse the day you decided to walk in the theater or rent it. Not much of a middle ground. Then again, I wouldn't want it any other way in this case. And hey, it's got Jefferson Airplane quoted by a Yoda-Rabbi, that scores points right there! 9.5/10

Good

[spantuev · 7/10 · 22 November 2019]

You almost can't predict the next 10 minutes. Very detailed, seamless, weird. I couldn't stop watching and enjoying the picture.

Major players deconstructing the film-making paradigm

[freelancethinkers · 5/10 · 2 December 2009]

I suppose the first thing that needs to be said is that I'm not Jewish and, as such, a lot of what was obviously a deeply personal movie went over my head, and I was left feeling like an outsider, almost a voyeur.

However, perhaps as a result of this I'm able to view the film more objectively. Visually, it is beautiful. There are so many perfectly framed scenes that even when the story seems to drag it keeps you captivated.

Having said that, for me, it did drag. The central figure was a neurotic, cerebral, awkward, middle aged Jewish man. Not entirely a cinematic first. Add to this the fact that he was possibly the most passive character in cinematic history - he literally made no decisions in the entire movie until the final scene. Instead he was drawn from one catastrophe to another, on the basis that he was a good, upstanding man surrounded by stronger people.

Normally in this situation we would see the character challenged and grow, but this is the Coen brothers, so it's not going to be that simple. Instead,,we are left to squirm at the relentless nature of the man's incessant failings - a frustrating experience, particularly if you're not privy to the Jewish humour that pervades this intimate film.

It seemed to me almost as if the Coen Brothers were seeing how far they can stretch their high profile. With No Country For Old Men they robbed us of the pivotal, climactic scene and I for one left feeling cheated. Here they simply don't introduce it at all. They break every story paradigm there is, as if to suggest that they are now so great they can present a piece that has no development, no conclusion, a prologue that seems to have no relevance to the main body of the work, and no redemptive quality to extract from any of the characters. A bit like real life I suppose. But who wants to see that on a forty foot screen?

I need to lay down.

"Uncertainty Principle proves we can't ever really know... what's going on. So it shouldn't bother you."

[Galina_movie_fan · 10/10 · 25 July 2015]

It's been mentioned many times that A Serious Man (2009) is a retelling of the Book of Job. It very well could be - as only Coen Brothers could adapt the Biblical story to the screen. They placed Job, the Schlimazel of the Old Testament in Minnesota suburbia of their own adolescent. They named him Larry Gopnik, made him a physics professor in a local college, a nice, loving, and pious man, and let him watch hopelessly how his life was collapsing around him while he tried to make sense of what and why was happening to him and desperately sought after a spiritual help from his religious advisers, three rabbis - in vain. A Serious Man is not an autobiographical movie but it is set in the very atmosphere and spirit where two Coen boys grew up in the year 1967, the exact year Joel Coen turned 13 and was preparing for his own bar mitzvah - just like Danny Gopnik, 13 years old pot smoking Jefferson Airplane fan Larry's son whose Bar Mitzvah in the movie is a truly unforgettable event for many reasons. Now, as the experienced celebrated filmmakers who have proved (at least for this viewer) to be among THE best modern filmmakers, Coens look back at the place and time that shaped them as individuals, men, and creative personalities, and they ask eternal and often impossible to answer questions. Does life have meaning? What is the point of it? Or is there point at all? Why do bad things happen to a decent person who "did not do anything"? Is there any certainty in life or all we can do just accept the fact there is no explanation, no certainty, and no fairness, and the best is - "to receive with simplicity everything that happens to you."

I can understand how this film may be puzzling and even disappointing for many viewers even among the fans. A Serious Man is different and original even for Coens, always innovative and creative artists, but it is undeniably and unmistakably, their film, with their finger prints all over. Take for example the opening scene, the black/white prologue spoken in Yiddish and set somewhere in Eastern Europe back in the 19th or 18th century, in a small Shtetl. It involves a married couple and their mysterious visitor who could be a dybbuck, an evil spirit, believed to be the dislocated soul of a dead person. The scene certainly would stay with a viewer and make them try to understand its meaning. As one explanation, the husband and wife could be the ancestors of Larry Gopnik before his family immigrated to the USA and ended up in Minnesota. The encounter with the dybbuk could bring the curse to the future generations, and that may explain all assortment of "tsuris" that poor Larry tries to deal with. Coen's explained that they wanted to include a folk tale to set the tone in the film that explores among many things Jewish traditions, religion, faith, and character. They could not find a tale they'd like, so they wrote one and made a very stylish, ominously dark yet funny and mysterious opening to their film. As a perfect balance to the fairytale/ghost story opening, the final scene comes that literally can blow you away. As it has happened before in a Coens 'movie , the open ending has as many admirers as haters but I believe it was no other way to finish the film, and I found the ending perfect in the universe that Coens create.

The brothers' decision to cast mostly unknown stage actors in the main roles, proved to be successful one, and everyone was up to their job. Michael Stuhlbarg positively shines as Larry and he makes one of the most sympathetic characters in Coens' movie. Sari Lennick, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed as a seriously creepy man whom Larry's wife Judith wanted to leave Larry for as well as the rest of the cast are all memorable. The camera work by Roger Deakins', the longtime collaborator of Coens in recreating the long gone era of the late 60s in the Middle of America is above any praise. A Serious Man is beautiful, profound, and perfectly well made. It is funny, too. Seriously.

something funny happened....

[frankopy-2 · 7/10 · 10 December 2010]

Understanding of a movie helps, but understanding everything in it is hardly essential, as my bout with this film says to me. I mean, of physics, I know not a whit; of Jewishness, not a whole lot more. But of humor, I like to partake, and this one had me guffawing in parts, thanks mainly to the simply written dialog written for the lead character, whose life is such a mess. Sure, there are obscurities here (among them what the hell Richard Kind and his character are supposed to ad), but the fact is that before one pities the lead character, who certainly is pitiful in so many ways, one has to laugh heartily at his circumstances. The tone of the movie is what gets to me the most. It is as though one is back in high school and getting a dodge-around-it answer to question rather important to a teen but zinging over a teacher's head. Michael Stuhlberg is brilliant as the lead character to whom tenure would be heaven in his physics-laden existence (think Eugene Levy's second coming). I don't believe in giving directors/writers carte blanch approval because of illustrious histories, but it would be difficult to argue much with the originality the Cohens often bring to the playhouse. I don't "get" everything they do, but almost all of it has a lasting effect on me.

This movie annoyed me...

[gunter_leon · 2/10 · 10 February 2010]

The movie started out not bad, but for more than an hour nothing really happened. I just got very annoyed by the fact that the main character let everybody walk over him without even trying to stand up for himself.

Then in the end of the movie, the movie finally picks up some speed but suddenly it stops without any ending (good or bad). It's not even an open ending leaving you with some questions. It's like the movie just stops for a commercial break, but forgets to start again...

This movie is not the worst one I have ever seen, but I do regret staying up late to watch it.