Muldrake-2

Looking at the talent involved in this picture, I was incredibly disappointed at the end result. The only positive thing that I have to say about the movie is that it had excellent sound effects and sound editing. The cinematography was excellent, if it was a direct to video movie. The peripheral areas of the screen were largely ignored; I cannot recall a single scene which was not maximized for pan-and-scan viewing. This leads to the question of why bother getting two excellent actors like Hanks and Newman if you are not going to let them act with each other? Their scenes together played in coverage, with cuts back and forth between closeups of them as they delivered their lines. When you have 2 actors of that caliber, let us see them act with each other; let us see them react to the other's lines.

The direction also seemed somewhat slack, as there appeared to be continuity errors throughout. Snow covers the ground at the beginning and it looks to be mid-winter, then action takes place a day or two later in the midst of a driving rainstorm, and that same night there is snow on the ground again. Of course, as they drive away that night, we see their car from the air, and crops are being planted in the fields. At the end of the movie we are told it all took place within 6 weeks, but judging from the landscape, it is mid-July at the earliest.

Perhaps that is nitpicking, but it is a fair comment because if the script had not bored me out of my mind, I would not have noticed the weather problems. Unfortunately, the script is extremely predictable and rather tedious. Every little piece is telegraphed. From the letter that Sullivan has to deliver to the conclusion, one could tell what was going to happen and had to wait for the movie to catch up. Furthermore, there were several points of the movie that served no apparent purpose, most notably the crime spree that Sullivan and son went on. That spot of film neither moved the plot nor developed character, and seemed to exist only for a gag on learning to drive a stick shift. The section actually resulted in a massive plot hole, unless we are to believe that gangsters are very forgiving. My guess is that the real Nitti would have shot someone like Sullivan on sight for his actions rather than actually help him. After all, Nitti had nothing to gain by helping Sullivan.

In short, although the movie will likely be nominated for several Oscars, it really deserves only one for sound. That is a shame, considering the talent involved. It should have been much better than it is, but is instead a complete waste of time and talent.

While I have enjoyed all of the Coens' brothers previous works, I have to say that this movie is probably one of worst films I saw this year, if only because I had such respect for their previous works that I went in with high expectations. The problem as I see it is that the script was trying too hard. There are far too many scenes in the movie that do nothing to advance the story but simply exist to cause a recollection of Homer's work. Whole subplots could have been excised from the script, most notably the sirens subplot, which ended with the characters in exactly the same spot as they had been before but left the audience some 10-15 minutes older. Same goes with the Babyface subplot, or the Cyclops. At least one of these 3 should have been cut from the script and the minutes added to the other subplots. Instead, the Coens include all three and meander between these scenes like a bad sitcom. The Coens strong point, the creation of quirky characters, is also sadly lacking in this feature. What made Lebowski work is that you knew where the characters were coming from. Same goes for Fargo, Hudsucker, Raising Arizona, etc. The audience came to know and love the characters' quirks, and the Coens were able to let their quirks drive the movies. In Oh Brother, however, the audience is never really allowed to see what makes the characters work, and so the plot has to drive the movie. As I noted previously, this made the movie utterly unsuccessful because of the overloaded script. On the whole, I would give this movie only 3/10, only because of the music and because one of Babyface's lynchers yelled "Cow Killer!" as if this were his greatest crime.

After looking at some of the other comments, I am relieved to find out that I am not the only person that does not worship this movie. Yes, the D-Day invasion scenes were great and Tom Hanks was up to form, but the middle of the movie was so schmaltzy that I really couldn't get into it. Frankly, I resented the fact that they thought that my emotions could be manipulated by the cliched characters and sentimental dialogue that dominated the middle of the movie. Although my opinion appears to be in the minority, it is reassuring to know that there are a fair number of people who share it. Final analysis: 4/10 Watch first 1/2 hour or so and skip the rest.

Rarely have I come across a young male that didn't like this movie a lot, and rarely have I come across a female that liked this movie at all. So while I recommend this movie to any male under the age of 30, it is not a good date movie because you will laugh yourself silly and disgust your girlfriend, who will likely be mortified that you find it even remotely amusing.

I'm afraid that I must join the chorus of those that question the placement of this movie at the top of the rankings. Although I enjoy the movie a great deal, it is mainly because of the superb job done by the actors, especially the leads. Without that, I don't think the movie would have amounted to much, because the plot is relatively thin; wide swaths could have been cut from the film and no one would have noticed. Take the library Andy built. It did not advance the basic plot at all, as with other scenes. You could argue that it was precisely these small events that made the film good, and I would agree. But that's my point:there wasn't really anything tying the movie together other than our sympathy for the characters. While well developed characters are a central part of any good movie, there should still be something driving the action other than our sympathy for them; i.e. some sort of chain of events that drives the action independently of the characters. To everyone who thinks this is the best movie ever, I invite you to watch a couple films from the top 5 of the AFI list. You can argue about the AFI's placement all day, but all of the top 5 are better rounded films than Shawshank. If you still feel Shawshank is better than the rest, more power to you.

Casablanca has every right to be considered amongst the best ever made because of its timelessness. As noted in another comment, Casablanca remains as complex, funny, romantic, and full of suspense as it did when it first graced the silver screen nearly 60 years ago. I recommend it often, and rarely do my friends not thoroughly enjoy the film, despite the fact that most of my friends and I were not born until 35 years after it was written. Those few that didn't like it simply don't like anything in black and white, which is their loss I suppose (the colorized version, to be frank, sucks). In short, if you enjoy movies and can stand B&W, then you should watch this film. Even if you don't like most B&W films you should watch it; odds are you'll like this one.

Although Kane did not top my personal list (it lost a photo finish to Casablanca), it is easy for me to see how it tops so many others. Although its technical aspects have long since been surpassed, you must remember that, like any great piece of art, Kane cannot be removed from its place in time. It is not terribly difficult to create a fake Picasso, for example, but the original has value because of the vision of the artist, not the brush strokes themselves. Welles was certainly not lacking in vison for Kane. What further separates Kane from the pack is its strong acting and great tragedy; that of a man that achieved great wealth, power, and fame, was destroyed by it and on his deathbed yearns for the simple life of his youth that was later denied to him.