May contain some small spoilers
When viewing a movie concocted by the Coen's, the first thing that comes to my mind is the ambivalence the film seems to bring out in it's audience. Many die hards swear religiously that every Coen film is the Holy Grail of film making. On the other end of the spectrum you have those that just don't get the parvenu film makers. I am somewhere in the middle of these two Coen proponents/opponents. I admire the Coen's immensely for their ability to create films that are just about as original as anything you will ever see. I thought O BROTHER WHERE ART THOUGH was one of the best films of last year and I certainly believe that FARGO was easily the better picture in 1996 ( losing out to best picture winner THE ENGLISH PATIENT). THE BIG LEBOWSKI was also an ingenious film and in it Jeff Bridges turned in perhaps his most intriguing and puissant performance. I loved all of these films. Having said that, they have had their share of disappointments, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY and MILLERS CROSSING come to mind. Still, the Coen's remain one of the best film makers working today.
For reasons that are not quite clear to me, THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE is more of a disappointment than I would like to admit. I am a stalwart believer that many of their films require a second viewing to appreciate what they are trying to say. I adhered to that theory with O Brother and Fargo and especially Lebowski. So perhaps in the years to come I may buy the DVD and watch it a few more times and pick up things that perhaps I did not or could not see the first two times I watched this film. I hope that is the case because I feel this is a decent film, but it is just missing something that many of their other films aren't. I enjoyed the film to a point, especially the performances of Billy Bob Thorton and Tony Shaloub but when I left the theater, I did so feeling a little cheated, being that it was a Coen film.
Thorton plays Ed Crane, a quiet, saturnine barber that just seems to exist. He doesn't seem particularly sanguine but at the same time, he doesn't seem overly sad. He just seems like a man that is in the middle of his life and has accepted the fact that things are about as good as they are going to get. He plays Bingo with his wife, he goes to work every day, he comes home every night and has dinner at the same time and he doesn't complain. Life is life. C'est la vie. His wife, Doris Crane, on the other hand, seems a little more eccentric. She works in a department store and she seems a trite enamoured with her boss, Big Dave. She is played with duplicitous undertones beautifully by Coen veteran, Frances McDormand and her boss is portrayed by James Gandolfini as a proud man that thinks he is a little too successful. He flirts clandestinely, so he believes, with Doris and she eats it up. Many times they seem to be displaying their affections towards one another while Ed is in the next room or right across the dinner table. And perhaps they do this because many times it is hard to see if Ed has a pulse, let alone if he is paying any attention to what is happening in front of him.
During the film a murder takes place, a lawyer is called in and all the while the proceedings get stranger and stranger, and seeing as this is a Coen film, that only stands to reason. Doris goes to prison for the murder of her boss and Ed Crane has to hire Freddy Riedenschneider, the best but slimiest attorney around. Think of Don King and any one of O.J's team of magicians working for him and you have Riedenschneider.
Tony Shaloub, who I think is one of the most underrated actors out there, nails this performance to the letter. He is a scurrilous, slimy snake that is at the apex of his profession but he affords himself all the luxuries his clients will give him. What is perfect about this character is that we have seen characters like him in many films before, the difference is that these characters usually present the facade to their clients that they genuinely care about them. They are written to come off as people that want to win because they care about them and that they are really just good people caught in a bad situation. But not Freddy. Freddy lets you know how brilliant he is, then shows you how brilliant he is and then just when you are impressed by his swagger and grasp of what is happening, he will hit you with a bill for every single expense he has incurred. Not just for his legal team and his time, but for his seven course meal three times a day and his swanky accomodations in the town's five star hotel. He gives this to you not with a sugar coated smile or a confident wink, but with the attitude that says, "Hey this is business. You know it and I know it."
The plot gets all convoluted along the way and all the while I was interested but not really rivetted. I was intrigued but not overwhelmed. And maybe that is due more to the fact that this is a Coen Brother's film and I have grown to expect more, much more. To me the biggest problem with this film is that it just exists. There is really nothing wrong with it but there is nothing that stands out. I don't mean to perpetually offer comparisons, but unfortunately it is inevitable, and when I think of O Brother... and Fargo and Lebowski, I think of small characters from each film that stay with me. Characters like the guy shovelling snow who has to give a description of Steve Buscemi in Fargo. I think of Pete's cousin in O Brother, or I even think of George Clooney from the same movie. In Lebowski you have Buscemi as Donny, who is probably the smartest guy in the film yet is constantly being told to shut up. Then you have the Nihilists, all with personalities, all which stayed with me well after the film was through. The Man Who Wasn't There can't give me the same satisfaction. It is a film that prods along and doesn't waste your time for two hours but it doesn't do much to enhance it. And that is to bad because the Coen's can usually be counted on for that.
6.5 out of 10..... This is a film worth seeing for some of the performances, just don't expect the film to make an impact the way some of the their past efforts have.
** a disappointment simply because the Coen's name is attached to the project.
When viewing a movie concocted by the Coen's, the first thing that comes to my mind is the ambivalence the film seems to bring out in it's audience. Many die hards swear religiously that every Coen film is the Holy Grail of film making. On the other end of the spectrum you have those that just don't get the parvenu film makers. I am somewhere in the middle of these two Coen proponents/opponents. I admire the Coen's immensely for their ability to create films that are just about as original as anything you will ever see. I thought O BROTHER WHERE ART THOUGH was one of the best films of last year and I certainly believe that FARGO was easily the better picture in 1996 ( losing out to best picture winner THE ENGLISH PATIENT). THE BIG LEBOWSKI was also an ingenious film and in it Jeff Bridges turned in perhaps his most intriguing and puissant performance. I loved all of these films. Having said that, they have had their share of disappointments, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY and MILLERS CROSSING come to mind. Still, the Coen's remain one of the best film makers working today.
For reasons that are not quite clear to me, THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE is more of a disappointment than I would like to admit. I am a stalwart believer that many of their films require a second viewing to appreciate what they are trying to say. I adhered to that theory with O Brother and Fargo and especially Lebowski. So perhaps in the years to come I may buy the DVD and watch it a few more times and pick up things that perhaps I did not or could not see the first two times I watched this film. I hope that is the case because I feel this is a decent film, but it is just missing something that many of their other films aren't. I enjoyed the film to a point, especially the performances of Billy Bob Thorton and Tony Shaloub but when I left the theater, I did so feeling a little cheated, being that it was a Coen film.
Thorton plays Ed Crane, a quiet, saturnine barber that just seems to exist. He doesn't seem particularly sanguine but at the same time, he doesn't seem overly sad. He just seems like a man that is in the middle of his life and has accepted the fact that things are about as good as they are going to get. He plays Bingo with his wife, he goes to work every day, he comes home every night and has dinner at the same time and he doesn't complain. Life is life. C'est la vie. His wife, Doris Crane, on the other hand, seems a little more eccentric. She works in a department store and she seems a trite enamoured with her boss, Big Dave. She is played with duplicitous undertones beautifully by Coen veteran, Frances McDormand and her boss is portrayed by James Gandolfini as a proud man that thinks he is a little too successful. He flirts clandestinely, so he believes, with Doris and she eats it up. Many times they seem to be displaying their affections towards one another while Ed is in the next room or right across the dinner table. And perhaps they do this because many times it is hard to see if Ed has a pulse, let alone if he is paying any attention to what is happening in front of him.
During the film a murder takes place, a lawyer is called in and all the while the proceedings get stranger and stranger, and seeing as this is a Coen film, that only stands to reason. Doris goes to prison for the murder of her boss and Ed Crane has to hire Freddy Riedenschneider, the best but slimiest attorney around. Think of Don King and any one of O.J's team of magicians working for him and you have Riedenschneider.
Tony Shaloub, who I think is one of the most underrated actors out there, nails this performance to the letter. He is a scurrilous, slimy snake that is at the apex of his profession but he affords himself all the luxuries his clients will give him. What is perfect about this character is that we have seen characters like him in many films before, the difference is that these characters usually present the facade to their clients that they genuinely care about them. They are written to come off as people that want to win because they care about them and that they are really just good people caught in a bad situation. But not Freddy. Freddy lets you know how brilliant he is, then shows you how brilliant he is and then just when you are impressed by his swagger and grasp of what is happening, he will hit you with a bill for every single expense he has incurred. Not just for his legal team and his time, but for his seven course meal three times a day and his swanky accomodations in the town's five star hotel. He gives this to you not with a sugar coated smile or a confident wink, but with the attitude that says, "Hey this is business. You know it and I know it."
The plot gets all convoluted along the way and all the while I was interested but not really rivetted. I was intrigued but not overwhelmed. And maybe that is due more to the fact that this is a Coen Brother's film and I have grown to expect more, much more. To me the biggest problem with this film is that it just exists. There is really nothing wrong with it but there is nothing that stands out. I don't mean to perpetually offer comparisons, but unfortunately it is inevitable, and when I think of O Brother... and Fargo and Lebowski, I think of small characters from each film that stay with me. Characters like the guy shovelling snow who has to give a description of Steve Buscemi in Fargo. I think of Pete's cousin in O Brother, or I even think of George Clooney from the same movie. In Lebowski you have Buscemi as Donny, who is probably the smartest guy in the film yet is constantly being told to shut up. Then you have the Nihilists, all with personalities, all which stayed with me well after the film was through. The Man Who Wasn't There can't give me the same satisfaction. It is a film that prods along and doesn't waste your time for two hours but it doesn't do much to enhance it. And that is to bad because the Coen's can usually be counted on for that.
6.5 out of 10..... This is a film worth seeing for some of the performances, just don't expect the film to make an impact the way some of the their past efforts have.
** a disappointment simply because the Coen's name is attached to the project.