Reading other reviews of this film, I get the feeling that it clearly separates the pretentious from the... UNpretentious? Blood Simple has its moments, the intro for instance, is awesome, but overall i think much of it is poorly written and poorly acted. While some people say it's an 'amazing debut' or whatever, it's pretty obvious to me that it really is what it is - Coens' debut. The fact that some experience was missing really shows.
It's funny how all the pretentious reviewers here constantly wanna emphasize on how much they're the real deal by claiming Blood Simple to be much better than the more popular Coen flicks, when in fact, they probably wouldn't even give it a chance if it your excluded the name Coen as directors/writers. I would have taken it as just a matter of differing opinions, but it's pretty obvious to me where it's coming from when there's barely any substance in all the positive remarks. Everything is just "brilliant" and *sigh* "beautiful". Why? How?
It's funny how all the pretentious reviewers here constantly wanna emphasize on how much they're the real deal by claiming Blood Simple to be much better than the more popular Coen flicks, when in fact, they probably wouldn't even give it a chance if it your excluded the name Coen as directors/writers. I would have taken it as just a matter of differing opinions, but it's pretty obvious to me where it's coming from when there's barely any substance in all the positive remarks. Everything is just "brilliant" and *sigh* "beautiful". Why? How?