Overall, Blood Simple was an entertaining enough movie. Definitely slower-paced throughout the majority of the movie, and a film with a low amount of dialogue. The acting was decent, and I always have had a liking for how grimy and sinister E. Emmet Walsh can play a bad guy role. There weren't really too many suprises plot-wise, but the slow build-up to the ending can still be noticed and appreciated, speaking for myself.
A lot of the reviews I've read are over-the-top with praise and how exceptional the movie was, when to me, it was simply a decent movie, good but not too good, but not bad, hence my rating of 7.0. However, like a few other names in the film business, I'll throw out Jim Jarmusch and Richard Linklater to join with the Coen Brothers, there's an absurd amount of folks who seem to feel that whatever movie these guys create is perfection, whether it's true or not, like they can't admit that a producer/director they're a fan of can possibly produce anything but the best films in history, but that's simply not true. I wish more people would base their judgments of films on the films themselves, regardless of who the producer or director is, than automatically giving perfect ratings because of their hero worship. Like I said, this was a good enough movie in my opinion, but it wasn't close to being as good as 'Fargo'. 'The Big Lebowski', or even 'Raising Arizona' or 'O Brother, Where Art Thou', but lower down in quality, definitely above 'A Serious Man', but nowhere close to the films I just mentioned. I was going to give this a 6.0 rating, but considering the time period in which this was made, and the fact that it was the Coen Brothers debut, I gave it an extra point, which I think, in the long run it deserved.
A lot of the reviews I've read are over-the-top with praise and how exceptional the movie was, when to me, it was simply a decent movie, good but not too good, but not bad, hence my rating of 7.0. However, like a few other names in the film business, I'll throw out Jim Jarmusch and Richard Linklater to join with the Coen Brothers, there's an absurd amount of folks who seem to feel that whatever movie these guys create is perfection, whether it's true or not, like they can't admit that a producer/director they're a fan of can possibly produce anything but the best films in history, but that's simply not true. I wish more people would base their judgments of films on the films themselves, regardless of who the producer or director is, than automatically giving perfect ratings because of their hero worship. Like I said, this was a good enough movie in my opinion, but it wasn't close to being as good as 'Fargo'. 'The Big Lebowski', or even 'Raising Arizona' or 'O Brother, Where Art Thou', but lower down in quality, definitely above 'A Serious Man', but nowhere close to the films I just mentioned. I was going to give this a 6.0 rating, but considering the time period in which this was made, and the fact that it was the Coen Brothers debut, I gave it an extra point, which I think, in the long run it deserved.
Tell Your Friends