A Serious Man (Coen Brothers)

following up a huge oscar win and one of their most succesful movies yet with their smallest budget since fargo (the only time they had less money was on their first two). and no stars. I LOVE IT! It's a great script too. Can't wait for this one.
 
I can't freaking wait. I love how they do period pieces so often (even if it's only the late 60's for this one) adds a lot to it.

Yeah, I loved how the trailer went with the music (that was repeating sound fx's from the trailer) good stuff.
 
http://www.filmeveryday.com/?p=388

This is another one of those movies that I'm surprised more people haven't seen. I can't say that this was a great film, or even one of the Coen's best, but it's worth a watch, if for no other reason than Michael Stuhlbarg's performance as Larry Galopnik, the late-60s, Minneapolis verion of Job. (You know, that guy from the Old Testament?)

Like I said in my review, you'll laugh here and there, and you'll wince in between.
 
Just watched this last night. I agree, definitely not great, or even one of the Coens' best, but it's solid. It had a similar surreal, off-beat tone to it that reminded of Barton Fink (my favorite Coen film).
 
What the hell was this?...Count me as one of the few who did not like this at all, and I'm a Coens fan going back to Blood Simple. The photography by the always great Roger Deakins was about the only thing I could find to appreciate in this film .The story just seemed to be a pointless series of bad things happening to the lead character, which may have been the point, I guess, but it's not one I needed to hear. I sometimes get the feeling the Coens are just performing storytelling experiments with their movies, trying to see how far they can push things just for the sake of it. Like making a film noir with the least proactive character possible (The Big Lebowski), or telling a classic hero's journey with very un-heroic characters (O, Brother, based on The Odyssey). Sometimes these experiments pay off but sometimes we get movies like this, that are static to the point of tedium. I put this and Burn After Reading at the very bottom of the Coen's filmography.
 
Haven't seen it. I am curious. Seems like a more comedic version of falling down from what I saw. Only thing about the trailer is it seems not to give the impression that he gets back up. But please! No spoilers!
 
Batutta said:
What the hell was this?...Count me as one of the few who did not like this at all, and I'm a Coens fan going back to Blood Simple. The photography by the always great Roger Deakins was about the only thing I could find to appreciate in this film .The story just seemed to be a pointless series of bad things happening to the lead character, which may have been the point, I guess, but it's not one I needed to hear. I sometimes get the feeling the Coens are just performing storytelling experiments with their movies, trying to see how far they can push things just for the sake of it. Like making a film noir with the least proactive character possible (The Big Lebowski), or telling a classic hero's journey with very un-heroic characters (O, Brother, based on The Odyssey). Sometimes these experiments pay off but sometimes we get movies like this, that are static to the point of tedium. I put this and Burn After Reading at the very bottom of the Coen's filmography.
Click to expand...
I liked BURN AFTER READING, but this one didn't do much for me.
Felt like it didn't have a first and third act. Just one long second.
 
GRENCH said:
Haven't seen it. I am curious. Seems like a more comedic version of falling down from what I saw. Only thing about the trailer is it seems not to give the impression that he gets back up. But please! No spoilers!
Click to expand...

It's not at all like Falling Down. Michael Douglas in that movie actually did something.
 
Interesting. I can't say I loved this, but I certainly liked it and thought about it a lot after seeing it. I give them a lot of rope. They've mastered film language maybe better than anyone of their generation. And they've kept true to themselves. Largely making very very cheap movies in order to accomplish that.

The ending was friggin amazing.
 
Mark Harris said:
Interesting. I can't say I loved this, but I certainly liked it and thought about it a lot after seeing it. I give them a lot of rope. They've mastered film language maybe better than anyone of their generation. And they've kept true to themselves. Largely making very very cheap movies in order to accomplish that.

The ending was friggin amazing.
Click to expand...

I do tend to rate their films on a sliding scale relative to their own work, but even independent of their films I thought this was a weak effort. To me it seemed to fully bring out their primary weakness as filmmakers -- an omnipotent, ironic distance from their characters that feels more like ridicule rather than empathy. I will say it made me realize I am more of a midwestern Jew than I thought I was. I am not actually Jewish, but growing up where I did I think I achieved honorary status.
 
Last edited:
I can honestly say that I have never actually hated a Coen Brothers movie, until this one.

Not exactly an awful movie, but a genuinely awful experience that I would not recommend to anybody except maybe as a sort of anthropological exercise.

One of those movies that makes me deeply grateful that I don't pay for tickets. I would have *had* to get my money back.
 
This film was excellent. It's honestly one of the Coen brothers' best films.

They're experimenting with narratives, (something you can do when you're the Coens) and in this film not all life's problems get solved and are wrapped up with a pretty red bow.

I'm truly thankful for that. It's a breath of fresh air. I'd love to see more films that embrace less and less Robert McKee and more and more the culture the film is portraying.
 
Last edited:
Knoxworth said:
This film was excellent. It's honestly one of the Coen brothers' best films.
Click to expand...

I can't see how it's better than Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, Fargo, No Country For Old Men, The Man Who Wasn't There, The Big Lebowski or Barton Fink. I just can't. I think it's one of their worst, and it had nothing to do with lack of pretty bows. I understood what they were doing in retelling the story of Job. I just didn't think it worked at all. The best I can say is that I'm sure it's exactly the movie they wanted to make.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top