The Man Who Wasn't There (2001) User Reviews

Black and White and Gray All Over

[pc_dean · 9/10 · 26 November 2001]

Billy Bob Thornton has the perfect face for film noir. His craggy, drawn features lead up to sunken but large and staring eyes, and cheeks that look to be made out of plaster. Particularly when shot in black and white, his face becomes a landscape of shifting shadows, while he doesn't move a muscle. He is able to give the impression of a man at war with himself even while sitting perfectly still and staring ahead. He's Jeremy Irons, only without that unsettling accent. The Coen brothers take great advantage of their stars' granite physiognomy throughout "The Man That Wasn't There," constructing several shots around Thornton staring into a point just slightly away from the camera, impassive as an Easter Island head, moving only to smoke an ever-present cigarette while the obligatory noir voice-over narration runs. His voice is perfect, too: a kind of calm, measured rumbling, which describes incredible events but never seems amazed by them. Thornton says "I don't talk much," and it's true: he doesn't do much either, but he is still fascinating, and commands our attention.

The Coens take great relish in the noir conventions, even beyond the 1940s setting and the black and white photography (let's face it, we're so used to '40s movies in black and white that color would look a little weird). The story follows classic lines (with a few wild divergences): Thornton's character is a barber in one of those small postwar California towns that Hitchcock was so enamored of. He comes up with a scheme to raise some money, which naturally spins a little beyond what he anticipated. That's all I can say in good conscience, and the plot goes pretty far afield (I mean REALLY far afield, catering to fans both of Dashiell Hammett and "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers"). But really, you know what to expect, if you've ever seen one of these movies before: greed, dark secrets, and murder, in a world of fedoras, cigarette smoke, snapping lighters, and deep moral turpitude. A world where nothing or no one is what they seem, and the only sure thing is that, in the end, some sap is gonna get it.

As good as Thornton is, he can't carry the movie alone. Fortunately, he is surrounded by a top-notch cast, including a lot of familiar Coen veterans, and it is this that really makes this movie work. Michael Badalucco puts in a hilarious turn as Thornton's gabby brother-in-law, Frances McDormand is effective in her relatively few scenes as his brittle wife, and James Gandolfini plays yet another boorish tough guy to a turn. Practically shoplifting the movie is Tony Shalhoub, playing a fast-talking Sacramento lawyer who doesn't so much speak as summate. His discussion of Heisenberg is almost worth the ticket price alone. Christopher Kriesa and Brian Haley get a lot of mileage out of their brief appearances as a pair of slightly dim cops (aren't they all in these movies?)

Joel Coen, who directed, makes sure that the movie is consistently interesting to watch, too. Black and white photography being mostly about shades of gray, noir is perhaps the only genre that benefits from the relative primitiveness of its visual technology. Coen, therefore, sticks with it, unlike the colors he used in the '30s themed "O Brother Where Art Thou?" which managed to be both more fanciful and less surreal than this movie. He uses the light-and-shadow character of black and white to great effect here, carefully crafting his images to make best use of it. In fact, if the movie has a fault, it's that the images are a little TOO carefully crafted. The purest noir was cleverly filmed, but it allowed its cleverness to seep into the background. You have to watch a few times to pick up on how sharp the filmmaking is. Coen is unable to hide his arty cleverness, and so in the end, fun as it is to watch, the movie is a bit too pretty to truly capture the essence of its forbears. Perhaps realizing this, the Coens tweak the conventions mercilessly, and inject a streak of humor that is funnier for being played so straight (there are lots of funny lines, but don't be surprised if you are the only one in the theater laughing. Actually, don't be surprised if you are the only one in the theater, period.) The movie does require a bit of patience; the pacing is intense but quite slow, and the story wanders like a drunk driver. In the end, it is somewhat debatable whether the twisty plot is fully resolved, or whether that even matters. "The Man That Wasn't There" is best viewed as a wicked cinematic joke, and in that regard, it succeeds, in (Sam) spades.

But what do I know? I'm just some sap.

The Inexorable Hand of Fate.

[nycritic · 8/10 · 18 April 2005]

Noir has always been about people caught in circumstances where there seems to be no way out and one bad decision may spawn a series of events that eventually catch up with the people involved.

In this story, Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thornton, channeling Humphrey Bogart through his looks and Fred MacMurray through his voice-overs) is the victim of his own life. Caught in a dysfunctional marriage of apparent convenience to Doris (Frances McDormand), working a dead-end job as a barber with her brother, going through life like a shadow (people have a tendency to forget his name), he also suspects Doris may be having an affair with her boss Big Dave (played by James Gandolfini). When a deal comes by which could make him some big money, he thinks he will carry this through and get some revenge towards his wife. Things go wrong -- the man with whom he has jumped into a shady business has disappeared -- and Crane accidentally (or out of rage) commits a murder which lands Doris in jail.

To say more of the story would be to reveal twists and turns of the plot as it advances towards its full-circle and those must be experienced instead of told in a "review." But suffice to say, every action generates a consequence, and even plot threads which had been apparently been dropped eventually re-surface with tremendous, almost painful irony and remind us that noir is an unforgiving genre, unkind to its characters, cruel to the extreme. If at times the story seems a tad long it's in the subplot involving Scarlett Johansson who coats the movie with a Lolita-esquire persona as her character essays a tentative affair with Crane; however, even that storyline feeds into Crane's retribution at the end.

Gorgeous black and white, textured use of deep-focus, this is a movie Gregg Toland would have loved to have his hands on had this been 1941 instead of 2001. THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE could be called stylistic in its frank depiction of textbook noir (James Cain comes to mind), but the Coen brothers make it work all the way through with smart direction, scenes that smolder, and a touch of their own unique humor interspersed here and there. Not their best but very, very close.

Why you should see this movie

[jhochner · 9/10 · 29 October 2001]

It is beautifully and refreshingly unpretentious. It is acted and filmed with grace and delicacy. This is the kind if movie we hope to find while sitting through most of the glitz and superficiality that gets made. Without question worth eight bucks, and two hours of your evening. Score another one for the Coen brothers.

an interesting contribution to the Coen's ouvre

[crow-13 · 31 October 2001]

I found this to be a pretty interesting film by the Coens'. I was well aware of the ability to do noir, as evidenced by 'Blood Simple', as well as many-layered, dialogue-driven narratives as in 'Miller's Crossing.' But what I found intriging about this movie was that it was about inconsequence. Billy Bob Thornton's character, Ed Crane, is similar to William H. Macy's in 'Fargo.' Both have unsatisfying positions in lowly lives. Both had received their jobs by "marrying" into them- Ed at the Barber Shop, and William's at the car dealership. The difference is, whereas the kidnapping plot is sought out in "Fargo", the blackmailing plot falls into Ed's lap by sheer choice (luck? fate?)

Ed's just a guy who wants to improve his lot in life- nothing too different then you or me. His wife's affair simply gives him the opportunity to do so. He didn't mind the infidelity, it is after all " a free country." But, of course, if she was faithful, there would be no noirish plot to pursue, correct? Quiet ambition drives Ed. After the dry-cleaning attempt goes sour, he sets his sights of Scarlett Johansenn's (who is quite remarkable) character's piano playing ability, in hopes of becoming her manager and "making enough to get by."

Thornton's "Ed Crane" really is the man who wasn't there. He sits- nearly brooding- quietly, observing life laconically. I actually found this movie quite sad. In the end, the only one who cares about his story is a men's magazine. And that's another big difference from 'Fargo" in which the pregnant Frances McDormand curls up with her husband, and you feel as if everything is just right in the world. That feeling is definitely lacking from "The Man Who Wasn't There."

Some viewers in the theater I saw it at said it was "the funniest movie they've seen all year." Sadly, I think they're missing it. Most of the humor is typical Coen's deadpan, but it is mostly generated from a tone of unease and tension. It's clever, but you waon't be slapping your knees like in "Raising Arizona" or "The Big Lewboski."

Instead, you'll just be intrigued by the wonderful story that the Coens- who have become quite the master of their craft- have weaved in this beautifully textured, perfectly cast, and incredibly nuanced film.

one of the Coen brothers best, a film that becomes a masterpiece after a while.

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 11 November 2001]

Joel and Ethan Coens' The Man Who Wasn't There doesn't (how could it) top their first film-noir classic Blood Simple, but it is still an incredibly stylish and acted with pizazz type of film which should definitely get better with multiple viewings. Billy Bob Thornton turns in another top shelve job (geniusly subtle, even for him) as a quiet and observant barber named Ed, who gets drawn into an unfortunate string of events with his wife (Frances McDormand) who has cheated on him with Big Dave (James Gandolfini who in his scattered minutes on the screen shows his ability for Oscar nomination-type work) and with the usual line of events that would come from a noir comes compelling characters and set-pieces that show's Ed in a downfall though it is from a life the never wanted to lead in the first place. If Sartre decided to throw out the politics and religion and stick to the being and nothingness and write a hard-boiled novel, this might be it.

In short, the Coen Brothers have once again struck a little gem in the rough, shot in black and white and stylized to a T. I feel like picking up a Cain book after watching this. And, on top of this, on repeat viewings I can say that it becomes even more engrossing, and just a bit more entertaining if really ready to dig into the atmosphere. It may be thick enough to kill a few stray kittens, but it's got a genuine pathos to it too. And just when you think there isn't enough Coen strangeness, wait till the aliens arrive. A+

Brilliant Billy Bob Thornton

[jotix100 · 10/10 · 16 November 2001]

What a difference a good director makes! Billy Bob Thornton, who was sadly misused in Bandits, gets to recover himself in his brilliant characterization of Ed Crane in this film directed by Joel Coen. His performance is so detailed and subtle that he uses his face to great advantage in the close-ups while the narration goes on in the background. The use of black and white heightens the atmosphere of this 40s-style film noir. The brilliant cinematography is incredible in the use of shadows and dark tones that enhances the story to such an extent. Frances McDormand is incredible in the film as well. And what could one say about James Gandolfini? He gets better and better all the time. The atmosphere of the era is captured even in the small details. It's very refreshing to see the Coen brothers get over their last disaster of "State and Main" with such panache, aided of course by their star, Billy Bob Thornton and the ensemble cast and a great and ironic story.

A beautifully shot "Film Noir" in black and white but with colorful characters

[auberus · 7/10 · 16 May 2002]

The 2002 Cohen brothers film is a delight. "The Man Who Wasn't There" combines everything I like in the Coen brother's unique way of telling a story. From the comic of the situation witnessed in the famous "O Brother Where Art Though" (2000) to the originality of the scenario seen in "Barton Fink" (1991), not to mention the singularity of the characters and their lack of control over the situation in the excellent "Fargo" (1996), all those "hints" have been gathered to built this well thought story. Joel and Ethan directed and wrote this picture about a bored and boring chain-smoking barber admirably played by Billy Bob Thornton (best role for this under-rated actor)who blackmails his wife's boss and lover for money to invest in dry cleaning. As you sense the plan goes terribly wrong. I believe this story is a pretext to show us how little is our grip on the reality of our lives. And to demonstrate how justice easily becomes a comico-pathetic masquarade when given by men. On the contrary true Justice eventually lies in the wrinkles of men's destiny. As a conclusion you are better off expecting a landing of an alien spaceship than a fair and clear trial in a court of law. Whether we agree or not to this demonstration, it does not take away the pleasure of watching these terrific actors putting into play the original and dark scenario of the two brothers. Billy Bob Thornton is a master portraying to perfection Ed Crane (the laconic barber). Since Dead Man (1995) I don't recall a lot of movies where directors have capitalized on his enormous talent. Frances McDormand (Doris Crane) is as usual fantastic. We remember her in Wonder Boys (2000) and of course as the sheriff in Fargo (1996). Here she plays wonderfully the barber's wife going from bitterness to sorrow. Some characters can be seen as "cliche" like Freddy Riedenschneider the lawyer played by the good Tony Shalhoub, however they are all enjoyable to watch: James Gandolfini is terrific as "Big Dave" and Jon Polito very colorful as Creighton Tolliver, not to forget the very talkative and sincere Michael Badalucco as Franck Raffo or the great job done by Scarlett Johansson in the role of Rachael 'Birdy' Abundas the not very straight and quiet adolescent you would expect. The Black and White picture is more an artistic exploration from the Coen brothers and I don't think has anything to do with the chosen period (late 40's). However the black and white picture is very well shot by Roger Deakins and impose tremendously well Billy Bob Thornton's character and therefore never becomes a burden for the audience. "The Man Who Wasn't There" does not belong to any genre in particular. The Movie is made of a myriads of genres and characters that the Coen brothers have managed to master throughout their career of story tellers. The movie is a "film Noir" but not only, it is a dark comedy but not only, it is a light thriller but not only, it is shot in black and white but still have colorful characters, it tells a simple story of a laconic barber but there is more to it, eventually Justice will prevail but not the way we think it will. In the end it is a unique movie and in times where everything seems to look the same this movie becomes a true jewel.

A living, breathing specimen of a species we thought had been extinct for decades

[Spleen · 9/10 · 2 January 2002]

I'm sorry, but I like my black and white black and white - ESPECIALLY in a film that sets out to be the most pure film noir of all. The shadows should be, simply, black, not black tinted with dark green. The greys should be, simply, grey, not pearl grey or slate grey or any of the other shades of paint-catalogue grey that are the result (I presume) of trying to make a black and white film without using any actual black and white film. I don't know the precise technological explanation; I do know that the film would be at least twice as good if the Coens would simply take the master print and transfer it to whatever material they use when they screen, say, "Double Indemnity". This is not hyperbole.

Not that it's not good already. Joel Coen, who in "O Brother, Where Art Thou" showed himself to be one of the few living directors capable of fully exploiting colour, shows himself here to be one of the few living directors capable of fully exploiting light and shade. I particularly liked the scene where the defence lawyer explains why if we look at something too closely, we fail to see it, while his face (and only his face) is bathed in JUST enough too much light to prevent us from seeing it properly. It sounds academic, but it works: the Coens never use an idea if they can't make it breathe.

As a rule, first-person narration breathes life into books but kills films - with the exception of one genre: film noir. And the Coens understand why it works, when it does, in this rare exception. Like most noir protagonists, Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thornton) is almost perfectly uncommunicative: neither his conversation nor his actions tell us anything about him. We need direct access to his very thoughts, put into words, to be able to understand what's going on and to appreciate his story. And it's only fitting that we're allowed to listen to him as HE takes stock of his own story, for the very first time, now that it's all over. -And maybe the Coens don't even need this justification. Ethan has written what may be the most delicious, perceptive and apt first-person voice-over the genre has seen.

"The Man Who Wasn't There" is not as magnificent an achievement as "Barton Fink" or "O Brother, Where Art Thou" - but then, no noir film is. (It's really a constricting genre; Billy Wilder's finest works aren't noir, either.) The fact that there are so many good noir films should be regarded as a miracle. Here is another miracle.

Lost

[onepotato2 · 7/10 · 27 February 2011]

Man Who Wasn't There is lost out of the gate. It's much clearer the second time you view it. It flits between 10 different incompatible story lines, and can't figure out a way to develop any of them. It goes nowhere. Many viewers were tricked into thinking this movie matters due to its cinematography (It looks nice) and by the authors (The Coens continue to receive unearned accolades). It's a bunch of Noir posturing/noodling with scenes designed to kill time, not add up. It drifts and drifts and drifts. It's a catalog of half-hearted, half-developed ideas, so it begins to feel like it's running long after only 20 minutes. Who can tell what they set out to explore? A viewer will never figure out why it was brought into existence because the Coens have not imbued it with any sense of purpose. Long before Burn After Reading, and O Brother, the Coens were making movies that lacked a reason for being.

It's not detestable. It's just all over the place. It's a completely shapeless movie.

I'm always there when they screen it

[Weredegu · 10/10 · 23 March 2007]

Besides being great stuff for film maniacs who like to debate the technical aspects, the cinematography or the artistic ideas and influences in it, 'The Man Who Wasn't There' is also a great film. One of my all-time favorites. The sort of film where the best possible choice of cast plays even the most insignificant walk-on role. The Coens' signature in there: being visually very conscious, especially for their film noir venture, they must have spent a huge amount of time to find the best possible faces for every single shot. Not necessary to waste words on how well they did in their choices for the lead roles. Fortunately these 'faces' they collected can also act, everyone does incredibly well here.

'The Man Who Wasn't There' has a slowly developing story, that at first viewing may require your patience a little bit. But the second and third viewings and so on will be a lot smoother... I have seen the film about five or six times already. There's this weird TV channel that screens it just about every other week and I seem to always happen to be in front of the screen at the time, by mere chance. And I never zap away, I enjoy all the details more and more, and I feel the gloating that's there in the very cold, cruel humor of the film, as well as the saddening feeling it accumulates into, as you continue watching people acting as mere unidentified flying objects in the others' life, just as strongly as the first time.

Starts out good but with a weak development

[scobbah · 6/10 · 19 July 2005]

Time for another Coen-movie, and as usual the experience is special. I really like the way the whole movie is shot, and it's all in black & white! It gives a certain touch to the movie for sure. I really liked how it all starts out, and the movie has some kind of weird atmosphere through out the whole movie. This is a good thing though, but it is still worth to mention it. I was kind of spellbound for the first half of the movie, but I cannot really enjoy what later on happens. The plot development wasn't really my cup of tea, and what started out as a really promising Coen-piece turned out to be a kind of 'OK' Coen-experience, but nothing special at all I'm afraid. It was a kind of moody piece, and it doesn't get more than a 6/10 from my side.

Great neo-noir film by the Coen brothers

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 8/10 · 28 November 2004]

I haven't seen too many films by the Coen brothers(Ethan and Joel Coen)... in fact, this and Intolerable Cruelty are the only ones I've seen. I decided to see this after hearing many positive things about it, and finding out that it's a tribute to the old 'noir' films of the 40's and 50's. I love noir films, and neo-noir films are often great as well. So I decided to see this film, and I'm am very happy that I did. The plot is great... something that we all can relate to, and yet very recognizable for noir... which is quite impressive, since many noir films suffer from the plot being of limited appeal(the P.I./detective who gets *the* case, etc.). The pacing is excellent. I wasn't bored for a second. The atmosphere of the film is great... very dark and moody, even in the humor. The acting is great... Thornton, McDormand, Gandolfini, Johansson, Shalhoub... everyone is great. Billy Bob Thornton's character is easy to relate to(who hasn't felt that their life wasn't going anywhere, at one point?) and his narration as well as flawless performance is part of what makes the film noir... his character talks very little, but the voice-over and his subtle acting(which includes very little dialog) is great and he carries the movie perfectly. The characters are all well-written... there was only a short period where I didn't entirely understand a characters actions, but this was more because I hadn't thought that much about this particular character than a lack of credibility, character-wise. The story is great... it has some very interesting twists, and it holds your interest and entertains you for the entire run-time of about 1 hour and 45 minutes. The humor is good, but there is fairly little of it in the film(considering that this is what the Coen's are well-known for... well, part of it, anyway) but all of it fits perfectly. Much of it is dark, like the rest of the film. I watched this on a DVD which I borrowed from the library, and when I was about to start the film, I noticed that there were two disks... one in black/white, and one in color. I thought for a while, considered which would be better, but then I remembered that this is a homage to noir films... and, possibly more importantly, the directors intention is to make something that looks as if it could have come from that period where those films were at the peak of popularity... and why would I want to go against the directors intention on a film? That would negate the very point of watching it. All in all, if you're a fan of the Coen brothers directorial style or neo-noir/film noir, you'll most likely love it as much as I did. If not, maybe you can just enjoy the great acting and atmosphere. And if not that, the film probably just isn't for you. I recommend it to any fan of the Coen brothers and of film noir/neo-noir. Fans of any of the actors might also like it. Just be prepared; it is quite dark, and many will not like it simply for that. If you believe you can sit through this film, you definitely should consider it. 8/10

An unusual disappointment** (see below) from the Coen's

[baumer · 6/10 · 27 January 2002]

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.

The Film That Wasn't There - (contains spoilers)

[ZodiacJack-2 · 1/10 · 7 November 2001]

The closer you look, the less you know. This is the favorite parable of the nihilist attorney, Freddy Riedenschneider, in The Man Who Wasn't There. It almost doubles as the theme; you just have to tweak the last part. The closer you look, the less there is. The Coen Brothers' latest offering plays like a David Lynch piece that never made it off the shelf. At face value is a film with some of the most talented actors around today, with the smallest yet most dynamic role going to James Gandolfini. Upon closer inspection, however, is a film that isn't there. It is tediously long, bogged down in narration, has no redeeming characters, and fumbles through excessive, uninteresting subplots. It is as if there were four different editors, all in conflict about where and when to end the movie. Billy Bob Thornton's main character has all the enthusiasm of a dying Eeyore. Something seemingly haunts his character but we never find out his interests in life or anything about his past and, thus, have little interest in his future. So he falls into some extreme bad luck and is finally convicted and killed, not to mention everyone else. His bad luck is over the top, however, and we, as an audience, cannot relate to it in a context other than a weird Coen Brothers film. Further, we have little sympathy for him when he dies because he was never alive. The other characters, which are virtually all killed off, have the same lack of a lust for life. Why Thornton's character is the main focus remains a mystery, because he is actually the most boring of them all. You can always count on great, quirky performances in a Coen Brothers movie, but unfortunately there is little more than confusion and uninspired surrealism beneath the black and white surface of this one.

Great pastiche of the noir genre

[bob the moo · 19 July 2002]

Ed Crane is a barber who quietly wants more from his life. When he meets a man with a business proposition he decides to go for it. He suspects his wife is having an affair with her boss and anonymously blackmails him – however things in noir are never straightforward and blackmail leads to murder and a series of events are sparked off around Ed.

I must say I'm surprised this is as high up the imdb charts as it is, but I'm not surprised by the lukewarm reception it had from multiplex audiences. This is a slow, moody homage where things just happen, rather than a neat `start-middle-tidy finish-bad guy dies' type thing. The Cohen brothers have a reputation for the old quirks and here is no different – mixing the steady noir narration with talk of haircuts and bingo makes for a strange if humorous mix. The plot is good but the noir feel mixed with weird going-ons may alienate many audiences.

Thornton is a perfect choice – his features fit well in the black and white shadows and his voice suits the noir narration. McDormand is good and Gandolfini gets another good role and does well. The support is very good – Badalucco, Shalhoub, Polito are all very good. Some elements of it are like a spot the TV face – we have Benrubi from ER, Higgins from Ally McBeal and Abundas from Six Feet Under all in small roles. It's even nice to see a cameo from McDonald.

Overall this isn't as funny as it was billed, simply because it is a noir. As such the Cohens mix the familiar themes of that genre with all new subjects and create a great effect.

awesome!

[emgeh · 9/10 · 20 April 2005]

since i have seen my first coen-brothers movie, i think, it was Fargo, i'm a great fan of these film-makers.

i can't remember how often i watched this movie, because every time i get fascinated by the interesting story and the excellent characters. the slowness of the movie is fascinating. in spite of the slowness i never felt bored. the whole time i'm watching and thinking of the misery ed crane stepped into.

the next highlight is the great soundtrack. Beethoven was and is the greatest composer ever. and the songs of carter burwell are awesome, not only in this movie, in every movie of the coen-brothers.

i recently read in a comment on this movie, that someone could not imagine that somebody around the age of 25 votes high for this movie. I'm 21 and there was nothing that disturbed me.

without doubt the man who wasn't there is one of my favorite movies.

Oh the Coen Brothers, how we cant live without you...

[edcrane · 10/10 · 23 June 2002]

This newest film by the Coen brothers is a masterpiece by all standards in my opinion. Once again the Coens have succeeded in doing what they have done in all 8 of their previous movies, making a simple story more interesting than you could ever imagine possible!

Billy Bob Thornton adds to the noir atmosphere with his superb emotionless portrayal of the barber (of the title) Ed Crane. Essays could be written just on the way he smokes his cigarette! Of course the Coens have recalled other faces from their little black book of actors-we'll-use-again-in-some-small-part. Jon Polito is truly very annoying (in a good way) in his role as someone trying to sell a dry cleaning idea to Thornton (and you never thought dry cleaning could be interesting?). Whereas Tony Shalhoub is a humorous addition as the ridiculously confusing attorney. How can we also forget Mrs Joel Coen, aka Frances McDormand. As Thorntons wife she excels and towards the end shows real emotion and acting prowess as seen previously in Fargo and Blood Simple.

The fact that this film was shot in black and white is a first for the Coens and adds a 1940's atmosphere that no color film could do. The denouement is an excellent study of Crane's life with his emotionless voice over accompanying it.

Overall, this film is an example of what film should be. With the crew and cast an example of what a film cast and crew should be. How This film was nominated for no Oscars is criminal, especially Thornton. However the Coens had their usual Cannes reception to fall back on (Cannes is the only one that counts for REAL movies anyway!). Winning the directors prize (shared) for Joel Coen, although as always with the Coens, where Joel goes, Ethan follows, so the credit is really to both of them.

10/10 In my opinion the Coens best work.

A rare Coen's misstep

[BigJimNoFool · 6/10 · 15 September 2020]

Its boring and devoid of very few redeeming features. Jon Polito, Michael Badalucco and the always great Roger Deakins in the photography dep., who could make a public toilet look great, are the highlights in this sombre melodrama.

Its not funny which is again unusual. The only laugh coming when Jon Polito's character deliberately puts on his wig to talk business but that's it for the whole 2 hours!

Its not clever or engaging and neither are any of the characters likable. The plot is a mess too with the tonal shifts heaving from the bizarre to the ridiculous.

I did enjoy this more the first time i seen it a number of years ago so perhaps its my more cynical jaded eye or perhaps its just not very good.

A 21st Century Classic Noir

[seymourblack-1 · 8/10 · 18 October 2015]

Aficionados of classic film noir will find this 21st century evocation of the style absolutely captivating right from the start as stunning cinematography, an uneasy atmosphere and a plot in which adultery, blackmail and murder are featured, all provide early indications of how meticulously the look and content of the piece have been created. Its story about a man who makes an error of judgement that sends his life into a downward spiral will, of course, be familiar to noir fans but in this case, the adverse consequences are so far-reaching that they also go on to devastate the lives of a number of other key characters as well.

Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thornton) is the laconic, chain-smoking, barber with a blank stare who mans the second chair at his brother-in-law's hairdressing business in Santa Rosa, California in 1949. His reticence and apparent lack of enthusiasm also spill over into his personal life where he seems to derive no joy from the parties or bingo sessions that he attends with his wife Doris (Frances McDormand) who's a heavy drinker and works as a bookkeeper at the town's largest department store (Nirdlinger's). She and her boss, Big Dave (James Gandolfini) who married into the business and claims to have been a war hero, have been having an affair for some time.

One day, at the barber's shop, near closing time, a stranger called Creighton Tolliver (Jon Polito) calls by for a haircut and after removing his toupee, tells Ed that he's trying to set up a dry-cleaning business which is guaranteed to be profitable but he needs a silent partner and $10,000 capital to go ahead with the project. After giving the matter some thought, Ed successfully raises the money by blackmailing his wife's lover and immediately passes the cash on to Tolliver.

From that point on, things go from bad to worse as Ed realises he's been scammed, kills Big Dave in self defence and sees Doris arrested for murder and cooking the books at Nirdlinger's. The numerous developments that follow are full of wonderful twists, black humour and tragedy and lead inexorably to the story's deeply ironic conclusion.

In typical Coen Brothers' style, the movie's characters are full of interesting eccentricities, the dialogue is smart and succinct and there are also a couple of entertaining subplots involving UFOs and Ed's fascination with a teenage piano player called Birdy (Scarlett Johansson). Billy Bob Thornton's portrayal of Ed Crane is flawless as he manages to make his difficult character very real and convincing. The supporting players are also terrific, especially Frances McDormand, James Gandolfini and Tony Shalhoub who plays a high-powered defence lawyer whose considerable talent in only surpassed in magnitude by his incredible arrogance.

Like a Cinnabon, pretty but empty

[westpenn49 · 6/10 · 4 May 2002]

Noir is slow, noir slips up on you in the shadows. This movie is slow, but it doesn't sneak up, it is more like the relentless tide it just keeps breaking over you until you are washed away into oblivion. This is how Ed Crane's life seems to go as well. One foot at a time. Slowly but surely. Not much to really say. Others may rant. Thornton's features are great like a young Martin Landau but the film needed something and I don't mean the gratuitous attempted blow job 90 minutes in.

It looked good, but like a Cinnabon the eating wasn't as good as the looking.

Small gem of a film.......

[mrcaw12 · 10/10 · 17 May 2004]

The Coen Brothers are arguably the best film makers working today and this film proves it once again. Shot in black & white the film follows seamlessly in the tradition of the classic film noirs that came before it and adds its own Coensian twist. The performances are top notch with a stand out by lead Billy Bob Thorton. The movie should have been nominated for Best Picture! What's wrong with these Academy Members anyway???? Instead A Beautiful Mind (HUGELY overrated) grabbed its spot. As for the noms for Best Actor in a lead role that year, overrated performances by Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe robbed Thorton of his nomination. The Man Who Wasn't There is stylish and beautifully paced, wrapping it's timing around a bit of classical music from Bethoven that's played throughout the movie. Also a nice chance to see an early performance by up and coming Scarlett Johansson in a small but important part. Could quite possibly top my list of favorite Coen Brothers Movies.

Film Noir, maybe, but no purpose

[noizyme · 6/10 · 7 March 2004]

I originally checked out this movie because the beautifully modern Scarlett Johansson had been a part of it, but I am glad that I watched it because it's not your typical morale story wrapped up in some different style.

I'm a bit perplexed as to the overall theme of the movie, even though Billy Bob's incredibly stoic character went into detail about how he felt about this time in this man's life. I learned little and therefore, I was entertained about as much. The b&w detail and starkness was emensely helpful to see how this man saw the world for so long, but again, the story was either lacking or very indirect. I was disappointed to see that Birdy, Johansson's character, turned out to be so very average as well.

Overall, it got a 6 from me. An average shot in the dark that had stylistic flair, but an indirect message and story.

A Luckless Man

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 1 September 2008]

The Man Who Wasn't There is the Coen Brothers homage to that great novel by James M. Cain and the film made from it, The Postman Always Rings Twice. A homage mind you with a considerable influence from their Oscar winning Fargo.

I loved the cinematography in black and white done deliberately I think to show the drabness in these rather ordinary people's lives. With one exception these are most ordinary folks.

Billy Bob Thornton is the most ordinary of the lot. He's a barber, a guy you probably don't think too much about when you're not getting a haircut. For a barber he's a quiet sort of guy, not at all like the one he shares the barbershop with, Michael Badalucco, who's like most barbers I've ever come across, can make with a non-stop stream of small talk just to make your's and his time pass.

Thornton's not talking because he's got a lot on his mind. His wife, Frances McDormand, is having an affair with her boss, James Gandolfini who is married to the heiress of the town's department store, Katherine Borwitz. McDormand does the books for the department store.

Into the barbershop one day comes Jon Polito who's obviously a con man, obvious to everyone, but Thornton. Polito is trying to interest someone, anyone in some get rich quick scheme. In fact he tried to interest Gandolfini who wouldn't give him the time of day.

Like Fargo's luckless Bill Macy, Thornton hatches a wild scheme to get $10,000.00 to invest with Polito by blackmailing Gandolfini and making him think it was Polito doing the blackmail. And like Fargo it ends with a few people dying before the film is over.

The Man Who Wasn't There got one Oscar nomination for cinematography, I think it should have gotten some more. The Coen brothers expanded considerably on some of the themes raised in Fargo and Joel Coen as director got pluperfect performances from his cast.

I said before that there was one non-ordinary character brought into this film. That would be criminal defense attorney Tony Shalhoub who's hired to defend one cast member here. For those of you who know him primarily for Monk, this is quite a different Shalhoub. Give him credit for not wanting to be typecast as Adrian Monk.

Jon Polito's character is gay and he's by no means is he any kind of a good human being. He's a stereotypically gay person as would have been seen by most people in the homophobic world of 1949 when this film is set. He is one of the characters who dies in this film and the authorities don't get it right. Polito more than likely died due to homophobia back then, than for the reason they think he was killed.

This is film is a worthy followup to Fargo, in some ways better than Fargo. As for how it all turns out, that's where the Coen brothers homage to The Postman Always Rings Twice comes in.

More weird than interesting

[C.J.-7 · 6/10 · 27 January 2003]

I usually love Coen brothers films but this one didn't cut it for me. Slow. Pointless. Weird for weirdness' sake. Tightly plotted and beautifully shot, like Miller's Crossing, but not nearly as good. This one goes in the Coens' "so-so" file along with The Hudsucker Proxy.

Love the Coen brothers. Hated the movie.

[n6m · 2/10 · 17 June 2002]

Like everyone else I thought it was visually impressive. But that was not enough to keep me watching. In deference to the bros I watched to the end, but the story-line wasn't strong enough to keep me from getting up regularly to check my stock quotes on the internet.