SPOILERS EVERYWHERE . . .
I gave this movie a 3 because, unlike some other flicks by these guys, I didn't find the movie unwatchable - I just found it incredibly dull.
In about 20 or 30 years a new generation of movie watchers will pick up this movie, and others from the Brothers, and will wonder, "geez, out parents must have been completely insane."
Like when you look back at original Dragnet episodes and you practically pee yourself they're so stupid. But back in the 50s they were considered spectacular.
This move was terrible. There seems to be a contingent of people out there who see a movie like this and find artsy reasons to like it. They like the camera angles, the "cinematography", the "noir", and other words that have nothing to do with the story itself.
If that's your idea of a great film, then you might love this film.
My idea of a great film is - a great story told well.
This story was silly. The story was, ironically, simple. Too simple. While the writers seemed to have strained to make the story intricate, it was about as intricate as a Scooby Doo episode.
Here is the story in about 5 sentences - Bar owner's wife sleeps with Bar owner's bartender. Bar owner attempts to hire local hick to kill bartender and wife. Hick only pretends to kill bartender and wife, and then, after collecting the money, kills bar owner. Bartender finds body of bar owner and thinks wife did it, and so bartender tries to hide the bar owner's body. Unfortunately, the Bar owner is not dead, so bartender buries him alive. Hick comes back to try to kill bartender and wife to recover evidence linking himself to bar owner's murder, but instead only kills bartender - wife survives. The End. Thank you - I saved you a few bucks and a few hours.
The bar owner is Carla's husband from Cheers - a HORRIBLE actor, and not convincing as the burned husband. The bartender is not interesting. The wife, who was great in Fargo, was so-so. The Texas hick played the part fine, it just was not interesting.
In sum, I was not surprised or impressed by any part of the movie. The plot was silly and impossible, the characters were boring and behaved irrationally from start to finish, and the murders were stupid and uninteresting.
Further, there is only about a gallon of blood in the human body. The bar owner lost about 15 gallons of blood in the horribly slow 40 minutes that he was dying and then being buried alive.
Further, bartender buries bar owner in the middle of a plowed farm field. They keep showing a shot from a helicopter of the car in the middle of the dirt field. This must have been one of the great artsy moments that I didn't appreciate. What I did appreciate was how ridiculously asinine it would be for a criminal to drive two tire tracks to the middle of a plowed field, bury a body, and then drive away, with a farm house a few hundred yards away. I mean how long would it be before the farmer got curious and followed the tracks to the place where there's a bunch of footprints and a 6' hand dug area?
I mean, DUH? That right there is stupid as all get out. People bury bodies in the woods for a reason.
This movie was too dumb to be interesting. The story was simple, the acting, so so, and the artsy stuff that so many people seem to thing made this movie something more than a borderline B-movie murder non-mystery - it evades me completely - I guess I must just not be artsy enough.
I gave this movie a 3 because, unlike some other flicks by these guys, I didn't find the movie unwatchable - I just found it incredibly dull.
In about 20 or 30 years a new generation of movie watchers will pick up this movie, and others from the Brothers, and will wonder, "geez, out parents must have been completely insane."
Like when you look back at original Dragnet episodes and you practically pee yourself they're so stupid. But back in the 50s they were considered spectacular.
This move was terrible. There seems to be a contingent of people out there who see a movie like this and find artsy reasons to like it. They like the camera angles, the "cinematography", the "noir", and other words that have nothing to do with the story itself.
If that's your idea of a great film, then you might love this film.
My idea of a great film is - a great story told well.
This story was silly. The story was, ironically, simple. Too simple. While the writers seemed to have strained to make the story intricate, it was about as intricate as a Scooby Doo episode.
Here is the story in about 5 sentences - Bar owner's wife sleeps with Bar owner's bartender. Bar owner attempts to hire local hick to kill bartender and wife. Hick only pretends to kill bartender and wife, and then, after collecting the money, kills bar owner. Bartender finds body of bar owner and thinks wife did it, and so bartender tries to hide the bar owner's body. Unfortunately, the Bar owner is not dead, so bartender buries him alive. Hick comes back to try to kill bartender and wife to recover evidence linking himself to bar owner's murder, but instead only kills bartender - wife survives. The End. Thank you - I saved you a few bucks and a few hours.
The bar owner is Carla's husband from Cheers - a HORRIBLE actor, and not convincing as the burned husband. The bartender is not interesting. The wife, who was great in Fargo, was so-so. The Texas hick played the part fine, it just was not interesting.
In sum, I was not surprised or impressed by any part of the movie. The plot was silly and impossible, the characters were boring and behaved irrationally from start to finish, and the murders were stupid and uninteresting.
Further, there is only about a gallon of blood in the human body. The bar owner lost about 15 gallons of blood in the horribly slow 40 minutes that he was dying and then being buried alive.
Further, bartender buries bar owner in the middle of a plowed farm field. They keep showing a shot from a helicopter of the car in the middle of the dirt field. This must have been one of the great artsy moments that I didn't appreciate. What I did appreciate was how ridiculously asinine it would be for a criminal to drive two tire tracks to the middle of a plowed field, bury a body, and then drive away, with a farm house a few hundred yards away. I mean how long would it be before the farmer got curious and followed the tracks to the place where there's a bunch of footprints and a 6' hand dug area?
I mean, DUH? That right there is stupid as all get out. People bury bodies in the woods for a reason.
This movie was too dumb to be interesting. The story was simple, the acting, so so, and the artsy stuff that so many people seem to thing made this movie something more than a borderline B-movie murder non-mystery - it evades me completely - I guess I must just not be artsy enough.