Inside Llewyn Davis
I have to say this one was a bit of a mystery to me. It's left me feeling like it was a sub-par Barton Fink with Oh Brother Where Art Thou? music and occasional Odyssey nods.
The funny thing is that it's far from a bad film.
The script is great and peppered with a drier than sand sense of humour, performed exceptionally well by Oscar Isaac, John Goodman and most of the supporting cast and not so well by a bland, always miserable Carey Mulligan and a silly Justin Timberlake (both in, relatively, tiny roles), it looks beautiful, is, of course, directed perfectly and the music is sublime.
The story, such as it is, is simply a series of mishaps, both self created and "acts of god", that befall a poor folk musician in 60s New York, his ginger cat and the crazy cast of Coen-esque characters he, of course, meets along the way. There's lots to love in the film and as a portrait of a time, a place and a music it's fine but as anything deeper or better I am simply not sure. I know people will probably read all sorts of stuff into it and get their own interpretation and I know I need to watch it at least two more times to probably fully absorb it but I can't say on this initial viewing that it left me feeling like it was anything special and that's despite the dilemma and depression experienced by the central character resonating really strongly with me right now.
Definitely worth the watch but you know the Coens could do better and for all the serious tone, moody cinematography and allusions to something deeper, something better, this just feels like a place holder and a greatest hits of their recent work but the Coens spinning their wheels is still more fascinating than most film-makers giving 100%
7 out of 10
A Single Shot
When it comes to plot and stylistic originality you won't find it here.
What you will find is an engaging and expertly, if sometimes a little too authentically, played character study disguised as a generic, backwoods, crime thriller.
So, my first piece of advice to you is to throw out the plot.
Put it out of your mind. It doesn't matter.
Don't engage, as you normally would, through what the characters are doing but more with who the characters are.
He's a simple, proud man of few words just trying to put his life back together.
While out hunting on this land one morning, trying to catch a deer, he accidentally shoots a woman who, he later finds out, is carrying a ton of cash with her. Despite being definitely distraught at his accidental actions, he knows that to report them would mean jail time for poaching on the land and a possible manslaughter charge. Instead he hides the body, takes the money and is determined to get his life, meaning his wife and child, back. However, the money, of course, is linked to a web of unsavoury characters who, one by one, try and get their hands on it.
Tobacco is chewed, lines are mumbled in thick, heavy accented drawls and bodies pile up. Will John Moon come out on top or is his demise inevitable?
It's too slow moving, too drenched in melancholy strings and blue, grey, damp photography. The characters aren't menacing or threatening enough and, more often than not, the tension is lost as you are straining to understand what the hell is going on as some terrific actors grumble, twitch and spit through thick beards and thicker accents.
I like to believe, though, that the film is more than that. More than a generic cat and mouse thriller about a bag of money and some grubby but pleasingly quirky hillbillies. It might just be his acting and his endless watchability, but I think the film is most successful as an in-depth and tragic character study of Sam Rockwell's John Moon. Studying and delving in to, as it does, ideas of lost opportunity, loss of love, pride coming before a fall, having the strength to survive, betrayal, fear, not being able to see the wood for the trees (which is indicated in several nice visual clues) and making your bed and damn well having to lie in it.
On this level the film succeeds handsomely and Rockwell, also serving as producer on the film, gives a, at first, gruff and almost monosyllabic and unsympathetic performance that grows, over the running time, into a tragic, sometimes heart wrenchingly unlucky and down trodden character that you root for to, some how, find a way out of his predicament, even though your brain can't find one and you probably know that an easy resolution will not be forthcoming.
He has surrounded himself well with the cream of character actors, the sort of 2nd tier players who are a sheer delight to just recline and watch act.
He is weasley, sinister, pathetic, dangerous, unnerving and humourous all rolled into one and the film could've used a lot more of him.
The film also features great but, sadly, tiny performances from Ted Levine, Jason Isaacs and Melissa Leo who, I doubt, get much more screen time, combined, than you'd be easily able to count on two hands. The only other stand out actor worth a mention being, the always worth the price of admission, Jeffrey Wright.
His performance, as a wild, reckless, drunkard friend of John Moon is fantastic and combines almost every tick, twitch and technique an actor can deploy to best portray an alcoholic red neck. Seeing him and Rockwell going at it you would believe neither of them had gone near a bath in 15 years. The only downside to this is, as the film enters its third act, Wright shows up to deliver some important plot information but it gets buried under piles of grime, dribble, tobacco, alcoholic slurring, an indecipherable accent and a crap flecked thicket of facial hair. As superb and as delightful as the mud smeared technique is, it's this scene that almost derails the film, that is if you are still trying to figure out what is going on but, I've already told you, the plot is not important. Simply enjoy the atmosphere, the sounds, the photography and the smelly, saliva drenched performance.
Much like the plot, though, the downfall in the direction is that the film feels all too familiar. From the colour palette to the score (which features the, too often used, discordant pizzicato strings) nothing here feels different from something you've seen a hundred times before and while the techniques on display are exemplary, the lack of anything new can make parts of the, already slow, film drag.
All that being said it does feel authentic and atmospheric. The set dressing, the costumes, the location and the lighting also do their part to help you feel the cold, the damp, the dirt and the drink.
If you're a fan of film-making for film-making's sake, if you're a fan of fine acting and fun dialogue and if you enjoy the slower work of The Coen Brothers then this is a definite recommend. I even intend to go back a second time as it wasn't till discussing the film after the screening, that I really started to appreciate all that was in there and what the film was trying to say.
You can hear our discussion, recorded directly after the press screening, over on The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
You can watch A Single Shot NOW on Video On Demand and the theatrical release is set for September 20th.
True Grit - 4th February 2011
Then there are the exceptions, which is a short list but, in no particular order, would include Invasion of the Body Snatchers (70s version), Scarface, John Carpenter's The Thing, Peter Jackson's King Kong and The Coen Brother's True Grit. These are exceptions because in the case of most of them the remakes come from a book, or source material and usually remain more faithful to it and in the case of all of these they were made by truly intelligent, visionary Directors for, what I believe is, their own motivations and not, and this is crucial, NOT just for the money.
I know everything is essentially made to make money but when it is the original motivating factor behind a trend of remakes, like we have seen in recent years, then it usually churns out films for the simple reason that no one involved had any better idea and they thought it would sell. The sad fact of the market place is that halfwits line up round the block for these pale imitations of legitimate classics.
However, on to one of the aforementioned exceptions and a film that had me involved, enthralled and fantastically giddy from beginning to the very end of the credits, The Coen Brother's True Grit. What was most wondrous about this film was that it was so good, so majestically put together that it made me stop on my way out and remember all the classics the Brother's Coen have made and say, right, these guys, now happily in my top 5 all time best directors of all time.
I must confess that while I am sure I have seen the original at some point, or at least scenes from it, I can not really claim any worthwhile remembrance or knowledge of it so I can not compare the two films, neither have I read the book. Now that may make me a bad reviewer if comparing and contrasting is your game but personally I'd rather just comment on this one for now, I have every intention of revisiting the original sometime in the future.
True Grit, as far as the Coen's previous work is concerned, is probably what would happen if Fargo, Miller's Crossing and No Country for Old Men collided, in terms of style, landscape photography, atmosphere, violence and music and as such has all the class, thoughtful vocabulary and assured direction that we have become used to with the Coen's when they are doing their 'serious' work.
The opening 30 minutes, as they establish the town and the characters, almost plays like theatre rather than a film, in a way that makes you aware of the performances and the dialogue, something that usually would not be a good thing as cinema tends to attempt and reward naturalistic performances but with True Grit the enjoyment comes from watching the performances, deep and involved as they are, and listening to the words.
It is a wonderful experience to go to the cinema, to watch a film so beautifully and supremely professionally put together, each lighting or camera trick appearing effortless, relishing each actor's delivery, which, in true Coen fashion, is enhanced with ticks, mannerisms and quirks making each character rich and interesting, taking time to observe their costumes and surroundings, sets which are fastidious in detail and era yet never intrusive, the whole thing is tremendous.
As if all this creative, stylistic and impeccably crafted beauty wasn't enough you have a first rate script telling an exciting and emotional story, never pulling any punches, remaining faithful to the attitudes of the times and containing as many wince inducing violent action scenes as hearty laughs. All in all it's pretty much a triumph.
Jeff Bridges, who I could quite happily watch reading the phone book for 2 hours, is his usual, uninhibited, curious, hilarious and mannered self. His Rooster Cogburn is a joy to watch and while it does occasionally come dangerously close to almost pantomime or parody proportions, ultimately he is the one we are rooting for. He does, out of all the cast, have the showy role and Bridges doesn't disappoint, bringing in a performance that's as if The Dude met Jack from The Fisher King and considering, in my mind, those two are Bridges at his best, I was bound to love him in this.
I haven't read up on how they found her but Hailee Steinfeld is a revelation. The fact that she is nominated as best supporting actress is a bit of a gut busting hoot because the film attempts to rest but ends up teetering on her scrawny tween shoulders. The whole thing succeeds or fails on her performance and while you would forgive a child actor who was trying hard any small slip ups when surrounded by Bridges and Damon, there is no forgiveness needed here as she is every bit the picture of a head strong, determined, intelligent, stubborn, sensitive and freely spoken girl you could imagine. Especially in the early scenes where she is sorting out her deceased father's estate and rustling up some money, she storms through the film chewing up not just scenery but whole chunks of film stock, it's quite the most interesting and, unusual for a Coen's film, natural performance I have seen this year.
Matt Damon, however, threatens to steal this film from under the nose of the showboating Bridges and the remarkable new comer, Hailee Steinfeld. This is because he has to try three times as hard as everyone else to end up where he is by the end of the picture, in the audiences affection. He has the non-showy, almost-villain, sidekick role that could've been played as fairly throwaway by a lesser actor but in recent years Damon has shown himself to be on the way to becoming genuinely terrific and versatile, far more the gifted character player than a bland leading man. His pompous, verbose Texas ranger, the wonderfully named LaBoeuf, is the perfect foil for Bridges' braggart Cogburn and in his perfect and patient performance you can also see Damon behind the man he's playing thinking "stick with it, stick with it, you hate me now, sure, and I won't ask for your love, but by the end of the film, you'll see..."
Finishing up the cast is the usual, intriguing, 'only in a Coen Brother's movie' type players with a late in the day appearance by a fantastic Josh Brolin. Everyone is pretty marvelous all round and it's always a pleasure watching a Coen's movie because of the varied, authentic looking and interesting faces they find, some with funny hair, or a funny build, wonky nosed people and folks who you could go trick or treating in their jowls. Including a cameo by the Irish actor from the original Day of the Dead (I hate how I have to say original... there should be no other Day of the Dead!!).
Which brings us full circle back to remakes, see what I did there?
So all in all it is pretty bloody smashing. A good and proper pulp, boys-own-adventure, western filtered through the radiant and mesmerising beauty of Roger "give him a damn Oscar already!!" Deakins' lenses and invented, built and nurtured every step of the way by the simply marvelous The Coen Brothers.
9 out of 10 bowls of ratty looking slop stew cooked over the hearth in an old log cabin
Points from The Wife 9 out of 10 as well.