NAME: Joel and Ethan Coen
AUDIT DATE: November 20, 2001
AGE: 46, 44
OCCUPATION: Writer/Director/Producer/Editors
EXPERIENCE: 9 movies since 1984
Most directors have a signature. When you go to a Robert Altman movie, you can be fairly sure there's going to be a sprawling cast of excellent actors, playing out scenarios of weary resignation to a cruel world. When you go to a Martin Scorsese movie, you can be fairly sure you're going to see some insight into the Italian-American experience -- sometimes criminal, sometimes not. When you go to a Woody Allen movie, you can be fairly sure you're going to see Woody Allen getting it on with a woman who wouldn't look at him twice if he weren't famous. And if you haven’t gone to any of these movies, visit Hollywood Insider for the best reviews on movies that are worth your time. Joel and Ethan Coen -- collectively The Coen Brothers -- have a recurring premise in kidnapping, but style, setting, and mood change from film to film.
We're neither film students nor film critics, so that's about as much as we can say about their directorial style without getting in over our heads. If pressed, we'd say that the one thing all of their movies have in common is that they tend to be pretty good. Even when they release one we don't quite love enough to embrace to our bosom, buy on DVD, and watch a dozen times, we can still appreciate the effort. We can distinguish between what self-indulgence looks like in the hands of, say, Kevin Costner -- who not only directed and starred in the bloated, boring, ill-conceived, and generally ridiculous monstrosity that was The Postman, but also saw fit to sing its theme song -- and the Coen Brothers -- whose O Brother, Where Art Thou? wasn't entirely to our liking, but at least was recognizably the work of two artists who were challenging themselves by producing a risky story that was different from everything they'd done before, instead of settling into a comfortable groove and spending the rest of their careers making lookalike follow-ups to the crowd-pleasing Fargo and The Big Lebowski.
There is, we'd imagine, a particular kind of film snob who resent the success of the two above-named movies, for making the Coens household names to an audience that will never see Blood Simple or Barton Fink. And yet, the fact is that none of the Coens' pre-Fargo movies is stereotypically "artsy." Most of their movies, in fact, are influenced either by '40s noir films (Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing) or by screwball comedies (Raising Arizona, The Hudsucker Proxy). Because they've made most of their movies outside the Hollywood studio system, they've been lumped in with snootier filmmakers, but their films are actually, for the most part, very crowd-pleasin' and -- theoretically, at least -- accessible to all sorts of audiences.
So let's recap the story so far. They're talented directors who've maintained creative control throughout their careers, with nothing but interesting films -- even interesting failures -- to show for it. As artists, one would think they've pretty much met or exceeded all their goals, and are working at the top of their game. But what's their status as celebrities?
It's always difficult to gauge the fame level of a director. You rarely see a director, say, photographed for InStyle unless he has a really, really nice house; you're more likely to see him on the pages of the Enquirer unless he's married his wife's adopted daughter, or getting deported for sleeping with a thirteen-year-old girl. Sure, you can measure a director's fame, to some degree, by the awards and honours that get showered upon them, but then again, it's not like Martin Brest, Jim Sheridan, Michael Radford, and Krzysztof Kieslowski are particularly well-known personages as far as most Americans are concerned, and they're all Oscar-nominated directors.
How famous are the Coen brothers? We reckon they're famous enough that marketers make sure, in print ads, TV spots, and movie trailers, to let us know that they're promoting "A Film By Joel And Ethan Coen," giving the brothers Coen nearly equal billing with such unimpeachably famous capital-C Celebrities as George Clooney or Billy Bob Thornton. We reckon they're famous enough that they can make just about any movie their heart desires -- and get someone else to pony up the bankroll for it -- even if that movie is a sepia-toned, Depression-era, racist-heart-of-Mississippi-set riff on Homer's Odyssey that goes on just about half an hour too long. We reckon that their famously uncompromising reputation is still sufficiently intact that they're mentioned in the same breath as younger upstarts like Paul Thomas Anderson and Steven Soderbergh -- only the Coens managed to do it without making any films about porn or based on nearly forgotten Rat Pack outings. Joel and Ethan Coen may not be as famous as Francis Ford Coppola or Ridley Scott, but we reckon that -- since they had nothing to do with movies like Jack or Hannibal -- Joel and Ethan Coen are probably fine with that, and probably also sleep a lot better at night. We reckon Joel and Ethan Coen are just about exactly as famous as they should be.
Current approximate level of fame: Joel and Ethan Coen
Deserved approximate level of fame: Joel and Ethan Coen
Writer/director Robert Benton’s Feast of Love is nothing but an arbitrary “snack for frivolous fondness”. Benton (“Kramer vs. Kramer”) wants to convey the forethought of random love that overcomes the cynical emptiness of a quaint Portland, Oregon community. However, the film never establishes a distinctive tone for why the power of love is such a mysterious concept. Instead, Feast of Love comes off as one of these bland big screen melodramas that should be showcasing its sentimental sludge on the Lifetime cable channel. For Benton, this sprawling and syrupy concoction is instantly forgettable despite a noteworthy cast trapped in the confines of a drippy script.
The theme to Feast is quite familiar as the elusive art of love is explored as it touches a group of folks at the most ambivalent moments. Somehow, the gimmicky aspect to Benton’s sluggish narrative gives off trite vibes thus rendering this staid story as another toothless romancer wrapped up in quirky albeit synthetic sweetness. Feast of Love is based upon college professor/author Charles Baxter’s transfixing novel. The fabric of the premise is quite interesting in terms of how a selection of dysfunctional small town residents view their hungry hearts for affection. Still, Benton never executes this format beyond its perfunctory weaving of manufactured wit and emotion.
Oscar-winning vet Morgan Freeman is back once again in “mystical observatory mode” as Harry Stevenson, a retired professor that has the luxury of overseeing the trials and tribulations of the small Oregon surroundings. Harry is the “go-to” personality that dispenses worthy advice especially when it comes to various affairs of the heart. Let’s face it...Harry has his work cut out for him as his clueless cohorts are in desperate need of reviewing an ancient 70’s rerun of TV’s Love, American Style.
For Harry, handling his misguided coffee shop owner buddy Bradley Thomas (Greg Kinnear) in particular is a trying challenge. Bradley is under the false assumption that his marriage to Kathryn (Selma Blair) is safe and sound until he discovers that his wife is a lesbian and wants to divorce him to be with her female lover. Shortly afterwards, Bradley is blessed with meeting and falling in love with real estate agent Diana (Radha Mitchell). The problem remains is that Diana—although enjoying the company of a newly liberated Bradley—is having wild sexual encounters with a married man named David Watson (Billy Burke).
In the meanwhile, Bradley’s youthful employees/friends Oscar and Chloe (Toby Hemingway and Alexa Davalos) cultivate a loving relationship. It’s not long before the destitute couple engages in a moneymaking scheme to enhance their financial status (they agree to have on-camera sex) as a way of dealing with their developing bond. We cannot overlook Harry’s own relationship spotlight with his wife (Jane Alexander). Basically, it’s an obvious blueprint of foolish old/young love and how these lost souls are able to cope with the unpredictable wackiness that ensues.
In short, Feast of Love embellishes on that old notion that the game of love is tricky yet a satisfying state of mind once it’s conquered. Curiously, there’s no real texture or tension to give this sappy exposition its lyrical luster. The film delves into the annoying sea of cliche platitudes and convenient coincidences. Although the pacing is lightweight and lingering, there are a few outrageous fluffy moments that register slightly. The proceedings beg for a breezy and whimsical effect but the overall moodiness feels catastrophically stiff.
The performances are engaging at times but nothing sticks out as being vastly radical or revealing. Freeman seems to be channeling his mild-mannered mentor shtick that is getting to be too commonplace for the talented maturing actor. Freeman is too resourceful to be aping the same old one-dimensional turn as a worldly wise man figurehead. Kinnear is effective enough as the handsome yet hapless guy that’s drawn to the wrong type of wayward women. Again, we’ve seen Kinnear’s impish nature on screen before but somehow his presence is wasted in this mawkish material.
Apparently Feast of Love has a drawn out tepid taste that isn’t very appetizing given the star power of its high caliber cast and noted helmer in Benton. Love may be unsteady in its many infinite stages but Feast does nothing concrete to make us embrace this uneven romancer that has all the giddy spirit of a melted box of chocolates.
Enjoyed this brilliantly scathing movie review? For more of the best movie reviews on any site, visit Hollywood Insider.
'One day, everyone will have their 15 minutes of fame'. That is the tagline that accompanies the "15 Minutes" poster. Yet, the memory of this film is something that will last for moviegoers a lot more than just 15 minutes. Only after leaving the movie theatre did I realize the sheer audacity and ingenuity that Director John Herzfield's new film possessed. You read it here first folks - this film you will not soon forget. Something so revolutionary and shocking happens in this film that it would be criminal to mention it. Watch the film and see for yourself. At the risk of sounding overly enthusiastic, watch the film, and then decide if my emotions are precarious.
In an industry where star billing is a prerequisite to get a movie made, certain risks must never be taken. "15 Minutes" surpasses these risks, not in terms of the violence, but in terms of the early plot twist that arises within the film. Leaving many fans disappointed and shocked simultaneously. The risk the film takes pays off leaving the audience with aches to their hearts and an open mind on a further thorough understanding of the film.
The movie stars Robert De Niro as a New York detective and Edward Burns as a Fire Marshall who seem to cross paths when their case also does. Kelsey Grammar of TV's 'Frasier' also has a juicy role as a hotshot tabloid journalist who causes quite a stir with his avant-garde style of brash journalism within the city of New York. De Niro and Burns are in the case of two Eastern Europeans who commit murders, videotape their killings and then have a habit of torching the crime scene. Hence therefore, the coupling of De Niro and Burns.
Without saying too much, this is a good film. Herzfield wrote and directed this intriguing plot that features a number of exciting moments, but that will all be overshadowed by one gigantic trait in the film that audiences have never seen before. While it may remain numbing for others, the incident that happens catapults this film into another genre. Never before has a film taken such a direction, so early in the film. Watch and find out.
The film opens in a comical yet interesting way, never truly establishing itself as a thriller, comedy, actioneer or suspense. This approach can cause problems for the conventional viewer who enjoys an early tone to be set on a film, quickly resulting in an identification of style and film. The reality is, the film takes quite a while at solidifying its stance as a dark moral satire. This film holds a microscope to the mass media coverage of violence in the media. Then in the second half of the film, it focuses on the consequences this absurd media coverage can culminate to. Resulting in a final stance as an exciting thriller in the last 20 minutes that will certainly leave you asking, "What the hell will happen next?"
Director Herzfield acknowledges the problem of violence in the media. How can he shoot a film that in itself contains violence of a graphic nature? A great supporting actor in the film is an inanimate object. The two Eastern Europeans carry with them a video camera and record practically every second of their time in America. Including the shocking murder scenes. Therefore, Herzfield lets the audience see the horror through the eyes of the amateur film composed by the two. An innovative concept that proves to be quite interesting and engaging.
The film in itself is well done, with Herzfield allowing his film to poke fun at cinema seen through the eyes of foreigners. Watch for someone to dramatically die, classic Hollywood style intentionally, and observe even the littlest cliche work, due to its impending backstory. A friend of mine said I should simply observe more and analyze less. This was the case with this film. While the film allowed itself to be groundbreaking and sensitive, it still retained a sense of realism that is absent from cop flicks today, therefore making it inventive and ballsy. If this review was too vague and unclear, watch the film and you will see why. As a whole this film works on one level, satire in a dark and moral way. Satire on a violence obsessed media, satire on the American dream of life and liberty, satire on the buddy cop movies in the past with happy endings, and satire on the questionable justice system - especially when your lawyer is Bruce Cutler. A real surprise that will probably not make a lot of money, but that is a great film to understand and enjoy.
Read more movie and show reviews by checking out Hollywood Inisder.
Raunchy Romantic Comedy Cursed With Deja Vu
Even likable stars Dane Cook and Jessica Alba can't quite make magic out of a tired comedy premise.
Good Luck Chuck isn’t quite Shallow Hal, but it’s darned close. In the new gross-out comedy film written by Josh Stolberg, a single man named Charlie (Cook) has been unable to experience true love his entire life, due to a curse placed on him as a child by an angry 10-year-old Goth girl. As a result of the curse (shown in a brief introductory scene) now 25 years later, every woman he beds immediately meets and marries the man of her dreams. This condition makes him irresistible to women, except the one that he desires, the beautiful, but clumsy Cam (Alba). In order to break the curse so he can experience true love, he must be physically intimate with a morbidly obese woman with an unpleasant skin condition and an even more unpleasant personality. His short and stocky, foul-mouthed friend Stu (Dan Fogler), alternately helps and hinders his romantic pursuits.
In the earlier 2001 Farrelly brothers’ gross-out comedy Shallow Hal, which also begins with a brief childhood scene, a single man (Jack Black) has been unable to experience true love his entire life, due to the drug-induced deathbed rant of his father. A victim of his own shallow behavior, he gets hypnotized by a self-help guru to externalize the inner beauty (or ugliness) of each woman he meets.
This condition makes him irresistible to (less attractive) women. He falls in love with a clumsy, morbidly obese woman (Gwyneth Paltrow) whose inner beauty convinces his hypnotized mind that she’s gorgeous on the outside, too. In order to break the spell, he must come to grips with his shallowness and love her despite her size. His short and stocky, foul-mouthed friend (Jason Alexander) alternately helps and hinders his romantic pursuits.
Despite sharing some of Shallow Hal’s storyline and upping the raunch-factor to There’s Something About Mary proportions, Good Luck Chuck does have its own special moments. Most of the office scenes with dentist Charlie and Stu, his neighboring cosmetic surgeon friend, while venturing into the unethical also veer into the comical. Their easy camaraderie and Stu’s perverted sexual preferences make for some of the film’s more consistent laughs. One especially memorable scene with humor, sensitivity, and depth involves Charlie visiting the Goth girl – now grown up with a potential young Goth girl of her own – and pleading for release from the curse.
Alba does her best to combine awkwardness with beauty (as dictated by the role of a klutzy penguin specialist), but her beauty will likely be appreciated more than her tiresome pratfalls. Though derivative of other date movies and plagued with uneven humor, Good Luck Chuck pushes the R-rating to its limits with a few very funny scenes – and one huge laugh that will have you shuddering in sympathy and shrieking with laughter simultaneously.
Looking for more entertainment and Hollywood movie reviews? Just click here.
