Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

It's very common to underestimate a Coen bros film on first viewing

Posted by Jazz Inmate on December 24, 2010 at 14:46:55:
Make no mistake, this is a classic that will go down in history as one of the greatest executed Westerns. I'm used to people underestimating their work. To quickly address some of your points:

>> Despite the more melancholy tone and an epilogue showing Mattie 25 years later, my opinion is that the Coens do not find anything deeper or more thought-provoking in the story than Hathaway and Wayne found in the 1969 version. That was a minor disappointment and leads me to a slight preference for the older film simply due to the iconic performance of Wayne. <<

No, the entire movie can be watched as a morality tale about the importance of taking responsibility and being true to yourself and others. This is explored on multiple levels. The '69 version, in comparison, had crappy writing, acting, cinematography and direction.

>> In contrast, the Coens have muted the humor and simply given us grittier, more authentic, locations and characterizations. A lot of witty dialogue is mumbled and glossed over too quickly. <<

You always have to be quick to catch all the humor and impact in a Coens film. It can rarely be done on first viewing. The dialogue was consistently excellent.

>> The Coen version takes place in early winter and the landscapes are bleak. Much of the story takes place at night. Although it is well-filmed, it is not a "pretty" looking western. <<

I thought the country was beautiful and Deakins shot it beautifully, as usual. He shot the scenes in Fargo beautifully too, and those were much bleaker and emptier.

>> There is a new sequence involving Cogburn and Mattie happening upon a hanging victim (whom neither knows) in a tall tree, an indian and a medicine man wearing a bear pelt. This is not in the novel and seems to be an entirely grauitous Coen edition. It doesn't advance the plot or develop the characters. It's not even bizarre enough to simply entertain us. It's pointless. <<

Disagree. The audience learns much about both Mattie and Cogburn from this scene and the subsequent appearance of the dentist, specifically about their grit and determination, and a couple clues about the past.

>> Also, in the Coen version the Texas ranger keeps leaving and rejoining Cogburn and Mattie and much opportunity for interplay/conflict among the characters is lost. Apparently, this is more faithful to the novel. If so, I think the change made for the 1969 version is more effective even if Glen Campbell was an attrocious actor. <<

Please. There is plenty of interplay/conflict between all three main characters and since Matt D is the weak link, any time he could be off screen is fine by me. He was the character who relied more on luck and money than grit and determination to do what's right, and it showed.

>> don't let the artistry, tone, better casting, and greater authenticity of the Coens's take fool you into looking for any Deep Meaning along the way. Don't expect any great emotional catharsis either. The climax and ending are just as flat as the original. <<

Some had a similar take on No Country for Old Men, and that won best picture. I think the meaning in this film, and most Coen films for that matter, can be as deep or as shallow as you feel like digging on any particular viewing. That's the beauty of their films. This was another gem and the critical acclaim is pretty universal.