Director Debate No. 1: The Coen Brothers

johnny_ultimate

An experiment here. Perhaps the first in a semi-regular attempt to stir up some good old fashioned debate! These threads can be a place where we discuss the polarising nature of certain directors. I have a few in mind to throw up, but if anyone else has any suggestions feel free to suggest Anyway, not going to be 'organised fun' or anything. Just throw up your debate for or against the director(s) in question, outlining why you think they're good, bad or indifferent.

This week: The Coen Brothers. They're in the cinemas again with True Grit, and tend to divide audiences between those who hail them as the shining light of American cinema, with others complaining of pretentiousness and shallow stylisation.

I am very much for the Coen Brothers.

Best Film? The Big Lebowski. They've made more ambitious, thematically complex films, but let's be honest: The Dude abides. Quite possibly the funniest film of all time IMO. In a close second in the Coen filmography, more or less all of their other films, barring...

Worst Film? The Ladykillers. Along with Intolerable Cruelty, a rare mis-step for the duo. While IC at least felt playful and hints of the black comedy they're famed for, Ladykillers just felt wrong. Not awful, but distressingly mediocre.

I love the Coens because of their versatility. While they have thematic threads and ideas running throughout their films - most notably, all of their films are set in different eras of American history, from the Old West to err.. the early 90s with the Big Lebowski. They're extremely cine-literate, having dabbled in noir, slapstick comedy and everything in between, mostly with great success. Each film differs from the last, constantly innovative. And yet, the Coen's make films with a distinct identity - from the frequent collaborators (Carter Burwell, Roger Deakins and a tonne of recurring actors are particularly notable) to the blackly comic streak that has defined even the grimmest of their films. Their cinema literacy also leads to amazing looking and sounding films: the cinematography and sounds of a Coen Brothers film are rarely less than terrific.

Barring one or two of the films they've only written (such as Sam Raimi's Crimewave) I've seen all of their films, and barring the two regrettable duds mentioned above I wouldn't consider any of their films less than 'great'. That's thirteen great films, a rather remarkable track record. All different and yet undeniably Coen. You have the intensely personal likes of A Serious Man (a complex exploration of all things Jewish), violent thrillers (Fargo, No Country..., Blood Simple), gangster films (Miller's Crossing), out and out slapstick (Raising Arizona), and much more that both homages classic cinema and innovates at the same time. There are few directors or scriptwriters so brave, so versatile, so funny. A new Coen's film is always an exciting prospect, and since I've become a hardcore fan (sometime after Ladykillers, thank ****) they have yet to disappoint me, even with the notoriously polarising Burn After Reading, at which I was in stitches for more or less the entire running time. For me, they're the most consistent and regularly active American film-makers of the moment with pretty much one film a year. A definite 'for' from me.

Nolanger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I am very much for the Coen Brothers.

Nah, overrated hacks that appeal to people who only watch American movies from the '80s onwards.

johnny_ultimate

Nolanger wrote: »

that appeal to people who only watch American movies from the '80s onwards.

Generalisations ftw.

Sad Professor

Am I the only one who likes The Ladykillers? Fair enough, it's not their best, far from it. But I do find it very funny.

As for the Coens themselves, they are brilliant, but I do think some of their films get too much acclaim, which makes people come down too hard on their relatively lesser efforts. NCFOM is fantastic, for example, but McCarthy deserves most of the credit.

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

Am I the only one who likes The Ladykillers? Fair enough, it's not their best, far from it. But I do find it very funny.

I haven't seen it since it was in the cinema, and while there are a few laughs, it does feel more 'compromised' than their usual films. But yes, even their 'worst' films (Intolerable Cruelty was actually one of the first films of theirs I'd seen as a teenager, and I got a good few laughs out of it) have some strengths, but the Ladykillers / Intolerable Cruelty duo is significantly weaker than their other films IMO.

Phony Scott

I'd completely agree with Johnny Ultimate that what makes them so important to cinema and an inspiration to others is their versatility. I think making 'Blood Simple' and then following that up with 'Raising Arizona' was very inspired and inspiring.

They have done this through-out their career and that requires huge talent. I love a lot of their films, but there are also ones I can’t rap my head around at all namely ‘Barton Fink,’ ‘A Serious Man’ and ‘The Man Who Wasn’t There’. Those three films I don’t like at all, I don’t understand them, or the appeal of them and I find them very boring to watch to be honest. I know people out there say these three are masterpieces but I just don’t like them, because I simply don’t understand them. So for me, the ‘worst’ of the Coen Brothers output are these three.

I always give films which are considered great, yet I don’t understand them, numerous viewings through the years until the penny drops, so this isn’t the case closed on these three films. I haven’t seen ‘Ladykillers’ or ‘Intolerable Crulty’ so I can’t comment.

As for the best, my top five stands as ‘O Brother…,’ ‘No Country…,’ ‘Blood Simple,’ ‘Fargo’ and ‘The Big Lebowski’. There are a few films I’ve yet to see. It’s difficult to pull out a definitive ‘best’ film out of that bunch, yet I have to go with the mood I’m in this week and ultimately go with ‘O brother…’ The other films are dark and violent yet ‘O Brother…’ is just a nice inoffensive film, I could watch that with anyone in my family, whereas the other four…

What I like about the Coens and their films, is the minimal setting of their films.

What I'm on about are the locations of their stores. A harsh near-arctic town in Fargo. Arizona desert in Raising Arizona. The barren wasteland in No Country. And now we have True Grit.

As for a lot of their symbolism, I read about it but fail to fully understand it.

But yes, I really like the Coen Brothers and it's good knowing when something is made by them, it's at least worth watching, if not applauding!

bonerm

I usually enjoy Coen movies but one of the ways I judge a movie is by whether I come back to it again or not. Apart from Big Lebowski I don't think I've bothered giving any of their stuff a second look.

The Mad Hatter

Sad Professor wrote: »

Am I the only one who likes The Ladykillers? Fair enough, it's not their best, far from it. But I do find it very funny.

Nope, I'm with you on that point - I quite enjoyed it, even if it did tend far more towards slapstick than most of their others. I also think The Hudsucker Proxy is underrated, but I'd still put both of those films near the bottom of the Coen canon.

As for their best, I'm torn between several: Lebowski, Fargo, No Country and A Serious Man.

Typing on an iPhone so I'll come back and expand later.

ShiverinEskimo

I actually really liked Intolerably Cruelty. Sort of a guilty pleasure of a movie and I really warmed to Clooney's character.

Agreed though - the Coens for me have set the bar over the last decade or so for consistent film making.

SVG

Not a popular opinion but I think Intolerable Cruelty is great. It's light, charming and witty- a throwback to the best romantic comedies of the past (and a contrast to the generally poor standard of the genre today). And it has comedy George Clooney (my favourite type of George Clooney).

Anyway, I'm a fan. I've seen all of their films except for the Hudsucker Proxy. The only ones I don't like are Burn After Reading and the Ladykillers but even these films have elements I like.

NCFOM is fantastic, for example, but McCarthy deserves most of the credit.

No Country For Old Men is definitely my favourite of theirs and I think they do deserve a lot of credit for it. Having a great novel as source material is no guarantee of a successful film but they make it look easy. It's so minimal, so precise. I like their quirks but it's definitely their least quirky film. It's still recognisably them though- I watched Raising Arizona last night and even though it's a completely different type of film I thought of No Country at this scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaSnwgJ_xQM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrC7KRDy3w8

losthorizon

SVG wrote: »

Not a popular opinion but I think Intolerable Cruelty is great. It's light, charming and witty- a throwback to the best romantic comedies of the past (and a contrast to the generally poor standard of the genre today). And it has comedy George Clooney (my favourite type of George Clooney).

And, I think thats why it failed. It just showed up the enermous gulf in class between the screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s and that particular Coen film.

I love the Coens work but thats the only film for me that didnt work. My favourite has to be Fargo - I love the acting, the language, the atmosphere and the scenery. A brilliant film.

bnt

I'd like to put in a good word for The Man Who Wasn't There, which I thought worked extremely well on multiple levels. The cinematography is black & white and technically stunning - not grainy or sepia-toned for the sake of nostalgia. Getting Billy Bob Thornton to do apparently very little must have taken some persuasion, but such a minimalist performance offers its own rewards. It wouldn't work without the story, though: how can we read so much from someone not reacting to the most horrific events? That explains the title: he might not be "there" in the usual cinematic sense, and doesn't appear to do much, but the little he does is a catalyst for tragedy.

Nolanger

Sad Professor wrote: »

Am I the only one who likes The Ladykillers?

Yeh loved it. Great Ealing comedy classic from the '50s. Shame a pair of overrated Hollywood hacks made a crap remake. Sure, probably some people prefer the newer version just like there must be some people who prefer the US version of The Office?

The Mad Hatter

Nolanger wrote: »

Yeh loved it. Great Ealing comedy classic from the '50s. Shame a pair of overrated Hollywood hacks made a crap remake. Sure, probably some people prefer the newer version just like there must be some people who prefer the US version of The Office?

No question that the Ealing version was superior, but that doesn't mean that the Coens' was valueless. Tom Hanks may not have been a match for Alec Guinness' cunning schemer who held his cigarettes between the wrong fingers, but his smooth southern aristocrat is among the better of the Coens' comedy creations.

Neither version of The Office is good.

Sad Professor

Can we stay on topic please? If anyone wants to discuss a classic film then start a thread. Nolanger, if you have nothing to contribute but pointless whinging then don't bother posting. It just derails the thread. If you think the Coens are hacks, fine, but explain why.

EDIT: off topic posts deleted.

johnny_ultimate

Have deleted the off-topic posts (with apologies to those who are actually participating as well). If you don't want to partake in this discussion - and yes it's a discussion happily open to both sides, but generalisations, insults and hostility isn't debate - than don't. If you want to start a thread about Antonio or Wilder or Welles, go for it. This is a thread about the Coen Brothers, and if you would rather talk about Birth of a Nation, go for it, I'd welcome it. I think there's more than enough space on this forum for both.

johnny_ultimate

bnt wrote: »

I'd like to put in a good word for The Man Who Wasn't There, which I thought worked extremely well on multiple levels. The cinematography is black & white and technically stunning - not grainy or sepia-toned for the sake of nostalgia. Getting Billy Bob Thornton to do apparently very little must have taken some persuasion, but such a minimalist performance offers its own rewards. It wouldn't work without the story, though: how can we read so much from someone not reacting to the most horrific events? That explains the title: he might not be "there" in the usual cinematic sense, and doesn't appear to do much, but the little he does is a catalyst for tragedy.

I really liked Man Who Wasn't There when I saw it, but definite in need of a revisiting. Same with Barton Fink - loved it on an aesthetic and acting level, but must watch it again to untangle the more interesting themes and subtexts in greater depth.

But as I said, it's the fact they can make those types of films alongside other more 'entertaining' fare is their true strength. Oh Brother Where Art Thou has a wonderful period setting and score, but it's also just a very very funny film (definitely agree they utilise Clooney's talents well). They can make homages to classic cinema and styles but with a pleasantly contemporary twist.

And another nod for Hudsucker - a commercially unsuccessful attempt at a 'studio' picture, but it was our gain. Again, hilarious with a refreshingly retro vibe and setting, and a great performance by Jennifer Jason Leigh as a jittery reporter. Rarely cited as one of their bests - I think Fargo, Lebowski and No Country tend to be the ones more commonly mentioned in brackets beside their names - and possibly a bit unfairly overlooked as a result, but a very good film.

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

As for a lot of their symbolism, I read about it but fail to fully understand it.

Yeah, I remember having the symbolism of the hat in Miller's Crossing being explained to me in a media analysis class. Every time I watch that film now it just strikes me as really heavy handed. He takes the hat off, he puts it down, it blows away, etc. It seems like something that only a literature student would be impressed by. I've no problem with symbolism in films, but I do think the Coens sometimes go overboard with it.

FrDickByrne

The Coen brothers is a toughy for me. I can see their success and can sort of take where it is coming from. I've enjoyed a good few of their movies but the brunt have left me wholly underwelmed. The Big Lebowski, NCFOM and True Grit I would definitely class as top notch movies so there is no doubting the immense talent.

Although that said, the Coen brothers would honestly be the first name I would think of if asked the question most over rated in Hollywood. A big bug bearer for me is the amount of infinitely "meh" movies that they have released that have been driven to the moon as masterpieces. Ok we all know actors et el have bad days at the office and it is nigh on impossible to find a director with a flawless record. What pisses me off is the whole thing that it seems the Coens are critics sweethearts. They can do no wrong. I got stung with A Serious Man and Burn After Reading. The amount of five star reviews I heard for both films and they absolutely sucked in my mind. I remember watching both and at places in the dialogue stopping to ask myself to think "Oh crap I was probably meant to laugh there!".

Sorry boys overall thumbs down for me.

bnt

I can see how audiences were divided by A Serious Man, because it was heavily laden with symbolism related to Judaism and Israel: it's their most Jewish film, you might say. I remember picking up on details such as the date it was set: June 1967, around the time of the Six Day War, which is not mentioned at all. And so on - there's loads of analysis all over the 'Net.

Liam O

I enjoyed a lot of the ones I've seen immensely. I didn't really enjoy A Serious Man as much as many did but I think the annoying ending may have soured me to that one. I really enjoyed True Grit, Big Lebowski (though I don't think it's their best) NCFOM and Barton Fink. I quite like Intolerable Cruelty too as it's a lighter fare from them and is very different to most of their other movies.

Burn After Reading is one that I'm not sure on. I laughed for about 5 minutes when Brad Pitt

got shot

but there weren't many other LOL moments in it and I found it to be a bit boring. I have to revisit it though as I've only seen it once.

I'll be looking to pick up O' Brother as I've only seen bits and pieces of it and the likes of Fargo and Miller's Crossing as I've been meaning to watch these in full for ages but just never got down to it.

Mickeroo

I can honestly say there's not one of their movies I've seen that I didn't enjoy on some level including Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykillers(We must have waffles and we must have them fortwith!). I don't think I was blown away too much by The Man Who Wasn't There but I need to watch it again since I've not seen it since it first came out. Everything else is top notch!

My favourite film of theirs in terms of how often I've watced it has to be Raising Arizona it's just so so funny and the hyperactive Sam Raimi style of film making suited it perfectly, I also found the ending to be pretty damn moving too! Big Lebowski is a close second to it I think.

I think Fargo is their true masterpiece though, its near flawless in my eyes, it manages to be laugh out loud funny and a seriously dark film noir all at once, no mean feat! Damn near flawless movie.

Valmont

The Big Lebowski is my favourite Coen film by a long shot but a special mention has to go to Burn After Reading which I found to be surprisingly hilarious.

duckworth

The Coen Brothers movies are an absolute joy, and there are very few I don't like.

My Favourites are:

1)Barton Fink
2)A Serious Man
3)No Country for Old Men
4)Fargo
5)The Big Lebowski

What I really love about them is the throw-away/quirky humour disguising what are extremely deep films dealing with pretty high-falutin ideas.

A Serious Man is quite controversial here I see, with a lot of people hating it - but I found it one of the most engrossing movies of the past 10 years. I love the mixing of themes - religion and god/right and wrong/science v superstition/actions and consequences - and all the while never taking itself too seriously.

I also love the way they defy expectations. 10 minutes into most Hollywood films, you know more or less the way it will end. Watching a Coen Brothers movie, you have absolutely no clue what twists and turns it will take.

Wes Anderson is very influenced by them, but his quirk-fests come off a little contrived - there is never as much heart in his films as the Coens.

Haven't seen True Grit yet, but will soon. I can't imagine I won't like it.

mikhail

I've seen 10 of their 15 feature films now, and I'm definitely a fan. Their body of work has a unique tone to it, something distinctively theirs and fairly consistently entertaining for me.

One element which stands out is how many of their characters are stupid. That's a common enough thing in American comedies, but it usually comes at the cost of any empathy for the character, where as the Coens excel at making likeable idiots. Their outright comedies are the best examples, e.g. Pitt and McDormand's characters in Burn After Reading, the landlady in The Ladykillers, Walter and Donnie in The Big Lebowski, William H. Macy's character in Fargo. Even in True Grit, one of the bigger differences from the 1969 film is how much more of a twit Matt Damon's character is than his counterpart (making me ever more curious to watch the original Ladykillers for comparison).

Earthhorse

For me, the Coen brothers have to be one (two?) of the most inexplicalbe and overrated phenomena in my lifetime. Even when people try to explain to me why they like, or more commonly love, their films, I can't see it. Their comedies (and even their serious films have a heavy does of comedic elements) are singularly unfunny and their dramas rarely come with the heavyweight feel one would expect considering the level of praise so often attached.

If I had to choose a word to sum up their career it would be quirky. This seems to be the overriding atmosphere throughout almost all their films. There's a sense of quirkiness, difference, oddness that seems hugely appealing to modern audiences but is totally lost on me.

In Lebwoski, for example, some of his pursuers are German. And so they speak in German accents. This is meant to be...funny? It's mediocre, Saturday night-live territory. In the same film we have one of the characters engage in conversation whilst trampolining because...well...this is just the kind of thing the Coen brother's do. There's no point to it, they just wanted to do it, and there's nothing wrong with that per se, except that at best it is midly amusing, marginally distracting.

It's not that their films lack any merit. They are occassionally very funny or touching but for the most part this is watered down by their fascination with novelty. NCFOM is probably the best thing I've seen them do, though, as someone else mentioned, credit is largely due to the source. After that, I think Barton Fink is their most coherent piece. It doesn't dissappear off into quirky asides as so many of their other pieces do and actually has something to say for itself.

duckworth

Earthhorse wrote: »

For me, the Coen brothers have to be one (two?) of the most inexplicalbe and overrated phenomena in my lifetime. Even when people try to explain to me why they like, or more commonly love, their films, I can't see it. Their comedies (and even their serious films have a heavy does of comedic elements) are singularly unfunny and their dramas rarely come with the heavyweight feel one would expect considering the level of praise so often attached.

If I had to choose a word to sum up their career it would be quirky. This seems to be the overriding atmosphere throughout almost all their films. There's a sense of quirkiness, difference, oddness that seems hugely appealing to modern audiences but is totally lost on me.

In Lebwoski, for example, some of his pursuers are German. And so they speak in German accents. This is meant to be...funny? It's mediocre, Saturday night-live territory. In the same film we have one of the characters engage in conversation whilst trampolining because...well...this is just the kind of thing the Coen brother's do. There's no point to it, they just wanted to do it, and there's nothing wrong with that per se, except that at best it is midly amusing, marginally distracting.

It's not that their films lack any merit. They are occassionally very funny or touching but for the most part this is watered down by their fascination with novelty. NCFOM is probably the best thing I've seen them do, though, as someone else mentioned, credit is largely due to the source. After that, I think Barton Fink is their most coherent piece. It doesn't dissappear off into quirky asides as so many of their other pieces do and actually has something to say for itself.

Ha,

Everything you hate about the Coens, I love them for! Your post is almost the exact inverse of mine above.

Oh well, at least we agree that Barton Fink is their best!

Also, a few people now have said most of the credit for 'No Country For Old Men' should go to the guy who wrote the novel. This is ridiculous logic - adapting a film from another source doesn't diminish the accomplishment of the film. They are still two entirely different things - even leaving aside the fact the Coens are credited as the screenwriters.

Does anybody think the majority of the credit for the Godfather movies should go to Mario Puzo? Or The Shawshank Redemption to Stephen King? I certainly don't.

mikhail

duckworth wrote: »

Everything you hate about the Coens, I love them for! Your post is almost the exact inverse of mine above.

I agree, but kudos to him for articulating what it is turns him off their films. It's not always easy, and most people don't bother, preferring to say something trite. His points are valid, and it's merely a matter of taste that we disagree.

johnny_ultimate

mikhail wrote: »

I agree, but kudos to him for articulating what it is turns him off their films. It's not always easy, and most people don't bother, preferring to say something trite. His points are valid, and it's merely a matter of taste that we disagree.

Well that's why I picked them as directors. The thing about the Coens is that both the fans and the critics don't always see where the other side is coming from. It's what I love about film discussion - where one person can see poetry, another can see garbage. Trying to articulate both is the fun part, and both are equally valid opinions

Revolution9

I was really dissapointed with the ending for NCFOM, which is actually the only Coen brothers film I have seen.

What should've been the climax happened off camera

and the scene where

the bad guy (can't remember his name) randomly gets hit by a car and then flees

seemed utterly pointless. It didn't really serve any purpose.

Maybe it just went over my head?

Snake Plisken

Remember being blown away by Blood Simple when it came out first here, saw it on video back in the day, really well made tense movie with a great soundtrack. Also loved Raising Arizona with all the mad camera angles which they obviously copied from Sam Raimi having worked with him on Crimewave, went to see Barton Fink in the cinema and me along with most of the viewing audience that night went WTF? at the end and not in a good way. Liked Fargo and Big Lebowski and really loved NCFOM. Might go to True Grit at the weekend hope it ends up being one of my favourite Coen movies.

Earthhorse

duckworth wrote: »

Also, a few people now have said most of the credit for 'No Country For Old Men' should go to the guy who wrote the novel. This is ridiculous logic - adapting a film from another source doesn't diminish the accomplishment of the film. They are still two entirely different things - even leaving aside the fact the Coens are credited as the screenwriters.

A screenwriting credit doesn't alter the fact that it's an adaptation of McCarthy's work. For me, the dialogue is one of the highlights of this film and, as I understand it is lifted wholesale from the book, McCarthy deserves credit for that. There's no doubt they did a marvelous job with the material but we're contrasting it here with their own original works and the contrast between McCarthy's dialogue and theirs shows.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Trying to articulate both is the fun part, and both are equally valid opinions

WRONG! Only my opinion counts. :cool:

Mickeroo

If there's one criticism I could level at the Coens it's that their films are often quite devoid of heart, apart from the end of Raising Arizona I can't actually recall being really moved by any of their movies. Having said that I still think most of them are brilliant!

johnny_ultimate

Mickeroo wrote: »

If there's one criticism I could level at the Coens it's that their films are often quite devoid of heart, apart from the end of Raising Arizona I can't actually recall being really moved by any of their movies. Having said that I still think most of them are brilliant!

Watch True Grit! Really pulls on the heartstrings at some moments without giving into cheesy sentimentality Was a bit on the fence about

the flash-forward ending

, but the part before that was pretty powerful stuff.

H8GHOTI

Fargo is one of my favourite films of all time. Just loved it the first time I saw it. It's got a good story, good acting, it'd dark in places but still very funny. It had it's own style and was different from anything I'd seen before. It was the first Coen Brothers film I'd seen and at the time I didn't have a clue who they were. So I wasn't influenced in any way, I just loved it cause it was a great film.

I've only seen 3 others (in full). The Big Lebowski, No Country For Old Men & Burn After Reading. I liked them but not as much as Fargo. I must get around to watching a few more. They do definitely seem to divide opinion. My girlfriend liked NCFOM but didn't really like the other 3. So if I ever want to watch one of their films, I'm like "It's meant to be very good. It from the same makers as NCFOM" :pac:

Seriously though, that does seem to be their most popular & acclaimed film so far. I don't remember any of the others being talked about or hyped up in the media as much. And obviously it won a few Oscars as well.

To sum up I'm in the 'for' camp.

johndoe99

i loved "No Country For Old Men", but only had one gripe about it,

We see Javier Bardem (Chigurh) and Josh Brolin (Moss) playing cat and mouse throughout the movie, and Moss ends up getting killed by the Mexicans (which we don't get to see, it happened offscreen and we only see the aftermath)

, that for me was a letdown, it would have been better to have a showdown between the two. I wonder were there any deleted scenes.

johnny_ultimate

I think the thing to remember about No Country... is that the thematic protagonists of the film aren't Bardem and Brolin but rather the aging, increasingly out-of-touch police officer played by Tommy Lee Jones. Obviously with the two dominating the screen for the first two acts (and most of the third even) this isn't the most obvious point. But the final scenes are there to emphasise that this is a story about violence - mindless, excessive violence at that - and the despondence Jones' character feels about the direction contemporary society has gone. The clue is in the title after all!

But yeah, it's certainly a more difficult resolution than we've come to expect from cinema, and I can well understand the polarising nature of the conclusion. But I think the final moments of philosophical rumination about the events that occured are what make it a very curious and interesting ending.

When Jones arrives at the massacre, it's the point of view clearly shifting to emphasise these themes, and Bardem getting hit by the car (despite the cheapness of 'stealth vehicles') and Jones' final monologue are reminders that no one can escape reality, no matter how grim or seemingly invincible said reality is.

The shift is admittedly sudden and unexpected, but the refusal to settle on a more 'accessible' conclusion was a significant strength IMO, albeit one I didn't appreciate until I sat down and thought about it and watched the film again.

adox

I'm in the "love" camp, but reading this thread I realise how many of their films I haven't actually seen

NCFOM, Barton Fink, The Hudsucker Proxy, The Man Who Wasnt There and A Serious Man.

What I love about most of their films is, although you are more often than not guaranteed a thing of beauty to look at, it's very character driven, always flawed characters, with dialogue that is engrossing and at times poetic. Quirky is a word that springs to mind for their films and their characters, but they are so easy to fall in love with.

My most repeat viewed are Fargo(probably my favourite) and Oh Brother....

I agree with the OP about The Ladykillers and Intolerbale Cruelty. Both were duds IMO,with The Ladykillers being a nothing film.

I went to see True Grit on Friday night with the Mrs and I have to say I loved it. I sat there staring up at the screen with a near constant smile on my face. Beautifully shot, brilliant performances from the three leads, it had the feel of a traditional western but was undoubtably a Coen brothers film, with splendid dialogue and plenty of dark humour and some real lol moments. I'm sure with repeated viewing, it will be near the top of their best pieces of work.

I can easily see why some of the things I love about their films can be things that annoy people about them. All the quirkiness, the oddity of some of them, the heavy dialogue, the feeling of not a lot happening.

They are in most cases, a love them or loathe them. I don't know anyone who is indifferent about there film making.

For me, from what i've seen to date, and although their cv isn't without flaws, I'm definitely in the love them camp.

krudler

love O Brother Where Art Thou? its my favourite of the Coen's movies, the soundtrack is fantastic, the jokes are hilarious and get funnier with each viewing "my hair!" and Clooney is on top form in it.