Being a Coen Brothers film, i had high expectations for it, but it was a bit of a letdown.
It shouldn't have been a bad film: it had the always pleasant 1950s setting, actors i like, an interesting premise, but it just wasn't very good. There really wasn't a plot. It was like a series of vignettes or short stories with no central conflict. They should have just picked one plotline and developed it the whole way.
Did anyone else see this?
The the episodic/atypical plot is nothing new to the Coens, but this one lacked whatever spark made those previous films work as well as the humor. It's simply not very funny, that's the biggest problem as well as the lack of compelling plot and characters
>>68273382
I liked it. it had rewatchability, esp for based Alden
ROMANS BEFORE SLAVES
ROMANS BEFORE SLAVES
I don't get people calling this the worst film ever. I can definitely understand someone not liking it but the directing was top notch that I was still pretty entertain even with really no conflict
Would that it were so simple
>>68273382
Nah, it was great. Definitely comfy. It's as good as underrated The Ladykillers.
The quality in the filmmaking is too good for the material. It's like the script was top of "Maybe we might actually do it" list and then it got made
>>68273382
>There really wasn't a plot. It was like a series of vignettes or short stories with no central conflict
Yeah it's just like life man
>>68273382
It was alright, I'd give it a 7
It did feel like a step down from Inside Llewyn Davis though
>unrelated series of good things
>then the movie sort of just ends
>>68273382
I really liked it, your enjoyment of it probably goes up the more you know about some of the old-hollywood jokes the coens throw in.
Might rewatch it with my dad if it ever comes out on dvd, he watches a lot of 40-50's era hollywood films and would really appreciate this
