- Review: John Wick 3 (C)
Scott Sycamore - Weekend Box Office
May 17 - 19 - Crowd Reports
Avengers: Endgame - Us
Box office comparisons - Review: Justice League (C)
Craig Younkin
Movie Review
The Ladykillers
By Lee Tistaert Published April 2, 2004
US Release: March 26, 2004
Directed by: Joel Coen Ethan Coen
Starring: Tom Hanks , Irma P. Hall , Marlon Wayans
R
Running Time: 104 minutes
Domestic Box Office: $39,692,000
Directed by: Joel Coen Ethan Coen
Starring: Tom Hanks , Irma P. Hall , Marlon Wayans
R
Running Time: 104 minutes
Domestic Box Office: $39,692,000
C
63 of 120
A very disappointing entry, what is essentially an R-rated kids? movie.
When I first heard that the Coen brothers had made a film with Tom Hanks and Marlon Wayans playing con men, I was really interested. Coming from filmmakers who have had a reputation for delivering very believable performances from their actors, I was itching to see this (that is, before I saw the trailer). Since I really liked Wayans in Requiem for a Dream and since Hanks has been a continuously enjoyable presence over the years, the two talents under the direction of Joel and Ethan Coen seemed golden.
Unfortunately, the Coens, who made The Big Lebowski a cult classic through its very effective R-rating, have returned to those foul roots, but with an unneeded, frustrating edge. What they have produced is a very disappointing entry, what is essentially an R-rated kids? movie with slapstick in a similar style as The Three Stooges (I hated that show).
When I saw the trailer for The Ladykillers, the first moment that Hanks opened his mouth to speak, I thought it was a true Coen role, the type of really weird and out-there, quirky role that only they could think up. At the same time, I was not that amused by Hanks? performance, and the story looked fairly straightforward; the only two factors that would lead me into the theater at that point were the directors? stature and Marlon Wayans.
I was not amused by the ad in general, and I felt that the slapping-around sequence involving Wayans and the older black woman was a rip-off of a similar scene in Nothing to Lose (with the same actress). When I walked into the theater to see Ladykillers, I had a mixed state of mind, as two rather trustworthy people had informed me that the movie was not that good. But since I could see the film on a free ticket, I figured no real harm would be done if I came out disliking it?only the disadvantage of being frustrated.
The Ladykillers is a remake of a 1955 film of the same name. Tom Hanks plays Professor G.H. Dorr, a criminal mastermind who convinces an older black woman named Marva (Irma P. Hall) that he and his clan of criminals are talented musicians looking for space to rent out in her home. His team, involving Gawain (Marlon Wayans), Garth (J.K. Simmons), The General (Tzi Ma), and Lump Hudson (Ryan Hurst), seek a heist on a local casino. The story chronicles their attempts to plan out this landmark goal while in her basement, trying to hide all matters that would lead her to suspicion.
Besides from one moment near the beginning of the movie, I stared deadpan through this slapstick farce, frequently irritated by its silliness factor and frustrated at how much better the project could have been. Though Hanks? role is right out of the book of Coen weirdness, the effect that they want to create does not last long. And while Hanks does seem to be having fun with the part, there really isn?t anything special to the role, and there are only a few occasions where Hanks? enthusiasm works in favor of the movie.
Irma Hall is about the only one who takes full use of her character (with the exception of The General, but he only has a few inspired moments). We get to know her pretty quickly thanks to her spot-on performance, but since I never cared about the con men, I was put in a sour position.
After the show I spoke with the two people who had warned me about the movie, and who felt that Tom Hanks was miscast. They felt that someone like Steve Martin or Johnny Depp would have likely taken the role to another level, making an otherwise mediocre movie into a fun, diverting experience. After thinking about that, imagining Depp in that role made me additionally annoyed that the Coens went their route; had that performance been wild, The Ladykillers would probably be saved from its mediocre screenplay.
While watching The Ladykillers, I had somewhat of a hard time being convinced that the guys who wrote and directed Fargo and The Big Lebowski were also behind this project. While those two titles are very diverse pictures, I think Lebowski is almost as good as Fargo. The former flick has excessive language and yet still keeps the laughs and amusement factor consistent, all while maintaining surprisingly strong performances.
The Ladykillers is foul in its language due to Wayans? character, as the Coens have handed him an abundance of four-letter word variations to use in almost every scene that he?s in. This method sort of works in the early stages of development, but as time passes, the impact is gone. Without Wayans exerting these unnecessary lines, this would be more of an elementary/junior high school-targeted movie, which leads to an interesting point.
The tone of this movie is very strange, as here we have Tom Hanks, who is obviously meant to please adult moviegoers, and yet the film has a very childish way about itself in its comedic attempts. The movie is almost aimed at a family audience except with an R-rating, and without Wayans? role, this movie would probably be a PG-13 flick (and a slight chance of a PG).
The one component that does work sometimes is the cinematography, which shares similarities with O Brother, Where Art Thou, but is not consistent. I was also not a big fan of O Brother despite that it is well acted and directed. Though that film gave Clooney a good performance and was moderately enjoyable, I didn?t think its quirkiness was consistently entertaining, but there were more areas done right than in Ladykillers.
Previously, the Coen brothers had attempted comedy with Intolerable Cruelty, a romantic farce that I did not like. Cruelty and Ladykillers are living examples that the Coens can write for both the arthouse and mainstream audiences, as Fargo and Big Lebowski (along with Raising Arizona, Blood Simple, and The Hudsucker Proxy) are not for everyone.
There is an audience for Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, and I respect the opinions in that group, as everyone has their tastes in humor and movies in general. However, it is my sincere hope that Ethan and Joel Coen will return to the storytelling roots that once made them famous amongst critics and film buffs. If that doesn?t happen in the near future, they might start to lose a fan, and I don?t think I?ll be the only filmgoer saying that.
Unfortunately, the Coens, who made The Big Lebowski a cult classic through its very effective R-rating, have returned to those foul roots, but with an unneeded, frustrating edge. What they have produced is a very disappointing entry, what is essentially an R-rated kids? movie with slapstick in a similar style as The Three Stooges (I hated that show).
When I saw the trailer for The Ladykillers, the first moment that Hanks opened his mouth to speak, I thought it was a true Coen role, the type of really weird and out-there, quirky role that only they could think up. At the same time, I was not that amused by Hanks? performance, and the story looked fairly straightforward; the only two factors that would lead me into the theater at that point were the directors? stature and Marlon Wayans.
I was not amused by the ad in general, and I felt that the slapping-around sequence involving Wayans and the older black woman was a rip-off of a similar scene in Nothing to Lose (with the same actress). When I walked into the theater to see Ladykillers, I had a mixed state of mind, as two rather trustworthy people had informed me that the movie was not that good. But since I could see the film on a free ticket, I figured no real harm would be done if I came out disliking it?only the disadvantage of being frustrated.
The Ladykillers is a remake of a 1955 film of the same name. Tom Hanks plays Professor G.H. Dorr, a criminal mastermind who convinces an older black woman named Marva (Irma P. Hall) that he and his clan of criminals are talented musicians looking for space to rent out in her home. His team, involving Gawain (Marlon Wayans), Garth (J.K. Simmons), The General (Tzi Ma), and Lump Hudson (Ryan Hurst), seek a heist on a local casino. The story chronicles their attempts to plan out this landmark goal while in her basement, trying to hide all matters that would lead her to suspicion.
Besides from one moment near the beginning of the movie, I stared deadpan through this slapstick farce, frequently irritated by its silliness factor and frustrated at how much better the project could have been. Though Hanks? role is right out of the book of Coen weirdness, the effect that they want to create does not last long. And while Hanks does seem to be having fun with the part, there really isn?t anything special to the role, and there are only a few occasions where Hanks? enthusiasm works in favor of the movie.
Irma Hall is about the only one who takes full use of her character (with the exception of The General, but he only has a few inspired moments). We get to know her pretty quickly thanks to her spot-on performance, but since I never cared about the con men, I was put in a sour position.
After the show I spoke with the two people who had warned me about the movie, and who felt that Tom Hanks was miscast. They felt that someone like Steve Martin or Johnny Depp would have likely taken the role to another level, making an otherwise mediocre movie into a fun, diverting experience. After thinking about that, imagining Depp in that role made me additionally annoyed that the Coens went their route; had that performance been wild, The Ladykillers would probably be saved from its mediocre screenplay.
While watching The Ladykillers, I had somewhat of a hard time being convinced that the guys who wrote and directed Fargo and The Big Lebowski were also behind this project. While those two titles are very diverse pictures, I think Lebowski is almost as good as Fargo. The former flick has excessive language and yet still keeps the laughs and amusement factor consistent, all while maintaining surprisingly strong performances.
The Ladykillers is foul in its language due to Wayans? character, as the Coens have handed him an abundance of four-letter word variations to use in almost every scene that he?s in. This method sort of works in the early stages of development, but as time passes, the impact is gone. Without Wayans exerting these unnecessary lines, this would be more of an elementary/junior high school-targeted movie, which leads to an interesting point.
The tone of this movie is very strange, as here we have Tom Hanks, who is obviously meant to please adult moviegoers, and yet the film has a very childish way about itself in its comedic attempts. The movie is almost aimed at a family audience except with an R-rating, and without Wayans? role, this movie would probably be a PG-13 flick (and a slight chance of a PG).
The one component that does work sometimes is the cinematography, which shares similarities with O Brother, Where Art Thou, but is not consistent. I was also not a big fan of O Brother despite that it is well acted and directed. Though that film gave Clooney a good performance and was moderately enjoyable, I didn?t think its quirkiness was consistently entertaining, but there were more areas done right than in Ladykillers.
Previously, the Coen brothers had attempted comedy with Intolerable Cruelty, a romantic farce that I did not like. Cruelty and Ladykillers are living examples that the Coens can write for both the arthouse and mainstream audiences, as Fargo and Big Lebowski (along with Raising Arizona, Blood Simple, and The Hudsucker Proxy) are not for everyone.
There is an audience for Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, and I respect the opinions in that group, as everyone has their tastes in humor and movies in general. However, it is my sincere hope that Ethan and Joel Coen will return to the storytelling roots that once made them famous amongst critics and film buffs. If that doesn?t happen in the near future, they might start to lose a fan, and I don?t think I?ll be the only filmgoer saying that.
Lee's Grade: C
Ranked #63 of 120 between Twisted (#62) and Cellular (#64) for 2004 movies.
Ranked #63 of 120 between Twisted (#62) and Cellular (#64) for 2004 movies.
Lee's Overall Grading: 3025 graded movies
| A | 0.4% | |
| B | 30.0% | |
| C | 61.7% | |
| D | 8.0% | |
| F | 0.0% |
