Review of O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) by Jesse O — 04 Feb 2014

This is the third time I've tried to write this review and by this point I'm fucking pissed. I'm gonna try to keep this review as concise as I possibly can, but I really doubt I will, so bear with me.

This is an excellent movie, and it's typical Coens, but it's certainly not their best. I've not seen The Ladykillers or Intolerable Cruelty, so I can only talk about the films that I HAVE seen.

I find their "worst" film to be Burn After Reading. But, to be fair, the Coens' worst film would be Brett Ratner's best film, for example. Just to throw a name out there, not that I have anything against Brett Ratner.

What I appreciate about the Coens' films is how they're able to adapt and evolve with each film they make. Their career, as with that of many great filmmakers, certainly has constants. Like their oddball characters, for example, and their dialogue.

They have a very specific way of writing dialogue, which I can't exactly describe, but you still know it's one of their films from the way the characters talk and behave. So those two are certainly one of their constants, but they apply these elements differently with each film they make.

They're simply not content with just making the same movie over and over again with different names for the characters, like Wes Anderson. They adapt to what each film requires of them, and that's one of their very obvious strong points.

And they've been doing this for 30 years, at least on a high level since I'm counting from Blood Simple's release. I'm sure they've been working on their craft for even longer than that, Blood Simple was just the film that brought them to the forefront.

The fact of the matter is that, anyone who's involved in a business where you create your own stories and you direct them as well, there's bound to be some stagnation at some point. You could say that stagnation came with The Ladykillers or Intolerable Cruelty which, again, I haven't seen, so I'm basing it on what people have said.

But, for all intents and purposes, the Coens have managed to produce consistently great movies and manage to remain relevant in a business that changes every year. They've managed to do this for 30 years straight.

And yea, people like Scorsese and Spielberg have been doing it for longer, and though I don't doubt that they're very much involved in the creative process, the fact of the matter is they don't write most of their own scripts.

Don't get me wrong, I love Scorsese and Spielberg, and I'm sure they're involved in the creative process regardless of whether or not they're credited for it. Sometimes script changes on set, and the director has to oversee that, so I don't doubt that they work hard.

They probably work even harder considering the fact the projects they're involved in usually are high-budgeted with a large cast whereas the Coens do films closer to indies with a smaller budget and a smaller cast.

But it's different when, every film you've ever directed you've also written. You're involved in the creative process from beginning to end, you don't come in at the middle or even a quarter of the way in.

The fact that the Coens have managed to adapt and evolve, as I mentioned, makes me have the utmost respect for them because they know they have to stay ahead of the curve and the quality of their films reflect that.

But that's enough kissing of the Coens' asses. On to this film. Like I said, it's certainly not their best, but it is a pretty damn great film regardless. One of the things that I'll say, and probably the only time I'll ever compare it to one of the Coens' previous films, is that I found that, much like The Big Lebowski, this film didn't have much of a story.

It wasn't certainly focused on as much as a No Country for Old Men for example. This more about Delmar's, Everett's and Pete's journey and not the destination. Because of that, I don't think the story to be as tightly woven as some other films in their filmography.

But the fact that the cast is so great, George Clooney, Tim Blake Nelson, and John Turturro have excellent chemistry, and the script is simply so damn good, on top of that you have the great cinematography, which has a great sepia-tinted look to give it that dirty feel certainly make up for the fact that the narrative is a little lacking.

Not to mention the great soundtrack, which certainly makes watching the film that much easier. There's also a hint of surrealism in this film, like the Coens have done in the past. The trio will be in the forest during their escape/adventure, and all of a sudden they'll come a group of people singing in the forest on their way to the lake, or when they come across the women singing while bathing at the lake or when they come across a klan rally.

Two of these groups acknowledge the trio, but one of them doesn't even acknowledge them, which adds to the surrealism. Those aspects of the film, again, aren't as focused on but they are there and that's another Coen trademark.

I will say that I found the way the story wrapped up, with everything being solved perfectly, to be a little too "mainstream" and unlike the Coens, but I didn't have that much of a problem with it.

..but it is noticeable if you've followed their careers. With that said, and I'd have to go back at the films I've seen to see where this ranks up, but this isn't their best...so don't go in expecting it to be.

But that doesn't mean this film isn't excellently written, funny, beautifully shot and with a tremendous cast. I definitely recommend this film even if you're not a fan of the Coens, there's still a lot to enjoy here.