Moonrise Kingdom

Audiences typically fall into two camps when it comes to Wes Anderson movies: you are either under his awkward spell or are baffled that anyone likes his stuff.  Both reactions are fair.  As much as I enjoy some of Anderson's work, I never recommend it to a friend without preparing them for oddness.  Personally, I find myself falling into neither category when it comes to Wes Anderson.  I used to really look forward to his movies --- the one-two punch of Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums will do that --- but was disappointed by The Life Aquatic and had hoped for more from The Fantastic Mr. Fox.  If I had to categorize my attitude toward a new Wes Anderson film, I think "the novelty is running out" sums it up best.  It's a little strange, then, that I saw Moonrise Kingdom in the theater.  I was on a family vacation and we wanted to see something that would be appropriate for anyone from my mother to my thirteen-year-old cousin.  And we chose a Wes Anderson movie.

Yeah, it was an odd choice, I'll admit.  But the main characters are right around the age of thirteen.  Maybe this could appeal to the Twilight/Hunger Games generation.

…yeah, okay, probably not.

Moonrise Kingdom begins with Sam (Jared Gilman), a twelve-year-old Khaki Scout, running away from Summer camp in 1963, leaving behind only a letter of resignation.  Sam was the least-liked member of his troop thanks to his incurable oddness, but he was an excellent scout.  His scoutmaster (Edward Norton) can't find him and turns to the local police, Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) for help. 

Keep your mouth open.  That helps you look for things.

This story takes place on an island, but that small area is apparently too large for these authority figures to track Sam down.  Meanwhile, Suzy (Kara Hayward) has vanished from her home, leaving her lawyer parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) and three younger brothers behind without an explanation.  In fact, they wouldn't have noticed she was gone if she had not left a note explaining that she was borrowing her brother's record player for two weeks, without permission.  As Suzy's parents start to look for her and enlist Captain Sharp in their quest, it becomes apparent that the two kids have run away together.  And so begins an odd tale of tween romance amidst mediocrity.

They look so in love!

Since this is a Wes Anderson movie, discussing the acting is almost a moot point.  It’s not that they do a bad job, by any means, but Anderson has such a strong hand in directing his cast that their performances are always peculiar (to put it nicely).  The hardest thing about Moonrise Kingdom is that the lead characters are children.  I liked Kara Howard; her performance definitely reminded me of Irene Gogovaia (lil' Gwyneth Paltrow) in The Royal Tenenbaums, and that’s not a bad thing.  She was cold, distant, and not nearly as awkward as her male counterpart.  Jared Gilman wasn’t as good, but he was definitely awkward as hell, in the tradition of other Wes Anderson leading men.  The more I think about his performance, the more I like the little things; it's hard to put a finger on what he was doing right, but it probably has something to do with how well he deadpanned his lines. 

The classic look didn't hurt, either

I was glad to see Edward Norton having fun here.  It's been too long since he's been in a movie I've enjoyed, and he sure played up the sincerity of this character to a goofy degree.  Bruce Willis was decent.  I've never thought of him as a subtle actor --- "yippe ki-yay motherfucker" will do that to a reputation --- and I don't think he benefited from extra awkwardness.  He wasn't bad, though, and the moments where he seems most engaged (with Sam or through the CB radio) were pretty solid.  I was definitely disappointed by Bill Murray and Frances McDormand, though.  I love both actors, but neither had enough time to shine; Murray's depressed character had some great moments ("That's not enough" was a great line) and McDormand's performance showed promise, but neither character was developed much in the final cutting.

I know how you feel, guys

The rest of the recognizable supporting cast was pretty good.  Harvey Keitel had a very bit part, and he was fun to watch.  Bob Balaban played the omniscient narrator, and I think his performance sums up Wes Anderson's direction; he was odd and awkward, making you either hate or love his scenes.  I enjoyed them.  Tilda Swinton --- whose bandwagon I haven't jumped onto just yet --- was very good as Social Services, and I think she would benefit from a larger role in another Anderson movie.  My favorite supporting character --- and an early leader for my annual "Best Bit Part" award --- was played by Jason Schwartzman.  It's not that his role was terribly difficult, but he had some of the film's best lines and delivery.  Plus, as an internet-ordained minister (because why not?), I love his willingness to marry people.

P.S.: Nice 'stache

The direction of Wes Anderson is hard for me to judge.  I love the effort he puts into his films (story, script, set design, supporting material, etc.), and Moonrise Kingdom has the same depth of experience that fans are used to.  All the book excerpts that Suzy reads?  Written by Wes.  You can also assume that any paintings or interesting fabrics you see in the movie were also made on his express direction.  I don't think anyone can fault Anderson for the effort he puts into his movies, even if they dislike his work.  Anderson works strangely with actors, though.  This is a slow movie, filled with many pauses and very few visible reactions.

Example of a typical Anderson reaction shot

Your opinion about the acting will probably formulate your opinion on the film as a whole.  If you like the tone and feel of other Wes Anderson movies, you will feel right at home in Moonrise Kingdom.  If you're unfamiliar with his work, just imagine silly things happening to people who don't understand levity, and that will give you a basic understanding of what the acting is like.  On the whole, I liked the acting and direction here, but it certainly is not for everyone.

If this doesn't make you smile, this film may not be for you

I should point out that this PG-13 movie is primarily rated that because of sexuality.  I thought it was kind cute and (very) awkwardly believable, but my wife was absolutely repelled by the incompetent sexual fondling that happened in a particular scene. 

Not surprisingly, it's the underwear dancing scene

It wasn't intended to be anything other than innocent and (maybe) realistic, but if you get uncomfortable when you see awkward sexuality, consider yourself warned.

Moonrise Kingdom is pretty enjoyable.  I thought the pre-teen romance was handled extremely well and there were a lot of fun moments from the elders in the cast.  Unfortunately, few of those elders had fully developed character arcs.  That wouldn't matter too much normally, but the script spends a lot of time on the adults in the cast, with only Willis and Norton appearing to find anything close to closure.  That is my main problem with this particular film.  There is a larger problem with this movie, though, and that is how similar Moonrise Kingdom is to the last few Wes Anderson movies.  The editing, storytelling, sets, title cards and acting are all unique among this year's crop of films, but they are nothing special when you compare them to Anderson's body of work.  I love that Anderson leaves such a personal touch on his films, but I'm getting tired of him using the exact same unusual style for each movie.  He is a clearly talented fellow, but needs to expand beyond the curious niche he's found if he hopes to continue developing as an artist.  I'm not saying that Wes Anderson needs to genre-hop like Woody Allen (although comparisons between the two are natural), but I hope his next effort is weird and awkward in a different way.

For the record, my thirteen-year-old cousin declared that Moonrise Kingdom was the worst movie she had ever seen.  And she's seen all the Twilight movies.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

After I caught Willard in the theater several years ago, I heard another theatergoer remark, "Worst.  Movie.  Ever."  One of my friends (or possibly, me --- it's been a while) loudly countered with, "I don't know about you guys, but I paid to see a movie about rats, and that's what I got."  Expectations can be a tricky thing with movies.  Too high, and you're likely to be disappointed, too low and you'll forgive just about anything.  I was a pretty big Transformers fan as a child, so I was super excited when the first film went into production; then I realized that Michael Bay was directing it, and those expectations dropped considerably.  I've seen all three Transformers movies in theaters now (four, counting the animated one), and I have entered each film with the same expectation: giant robots fighting each other.  Sure, other filler stuff might happen, but that is what the movies need to satisfy me.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon begins with a Transformer spacecraft crash landing on the moon in the early 1960s.  The knowledge of that crash created the space race, which culminated in the Apollo 11 space walk.  You might have thought the space race was a time of scientific achievement and ridiculous funding, but it was all a ruse; Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's true mission was to investigate an enormous space wreck.  It makes you wonder what Tom Hanks would have done if Apollo 13 had been successful, eh?

In the present time, the Autobots (the good Trannies) are spending their time hunting for any left over Decepticons (the bad Trannies) that survived Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.  To kill time between giant robot fights, they help out the US government by apparently fighting terrorism.

Presumably pictured above: a member of Seal Team 6

On a mission in Chernobyl (tourism motto: the playground of Eastern Europe), the Autobots find a fuel cell from The Ark, an Autobot ship that was damaged as it left the Transformer home planet of Cybertron.  Autobot leader Optimus Prime and the other good Trannies head out to the moon and investigate the wreckage, finding the inactive (but not dead) Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy) and some important devices.  These devices, called "pillars," can create a space bridge capable of transporting large amounts of stuff across the universe.  Like what?  Oh, I don't know, maybe...an invading force of Decepticons?  Clearly, Sentinel Prime and the pillars must be kept safe from the Decepticons and their leader, Megatron.  One thing that troubles me, though, is what happened to the several hundred other pillars that were supposed to be on The Ark...

Oh, and there are some stupid human subplots that involve Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) trying to find a joe job and dealing with the pressures of living with a fantastically successful girlfriend (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) who could pass as an underwear model.  These stresses help shape Sam into an ungrateful, whiny man-child and lead to all sorts of awkward and "comical" interactions with the likes of John Malkovich, Ken Jeong, John Turturro, Alan Tudyk, and a slumming Frances McDormand.

Yeah, I'd be pissed if I wore white that day, too.

I know that the acting in this movie is probably the furthest thing from your mind, but I have to comment on it.  I hate Shia LaBeouf in this movie.  He is such a dick to everyone else and he keeps getting rewarded for it.  There was one moment, where he had to choose between his girlfriend (who he can have sex with) and Optimus Prime (who he probably can't have sex with), that could have made up for the rest of his bitchy performance --- but that incredibly difficult decision ended up having no impact on the greater plot, so who cares what happened?  I thought Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who more or less replaced Megan Fox as Shia's romantic lead, did a surprisingly good job in her role.  Sure, she was a damsel in distress, had no good lines of dialogue, a bizarre fetish for rabbits, and apparently was hiding a Machiavellian streak for most of the film, but she did a pretty solid job of what she had to work with.  I have to admit, though, that my favorite scene in the movie is the extended shot of her staring blankly into the distance as Transformers blow stuff up behind her.  That made me laugh out loud.  As for the rest of the cast, Patrick Dempsey was MWA-HA-HA evil, Frances McDormand was a bureaucrat, John Malkovich was comic relief, and Ken Jeong delivered the same ridiculous performance that is normally expected out of him.  Nobody was great, but nobody was awful (although that depends on your Jeong tolerance).  Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson return as the sexiest robot fighters the US military has to offer, as do the eternally chatty/embarrassing/migrane-inducing Witwicky parents, played by Kevin Dunn and Julie White.  How these characters have all survived three robot battles is beyond logic.  Speaking of which, John Turturro returns to cash another paycheck as a goofy former secret government agent, this time accompanied by his fey butler, played by Alan Tudyk.  These two are responsible for some of the worst lines in the movie, but I'll give Tudyk credit for actually making me smile a couple of times.

As with the other Transformers movies, the coolest characters are still the giant robots.  We see the return of Bumblebee, Optimus Prime, Megatron (voiced by Hugo Weaving again), and Starscream, as well as some of the supporting Autobots, but only Bumblebee and Optimus get a decent amount of screen time.  Megatron spends the film with a gaping hole in his skull that is being slowly repaired by insect Transformers and I only noticed Starscream when he stopped by to chat with Megatron.  The two big additions to the robo-cast this year were Sentinel Prime and Shockwave.

If they made a fourth film, I want an Autobot with fat Elvis sideburns.

Sentinel was voiced by Leonard Nimoy and, for reasons I still can't comprehend, has a goatee.  Sure, it's a robotic goatee that probably transforms into something else (a Van Dyke, maybe?), but it's damned odd.  Anyway, I wasn't impressed with his design or the "unpredictable" twists he provides to the general plot.

I was similarly under-impressed with Shockwave.  He was the toughest villain in the movie and he was more of an ominous general that commands the big worm-looking thing than anything else.  I don't even remember him transforming into anything.  Whatever, he had a pretty sweet final scene, even if they did change up his character design significantly from the cartoon.

Shockwave: bustiest of all Decepticons!

I've never been a big fan of Michael Bay, either as a director or a producer.  At his best, he makes nonsensical action movies with meaningless catch phrases.  At his worst, he combines spectacular destruction sequences with extreme melodrama.  The Transformers series, to me, has always leaned toward Bay's worst tendencies.  Yes, the action sequences are pretty damn cool, especially for fans of the toys.  The human elements in the stories, though, are just an annoying distraction from robots punching each other.  This time around, Bay managed to make Shia LaBeouf far less likable than ever before and he threw in as much random supporting character "humor" as he could, in an attempt to disguise a paper-thin plot.  I'll give Bay credit, though.  The fight in Chicago looked pretty cool.  But there was at least ninety minutes of crappy movie before that.

It was a lot of fun to see giant robots destroy downtown Chicago, though.  As a Chicagoland native, there was a little thrill whenever I saw something I recognized getting blown up or ravaged by a giant Transformer worm thing (that transforms into...?).  The action scenes in general were all loud and fast, and (most importantly) featured giant robots fighting each other.  My complaint with the action in this movie is the same as with all the movies.  Aside from Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, and Megatron --- who are all given prominent speaking roles and are visually different from the other 'bots --- most of the fighting robots were interchangeable.  The Decepticons rarely had any colors to differentiate them from each other and the Autobots were still poorly developed, even after two previous films.

The winner of MTV's "Pimp My Autobot"

Action scenes would happen, and I would catch the gist of them (good robots vs. evil robots, right?), but there was rarely a time where I could explain who was actually fighting on screen, why, or where they were, in comparison to the other characters.  I was also a little uncomfortable with Optimus Prime acting as a vengeance machine.  He actually states that he (and the Autobots) will kill all the Decepticons.  That's awfully final and brutal for a hero, Optimus.  At the end of the movie, he actually executes a Decepticon --- the other character is begging for mercy and he snuffs them!  That's some cold shit for a PG-13 movie.

Action something something explosion

For every fight scene that entertained me or made me geek-out a little, there was about thirty minutes of truly awful movie.  The emotional weight of the story rested on sympathizing with Sam Witwicky --- who grew up wealthy and has only dated model-quality women --- as he tries to find a job where he is important.  Those are readily found in entry-level positions, right?  At least we get to see him have trouble committing to a beautiful woman for the second straight movie.  His whining about finding a job is more annoying as we see how "comically" bad he is at interviewing; the interviews were another thing --- who manages to get five or six sit-down interviews in the same day?  Apparently, someone who wears jeans to big-boy job interviews in Washington, DC.  Jackass.

There is a lot to hate about Transformers: Dark of the Moon.  The plot is dull and predictable.  The script tries and fails to be funny over and over again.  The action is often confusing; the cinematography frequently made it difficult who was fighting who.  The acting was mediocre at best.  The movie was two-and-a-half hours long, with the only fun stuff in the extended final 45-minute fight scene!  They never try to explain why the Decepticons pick Chicago as a place to stage their invasion!!  Wouldn't their evil plan cause the Earth to crash into Cybertron?!?  Most Decepticons on Earth take the form of cars; when Sam is running away from a man who admitted to working for the Decepticons, he hops into a car that was owned by that man!!!  And how bad were the special effects in the early scenes that bridged the gaps between 1960s news reels and the rest of the movie?  Worst Presidential impressions ever.

And yet, none of that really seems to matter.  This is a movie about giant robots fighting each other.  Do you really expect anything else?  From a quality film perspective, this film deserves a pitiful rating of

From the perspective of someone looking for giant robots killing each other, the movie is actually much, much more entertaining.  If you combine that love of action with a desire to laugh at Michael Bay, Transformers: Dark of the Moon gets a solid Lefty Gold rating.  Watching Chicago get ruined is pretty entertaining, but the rest of the film's awfulness more or less balances that out.

I would bump the entire movie up six stars if this scene actually happened, but sadly, it is just someone making great use of Photoshop.

Aeon Flux

More like Aeon Sucks!  High five, anyone...?

I love movies that are set in the future.  They often tell us what will happen to us soon, or maybe even in the recent past.  For instance, I bet you forgot all about the huge gang wars that divided the city of Los Angeles in 1997, to the point where gangs had minor fiefdoms.  Well, just watch Predator 2 and catch the history lesson.  Aeon Flux may be set in the far future, but it references a disease that wipes out 99% of the Earth's population in 2011.  So...nice knowing you, I guess.  Suck it, Mayans, you were off by a year!

The year is 2415 and all human life is within the contained city of Bregna.  Of course it is.  And just as obvious is the fact that life in Bregna is pretty perfect.  Except for the fact that it is under a benign totalitarian rule, with Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas) as the leader.  Oh yeah, and people have bad dreams.  That's a bummer.  Speaking of bummers, some people in Bregna just disappear, without a trace.  Bad dreams and disappearances lead to unrest, and the underground movement against the Goodchild regime is called the Monicans.  Aeon (Charlize Theron) is a Monican assassin, assigned by The Handler (Frances McDormand) to kill Trevor Goodchild.  The job is tough, but Aeon does a bunch of physically impossible things (while not breaking a sweat) and eventually reaches Trevor...but cannot pull the trigger.  Somehow, she knows him; even more disturbing, Trevor knows Aeon, and calls her Katherine for some reason.  Sensing that something is wrong with her mission --- and her understanding of Bregna --- Aeon escapes and vows to uncover the one secret about Bregna that will explain everything.

Sadly, this lawn crawling is part of the best action scene in the movie.

You may recall the anime series of the same name that Aeon Flux is based on.  Or not.  It was weird, obtuse, and was guaranteed to leave a new viewer completely confused.  The characters didn't speak any languages, they were either quiet or they made weird noises.  There wasn't really a plot, but there was a whole bunch of interesting things to look at.  With that in mind, I assume Aeon Flux's screenwriters had carte blanche when putting together this plot, and yet they came up with a pretty terrible story.  I don't want to spoil the twist in the plot, but it's pretty basic sci-fi stuff and it's not handled with either intelligence or ingenuity.  It's not all the story, though.  For a movie with so many random and weird futuristic things, like killer lawns and hands where your feet should be (to be fair, that was just one character), a lot of Bregna was very reminiscent of the 20th century.  Do you wonder what fashion will look like in 400 years?  For most people, exactly the same as today; that makes sense, because normal dress today closely resembles that of 1611.  The only people that wore unusual clothes were the abnormally hot, like Charlize Theron.

Why is she wearing boob drapes to bed?

Sure, I could pick on the science behind the story, but that factors into the big twist.  I do wonder how any of these people became more or less superhuman.  That's not really explained or even mentioned.  And some of the stuff is really weird.  Take the scene where Aeon catches a fly with her eyelashes.  Um...awesome?  What is that supposed to show me?  That she needs to wash her eyes now?  I don't get it.  I also don't get how Aeon and her friends are such efficient assassins.  Since the only army in Bregna is the one that protects the government, shouldn't the list of crack shots in the city be pretty well-known?  For that matter, I would think that, with so few humans left, the impossibly gifted ones would be relatively well known.  And yet, Aeon (who the two heads of the government both recognize on sight) lives an anonymous life?  I am willing to turn off my brain to certain things when watching dumb movies, but don't mix stupid action movies with pseudo-science fiction. 

I will give director Karyn Kusama credit for making a visually interesting movie.  It doesn't look very realistic and often looks like it's in Technicolor TM, but I don't know if she was going for plausibility, so I won't knock her for that.  Does this movie stay true to the television series?  Not particularly, from what I can recall, but I'm okay with that.  If you are a big fan of the show, you should know that there was no way in hell that a comprehensible live action movie could be made from it; while this takes several liberties with the source material, I think it did the best that could be expected.  In other words, I don't know why they wanted to make this movie, but it came out as good as it should have.  In still other words, any reliance on the original material guaranteed an incomprehensible product, and this movie should never have gotten beyond the planning stage.

But it was made, and actual actors signed up to star in it.  After a couple of serious dramas with critical acclaim, Charlize Theron was apparently tired of looking less than supermodely, so she took this role.  At least, that's the only reason I can think of for an Academy Award winner to agree to this tripe.  Her acting was decently mediocre, and probably better than the script demanded, but she still didn't do anything special.  I would put her work in this movie on par with her commercial work.

"Gold is cold"? What, is she writing the lyrics to Goldfinger?  That's okay, though; she just had to act to the standards of her co-stars.  You may remember Marton Csokas as the villain from Kangaroo Jack and xXx, and if that doesn't give you a hint about his acting talents, I don't know what will.  Jonny Lee Miller is just about as accomplished an actor as Csokas, but he plays a pretty annoying villain here.  I was also disappointed in Sophie Okonedo (the lady with hands for her feet) --- she's better than this.  Speaking of disappointment, what the hell was Frances McDormand doing in this movie?

Helena Bonham Carter looks great!

Pete Postlethwaite popping up for a bit part I am willing to accept, but McDormand is a genuinely fantastic actress.  Did she hear that this movie already had a slumming Academy Award nominee (Okonedo) and winner (Theron) and figured that no other film has had so much underachieving female talent in it?

[Side note: drop a comment if you can think of a movie as bad or worse than Aeon Flux with this many Oscar-worthy actresses in it.]

For this film to have worked on any dramatic level whatsoever, it needed to, at the very least, shown the populace being genuinely disturbed by their bad dreams.  Those dreams are a symptom of the city's horrible secret, and just mentioning that people have bad dreams doesn't justify assassination or toppling governments.  For this movie to work on an action movie level, it needed better action scenes.  That's pretty basic.  For this movie to work as a science fiction film, it needed more convincing science and fiction.  When I think about Aeon Flux, I am left thinking of a killer lawn.

And that's a pretty lame scene to sum up a movie.

Blood Simple

Have you ever watched a movie for a second or third time and realized that, for all these years, you have been undervaluing that film?  I don't know what happened between my last viewing of Blood Simple and this time, but something changed enough to bump this from "a good first try" to one of my favorite films from Joel and Ethan Coen, which is no mean feat.

The title is taken from Dashiell Hammett's (my favorite author) novel Red Harvest, and it refers to the stupid mindset people can find themselves in after prolonged exposure to violence.  They get jumpy, they get dumb, they get...well, simple.  Ray (John Getz) and Abby (Frances McDormand) are secret lovers, trying their best to hid the fact from Julian (Dan Hedaya), Abby's husband and Ray's boss.  They don't realize that Julian has hired a private detective, Loren (M. Emmett Walsh), to dig up the truth.  And dig it up, he does.  Loren takes pictures of the couple in a steamy embrace; yes, it's part of the job, but he's a dirty pervert, too, so he goes home with a smile.  Not one to take cuckolding lying down, Julian makes a menacing call to the couple and then hires Loren to kill them.  What follows is a game of cat and mouse, where the players aren't even sure who's hunting who.

Normally, I would go on and on about what a great actress Frances McDormand is, but the fact of the matter is that she was pretty young when this was filmed, and her performance is solid, but nothing spectacular.  She certainly outshines John Getz, but I would say that her performance was about as good as Hedaya's.  That's not a knock, since he plays a greasy jealous husband so well, but it's less impressive than her many later Coen Brothers roles.  The star of this picture is M. Emmett Walsh, who is amazing as the sociopathic scumbag private dick/assassin.  He is so sleazy, I wanted to clean my TV screen after the movie finished.  Walsh is normally a decent, but not exceptional supporting player, but his nastiness here makes him one of the best noir villains I have seen.  This is the first film by the Coen Brothers, and it serves as an indicator of where their careers would lead; the most stunning character was a supporting role, the cinematography was great, and the basic plot is simple, with all sorts of complications woven over it.  This was obviously a low-budget film, with most of the violence implied and not seen, but when it is shown, the violence is jarring and very effective.  The cinematography is very noticeable, with several shots being at extreme low angles, but it is very effective on the whole; I particularly liked the frequent zooming in on unmentioned, but important just the same, details in particular scenes.  This was Barry Sonnenfeld's fist professional work (as a cinematographer --- he eventually went on to direct big movies like Men In Black), and he does a beautiful job.

This is often cited as a neo-noir, and while I usually debate the assignment of "noir" to any gritty story, it definitely is appropriate here.  It's not about the feelings of the lovers, or even the hate of the jilted husband, it's about life, death, and moodiness.  And I love me some noir, so that's a good thing.  The movie starts out fairly quietly, but the Coens are able to grab your attention early and the succeed in ratcheting up the suspense as the film progresses.  I liked that much of the story was left out of the dialogue, so the viewer had to fill in the (moderately obvious) gaps on their own.  It was shot extremely well, even if some moments betrayed the amateur nature of the filmmakers.  Some people argue that this is the best Coen Brothers movie, that their later work gets a little too kooky; they have a point, and this is a great movie, but "too kooky"?  I don't know if the Coens have reached that point yet.