Moon

Today we talk about the movie Moon. (If you're expecting us to talk about a Twilight movie, you are in the wrong place). Whereas our previous two picks have been underrated movies by familiar directors, this one is sort of different; the director is Duncan Jones, whose only other noteworthy credit is 2011's Source Code. Moon stars Sam Rockwell, and the voice of Kevin Spacey. 

Oh, and this is another Mark Pick. He has seen it a number of times. As for me, I think I may have casually watched it half asleep or half drunk back in college; parts of it seem hazily familiar.

Dylan: Now for a little movie called Moon. Let’s see if I can come up with a synopsis that doesn't give too much away. In what we assume is the near future, Sam Rockwell works on the moon, as the lone janitor of a surface mining facility. He has reached the end of his three year contract and is excited about going home to his wife and daughter. The time alone has already effected his grasp on reality, which is further put to the test when he wakes up to find a replica of himself running the facility. It’s a mostly original story, which is something we will discuss...right now.

Mark:  Is that my cue to go?  Alrighty then, we’ll I’m trying to figure if I want to throw up some [SPOILERS] brackets, but I’ll try to do my best.  What I like the most about the movie is how, while it technically revolves around one character, it is actually about two. Or is it the other way around? Damn it, it's just done so well! From start to finish you get so close to Sam Bell because there is no one else beyond his robot companion, GERTY (voiced so well by Kevin Spacey).  Throughout the film, you really feel for him as things begin to unravel.  Especially -- and this happens within the first twenty odd minutes, so don’t come crying to me about how i ruined anything -- when you finds out he’s been cloned.

Dylan: Well now that the cat is out of the bag...what I found interesting was how combative and disagreeable the two Sams were. I expected them to sort of be in sync, since they are same person dealing with the same situation, and they have a mutual enemy. But instead they were constantly at odds. It was interesting to think that the change was entirely a product of him spending three years alone. The newly-awakened Sam is so much more focused, albeit with somewhat of a temper, while the older Sam is too relieved by the presence of another person to really grasp the grim reality of the situation. And at times it was almost frustrating to see them not getting along.

Mark:  Which is why it blows my fucking mind that Sam Rockwell didn’t receive more critical acclaim for his performance in Moon.  The way he was able, like you said, to bring to life two different characters, even though they are essentially the same, is amazing.  One Sam who thinks he’s been away from civilization for about a week and the Sam who thinks he’s two weeks away from finishing his three year stint on the moon.  Each a great performance in its own right.  And it gives the films so much more depth, seeing the same thing through the eyes of the same character from essentially two different periods of time.

Dylan: Well enough about character development. One thing on my mind is how much this movie reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I know you haven’t seen it, and it is one of my favorite films. But I was wondering -- since you might know the answer to this -- is it deliberately trying to pay homage to the genre? A genre that I would have to classify as...'deep-space paranoid mindfuck'?

Mark: Ah yes.  The deep-space paranoid mindfuck genre.  Such a rich and deep genre of film.  But yeah, Jones, while he set out to make an original story with Moon, did draw some of his themes and concepts from other classic Sci-Fi films.  You bring up 2001, and yes I haven’t seen it (crucify him!  Haha, but seriously don’t.) but there are clear connections.  One I noticed is that during scenes of slow, almost benign tasks, there is classical music playing.  If you want to speak more to that, please do.  But the other, obviously, is Blade Runner.  The bleak future that needs the off world mining to help Earth, the potentially dubious company running the entire operation, along with the fact that eastern culture seems to have become more of a norm in this future.  Much like Japan having a larger presence in Blade Runner, here it is Korea.  But what makes this movie stand out more is that it doesn’t just stand on what the older classics did, rather it molds those well-known aspects into something new for itself.

Dylan: I didn't even notice the Korean thing. But yea, among the connections to 2001, the most obvious was GERTY-3000, a drawl-voiced autonomous robot that controls everything on the ship, and seems to be at odds with the protagonist. Also, at the very end, as Sam heads toward earth, a myriad of colors are flashing on his face, very similar to the sequence at the end of 2001. I am glad you mentioned the music though. I thought the music was really well done. It was subtle, gloomy, creepy, and very simple; it worked perfectly with what was happening on screen. Also, I don’t know what it means, but I immediately picked up on the -- I don’t know the word for it...retro-ness(?) of everything. This is the future. And yet the A.I. is a big, clunky trash can with a tiny screen and a smiley face. Also (and maybe it helps that I saw it on blu-ray) there are a lot of rust and calcium stains near the sink and toilet and what not that contrast with the otherwise stark white walls of the base. Did you notice that stuff?

Mark: Actually, you bring up a lot I wanted to hit on, so I’ll try to not just repeat you.  I think what makes this film so brilliant is the music, by Clint Mansell, being so devoid of the unnecessary epic feel, being that it’s really just strings and piano, keeps everything at the same level.  It’s a slow movie, taking it’s time to build up the tension and the music does a brilliant job at that.  And one of the things about this movie that just seems so amazing in the age of high-techery CGI magic, is that it is almost entirely miniature sets and models.  The lunar surface is a massive miniature set, all the outside shots, including the rover moving along the surface, are done with models.  There is very little CGI.  And this shows how well the movie used the lighting and forced perspective camera shots to make it seem so real.  It’s the simplicity of everything involved with this movie that makes you feel so much more invested in this setting.  At least for me.  Also I’m listening to the score right now.

Dylan:  And did you notice the rust and shit?

Mark:  Well probably not to the same extent as you as I did not see it on Blu-ray, but yeah, I noticed how the base itself seemed so much older.

Dylan: Yea. It was cool because even though everything is futuristic, and, like I said, whitewashed, it still manages to look sort of dated. So we know that, okay, this guy has been here for three years, but it kind of seems like this place has been here for longer than that. Anyways, I have a couple complaints about the very ending. I though I heard some voice-over news broadcasting...is that suggesting that he returned home and...caused a stir?

Mark:  I can answer it in one word.  Sequel..ish thing.  Ok, so maybe that’s not one word, but yeah, from the end we can assume he made it home. But at some point, in a new story from Jones, we’ll get a kind of epilogue about the story.

Dylan: Huh? He is actually making a sequel?

Mark:  Sorta. It won’t be a story about Sam though.  He is creating a new story, following a new character on Earth, but it takes place during the same period, so news of Sam Bell will appear.  The problem was that financing didn’t happen for the film, called Mute, so he instead went on to do Source Code.  So he’s opted to make it into a graphic novel, with the hopes of turning it into a film. (http://screenrant.com/duncan-jones-mute-graphic-novel-movie-schrad-105500/)  He just has two other things on his plate.

Dylan: Meh. He’s better off. It looks like near-future sci-fi movies are going to become a new fad. What with Oblivion, After Earth, and Ender’s Game. And those are just the ones that come to mind. Oh and before I forget, this movie reminded me a lot of Sunshine, which is another underrated but original sci-fi mystery story. Maybe we can talk about that one in the future. Overall, Moon was pretty entertaining. The plot, the pacing, etc. I would definitely say it’s worth a second viewing, or at least a first. If you like 2001, Sunshine, or even Pixar's Wall-E, you'll probably enjoy this. What yours verdict?

Mark:  True, Sci-Fi is coming back something fierce.  I do however hope it happens, but at the very least I’ll be buying the graphic novel.  Anything that’s essentially a love letter to Blade Runner is good in my book.  And, honestly, this was the fourth time i’ve watched this.  So I recommend it like nobody’s business.  It’s a brilliantly subtle performance by Sam Rockwell, a beautiful score, and like you said, the pacing with the story is great.  Go find it and watch it.  Do it.
So, cause I'm gonna make this my thing now, how about some Trivia?  Duncan Jones is not his original name.  What was it?

Dylan: Uhh...Antoine Fuqua?

Mark:  Where did you pull that name from?  But, really, not that weird.  No, his name was Zowie Bowie.  The son of David Bowie.  He changed it because he felt his name wouldn’t work too well while trying to make it as a serious director.

Dylan: I would kill for that name.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the big reveal for today: Dylan (me) is a Bowie fan. So that's it, Moon, from Duncan Jones. Our next cinematic adventure will involve Sir Ben Kingsley and Ray Winstone as disgruntled British mobsters, in Sexy Beast. Neither of us have seen this one, but everything about it sounds awesome, so let's hope we're not disappointed. Also, it is on Netflix. Especially since it's going to be the first Dylan Pick. "I'm going to a party. I'm already twenty minutes late." Where's the party, you ask? "In space, Bret. In space."

Black Rain

Today we discuss the movie Black Rain, a 1989 action flick starring Michael Douglas, Andy Garcia, and parts of Japan. It was directed by Ridley Scott, the guy who did Alien, Blade Runner, and more recently, Prometheus. But do not be fooled; even though those three happen to share a common universe, this is a standalone story. Also, it is a Mark Pick. And I point that out because I am curious if, after a while, readers who have seen some of these movies, or even (cough, cough) have watched them because of what they have read here, will identify with either of us more than the other. Anyways, here you go:

Mark: Alright, so right off the bat I’d like to say that I was a fan of this movie.  Never seen it before, which to me is upsetting because I love Ridley Scott.  Will I be biased?  Probably, but we’ll see.  And you?

Dylan: Yea, I had never seen it either. Never even heard of it, in fact. The only Ridley Scott stuff I’ve seen are Alien and Prometheus (Was Aliens by Scott? If so, then that too.) But anyways, I think it had its pros and cons. I would definitely label it your typical 80’s actioner, with its cheesy rock music soundtrack (which was apparently Hans Zimmer) and its lame one-liners, like “I’m used to being kissed...before I get fucked” or something to that effect. I certainly wasn’t blown away by it. I kind of thought of it as a combination between Rush Hour and Lethal Weapon. There was even a karaoke scene where an Asian guy was ruining an American song. And Michael Douglas’ mullet was identical to Mel Gibson’s.

Mark:  What’s the fucking point of a discussion if you’re gonna lay out so much in one post?  I was going to get to a lot of those things as we went along, but no, you had to go and just talk about everything right off the bat.  But I can agree with you on a lot of that. Though, I think to really just appreciate this is to take it with a handful of salt and know that you’re not going to get a refined piece of narrative or anything that deep in terms of story structure.  

Dylan: An entire handful of salt? That may be hard for some people to swallow. You could even say it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. Wow! Look at how inspired I am to come up with cheesy lines like this after seeing that movie!

Mark: And speaking of the karaoke part, all i could think of was Top Gun.  That’s all I’ll say to that and if you watch the movie and have seen Top Gun, you’ll know what I’m talking about.  Also, side note, this was the first collaboration between Ridley Scott and Han Zimmer.  Just FYI.  Also, Aliens was directed by James Cameron, before he took too many drugs and thought Avatar would be his only thing.

Dylan: Anyways, it wasn’t terrible. It just wasn’t very interesting to me. And for people who like characters like Gibson in Lethal Weapon, and Cruise in Top Gun, and Kurt Russell in Escape From New York, this movie is probably pretty appealing. I was also caught off guard by the violence of it. And that reminds me, we forgot to put in a little summary of the movie. So for those of you who have read this far and are scratching your head, here you go: Michael Douglas is a badass cop in NYC, with a motorcycle. He is also in trouble for possibly stealing some money. He and his partner accidentally get caught up with some international thugs and next thing you know, they’re in Japan, being badass NYC cops. Which actually makes me think of something I liked. But I’ll hold out and give you a chance to say something first.

Mark: Jesus, aren’t you talkative.  As for the violence, I wasn’t all that surprised by it, since Ridley Scott movies -- at least the R rated ones -- are fairly violent.  So I didn’t think this would be all that different.  I did think the action was too infrequent, which lead to a lot of dragging for the narrative.  But for the action there was, I found more enjoyment in the absurd level it got to.  For instance the one guy on a motorcycle who got shot, hit a truck, and then proceeded to explode.  And the final 15 or so minutes, for me, were really entertaining and I thought, while very 80’s cheesy, very well done as well.  Also, Scott had to be going through a motorcycle phase, because it gets ridiculous at points.  If you have more to say on the 80’s nature of it or the narrative side, go on, cause I want to talk about more of the stylistic side.

Dylan: Nope. The other thing I was going to say was that I like the fact that he is sort of a dirty cop. It adds an extra dimension to his character, and I liked how it affects not so much his actions, but how his partner and the Japanese officer view him. On the flip side of that, though, Michael Douglas does not come off as a convincing badass action star at all. It felt sort of forced, and a little annoying. Like when he was throwing a tantrum, breaking shelves and tearing down laundry and stuff. Then again, I am not really too familiar with his films, so I’m not sure what he usually plays.

Mark: I thought he was alright as the detective, effective for how things needed to go.  But Andy Garcia, holy shit, I have never seen a weirder performance by him.  Maybe I haven’t seen all his movies, but he always seems to play a more in control character who occasionally has outbursts.  But here, here is the energy, the kinda kooky side character to Douglas’ gruff and tough detective.  It just stood out to me a lot when he was on the screen.  But Ken Takakura, who played Masahiro, I thought we was pretty good and I grew to like his character.

Dylan: Yea, I mean, he is also a little more complex than just the strange foreigner the Americans have to work with. He had his own problems, and it sort of showed him bonding with Andy Garcia. Slightly more character development than I expected.

Mark:  Really, besides Masahiro, everyone else was more a character type, than character who could grow or anything.  Gruff detective, more flamboyant side kick, token white woman in Japan, evil guy, other evil guys but not our evil guy.  They didn’t need to grow in character all that much.  They just set out to do what they set out to do.  Masahiro was the only one who seemed to adapt.  But enough on that, I think we beat that particular horse well beyond death.  What’d you think of the way everything looked?  The sense of place and whatnot.  Cause that shot, as they’re landing into Japan, the red sun rising (yes, yes, I know, but it is what it is) on the smoke (can’t think of the word).  Everything looks so absolutely alien and I thought it was beautifully shot.

Dylan: Well, I have to admit, I did not get too swept away by the imagery. At times, I sensed the foreign nature of it. The scene you mentioned for one. But also when Douglas and Garcia are looking for their hotel, before all the bikers surround them. I was wondering if that was a set or just an empty -- and completely neon-streaked -- Japanese street. Other than that, I felt like the camera always stayed at street level, and it kind of reminded me of Blade Runner, in that you know they are in a city but it never pans out to show the skyline or anything, so you feel trapped and lost at the bottom.

Mark:  I totally agree with the Blade Runner comparison.  It had that vibe every time the characters were moving through the busy streets and the lights were shining on everything.  There is also that scene were Douglas is looking over the city at night, with the rain coming down, and I could have sworn it switched over to Blade Runner.  But I thought that worked well for what the movie wanted; to make us see how alien of a place this was and how they’re trapped by the cultural difference as well as just the city itself.

Dylan: Which movie came first?

Mark: Blade Runner was ‘82, this is ‘89.  But the last part I wanted to address in terms of setting and place, while I did like the end locations, a kinda feudal feeling with the winery when everything devolves into violence between the Yakuza clans, but the steelworks, with the molten steel and the sounds of machinery, and just the way it was shot, I thought that was great.

Dylan: I wonder if there was a point to the juxtaposition between the vineyards and the mill. Nothing comes to mind though.

Mark:  I was gonna say I don’t think so, and I could probably make some kind of an analysis on how the two real major shootouts happen at a steel mill and rural winery, but I think, really, it just gives a good contrast as to what’s in Japan, and where Douglas’ character finds himself.

Dylan: I concur, doctor. So is that about it? What’s the final verdict?

Mark:  Doctor?  Don’t be so formal.  But while the narrative of the film feels lacking at points, and down right cliche at others, the entertaining action and well directed visuals makes this something I’d recommend.

Dylan: Hm, all right. Well I kind of said already how I would rate it. If you like 80’s action movies and somehow haven’t seen this one, go for it. But otherwise, it’s nothing mindblowing.

Mark:  Hey, quickie trivia, no looking.  Did this go up for any oscars?

Dylan: I actually did already look by accident, when I was confirming that the American woman is none other than Indy’s girl in Temple of Doom!

Mark:  That’s who she fucking is!  I knew she looked familiar.  And surprise, she’s working as a kinda singer in a foreign land.  Now that’s some type casting.  And, it received Oscar nominations for Best Sound and Sound Effects Editing.

Dylan: I find both of those surprising.

Mark:  I mean, it did sound good.  The guns sounded real?

Dylan: Meh.

--------------------------------------------------------

So there you have. Our next title is not definite yet, but it seems we are leaning toward Moon, starring Sam Rockwell and Sam Rockwell, with a cameo appearance by Sam Rockwell. And, following my motif of quoting better films by the same director: "This is Ripley, last survivor of the Nostromo, signing off. Come on, cat."

Barton Fink

Welcome to our first dialogue. We spent quite a bit of time trying to decide what movie would be first. We wanted something that most people - including us - hadn't seen before. But also something that would be recognizable to people. We thought a good place to start would be a somewhat unheard of Coen Brothers movie. The Coen Brothers are, of course, the gentlemen behind The Big Lebowski, Fargo, and No Country For Old Men, among many other acclaimed titles.

Barton Fink (1991) can be found on Netflix. It stars John Turturro and John Goodman.

Mark: Alright, lets knuckle down and start.
Dylan: In short, Barton Fink is the story of the title character, a playwright who finds success in 1940s New York, and moves out to Los Angeles to write screenplays. But during a case of writer’s block in a run-down hotel, strange things start to happen to Fink. With the introduction of some colorful (to say the least) supporting characters, things start out slow, and then escalate pretty quick.

Mark: Well, there’s slow, and then there’s Barton Fink.  I clocked it in, and things begin to take a very strange turn for Fink at about the hour and ten minute mark.  The movie itself clocks in at just under two hours.  This film is a slow burner, really taking its time to get you in place with Fink, to put you, really, right where he is, so when things take a turn, you’re just as lost and confused as he is.  Or at least I felt that way, which is incidentally when I got another drink, you know to try and dull the pain of confusion for myself.

Dylan: Without a doubt, most of the movie is getting you to see and feel what Fink does. And you can sort of relate to him; when he gets stuck writing the script, he notices all the distractions of the hotel - the mosquitos, the drooping wallpaper, the noises on the other side of the wall. It’s like a very low-tech cerebral film. Sort of hypnotic. But if you don’t allow yourself to share in Fink’s frustrations, the movie is going to get really boring really fast.

Mark: Absolutely.  It’s these frustrations that build up over time and lead to things growing beyond his control.  All the little things during the movie seem to be sort of in his control; if not in control, then he can deal with them, as anyone would.  And, speaking of frustrations, I found Fink at points to be a frustration for me.  This may in fact be something we’re supposed to pick up on, as I felt a disconnect from him.  He speaks of trying to find a voice for the common man, yet every time his neighbor Charlie, an insurance salesman, an image of a truly common man, offers him some stories, Fink keeps fucking cutting him off.  Of course, and without giving anything away, this entire aspect of Fink’s character comes to a head later in the film in an alarming way.  And I don’t think this was something difficult to pick up on, rather we’re supposed to, but with all the distractions and frustrations, it really puts us in an agitated position, leaving us vulnerable to when things really fly off the handle.

Dylan: Now, I don’t know about you. And I don’t mean to change the subject. But I am still sitting here scratching my head over the ending. It’s one of those movies where you are so inside the main character’s brain, that when things start to get a little nutty, you can’t tell how much of it is really happening and how much is his imagination. We keep getting those shots of the hotel hallway, always empty. It reminded me of The Shining. And yet Fink hears noises coming from the other rooms. For a while I just assumed his neighbor Charlie was his imagination. Maybe it was an aspect of his own personality that would sort of help him get over his writer’s block.  

Mark: Actually, speaking of the ending, I just came to an sorta understanding of the end.  There is a picture on his wall in his hotel room, and the camera always lingers on it, as does Fink, as if to show some sort of escapism for him.  A view at something good or relaxing for him while trapped in the room and trapped in his own mind by the writers block.  And in the end, this image becomes a reality.   But he’s still trapped.  It’s like an added insult.  That the thing that gave him a moment’s reprieve from all this shit and craziness suddenly has become that too.  And also this adds more to the whole reality versus imagination aspect of the movie, as something that was just an escape for him while trapped in the hotel room has suddenly become real.  And this isn’t the only time.  Clearly at one point the line between reality and imagination is shattered.  However, we are never given that indication of one or the other.  And I loved that.  It left us completely out and we just had to handle it, just like Fink.  There is actually a scene during all this really impossible stuff in which Fink seems completely unfazed by it all, like everything became clear to him and all this insanity is just noise.  And we kinda have to react the same way, as if freaking out over the impossibility of the scenes or the ridiculousness of it all isn’t worth the effort and we should just accept it and live and let live.  Maybe i’m just talking out of my ass, though my ass does occasionally have good ideas.

Dylan: Well, talking asses aside, the Coen Bros. have always blended the literal with the metaphoric in their movies. And sometimes I feel like you can analyze one of their movies all you want and still not be able to pinpoint the where one theme ends and the other begins. Like what is the meaning of the heat that people keep commenting on. And what is the point of the author he respects turning out to be a drunken hack. I know these things are in there for a reason, I just don’t know what it is.

Mark: Kinda like the biker in Raising Arizona.  That’s one of their best movies in which reality and imagination seem to blur.  Like this, no one questions the impossible nature of things, bringing into question what the fuck is going on.  Reminds me of Saturday nights of old.

Dylan: I agree. The thing is, with most of their films, rather than get aggravated by that, I find it kind of intriguing. It’s all part of their unique style that draws you into the story, even when - as in this case - there is not a lot of story to tell. It’s like when someone asks me what is this movie about, I can’t really explain it.

Mark: Horror?  Noir?  Buddy movie?  Who knows, but each is blended in to keep us off balance. But hey, quick change of pace, but I want to test you for a second.  This went up for three Oscars.  Without looking, care to guess? Two were technical and one for a performance.

Dylan: I would guess the performance would go to Turturro (Fink) or Goodman (Charlie). As for technical, maybe sound editing and/or set design. The setting of the hotel room played such an integral role in characterizing Fink’s obsessive nature.

Mark: Survey says...  Oscar nominations for Art/Set Design, Costume Design, and Best Supporting actor for...Michael Lerner, as Mr. Lipnik.  The crazy ass producer who hires Fink in the first place and doesn’t like his script in the end . I agree to a point, he did essentially own every scene he was in, but it wasn’t that good. I thought Goodman was much better.

Dylan: But what about all the questions we are left with at the end? Fink wrote what he considered a masterpiece, but the producer hated it. Charlie gave him a package, that he never opened. His parents may or may not be alive. And shouldn’t Fink be in jail for what happened at the hotel? It’s almost irresponsible how much the end of the movie left you wondering.

Mark: In terms of the masterpiece he writes, I feel as though that plays more to the running theme throughout the film of writing in different mediums and for different audiences.  Fink comes from the theater, and his work has been concerning the common man.  However, film, which he seemed to hate actually, has less of a serious tone to it.  That scene, I feel, is meant to finally juxtaposed exactly where Fink is in relation to everyone else.  You notice something?  That the characters who are more on Fink’s level, more real and common in relation to the big glitzy hollywood, spoke very calmly for the most part?  All the Hollywood types yelled and spoke quickly.  Even the tone of voices in the film are played against each other, just like the set design.  Dingy hotel versus bright and shiny hollywood McMansions. And about the box, I don’t know.  It was given to him by someone who he thought represented his idea of the common man.  And now he’s left with the box and I think he’s just afraid to see what’s in it because like you said, if it was all in his head, what did he leave himself?  And I think the potentially dead parents is just to add to our growing tension and lack of trust of what’s real.

Dylan: Fair enough. What else should we talk about? I definitely wouldn’t say this movie is a crowd pleaser.

Mark: Oh fuck no, this movie is not for everyone.  Like you said, this is a kinda cerebral film and will lose people, either because the movie takes a long time to get somewhere or because when it actually gets there, things get a little too unbe-fucking-believable and strange to follow.

Dylan: In fact, its role as a movie sort of fits the circumstances of our viewing it: it is a hidden gem from the same people who brought us so many other great stories. You watch it only after the filmmakers have proven to you that they are worth it.

Mark: And did you notice how different this one is from the ones that got more exposure?  Now, minus The Big Lebowski here for a moment, but all of their major successes - like No Country for Old Men, True Grit, Fargo - they all had such a grander scope to them.  What I’m trying to say is that those movies seemed more interested in the setting and how the people react within them.

Dylan: Well, to be fair, this entire movie is based on setting. He goes to LA where he doesn’t fit (I like how he always wears the drab brown suit, when the images of Hollywood are so bright and flashy) in at all. He is stuffed into this hotel room that sort of reflects what is going on in his mind. The setting is key to the story.

Mark: No, I see your point.  Each film is about the people and the settings that they’re seemingly trapped in.  Ok, maybe not each film, but I’m giving broad strokes here.  The setting, well you said it, personifies the situation.  Like, take No Country for Old Men, for instance. Those massive shots of one person in the middle of the open plain...I always saw it as being a part of something so much bigger than oneself and not really seeing it all. And can I just say that everytime the camera gave us a really good look at Fink’s hair, I could only think of Eraserhead.  Is that weird?  Like no, fucking seriously, hold on, let me see if this works.  Fucking Strange.  I’m not saying that this means anything but it’s just weird how much these two look the same.

Dylan: Dear lord, that gives the movie a whole new terrifying meaning. God I hate that movie. I was going to say that it sort of reminded me of Secret Window, with Johnny Depp, and, actually, John Turturro again. About a writer who may or may not be imagining things as he struggles with his project. And also, Steve Buscemi should have gotten a bigger role. Because, well, he is awesome.

Mark: Buscemi had basically a non part.  There was probably a deeper meaning to character - that he was probably the only real person in all this craziness, the only real common man, but he only shows up a few short times.  And isn’t it odd how different John Turturro is then versus now?  LIke if you asked a kid nowadays who John Turturro is, and after he asks who the fuck that is, because we know kids these days and their swearing, the only role I can think of that they’d know is the Transformers.

Dylan: Yea, he was such a different actor back then. But aside from the Coen Bros. movies he’s in and Do the Right Thing  I don’t really know him from much else. (Oh, and Secret Window).

Mark: That would have been my other big one to bring up, as well as Quiz Show, which I will hazard to say is one of his best performances.

Dylan: Also, I don’t know about you, but I feel like Coen Bros movies could all share a common universe. Like the nature of the people in the movies; there is always something similar and equally outlandish about them.

Mark: And it would have to be for the ones that are original stories for them.  I mean, I guess The Big Lebowski could exist in the same universe as No Country for Old Men, but I’m just saying.  Cool concept though.

Dylan: Well what’s funny is I like to think of No Country as a reimagined sequel to Fargo, even though one is a book adaptation and the other is supposedly based on true events. Anyways, I am rambling. But at the end of Fargo, everyone dies and there is a case full of money sitting in the snow. Switch to No Country: the snow has thawed, the bodies are all still there, and someone comes across the case full of money, and a new story picks up where the other ended.

Mark: Ok, no I get what you’re saying, kinda.  It shares a lot of similar aspects, the movies.  Actually, yeah, I can see what you’re talking about.  Just before I was being facetious but now I’m serious.

Dylan: And lastly, we should end this by saying that it’s sort of a Coen Bros. movie stripped to its bare bones. All the elements of their style of storytelling are in there, but not much of the entertainment. If that makes sense. It has the dark noir/comedic juxtaposition. The strange characters. The violent deaths. And the open-ended conclusion that are all quintessential Coen Bros. motifs. I think I would only recommend it to someone who is a big fan of their movies and feels like watching something strange and different.

Mark: I will agree that, although this is a slow burner of a film, and one that expects the viewer to be paying more attention to all the little things than usual, and it having a very out there ending giving no real closure, it’s a brilliant piece of nuanced filmmaking and character study.
Also, fun fact, they wrote this in three weeks while getting over their own writer’s block trying to finish Miller’s Crossing.

Dylan: Figures. 

--------------------------------------------------------------

I find it appropriate here to quote the Stranger at the end of The Big Lebowski: "welp, that about does her, wrap's her all up." In other words, we're done. If you got anything at all out of this, feel free to come back in a few days when we cover our next movie choice, Ridley Scott's Black Rain, starring Michael Douglas and Andy Garcia. Neither of us have seen it, and the Netflix summary is this: "In Osaka, a Japanese detective is assigned to help a New York City cop in recapturing an escaped Yakuza crime lord who is wanted for murder."