The Man Who Wasn't There
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.74 You Save: $10.24 (68%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.71 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Man Who Wasn't There
Movie Review: emotional dramatic masterwork
Summary: 5 Stars
the man who wasn't there is a fantastic drama. yes it's dragged out but the acting is great. it really makes you think.Movie Review: Every Word of this Fiction is True
Summary: 4 Stars
So it was my pick for movie night, and my last selection, the neo-noir The Last Seduction had been a bust with my friend [who didn't find the main character funny, a requirement for enjoyment], and for some reason I found myself renting this, another neo-noir. I had seen this in the theater and liked it, and upon re-viewing, had the happy experience of discovering that it's even better than I remembered.
We open with these nice 3-D titles over a B&W image of a barber pole--the entire movie is B&W by the way, and packed with gorgeous photography by Roger Deakins. Billy Bob Thornton is Ed Crane, barber who ended up in his job because the owner is the brother of his wife. He says he's not really a barber [as a person], he just works there. All of this is delivered in a noir-type voice-over, as we see that Ed moves incredibly slowly, barely ever makes a facial expression, and rarely says anything. One day a guy comes in for a haircut, and talks about a business deal he came in town for that went sour: he was going to receive $10,000 investment to open a dry cleaning business. This is 1949, and dry cleaning is brand new, the wave of the future.
That night Ed thinks about it--his wife Doris, in the bath, asks him to shave her legs, which we'll come back to--and goes over to the guy, Creighton's, hotel room. He says he'll get the money. Creighton loosens his tie and winks at Ed, who asks if that was a pass. Creighton is gay! And it's a little refreshing, as he has no other characteristics we would otherwise associate with a gay person. Anyway, Ed says he'll get the money.
Earlier that night Ed and Doris have had James Gandolfini as Dave over for dinner, and Ed mentioned that he thinks Dave and Doris are having an affair. His plan to get the money is to send a note, seemingly from someone else, threatening to expose the affair. Dave, upset, confides in Ed that he's being blackmailed, but doesn't tell him the woman he's being adulterous with is Doris. He mentions that the news coming out would ruin him, as the department store he runs belongs to his wife's family--so both major male characters work in jobs they are beholden to their wives for. Dave thinks it's "the pansy" that sent the note, when Dave refused to give him the money--Dave was the prospect that Creighton had come into town to see. And by the way, Dave's a smart businessman and he thinks Creighton's proposal is a load of hooey.
SPOILERS > > >
Doris gets drunk and is passed out at home when Ed gets a call from Dave. He goes to the store late at night. Dave knows it's him, and asks repeatedly: "What kind of a man are you?" He also lets on that he found out it was Ed from Creighton--who he beat for the information. Dave is attacking Ed when, with a quick stab to the neck, Dave is dead. It's a little funny as Ed goes home, sits back in place and resumes the story he was telling when the phone rang earlier.
Surprise--DORIS is hauled off to jail for Dave's murder. Ed gets Doris' brother Frank to mortgage the barber shop to pay for Freddy Reidmenschneider, considered the best lawyer in the region for these kinds of cases. Freddy is played by Tony Shaloub in a flamboyant performance as this self-assured lawyer who talks incessantly and will listen to no one but himself. And also runs up huge bills at others' expense by eating everything in sight and staying at the best hotels. I suspect he was somewhat inspired by Hume Cronyn in the Lana Turner Postman Always Rings Twice, who comes in during the second half and also dominates the film with his self-assurance. Meanwhile, Ed is going over more and more to hear Rachel, the teenage daughter of a friend, play Beethoven. It soothes him and is the only thing he knows that seems beautiful and true.
Certain things start getting weird. Dave's wife comes over and tells Ed that she and Dave both witnessed an alien landing, and experiments were conducted on Dave. She's sure his murder has something to do with a government cover-up. He starts to think about becoming Rachel's manager, and it seems like he has feelings an adult shouldn't be having about a teenage girl. Doris hangs herself in prison before her trial, after learning that Ed knew of her affair and just never said anything. Rachel makes an unrealistic pass, and they have a huge car accident. Ed wakes in prison. They found Creighton at the bottom of a lake--Big Dave killed him--and Ed is blamed for it.
Ed gets Reidmenschneider to defend him, and he makes a big speech about how Ed "IS" modern man. Wait--subtext alert sounding! Then Frank punches Ed, causing a mistrial, and shouting again: "What kind of a man are you?" Ed gets a crappy lawyer for the mistrial and is sent to death row, where...
We find out that what we've been watching is the dramatization of Ed's story that he's been writing for a men's magazine that is paying him five cents a word--giving him good reason to extend and embellish. We see some men's magazines sitting on his desk, one about an alien landing, one about a married man discovering that he's a mad killer. So the point is we'll never know how much of what we just saw is true, and how much was made up or embellished, as Ed went through and added little bits inspired by the magazines he was reading. This also gives context to the entire movie as a neo-noir, as Ed is writing a pastiche of noir clichés from men's magazines, and the movie itself is a pastiche of clichés and well-worn conventions from noir films. So, it's genius. The problem is, it also kind of invalidates and diminishes the entire movie, because if what we saw was all just a pastiche, just a fantasy, then why should we care about it? It does explain many of the weirder turns the story starts to take in its last third, but it also makes you a bit of a chump for paying close attention to the film, as ultimately none of it mattered. This is too bad, as it can lead one to dismiss and forget much of the truly wonderful performances and photography of the bulk of the film, because ultimately they were all kind of a smokescreen.
< < < SPOILERS END
Nevertheless, really good and really worth watching. Who do the Coen brothers think they are, making a movie as slow, somber and meditative like this? They have a lot of nerve. This has interesting characters, nice observance of noir conventions [without feeling too artificial], good performances and really wonderful photography. It's just a little bit of a shame that the ending, while ideologically brilliant, kind of diminishes the whole 110 minutes that lead up to it. Still, a must see.
Movie Review: Lay back, Relax, Let this Movie Flow into Your Brain...
Summary: 4 Stars
The first time I saw the Coen brother's Film Noir homage, "The Man Who Wasn't There" in the movie theatre, I really didn't like it that much. "A well made and pretty picture" I thought to myself, "but way to slow".I was disapointed because usually I'm a huuuuge Coen Brothers fan.But then something bizarre happened. I saw the film again on DVD and I absolutely loved everything about it!! Why the change? I think it's because the second time around I had a better ideal of what kind of expectations to come to this movie with.This is not a film with fast paced action or story.Instead this is a passive movie which you just have to let unfold and slowly just flow into your brain. In other words this is the perfect movie to 'space out' too. The closest thing I can compare it to is Stanley Kubrick's "2001:A Space Odssey". It's just a beautiful movie that sort of washes over you and later gives the viewer a lot to think about. This Film Noir plot takes place in a late 1940's, small town in Northern California.It is narrated by it's main character, Ed Crane, a barber who spends day afer day doing nothing but cutting hair and chain smoking cigerettes.He is a dreary man who seems to have just let life happen to him (marrige, job etc.). He might as well be wall paper or a potted plant. That is until he takes a chance and attempts extortion and blackmail in order to get in on the new business venture of the future... dry cleaning! From there Ed's life seems to spin indescribably out of control.The Coen brothers have created a weird but wonderful film. It is an homage to Film Noir classics like "Double Indemnity" and "The Postman Rings Twice" in it's smart script and it's look, but at the same time does not play like those movies. Instead it unfolds like a slowly paced, bizarre dream. Billy Bob Thorton gives a great performance as the laconic barber (I love his narration!). Coen brothers regular, Frances McDormand also does a remarkable job as the Barber's unloving wife.Kudos should also be given for some very funny, supporting roles from actors James Gandolfini and Tony Shalhoub. Finally a special mention should be made about Cinematographer, Roger Deakin's brilliant, black & white photography.Deakins has given this movie not only the look of a classic old 1940's Film Noir, but he has created something that I can only describe as moving art!The different shades of black & white he has created are so amazingly beautiful, that they almost become distracting.The DVD for this movie is quite well done. Both the picture and sound are crystal clear. The DVD extras include commentary, trailers and some short interviews with the actors.This is a strange but great film that you definitely have to be in the mood for. I highly recommend it!Movie Review: NOIRVILLE
Summary: 4 Stars
If the title of this 2001 Coen Brothers effort strikes you as vaguely familiar (echoing as it does titles like THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO LITTLE or even, perhaps, THE MAN WITH TWO BRAINS), you'll find much else in the film that hearkens back to earlier eras, most particularly to the film noir works of the `40s and `50s. The question--as with other efforts by the Brothers--is to what extent is this movie a kind of post-modern tribute or "valentine" to an earlier genre and to what extent is it an actual EXAMPLE of same (tricked out in po-mo sensibility perhaps).
Some will no doubt worry that the film is all style over substance. Or has style BECOME substance? I think it's going to shake out differently for different viewers. I sometimes go to film with friends who are visual artists and have been surprised on occasion by their "reads" on films that I felt were ALL style. Essentially, their take is, "What's so wrong with that? It's a visual medium, and can be appreciated on that level alone."
Well, as a former lit student, I had (or so I thought) somewhat different criteria: plot, character, setting: all that unities stuff. For a visual medium like film, the sheer look of it kind of gets lumped in (vaguely) with setting. But over the years, I've begun to change my tune or at least to admit to myself that there are plenty of great looking films out there that captivate me by their look, their sound and overall mood. THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE is certainly one.
All of which is to say is that I personally didn't mind the film's occasional longueurs. I didn't want Billy Bob Thornton's deadpan character to liven up--even though there are plenty of moments when he could have (moments when his deadened sensibility could conceivably come to life: especially after having actually FOUGHT for his life). Those possibilities were there and they could have been argued for: but that's not what the Coens felt was right for the film they were making. And I would agree with them.
The presence of Frances McDormand in any Coen Brothers film is always welcome (she's always terrific), but I suppose it can have its drawbacks. Some viewers will be tempted (even more) to compare this film to FARGO, say, a film in which her character wasn't just quirky, but also sweet, smart, down to earth -- and pretty the embodiment of the life force itself. In this muted film, she is as commanding a presence as one can hope for. But that doesn't save her. And for some, it won't be enough to save the film. No one gets to bring any sunshine to this beautifully crafted black-and-white film. In Noirville, actually, that's pretty much as it should be.
Movie Review: Werner Heisenberg, King of Noir.
Summary: 4 Stars
Leave it to the Coen Brothers to make Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle the crux of a film noir, and darned if they don't make a good case for it in "The Man Who Wasn't There." (Typically, they put their argument in the mouth of a loutish lawyer who can't even remember Heisenberg's name.) Chain-smoking nebbish barber Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thornton) makes the only decisive (and dishonest) action of his life, and thus begins a chain of events that ends in the doom of himself and several, mostly not-so-innocent, bystanders. In "The Man Who Wasn't There," the phrase "decisive action" is an oxymoron; everything Crane and the other characters do is governed solely by chance. Everything that happens--from the wrong stranger turning up at the wrong time to a horribly timed punch in the face--changes everything forever, and always for the worse. Set in 1949 in Santa Rosa, Calif. (a tip of the hat to Hitchcock and "Shadow of a Doubt," perhaps?) "The Man Who Wasn't There" looks perfect. Like every other Coen film, it's a marvel of production design, and the genius photographer Roger Deakins nails to a tree the dusty black-and-white look of such classic noirs as "Double Indemnity" and "Out of the Past." Thematically, however, "The Man Who Wasn't There" resembles nothing so much as a much more elegant, much better acted remake of Edgar G. Ulmer's "Detour," in which the characters drift in a low-rent Sartrean hell, totally the victims of fate. But whereas "Detour" is more than the sum of its parts, "The Man Who Wasn't There" is less. The Coen Brothers may believe in chance, but on the screen they leave nothing to chance, so that everything in "The Man Who Wasn't There" is TOO perfect. In the end the film has the same overstudied, clinical quality that afflicts every Coen film except "Fargo." (It must be admitted, though, that only one Coen film--"The Hudsucker Proxy"--is ruined by that quality.) The acting is as superb as in any Coen film. Thornton--in a role that is nearly wordless except for the voiceover narration tying the plot together--burns a hole in the celluloid with his intense, hangdog gravity. There are also glittering supporting performances by Frances McDormand as Thornton's philandering wife Doris; James Gandolfini as her paramour and boss; Jon Polito as a shady businessman; Michael Badalucco as Thornton's motormouth brother-in-law; Scarlett Johansson as the teenager Thornton chastely fancies; and especially Tony Shalhoub, nearly stealing the picture as Freddy Riedenschneider, defense attorney extraordinaire.