Why did I not have a desire to see Warrior when it was in theaters? The stellar-looking cast including Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton didn’t hurt but perhaps it was the seemingly overwrought story of two estranged brothers who each are fighting against each other for whichever predetermined important reason. (Was that even supposed to be a surprise in the final act? Because it’s all over the trailer!) Or perhaps Warrior didn’t strike my fancy since I am hardly a sports fanatic even though the brutality and testosterone-y aspects of MMA are pretty cool. Yet, all it took was one of my colleagues saying “You’ll want to tackle someone while watching it” that got me on board. For the record, he was right.

Even if you are Amish or have short-term memory problems, or have otherwise not seen the entire narrative spoiled in the previews, the story in Warrior is so expected that you can see it coming from two summers ago. Hardy plays Tommy Conlon, an angry and bitter man who has suffered through many hardships in life, many from his estranged father Paddy (Nick Nolte) who was drunk and abusive before finding religion and sobriety. Edgerton plays Brendan Conlon, brother to Tommy, who left his family at sixteen to be with his would-be wife. Brendan has not seen Tommy since then and is still hesitant about any contact with his father.

Tommy’s past is a mystery since he is emotionally withdrawn and does not talk about it to anyone, especially his prying father. We learn in bits and pieces about him fleeing with his mother only to watch her painfully die later on as well as his heroics in the military and a promise made to the widow of one of his fallen compadres. Brendan on the other hand has a beautiful wife and two girls but is in a bad financial situation to the point that he is about to be removed from his house without a substantial amount of money. With that, both brothers sign up for a MMA tournament against fourteen other top fighters in the world for a chance to win $5 million.

It is odd that a film like The Fighter, which is good but very predictable, can be nominated for Best Picture along with a slew of other awards and the only Oscar nomination for Warrior goes to Nolte. Granted, Nolte is great with his performance as the outside man desperately seeking redemption from his remaining family. He carries the knowledge of his past failures and is humbled because of them but both sons mostly cast him aside except for Tommy who clearly specifies he needs Paddy as a trainer and nothing else. Hardy also turns in a criminally under-appreciated performance as Tommy who hides years of physical and emotional trauma behind a steely facade with nothing but rage and aggression poking through when he is in the cage.

Rounding out the trio of emotionally scarred Conlon men is Edgerton as Brendan who I first noticed and became a fan of from Animal Kingdom. Edgerton’s character has a good amount of time devoted to him but his character lacks the stress of Tommy or the rejection of Paddy rendering Brendan the more plain character out of the three. He still does a remarkable job though as Brendan is the underdog throughout the process and is given the most material to sympathize with. For most of the film, Tommy comes off almost as an ungrateful punk who doesn’t give a damn about anyone so connecting with him is a bit more difficult.

Even though the story seems a tad unoriginal, co-writer and director Gavin O’Connor infuses the film with so much energy that I feel comfortable in saying that you too will want to tackle someone at parts of the movie. The fight scenes, of which there are many, never feel overly staged or choreographed and the typical handheld camera shots are not overdone to risk confusing you as to what is going on. Punctuating the fight scenes are conversations between Tommy and his father, Brendan and his wife, and so forth but those don’t feel like filler or padding the way some sports movies throw in “heavy” scenes. Even if you are not a fan of martial arts or sports movies, it is close to impossible to watch this film and not get teary-eyed when appropriate or otherwise invested in the characters. I haven’t seen a lot of the heavily lauded films from last year so I can’t proclaim this is the best but I am disheartened that this top-notch drama did not receive a bit more recognition.

One might be able to argue that Dane Cook or Nickelback’s success is funny, but one of the big taboos in comedy is cancer. You typically don’t see much humor derived from an ailment that affects millions each year. Screenwriter Will Reiser though effectively manages to take the topic of cancer and turn it into a honest, genuine, and surprisingly funny look on the craziness surrounding an already terrible predicament in 50/50.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, essentially a stand-in for Reiser, who learns he has a rare form of cancer along his spine in the peak of his life. Seth Rogen, from reports who basically plays himself as he did to Reiser, is the supportive, opportunistic, and (of course) foul-mouthed friend to help along the way. We also meet Adam’s super-supportive girlfriend Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard), his overbearing mother (Anjelica Huston), and his new-to-the-field therapist (Anna Kendrick) as they try and support Adam though the diagnosis, treatment, and aftermath.

While the previews mostly portrayed this film as more comedic in tone, 50/50 is primarily a drama with a sprinkling of comedy, usually courtesy of Rogen. There is only so much light you can make of a film about a debilitating illness without it coming across as inappropriate or crass. Fortunately, Reiser’s script walks a pretty fine line between making a mockery of the suffering of millions and taking what comes from life in stride. The film succeeds on this front as it is not a heavy-handed “live your life to the fullest” affair but also addresses the hardship that comes with the plights of Adam’s fellow cancer buddies played by Philip Baker Hall and Trashcan Man Matt Frewer.

Not many actors can pull of such a varied performance as Gordon-Levitt did as he hits every stage of the process in perfect form with scenes filled with joy, anger or grief and some all combined together. I would say it is an award-worthy performance but apparently the powers that be do not agree. The rest of the actors merely revolve around Adam in some shape or form with Rogen not breaking too much new ground and Kendrick playing the same young and sensitive, yet inexperienced role that she has in other films. Huston in minimal screentime had quite an impact as the mother that Adam purposefully distances himself from yet relies on when everything comes down to the wire.

Director Jonathan Levine takes what you would anticipate being an ensemble effort and focuses superbly on Adam and his struggle. From the first diagnosis when the “State University” doctor remarks that his cancer is quite interesting because it is rare and yada yada yada, Levine pulls back and focuses solely on the ear of the patient as he tries to comprehend the words being causally tossed at him. We follow Adam throughout the entire ordeal as he has his first chemotherapy, gets high on weed-laced macaroons, and comes to terms with the probable outcome that he will die. The emphasis on Adam and the events in his life during his treatment put you in the mindset of someone in that situation. It is not a joyous, “to hell with rules” mindset but one of reason, despair, and sorrow.

On one hand, 50/50 is not a feel-good movie as it evokes many emotions that most (including myself) would disregard while watching a film. But it is not only a strong movie off the back of Gordon-Levitt’s great performance, but also one that can help you see the bright side in even the worst situation.

In case it isn’t apparent, we at Movie Scum are big fans of David Fincher. He is, in my opinion, one of few standout directors currently working even if his resume does not have the broad appeal of a Spielberg or a Cameron. Perhaps it was my excitement upon hearing he was involved in the American version of The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo that drowned out any feeble complaints of another American remake of a foreign film. I have not read the Stieg Larsson novel nor seen the entire Swedish adaptation, so I bring no preconceived notions of the story to this film and can hopefully be as impartial as possible.

I don’t read a ton (read: any) books, thus I was largely unaware of Larsson’s trilogy until the original Swedish film debuted in 2009 to much acclaim. The bulk of the praise as I recall centered around Noomi Rapace‘s portrayal of the unstable, anti-social, brilliant researcher Lisbeth Salander to the point that there was some general worry due to the casting of Rooney Mara as Fincher’s Lisbeth. Mara showed her acting chops perfectly in the first segment of Fincher’s last film, Social Network, but would she be able to pull off this challenging role? And how does Daniel Craig as disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist factor into it? And will Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross win another Oscar for their score? So many questions. Let’s get to the answers.

If you’ve read the books or seen the original, from what I hear there will be few surprises in this version as it is rather faithful to the material. Blomkvist is hired by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the forty-year-old murder of his granddaughter. Meanwhile, Salander is busy trying to make ends meet by her assigned duties of investigating and/or computer surveillance while battling a grotesque pig of a “guardian” who uses his control over her finances to some, well, rather horrible means. A long stretch of the film goes by with Blomkvist doing his thing and Salander doing hers (you can take that in a number of ways) before they finally join forces and discover that the murder of one lone girl ties in with a string of murders previously undetected.

All the talk of Fincher being a difficult director seem to be warranted (he even confirms as much in the commentary for Se7en) but the man certainly has a clear vision and is unstoppable at achieving it. Much like most of his work, Dragon Tattoo is a dark story with many heinous acts shown or spoken throughout. Yet, there is a sense of beauty in the visuals as Fincher and his DP Jeff Cronenweth use the slow pan of a room with pictures tacked on the wall or of the serene landscape to almost offset the horror in the story’s details. Much like Se7en, this film centers around the hunt for a serial killer but this is not an action-packed affair with shootouts and car chases throughout that would permeate such a film normally (although those do happen infrequently here). It is more of a quiet reflection on the dark side of human behavior and unraveling the mindset behind a man who can rape, murder, and dismember another human being.

If nothing else, Fincher is an actor’s director as I cannot recall a horribly miscast or performed character in any of his movies (yes, even the much maligned Alien entry). This film is no different with Craig, Plummer, and Stellan Skarsgård as another of the Vanger clan turning in superb performances that shy away from typical Hollywood style of overacting. Most of the performances are done well enough that sell the characters as real life people, not simply James Bond trying to portray a normal person. Mara though outdoes them all with her performance as Salander. The internet is rife with debate between Mara and Rapace as the better Salander. Again, having not seen the Swedish version in its entirety, I cannot comment so much other than to say Mara was fantastic. A nomination of some sort is required after seeing this seemingly normal girl envelope the role so much that she donned her own genuine body piercings and is able to simultaneously embody an apathetic woman toward life in general as well as a woman so determined that she will put herself in harm’s way to stop a murderer. The dynamic between Craig and Mara is surprisingly authentic and their interactions engross you more into the story.

If you’ve seen the assembly cut of Alien 3 or either version of Zodiac, you know that Fincher is no stranger to movies that are quite long. Dragon Tattoo takes the cake though with a more than two-and-a-half hour runtime that could have been easily excised if Fincher, or writer Steven Zaillian, had a bit more control over the story. The best part of the film is when Salander and Blomkvist are paired up investigating the murder of almost a dozen Swedish women from decades ago. Unfortunately, there is a lot of questionably important backstory to get through before that happens. Likewise, after the murder mystery is resolved, the film still has a quite unnecessarily long coda of Blomkvist regaining his reputation. This is the one thing that hurts the movie as the best part, namely the investigation, is bookended by portions may serve the characters’ and their arcs but disrupt the narrative to do so. I hear this is the same in the novel and the original film as well but a good portion of the runtime could have been trimmed from these outskirts which are neat, but nowhere near as entertaining as the main plot.

Even with the assembly of a great cast and bringing his talent to this film, Fincher’s Dragon Tattoo is bogged down by the underlying uneven story. Everything else is undoubtedly great including Reznor and Ross’ second collaboration together on the score. Despite the effort though, Dragon Tattoo is merely a solid film, not as spectacular as I had hoped.

In the making-of documentary on my Halloween Blu-ray, John Carpenter remarked that Michael Myers’ signature mask reminded him of the mask worn by Christiane in Eyes Without a Face (Les Yeux sans Visage), the French-language film by Georges Franju. The resemblance between the masks is uncanny but there are other similarities between these two great films.

A few years previously, Christiane (Edith Scob), daughter of the renowned Docteur Génessier (Pierre Brasseur), was in a car accident that horribly mangled her face, leaving only her eyes intact. Christiane is secluded to the doctor’s estate after another young girl is found dead and Génessier identifies her as his “missing” daughter. Génessier has a wild notion (wild before the beauty of Face/Off that is) that a face can be transplanted from one person to another. With the guilt from causing the accident responsible for his daughter’s condition combined with his arrogance that he can actually succeed, Génessier and his assistant enlist unwilling young women as part of the makeshift operation.

This film has elements that seem vaguely familiar but damn if I can place from where. While watching it, I was inexplicably reminded of The Brain that Wouldn’t Die, or otherwise known as Mike’s first episode on MST3k as that is another black and white science-fiction-ish tale of a mad doctor who ultimately succumbs to his “project.” Really, if not for the fact that the film was remarkably engrossing and technically sound, this is almost the type of stuff Mike (or Joel) and the ‘bots would riff on. The wacky, demented carnival music certainly fit that bill as well.

Brasseur as the good doctor gives an impressive performance of a character whose complexities are normally foregone in modern moviemaking. Génessier is the real monster in this tale as Brasseur embodies a man who is determined and yet diabolical, motivations that fit Michael Myers to a T. Scob though has a tough sell for her character. Christiane is almost complicit with her father’s affairs as she sits and watches while young girls are hacked up to make her whole again. When not donning the skin of another woman, Scob is stuck behind a blank, emotionless mask leaving only her eyes and subtle movements of the faux-mouth to express her desire for a normal life on one hand, or a quick death on the other.

Franju takes a very slow and methodical approach to the story, again not unlike Carpenter’s Halloween. There are long stretches of the film without dialogue, which is welcome occurrence to be able to focus on the scenery rather than the subtitles, but also to establish the characters as they plot and plan their next moves. It is odd that this film is lumped in the horror category but this is what I would think a Coen Brothers’ horror film would be like. It is quiet and thoughtful, yet at the same time disturbing. Not so much in the imagery but in the thought of what a man blinded by pride and love is capable of.

I was going to write an opening paragraph along the lines that many women I know have proclaimed that The Adjustment Bureau is good movie. I figured I would just allude to it and move right along but only after making an off-hand statement that women have different tastes than I and this did not seem the type of film (Matt Damon and his alleged “hunkiness” notwithstanding) that the female subsect of society would be interested in. But that would make me seem like a mid-twentieth century pig. And I would be completely wrong as you can possibly surmise from the categories listed above.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with “romance” movies. They just are not designed with my sensibilities in mind. I can still objectively review them from a critical standpoint to determine if they are completely bland and unsurprisingly (not unlike Love and Other Drugs) or a remarkably decent story merely concocted around a lovey-dovey tale like this film. Written and directed by George Nolfi, the film is based on a Philip K. Dick short story called Adjustment Team. I have not read the story (this comes as a surprise?) thus I am not sure if the wishy-washy sentimentality was present in the original, or just filled in by the filmmakers to avoid the wrath of thousands of moviegoers conditioned to accept the lowest common denominator in stories, especially those regarding the L word.

At its core, The Adjustment Bureau is a fine film. Matt Damon is quite charismatic as David Norris, the young hotshot would-be senator from New York. As he works out his concession speech in despair over the crushing defeat, David meets Elise (Blunt) who turns his frown upside-down with an encouraging talk and a passionate kiss. She soon is chased out of the hotel by security but David cannot shake her from his thoughts. After a “chance” reunion a few weeks later, David gets her number but quickly loses it as he discovers that a secretive team of … something not human, apparently has fumbled and David was not supposed to see her ever again.

David is sat down by the bland-looking gentlemen of the titular organization for a bit of exposition. The men act as real-life choreographers, putting people in certain places with certain events set to occur to shape their subjects’ path through life. David responds by declaring that he has free will. One of the inconspicuously dressed men informs him that he is free to his choice of toothpaste or beverage but the real heavy lifting is left up to this group. They tell him to never reveal their identity to anyone else for fear of a “reboot,” essentially erasing his memories and personality. Well, that’s actually a pretty good definition of a reboot.

Expectedly, there is a lot of talk about free will and destiny. David is determined to prove he can shape his own life even with a bureaucracy attempting to prevent that. These are the same guys in suits who declare that their period of intervention brought the Renaissance and the Enlightenment while mankind flying solo crafted the Dark Ages and WWI. Really, all it stands to illustrate is that David is madly in love with Elise and will stop at nothing to be with her. So, essentially it boils down to just about every other damn love story I’ve seen, except this time with sci-fi elements! Damon and Blunt are great in their roles and fortunately exert a lot of chemistry in their scenes together. There is a lot of heartache for both characters during the film and their interactions sell that quite well. The suits in the Bureau are not necessarily menacing, only in a “man following orders” sort of way.

Without going into spoiler-y specifics, the film closes with a not-quite “happily ever after” sort of ending, but it is pretty darn close. It feels very cheesy and directed at the romantic-seeking audience base that the movie caters to (not the marketing though as I recall). It’s all well and good but the end almost negates all of the drama and conflict from the preceding 100 minutes or so in a syrupy-sweet way that struck me as odd. For his directorial debut, Nolfi does an admirable job crafting sympathetic characters in a movie that normally I would be less inclined to watch. He touched on some deep meanings about life and humanity but wasted those on a story not worthy of such depth.

What can I say? I am a glutton for courtroom dramas even though they seem to all end the same. Matthew McConaughey plays the titular lawyer who spends his time defending the less-than-innocent. If you took an episode of The Practice and bred it with an episode of Law & Order, I suspect this is pretty close to the outcome. Some of the twists in the story are okay, even if they are given away by the previews, but this ultimately seems like a by the book legal thriller. It doesn’t help that McConaughey’s presence invokes A Time to Kill, a much more effective drama. There is a lot of talent that goes untapped from William H. Macy to the still smokin’ Marisa Tomei but the story featuring the possibly guilty rich boy Ryan Phillippe is short on surprises, even though Phillippe seems to be trying to prove he is a real actor.

Original publication date: July 18, 2010
If you read this site or have watched any of our episodes, you will know the level of respect and … love we have for Chris Nolan. Yes, PBF may have a sick fascination with Weekend at Bernie’s but even he does not particularly laud Robert Klane because WAB does not equal Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Memento, and now Inception on any level. Here we have a rare movie from a gifted filmmaker that is able to transcend multiple genres and their corresponding cliches and deliver one of the most intellectual films to overshadow anything else this year and probably many years’ films to come.

Even after watching the damn thing, the plot of Inception is rather dense but it boils down fairly simply even though it strips out the very nature of the film. Cobb is a theif trained in the art of extracting thoughts and ideas from a person’s head while they dream. However, he is tasked with a job that even many on his team describe as impossible: implanting an idea into one’s head that is conceived to be genuine by the subject. As a much more complex task than simple extraction, Cobb and his team go to great lengths to create multiple landscapes to coerce the subject into accepting the notion and considering it one of his own.

Like Nolan’s previous film, Dark Knight, Inception works on a great number of levels. The casting is spot on with each member of the principals bringing a grounding seriousness which normally is desperately needed in a film as ambitious as this. Leonardo DiCaprio portrays Cobb as a man who is both confident and broken, a teacher and yet still a student when it comes to affairs with Mal, his wife played by Marion Cotillard. They have a complicated relationship to say the least but the two exert a fierce chemistry as they mingle in the dreams. Everyone else including Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ken Watanabe, Ellen Page, and Tom Hardy play their respective roles with poise and confidence that truly sell their characters and the skills they bring. The one thing that Nolan can be faulted for here is the utter lack of development that the characters receive other than Cobb and Mal. We see the inner workings of the group and how they react to each other but Cillian Murphy as the main target for their job receives far more heavy-lifting in the way of depth than the rest of the crew.

That does not really matter much as even though the film is billed as a tale of thievery, it is mostly about Cobb and his redemption. Cobb wants nothing more than to be reunited with his remaining family after a terrible incident and planting a seed of thought inside Murphy’s head is the only way to achieve that. DiCaprio superbly manages the barrage of emotions needed to sell this point of the story in his quest. Very subtle lines of dialogue that seem superfluous at first glance become very telling of Cobb and his guilt of the consequences of previous journeys into this world.

Visually it is quite stunning, likely even more so if any of you are lucky enough to see it in IMAX. Though the majority of the movie takes place either in the real world or in a dream state designed similarly, various effects infiltrate the dream world with pretty spectacular results, a good deal of which have been shown in the previews. The grounding of the dreams in reality makes for pretty cool effects as buildings crumble, water rushes through, and Gordon-Levitt has a zero-G fight with a henchman. Each of the stages of dreams are filmed in stark contrast with one another which not only alleviates any confusion that might be had but also gives a stark contrast between a metropolis during a storm, a swank dimly-lit hotel, and a vast snowy outpost, each populated by minions of the subject’s unconscious who act as our disposable bad guys trying to stop the team.

Unless you are in a Nightmare on Elm Street film, moving through the dreamworld does not often pose many risks. This is even acknowledged early on as one of the characters is killed in the dream only to wake up unharmed in reality. However, during the task as the characters are heavily sedated to prevent the destruction of the fragile dreamscape, they face an eternity of solitude in limbo if something bad should befall them. This clever workaround elevates the story from the simple failure of a mission to a lifetime of abstract despair as the unnamed thugs lurk with large caliber weapons. This as well as many other facets of the script show the care in which it was created, not only to create a fantastic sci-fi concept, but to move beyond a simple tale of dreaming to one with a true emotional core for our main protagonist.

I was worried that the narrative would be dense and as hard to crack as your normal David Lynch film called Lost Highway. However, the story is relatively easy to follow throughout with a nice dash of flashbacks and recollections to further develop the Cobb and Mal relationship. This is not however a film that you can check your brain at the door as elements are introduced, observed, and then jettisoned as the complexity of the storytelling increases. Of course, this is one of the smartest high-concept summer blockbusters in years so you should not dare miss a minute for fear that a key element will be shown which will change the outlook of the film.

Is Inception a perfect film? Not at all but Nolan’s biggest strength lies in creating an engrossing tale that will make you forget about any shortcomings during the picture as you are too damn entertained to care. I worry that, just like Dark Knight, subsequent viewings will show the cracks in the foundation and oversights in the story. These things though will not stop you from enjoying the film. Really, Inception really does not need validation of its efforts by random people on the interwebs like myself. The caliber of everyone involved should seal the deal.

This review DOES NOT contain spoilers and in fact, is quite vague as not to spoil the excellence of this film.

Despite the lack of a “horror” category tag above, this is very much a horror movie, one that is uninterested in raving serial killers and dealing instead with the frights of an inexplicably terrifying real situation. Now, being quite desensitized to standard horror fare, I can watch zombies and blood and maniacal torture with no problem. Frozen though was at times intense enough that I had to pause the DVD for a quick breather to break the tension.

Sure, some of Frozen may invoke the classic suspension of disbelief for the setup, but the rest of the film is as real and nerve-racking as a movie can get. What starts as a fun day on the slopes becomes a dangerous situation as three friends are stranded on a chairlift halfway up a mountain. Initially they sit thinking that the interruption was just a fluke or power outage but as more time passes they come to the conclusion that they are stranded fifty feet in the air until the resort opens the following weekend.

As over two-thirds of the film showcase only three people (or less at times), the main fault of the film could very well have been the characters. Fortunately, this is not the case as the principal actors involved are phenomenal. I rarely use such verbiage but I cannot think of a better adjective here. The relationship between best friends Dan (Kevin Zegers) and Lynch (Shawn Ashmore) feels playful and genuine, even during the serious moments at the beginning as Lynch complains about Dan ditching him and his buddies for girlfriend Parker and the even more serious down the line as the trio is stuck in midair.

When the shit hits the fan though, it is Emma Bell as Parker who really shines. She convincingly pulls off the happy-go-lucky girl at the beginning, using sex appeal and her flirtatiousness to score an unpaid lift ticket all the way to the wrecked and distraught survivor on the chair. As the obvious female of the group, she has the more emotional scenes (not to mention some of the more gross aspects) but she delivers in some of the most emotional monologues ever put to film. Ashmore is no slouch though as his role requires a complete reversal for his character arc to proceed from a self-involved ass to the hero more or less of the film.

The thing that is refreshing about Frozen though is that there are not really heroes and villains in the traditional sense. Sure, you can consider a pack of wolves or frostbite the real enemies but really there is no fault and no one to blame for what happens in the movie, there is just bad luck. Green has crafted a movie devoid of the asininity of contrived drama or artificial threats. What remains is reality when three very different people are stuck in an impossible situation where they are outnumbered by the forces of nature that could mean their demise. While some have cried foul over the characters’ decisions and actions here, any sensible person can see the fear and panic behind the eyes of the three characters and believe in everything they do as something you would do yourself in such a situation.

While you would imagine a movie based in a stationary chair, suspended above a frozen mountain would be boring, this cannot be further from the truth. There is always something going on, whether it is an action to free themselves from their frozen tomb or just causal conversation to ward off the fear of being frozen alive. Regardless of what is going on, you cannot help but be engaged as Green, Bell, Zegers, and Ashmore make a mountain out of an almost certain deathtrap with some of the most excruciating character moments ever along the way.

With over a dozen films written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (not to mention the several dozen nominations and awards as well), it is fun to go back and watch their first venture into filmmaking and see the same traits that make their movies stand out now implanted in film over twenty five years ago. One of the most powerful movies I have watched over the past few years was the Coen’s No Country For Old Men and even with two decades separating them, I saw a lot in Blood Simple. that would come into play again and again in their films.

The title comes from the novel Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett to describe the behaviors and actions of a person after a particularly traumatic experience. The first half of the movie is a slow burn as we are introduced to Ray and Abby, two budding lovers much to the chagrin of Abby’s husband who happens to be Ray’s boss. After Marty, the husband, receives confirmation of their adultery from a private investigator, he decides to have Ray and Abby killed and tasks the PI with the job. If you do not know more about the plot already, just skip any other reviews of synopses most of which give away what would be a superb dramatic turn leading into the back half of the film.

Much like No Country, Blood Simple is paced in a slow and methodical way that serves to heighten the tension without relying on cheap gimmicks or rapid-fire editing, almost coming across similiar to an adaption of a stage play. Throughout the film, a vast majority of the scenes are played out with a stationary camera and a quiet audio track as characters are either contemplating their next move or examining what they have previously done (or at least thought that they have done). This is the equivalent of sitting on a front porch in the country watching cars or livestock or something like that. It is slow, delicate, but oddly entertaining as while you might initially think nothing is happening, you would be quite wrong. Frequent Coen brothers collaborator Carter Burwell provides the music which is very deliberate and haunting in its minimalist approach just like the movie itself.

M. Emmet Walsh steals the show as the unnamed investigator who starts off as an obnoxious, and possibly drunk loud-mouth yet over the course of the story transforms into a violent sociopath as he attempts to cover up his involvement in a murder. The shift in the character is done in a very convincing manner where he believes he has gotten away with everything until he realizes there is damning evidence to link him to the events. I thought at first that his character was merely supposed to be a joke to his goofy demeanor but that was just a front to mask the real horror behind his crazy-Texan act as he becomes unhinged to clear up the mess that was not supposed to be.

Francis McDormand is in it as well (I know that’s a shocker) but while her character really has little to do until the final few scenes she gives it her all with a sense of innocence and naivety that few actress could have realistically pulled off. We also have Dan Hedaya, also known as the hairiest man on Earth, as Marty who is excellent in the many stages of his performance from jilted lover, revenge-thirsty fiend, and the man who literally has everything to lose. The most surprisingly excellent member of the cast was John Getz as Ray, who you may know better as Gus from Don’t Tell Mom The Babysitter’s Dead. Getz’s performance as such is full of anguish and guilt as he technically is guilty of a heinous crime but is believing he has acted to protect Abby.

Because of the leisurely pace that the Coens’ use to show the events, the main crux of the movie falls on these very flawed characters. In such a tale, there is really no protagonist and no antagonist, just real people faced with the situation at hand. Even with the possible exception of Abby, all of our principal cast are of dubious morals at best, downright dangerous at worst. The story is constructed in such an intricate way that while the audience knows exactly what is going on, the characters do not. And while a few simple conversations between the key individuals would set everything straight to find out who’s right, who’s wrong, and what the hell is going on, all of the characters are acting in the moment, trying to hide behind their misdeeds or complacent in their inaccurate theory of the events. This is a movie which does not have traditional character development in the sense of their background and underlying driving factors. But much like the title explains, these are real, breathing characters trying to make sense of madness and plan their next step ahead under their false interpretations of events.

Much like any other Coen Brothers’ movie I have seen, this is an engaging tale with very tense, climatic scenes interspersed with character elements to give the film a very human touch.