Ladykillers

As a remake this movie falls flat, as a stand alone movie its not too bad and will appeal more to a younger audience and probably mostly American one at that.

Here is the problem with remakes - If you make it exactly like the original then there is little point in remaking it, if you just change the country what is the point when the dialogue and the setting is the exact same almost, with a few words changed here and there... Coupling UK and Coupling USA is a good example... and also maybe Life on Mars. Of course these are TV shows but the comparison stands.

They made this movie very different to the original and shouldn't have called it a remake, or even The Ladykillers. In no way does this resemble the original, which is a classic and is still watchable today but set far in the past when TVs were black and white... is it better than this movie if you are comparing them as the same movie... the original blows this away without a doubt.

So bare that in mind when watching this movie. I wouldn't compare these movies at all, to be honest they are far too different to compare, the only comparison i can come up with is that they have the same name and some of the characters are similar... the scenario is quite different except that they are both about stealing money.

Not a bad or great movie by any means, and i think Hanks character tried to be like the Alec Guinness one, a little strange, and it didn't quite work, for me anyway...

A fun little movie that is a good distraction in the time of Covid. Great to see Tom Hanks playing a villain. Who would expect that?

Some laugh out loud slapstick, some fun characters but definitely not up to the Coen Brothers usual standards

The original "The Ladykillers" is one of my favorite comedies, a gleefully macabre and witty classic with some outstanding performances, especially Alec Guinness' hysterical performance. It was also distinctively British. Now, I am not nearly as annoyed by remakes as many other filmgoers are- I merely find most of them unnecessary and hence avoid most of them. The only ones I respect are those that attempt to do something different. The Coens are probably my favorite living directors and among the more distinctive currently working, and they certainly put their own spin on an established comedy classic with this film.

I think that the poor reception this film got is largely due to its sense of humor. The Coens' dry wit present in several of their films is present here, mostly through the main character Professor Dorr, portrayed excellently by Tom Hanks in one of his better performances, but there's also a lot of low-brow humor, and not even distinctive or interesting low-brow humor, just 'haha he dropped an f-bomb' sort, which is really at odds with the rest of this film. Really, take out Marlon Wayans and his annoying character and you would have one of the best remakes ever made. Instead you've got this film.

"The Ladykillers", in spite of its awful reputation, is really not a bad film at all. It's got atmosphere, it's beautifully photographed, it's fairly amusing, and the majority of the performances are very good. It's inferior by the Coens' standards but still better than most comedies released in 2004. In addition, although it takes a lot of liberties with the original story, it recreates the most memorable sequences from the original with care and obvious affection, resulting in a hugely entertaining last twenty minutes in which so many memorable images from Mackendrick's classic Ealing comedy are translated to the American south.

This is a minor film for the Coens, but obviously one made with love and affection. It's fairly flawed, but it's also quite amusing and features and outstanding performance from Tom Hanks, an actor I don't normally think is particularly great.

7/10

Certainly, the Cohens have enough decency to know when a task should be left undone, and when that task is the re-creation and improvement of a comedy classic,they know better than to regurgitate old gags infused with modern flair, or do they?

I will admit that I did enjoy this novel retelling of the Mackendrick classic. I enjoyed Hank's brilliant, earnest, and flawless delivery. I also enjoyed Irma P. Hall's sincerity. I enjoyed the score, the locale, the warm-lazy essence of Mississippi, and the mythological progression of events that is so common in the Cohens' films. Most of all, I enjoyed the charm of this film more-so than its predecessor.

Of course, in deference, the originators deserve their due praise, but this is certainly no simple remake--it's a retelling. Retellings don't need to improve, dazzle, or impress by comparison--they simply are what they are, and this was enjoyable.

A group of thieves disguised as musicians hiding out in a sweet old lady's house sounds like a pretty hysterical premise for a movie, and Alec Guiness proved it was in the original film.

The new version, however, only demonstrates how you can start out with a great premise and completely destroy it.

While Hank's performance was funny, it certainly didn't out way all the foul language and meaningless interludes that were supposed to "modernize" the movie. The director and/or writers obviously missed the point and charm of the other movie.

If you like the sound of the plot, don't see this movie, stick with the classic. Let's not change a good thing.