Ladykillers

I've seen many bad films at the cinema and regretted paying the price to see it, but I don't think I've ever regretted paying the price for a bad film so much I'd of rather drank a pint of urine. Well that's how I felt after watching this trash. I reluctantly went to see this with some mates thinking it wouldn't be all that bad seeing as it had Tom Hanks in it being a funny-man for once. But after seeing this I couldn't believe I'd even paid to see it. I didn't laugh at one thing in it (and I always have something to laugh at during a comedy even if it's a really bad one). It featured the most annoying performance by Tom Hanks and an even worse film by Marlon Wayans. Now unusually I'm not at all bothered at language in a film but the amount of F***'s by Wayans was just plain stupid. Terrible script. The only really funny thing about this movie was the fact that I paid £3.95 to see it. That and how unfunny it was. On the whole this was the worst comedy I've ever seen and one of the worst films of all time. P.S. There may be worst comedies than this I've seen but this is still bad.

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.

I could not stop laughing and enjoyed it tremendously. Tom Hanks was simply delightful pretending to be refined, highly educated, charmingly polite and smooth talking Rococo music lover Professor G.H.Darr who in reality was a very dangerous, ruthless and devious criminal that assembled the most hilarious gang of thieves (each has his special talent) to dig the tunnel through his landlady's root cellar to a casino vault and to steal 1.6 million dollars. As good as Hanks was, he was completely upstaged by Irma Hall who steals the movie as Marva. She received many awards for her acting and very deservingly. I know that many Coens' fans don't like The Ladykillers because 1. it is a remake of the 1955 movie with the same title and 2. because it is one of their most mainstream films. I don't care - "The Ladykillers" has Coens' signatures all over - it is very funny, very dark, and uniquely beautiful visually - just remember the opening scene with two scary gargoyles and the garbage barge.

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.