argento2665

I very much enjoyed this movie, so much so that I plan to search out the book. I write this though because many commenters asked why Gene Tierney was a blonde Italian. This would lead me to wonder what they were doing while the movie was running because they obviously weren't watching it. In what I would term a key scene, Hodiak's 'Mr. Major' explains that he was from the Bronx but he didn't see it as beautiful like his Italian immigrant parents do and he always wanted to escape and Tierney's Tina replies that that is why she has blonde hair, that she wants to get away to America but she is unable to leave the village so her escape was to dye her dark hair blonde.

I love the Coen brothers. From Blood Simple through to No Country For Old Men, I have found their movies range from good to brilliant, but with A Serious Man, I felt like I was watching someone tell an 'in-joke', the kind of joke that every one else (the critics) are laughing at and you feel you should be to...but you just don't get it.

The story of a 60's Job, Larry Gopnick, who has everything go wrong at once then finds his life going downhill from there, A Serious Man has many of the hallmarks of a Coen brothers, quirky characters, darkly comic bits and a skewed view of the foibles of life. But I kept asking myself throughout, what is all this pointing to? Like Larry, I felt that I was witnessing a great cosmic joke perpetrated by the creator (God/Coens) but I wasn't being let in on it. What's the meaning of it all? Only the Coen's can answer that.

I read some reviews after, both positive and negative, hoping to shine some light on my confusion, but the positive seemed to be members of the club and the negative were confused, like me. There was no middle ground.

I work in a video store and have spoken to many people about this movie, some regular 'Joes', some dyed-in-the-wool Coen brothers fans, and not a single one liked or 'got' it either. I guess we didn't drink the Koolaid.

I think these critics don't get it. This is not a documentary. That's not his real wife and kid. This is not Albert Brooks, it's "Albert Brooks" in the same way that Woody Allen's character in his movies is not Woody Allen. Brooks spends the film mocking his own self-absorption and his question doesn't seem to be so much what makes these people laugh as do I make these people laugh. He has many opportunities to discover the truth but he continues, to great comic effect, to simply try to gratify his own wilted ego. Seen from this angle, the movie had me in tears. While this is not prime Albert Brooks, it was better than The Muse and it will do until the next one comes along.