Original photo credit: @toulastake. Enhanced with Instagram.

Despite being an affluent community minutes away from downtown Montreal, the City of Westmount has very few restaurants (I can pretty much count all of the worthwhile places to visit on one hand). In fact, while not that great a place, The Wellhouse, has recently shut its doors, leaving the area with one less place in which to dine at. On Thursday March 1st, Westmount gets a shot in the arm as Chef Antonio Park’s exquisite Park Restaurant opens it’s doors to the public.

It’s very rare that I’m ahead of the curve when it comes to brand new or happening restaurants in Montreal. I had no idea that Park was arriving, nor did I have any clue that Antonio was secretly holding a two week long soft launch right under my nose so when the opportunity presented itself to try the new restaurant before almost anyone else, I jumped on it.

It all started a couple of weeks back when @FoodChick101 put out a tweet looking for adventurous companions:

I want to try @ChefAntonioPark’s new resto: Park, on Victoria. Anyone wanna join me this week or next? #foodieadventure

Being a resident NDGer, I knew there was no new restaurant on Victoria near Sherbrooke. Even driving down the street didn’t help hamper the mystery since I couldn’t see any new place with the name Park.

I was officially intrigued and so began the #foodieadventure.

Park is Chef Antonio’s (of Kaizen fame) baby. It’s nestled on the ground floor of Westmount’s growing Victoria Park health complex, where the now defunct Vic Market was located. As described on the restaurant’s Facebook page:

Executive Chef Antonio Park is known for his use of time-honored Japanese techniques applied to the finest seasonal western ingredients. His seasonal menu and specials will feature gluten-free noodles, Western and Asian organic salads, buckwheat buns, brown rice bowls and healthy Bento Boxes with a full-service bar including signature cocktails.

Fast forward to Thursday night February 23rd when I meet @foodchick101, @toulastake, and @gluttoners at the restaurant’s sushi bar. We spent the following 3 hours watching Antonio prepare the best Japanese cuisine and sashimi I’ve ever seen or tasted.

And so began an evening of education, laughter. and a tasting menu filled with outrageously fresh and delicious Japanese creations:

First up, a carrot soup with a Hokki Gai broth.

Carrot Soup with Hokki Gai broth

Hokki Gai means surf clam and so, I was expecting a very sea-like taste to the soup. Instead, the broth managed to dilute the carrot flavor enough so that what was left was a very smooth and subtle carrot soup. Simple and delicious. It was a good start to the meal and interestingly enough, everything that came after was even better.

Next up, Kampachi sashimi with a chimichurri sauce

Kampachi sashimi with a chimichurri sauce

Kampachi is a red tropical fish that is part of the amberjack fish family. This was by far my favorite plate of the night and it had everything to do with the chimichurri topping. Amazing. It added a wonderful little tang to the already out of this world fish.

The next plate was Irish organic salmon drizzled with maple syrup before being torched for a few seconds then finished off with a dollop of avocado.

Irish organic salmon drizzled with maple syrup

This was really good. I always enjoy salmon but it’s never been my favorite raw fish. The avocado sauce helped since it was so damn tasty, plus, you can never go wrong with anything infused with maple syrup.

The next plate up was a one-two punch of red Hawaiian big eye tuna sashimi with a sweet onion and carrot sauce topped with Japanese mint and B.C. white albacore tuna sashimi with a basil sauce.

Red Hawaiian big eye tuna sashimi and B.C. white albacore tuna sashimi. Photo credit: @foodchick101 (I was too busy diving right in before remembering to snap a pic)

I love raw tuna. Always. So these were great. Mint on the other hand? Not so much, and I really can’t put a finger on why. The thing is, the Japanese mint, which costs about 70 cents per leaf (I need to get into the Japanese mint business) was so soft and mild it succeeded in adding a little oompf of freshness before receding into the background as the taste of the tuna and sauce took over.

If this meal were a Michael Bay film, this is where the ‘shit just got real’…

The next plate was a Kushiyaki in a bowl full of mixed fun.

Kushiyaki

Kushiyaki means mixed brochette. The skewer held a brussel sprout, a shrimp, and a chicken ball. It lay on top of Japchae (sweet potato noodles) and was joined in the bowl by additional brussel sprouts, grilled red peppers, and a carrot wrapped in chicken chorizo. Need I say any more?

Then we cleansed out palette with a hamachi (similar I believe to amberjack) ceviche and peach truffle.

Hamachi ceviche and peach truffle

Then we had Kaimin Tai (Acupuncture Snapper) with a thin soya sauce glaze.

Kaimin Tai

Before Antonio carved into the fish (it’s always fun to watch someone else, whose more adept at playing with whole fishes, actually prepare them) he explained why it’s referred to as ‘acupuncture’ snapper. It’s a red snapper that has been ‘murdered’ using tiny needles. This preserves the quality of the flesh and is supposed to enhance the texture. I’m no expert in this field but I can tell you it tasted great.

In case you’ve lost count, by this point, we’ve each had seven different plates and I’m halfway through my second beer. “I’ve had sufficient” would politely begin to describe the full feeling I’m experiencing. It’s not over though. The last plate (before dessert) is thrown down in front of us before we even know where it came from.

A black angus 1855 tenderloin drizzled with teriyaki sauce beside a papaya and celery salsa and nantas carrots. Antonio then proceeded to add a small spoonful of his homemade Japanese caper peppers (Arima Sasho) pickled in soya sauce (for 2 years!) to each of our plates.

Black angus 1855 tenderloin drizzled with teriyaki sauce

I’ve never had a steak as tender as this one. I’d sell my first born to be able to experience that steak again. Adding a couple of those pickled peppers to each forkful was heaven. We asked what 1855 meant and apparently it signifies the upper 10% of the black angus bovine breed. In other words, crazy high quality and wonderfully tender meat.

Then came dessert, a plate Antonio calls “L’Etagere”.

L'Etagere

I didn’t catch all of the different layers as he was explaining it but it was mainly built of pistachio and apricot cake with a coconut foam sidekick. It was delightful, and I hate desserts. I don’t have a sweet tooth at all so my instinct is to generally ignore them. The thing with “L’Etagere” is that the sweetness is extremely subtle. I don’t even know how to describe it except that it was the ultimate palette cleanser at the end of a great meal.

We capped the night off with a classy sake bomb.

Sake Bomb!

Before I wrap-up, I’ll fill you in on a few of the downsides I noticed that night. The biggest draw-back was the atmosphere. Being that we visited during the restaurant’s soft launch, you could tell that parts of it were rough around the edges. The place was missing any signage except for a computer print out that read “Restaurant Park” on the glass entry door. Additionally, the physical menus were far too simple for the type of place it is (just one step up from print outs as well) and there was a ladder standing up against one wall. Take all of this with a grain of salt as I’m sure when the place is in full swing, all of this will be neatly attended to.

Warning: Park is not cheap. You certainly get what you pay for so you shouldn’t be worried about getting bang for your buck, but you should expect to pay approximately $80-$100 per person if you decide to go with the tasting menu and order a couple of drinks. He does all his own stuff – soya sauce, mayo, marinated peppers.

The bottom line: Chef Antonio Park’s new restaurant is amazing. If you love raw seafood and Japanese cuisine, it’s a must visit. His passion for freshness and quality control (Antonio makes everything from scratch including his marinated peppers, soya sauce, and mayo) means you can’t go wrong. Add to that the insane flavor subtleties he uses in each of his plates and you really do get to experience the top tier fish in all of it’s glory. I would also recommend you sit at the sushi bar – it’ll make your meal just that much more fun as you watch Antonio work.

*I am not affiliated with Park Restaurant nor was this post commissioned by the restaurant.

Leave your comments below or find me on Twitter!

To kick things off – I love the food at m:brgr. I’ve never been disappointed by a visit and this past Saturday night was no exception. I’m very much a fan of sticking with what works. So in the couple of visits I’ve made since it opened in 2008, I’ve stuck with the standard AAA burger, regular toppings, a side of fries and the Moishe’s classic coleslaw. I’ll be the first to admit that with a menu that offers the kind of choice it does, my standard is the least exciting way to go – albeit scrumptious all the same.

Saturday night however, I wanted to try something different. Earlier in the week I put a call out on Twitter to see if anyone had any recommendations for what I should try. I got some great responses and the items I decided to go with were excellent.

Before I continue, I just want to give a quick thanks to @FoodGuyMTL, @CCUinMTL, @dishchronicles, @FoodieDateNight, and @mbrgr for sending me their suggestions. Among them:

• The sweet potato fries
• Truffle fries
• Any burger with a fried egg
• The new tacos
• The banana milkshake

My choices for the evening were the Spicy Meatball softshell taco (there were actually two of them) followed by the Little Big Zak burger with a fried egg thrown on top. As for the sides, my wife and I shared the regular fries and the classic slaw. Since it was a Habs game night, I went with the 2 for 1 Moosehead bottles as beverage. (Damn I love a cold Moosehead!)

My goal here is not really to get too bogged down by the details of the meal. I’ll leave that to more experienced Foodies and burger critics – of which there are many. I’m more interested in the fun of letting you know if I liked it or not, and of course I did.

For my preferences, the meatball tacos could’ve been just a bit kickier but they had the right amount of spice to wow my friends that tried them. Each taco has two soft shells. Doubling up on the shells was a great idea because there is no lack of sauce in those suckers and trying to hold those meatballs in takes a full grip. Be warned though, a meatball will escape and eating the tacos will certainly make you the messiest eater at the table. If you take your time and remain in control, it’s worth it.

On to the fried egg. By far the strangest topping to place on a burger and one I had never even considered. Does it add to the burger experience? Sure, I guess. I ordered the Little Big Zak burger and added the egg. This means as toppings I had cheddar, m:brgr’s spicy fancy sauce, chopped onions, pickle, tomato, and lettuce. The burger was served open with a sunny side egg sitting right on the top of everything else. I couldn’t quite taste the egg white (especially amongst the killer fancy sauce) but when the yolk burst, it added an extra subtle flavor, and runniness to the burger. It was certainly tasty and something I would recommend anyone try at least once. At the very least, it evoked some interesting conversation. It was again, a messy choice.

I would order both items again and I’ll certainly be back!

A few passing comments:

I actually snapped this picture of the tacos before getting berated by my friends for being “that douchebag” taking pictures of my food. Sitting in front of your meal, and taking pictures is pretty rude, especially if you are with a large group (I was). Plus the pictures rarely turn out all that well or do the meal any justice. All this to say, to see the burger I had, you’ll have to picture an egg, sitting sunny side up on a patty and it’s other toppings. I might catch a shot of it next time…

Every time I walk into m:brgr, I’m surprised by the type of crowd that flocks to it. Last night’s cross section included UGG wearing teeny bops sucking on milkshakes, Habs fans there to watch the game, shoot the shit, and take advantage of the drink specials, plus multiple groups of 8 or more celebrating birthdays and the like. By the end of the night, even some of the Habs players themselves showed up for a post game meal. While m:brgr’s design helps frame the restaurant’s atmosphere, it’s the boisterous crowd that really enhances the laid-back, casual, feeling.

Not only was I ‘that douchebag’ taking photos of my food, but I also became ‘that asshole that interrupts celebrities when they want to be left alone.’ When the Habs showed up for their post-game wind down, they were inevitably crowded with girls cooing for pictures and fans asking for autographs. I made the mistake of texting my sister in Toronto, who is OBSESSED with Carey Price and the team, to let her know he and the guys were just a few tables over. She proceeded to guilt me into going up to them to get their autographs… I’d like to say I’m not the kind of guy to do that sort of thing…but I did it…and the Habs were not impressed with me. Sitting at the table were Price, Lars Eller, Josh Georges, Hal Gill, PK Subban and a few others. I asked if they’d make something out to my sister and they politely obliged. Of course I tried making small talk by asking about their mustaches (naturally!) and how much they’d raised so far for Movember and in return I got a few one sentence answers followed by head swivels so they could ignore me and watch their game highlights…The things you’ll do for family…

Are there any toppings or menu items you would recommend at m:brgr? Where else should I go if I was a great, tasty burger? Have you ever embarrassed yourself in front of a celebrity for a loved one?

Leave your comments below or find me on Twitter!

*I am not affiliated with m:brgr nor was this post commissioned by the restaurant.

Two days ago the Cirque Du Soleil premiered their brand new traveling show: MICHAEL JACKSON THE IMMORTAL and I was there. It’s a world tour that kick-ed off here in Montreal and will wind its way through North America (circling back to Montreal a second time in March 2012) before heading overseas.

I remember getting my tickets a year and a half ago and thinking: “Where the hell do I put these so that I don’t lose them before the show?” Seriously. A lot can happen in that time, not to mention losing a small envelope with two tickets in it.

I didn’t lose them and am so glad I didn’t cause This. Show. Rocked.

Every Cirque Du Soleil show I’ve been to under their big top here in the Old Port of Montreal has been excellent. Even fundraisers that have been put on in association with the Cirque have always had an extra flair that only they could add. I’ve never been to one of their shows in Las Vegas but I can only imagine how crazy they must be.

MICHAEL JACKSON THE IMMORTAL is no different. It’s wild. Without giving away any details, the show follows 5 Michael Jackson clowns (a version of The Jackson Five…) as they make their way through NeverLand Ranch experiencing the magic of MJ. Along the way the crowd is dazzled by elaborate set pieces and props, in your face pyrotechnics, and music that quite literally almost knocked the roof off of the Bell Center. Not to mention a video screen setup that puts anything I’ve ever seen like it to shame.

No matter what peoples opinions of Michael Jackson are, it is undeniable that his music resonates with every single one of us. I’d like to see someone try to say that not one of his songs reminds them of some part of growing up. His music rocks and this show showed it off perfectly. From the slower songs that were used primarily as transitions between larger set pieces to the classics like Smooth Criminal, Thriller, and Black and White, the music was clearly the reason people were there and it worked. The Cirque house band and the singers that did everything live were outstanding.

For Cirque Du Soleil, the show seemed like a departure. I was expecting overly dangerous and jaw-dropping stunts and aerials. This was not the case. While there were definitely a few aerial elements throughout the show, the showmanship of the spectacle was focused more on the dancing and the costumes. At no point was this boring, it just wasn’t filled with insane stunts. Cirque’s flare and eclectic tone were clearly on display and ran through every thread of the performance and because of that, they could’ve done away with the aerials completely and the show would’ve been just as great. Their edgy style applied to Michael Jackson really does present an intriguing look at The King of Pop.

It wasn’t all great though. Since it was the premiere night however, I need to asterisk this paragraph since a lot of the negative aspects of the show are probably extremely temporary. The show I saw on Sunday Oct. 2nd was probably not the same as the one that played the next night and will be different from the version that plays elsewhere in North America as the tour progresses. In between the massive set pieces, I have to admit I had a couple of “WTF” moments when I didn’t exactly follow where the story was going or what was happening during some of the transitions. I suspect this had to do with opening night timing glitches and knowing Cirque, they were ironed out by night two. Plus there was some minor blocking and timing issues with the dancers that I’d never seen before at a Cirque show but alas, I think I’m being overly critical.

The Bottom Line: 5/5. A must see. Michael Jackson fan or not this show is not to be missed. It is a study in showmanship, design, and incredible music.

Here’s a sample from the Cirque Du Soleil website:

Have you seen the show yet? What did you think? Have your tickets and are waiting to see it? What city and venue will you see it in?

Leave your comments below or find me on Twitter!

Want to get notified when I add a new post? Sign-up to get an email notification:

If you continue reading, I’ll break it down for you…

Now, before I go into the details of why a film like this makes absolute sense for them to do, take a minute and watch the Abbott and Costello routine:

As for the supporting arguments? Easy:

1 – The Coen’s have a natural knack for quick and smart dialogue. They’re also able to direct their actors in such a way as to get superb delivery of said dialogue. The idea that the Brothers would be superb for such a Baseball film came to me as I watched their BARTON FINK and saw the following scene:

The back and forth banter between the cops and Barton with the quickness of the edits to form a cohesive discussion is exactly what a film version of WHO’S ON FIRST would require.

Furthermore, and the reason I was prompted to write this article was a specific scene in the Brothers’ film INTOLERABLE CRUELTY in which George Clooney, Edward Herrmann, and Paul Adelstein are in a courtroom and argue about when to sit down in front of a judge. Unfortunately I can’t find an embeddable version so you’ll have to click through to view the clip on YouTube. Well worth it since it makes my case…

2 – The film would be a screwball comedy and we all know the Coens are very good at writing and directing comedic timing.

3 – The film could be set in the 1940′s. A period piece. Over half of the Brothers’ films are set in decades past.

4 – They’ve never made a sports movie before. It would be interesting to see their take on America’s Favorite Passtime.

5 – They work really well with ensemble casts. A film like this would undoubtedly need a ragtag team of ball players, a lazy and disgruntled manager, a high falootin’ franchise owner and the various journalists, cops, and nefarious characters that would round out the cast.

6 – Some of the best Baseball games are filled with exciting highs and lows. We know the Coens love their twists and turns…

7 – I’m sure Carter Burwell would do a phenomenal job working around TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALL GAME and Roger Deakins would create a gorgeous old time atmosphere.

8 – Joel and Ethan love imbuing their comedy and tension with sound effects. What better venue for this than at an old time ball game? The cracking of bats, balls being caught in gloves, the spitting of tobacco, the vendors shouting, the cheering crowd and of course the patting of bottoms…

I could go on but I think you get my drift…

Joel and Ethan, what do you say? Maybe right after you finish up GAMBIT or INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS?

What do you think? Would you like to see a Coen Brothers film inspired by Abbott and Costello’s WHO’S ON FIRST?

Side note: It turns out there are no unique thoughts left in the world. As I was investigating this thought before my rant, it turns out that YouTube user Redetrigan, who’s video I point to above, agrees with, at the very least, the similarities of that scene with WHO’S ON FIRST by referring to it under his video.

Catch next week’s Coen Brothers Film Experience entry on Wednesday, October 5th: INTOLERABLE CRUELTY. Also, don’t forget to JOIN ALONG! “Like” the Coen Brothers Experience Facebook page!

Leave your comments below or find me on Twitter!

Want to get notified when I add a new post? Sign-up to get an email notification:

This week’s film in my Coen Brothers Film Experience is THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE. It was released in 2001, and is two things if it is anything at all. First – it is quite possibly the most beautifully shot film the Coens with fellow cinematographer Roger Deakins have ever created and second, it is unfortunately extremely slow. I’ll say it again, I can appreciate the craftsmanship that the Coen brothers put into each of their films, and in that regard, once again, THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE is a home run. What I find difficult to swallow, for my own taste, is the film’s deliberately slow pacing. I can’t not recommend this movie since it is in fact a treat to watch Experiencing the brothers weave a tale their tale of murder, music, and UFOs the way they do is exquisite. I just wish it moved along at a brisker pace.

THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE stars Billy Bob Thorton as a quiet and very reserved barber who’s married to Frances McDormand (by 2001 she had appeared in 6 out of 9 the Coen films). She’s the accountant for the department store owned by James Gandolfini’s in-laws. They also happen to be ‘familiar’ if you know what I mean and this provides the setup for yet another expertly crafted Coen tale. Scarlett Johansson, and Coen Brother return players Jon Polito, Michael Badalucco, and Tony Shalhoub round out the cast.

The casting is excellent. While Billy Bob and Frances McDormand excel in their roles, it really is the supporting cast that kills it. Each of the scenes with Jon Polito or Tony Shalhoub pop with the energy and skill these actors bring to their characters. Polito nails his smarmy entrepreneur character, “The Pansy”. From the moment you see him and he opens his mouth, you can tell there is something that’s just not right about him. The more you see him and Billy Bob’s character interact, the more you begin to loath him. He just oozes disgusting – they way he talks, and smacks his lips when he talks plus the way he goads Billy Bob into doing exactly what he expects. Then there is a scene with him sitting on a hotel room bed and he just comes off like a guy you cannot trust…so well done. When he finally does the wink, it’s the cherry on top of a loathsome character sundae.

Then you have Shalhoub’s fast talking lawyer. Stellar. He does an amazing job delivering the Coen dialogue as the film’s most animated and entertaining screen presence. Case in point:

Not only does that scene spotlight Shalhoub’s talent in this film but it also showcases everything that this movie does really well: lighting, sound, blocking, scripting and the exploration of the Werner Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’. It’s a fascinating concept: the more you look at something the less you know. If you open something up to examination, and allow different viewpoints to shed light on something, it will invariably change the subject being examined. This is the angle that Shalhoub’s character uses to his advantage in THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE by using it to cast doubt and change perceptions in a courtroom scenario but if you look at this principle using any real world example, it helps prove the concept. I’ll compare it to something I know (albeit slightly off topic): Take Nike for example. The company’s ability to constantly mobilize a public relations and advertizing machine helps maintain the public’s perceptions of the company in a somewhat favorable light and therefore they sell tons of shoes. The fact that they use child labor in third world countries to generate an insane profit barely registers anymore with the consuming public even though there are organizations that stress this fact over and over again. If the perception is that the shoes are cool, that they’ll facilitate athletic performance, and if they are endorsed by a celebrity or attached to a great cause, the company that sells them can’t be that bad can they?

Before I conclude, I’d like to discuss the whole UFO thing. What the heck is that all about? The more I try to figure out what it all means, the more it confuses me…;) Seriously. I’m guessing they included UFOs since they were a topic of discussion in the 40s but how does the existence of them tie in with the rest of the story? It’s all just a bit wacky. I will admit that without the UFO storyline, we’d never get the awesomely creepy scene scene below with Katherine Borowitz:

The BOTTOM LINE: 3/5. All of this to say THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE is not a bad movie at all. It’s just not the kind of movie I could sit through time and time again. It’s certainly worth a watch if only to see the Coen’s try their hand, rather successfully at a black and white 1940′s crime thriller. Everyone brings their A-game…unfortunately it’s just not my cup of tea.

THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE is my least favorite Coen Brothers film to date. It’s going to have to sit at the bottom of my list for now…

1. THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998)
2. MILLER’S CROSSING (1990)
3. THE HUDSUCKER PROXY (1994)
4. FARGO (1996)
5. O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000)
6. BARTON FINK (1991)
7. BLOOD SIMPLE (1984)
8. RAISING ARIZONA (1987)
9. THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE (2001)

Where does THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE fall on your list of Coen Brothers films? Does the film’s pacing bother you as much as it does me? Do you think John Goodman would’ve done well in James Gandolfini’s role?

Catch next week’s Coen Brothers Film Experience entry on Wednesday, October 5th: INTOLERABLE CRUELTY. Also, don’t forget to JOIN ALONG! “Like” the Coen Brothers Experience Facebook page!

Leave your comments below or find me on Twitter!

Want to get notified when I add a new post? Sign-up to get an email notification:

This entry in my Coen Brothers Film Experience was supposed to be posted a week ago. Needless to say, I’m a tad late getting my thoughts together on O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU. The tardiness however is worth it. I hope…

The first time I saw this film was a bunch of years back and I had no idea what to think. I had a very neutral opinion of the film. Upon re-watching it however, I can honestly say that I have a much better appreciation for it now. The problem lies not in whether or not I enjoyed the film, but more in the fact that I can’t exactly say why. Hopefully by the time I come to the end of this article, I’ll be able to put it into words. But be forewarned. Between now and the end, I’m going to have to admit to some pretty serious personal deficiencies surrounding my knowledge of Homer, film and the themes that the Coen Brothers built this movie around.

Hit the jump for the rest.

O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? is based loosely on Homer’s THE ODYSSEY. Three prison escapees evade capture throughout the south during the The Great Depression in an attempt to find a $1.2 million lot of buried treasure. George Clooney plays Ulysses Everett McGill, a Dapper Dan man, who’s the fastest talking member of the threesome and acts as the defacto leader. It’s also his treasure they are hunting down.

It’s their journey to find the treasure where the links to THE ODYSSEY begin…it is also where my ignorance of Homer’s work handicaps me from completely enjoying this film as much as many hardcore Coen fans do. The unfortunate sub-point to this is that it also somewhat prevents me from fully understanding all the themes developed by the Coens in this movie. I can give a fairly basic description of THE ODYSSEY: it is the story of Odysseus, his crew, and his ship as they attempt to travel back to their homeland from war abroad. On this journey home, the ship and crew gets waylayed time and time again by mythical events and creatures on each island they stop at. The most simplistic relations between the source material and O BROTHER are glaringly obvious: Clooney’s character’s name is Ulysses which is Latin for Odysseus. Additionally, as Ulysses and company undertake their adventure, they find themselves up against characters and scenarios reminiscent of Homer’s work: John Goodman as a one eyed con man (a cyclops), and three sirens on a river (umm.. sirens). What I have trouble with is the why?

The movie looks great, it’s wonderfully shot, the music is excellent and George Clooney does a fantastic job. My only criticism (if it can be called that) is that I don’t get the meaning of it all. I have a business background. I like to schmooze clients. It’s not often that we end up talking literature and philosophy, so my knowledge in these areas is fairly limited. Maybe I’m thinking too much into it, but why did the Coens decide to do a film based on Homer’s work, set it in the South, inject it with elements of racism and politics and then mix in a fantastic musical element? (feel free to comment!) The most logical conclusion I can come up with is because they could…

I watched O BROTHER with my wife and she brought up the following, very excellent point. This movie is one of the rare films where George Clooney is actually acting. Take a look at his IMDB page. O BROTHER is one of the few films in which Clooney plays a character that isn’t George Clooney. His filmography is full of roles where he is either an army officer/soldier or a legal/business man. In either case, he usually plays a suave, clean cut guy in a suit or uniform with a great smile that usually saves the day in some way or another. His smarmy, hair gelling, con man Ulysses is indeed a refreshing departure for Clooney. The Coens seem to be able to get Clooney to extend out of his comfort zone since his character in BURN AFTER READING skews to the slightly odd, idiosyncratic side as well.

John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson round out the trio. I have come to really enjoy John Turturro from his outings as various characters in Coen films. He’s an immensely gifted actor and is very adept at getting the Coen comedic pacing and tone. It also helps that he and Nelson are able to do great dimwit faces seeing as they are the slightly less intelligent components of the traveling prisoner trifecta.

A couple of notes:

There is no opening monologue or narration. Instead, the Coens employ a quote directly out of THE ODYSSEY to set the film off.

There is also rare use of massive set pieces in O BROTHER. Instead the Brothers leveraged the gorgeous scenic vistas of the south since most of the film transpires outdoors.

The Bottom Line: 3/5. A good movie but one that I struggle with. Everything about this film is great. I want to like it a ton and agree with critics and peers that it is one of the Coen Brothers’ best films however there is a sizable chunk missing for me. That being said, don’t let my “3″ put you on the fence. If you have never seen O BROTHER before. I highly recommend you see it and make up your own mind. Hell, then you can come back here and help me out.

Take a look at this clip. If it doesn’t make you want to give the film a chance, I don’t know what will. It does a great job of showcasing the awesome scenic beauty found in the film, the wonderful Coen dialogue, and the excellent music:

Since one of the elements of this Film Experience is to rank the Coen Brother films, in order of my preference, I’m going to have to put O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? at #5 – right after FARGO and before BARTON FINK. With eight films viewed thus far, here is my list of the Coen’s films:

1. THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998)
2. MILLER’S CROSSING (1990)
3. THE HUDSUCKER PROXY (1994)
4. FARGO (1996)
5. O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000)
6. BARTON FINK (1991)
7. BLOOD SIMPLE (1984)
8. RAISING ARIZONA (1987)

Catch next week’s Coen Brothers Film Experience entry on Wednesday, September 21st: THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE. Also, don’t forget to JOIN ALONG! “Like” the Coen Brothers Experience Facebook page!

Where does O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU fall on your list of Coen Brothers films? Can you help me out with some of the symbolism in the film and the ties to Homer’s THE ODYSSEY?

Leave your comments below or find me on Twitter!

Want to get notified when I add a new post? Sign-up to get an email notification:

After an impromptu one week hiatus, the COEN BROTHERS FILM EXPERIENCE is back in full swing. I blame the nihilists of the world.

I’m going to mix things up a bit with this week’s discussion and start out point blank with my Bottom Line:

The Bottom Line: 5/5. If there are only 21 words that you take away from this review and discussion of the Coen Brothers’ THE BIG LEBOWSKI, let them be: “If you haven’t seen THE BIG LEBOWSKI, see it. If you have seen it, see it again! This movie fucking rocks.

There are seriously not enough adjectives in the English language to describe this movie. Stuff like ‘hilarious’, ‘awesome’, and ‘fucking far out man’, while they are accurate, don’t seem to do it any justice. The more I think about how to describe my relationship with THE BIG LEBOWSKI, the more I keep falling upon the word “fuck”. Not in the context of how much sex or nudity is in the actual movie (although it is the first Coen Brothers film to feature both in any great quantity), and I don’t mean in terms of the cuss connotation (even though this film is clearly one of the Coen Brothers’ films that showcase many a meaty expletive). I mean in terms of the word that I feel is necessary to fully describe how awesome THE BIG LEBOWSKI actually is.

I’ll give you some examples: a) whenever someone asks me if they should watch the movie a first or repeat time, my response is something along the lines of, ‘fuck yeah you should”. or b) if someone ever asks me if I would like to watch the movie with them, they’ll get a “fucking A I would!”. In this scenario, there will usually be a mental or literal fist pump if this said person will be experiencing the movie for the first time… And finally, c) throughout the film, as each scene comes to an end, once I’m done laughing my ass off, or giggling like a school girl as I relish what just happened, the music, the characters, or the complete and utter awesome cluster fuck that is THE BIG LEBOWSKI, I’ll generally utter a mental or hushed, “fucking A…”

If you can’t tell by now, THE BIG LEBOWSKI is not only one of the Coen Brothers’ best films, screwball comedy or otherwise, but it is also now my favorite.

Read on if you want to know the details…

THE BIG LEBOWSKI is set in the early nineties and is a snapshot in the life of Jeff “The Dude” Lebowski. The film is told as a story and opens to the awesome narrative voice of Sam Elliott as we see a very dude-like tumble weed bounce aimlessly through Los Angeles. Queue the RAISING ARIZONA reference. The Dude is played to perfection by Jeff Bridges, and focuses on his reaction to, and the consequences of, the fact that he gets mistaken for a millionaire by the name of Jeffery Lebowski (David Huddleston) who owes money to a shady group of rug pee-ers. The remaining characters, and characters they are, include The Dude’s bowling buddies: Walter (John Goodman) and Donny (Steve Bushemi), a group of nihilists played by Peter Stormare, Flea, and Torsten Voges, and the remaining pitch perfect eccentric roles played by Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tara Reid, and John Turturro as “Jesus”, the bowling ex-sex offender.

I think one of the reasons that I truly love THE BIG LEBOWSKI so much is because it is one of the few Coen Brothers films that gets me full on laughing out loud. I realize, and can appreciate that many, if not all of their films do have comedic elements to them, but most of the time they are very dark and while funny, it’s rare that I’ll find myself laughing out loud. They are more enjoyed with a smile or a snicker. There is something about the dynamic between Jeff Bridges, John Goodman and Steve Bushemi that really gets me. They work with the back and forth Coen dialogue so well and hit the timing so perfectly that you believe that they are those characters and that they are seriously having a conversation in front of you. Add to these moments inspired scenes like when Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character reacts to Tara Reid wanting to give The Dude a blow job, or The Dude’s run in with a ‘marmot’, or the random friend of Julianne Moore’s character laughing his ass off and there is rarely a moment where I’m not laughing out loud or suppressing a giggle. On the very literal comedic level, THE BIG LEBOWSKI delivers in spades.

On a deeper level, the Coen Brothers don’t disappoint either: their use of the term THE BIG LEBOWSKI to represent, my words not theirs, a cluster fuck, The Dude’s car symbolizing the spiraling descent into said cluster fuck and even so far as to inject some early nineties war politics into their story is all so much fun.

On a final note, it’s interesting to see the Coen Brothers rip themselves off in BURN AFTER READING from elements first seen in LEBOWSKI. Most prominent are the scenes where The Dude is being followed by someone in a car and the eventual confrontation with the P.I. played by Coen Brothers repeat visitor Jon Polito. This same thing takes place, almost exactly in BURN. It’s what Polito’s character says to The Dude that got me thinking about the Iraq war link. The P.I. says to The Dude that he likes the way that he’s playing one side against the other all for his own means. In thinking about this, that’s exactly what theorists say about the original and the current Iraq war, that they are being waged to benefit the US for the oil and not necessarily to rid the world of terror. Since the first Iraq war was a complete cluster fuck, it only makes sense that they continuously mention the war or Saddam throughout the movie. Plus the Coens are sneaky, so when when they mention the coming of a ‘Little Lebowski’, in a film released in 1998, I can’t help but wonder if they were alluding to the fact that there might be another Iraq war on the horizon, or maybe they were hinting at the fact that there might be a younger Bush in the White House soon. Hindsight of course is 20/20 so its easy to believe it in all retrospect. Either way, it’s fun to imagine the brothers sitting at a table and brainstorming about the ‘little Lebowski’… Take a look at this Slate.com article for more on the Iraq war allegory.

Once again! The Bottom Line: 5/5. If there are only 21 words that you take away from my review & discussion of the Coen Brothers’ “The Big Lebowski”, let them be: “If you haven’t seen ‘The Big Lebowski’, see it. If you have seen it, see it again! This movie fucking rocks.

THE BIG LEBOWSKI takes top spot. It’s unfortunate to see everything drop a peg, but alas they must. After seven films viewed for my Coen Brothers Film Experience, here is my list in order of preference:

1. THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998)
2. MILLER’S CROSSING (1990)
3. THE HUDSUCKER PROXY (1994)
4. FARGO (1996)
5. BARTON FINK (1991)
6. BLOOD SIMPLE (1984)
7. RAISING ARIZONA (1987)

Catch next week’s Coen Brothers Film Experience entry on Wednesday, September 7th: O, BROTHER WHERE ART THOU. Also, don’t forget to JOIN ALONG! “Like” the Coen Brothers Experience Facebook page!

What do you think of THE BIG LEBOWSKI? Where does it fall on your list of Coen Brothers films? Can you think of any other similarities it has with other Coen works? Did you notice the Brothers’ use of very large rooms?

Leave your comments below or find me on Twitter!

A little somethin’ extra: Recently the cast of THE BIG LEBOWSKI reunited on stage to promote the Blu-Ray edition of the film. Enjoy:

Want to get notified when I add a new post? Sign-up to get an email notification:

I was in grade eight when FARGO was released. At that time, films like HAPPY GILMORE, BLACK SHEEP, and RUMBLE IN THE BRONX (the first and most amazing Jackie Chan movie I’d seen) were more up my alley. It wasn’t until the 1997 Academy Awards when the film won its 2 Oscars (Best Original Screenplay to the Coen Brothers and Best Actress to Frances McDormand), that it even became a blip on my radar. It was then that I first heard about the wood chipper scene. What teenager in their right mind can resist a good wood chipper scene? I don’t remember how I got my hands on the VHS but when I did, I absolutely hated sitting through the movie. When I watched it for the first time, it wasn’t funny (it’s a dark comedy), it wasn’t any good, (it’s great), it was way too slow (it’s actually fairly brisk), and it was soooooo long (it’s only 98 minutes). Added on top of all this? The sex scenes had no boobies….boooo!

Well. Fast forward fourteen years later: I’m now only slightly more mature (still looking for the boobies…), but I can confidently say that FARGO is fantastic. There is no denying it. It’s also rare that I’m able to find a movie fan that doesn’t rank it near the very top of their list of favorite Coen Brothers films.

The more I think about FARGO in the greater scheme of the Coen Brothers’ oeuvre, it has lots of borrowed scenes from a film that came before it (BLOOD SIMPLE) and very much inspires a film that came after it (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN).

Continue reading for the rest.

FARGO, which is supposedly “based on true events”, is a classic tale of man needs money, man hires goons to kidnap wife, man hopes to benefit financially when the wife’s father pays the ransom, then man gets fucked because a) the man is an idiot, b) the goons are one part nuts and one part incompetent, c) it’s a Coen Brothers movie, and d) Frances McDormand’s Marge Gunderson is on the case.

The cast in this film is excellent. FARGO is the pinpoint moment, not only when the Coen Brothers hit the mainstream but when Frances McDormand, Steve Buscemi, and William H. Macy were also launched from indie character actors status to mainstream stardom. Macy plays the man who hires the goons (Buscemi & Peter Stormare) to kidnap his wife (Kristin Rudrud). McDormand’s Marge Gunderson is the Fargo P.D. detective assigned to figuring it all out.

Set in Fargo, North Dakota and Brainerd, Minnesota, the mid-western characters and their accents are both hilarious and deceiving. There are moments in FARGO where I giggle to myself simply because I’m not used to the mid-western accent. Coming from Canada I should know a thing or two about silly sounding accents (eh..?) but Macy and McDormand get me every time they speak. The accents are given center stage throughout the entire movie and really play into the setting that the Coens created. At first listen, the accent is simple – in a small town, friendly sort of way. William H. Macy’s character is really the first person that we hear it from and along with his character, and many along the way, it is pretty much established as: anyone with this accent is a simpleton, not too intelligent and sort of flighty. What is great about Frances McDormand’s role is that while she nails the accent and the demeanor, her character is also smart as a tack. It’s interesting to see how the characteristics of accent and intelligence play together through the movie and how it helps elevate her above the other characters. Steve Buscemi, who doesn’t have an accent at all, ends up playing the movie’s most idiotic and incompetent character.

This gets me thinking about NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Not so much the accents but the theme of devastating murders happening in small towns. Through much of NO COUNTRY, Tommy Lee Jones questions how an act, as brutal as murder, and so much of it, can happen. He contemplates his ability to deal with it. In the end, as he presses on with his investigation, basically walking through the motions of attempting to capture the criminal, he resigns himself to not being able to solve the crimes. In FARGO, the same theme sort of plays out and ultimately, after you meet McDormand’s character, this is the same type of behavior you would expect. In the end however, as a testament to how strong small town people really are, after a couple of “oh dear” moments, she ends up solving everything. It would be interesting to hear the Coens discuss this. It could just be crap that I came up with, but it would definitely be something I would like to ask them one day:

Did you choose Cormac McCarthy’s NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN because it allowed you to examine, from a different perspective the themes at play in FARGO?

FARGO also ties in to the Coens’ first film BLOOD SIMPLE. BLOOD SIMPLE, at it’s heart, is also a crime thriller about murder. It’s the more literal similarities that struck me as I was watching FARGO. The long, straight highway scenes. The the sequences shot while driving at night, with the first-person camera perspective focused squarely on the passing asphalt framed in the vehicle’s headlamps. Also, murder according to the Coens usually happens on deserted highways. This, of course is an exaggeration. What isn’t an exaggeration is the fact that two out of three Coen highway murders end in awkward and stressful “drag the dead body to the side of the road before the oncoming car sees what has happened” sequences. John Getz and Steve Buscemi share these roles in the Coen cannon and in each of these instances, the scenes are prominent moments in the respective films.

Let’s look at some recurring Coen elements:

Frances McDormand counter: This is her 5th appearance in their first 6 films.

Huge set pieces? Unless you count the massive snowy mid-western fields, none.

Carter Burwell’s score? Insane. In fact, FARGO is the first Coen Brothers film thus far that has no opening narration or monologue. Instead, the film opens with Burwell’s swelling score as William H. Macy’s character drives through the snowy roads of North Dakota. A wonderful opening sequence.

The bottom line: 4.5/5. FARGO is a great movie. At the end of the day, even if you only watch it for script, the characters, and the good old wood chipper scene, it’ll be worth it.

It’s impossible at this point to choose where FARGO falls in my list of Coen Brother favorites. I don’t like it better than MILLER’S CROSSING and as a film it’s by far better than THE HUDSUCKER PROXY… however that one is just so much fun…It’s going to have to sit at number 3 for now.
Here’s a snapshot of where I’m at with my list:
1. MILLER’S CROSSING (1990)
2. THE HUDSUCKER PROXY (1994)
3. FARGO (1996)
4. BARTON FINK (1991)
5. BLOOD SIMPLE (1984)
6. RAISING ARIZONA (1987)

Catch next week’s Coen Brothers Film Experience entry on Wednesday, August 24th: THE BIG LEBOWSKI. Also, don’t forget to JOIN ALONG! “Like” the Coen Brothers Experience Facebook page!

What do you think of FARGO? Where does it fall in your list of Coen Brothers films? Can you think of any other similarities it has with other Coen works?

Leave your comments below or find me on Twitter!

THE HUDSUCKER PROXY makes me smile. This wasn’t always the case however…one could almost say I’ve come full circle with my enjoyment of the film…

This was my third viewing of the Coen Brothers’ THE HUDSUCKER PROXY. The first time I watched it, I forced myself to sit down and experience it from beginning to end. For some reason, it is always on TV and I kept catching glimpses of bits and pieces here and there without ever seeing enough to bait me to watch the whole thing through. The scenes I would see looked pretty good – light comedy, Tim Robbins, and Paul Newman. I decided to rent it and see what it was all about…

Wow. I really disliked it the first time around. I couldn’t, and still can’t, put my finger on the true reason why but I know it had something to do with what I thought at the time was the overall blandness of the movie and the irritating firecracker that is Jennifer Jason Leigh’s (JJL from this point forward) character.

My second viewing improved my stance on the film and now after a third viewing, as with most Coen films, repeat viewings really do make the heart grow fonder. While JJL’s character still irritates the fuck out of me at times, I can honestly say, I get a huge kick out of the film!

Hit the jump for the rest of my thoughts.

THE HUDSUCKER PROXY is the Coen Brothers’ fifth film and was released in 1994 and is co-written by the Coens and Sam Raimi. The film opens with a narration by Bill Cobbs, and tells a story about circles, clocks, what goes around comes around, the hula hoop, and second chances. Tim Robbins plays the very likable imbecile Norville Barnes, a business admin graduate from the small town of Muncie, Indiana who lands in New York city looking for a job with the dream of getting his invention (a circle on a scrap of paper, “you know, for kids..!”) made and in stores. In parallel, the great Waring Hudsucker (played by Charles Durning), President of Hudsucker Industries, jumps out of his boardroom window. This leaves the Board of Directors, led by Paul Newman’s scheming Sidney Mussberger, to find a replacement, a man they can manipulate…and thus begins the tale. Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Bruce Campbell also star.

The cast also includes Coen Brothers favorites John Mahoney, Jon Polito, Steve Buscemi, and an uncredited, quick glimpse at John Goodman. No Frances McDormand.

It’s hard not to enjoy HUDSUCKER – it’s a light-hearted screwball comedy set in the 1950′s with the classic Coen pacing and dialogue. Whether it was supposed to be more, I couldn’t tell you. But it was the ‘more’ I think I was looking for the first time I saw it. The thing is, there is still so much that is great about it. The never ending circular representations in the theme, dialogue, and production design are fun to look for. The montage at the beginning of the film full of corporate fat cats guffawing in the boardroom, then next to the ticker, then with cigars and drinks in hand, then at the tailors, and then at a press conference etc… is gold. As is the scene that introduces the hula hoop to the audience. On the same note, Newman’s conniving Mussberger is a treat to watch as he hams it up – “sure sure..”. Even the random screaming sequences that I didn’t like in RAISING ARIZONA or MILLER’S CROSSING seemed right at home here and actually had me laughing…that damn blue letter! Interesting to note: the screaming scenes in HUDSUCKER mostly involved women and not men as in the previous films. The men were usually laughing for minutes on end or crying hysterically.

It’s the actors that make the movie, even though the production design and New York setting are also very impressive. John Mahoney nails his character. He plays the fast talking editor of the newspaper and every time he delivers his lines I am amazed at how he was able to talk so quickly and still enunciate everything properly. Even Bruce Campbell (Sam Raimi!) does a great job with his schtick as a campy reporter. He loves that shit, and his fans eat it up. I can see why. He’s so subtle in his mannerisms that he could easily be taken from the faux era of this film and be plunked down in the real thing and make it work. It’s unfortunate really that these guys and Tim Robbins, who is great as Norville wind up having to share the screen with JJL’s character…

JJL ruined the movie for me the first time I saw it. After second and now third viewings, she still weighs heavily on my liking of the movie. All it really comes down to is two things: The first is her portrayal of “the fast talking career gal”. It can be downright irritating. The inflections in her voice, the head shakes and hair swinging, and all the damned spastic hand waving is enough to want to turn her off. The second, if you can get by the grandiosity, is the fact that her character is so poorly written. She is supposed to be ‘one of the guys’, this Pulitzer winning journalist that will go up against anyone and win the scoop on a story and yet the moment she meets Norville, she becomes a wishy washy dame, sulking on a roller coaster of mixed emotions. In my mind, this character is the flaw to an otherwise truly decent movie.

Now let’s talk about those HUGE Coen Brothers set pieces. A recurring element in all of their first films, they come out to play big time in HUDSUCKER. All the rooms, corridors, and lobbies are MASSIVE and they do a great job highlighting the fish out of water/corporate atmosphere of the movie.

On a final note, I think it is truly Carter Burwell’s score that’s turned me around on this film. When I was introduced to Tim Robbins’ fantastic Norville for the third tonight, as he disembarked a bus in the big city and stood in front of the job boards full of hope…I couldn’t help but smile.

The Bottom Line: 4.5/5. The big sets, the score, the cast and their over the top characters (all but one are great), the script and the story’s narration make it a great movie to experience. THE HUDSUCKER PROXY is a very solid Coen Brothers’ screwball comedy and is worth a viewing if you’ve never seen it. If you’ve seen it once or twice and didn’t like it, you might be surprised when you revisit it. I know I was.

This is a tough one. THE HUDSUCKER PROXY doesn’t hold a candle to BARTON FINK in terms of complexity of its themes or overall quality of film however I have to say I do very much enjoy it. I’m going to have to place it right between FINK and MILLER’s CROSSING. Tommy guns over hula hoops. Here’s a snapshot of where I’m at with my list:
1. MILLER’S CROSSING (1990)
2. THE HUDSUCKER PROXY (1994)
3. BARTON FINK (1991)
4. BLOOD SIMPLE (1984)
5. RAISING ARIZONA (1987)

Catch next week’s Coen Brothers Film Experience entry on Wednesday, August 17th: FARGO. Also, don’t forget to JOIN ALONG! “Like” the Coen Brothers Experience Facebook page!

What do you think of THE HUDSUCKER PROXY? Are you a fan of JJL’s character and performance? Where does it fall in your list of Coen Brothers films?

Leave your comments below or find me on Twitter!

Quite honestly, the first time that I had ever even heard of BARTON FINK was right before my viewing of RAISING ARIZONA a couple of weeks back. I watched the trailer for RAISING ARIZONA right before I watched the actual movie and decided to also peek at the trailers for MILLER’S CROSSING and BARTON FINK, both of which appeared as extras on the disk. I had a pretty big “WTF” moment. I couldn’t believe I had never heard anyone speak of this movie. I looked it up online and had another “WTF” moment when I read that it had swept the 1991 Cannes Film Festival by winning the Palm d’Or as well as the prizes for Directing and Acting (John Turturro as the lead).

I’m glad I finally had a chance to sit down and experience it. As with many, if not all, of the Coen Brothers movies, it definitely is an experience.

Hit the jump to read my take of BARTON FINK, the fourth in my series on the Coen Brothers films.

BARTON FINK is the story of a New York playwright, Barton Fink, played by John Turturro, who decides, partially against his own will, to leave New York, and plunge himself into the world of Hollywood to boost the longevity of his career and to partake in the financial gain that comes with it. The film also stars John Goodman, as his hotel room neighbor, Michael Lerner, Judy Davis, Tony Shaloub, and a host of Coen repeat favorites: John Mahoney, Jon Polito, and Steve Bushemi.

Frances McDormand is interestingly absent this time around…until you visit the BARTON FINK IMDB page and realize that she actually lends her voice in the opening minutes of the film. That makes for appearances in 4 out of 4 of their films so far…

To say that I understand a lot of the themes and symbolism crammed into this movie would be a lie. No wait, that’s not altogether true. In retrospect, I understand the symbolism however as I was watching the film, most of it was lost on me until I researched the movie afterwards. Wikipedia has a monstrous rundown of all of the themes, symbolism, and Coenesque also has a good discussion of some of the main symbolic elements.

Here’s my very simplistic take: Barton Fink is a writer that prides himself on getting into ‘the people’s’ mindset. When he migrates to LA, he is essentially told that he needs to pigeonhole himself and his work into whatever genre (a wrestling picture, in this case) they need at the time. LA is a wildly different place than his native New York so the hotel and his room represent his retreat in a strange land. John Goodman’s Charlie is one of the people he claims to know so well, yet rarely listens to, and the wallpaper is a symbolic representation of his mind set as his experience in LA gets more and more difficult.

Aside from all of the symbolic stuff, there are some absolutely great characters in this movie. Chief among them, Michael Lerner as Jack Lipnick, the Hollywood head of ‘Capitol Pictures’. I absolutely loved this character. Associated with the Hollywood side of the story are Jon Polito and Tony Shaloub. The characterizations of Hollywood big wigs, assistants, and producers is absolutely hilarious. The doublespeak, contradictions, and back and forth dialogue is immensely entertaining. As well, we get some brief scenes with two investigative detectives looking for John Goodman’s character and every second they are on screen is pure gold. They instigate one of the best lines of the whole movie. They allude to the fact that Barton and Charlie had a gay affair and Barton responds with, “Sex?! He’s a man!…We wrestled!” The line and the way Turturro delivered it had me laughing for minutes.

I’ll be honest. By the end of the movie, I was totally enthralled and yet when it was all over, I had a gajillion questions. I watched the trailer again after my viewing and realized that when I revisit BARTON FINK a second time, I’m going to love it, especially after investigating the multiple elements at play that I missed the first time around. In the end, whether you catch everything or not, BARTON FINK is a very entertaining film if only to experience a Coen Brothers take of 40′s Hollywood.

Trivia sub-note: The film is edited, quite spectacularly by Roderick Jaynes. I looked him up after the movie was done only to find out that its a pseudonym used by the Coens when they edit films themselves… It turns out that the brothers have edited every one of their films themselves aside from RAISING ARIZONA and MILLER’S CROSSING.

Giant room count: 1. A bit disappointing but the film makes up with it by showcasing one crazy ass hallway…

The Bottom Line: 4/5. BARTON FINK is a really difficult film to put my finger on. The long and short of it is this: would I recommend the movie? Sure thing. As with much of the Coen Brothers’ work, it may not be for everyone. There are some absolutely awesome sequences but on the flip side there are a lot of moments that make you cock your head to the side and go: “huh?”.

BARTON FINK doesn’t fall too low on my list of Coen faves. I do like MILLER’S CROSSING more but unfortunately BLOOD SIMPLE is going to have to slip a notch. Here’s a snapshot of where we’re at with my list:
1. MILLER’S CROSSING (1990)
2. BARTON FINK (1991)
3. BLOOD SIMPLE (1984)
4. RAISING ARIZONA (1987)

Want to see the trailer? It does a great job foreshadowing the film’s excellent use of editing and sound effects:

Catch next week’s Coen Brothers Film Experience entry on Wednesday, August 10th: THE HUDSUCKER PROXY. Also, don’t forget to JOIN ALONG! “Like” the Coen Brothers Experience Facebook page!

What did you think of BARTON FINK the first time you saw it? What do you think of it now? Where does it fall in your list of Coen Brothers films?

Leave your comments below or find me on Twitter!