Fargo
(1996)
Rated: R
Runtime: 1 Hour and 38 Minutes
Reviewer: Dale
Grade: AI love the Coen Brothers. They are the best directing duo in screen today and one of the best directors of all time (if you count the two of them as one single, creative entity, which I do) and this is their best film.
Or so they say.
Personally, this is one of my lesser favorites in the Coen Brothers' film canon.
Why? Well, here it is: I think the Coens are at the top of their game when dealing with the sort of quirky, oddball material that most directors would not touch with a ten foot pole. And most directors shouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. Stories like "Blood Simple", "Raising Arizona", and "Barton Fink", well, those type of stories can be told by the Coen Brothers with the sort of wit, whimsy and immeasurable skill that others can't quite match. The Coen Brothers can take a tale like "The Big Lebowski", which would have been painfully over-quirky in anyone else's hands, and make comic gold out of it. They have a way with those sort of odd characters that no one else can match.
All that being said: "Fargo" is a little too straight for a Coen film.
Don't get me wrong, it's still great. The austere cinematography, the little touches that make the characters human (the polka poster on the wall of Macy's boy, for one thing, and the way Macy gets frustrated while scraping his window, for another), the plot and the way it turns and twists like a jungle snake. I love how it is set in a setting and landscape that most other films pretend don't exist. Why is it that every film has to take place in either New York City or L.A.? Are those the only two places that exist? I love the haunting visuals of the film and the sparse and beautiful music.
But for all that, I still think it isn't much more than "Blood Simple" set in Minnesota rather than Texas, and with fewer plot twists. The Coens have used the idea of kidnapping so many times. It was done better in "Raising Arizona" (and to brazenly hilarious effect). Granted, these are two different films and every time the Coens thoughts turn to kidnapping, it is in a totally different way than it was in their previous films. Yet, for some reason, it all seems like familiar ground. It has the usual, dark ironic twists of fate. It has Steve Buscemi (again).
But what sets it apart from all the Coens other films is Margie. God, I love Margie. Frances McDormand brings this character to life in a way that few actresses ever have. This is not a performance. It is a metamorphasis. It's simply breathtaking. Much has been said about it, and none of it was overpraise. She is the main reason the movie works.
Another reason the movie works so well: William H. Macy in the role of Jerry Lundergard. You see this man for what he is: a sad, tragic loser. We don't know where his desperation springs from. We don't know why he is in the situation that he is. But he is there and he is very, very desperate. You feel sorry for the poor schmuck at the same time you hope that Margie can clip his wings before things get too far out of control. In fact, I think that his performance is right up there with McDormand's. He deserved to win his award. Or, at least, have a tie between him and Norton.
Actually, I don't really know why I don't like this movie as much as everyone else. The Coens have done some of these things before, but it all seems fresh again here. Maybe I just want another comedy along the lines of "Raising Arizona". Maybe I'm just too hard to please. But I know that it didn't quite get under my skin and make me an addict the way many other Coen films have. I know that it didn't involve me as thoroughly as others. Yet I still find myself popping it in and smiling at Frances's performance. I still love the realism of it. And I still think it is probably the best film of 1996.
And I still think that you should all run right out and rent it. Because my reasons for not rating it higher are quite unexplainable, even to me. Perhaps I just expected way, way too much.
Reviewer: Erik
Grade: A+
This is a movie people either get or don't get. It seems nobody really falls in the middle of these two extremes. On the surface, the movie doesn't seem like much -- a straightforward crime drama with little surprises. Beneath the surface, this movie has more to offer.
Here's what I liked about "Fargo":
1) The bottom line here is the contrast between the small town folk and the scheming crooks who put money ahead of human life. The message doesn't smack you in the head, but at the end, when all is said and done, it's the quirky small-town folk who come out ahead. The little things they have in their lives is more valuable than any bundle of money.
2) Frances MacDormand's performance is one for the ages. Halfway through the movie, I knew she was due for an Oscar nomination.
3) William H. Macy's performance gets lesser recognition, but he plays a man slowly losing control to a tee. Just watch him squirm his way through a deal with the customers. Or the way he handles the police interrogation.
4) The dialogue is annoying to some, but not to me. I've heard so much flat dialogue in the hundreds of movies I've seen that it was refreshing to hear something different. Most of the dialogue is quite funny.
5) Not much has been said of this so far, but I found the movie to be quite atmospheric. The slow music and scenic snow-covered landscapes really transported me to this odd little region of the country.
Despite some of the critics' reviews, I would NOT put this amongst my top ten. But it's a safe four-stars-out-of-four bet, with a strong message that doesn't pound you over the head and strong performances. There's a lot to love about this movie.