A long time ago I remember reading a glowing Siskel review of the movie Fargo. AMC had it on, so I saw it for the first time just a few days ago. (Side observation: using "fruity" as a replacement word is almost as hilarious as hearing Austin Powers say "I'm a sexy Brit!".)
Once again, I didn't get it.
That is, I didn't understand what was so fantastic about this movie, although it had no glaring weaknesses. Later, when I checked online, I read that the white, snow-covered landscape is supposed to be bleak and fatalistic. I played in the snow all the time when I was a kneebiter. I remember making snow forts and sculptures, throwing snowballs, sledding, even going skiiing and snowmobiling. I guess the appearance of snow means something different to people in California. Moving along, I've also read that Fargo is valued for its characters. I could see that, especially since its plot didn't feel that inspired and its emotional tide goes from "hmm" to "blah" to "shrug".
I think the crux of it is that I liked many scenes in Fargo, but the movie as a whole was disappointing. It had some of that same dark, quirky humor that I've greatly enjoyed in other Coen-involved movies, and each character displayed more intersting personality moments than all the characters put together in some other movies. In any case, feel free to take my opinion with a grain of salt since I had similar mixed feelings when I first saw Citizen Kane. If I need other people to tell me what's so great about a movie, is it the movie's fault or mine?
EDIT: I later realized that when I wrote that I was a kneebiter, I meant to write anklebiter.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.