The Ladykillers (2004) Reviews

• Not an adequate remake, but rather a reinterpretation

  fuzzy_wunz2005-05-11

  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.

• Too Coenesque for this caper

  DavidSim2401832008-12-05

  The Ladykillers (1955) is an enduring classic of British cinema. It was far and away Ealing's finest hour as a studio. Smooth, polished and blackly funny, its one of the best British comedies ever made. Now the classic tale gets the 21st Century makeover from Ethan and Joel Coen. The basic story is just as Ealing left it. Five men plan a robbery while posing as musicians for the little old lady putting them up. She eventually finds the money, and the gang have no choice but to bump her off. But everything that can and will go wrong does. Ealing comedies have always been a big influence on the Coen Brothers. Especially The Ladykillers. They love to make films where hapless folk fall victim to cruel and unusual circumstances. The Ladykillers should have worked really well in their hands. What a crushing disappointment that it doesn't. The Coens have made many marvellous films over the years. But this is one film on they're resume that misfires. The Coens' have radically reworked the story to suit themselves. E.g. A pet cat instead of pet parrots, bodies dumped into garbage barges and not train carriages. And the Deep South as a setting. I have nothing against changes. The mark of a good remake is to take the original story and find some new novelty on it. But its the approach the Coens' take that kills the story. Much of the appeal of the original film was the way it took place in a cosy, English domestic setting. Beneath a placid demeanour was a very sinister crime story. As violence and murder began to spiral, it pushed the film from the blackly comical into the truly hysterical. The anonymity of the original made the violence in it that much more disturbing. And that all the more funny. But the mistake of the Coens' is to make it disturbing, but not to rein any of it in. Coen films are frequently bizarre. But its an approach that doesn't sit very well with the story. Alec Guinness' Professor Marcus was hardly normal. You could tell that just by looking at him. But he didn't have to do much to convince you of that. One of the major problems with the remake is the way the Coens' have rewritten his character. Professor Marcus has now become Professor G.H. Dorr, Ph.d. This was Tom Hanks' first time out with the Coen Brothers, and in interviews, he said he'd never seen the original film. If he had, I can guarantee he wouldn't have wanted to do a remake. Because the original film was perfect. The remake only reminds you of how well written and well acted the original was. Tom Hanks' performance is more distracting than it is engaging. He plays the role with a series of peculiar squeaks, grunts and double-takes. Its impossible to form a connection with such an unusual character. Hanks draws too much attention to himself. Where Alec Guinness was more subtle. He could communicate volumes with a simple look. The other members of the gang are not much better either. We care little for these people. And like Hanks, they're much too bizarre to identify with. Considering they're supposed to be criminals trying to keep a low profile, it just doesn't make any sense that the Coens' play up their quirks to shrieking, absurd levels. One thing that seriously works against the film is Marlon Wayans. I must admit to an intense dislike of him as an actor. His performances are annoyingly over the top. And The Ladykillers is no exception. He spends half the time swearing his way through the film. He does more swearing than he does talking. Which feels out of step with the rest of the film. Every time he's on the scene, I wanted to leave the room. I was relieved when he was killed off. The film is all the better for it. An otherwise fine actor like JK Simmons is wasted. He doesn't get much to do, and his irritable bowel syndrome isn't nearly as funny as the Coens' think it is. Tzi Ma and Ryan Hurst make no distinction on the story at all. They're not the smooth, attuned ensemble Guinness' gang were. In the role of the little old lady, instead of Mrs Wilberforce, we have Mrs Munson, played by Irma P. Hall. Her sassy, energetic presence is the one ray of sunshine to the film. She's the one thing about the remake the Coens' get right. She's an amusing reversal of what we were expecting. Not too knowing. But not too naive either. The film is slightly more successful in its second half. As soon as it gets to the point where they have to kill Mrs Munson off, it forces the Coens' to stop springing oddball quirks on us and get on with telling the story. A point where the Coens' trademark black humour finally starts paying off. They die just like the last time, with Mrs Munson completely none the wiser. But the Coens' put they're own sadistic spin on them. Tzi Ma's death is particularly hilarious. But that's all of 30 minutes before the credits roll. And that's too late in the film to save it. And even then, we never get the feeling that things are getting worse by the second the way we did with the Ealing version. Or the way the Coens' did with Fargo. They fortunately recovered with their next film, the superb No Country For Old Men. But if that film showed the Coens' at their best, The Ladykillers is them at their worst.

• Good and Bad.

  northstar_362012-11-02

  As a remake this movie falls flat, as a stand alone movie its not too bad and will appeal more to a younger audience and probably mostly American one at that. Here is the problem with remakes - If you make it exactly like the original then there is little point in remaking it, if you just change the country what is the point when the dialogue and the setting is the exact same almost, with a few words changed here and there... Coupling UK and Coupling USA is a good example... and also maybe Life on Mars. Of course these are TV shows but the comparison stands. They made this movie very different to the original and shouldn't have called it a remake, or even The Ladykillers. In no way does this resemble the original, which is a classic and is still watchable today but set far in the past when TVs were black and white... is it better than this movie if you are comparing them as the same movie... the original blows this away without a doubt. So bare that in mind when watching this movie. I wouldn't compare these movies at all, to be honest they are far too different to compare, the only comparison i can come up with is that they have the same name and some of the characters are similar... the scenario is quite different except that they are both about stealing money. Not a bad or great movie by any means, and i think Hanks character tried to be like the Alec Guinness one, a little strange, and it didn't quite work, for me anyway...

• Remake? Mainstream? So what - it is a great fun:

  G_a_l_i_n_a2005-10-07

  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.

• Completely unnecessary remake.

  rmax3048232005-08-06

  I've admired some of the Coen's other movies, and Tom Hanks gives a smooth comic performance here. That's about it. It's not a very funny movie. It's not entirely lacking in the Coen's sort of irony and wit -- two of the gangsters constantly at each others' throats are a jive-talking rastafarian-looking black kid and an older white guy who was a freedom rider. But the humor is driven in with a sledgehammer, what there is of it. While demonstrating how safe it is to handle a kind of explosive, the expert hits it with a hammer and blows his finger off. There follows an argument about whether or not it can be sewn back on like Bobbitt's penis. The black kid claims it can be although it might "maybe look like a chewed up frankfurter." In the original the crooks execute a simple but nicely choreographed heist on a city street and involve their old landlady in the retrieval of the money. Here, the crooks tunnel into the vault. Why? Digging tunnels and having accidents (the fuse that stops, then restarts at the wrong moment) are easier to do than figuring out jokes that might take place during a street robbery. And the old landlady is in no way involved in the plan. She stumbles on the gang by accident while the air is filled with fluttering bills. She's also not old and delicate. She's in late middle age, energetic, and robust. Well. Others might enjoy it more than I did, especially if they're not familiar with the unsurpassable original. I personally am getting awfully tired of remakes. What a dearth of creativity they portend. They are beginning to make parodies of parodies. Shot-for-shot remakes of classics that were in no need of remaking. What next? "Citizen Kane" starring Keanu Reeves in Splendocolor? "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Part Two: The Return of Gold Hat"? "Viagra Comes to Golden Pond"? Another remake of "Reefer Madness"? You see where I'm going with this. The MBAs have taken over the asylum.