If you don't like the Coens or this particular film, fair enough. Please don't post something like "They are shit. Was that enuff analysis lolz" or something. And, after reading that request, if you still feel the need to post something slagging them or the film off, then be aware you aren't ironically and cooly ignoring my reasonable request for civility, you're just being a massive tool.
!!!!SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS!!!!
So I saw it for the second time last night, and it had a lot of the stuff we've come to expect from them - genre subversion, dark comedy, moments of farce turning horrifically surreal with hilarious/shocking bursts of violence, chance occurrences significantly affecting the story, etc.
I found it funnier on the second viewing. But I also found it a lot more disturbing, too - it seemed like redemption was completely beyond any of the characters, and a lot of the time the cruelty inflicted on them was, in a sense, perfectly justified given their behavior and actions.
Stuff I liked:
Malkovich's whole performance, particularly the opening "this is a fucking crucifixion" scene and the part when he's giving a heartfelt speech to his mute, senile father.
Pitt's slapstick turn in Clooney's house ending in a bloodbath (the most WTF?! moment I've seen since Leo stepped out of *that* lift in The Departed).
McDormand's completely conscienceless monster masquerading as a naive innocent country girl in the big city.
The CIA agent perfectly summing up the whole series of events: "Get back to, um, when it, y'know, makes more sense."
Is it just me or do the brothers Coen seem to have cranked up the nihilism and ripped off the knob?
Anyway, I thought the idea of sheer stupidity governing most human actions was a nice touch, but some of it left me a tad puzzled. I suppose they wouldn't be the Coens is you didn't finish watching one of their films more confused than when you begun, but this seemed to take it to new levels.
So yeah, basically. Let's have a chat about it, why not?