Conference bookie::movies

        
         I think it was an interesting tale.  I'll give it three and a 
    quarter stars out of five (the mindless violence part detracted from
    the score).
    
    [Spoilers]

    
         Does anyone know what that weird symbol was in the credits where
    the name of the "Victim in the field" should have been?  Must be a
    Minnesota thing, since Prince has a similar symbol.

         Although the two hired thugs were portrayed as losers, the biggest
    loser in the story appeared to be Lundegaard.  He had all the
    opportunities in the world and screwed them all up.  At least the thugs
    didn't SQUANDER any chances.

         How 'bout that pregnant chief of police?  Reminded me of Rose
    Nyland from the 'Golden Girls' after overdosing on lutefisk.  Except,
    that is, this Chief of police hid some intelligence behind that
    caricature Norse-American facade.  Beaming and friendly, but certainly
    nobody's fool.  Contrast that with all the other "big dumb" portrayals
    in the movie. 
    
         All that snow and cold reminded me of home...
    
                                   Greg
                                                      

    
    reply to spoiler:
    
    
    
    I thought it *was* the symbol for Prince.  Figured it was a cameo,
    since <symbol for Prince> is one of Minneapolis' most famous 
    residents.
    

    
    reply to reply to spoiler
    
    
         OK, now the "victim in the field" is the guy who saw the little
    ugly thug dragging away the dead trooper and was shot while trying to 
    run away, right?  If so, his face was shown as he drove by.  He didn't
    LOOK like Prince, but I imagine he could have had makeup on.
    
         It would make sense that it WAS him.  I certainly don't recall
    hearing about any other symbol-named people lately.
    
                                    Greg

    I was not Prince. It was just an extra who used a horizontal version
    of "the artist formally of some marketable value's" name/symbol/logo.
    I thought the movie was excellent, a return to form for the Cohen 
    brothers, after the moderately miserable "Hudsucker Proxy."

  The thing that makes this film is that almost all the characters have depth. 
The bad guys have their lighter moments, the good guys have their human side
and everyone seems like a real person as opposed to a Hollywood stereotype
cut out model.

  The filming was great, the direction was great, the music was great, there
was action, suspense, character development, humor, horror, all mixed in
the perfect proportion.

  There were a few scenes that were bloody so be careful if you are bothered
by those things but they are not gratuitous in that they fit in the story.

  Another vote for excellent. Definitely a movie to see on the big screen.
  **** out of 5,
  George

    Saw this last night; an excellent movie.  It somehow does an effective
    "nonfiction novel"-style depiction of a terrible crime with a fairly
    light touch; the deadpan humour in the portrayal of the characters doesn't
    detract from the real horror of the crimes.  The dialogue between the
    hired criminals has its comic side, but they aren't glamourized like
    the guys in _Pulp Fiction_.  You get a sense that most of the people in 
    the society are decent, down-to-earth types, and ultimately there's a 
    feeling that decency and common sense have prevailed.
    
    -Stephen   

    I saw this movie "opening nite" and again the next day ! Excellent, I
    believe it will gather several nominations...will be at the top of my
    list all year. Just rented "Blood Simple", as many critics refer to
    that one as the (first) "best" Coen Bros. film. It was very good (with
    lots of similarities used in Fargo). I loved Raising Arizona  and
    Millers Crossing, but not crazy about Hudsucker...
    
    but, FARGO       will join my "all-time Favorites" list with:
         SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
         TRUE ROMANCE
         RESEVOIR DOGS
         SCHINDLERS LIST
         SHORT CUTS
         HOOP DREAMS
         BROTHERS MCMULLEN
         MIDNITE CLEAR
         GRAND CANYON
         PULP FICTION
    
    
    

    
    How 'bout Barton Fink?  You've seen all the rest - might as well
    complete the set!  I'd rank that up there as one of their best.
    
    - Sean

    .8   I'll definitely have to try that one....again ? Seems like I
         tried it once and "quit", but remember nothing about it. Now
         that I've seen every other Coen Bros. film...it is worth a try !
         Thanx !
    
    - Bill

    Well, if you like John Tuturro, you'll like Barton Fink. In fact, he
    and another lesser known actor (a bald guy who plays the Hollywood 
    producer's assistant) were both in Miller's Crossing. John Goodman
    plays a crazy person and a young, fresh-faced Steve Buscemi plays
    Chet, the hotel clerk. 
    
    Cool movie with David Lynch-like qualities.
    
    I thought Fargo was terrific too by the way.
    (Is everyone really like that in Minnesota?)
    
    - Bob

    
    > Well, if you like John Tuturro, you'll like Barton Fink. In fact, he
    >and another lesser known actor (a bald guy who plays the Hollywood 
    >producer's assistant) were both in Miller's Crossing. John Goodman
    >plays a crazy person and a young, fresh-faced Steve Buscemi plays
    >Chet, the hotel clerk. 
    
    The Coen's re-use a lot of favorite actors:
    
      John T.:            Barton Fink, Miller's Crossing (loved him 
                          since "To Live and Die in LA")
      John G.:            Raizing Arizona, Barton Fink (outstanding
                          in Barton)
      Steve B.:           Barton Fink, Fargo
      Frances McDormand:  Blood Simple, Raizing Arizona, Fargo
    
    - Sean

>>      Steve B.:           Barton Fink, Fargo

Just watched Hudsucker Proxy on video and spotted him in a very brief role 
as the bartender in the "beatnik" bar towards the end of the movie.

Walker

                               Steve Buscemi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actor filmography
    
       1. Escape from L.A. (1996) .... Map To The Stars Eddie
       2. Fargo (1996) .... Carl Showalter
       3. Billy Madison (1995) .... Danny McGrath
       4. Dead Man (1995) (uncredited) .... Bartender
       5. Desperado (1995) .... Buscemi
          ... aka Mariachi 2, El (1995)
       6. Immortals, The (1995)
       7. Kansas City (1995)
       8. Living in Oblivion (1995) .... Nick Reve
       9. Things to Do in Denver when You're Dead (1995) .... Mister Shhh
      10. Airheads (1994) .... Rex
      11. Floundering (1994) .... Ned
      12. Hudsucker Proxy, The (1994) .... Beatnik Barman
      13. Last Outlaw, The (1994) .... Philo
      14. Pulp Fiction (1994) .... Buddy Holly look-alike
      15. Somebody to Love (1994) .... Mickey
      16. Ed and His Dead Mother (1993) .... Ed Chilton
      17. Rising Sun (1993) .... Willy "the Weasel" Wilhelm
      18. Twenty Bucks (1993) .... Frank
      19. CrissCross (1992) .... Louis
          ... aka Alone Together (1992)
      20. In the Soup (1992) .... Aldolpho Rollo
      21. Reservoir Dogs (1992) .... Mr. Pink
      22. Barton Fink (1991) .... Chet
      23. Billy Bathgate (1991) .... Irving
      24. King of New York (1990) .... Test Tube
      25. Miller's Crossing (1990) .... Mink
      26. Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (1990) .... Bellingham
      27. Zandalee (1990) .... OPP Man

      28. "Lonesome Dove" (1989) (mini)TV Series .... Luke
      29. Mystery Train (1989) .... Charlie
      30. New York Stories (1989) .... Gregory Stark
      31. Slaves of New York (1989)
      32. Call Me (1988) .... Switchblade
      33. Vibes (1988) .... Fred
      34. Heart (1987) .... Nicky
      35. Kiss Daddy Goodnight (1987)
      36. Coffee and Cigarettes II (1986) .... Waiter
      37. Parting Glances (1986) .... Nick

    
    That reminds me I can't wait for Escape from LA  :^)

I went to see this at the weekend (Fargo only just got released in the UK) and I
thought this was a good film.

I was amazed to see that this was based on a true story.

Loved the pregnant police chief, I thought she played her part very well.

There were some pretty violent scenes but I did not think that any of the
violence was gratuitous.

And talking of "violence", I was in stitches (tenuous link) at the scene with 
the policeman talking to the geezer clearing snow from his drive.... 
The dialogue and the delivery as well as the anonymity of the two big speaking
anoraks was just hilarious.

Reargards,

Stephen

Ps: North Dakota looks kinfreezin

    
    > I was amazed to see that this was based on a true story.
    
    You probably should be.  1) It's the Coen Bros. and you can't trust
    anything they say or do.  2)  The movie credits end with the standard
    disclaimer that the movie was not based on any characters real or
    fictional.
    
    I tend to think that the truth lies somewhere in the shady middle.
    
    - Sean

    I stand suitably hood-winked...... ;-)
    
    However, if this is the case, then it fooled more than just me... A
    couple of movie critics (one from the Independent) also believed the
    film to be based on a true story.
    
    I remember the film opened with a caption at the start which seemed to
    contradict itself... I can't remember the exact wording, but it seemed
    to say this is a true story but it isn' sort of thing... It read
    something like some events in this film have been changed to
    protect the identity of the people still alive today, but all other
    events are true to respect the memeories of the dead.....
    
    As I say I can't remember the exact wording... I read this at the time
    and I thought I noticed a contradiction in terms and had a bit of a
    laugh.... Then I noticed the other 10 people in the audience (everyone
    else was either watching Euro '96 or had gone to see "The Juror")
    weren't laughing.... "What a bumhead I am" I thought to myself... But 
    before I could get a second looksee, the caption had disappeared and 
    (coupled with the critiques I had read about this being a true story) I 
    decided I must have mis-read the opening caption. 
    
    
    Ah well... there you go
    
    Reargards,
    
    Stephen

    
    The only reviewer I read who made a point of asking "What story was
    this based on, if there is one?" as well as pointing out the disclaimer
    was the critic for the Syracuse New Times (I don't live there, I just get
    the paper).
    
    I don't know either.  I did notice the ending credits, and like I said,
    maybe there is some connection in a bizarre Coen Bros. sort of way,
    but I think its all part of their funnin' us.
    
    - Sean

    The caption at the beginning actually states that all the events
    occured exactly as portrayed and only the names had been changed to 
    protect the survivors.  No ambiguity there.
    
    Oh yea ?
    
    Excellent film.
    
    Oh yea - Somebody objected to "in you face" violence earlier and refered
    to David Lynch as someone who could have done a better job of this.
    He/she obiously hasn't seen Young at Heart.
    
                
     

    Just caught up with this film last night (in a practically deserted
    cinema...), and loved it!  It made me laugh out loud ('oh yeahh'), and
    I thought it was well filmed.  Steve Buscemi is cool as ever (although
    he does look funny, in a general kinda way).
    
    Mikef

  This was a very well made powerful movie. I can see why it's at the top
  of the list for many critics. Yes, it was violent, but the story was
  about some very brutal people. I don't see how the story could be told
  without violence.

  I also loved the scene of the policeman interviewing the man as he shoveled
  his sidewalk. It was a classic. But, you know what, I bet a lot of police
  work is exactly like that.

  The caption at the beginning seemed to leave no doubt it was a true story.
  I also remember hearing about a crime like this in the news about 10 years 
  ago. 

  I also wondered how the guy got so into debt. I wish the movie had 
  presented an explanation. 

  This film reminded me a lot of the movie "Badlands" with Sissy Spacek and
  Martin Sheen. It was the true story of a killer who I believe was named
  "Charles Starkweather". 

	Keith

    
    You missed the reason. He was falsifying sales records for cars at his
    dealership. He needed the money to pay back the finance company for
    cars he sold, but never gave the money to the finance company to retire
    the loans. 

  So, he was stealing from the finance company(or at least borrowing with
  an unrealistic expectation to pay them back). I think I understood that.
  But why was he stealing from them. Was he living a lifestyle way beyond
  his income or did he have gambling debts or something else ? That was 
  never explained. This is just a minor nit, it's still a terrific movie.

	Keith

    
    Well, you may have a point. It is not obvious what he was SPENDING the
    money on, but I think it might have had to with some of his schemes to
    hit the big money. Maybe he took the money to make money, those deals
    went bust and now he was trying to make it back?

    This note is a bit old, but we just rented the movie.  
    
    This note is a bit old, but we just rented the movie.  
    
    
    This note it a little old, but we just rented it. 
    
    Weird movie, but then again, I didn't like Pulp Fiction at all
    either, so I guess I'm one of the ones that just don't care for these
    folks movies. 
    
    I did like the lady cop though. :-)  I agree with one of the previous
    noters that said she seemed like the only intelligent person in the
    whole movie. 
    
    \Caroline
    
    <possible spoiler>
    
    
    In regards to some previous notes about why Lundgaard (SP?) needed the 
    money - here's my take on it.  He was in debt, but the reason I got
    that he needed the money was for his "hot" property deal - that car
    log he wanted to buy.  He needed a down payment for $750,000 and he 
    didn't want to ask his father-in-law for the money.  (He was only 
    looking for $40,000 which would be the minimum 5% down pament on 
    roughly $800,000.)  When he finally got up enough courage to ask his 
    FIL for the money (who said he'd run it by his money man), Lundgaard 
    tried to call the kidnappers and tell them he didn't need them to 
    kidnap his wife anymore because he thought he had worked out the 
    "deal" he needed (or something to that effect).  (He seems like he was 
    just a scam artist that always had something in the works, but this 
    was my take on why he needed this particular amount of money.)  This 
    was why he was so upset when the FIL told him that they were going to 
    pay him a finder's fee - he thought they were going to finance the car
    lot for him and they were only looking at it as a business deal for 
    themselves.  
    
    I'm not sure what he was planning on doing to pay back the money he
    been skimming from the FIL's car lot - maybe use his profits from
    his own personal car lot?