This is a very funny movie which needs none the F-bombs and so forth. The profanity is not funny and just detracts from the film in my opinion.
shareThis is a very funny movie which needs none the F-bombs and so forth. The profanity is not funny and just detracts from the film in my opinion.
"I'm not a prude, but..." actually means "I'm a prude, and..."
"You liked Rashomon."share
"That's not how I remember it."
Hey folks,
I really like a good story, and this film sounded like it might be a good story. Sadly, I was not able to find out if it really was a good story. The gratuitous use of vulgar language caused my wife and I to delete it after watching no more than five minutes of it. The whole hip-hop jive stuff at the beginning of the film was boring and distracting as well. We never got past it.
Some may say that I missed a really good story, and that would be a shame. If that is the case, I would have to suggest the film's producer/director missed some really good viewers due to the needless distraction caused by their choice of vulgar language. Others may say the choice of language in the film reflects the way some folks talk in our society today. That may be, but I don't care to talk with those folks.
I agree with Thoth-ibis; the gratuitous profanity was not funny in the least, and it was just plain boring.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
thanks Dave :)
shareAs much as I like Coen Brothers movies, the profanity in both "The Ladykillers" and "Fargo"--two of my favorite films--is quite distracting. While the use of the profanity is pretty much limited to one character in each movie to show their vulgarity, it is kind of cringeworthy to listen to. I get it. I understand it. But with the Coens' creativity, I also wonder if they could have shown the character's vulgarity without the continuous use of word *beep*
Signatures annoy me.
[deleted]
Good. Continue to let a silly thing like profanity prevent you from finishing good movies. The problem is your self-righteousness, and not the movies.
shareImagine, say, you have a 6-year-old daughter. After some days in preschool, one morning she went to the kitchen and seeing the table empty she screamed, "Hey mutherf*cther, where the *beep* is my breakfast?"
Her friends in school have parents who are not self-righteous and are comfortable with such talk seeing as this is the real deal, this is what goes on daily out there. Will you smile and say, "Hey, b*tch, you want to eat you make your own *beep* breakfast!"?
Seriously, a story can be told equally well without the use of expletives. In this movie, the expletives serve only to distract from the overall feel and if anything, it lends to the stereotyping of blacks. I watched it to the end, and to me it was a fairly good movie made unpalatable by the profanity interspersed throughout. Like a good cup of tea served in a cracked china.
As for the thing about the 6 year old, films are given age ratings for a very good reason. If you do not want a young child to see a film which is rated 18 or 15 for bad language and violence then take some responsibilty as a parent. It is the duty of parents to explain to their children what is right and wrong, it is never the duty of a TV screen.
shareYou are so right!
shareFirst, that's the reality of how some people, including this character, talk.
Secondly, I don't see how a person can be offended by arbitrary profanity. Is it that you've been conditioned to fear language so much as children, you still live in fear of it as an adult? I just don't see how hearing a word such as "fuc*" can be anymore "unpleasant" than hearing a word like "dog".
I think it all comes down to the physiological reasons many are fond of that word.
They use it because it is offensive. Therefore they intend to shock and offend.
I agree that this character is annoying.
I do agree that the lines from that annoying characters are bad. However, since I swear a lot, I don't agree it's because of the swearing that the lines are bad.
The lines are bad because the character who says them is very annoying. And the lines also annoy me.
I know that not everyone is found of swearing, I do respect if you don't like swearing.
Well, it is one of the ironies - not only of this film, but of many other Coen brothers films - that the Coens are more-than-half on the side of ordinary, humble, decent-but-unsophisticated folks; and opposed to the proud-but-amoral sophisticates who imagine themselves superior to them.
But those same humble-but-decent folk are exactly the folk who are not going to be unable to enjoy the film because of the foul language. And the jaded urban sophisticates who think themselves so superior, are unlikely to enjoy the film either, because it basically sends them all to Hell.
So who is this film for? One needs someone sufficiently jaded to not be easily shocked by the film's foul language; yet still old fashioned enough he/she will be more-than-half on Ms Munson's side when she slaps Gawain upside the head for using that "hippity hop language" in this "Christian house".
It's a fine line. And if you fall off either side of that fence, the film is likely to offend you.
"those same humble-but-decent folk are exactly the folk who are not going to be unable to enjoy the film because of the foul language"
Please speak for yourself. The paradox you're talking about only exists if you make the assumption that only morally corrupt people are capable of tolerating bad language (let alone, *gasp*, using it).
What I saw was somebody disrespecting the rules laid down by someone whose hospitality he was taking advantage of (which if I were a jaded urban sophisticate I might point out is a microcosm of the whole heist plan) and being upbraided for it. Just because I swear myself doesn't mean I can't take the old lady's side in this scenario.
I mean, the person swearing in this film is unquestionably the BAD GUY, so what exactly are you complaining about? There are also a string of attempted murders in this film, does that not morally offend you more than the language?
> Please speak for yourself.
Speaking for myself, I rather liked the film. But I was merely trying to explain the film's rather narrow appeal, which I think is a matter of record.
> What I saw was somebody disrespecting the rules laid down by someone
> whose hospitality he was taking advantage of (which if I were a jaded
> urban sophisticate I might point out is a microcosm of the whole heist
> plan) and being upbraided for it. Just because I swear myself doesn't
> mean I can't take the old lady's side in this scenario.
Okay, but that's not quite what was happening. No explicit rules had been laid down. Mrs. Munson was merely insisting on what she regarded as decent behavior. She was also "smiting" him, in an attempt to save his soul, and was inspired to do this by something her preacher said at his last sermon.
> The paradox you're talking about only exists if you make the assumption
> that only morally corrupt people are capable of tolerating bad language
> (let alone, *gasp*, using it).
No. I assumed no such absolute. I merely assumed overlapping categories. I sought to explain a narrow appeal, and did not assume the film had no appeal at all. I myself enjoyed the film, and my intent was not to accuse myself of being morally corrupt (though I don't claim to be a saint either).
> I mean, the person swearing in this film is unquestionably the BAD GUY, so
> what exactly are you complaining about?
I was not complaining. I was suggesting a possible explanation for the film's narrow appeal.
And many people who don't like bad language don't like to hear it in movies either; regardless of whether such language is used only by villains. I see nothing inherently ludicrous about the position; especially since the complaint is not merely that the bad guy uses bad language, but also that he subjects the viewer to a constant barrage. After all, one way to avoid using bad language yourself is to avoid exposure to it. I'm not sure if fictional murders work quite the same way.
You think the Coens are on the side of 'ordinary folks' vs. 'amoral sophisticates'? More likely the Coens aren't choosing sides, but actually think both groups are attractive targets for their humor. I think they are the ultimate humble hipsters, having created Jeff Lebowitz as their exemplar: Everybody is goofs to them. Especially everybody Southern (but they love the music!).
All that said, I wish it'd been a better movie. But I'm happy that they get to do what they want. So few of us do in a family business . . .
> You think the Coens are on the side of 'ordinary folks' vs. 'amoral
> sophisticates'?
My precise words were "more than half on the side of ordinary, humble, decent folks."
> More likely the Coens aren't choosing sides, but actually think both
> groups are attractive targets for their humor.
Meaningless humor, with no point behind it? How boring! How meaningless! How not funny!
> I think they are the ultimate humble hipsters, having created Jeff
> Lebowitz as their exemplar.
I wasn't thinking specifically of Jeff Lebowski, and I'm not sure he fits into either category. I'm not sure he can be called "ordinary", but certainly he is humble and unsophisticated; and maybe even mostly decent, particularly when compared to other people in the film. But its been a while since I've seen it.
I'm pretty sure the Coens have never claimed Jeff as their "exemplar".
And the villains in that film were the nihilists. Perhaps the Coens think it is wrong to believe in nothing.
> Everybody is goofs to them. Especially everybody Southern
Why *especially* everyone Southern? Let me guess: You are Northern.
I have a solution for all of you "distracted" by foul language.. Stick to PG rated movies, that is all..
shareI find it hard to believe that all of you don't know someone who swears constantly in every day conversation. I deal with multitudes of people in my job, and know several who use profanity, not because they're upset about something, but just because it's part of their lingo. "How the f_ck are you? Nice f_ckin' day, isn't it?". I've heard so much profanity (and used it as well) in my life that it has little to no effect on me any more.
shareI do know people who talk like that and few of us respect their intellect.
shareI'm not very fond of dialogue using the f-word a lot, because it's overused and cliched.
In this film I found the Marlan Wayans character quite odd anyway. He is the only one, in my opinion, who gives a hint that this film is set later than the 1950s - apart from some of the music. All the other characters seem to be sort of stuck in the 50s, so it was quite difficult for me to place the movie into a certain time period. I also don't find him very likeable. But his character is in stark contrast to Tom Hanks' character. Whereas the Wayans' character uses very bad language, Hanks' character uses over the top superior language, which I found also very distracting. I guess it's part of the Coen brothers' humor to have these very opposite men.
(Also a bit similar in O Brother, with simple men, George Clooney's character trying to be not so simple by using words that are bigger than his character and then John Goodman's character who was more sophisticated).
Maybe for those who didn't like this movie, they should watch the original with Alec Guiness.
In the very opening scene the old lady talks about hiphop music, specifically referencing the classic A Tribe Called Quest song I Left My Wallet in El Segundo, released in 1990. So right off the bat, it was obvious that this film was set no earlier than 1990.
shareWhy so many complaints about the bad language in THIS film? Quite a few post-1970 movies have a lot of swear words in them. Yet I seem to hear more complaints about the language in this film than the language in any other film.
Frankly, I heard more swear words in the first half hour of Slap Shot than in all of The Ladykillers.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen