Why was she allowed to keep it?
I know the Coens like to introduce philosophy and/or surrealism into their movies on occasion, often towards the end, and I'm pretty sure this is just one more example of that. But what does it mean?
Awesome movie, by the way. Its 6.2 is a crime.
In a world full of average people, one man dared to be the same.
Because the Sheriff and his deputy didn't believe that she had it.
shareHuh, simple as that?
Get off my lawn.
Certainly. Why does it need to be more complicated than that? They'd had enough of her stories and thought this was just another one. A heist that size, they would have thought the money and the baddies were long gone from the state anyway.
Like the GT quote, BTW. :)
the sherrif thought she was an insane old lady
remember the scene where the proffessor is hiding underneath the bed the sherrif from then on thinks shes gone mad lol
She was allowed to keep it because the police didn't really believe her when she said she had it.
shareEspecially since he never really met the professor (who would think a tenant was hiding under the bed anyway?) she was trying to get him to meet, there was more "proof" in the minds of the policemen that Ma'am had started imagining things.
share[deleted]
Since it doesn't appear like you intended those words for me, can you please remove them? Thanks.
shareThis has nothing to do with the Coens.
In the original movie the old lady quite often went to the police station and told them a lot of unlikely things (UFOs, etc.). So therefore when she came to tell them what happened they just thought it was another made up story from this lonely old woman who wants to get some attention.
The end in the Coens version is just more implausible 'cause the left away some small but important details, and what I disliked most about the new ending was donating that money to a religious school!
IMHO 6.2 is far too high 'cause it's a very lame rip-off!!!
Hey, genius. It's called a remake. As in they got permission from the makers of the original. Not a "rip-off!!!".
The knack to flying lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
There are remakes and "remakes". There are some which contribute something to the original story (artistically, storywise, or wathever), point out new aspects, or take the story on a completely different level and some other "remakes" just take a great/successful movie and make an "updated" uninspired movie out of it, maybe with some big stars, to have a sure hit.
And sorry, but IMHO the remake of "The Ladykillers" is one example of those unnecessary rip-offs, just like the remakes of "Psycho", "The Flight of the Phoenix", or "The Taking of Pelham 123".
and what I disliked most about the new ending was donating that money to a religious school!
It's irony. I'm sure the lady is not supposed to know the history of Bob Jones University. She probably read a brochure somewhere.
share> It's irony. I'm sure the lady is not supposed to know the history of
> Bob Jones University. She probably read a brochure somewhere.
The irony is overstated however. I have tried to research this issue, and I have never found any evidence that the Bob Jones people deserve anyone's hatred. Apparently, they have never done any harm to anybody. You have to go into the distant past to find even a hint of any wrongdoing, and even then one finds very little in the way of villainy.
Their admissions policy has been non-discriminatory since 1975. Since then, their worst crime, has been that they had a "no interracial dating" rule. That rule was dropped in 2000, four years before this film was made (and even before 2000 it had not been enforced for many many years).
> This has nothing to do with the Coens.
> In the original movie the old lady quite often went to the police station
> and told them a lot of unlikely things (UFOs, etc.).
In the remake, she brings them stories about Othar (her dead husband). This is established in the very first scene, where she comes to complain about Weemack Fuenthes playing "hippity hop" music, which is putting him on the road to perdition. At one point she mentions Othar, and the deputy sherrif says "Oh, so the music is bothering Othar, is it?" To which she answers "Well, how could it he'p but do?"
> The end in the Coens version is just more implausible 'cause the left
> away some small but important details, and what I disliked most about
> the new ending was donating that money to a religious school!
I liked that. She has clearly set her hopes for the next world, not this one. In that context, keeping the money for herself would not have been my idea of a happy ending.