Pathetic
Added 10/21/2009
Badly written -- the screenwriter evidently considers loud, inane wisecracking to be biting satire (it's not).
Badly directed -- the director seems to have thought large, empty sets would nicely set off against the long, empty script (it doesn't) and to have persuaded every single actor that loud and over-broad, with lots of distracting physical schtick thrown in for good measure, was just what his/her role required (it wasn't).
Badly acted -- the actors without exception seem to have had the mistaken impression that they were in a Broadway theater with the whole audience packed into the last rows and their "craft" required shouting every line and over emphasizing every movement and posture (they weren't and it didn't).
But, except for the inane screenwriting, inept direction, and inapt acting,...
0 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
A Loving, Well-Rendered Homage to Screwball Comedies
Added 9/13/2009
The Hudsucker Proxy, released in 1994, is the Coen Brothers' homage to screwball comedies of the 1940s, particularly the works of directors like Preston Sturges. This film (co-written with Sam Raimi) was the Coens first film given a substantial budget and it went on to become a box-office failure. Many consider it one of the Coen's worst efforts. But is The Hudsucker Proxy a bad film? Hardly.
The year is 1958 and Waring Hardsucker (Charles Durning), president of Hudsucker Industries, suddenly leaps from the window of his company with no rhyme or reason. Sidney J. Mussburger (Paul Newman) is worried about the future of the company and hatches a scheme to get the stock down only to snatch it all up before it rises. For this to work, the company needs a new president, preferably a "proxy."
The proxy is naive country-boy Norville Barnes (Tim Robbins), who works in the mailroom. He seems to be the perfect candidate, but Norville has a trick up his sleeve, in the shape of a circle.
The other major player is Amy Archer (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a fast-talking, Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter who sees something wrong with the simple-minded Norville's sudden promotion.
As I said earlier in this review, the film is meant to be in the spirit of the screwball comedies of so many years ago. I can almost guarantee I haven't seen a single specific film that inspired this one, but I'm familiar enough with the genre to appreciate what the Coens did here. For what it lacks in story and character, it more than makes up for in style and dialogue.
The dialogue is fast-paced, mile-a-minute, no-nonsense (sort of a contradiction being a "screwball comedy")dialogue that is not only hard to imitate but certainly hard to come up with. Not only is the dialogue pitch-perfect but the actors know exactly how to deliver it. Furthermore, the cinematography is miraculous and the set design is impeccable. It's hard to ignore how perfectly the Coen's captured the style and humor of these films.
With that said, many have pointed out that The Hudsucker Proxy values style over substance. I can't disagree with that. I think all the actor's played their roles to the best of their ability, but much of it does walk a fine line with parody. Paul Newman, however, is delightful as Mussburger and adds some much-needed austerity to the production.
While considered a rare failure by the Coen Brothers, I would not call this film a failure. It's a screwball comedy unlike any other since the genre was in its prime and it's made even better by having the distinct touch of the Coen Brothers on it. Despite it's imperfections, I find it hard to dislike or dismiss this film.
GRADE: B
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
More sucker than Welles you Kane (cain't)
Added 6/30/2009
The Coen Brothers had to go to the Wall of lamentations of Hollywood and remake Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane". How can you inherit the greatest fortune in the world and know about it when you are going to hit the sidewalk falling from the fifty-fifth or fifty-fourth floor, according to you counting or not the mezzanine. At this moment your life is suspended in mid air by one blonde hair of your ideal love affair, or love targeted prey, ,and that hair is the broom stick of a black janitor, which is niggardly indeed, and the denture of an old spook who refuses innovation in stock exchange managing. The whole film is a hoopla about nothing, a hula hoop or a budsucker straw. The whole film revolve around a conception of the press that is quite Kanesque, scandal, hidden secrets, false accusations and true insinuations, in one word pulp pulp and pulp again. And the newly made rich man is living his accident - becoming rich out of no logic - as if it were natural and did not require any thinking, pondering and brain exploration if not surgery, like in some cuckoo's nest of fame. And it even ends up with a marriage. Isn't it funny? Are the Coen Brothers growing romantic? Probably not, but sentimentally sarcastic for sure.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY LONG, MOVIE-LOVIN' LIFE
Added 5/19/2009
THis movie is about Business. Ameican business. Another reviewer compared it to HOW TO SUCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT TRYING, and that's not a bad comparison, because business success is for schmucks. A Schmuck with a brain, sometimes, but a Schmuck with Luck more often than not.
Who invented the Hula-Hoop? I won't waste your time or mine describing the plot of the movie. It's just too out-of-your-mind fabulous! Better, I'll remind you of something of Goethe's -- THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE -- and the Dukas tone poem (which you may remember with Mickey Mouse in Disney's FANTASIA). Only here, in PROXY, the Mouse wins. Bigtime.
Tim Robbins is wonderful, unbelievable, and I nearly shat my skivvies when he fell out of that skyscraper. And the great Paul Newman redeemed himself for all the schlak he did for money.
Give yourself a break: Buy it and watch it as often as you need to. That is, when you look in the mirror, mornings and see signs you're either turning into a schmuck, or into something worse. OK, watching it may not help. Maybe the problem is in your genes? But at least you'll get some laughs out of it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Stars for music, design, and verbal dynamics
Added 4/10/2009
Carter Burwell's soundtrack is wonderful, the period production design is lovely, and the script shows the writers' skill with words. Paul Newman is the most watchable one except for Charles Durning, whose role is rather small and brief.
This isn't really a comedy, though; it seems more serious than that. The muted lighting and colors give it a gravity that a comedy doesn't normally have. Also, there isn't really anything all that funny or laughter-provoking in it, and Tim Robbins and Jennifer Jason Leigh, while certainly talented, are not strong comedic performers.
Also, the way that the movie is done probably would have gone over better in the past, when people were used to the Capra and Sturges productions. This offering just doesn't seem suited to a modern audience.
0 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Pathetic
Added 10/21/2009
Badly written -- the screenwriter evidently considers loud, inane wisecracking to be biting satire (it's not).
Badly directed -- the director seems to have thought large, empty sets would nicely set off against the long, empty script (it doesn't) and to have persuaded every single actor that loud and over-broad, with lots of distracting physical schtick thrown in for good measure, was just what his/her role required (it wasn't).
Badly acted -- the actors without exception seem to have had the mistaken impression that they were in a Broadway theater with the whole audience packed into the last rows and their "craft" required shouting every line and over emphasizing every movement and posture (they weren't and it didn't).
But, except for the inane screenwriting, inept direction, and inapt acting,...
0 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
A Loving, Well-Rendered Homage to Screwball Comedies
Added 9/13/2009
The Hudsucker Proxy, released in 1994, is the Coen Brothers' homage to screwball comedies of the 1940s, particularly the works of directors like Preston Sturges. This film (co-written with Sam Raimi) was the Coens first film given a substantial budget and it went on to become a box-office failure. Many consider it one of the Coen's worst efforts. But is The Hudsucker Proxy a bad film? Hardly.
The year is 1958 and Waring Hardsucker (Charles Durning), president of Hudsucker Industries, suddenly leaps from the window of his company with no rhyme or reason. Sidney J. Mussburger (Paul Newman) is worried about the future of the company and hatches a scheme to get the stock down only to snatch it all up before it rises. For this to work, the company needs a new president, preferably a "proxy."
The proxy is naive country-boy Norville Barnes (Tim Robbins), who works in the mailroom. He seems to be the perfect candidate, but Norville has a trick up his sleeve, in the shape of a circle.
The other major player is Amy Archer (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a fast-talking, Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter who sees something wrong with the simple-minded Norville's sudden promotion.
As I said earlier in this review, the film is meant to be in the spirit of the screwball comedies of so many years ago. I can almost guarantee I haven't seen a single specific film that inspired this one, but I'm familiar enough with the genre to appreciate what the Coens did here. For what it lacks in story and character, it more than makes up for in style and dialogue.
The dialogue is fast-paced, mile-a-minute, no-nonsense (sort of a contradiction being a "screwball comedy")dialogue that is not only hard to imitate but certainly hard to come up with. Not only is the dialogue pitch-perfect but the actors know exactly how to deliver it. Furthermore, the cinematography is miraculous and the set design is impeccable. It's hard to ignore how perfectly the Coen's captured the style and humor of these films.
With that said, many have pointed out that The Hudsucker Proxy values style over substance. I can't disagree with that. I think all the actor's played their roles to the best of their ability, but much of it does walk a fine line with parody. Paul Newman, however, is delightful as Mussburger and adds some much-needed austerity to the production.
While considered a rare failure by the Coen Brothers, I would not call this film a failure. It's a screwball comedy unlike any other since the genre was in its prime and it's made even better by having the distinct touch of the Coen Brothers on it. Despite it's imperfections, I find it hard to dislike or dismiss this film.
GRADE: B
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
More sucker than Welles you Kane (cain't)
Added 6/30/2009
The Coen Brothers had to go to the Wall of lamentations of Hollywood and remake Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane". How can you inherit the greatest fortune in the world and know about it when you are going to hit the sidewalk falling from the fifty-fifth or fifty-fourth floor, according to you counting or not the mezzanine. At this moment your life is suspended in mid air by one blonde hair of your ideal love affair, or love targeted prey, ,and that hair is the broom stick of a black janitor, which is niggardly indeed, and the denture of an old spook who refuses innovation in stock exchange managing. The whole film is a hoopla about nothing, a hula hoop or a budsucker straw. The whole film revolve around a conception of the press that is quite Kanesque, scandal, hidden secrets, false accusations and true insinuations, in one word pulp pulp and pulp again. And the newly made rich man is living his accident - becoming rich out of no logic - as if it were natural and did not require any thinking, pondering and brain exploration if not surgery, like in some cuckoo's nest of fame. And it even ends up with a marriage. Isn't it funny? Are the Coen Brothers growing romantic? Probably not, but sentimentally sarcastic for sure.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
