I think, e.g., there's a reason they have Mannix's most powerful scene in front of a movie set version of the crucifixion, intercut with Tatum's departure. He's having a genuine crisis of conscience in front of a couldn't-look-faker version of his religion's fundamental scene (And yet the Tatum scene is so obviously…

This is kind of their m.o., especially lately (in terms of playing variations on thematic material). A Serious Man with Job, Llewyn Davis with Homer, now this with the Gospels. (Definitely not just a fan theory.) And yeah, they're notoriously silent on what they "intend" with each of their movies.

I got into this in my spoiler comment above, but: [MOAR SPOILERS…]

Funny enough, I disagree completely! I think they present Mannix's conviction as sincere to himself, but the movie itself is nothing if not hostile to romanticizing the importance of cinema (and to this kind of sincerity: e.g. compare it to Clooney's big speech.)

I hope not. I think it's their most perfect movie, and I don't want/need any more from that story.

I think you could make a fair argument that the Coens tend to treat homespun values as both sympathetic and superior to the false allures of sophistication, education, and ambition.

Llewyn Davis is definitely in my top tier, too.

Ah. I'll have to re-watch, but I don't remember if that's actually true in context of the film [SPOILER: yes, the musical number is extremely homoerotic, but it's also possible, given the way that particular thread develops, that his gay past might be related to career advancement rather than sexual preference.] And,…

Bekmambetov, even!

Yeah, I can't criticize that at all - it's amazing.

There's a wonderful movie in there in the scenes between Tom Hanks (maybe my favorite Tom Hanks performance, honestly?) and Irma P. Hall. There's also a dire movie in there starring J.K. Simmons and a few of the other leads, so bad I nearly fast-forwarded through them. The two movies don't come together very well.

[SPOILER] Which one? I think there's more than one.

No lie, there's not a single moment in all the Coens' filmography that hits me as hard, emotionally, as the dream sequence at the end of Raising Arizona. Even if the rest of the movie were a mess, and it isn't, I'd value it highly for that sequence alone.

I'll forever be in his debt for his epic review of Rivette's OUT 1, which convinced me to bite the bullet and go see it during its run here. Best movie-related decision I've ever made, probably.

It does fall flat in spots, so I wouldn't say it's a total grand slam, but for the whole drive home I was babbling about all the movie's clever twisting of ideas, some of which I didn't realize until hours later (or until pointed out by critics). So much stuff!

I loved this (with a few caveats) and I think, once people have time to digest what it's doing, its reputation is going to improve (most reviews right now are either negative or "it's fun but disposable fluff".) There's a lot of densely packed thematic material here, even if the movie seems to gloss over it lightly -…

Yeah, but I think Irony is also part of a whole audience-friendly set of films (beginning the late 60s) that are very much part of that stagnation era contentedness (?) All the big, quotable, crowd-pleasers like The Diamond Arm, White Sun of the Desert, etc. Not as fluffy as the old Orlova musicals, but memorable and…

You're right - edited for clarity. Just an automatic thing.

For what it's worth, Khrushchev was forced out long before his death (he bragged about being the first Russian leader to make it out alive, heh), and he became much more conservative and autocratic in the second half of his leadership, rolling back many of the reforms he'd help usher in (the usual turning point is the…

Nah, I think the 70s were more peak communism, even despite economic stagnation - it was the most stable period politically and economically. 60s nostalgia is a little bit different, more of an intense rush.