The Coen Brothers are undoubtedly the best film makers of all time. Making classics such as Millers Crossing, Fargo, The Big Lebowski and Raising Arizona, here comes their newest work. Bearing a great cast (Irma P. Hall, Marlon Wayans and the magnificent Tom Hanks) this was bound to be a box office success. I'd be surprised if it wasn't (I can't remember!) Because this is just so funny. Tom Hanks plays the lead role as a con man who gathers together a dunderheaded group of misfits to rob a bank. Choosing a harmless old lady's basement as the escape and entrance route may be a little sour, but this film is definitely for the light hearted. It's not particularly politically incorrect (well, except for the swearing) this film may not be everybody's cup of tea, but it was mine. Not great, and not up to scratch with the 1955 classic, this is probably worth a rental, but I wouldn't impulsively buy it straightaway-I'd view it first. It may be the Coens Brothers, but compared to efforts such as The Big Lebowski and Raising Arizona, this falls short. Still good fun, however. Overall: ***/ out of ***** (3 and a half out of 5)

CRITIQUE CONTAINS SPOILERS The original 1952 film was about a group of crooks, posing as musicians, who rented a room and an old lady's house in London. She was unwittingly drawn into their plans to steal a large sum of money. The old lady was portrayed by Katie Johnson as a vulnerable woman who, nonetheless, was saved from being implicated in the plot and rose above it. The remake takes the central story, transfers it to the United States, and makes the old lady anything other than vulnerable. That being the case, the outcome of this film is always clear. She is not and never will get drawn into the plot of the gangsters living in her midst, unwittingly or otherwise. Also seen in the remake is the old lady routinely attacking her lodgers, something only fleetingly glanced at in the original. When old, classic films are remade the authors should bear in mind what makes them special and try to keep it. In The Ladykillers (2004) this was lost. The studio thus served up another film which didn't benefit the world of cinema one iota.

Ladykillers appeared in our newspaper with a 4 star review. Staring Tom Hanks and featuring a number of other well known actors, it was billed as an interesting story of several men in modern day Mississippi robbing a casino, along the lines of "Ocean's Eleven". Instead of an interesting story with a nice twist, we got Tom Hanks with a ridiculous accent using vocabulary, that though difficult to understand, was also difficult to comprehend. His absurd dialog was coupled with more useless, vulgar profanity, racial and ethnic sterotyping, and portrayal of southern black religion in the worst possible light, than I have seen in any other movie - EVER! The plot, such as there was, never really developed, and devolved into a torpid, time-wasting, unenjoyable, stupid (but not stupid enough to be entertaining), annoying, unbelievable waste of talent and celluloid. This movie was so bad, it is only the second time, in 35 years of movie viewing, that I wish I had just walked out. I can't believe Tom Hanks was associated with this film, and any talk of an Oscar for him is so contrived, it makes me question the entire Academy Awards process. If the new trend is to give 4 stars to only those movies that are so "different" as to be totally unwatchable, then it's time to stop paying $40 to take my family to the movies.

This movie is the worst disappointment I've had in a long time. I love the original Ealing comedy this is based on & was so excited when I heard the Coen brothers were remaking it, with Tom Hanks to boot. What happened??? Several others have commented on the jarring changes in tone & this is a major problem. The scenes with the old lady evoke a 50's feeling, then suddenly you're in a casino with the F-word spouting every 5 seconds. What the heck is that?? What's the need for all the cursing at all? It's just not funny. Tom Hanks is a mess. I think it's the script mainly, the majority of his lines are confusing mush. I read somewhere that he didn't view the original before making this, but his sniveling laugh sure looks like a poor imitation of Alec Guinness's monstrously funny snickers. You even get a little of the teeth movement, but again, nothing to compare with Guinness. The other characters are uninspired & not as well drawn as the originals, with the exception perhaps of "The General" who came off pretty well. It's hard to compete with Herbert Lom & Peter Sellars, of course, but couldn't they come up with anything better than this? The munitions guy was the worst (yes, more than Marlon Wayons' stereotyped role) and his irritable bowel syndrome....gee, nothing like toilet humor to bring on the laughs!! You just don't care about these guys! Lastly, the old lady character was okay, but no match for Katie Johnson in the original. She was too sharp, too strong. Most of the humor in the original came from the old lady being so dottily sweet, mild and (seemingly) frail. You could see why the police thought she was a little daft. Not so with the new character, I didn't buy it at all. Don't waste your money on this one. Go for the original and, while you're at it, try some of the other Ealing comedies, too.

I have loved all the Coen brother movies but, unfortunately, this one was a let down. It kills me to write this but here is my analysis of what went wrong... The Actors & Production Team did not Share the Same Vision.... ...and it shows on screen. The tone of the scenes and characters are wildly uneven. The movie feels like it was pasted together from other movies of unrelated genres and time periods. The odd combinations of mixed era costumes and set interiors are visually distracting. It takes awhile to figure out what time period the story is supposed to be set in. When introduced to Tom Hank's character it appears the movie will be set in the 1920's but then you meet his landlady, and she is an artifact of the 1950's. Then, suddenly, you are jerked to a casino scene that feels like outtakes from an Ice Cube "Friday" movie. The only cohesive element is that all the characters are underdeveloped stereotypes. Typically the Coens write quirky characters that are meant to be played full tilt boogie but here lack of a developed script leaves the actors running amok. Although the actors try to compensate their overwrought performances just amplify the offensiveness of the humorless material. Hanks' performance as Professor Dorr might have been fun in a short SNL sketch but his over-the-top delivery is hard to take for longer than five minutes. His mugging and affectations are blown even more out of proportion when viewed in the theater (or on a big screen). It is quite like watching the antics of a precocious kid who annoys everyone but his love-blind parents. While Hanks may have amused the Coen brothers, it isn't working on scene. The story might have looked funny on paper but by the time it reached the big screen Tom Hanks had taken the Coen Brother's hostage. Hanks character interpretation looks like it evolved in a bubble, cut off from his fellow actors and unrelated to the stylistic tone of the surrounding production. The effect is jarring and frustrating to watch. The Step'in Fetchit and Mammy era shtick is painfully unfunny. The casino scenes lack the usual Coen whimsy. Visually it feels like you accidentally clicked over to another movie. If you are looking for the usual Coen Brothers whimsy you may wish to skip this one and save yourself the disappointment. I can recommend this movie ONLY to people that enjoy dogging on movies that missed the mark. In that sense it is a good candidate for the at-home game of "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Invite over a few friends and swap smartass comments about movie while you view it.

I could not stop laughing and enjoyed it tremendously. Tom Hanks was simply delightful pretending to be refined, highly educated, charmingly polite and smooth talking Rococo music lover Professor G.H.Darr who in reality was a very dangerous, ruthless and devious criminal that assembled the most hilarious gang of thieves (each has his special talent) to dig the tunnel through his landlady's root cellar to a casino vault and to steal 1.6 million dollars. As good as Hanks was, he was completely upstaged by Irma Hall who steals the movie as Marva. She received many awards for her acting and very deservingly. I know that many Coens' fans don't like The Ladykillers because 1. it is a remake of the 1955 movie with the same title and 2. because it is one of their most mainstream films. I don't care - "The Ladykillers" has Coens' signatures all over - it is very funny, very dark, and uniquely beautiful visually - just remember the opening scene with two scary gargoyles and the garbage barge.

One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Even though I'm a great fan of Tom Hanks this movie stunk. Many of the scenes were just thrown into the movie to take up time, and had nothing to do with the plot!!! What a waste ... What does the scene in church where the choir is singing, for what seems an eternity, have to do with anything.?? Then the the preacher get up and babbles for another eternity .. about nothing. This movie was only slightly better than Lost In Translation .. but not much. I gave "The Ladykillers" a 1 ... and that was being very kind. Tom Hanks did give a mediocre performance considering the difficult character he was forced to play. Take my advice and don't waste your money .. burn it instead.

Spoilers Falling short of a Coen masterpiece (such a Fargo), The Ladykillers can be described as a Coen gem. The style is evident right from the opening shot. Where else can you find a garbage barge and a garbage dump transformed so magically by the movie camera into what looks like an idyllic paradise. Equally sparkling is the audio pleasure proffered, with the beautiful background of barber-shop like chorus leading into an on screen duet of snores of the sheriff and his deputy. While on that score (no pun intended), lively, exciting swinging gospel music provides excellent interludes as well as background throughout. Knowing that this is a remake of a 1955 version lead by Alec Gunnies, I'll make no further reference to something that I have not had the pleasure of watching. Instead, I would make reference to the assembling of the team for the caper, an enjoyable prologue as found in many similar films, from the good old classic The League of Gentlemen to the more recent Italian Job (also a remake). The slight difference here is that instead of seeing the mastermind (Tom Hanks) actually recruiting each one of them, we are shown what looks like a cartoon quip of each, with some good laughs but at the same time highlighting their individual characteristics. Tunnelling for a robbery is not new, and the classical one has to be The Red Headed League in the Sherlock Holmes short stores. Here, under the pretext of researching Renaissance music, Hanks and company rent the basement of a widow, played by Irma P. Hall. One source of amusement to the audience comes from the scenes between these two, the church-going Southern black woman whose every nuance overflows with simple, principled honesty (but earthly smartness) and the completely cunning crook who tries to wriggle out of her recognition at every twist and turn. Another contrast played upon a lot by the Coen Brothers is the Hanks' talking 'genteel' (as Eliza Doolittle would have said) and the proliferation of obscenity from the 'punk', the insider member of the gang. Funny right from the start, this movie gradually reveals more and more of the Coens' brand of dark humour when eventually the title 'ladykillers' take on a literal meaning. An 'In competition' film at Cannes this year, this Coen gem is well worth checking out.

Spoilers herein. I really appreciate artists willing to push the envelope. They're not pushing if they don't fail at least a third of the time. This is a failure, but an interesting, glorious one and in its way is more interesting to watch than, say, `O Brother.' You know something worth knowing is up when the most nuanced actor in a high level project like this is a painting. These guys are cinefiles, enthusiasts who examine what they and others do with meticulous detail and grand vision. They reach for a specific tone, different for each project, and then engineer the pieces to support. What do you think? Was the original vision too ambitious: a takeoff from the Shakespearean actor from Huck Finn? In this case, it is a Coen-like folding: an actor playing an actor playing Twain who writes the riverboat plot using a previously written skeleton (something recently done by PS Hoffman in `Cold Mountain'). Or is it that the vision was as apt an reachable as any they have had, but they erred in the engineering? I think it is this latter. Some of the blame is theirs: they have come to be hypnotized by the power of themed music in their films. Here it is a distraction, saps resources and fails to support the quirky vision. Tbone failed them. But they were stuck with some bad casting. Once that happens, you're lost. Hanks is such a heaviweight that he forces the vision to bend to what he wants to do as an actor. Big mistake. The old lady Marva Munson is capable of playing only one sort of character. We've seen her do it in several dreary projects. She just couldn't ever get the joke and really believes she is in an Eddie Murphy movie. And third, and almost incidentally, we have Wayans. He also knows only one way of swinging. None of these three was capable of getting on board the twisted vision the brothers had. Dozens of real actors have. But these three are, alas, characters now, not actors. Still, you can see what they had in mind, and still be amused by it even though it never appears on the screen Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

The original "The Ladykillers" is one of my favorite comedies, a gleefully macabre and witty classic with some outstanding performances, especially Alec Guinness' hysterical performance. It was also distinctively British. Now, I am not nearly as annoyed by remakes as many other filmgoers are- I merely find most of them unnecessary and hence avoid most of them. The only ones I respect are those that attempt to do something different. The Coens are probably my favorite living directors and among the more distinctive currently working, and they certainly put their own spin on an established comedy classic with this film. I think that the poor reception this film got is largely due to its sense of humor. The Coens' dry wit present in several of their films is present here, mostly through the main character Professor Dorr, portrayed excellently by Tom Hanks in one of his better performances, but there's also a lot of low-brow humor, and not even distinctive or interesting low-brow humor, just 'haha he dropped an f-bomb' sort, which is really at odds with the rest of this film. Really, take out Marlon Wayans and his annoying character and you would have one of the best remakes ever made. Instead you've got this film. "The Ladykillers", in spite of its awful reputation, is really not a bad film at all. It's got atmosphere, it's beautifully photographed, it's fairly amusing, and the majority of the performances are very good. It's inferior by the Coens' standards but still better than most comedies released in 2004. In addition, although it takes a lot of liberties with the original story, it recreates the most memorable sequences from the original with care and obvious affection, resulting in a hugely entertaining last twenty minutes in which so many memorable images from Mackendrick's classic Ealing comedy are translated to the American south. This is a minor film for the Coens, but obviously one made with love and affection. It's fairly flawed, but it's also quite amusing and features and outstanding performance from Tom Hanks, an actor I don't normally think is particularly great. 7/10