What's so great about Fargo? **SPOILERS**

[damien22]

***A SPOILER***



I recently saw Fargo, and although I did really like it (8/10), I thought in no way that it was a masterpiece, but I really can't remember anyone saying that they didn't love it, except my friend who I've been talking to about it. I liked it because it entertained me very well, and I loved the accents, I thought there were some funny parts, and I really enjoyed pretty much all the characters. The problem is, I can't really see anything that makes this movie stand out. I also thought the ending was kind of lame IMO, considering that Frances McDormand just found the guy. She was driving along and she happened to find him, it just seemed really anti-climactic. So what does everyone that loves this film love so much about it?

[thedudeman69]

*spoilers*


I think it is the whole "HOLY SHIT" feeling of the ending when he is in the woodchipper. I think people call it a masterpiece because of that.

[Briare Rabbit]

Its because it bends genre conventions, does a lot with flimsy characters and situations. It eerily echoes crimes like the Clutter murders depicted in In Cold Blood [the murderer and his smooth talking sidekick] and brilliantly weaves them together with comic scenes to give the entire thing an eery sense of macabre. Yes, there isn't a lot to the plot, but the movie gives a lot of compassion to Marge [and her husband, for that matter] and even to Jerry. Its just a stupendous film, from the writing all the way down to the way it was shot. A superior film.

[dennisv]

The main reason is that Fargo is a true story and the area is like a wasteland. Nothing ever happens there until one day there were a few murders in one day and it shocked the whole state. It's almost like their worst crime is when a store's gumball machine is stolen. So it's very uncommon for acts of murder there. Plus, the acting is just excellent. Buscemi steals the whole show.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by dennisv
The main reason is that Fargo is a true story and the area is like a wasteland. Nothing ever happens there until one day there were a few murders in one day and it shocked the whole state. It's almost like their worst crime is when a store's gumball machine is stolen. So it's very uncommon for acts of murder there. Plus, the acting is just excellent. Buscemi steals the whole show.

No it isn't. It was highly publicized at the time that it was not a true story, and the Coen Brothers were never reticent about admitting that. The whole "Based on a true story" thing was merely a plot device, but it's a rather effective technique in this case.

I think it's considered a masterpiece by many, including myself, because it brings a humanity and a realistic "ordinariness" to a lurid, horrific series of crimes. It's got some of the best characters of any film of the 90's: They are all unique, well-realized, and driven and even the more despicable ones have a certain sympathetic appeal to them. The story is very unpredictable and consistently compelling. The technical aspects of the film are exceptional, particularly the cinematography and music. The acting is uniformly excellent, with Frances McDormand, William H. Macy, and Steve Buscemi all giving Oscar-worthy career high performances. And finally, something that really makes it stand out is that it so immerses its characters and its story in an environment never really seen before or since in popular film. The Scandinavian-accented white bread Minnesota and North Dakota environment makes for a peculiar, fascinating environment, particularly when coupled with a crime story that seems totally alien to the insulated world.

Basically it's a masterpiece because it does everything right, little to nothing wrong, and it's fascinating on several levels. And certainly not merely because of the now infamous woodchipper scene.

[ilovemovies]

Frances McDormand's performance is WAY overrated. There is nothing special about her work here and this is yet another case where someone gets nominated for a Lead even though she is really a supporting character.

Likewise, William H. Macey, who is wonderful in the movie and is easily the best thing about the movie IMO, was nominated for supporting actor even though he is clearly the lead.


Fargo is like every other Coens movie I have seen (which are include Blood Simple & The Man Who Wasn't There). Good but not great.


And it definately didn't deserve to be nominated for best picture.

[Tyler_Durden_208]

I still consider Peter Stormare the best part of this movie.
"Where is pancakes house?" never gets old.

[blk_flower]

the onyl problem I had was that Steve Buschemi should of gotten an oscar rather than Frances McDormand. And a little annoying, you know the YEAH thing. But I loved it, my reasons are pretty much have been said.

[ZenDude]

Fargo = Masterpiece. :)

[chinton]

Basically just what Queintin said

It does everything right. Fully-rounded interesting characters, bizzare and original humor, great acting, and engrossing and complex script. It does everything right.

[X-Nightcrawler]

I was expecting Mr. 30,000 posts to land on this thread ages ago.

[Goberg]

Originally posted by chinton
Basically just what Queintin said

It does everything right. Fully-rounded interesting characters, bizzare and original humor, great acting, and engrossing and complex script. It does everything right.

have to agree

[Cronos]

what's so great about Fargo???




not a lot

[bob]

I think Fargo is the Coen's worst film, and one of the few truly bad films they've made.

It's hokey, boring, and entirely anti-climactic. Probably one of the least entertaining films you could make with such a great cast.

[Lazy Boy]

It's a good film, but not their best by a longshot.

Barton Fink and Blood Simple are better. But, Fargo gets the little things right, and it's a decidedly human story with funny quirks that aren't broad and overplayed like some of the more recent Coen films.

[notchreturns]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20010405%2FREVIEWS08%2F104050301%2F 1023

Ebert;s review sums it up for me pretty much.

It's in my top 10 ever.

[HanzoSword]

Fargo is a masterpiece because it is a character study, you have to love the characters and how well they're developed to love the movie. I loved the 'everydayness' of the sheriff and the police as they tried to find out what was going on. The contrast of the monster with the Steve B. character, who was just trying to do his job.

So what the sheriff stumbled on them in the end? She was following leads and clues and I would almost bet that most real crimes get solved that way. It never bothered me because the end wasn't the point of the movie. It was a character study.

[punkmother]

Originally posted by chinton
Basically just what Queintin said

It does everything right. Fully-rounded interesting characters, bizzare and original humor, great acting, and engrossing and complex script. It does everything right.

ya it does everything right except for being a good movie.

[chinton]

Originally posted by punkmother
ya it does everything right except for being a good movie.


I see you don't like the movie. Well to each his own.

[dennisv]

Originally posted by chinton
I see you don't like the movie. Well to each his own.

Nah, he's just being a "punk rocker". They hate everything for show.

[CletusHorniblow]

I think that the real question is: What isn't great about Fargo?

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by CletusHorniblow
I think that the real question is: What isn't great about Fargo?

And the answer to that is EVERYTHING except for William H. Macey's performance! ;)

[punkmother]

Originally posted by dennisv
Nah, he's just being a "punk rocker". They hate everything for show.

The same director could make a movie about you called fago, and it would suck just as much or even more.

[dennisv]

Originally posted by punkmother
The same director could make a movie about you called fago, and it would suck just as much or even more.

LOL! Hahaha. I actually got a kick out of that. I hope I win an Oscar, or a nomination at least since being gay in movies and winning awards are the big thing nowadays.

[Rated R]

Originally posted by punkmother
The same director could make a movie about you called fago, and it would suck just as much or even more.


Congratulations, you have singlehandedly made the collective IQ of this thread dip below the 50 line. Don't be disrespecting your fellow schmoe, you might get the boot.


Besides, I remember I hated Fargo the first time I saw it. The next time around I picked up more on the comedy and the darker themes while I was pre-occupied with the annoying characters my first viewing. It's a tough movie to enjoy and it has slowly grown on me. Still isn't my favourite Coen movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I like it a lot more. I just love how everything spirals out of control for Lundegard. He acted on impulse, escaped his mundane life and it was too late to fix it in the end. Greed, in this case, is not good.

[zeppelin]

The first time I saw Fargo, I liked it well enough, but like you, I didn't see what made it the masterpiece everyone was claiming it to be. I thought its main problem was that it didn't know exactly what it wanted to be...was it a black comedy, a crime thriller, or what? And of course, having seen and loved such movies as Pulp Fiction, I knew then that a movie could be both of those things at once, but Fargo didn't feel that way to me. It felt uneven, and yea, the characters were kind of annoying.

But then I saw it again, and realized it was both a black comedy and a crime thriller. Just not in the usual way. Most movies that are mixes of different genres have certain scenes that make it, say, a comedy, and others that fit into the crime thriller genre. But with Fargo, the genres are all spliced, so it's not simply juggling the genres back and forth, but literally mixing them to make one. A handful of movies achieve the feat of being funny, sad, scary, and touching, but Fargo does something even more rare by making it all of those things at once. That's what makes Fargo great. It is so many things all at one time, and it's not even really a question of how you look at it; it gets you to feel so many different things all from the same image or line...you don't go from laughing to screaming to crying to cheering throughout a course of events, you do it all at once (not literally, but you get my point). In short, Fargo is exactly the way life is.

Oh, and I'm not implying that if you watch Fargo again, you will suddenly jump up and say "Great Scott, it is a masterpiece!" I'm just stating my own personal experience with the movie. It's very possible that even if you watched it 3 more times, you'd still feel the same way. But I love the movie to death, and a lot of other people do too. It's just a matter of taste, like every movie. You can't expect to love every movie that is regarded as a masterpiece.