The Coen Brothers. If you look at my top 500 films of al-time count (7 films) and top 100 films of the decade count (11) it would look like the Coen Brothers should be a top 10-15 director(s). They might be in time. With no top 100 all-time films (that hurts) their filmography ranks them 20th actually but remember that’s not counting anything from 2009 to now so we’re talking about some major works (A Serious Man, Inside Llewyn Davis) still to come on my next update. Still, the Coens’ are the third highest rated director(s) who made their debut post 1980 (P.T. Anderson, Kar-Wai Wong). They have made 18 films, 17 of them archiveable (Ladykillers), and 10-11 of them in the top 10 of the year. Indeed, they have an undeniably strong case
Best film: Fargo .People who think this film launched their career into another stratosphere are exaggerating a bit- I mean their previous film starred Paul Newman and by my count they already had 3 top 500 all-time films under their belt. But Fargo is simply one of the 5 best screenplays of the 90’s. The Coens have created some of cinema’s greatest characters—Lebowski is right there- but I don’t think it gets better than their creation and construction of Frances McDormand’s Marge Gunderson. It may also be Carter Burwell’s greatest achievement with the film score—it’s unique- but it builds and rolls over the top like Bernard Herrmann’s Taxi Driver score. Period and location details- not just the accents by a long stretch but mise-en-scene for sure- scrapping the car off, the clothes, the hair, but make no mistake about it- the Coens are in love with this unique vernacular… but there’s more– tonight show in bed, cheesy picture at the car dealership, Macy’s wife with her voice inflections. What smacked me in the face with the latest viewing (probably about #10) is the stunningly gorgeous reoccurring shots of snow-filled parking lots and that fence scene. It’s architecture as character and not something I see much in the Coen’s filmography (though it is actually first used in their debut Blood Simple)- it blew me away. A strong meditation on greed, chance/fate.
total archiveable films: 17
top 100 films: 0
top 500 films: 7 (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, No Country For Old Men, Barton Fink, Miller’s Crossing, Blood Simple, O Brother, Where Art Thou?)
top 100 films of the decade: 11 (Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Fargo, Barton Fink, The Big Lebowski, Miller’s Crossing, No Country For Old Men, A Serious Man, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Man Who Wasn’t There, Inside Llewyn Davis)
most overrated: Raising Arizona– I love Raising Arizona (more so the wonderful opening than the increasingly slapstick last half hour). TSPDT has it as their 5th best film and I’ve got it as #10.
most underrated: Blood Simple at #798 on TSPDT is ridiculous- I’m at #328. Blood Simple is one of the all-time great debut films—lots of them out there from Citizen Kane to The 400 Blows. Like nearly all of their work to follow, Blood Simple is a meditation on fate and randomness. We have, here, covering up someone else’s murder, McDormand’s character thinking she’s just killed Hedeya at the end—it absolute packs a punch. The Walsh character laughs and says “if I see him. I’ll sure give him the message”—hauntingly good. I love Paulline Kael’s “isn’t about anything” misguided awful negative review. The car coming while crime is going on would be repeated in Fargo. The beautiful minimalist Carter Burwell piano score.
gem I want to spotlight: I want to spotlight their 1990 and 1991 films. I feel like they get overlooked and my god Miller’s Crossings and Barton Fink are astounding films. Miller’s is all style and polish made with panache (those gorgeous shots in the woods) and Fink is a slow-burn minimalist writer’s block meditation (amongst other things). If these are the 6th and 7th best films from the Coen’s….they match up well with any auteur’s 6th and 7th best film.
stylistic innovations/traits: Black comedy crime and a knack for colloquial languages and screenwriting- idiosyncratic and postmodern. Ok, so they aren’t as brilliant behind the camera as Ophuls or even Cuaron or anything but unlike some critics, I don’t think they are predominantly writing talents. They DO make beautiful films (Deakins has shot 12 of their 18 films). More importantly, they certainly do create their own cinematic world. “All style and no substance” is continually the knock on the Coen’s—well sign me up for that. Again, hey aren’t as visually spectacular as Lynch or Malick or even a few others that will come shortly on this list but they DO create their own world and have given us the some of the best films of the past 35 years. Indeed, still going strong their oeuvre already contains as many top 500 all-time films as Fellini, Scorsese, Welles, and Tarkovsky and more than Coppola, Antonioni, Kurosawa and we haven’t hit the eligibility for A Serious Man and Inside Llewyn Davis.
Their work features word repetition and incredible narratives that just roll (No Country For Old Men in particular). Character creation is a forte of theirs as well from Marge Gunderson to Jeff Lebowski to Anton Chigurh and Llewyn Davis. Meditation and exploration of fate- from the coin toss in No Country, to the randomness of the finale of Blood Simple. You have the bookends in Llewyn Davis (Llewyn is getting his ass kicked in the alley while Dylan is becoming a star) andthe falling pin in Lebowski (Fate—Donnie strikes all movie long then the night of his death the pin stands up when it shouldn’t- he threw it perfectly).
top 10
- Fargo
- The Big Lebowski
- No Country For Old Men
- Inside Llewyn Davis
- A Serious Man
- Barton Fink
- Miller’s Crossing
- Blood Simple
- O Brother, Where Art Thou?
- Raising Arizona
By year and grades
| 1984- Blood Simple | MS |
| 1987- Raising Arizona | HR |
| 1990- Miller’s Crossings | MS |
| 1991- Barton Fink | MS |
| 1994- The Hudsucker Proxy | R |
| 1996- Fargo | MP |
| 1998- The Big Lebowski | MP |
| 2000- O Brother, Where Art Thou | MS |
| 2001- The Man Who Wasn’t There | R/HR |
| 2003- Intolerable Cruelty | R |
| 2007- No Country For Old Men | MP |
| 2008- Burn After Reading | HR |
| 2009- A Serious Man | MP |
| 2010- True Grit | R/HR |
| 2013- Inside Llewyn Davis | MP |
| 2016- Hail, Caesar | R |
| 2018- The Ballad of Buster Scruggs | R |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-see- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
Fargo And No Country for Old Men are easily top 100 of All Time And The Coen Brothers are Top ten Directors of all time.
@Randy. I’m a big admirer of both films and the Coen brothers in general. I’ve got no problem with your lists if you have those films in your top 100 and the directors in your top 10. It does sound like I’ve, perhaps, seen more overall films than you have so as you see more and more over the years things may change. I’ve had to make room for a lot of films and filmmakers.
i disagree with you that coen brothers and spielberg have no top 100 fllms when they have some in mine (no country around 100, o brother, raiders, ai, schindler’s list). the coens are also great screenwriters and burn after reading is a great comedy. spielberg is one of the best american artists in the country’s history.
I’d throw Catch Me If You Can into the Top 100s as well… Perhaps, Inside Llewyn Davis, too, at a stretch??
@m and Jeff. — thanks for the comments– good stuff. Spielberg and the Coen Brothers are great auteurs, artists and have made some of the best films of the last 40-50 years. I have no problem if your own lists have their films in your top 100. I don’t know how large of a sample that is. I’ve seen a lot of films over the past 20 years— a lot— and can tell you there was a time when my list included films from Spielberg and the Coen brothers. I’d have to see your entire list to comment and would have a better idea of what films and filmmakers you are choosing their films over.
in my top 100 i’d have those films everyone just has to put like the godfather i and ii and citizen kane. annie hall, taxi driver, raging bull pulp fiction, blue velvet, chinatown, forrest gump, lotr, star wars etc. i am still discovering more films because i am currently in school and have not too much time to actually sit and watch films so i dont know as many as i wish (or i know more than i have watched) but during summer and all i will try to watch more. i also love films like passion of joan of arc and metropolis, especially city lights. another favorite is gates of heaven by errol morris.
one thing also is that i can watch classic films like intolerance on my phone and computer but i would much prefer the big screen so i wont watch all those films yet.
@ m– that’s an impressive group of films– thanks for sharing– and I’m with you about trying to find a bigger screen when possible to watch some of these. Any Kubrick in there? PT Anderson? I just ask because I have 5 Kubrick films in my top 100 and 4 Anderson films in there.
havent seen all of them but orange and 2001, are great clockwork orange is top 150 2001 top 100 and punch drunk love is top 100 but from what ive seen of the master and blood they are up there too. and dr strangelove is top 100 (so is the graduate which i forgot.)
@m — that’s fantastic. I look forward to hearing from you to see what you think when you catch up with the others.
My Ranking of the films I’ve seen from them so far would be
1.Inside Llewyn Davis
2.Raising Arizona
3.Fargo
4.No Country for Old Men
5.A Serious Man
6.Burn After Reading
7. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
@Randy– interesting– we’re mostly on the same page. Thanks for sharing. What grabbed you about Raising Arizona?
Hm I’ve never been able to articulate why I love Raising Arizona so much I guess it’s because of the relationship between Ed and Hi who are imo one of the best couples in cinema history and the Coens Screenplay which is the best non Fargo Screenplay imo. Also it’s funny as hell There funniest one imo.
@Randy– I was just wondering. Thanks. I mean to be clear I think the movie is superb. I may not have it above some of the films you do here but it is in my top 100 of the 1980’s and the first 15 minutes in particular are absolutely magnificent.
ive only seen it once but ive never seen a film like llewyn davis, one of the best of all time. also, you should do a ranking of the best moments in cinema history. some to consider
dark knight- boat scene
zodiac- dinner with gyllenhaal and ruffalo
taxi driver- saving foster
wizard of oz- giving them what they want
pulp fiction- samuel jackson robber
raging bull- punching at wall
godfather ii- im not dumb
citizen kane- susan leaves kane
wonderful life- prayer
no country- murders carla
llewyn davis- singing ‘oh ha ng me’
lord of the rings- killing the ring
once upon… america- ending
return of the jedi- killing palpatine
ai- pool scene
schindlers list- one more
@ m — thanks for the comment– I’ve been lucky enough to catch Llewyn Davis four times now— it gets better every time. Good idea on the best scenes or best moments in cinema history. You’ve compiled some great ones here- good work! What I may do is pick the best scene from each year when I update my year by year archives and then I’ll have roughly the best 100. I think that’s the only reasonable way to do it. Or I guess I could do my top 100 films and pick the best scene from each one. Either way— would be a fun project. Thanks
I visit this place regularly and it’s a a very handy tool to me (I hope you don’t take offense at that description). From what I see here, your focus is mainly (I hesitate to say specifically) on the craft of filmmaking. Visual storytelling, editing, mise en scene, angles, lighting, lenses are more important to you then what is film trying to say, does it create an emotional response, is narrative solid throughout…which is a fundamental difference in our understanding of the cinema. Would you agree with my assessment of your preferences and could you elaborate on it a little bit? Even though I understand how you can, in theory, make a distinction and simply separate craft of filmmaking from disciplines like philosophy or literature, don’t you think that overlapping in this art form makes it nearly impossible to achieve this?
For example I saw that Midsommar is your top film of 2019 and I can see why because it checks the boxes you value, it’s visually stunning, but it wouldn’t be nowhere near top of my list because narratively totally falls apart in the second half. It opens few mini sub plots that are basically left unfinished and it all ended in a series of shocking scenes to attract casual audience without much substance or build up behind it.
Also you are obviously a big proponent of auteur theory which is kind of contradictory because you are making sure to separate director’s job from screenwriters’ for example. That’s why people like Billy Wilder, Charlie Chaplin or Coen brothers are much lower on your rankings than it would be on mine.
Another point I would like to address is that I noticed (correct me if I’m wrong) you put so much weight on if the director’s style is unique to him and immediately recognizable. It’s a admirable trait to have, but it does not make or break a director and it shouldn’t overpower a stronger catalogue of another director when a comparison is made.
And the last thing I would like to ask you is about your film ratings system, specifically a Masterpiece label for top 3 films of the year. Don’t you think that obvious flaw is that some years are stronger and some weaker? I love Malick but if The New World is labeled as a masterpiece that does not do any favors to other titles in that category in my opinion. If you were to rate them from 1-10, what would be the last film rated 10 on your top 500 list?
@Chief Keef– thank you for visiting the site and the thoughtful comment. I don’t mind that description of my site at all. I consider it a compliment and look at many other websites the same way.
I care about what a film is trying to say and if it’s trying to elicit a response– but I care how it says it and how it elicits that response (film style) more. Otherwise we’re grading the message of the film aren’t we? I think your description of what I care about is correct- but I wouldn’t call it a preference- I think there’s a hierarchy in cinema as art and what is “cinematic”– as much as I admire acting, writing, and say a film’s musical score– I think the director more often controls what is cinematic. Also, reading the meaning of the film or emotional responses can vary and can be difficult if not impossible to substantiate, and this leads your next point on Midsommar. I completely disagree about the narrative falling apart in the second half. I also disagree with you putting such high importance of that as part of the evaluation of a film, but I also again I disagree with the fact that it does that here. We could argue about it for days– but what we couldn’t argue about is it being visual stunning. There is clear evidence of it.
Strong disagree on me overemphasizing the importance director’s unique style
As for your last point on The New World and masterpieces. I’ll clarify- I thought it was clear but just in case…. so 1-3 masterpieces per year is a general guideline but I don’t feel tethered to it. There are years where I have as many as seven or more masterpieces (1960) and years where I don’t have one (1987).
It’s worth pointing out that from the top down you’ve been against visual/stylistic filmmaking in your response. You’ve done it in a very intelligent way for sure, respectful, I don’t begrudge it– but it makes sense why we disagree down the line here. You start talking about how important a film’s message is (what it’s trying to say), the response it elicits, then go to Midsommar, then to Chaplin to Wilder, then on to the section about how a director’s unique visual style shouldn’t matter as much, then on to The New World.
@Drake
Thanks for the response. Yeah my comment is all over the place, I tried to point out few things that have not much to do with each other without spending hours so it came out confusing. I am not anti visual filmmaking but as you said there’s an hierarchy and mine is different from yours and I agree that it is perfectly logical that we would disagree a lot based on that. What I strongly disagree on is your implication that traits you value are more objective as opposed to the ones I mentioned. Yes, there wouldn’t be much argument on my part regarding Midsommar because it is exceptionally strong in that department, but I don’t think it applies in general. The idea that visual aspect can be looked at more objectively is not what I would subscribe to. Not many people would say that Midsommar is visually weak, but not many people would say that There Will Be Blood is weak in terms of narrative. Both are as subjective and objective as the other.
About Midsommar, let’s take the situation with Josh and Christian. Christian tries to take Josh’ idea for the project, we see a little tension between them and then Josh is killed leaving the situation unsolved and meaningless in the bigger picture. I don’t see any purpose in this little sub plot and don’t understand how it contributes anything to the film. I don’t believe in things being there just to be there and I feel similarly about a lot of stuff in Midsommar. Importance of this aspect in this particular film is debatable.
About uniqueness, I apologize if I misrepresented your views but it comes mainly from your director’s rankings and for some directors that are maybe lower on your list than consensus would suggest, the first thing you often point out is that they are “style minus” directors and then you continue building on that label. I’ve just seen it few times, so it probably stuck with me more than you intended to put emphasis on it.
About masterpiece label, I totally misunderstood the whole rating system, I thought that it is more strict and that you have to fill the quota of 3 films per year (or 6 for must-see), which is kind of stupid to assume on my part so there’s that…
My updated Top Five
1. Taxi Driver
2.Pulp Fiction
3.The Master
4. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid
5.Nashville
Honorable Mention: Raising Arizona, Broadcast News,Fargo, Manhattan, Short Cuts, and There Will Be Blood
This top 5 about what is it?
Favorite movies?
It seems to be a ‘top 5 best American movies of all time’.
I don’t have Midsommar as the best film of 2020 (Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood all the way) but I think I could defend that particular narrative choice. Isn’t that particular feud simply one instance among many that cumulatively establish these guys as pretty shitty human beings who on some level deserve what’s coming to them? Does it need purpose beyond that? I mean ultimately they all die, so does that mean their entire archs were ultimately purposeless? If we wanted to be reductive we could argue that but I don’t see that tact as being particularly useful.
There are many Coen movies that could legitimately be called better than the rest. I think at least five or so have a case as their best film. Who are some other great directors that have a bunch of movies that could be their best? I can think of PTA, Kurosawa, Spielberg, maybe Malick, Spike Lee, Hawks, or Leone who have a few or more that are arguably their greatest. Who are some others?
I suppose you could also say Wilder, Fincher, Kieslowski, Tarkovsky, maybe Scorsese.
@Graham not the biggest spike lee fan but isn’t do the right thing considered his masterpiece almost unanimously. Kubrick, john ford, hitchcock. Even coppola I’d say with the godfather films and Apoclypse now. Maybe even ridley scott as some people will argue alien or blade runner (and some gladiator i suppose)
Very sad to hear you are not a fan of Spike Lee. Personally, I find his films tremendously good stylistically, while also being both meaningful and entertaining. You may be right that Do the Right Thing is usually considered his best, but I would have no problem myself if someone argued for Malcolm X or one of his other films. Kubrick and Hitchcock I can see being debated, but I think 2001 and Vertigo are the best for each somewhat certainly. Coppola is definitely a valid point. Ridley Scott has two that i believe can logically be considered his best, but there are many auteurs with two.
I’m shocked nobody’s brought up Scorsese yet in this conversation. Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Goodfellas are all debated over about which of the 3 is the best, and I’ve heard some even say Mean Streets or The King of Comedy.
You didn’t read my second comment. “I suppose you could also say Wilder, Fincher, Kieslowski, Tarkovsky, maybe Scorsese.”
@Graham -great list and great point about these auteurs. How about Bergman? He has 5 films in the top 158 on the TSPDT — I think as far as modern auteurs how about Nolan? apologies if someone already mentioned these two– catching up a little
@Graham– Antonioni would be another one, right? L’Avventura is the one most often mentioned but he has 4 in the top #145 on TSPDT and that doesn’t include Red Desert- the film I think is his strongest
@Graham Oh you’re right. Missed Scorsese there but noticed the other ones.
I really love the Coen brothers. Initially I didn’t get them. I do think their films are more of an acquired taste, but either way I didn’t start off well – the first film of theirs I watched was Burn After Reading and I didn’t get it at all. I wasn’t used to their style and I’ve watched the film since (it is really good, I think it’s slightly better than Raising Arizona), but the first time I was left with such a sense of unfulfillment. Of course then I watched Fargo (quite recently actually – I studied them for the first time at around spring of 2020) and I fell head over hills for that film. Fargo is honestly such a masterpiece. And then goes everything else. I really like Big Lebowski and there’s some unease still left with me since the time I watched No Country for Old Men, but I think I agree that Fargo is their best work. Their brand is so distinctive – I think you could easily tell if what you’re watching is a Coen film (apart from its featuring McDromand or Clooney – both perfectly tailored to their style). The long distance frames, the black humour and -even if I don’t think that screenplay is all they’re great at- it is true that their dialogue is very unique (so many new words for a viewer whose first language isn’t English haha). They’re impeccably idiosyncratic. The mise en scene is also very specific. Their frames aren’t stuffed, I usually think they’re kind of minimalistic, in a way that the figures or the important objects stand out. This approach magnifies the impact of the events on screen (usually quite shocking as well). Their narratives are well crafted to a fault, their characters are always interesting. Their tendency to have the bad guy win is very characteristic as well, and it is often daunting to realise that characters who appear good willed or ordinary have more layers to them and are perfectly capable of the worst crimes (eg Clooney in Burn After Reading). Of course, this goes the other way around as well (eg Macy in Fargo). We always seem to find ordinary people in extraordinary situations. But it is really difficult for me to understand how anyone could point at the Coens and say that they’re all style and no substance. Besides that not always being a bad thing (Moulin Rouge!), the Coens always have something to say. Meditations on fate and greed are a very distinctive thing of theirs -you hit the nail on the head with that- and I think good and evil and their coexistence within everyone (nearly everyone – Bardem in No Country is probably an exception) seems to be something that they deal with a lot through characterisation. I’ve never watched a Coen film that doesn’t touch upon any theme. In fact there is something deeply tragic about many of their characters, and in this case Blood Simple comes to mind foremost. I still haven’t watched Inside Llewyn Davis and several others from your top 10 here and I’m really looking forward to a more extensive look at their work.
@Georg– great share- thank you– a nice addition to the page. Please send up a flare when you get to Inside Llewyn Davis- would love to know what you think
@Drake – haha thank you very much. I’ve been looking to watch it for a long time and I haven’t read much about it. It’s probably for the best to be honest. But I think I’ll make it a priority to generally get a glimpse of all those MP’s you have here and there I haven’t checked yet – Llewyn Davis is one of them. Your site is honestly the best guide on the Internet for anyone trying to get into film, you’re always doing great work!
@Georg- I certainly appreciate the kind words about the site and the contribution from you and others. Thanks again
A recent viewing of Burn After Reading (2008) really impressed me. Watched it a bunch of times in college, my friends and I would quote Brad Pitts line “I thought you might be worried… about the security… of your sh*t” and Malkovich at the end of the film holding the gun in one hand with a stiff drink in the other “You’re in league with that moronic woman. You are part of a league of morons.” lol. Absolutely hilarious start to finish.
But I was greatly impressed in how it fits in with the rest of the Coen Brothers work, themes of fate and chance, greed and blackmail, and brilliant screen play setting everything up. Clooney stating he hasn’t had to use his gun in 30 years setting up the scene with Brad Pitt.
@James Trapp- 100% spot on all the way around. Malkovich in this movie is golden.
Miller’s Crossing is as perfect a film as I have ever seen, every element of production in perfect harmony, every shot worthy of a painting, every performance–sublime. It finds and stays balanced on a impossibly fine line between straight gangster flick and parody, but with never a wink. Amazing.
I am glad to see you singled it out for some love
@Greg- Absolutely- I run into quite a few cinephiles who are admirers of the Coen Brothers but have yet to catch this one– so I always take pleasure in recommending it to them and encourage them to get to it as soon as possible.