Two years after the Coen brothers' neo-noir masterpiece, their friend and early collaborator embarked on his own moral journey through snowbound Minnesota.
Me have liked Billy Bob in lot of stuff, but this far and away his best role, and favorite Raimi film. He does remarkable job of holding back ocean of sadness and regret behind beer-swilling layabout, so that by time he gives soul-crushing confessions at end, it not feel like surprise revelation, it feel like Jacob telling us what, deep down, we (and Hank) already knew bout him.
And ending for Hank just masterful piece of writing. Yes, losing so much make him realize how good his life was before. But not before he has to confront how unhappy everyone around him was while he was oblivious. It very high on list of all-time favorite movies, and yet it one me never really in mood to revisit, because no matter how masterfully film's emotional devastation is presented, it not really something me in mood to experience again.
I'm not the biggest fan of a Simple Plan. I always hate when a movie--especially a Noir--lays out ironclad rules at the beginning, only to pull the rug out at the end. In a Simple Plan's case its stated early on that the money's untraceable and that informs all the characters' actions. Reneging on that in the last few minutes just takes me out of the whole exercise.
Maybe I'm informed too much by the French New Wave who not only played by the rules but attached a deus-ex machina quality to them that wouldn't be out of place in the Final Destination films. Give me Bob le Flambeur over A Simple Plan any day.
One of my favorite watches of 2022 and I'm glad you spotlighted Lou's petty obsession with Hank's use of the word insinuating. Lou obviously does get that Hank's character is actually not what it seems to be, but Hank's baffled, owning response of "I said that a month ago, have you been holding onto that the whole time?" is way too relatable.
Great piece about a film that doesn't get nearly enough plaudits...and to continue the theme of not always realising what you have until it's gone, Bridget Fonda was so great for a long stretch there, and we really lost something special when she walked away from acting. Always so, so watchable.
1. As mentioned in the article, it dials back the over-the-top-ness of the book and emerges as a stronger and (I think) better work of art as a result
2. The twist briefly mentioned above, where we realize Jacob is indeed on Hank's side and working to elicit a "confession" from Lou is completely masterful.
3. Gary Cole's ambiguity as the "FBI Agent", and the way the movie short-circuits the usual cliched fight for the gun in favor of Hank finally doing something decisively.
Cole: Looks like we're both gonna have an awful lot of explaining to do.
Oh man, I love this movie so much. Just a few thoughts:
1. I know this feels like an outlier in Raimi's filmography, but a lot of the themes are in fact super close to the bone IMO. Just about every movie he's ever done has some element of a "power corrupts" message and while he's well-known for his willingness to go silly, he almost never fails to bake in some truly morose character beats.
2. I'd love someone to examine how Paxton jumped from a fairly "punk/edgy" typecasting in the 80s to Mr. Midwest in the 90's (and, he was great at both)
3. I can't think of any Raimi / Coens thematic overlaps that happen after this - can any of y'all? There are echoes (Quick & The Dead / Buster Scruggs) but Raimi's franchise involvement feels like it mostly ended that line of symmetry, except for maaaaybe Drag Me To Hell which has a touch of that sweet, sweet misanthropy.
4. Really every cast member is amazing in this, right? Fonda works true magic with her role and Briscoe should have got a million jobs out of this.
5. What do we need to do to get Raimi to make more of this kind of thing?
It's such a great story. A screenplay worth taking apart. Bridget Fonda's best work (though of course she was mighty great in Singles). I still think of her restaurant-ordering speech when I'm looking at an expensive menu. 🙂
I also loved Scott Smith's The Ruins! The movie's good but man, the audiobook!! One of my favorites of all time.
I liked this movie back in the day, starved as I was for anything related to the Coens or Fargo. Rewatched it recently and did not connect with it. It's tough when every decision anyone makes is so bad and feels fake. Compared (has to be done) to Fargo where the big, semi-unbelievable decision (Jerry paying someone to kidnap his wife) is already made before the movie starts, and everything else feels natural and organic, Simple Plan feels forced and 'written'. All the acting is very good, but after a certain amount of time spent yelling at my screen, I just start to check out.
I remember seeing this in the theatre and thinking that the scene where Jacob tricks Lou while simultaneously digging at Hank was a perfect marriage of screenplay and acting.
I just learned about this Substack from Scott’s Twitter feed, despite following both him and Keith there. Super happy to support this work and hopefully reconnect with some folks from the former site too.
Scott, thanks so much for covering this movie. I read the book (I think after having watched the movie) and while great (SBS is just a really talented writer, period) I do think the movie outshines it mostly because of the incredible performances.
I don’t think I’ve revisited it since it was released, but I’ve got designs on my evening plans with HBOMax now.
I appreciate the parallels you make b/w Macbeth and ASP, but something rankles me about it too.
It reminds me of this poem I read in undergrad by Carol Ann Duffy called “Pilate’s Wife” wherein the wife of Pontius Pilate tells the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus from her POV. In it she chides Pontius for his feminine hands, his softness, and contrasts that to Jesus who she sees as ugly but magnetic, rough hands and beautiful eyes. She had a dream that foretold his death and sent a note to Pontius asking him not to crucify Jesus. In the end, she states unequivocally that she does not believe JC is the son of God, but Pontius does.
One popular, and often religious-text reinforced reading of this poem holds that Pilate’s wife is an agent of the devil, that if she succeeded there would have been no resurrection, no Christian faith. I hate this interpretation. It ignores the text of the poem and leans into bad faith (lol) arguments that ultimately reinforce patriarchy and demonize (lol again) women. It feels like this reading plays it both ways where both the crucifier (Pilate) and the person trying to stop it (Pilate’s wife) are actors of the devil despite having completely opposite objectives.
So while it’s hard to ignore the roles Lady M and Sarah play in manipulating their respective husbands, it feels somewhat like we are giving the dudes a pass. I mean at the end of the day, both Macbeth and Hank are the actors, and their reliance on their partners to direct them is akin to Pilate’s soft hands, ready to pound the nails in as a result of being susceptible to manipulation in the first place.
Sorry for the length of this reply! I loved this review and the push it has given me to rewatch.
I first saw it only a few months ago, and I was floored by it. Raimi never even came close to make another film like this. It's masterfully written, acted, and directed. And to me, it's far superior to Fargo.
Really great and underrated film. Also... first! (We still doing that?)
Never thought of the Fargo/Coens connection -- I have a date night soon with HBOMax apparently.
Me have liked Billy Bob in lot of stuff, but this far and away his best role, and favorite Raimi film. He does remarkable job of holding back ocean of sadness and regret behind beer-swilling layabout, so that by time he gives soul-crushing confessions at end, it not feel like surprise revelation, it feel like Jacob telling us what, deep down, we (and Hank) already knew bout him.
And ending for Hank just masterful piece of writing. Yes, losing so much make him realize how good his life was before. But not before he has to confront how unhappy everyone around him was while he was oblivious. It very high on list of all-time favorite movies, and yet it one me never really in mood to revisit, because no matter how masterfully film's emotional devastation is presented, it not really something me in mood to experience again.
I'm not the biggest fan of a Simple Plan. I always hate when a movie--especially a Noir--lays out ironclad rules at the beginning, only to pull the rug out at the end. In a Simple Plan's case its stated early on that the money's untraceable and that informs all the characters' actions. Reneging on that in the last few minutes just takes me out of the whole exercise.
Maybe I'm informed too much by the French New Wave who not only played by the rules but attached a deus-ex machina quality to them that wouldn't be out of place in the Final Destination films. Give me Bob le Flambeur over A Simple Plan any day.
One of my favorite watches of 2022 and I'm glad you spotlighted Lou's petty obsession with Hank's use of the word insinuating. Lou obviously does get that Hank's character is actually not what it seems to be, but Hank's baffled, owning response of "I said that a month ago, have you been holding onto that the whole time?" is way too relatable.
Great piece about a film that doesn't get nearly enough plaudits...and to continue the theme of not always realising what you have until it's gone, Bridget Fonda was so great for a long stretch there, and we really lost something special when she walked away from acting. Always so, so watchable.
Things I love about this movie
1. As mentioned in the article, it dials back the over-the-top-ness of the book and emerges as a stronger and (I think) better work of art as a result
2. The twist briefly mentioned above, where we realize Jacob is indeed on Hank's side and working to elicit a "confession" from Lou is completely masterful.
3. Gary Cole's ambiguity as the "FBI Agent", and the way the movie short-circuits the usual cliched fight for the gun in favor of Hank finally doing something decisively.
Cole: Looks like we're both gonna have an awful lot of explaining to do.
Paxton: Just me. (BANG)
4. The moral questions the movie poses
5. Fonda's Lower Middle Class Lament speech
This is a movie I've been saying I needed to watch again for years now. I wasn't a fan the first time around, which surprised me.
Oh man, I love this movie so much. Just a few thoughts:
1. I know this feels like an outlier in Raimi's filmography, but a lot of the themes are in fact super close to the bone IMO. Just about every movie he's ever done has some element of a "power corrupts" message and while he's well-known for his willingness to go silly, he almost never fails to bake in some truly morose character beats.
2. I'd love someone to examine how Paxton jumped from a fairly "punk/edgy" typecasting in the 80s to Mr. Midwest in the 90's (and, he was great at both)
3. I can't think of any Raimi / Coens thematic overlaps that happen after this - can any of y'all? There are echoes (Quick & The Dead / Buster Scruggs) but Raimi's franchise involvement feels like it mostly ended that line of symmetry, except for maaaaybe Drag Me To Hell which has a touch of that sweet, sweet misanthropy.
4. Really every cast member is amazing in this, right? Fonda works true magic with her role and Briscoe should have got a million jobs out of this.
5. What do we need to do to get Raimi to make more of this kind of thing?
It's such a great story. A screenplay worth taking apart. Bridget Fonda's best work (though of course she was mighty great in Singles). I still think of her restaurant-ordering speech when I'm looking at an expensive menu. 🙂
I also loved Scott Smith's The Ruins! The movie's good but man, the audiobook!! One of my favorites of all time.
I liked this movie back in the day, starved as I was for anything related to the Coens or Fargo. Rewatched it recently and did not connect with it. It's tough when every decision anyone makes is so bad and feels fake. Compared (has to be done) to Fargo where the big, semi-unbelievable decision (Jerry paying someone to kidnap his wife) is already made before the movie starts, and everything else feels natural and organic, Simple Plan feels forced and 'written'. All the acting is very good, but after a certain amount of time spent yelling at my screen, I just start to check out.
Man, I love this movie. Thanks for the look back at it, and a reminder to see it again before we leave Noirvember behind...
No humor? Bah. "It's a piiiineapple."
I remember seeing this in the theatre and thinking that the scene where Jacob tricks Lou while simultaneously digging at Hank was a perfect marriage of screenplay and acting.
I truly consider Thornton's performance here to be top 3 of the 90s. Perfectly calibrated sad, screwup brother.
Hi fellow Revealers,
I just learned about this Substack from Scott’s Twitter feed, despite following both him and Keith there. Super happy to support this work and hopefully reconnect with some folks from the former site too.
Scott, thanks so much for covering this movie. I read the book (I think after having watched the movie) and while great (SBS is just a really talented writer, period) I do think the movie outshines it mostly because of the incredible performances.
I don’t think I’ve revisited it since it was released, but I’ve got designs on my evening plans with HBOMax now.
I appreciate the parallels you make b/w Macbeth and ASP, but something rankles me about it too.
It reminds me of this poem I read in undergrad by Carol Ann Duffy called “Pilate’s Wife” wherein the wife of Pontius Pilate tells the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus from her POV. In it she chides Pontius for his feminine hands, his softness, and contrasts that to Jesus who she sees as ugly but magnetic, rough hands and beautiful eyes. She had a dream that foretold his death and sent a note to Pontius asking him not to crucify Jesus. In the end, she states unequivocally that she does not believe JC is the son of God, but Pontius does.
One popular, and often religious-text reinforced reading of this poem holds that Pilate’s wife is an agent of the devil, that if she succeeded there would have been no resurrection, no Christian faith. I hate this interpretation. It ignores the text of the poem and leans into bad faith (lol) arguments that ultimately reinforce patriarchy and demonize (lol again) women. It feels like this reading plays it both ways where both the crucifier (Pilate) and the person trying to stop it (Pilate’s wife) are actors of the devil despite having completely opposite objectives.
So while it’s hard to ignore the roles Lady M and Sarah play in manipulating their respective husbands, it feels somewhat like we are giving the dudes a pass. I mean at the end of the day, both Macbeth and Hank are the actors, and their reliance on their partners to direct them is akin to Pilate’s soft hands, ready to pound the nails in as a result of being susceptible to manipulation in the first place.
Sorry for the length of this reply! I loved this review and the push it has given me to rewatch.
I first saw it only a few months ago, and I was floored by it. Raimi never even came close to make another film like this. It's masterfully written, acted, and directed. And to me, it's far superior to Fargo.