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.
ive always wondered about his unfucked-with version of all the pretty horses, with the scuttled daniel lanois soundtrack and the bounteous 3.5 hour runtime. matt damon called it the best thing hes ever been involved with. thornton was so heartbroken and pissed off by that movies ultimate studio-shaped form that he swore off directing, which is very unfortunate. hes a major talent and should have had a whole parallel career as an important writer-director.
as an older millennial who remembers when miramax was the imprimatur of prestige, it amazes me how that top-down soup-to-nuts toilet of a company relentlessly made the world worse *right in front of our faces* and not only did we not notice, we rewarded them.
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.
I had no problem with it because the quartet's perception of the money is so small, right? None of them really think of some way to find out whether it's traceable, they PLAN to wait a year (despite the havoc wreaked in the aftermath) and indeed, someone comes a-knocking. Hank's ideas are narrow minded, and so is his POV.
I don't think it's breaking the rules. In fact, the whole notion that this is found money—not money they're stealing from someone else—is the fantasy that convinces Hank to take the actions that he does. You then have the empty threat throughout that he's going to burn the money if there's a serious hitch, but of course there are serious hitches from the moment they get back to the truck and Hank does nothing. He only burns the money after finding out they can't spend it without getting caught. To me, that's not a deus-ex-machina, but a final statement on his character.
But yes, agreed that Bob le Flambeur rules. (The Neil Jordan remake is underrated, too.)
It struck me as the "rules" given its prominently agreed upon. I remember it even getting mentioned in the marketing campaign and/or trailer during the theatrical release. Now maybe coming in cold without the marketing, that wouldn't seem as big of a deal, but after all the build-up in the film and in the promos it was a colossal let-down when I saw it in the theaters.
I'm with you on the Hank burning the money. I think it adds a huge bit of (well, maybe retroactive) dramatic irony to Jacob's sacrifice as it's not worth anything. Like the other posters said, these are the "rules" only as far as the characters are concerned, and the fact that they don't know them as well as they think they do is part of what makes the whole thing so tragic.
I don't think that's a legitimate understanding of "rules." The characters are just speculating that the money's untraceable. That's not like when About Time says you can't travel in time in X manner and then later says "Eh we can as long as we're careful." The characters here don't know anything about the money. That's not a rule, that's just their wishful thinking (wishful indeed, as it turns out)
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.
I was a big fan of the book but the changes made for the movie are huge improvements. Jacob's end is so much deeper and more painful in the movie. I too miss that period of Thornton when it seemed everything is possible. ONE FALSE MOVE was so stunning.
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?
I really should have dug in more about the thematic connections to Raimi's other work, Drag Me to Hell especially. That's all about a character who pays a serious price for a money-related transgression. (And it's one of his best, I think.)
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.
It *kills* me that Smith has only written those two novels, which are both such incredible rides. I was tempted to ask him about it recently when I did a NYT piece on The Peripheral, which he's showrunning, but could not find a non-awkward place to do so.
That line has stuck with me since I saw this in 1999. I know for a fact this is how my parents thought about eating out when I was a kid. Powerful writing.
Oh yeah. That desire to make life a little easier, a little sweeter, but having to watch every penny. I remember stuff like my parents buying corn dogs in bulk to freeze or my dad picking up McDonald's hamburgers when they were super-cheap and thawing those out for meals. Oof.
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 cannot speak to the poem you cite, but I always felt the moral weakness and culpability of MacBeth and Hank are underlined by their wives' actions. Key distinction is that Lady M presses her husband to that initial action whereas Hank presents the "found" money as a hypothetical that Sarah rejects with a laugh ("That's stealing") until he dumps the cash on their kitchen table. That triggers something in Sarah-- not greed, necessarily, but a need to take control of the situation, perhaps because she understands her husband as passive and weak. (In that critical sense, she and Lady M are alike.) I don't know if that lets the men off the hook in either work, though.
I rewatched today and I think I had forgotten how overt her machinations were, TBH. Still, there’s something tropey and convenient about the wife whispering in the ear of their husband.
My partner told me that his understanding of Lady M is pretty different than the cultural shorthand. That she was drawn to such an extreme that she was really supposed to be a caricature--extremely outsized and not the dramatic archetype we assume today. I think that’s really interesting (“big if true”) because I think that supports my pov that the role of the manipulative wife needs to be critically examined for convenient and easy narrative structure.
Also, I had in my head cannon completely merged the book ending with the movie ending, and was shocked when it concluded w/o the liquor store scene. I had done this so deeply that I could tell you what the cashier was wearing. The brain is crazy.
It's been too long since I read the book to recall the ending, but I remember being startled by how much more restrained the film's ending turned out to be, especially given Raimi's reputation. (Then again, EVIL DEAD II this is not.)
i would love to know what you remembered the cashier wearing. im additionally curious if you had a mental picture of the little old lady who drops by. (for her i guess i go with frances bay)
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.
I can't say it's superior to Fargo, which may be my favorite Coen. movie, but it's more than just a strong facsimile. I have no idea why it isn't more treasured.
Really great and underrated film. Also... first! (We still doing that?)
Let me be the first to say I don't think we're doing that
Nostalgia is a hard think to forget.
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.
There was a stretch around this time when it seemed like Billy Bob Thornton was the best actor on the planet. (And pretty damn good writer, too.)
Agreed. And me kind of lost track of him after that stretch. It took his turn on Fargo to remind me, oh, right, this guy pretty great.
ive always wondered about his unfucked-with version of all the pretty horses, with the scuttled daniel lanois soundtrack and the bounteous 3.5 hour runtime. matt damon called it the best thing hes ever been involved with. thornton was so heartbroken and pissed off by that movies ultimate studio-shaped form that he swore off directing, which is very unfortunate. hes a major talent and should have had a whole parallel career as an important writer-director.
as an older millennial who remembers when miramax was the imprimatur of prestige, it amazes me how that top-down soup-to-nuts toilet of a company relentlessly made the world worse *right in front of our faces* and not only did we not notice, we rewarded them.
Thornton apparently improvised the whole thing about the put-on girlfriend, and god that scene is just masterful acting and writing.
Wow.
Raimi talked about it on a doc, I should find it. Said it was stunning to watch unfold.
Holy smokes, I did not know that. Incredible work.
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.
I had no problem with it because the quartet's perception of the money is so small, right? None of them really think of some way to find out whether it's traceable, they PLAN to wait a year (despite the havoc wreaked in the aftermath) and indeed, someone comes a-knocking. Hank's ideas are narrow minded, and so is his POV.
I don't think it's breaking the rules. In fact, the whole notion that this is found money—not money they're stealing from someone else—is the fantasy that convinces Hank to take the actions that he does. You then have the empty threat throughout that he's going to burn the money if there's a serious hitch, but of course there are serious hitches from the moment they get back to the truck and Hank does nothing. He only burns the money after finding out they can't spend it without getting caught. To me, that's not a deus-ex-machina, but a final statement on his character.
But yes, agreed that Bob le Flambeur rules. (The Neil Jordan remake is underrated, too.)
It struck me as the "rules" given its prominently agreed upon. I remember it even getting mentioned in the marketing campaign and/or trailer during the theatrical release. Now maybe coming in cold without the marketing, that wouldn't seem as big of a deal, but after all the build-up in the film and in the promos it was a colossal let-down when I saw it in the theaters.
But it's all kind of ironic, right? Just like the title. A Simple Plan immediately foiled. Which is also very Fargo-esque.
I'm with you on the Hank burning the money. I think it adds a huge bit of (well, maybe retroactive) dramatic irony to Jacob's sacrifice as it's not worth anything. Like the other posters said, these are the "rules" only as far as the characters are concerned, and the fact that they don't know them as well as they think they do is part of what makes the whole thing so tragic.
I don't think that's a legitimate understanding of "rules." The characters are just speculating that the money's untraceable. That's not like when About Time says you can't travel in time in X manner and then later says "Eh we can as long as we're careful." The characters here don't know anything about the money. That's not a rule, that's just their wishful thinking (wishful indeed, as it turns out)
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.
The actor playing Lou has been in a bunch of stuff but he really gets a chance to be great here
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
That exchange between Cole and Paxton always reminds me of the end of David Mamet's Heist:
DeVito: Don't you want to hear my last words?
Hackman: I just did.
Heist. Underrated movie, with my favorite Mametism ever: "Everyone wants money. That's why they call it 'money.'"
I was a big fan of the book but the changes made for the movie are huge improvements. Jacob's end is so much deeper and more painful in the movie. I too miss that period of Thornton when it seemed everything is possible. ONE FALSE MOVE was so stunning.
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?
I really should have dug in more about the thematic connections to Raimi's other work, Drag Me to Hell especially. That's all about a character who pays a serious price for a money-related transgression. (And it's one of his best, I think.)
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.
It *kills* me that Smith has only written those two novels, which are both such incredible rides. I was tempted to ask him about it recently when I did a NYT piece on The Peripheral, which he's showrunning, but could not find a non-awkward place to do so.
If you've not read it, Smith's short story 'Dogs' really is quite something.
That line has stuck with me since I saw this in 1999. I know for a fact this is how my parents thought about eating out when I was a kid. Powerful writing.
Oh yeah. That desire to make life a little easier, a little sweeter, but having to watch every penny. I remember stuff like my parents buying corn dogs in bulk to freeze or my dad picking up McDonald's hamburgers when they were super-cheap and thawing those out for meals. Oof.
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 cannot speak to the poem you cite, but I always felt the moral weakness and culpability of MacBeth and Hank are underlined by their wives' actions. Key distinction is that Lady M presses her husband to that initial action whereas Hank presents the "found" money as a hypothetical that Sarah rejects with a laugh ("That's stealing") until he dumps the cash on their kitchen table. That triggers something in Sarah-- not greed, necessarily, but a need to take control of the situation, perhaps because she understands her husband as passive and weak. (In that critical sense, she and Lady M are alike.) I don't know if that lets the men off the hook in either work, though.
I rewatched today and I think I had forgotten how overt her machinations were, TBH. Still, there’s something tropey and convenient about the wife whispering in the ear of their husband.
My partner told me that his understanding of Lady M is pretty different than the cultural shorthand. That she was drawn to such an extreme that she was really supposed to be a caricature--extremely outsized and not the dramatic archetype we assume today. I think that’s really interesting (“big if true”) because I think that supports my pov that the role of the manipulative wife needs to be critically examined for convenient and easy narrative structure.
Also, I had in my head cannon completely merged the book ending with the movie ending, and was shocked when it concluded w/o the liquor store scene. I had done this so deeply that I could tell you what the cashier was wearing. The brain is crazy.
It's been too long since I read the book to recall the ending, but I remember being startled by how much more restrained the film's ending turned out to be, especially given Raimi's reputation. (Then again, EVIL DEAD II this is not.)
i would love to know what you remembered the cashier wearing. im additionally curious if you had a mental picture of the little old lady who drops by. (for her i guess i go with frances bay)
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.
I can't say it's superior to Fargo, which may be my favorite Coen. movie, but it's more than just a strong facsimile. I have no idea why it isn't more treasured.