The Ladykillers(in Hollywood Movies) The Ladykillers (2004) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream The Ladykillers on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: An eccentric, if not charming Southern professor and his crew pose as a classical ensemble in order to rob a casino, all under the nose of his unsuspecting but sharp old landlady. Runtime: 104 mins Release Date: 26 Mar 2004
My mother says that it is the job of a remake to sort out all the problems in the original and she is right. The remake of the Ladykillers does it is spades. I never liked the original. The problem was that I cared about the old lady and rather liked the criminals, so I got a bit tense when they went after the old lady and then turned on each other. There's none of that in this film. The Coen Brothers have cleverly created a world of caricatures about whom we do not care one bit, so we don't feel any of that annoying tension when people start to die. I thought the big man with brain <more>
damage very funny indeed, and far better suited to this sort of story than the slow but inherently decent wrestler in the original, of whom I was rather fond and whose death upset me in the story, that is . Mother commented that Tom Hanks seemed to have some speech impediment so I think it's good of the Coens to employ him, even if he is becoming disabled. Mother didn't like all the swearing but I thought it was really funny, especially from the black character, which is something I have never seen before. I would rate this film eleven out of ten but I'm told I can't and this is a shame.
"POE! You are avenged!" Bela Lugosi, THE RAVEN, 1935 (by fargonaut)
Joel and Ethan Coen continue to renew my faith in American cinema. This film may do for Gospel music what O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? did for Bluegrass. The humor continually takes you by surprise. The witty sight gags would have done Buster Keaton proud.I'm glad to think that Joel and Ethan don't let criticism, both good and bad, influence their work. And so they just let their vision take them, and me, to whatever suits their fancy. I'm a ready passenger!In this film, they have taken many diverse characters, blended them together, and came up with a glorious, wonderful stew that I <more>
hope to sample often!This is the only film that I've gone back the next week to see again. It gets better with each viewing, and is endlessly entertaining. And I haven't laughed this loud since PULP FICTION. I even bought the DVD the day it came out! VERY unusual for el cheapo me, who waits years to get dvds used on Amazon! Joel and Ethan have added another chapter to their ever growing book of great films. They are like another great film maker, John Huston. Each film they make is totally different from another.I think it's a mistake that some reviews compare this film with others in their "oeuvre.' I think of this film as another chapter in the ever growing book of wonderful films that will be the Coen Brothers' legacy. Who else but Joel and Ethan could make a "feel good" movie where people wind up dead??? This film can only be described as "glorious." It's nice to see the good people wind up winning in the end . . . even if it IS only in the movies!Comparing this version of LADYKILLERS to the 1955 Ealing version is like comparing Rossini's BARBER OF SEVILLE to Mozart's MARRIAGE OF FIGARO. Both are wonderful in their own right. NOTE: Someone mentioned the bit about the portrait changing. I think it is yet another homage to Preston Sturges 1941 film, SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS which I consider one of the 10 best films of all time . Just as the title "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" came from that 1941 film, so there is a part where a portrait changes in THAT film also. Will there be ever better film makers than Joel and Ethan Coen? Quoth the Raven "Nevermore!"
Brilliant. This one matches -if not out stands- Big Lebowski (by bicgus1)
First, I AM quite critical with films, and will not give my advise for good movies just because.When I started to watch this one, honestly, I did not expect too much, and was quite afraid that I might be just watching the "sequel" of the execrable "O Brother..." that's literally the definition about this latter film I've read seconds ago in a comment and I do stand for it .Instead and quite soon, I was happily delighted, and really enjoyed "Ladykillers" as I did not enjoy any other film in many, many months, if not in a couple of years. Also, I do not <more>
like Tom Hanks, because I find his acting roles somewhat stereotypical, but in this one he is just... SUPERB!I keep wondering why this film is so underrated; it's UNDOUBTELY within my best 50 films ever, and I guess maybe it has to do with the fact that it is a remake and consequently there are comparisons. As for myself, I did not watch the original but soon will.Coen brothers are for sure at the best level you can demand for as directors except again for O Brother , and I guess if John Turturro had had the role of one of the other three ladykillers again, Tom Hanks is already great, and also is Tzi Ma, the general then it would have been clearly better than "Big Lebowski", which already is one of the best films ever. Why didn't you hire him!?10/10 for this one, and I haven't given a 10 to more than a dozen films in all. Really deserved.
This is not as bad a bad movie as many other would seem to want you to believe. It does not really bear comparison to the original because it has been made differently and updated for a modern audience. Tom Hanks, contrary to other comments I have seen here, is quite excellent in the lead role. His hammy, Poe-esquire disguise, is clearly compensating for the lack of intellectual gravity to which he so anxiously aspires. And, although I understand that Hanks did not watch the original prior to filming, it is a neat coincidence then that he chose to insert false teeth see Alistair Simm in the <more>
original . The supporting characters are nicely fleshed out with some helpful introductory vignettes and although some of the film comes across as a little too "Uncle Tom's Cabin" at times; I think we can forgive the Cohens. There are some great laugh out loud moments of pure slapstick and some nice subtle touches of more gentle humour. This does not stack up against some of the more lauded of the Cohen's work - Fargo - Barton Fink - but it is an enjoyable and worthwhile slice of cinematic time. Beware of plenty of uneccesary bad language.
The Coen Bros. Make This Ealing Classic Their Own (by dtb)
Ever since Tom Hanks became our generation's James Stewart, it seems people have all but forgotten how good he can be at playing jerks and bounders. For that matter, Stewart had a dark side he showed off well in the films of Alfred Hitchcock and Anthony Mann...but I digress... Bless Joel and Ethan Coen for giving Hanks an opportunity to unleash his inner scoundrel as they take the characters and ideas behind Ealing's classic 1955 Alec Guinness/Peter Sellers black comedy and make it completely, quirkily, and uproariously their own! Set in New Orleans this time, the Southern setting <more>
provides a wonderful opportunity for the Coens and scorer Carter Burwell to use gospel music and provide a delightful co-starring role for Irma P. Hall in the Katie Johnson role as the religious landlady who is as sharp and no-nonsense as she is innocent of the riverboat casino robbery that Hanks and his crew of larcenous loons are planning right there in her basement. Hall and Hanks play off each other sparklingly, and Marlon Wayans has some hilarious screen time with her as well, especially in a scene when Hall smacks Wayans every time he curses and of course, with each slap he curses in pain, which begets more slaps. Then he chickens out when called upon to kill her, because she reminds him of his mother! . It's great fun to hear Tom Hanks essentially doing a better-dressed Foghorn Leghorn, and his able cast of scalawags is filled out nicely by Tzi Ma THE QUIET American co-star shows his funny side here as a donut shop owner with a violent streak and a Hitler mustache , the hilarious J.K. Simmons one of those actors who rarely looks the same from film to film -- as the demolition man whose Irritable Bowel Syndrome is his undoing, Simmons resembles nobody so much as Frank Cady of TV's GREEN ACRES, PETTICOAT JUNCTION, and Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW! :- , and Ryan Hurst the big lug from REMEMBER THE TITANS, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and others doesn't get much to do besides look bewildered and musclebound, but he does it amusingly .
Very profane but funny, lots of quirky characters (by long-ford)
I disliked this film initially but came around to liking it on a second viewing. There are way too many swear words with Marlon Wayans the chief offender. The film doesn't come close to the 1955 classic but remains enjoyable thanks to the quirky cast of characters. Tom Hanks hams it up with an amusing southern accent. Irma P Hall is good but I found her strong character weakened the film somewhat. J.K. Simmons and Tzi Ma engage in some basic but funny comic routines. The film has lots of pleasing choir music. The ending is good and you will leave the film with a smile on your face.Overall <more>
Not an adequate remake, but rather a reinterpretation (by fuzzy_wunz)
Certainly, the Cohens have enough decency to know when a task should be left undone, and when that task is the re-creation and improvement of a comedy classic,they know better than to regurgitate old gags infused with modern flair, or do they? I will admit that I did enjoy this novel retelling of the Mackendrick classic. I enjoyed Hank's brilliant, earnest, and flawless delivery. I also enjoyed Irma P. Hall's sincerity. I enjoyed the score, the locale, the warm-lazy essence of Mississippi, and the mythological progression of events that is so common in the Cohens' films. Most of <more>
all, I enjoyed the charm of this film more-so than its predecessor.Of course, in deference, the originators deserve their due praise, but this is certainly no simple remake--it's a retelling. Retellings don't need to improve, dazzle, or impress by comparison--they simply are what they are, and this was enjoyable.
Remake? Mainstream? So what - it is a great fun: (by Galina_movie_fan)
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 <more>
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.
A Coen Brothers comeback but still a little off (by unbend_5440)
I have to say that The Ladykillers is the first time I've really enjoyed a Coen Brothers movie since Fargo. I found that with their last few movies, it was mostly focused on quirky characters and unusually amusing circumstances. That is of course what the Coen's do best, but for a while now they've lost focus on stories. That was the big problem with Intolerable Cruelty. And while I do say that this is the first time I've really enjoyed one of their movies since Fargo, I still think Ladykillers came up short in a lot of ways. The script and their direction puts them back on <more>
track, yet I wonder if the Coen's will ever capture the brilliance they displayed so well in Fargo and Raising Arizona.Tom Hanks does give one of his most interesting performances ever. I would say that no other actor could have pulled off something this different, but honestly, I don't know how Tom Hanks even pulled it off. He's so eccentric and complicated. Hanks took a fantastically scripted character and injected an excessive amount of personality into it. The Coen's have a gift for writing the smartest and most original dialogue. If Hanks does get an Oscar nomination for this, and he probably should, the Coen's will be just as much responsible for it. This movie could be the one character speaking for 2 hours straight, and it would never lose my attention. Even with the most intelligent and complicated dialogue using the biggest words in the dictionary, I never lost focus on what he was saying. That's the thing I really appreciate about The Ladykillers. Even when he was spouting off speeches and I had no idea what was being said, I still was able to follow the story and appreciate the performance by Hanks. This brings me to the big complaint I have with The Ladykillers.Marlon Wayans almost ruins this movie. In fact, it's his fault that I'm even writing a complaint in this review. While I was able to follow Tom Hanks no matter how intelligent or complex his dialogue got, I spaced out whenever Marlon Wayans would be speaking. It's kind of sad that I could pay attention to Hanks when his dialogue was overly intelligent, and when Marlon Wayans would start ranting in childish profanity, I would space right out. For a movie that seems to pride itself on how mature and intelligent it is, it throws all dignity out the window when Marlon Wayans is on screen. He doesn't have one intelligent thing to say. His language is very inappropriate as well. I'm not saying that I find the words he's saying to be inappropriate. The problem is the wild contrast between the smart and witty screenplay, and the childish shock language Wayans uses. The two styles do not fit together. This movie and the Coen Brothers are above the dumb Scary Movie name calling that is way too prominent in this film. I also really doubt that the Coen's wrote Wayans dialogue. I have a terrible feeling that they cast Marlon Wayans and told him to just improvise and be funny. If that is the case, I give the Coen's more credit as writers, but I subtract a lot of credit for their competence as Directors. They must know that Wayans didn't belong in this movie.Just as much as Tom Hanks deserves an Oscar for his role, so does Irma Hall. Even when the eccentricities of the story become a little unrealistic, she always grounds it back in reality. Lots of these performances are a slightly exaggerated, perhaps even parodies, but Irma Hall is authentic and believable at all times. She sounds like she's making up a lot of her dialogue on the spot. This is a great performance. I also loved JK Simmons. But my second complaint revolves around his character. The Irritable Bowel Syndrome stuff??? That was completely unnecessary. And like Marlon Wayans, it drags the level of class that the Coen's have down to a childish gross-out level. This movie needed to be mature and funny all the way through. It lost me when it lost it's maturity. But I do have to say that one of JK Simmons best moments was when he described his Irritable Bowels Singles Groups. That was funny, but the character quirk was not. Ryan Hurst and Tzi Ma were maybe the funniest ones in the cast, and they have very little to say. Ryan Hurst is doing a bit of a takeoff on the cartoon-like dummies. He's big and strong and burly, but has no brains in his head and often blanks out. Tzi Ma will speak maybe once every 30 minutes, but when he does, I would always crack up.The climax is very creative and hilarious. Minus the Marlon Wayans flashback, which also didn't fit right. The ongoing garbage barge bit got funnier each time. It felt very refreshing to sit in a theatre and laugh at a smart adult oriented comedy, instead of the overly repetitive childish foul gross out jokes....... which........ This movie also has . Mostly good, though.