In retrospect, a very mean and insensitive film

Rating: 2/10 (8 February 2005)

When I first saw this movie, it had been advertised as a "black comedy." As a result, numerous people in the audience giggled and laughed at various scenes, some of which, were not intended to be funny at all. I enjoyed the film alright, largely due to the wonderful performances of Steve Buscemi and Kenneth Macy. I have to admit, that I did snicker at some scenes. HOWEVER, after recently viewing this film, I have done a complete 180. This is an ugly film and very mean spirited. Oh yeah, I know that the Coens issue a disclaimer about how they were not changing the story, out of respect to the dead, BULL! Excuse me if I am wrong, but the real events having to do with this case involved numerous people being killed? So, why so much emphasis on making fun of the way people in Minnesota talk? In the story, a boy is told his mother has been kidnapped by unknown assailants. So why does the scene close with a close up shot of the "Accordion King" poster, which is completely ridiculous? Did the Coens actually see that poster in the boy's house? Or did they just want to keep cracking little jokes? While the police chief is supposed to be investigating the killings, she goes off to have this lunch with a comedic Asian character. Funny scene? You bet. But you know what, that whole scene was completely made up, did not happen. So why, are we getting more comedy thrown into this story? Did the Coens not say that the events in this movie were all true? And this is what bothers me. None of the humor in this film actually involves the specifics of this case. The humor is all added to mock a very real and tragic series of events. Hey, if you want to produce fiction, fine. But don't claim your story is non-fiction and then tack on fictitious comedic scenes. Great performances or not, this is an ugly and insensitive film.