Well-acted but totally overrated

Rating: Null/10 (2 December 2001)

Let me see if I understand this. Fargo won the Academy Award for best screenplay written directly for the screen? Astounding. Another nominee that year, Jerry Maguire, was more deserving (not to mention a better film overall). Yes, Frances McDormand and William H. Macy acted well. But the story was empty and transparent, the motivation questionable, and the outcome not entirely resolved. Why did William Macy's character need cash in the first place and what was so important that he would consider extorting his father-in-law's money at his wife's expense? What about Macy's character's son? What happened to him? And what about the money buried in the snow? Didn't anyone check his father-in-law's bank accounts to see that a million dollars was missing not merely 80 grand? What about his lawyer? Did I miss something here?? And what was up with that old high school chum of Frances McDormand's character, Mike Yanagita, and his contrived story? What was the point of this? And why would her artist husband (who only seems to eat rather than work or paint) not be a bit concerned that his seven-month-pregnant wife went to investigate cold-blooded murders? I definitely must have missed a lot of things here... At least her point that money isn't worth the violence perpetrated was on the mark... and this was better than "A Simple Plan" (1998), but otherwise there's not much left to say about this film. Well, if you're easily amused by overly-exaggerated Scandinavian / Minnesotan / North Dakotan accents, then see this film. If you enjoy dark humor with sudden bursts of homicidal violence then see this film... Otherwise, don't be misled by the Academy's misguided choice in 1996. Overall, a darned-tootin' 7/10.