The Ladykillers Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The greatest criminal minds of all time have finally met their match.
Winner takes all. Spring.
A remake of the 1955 comedy, the story revolves around a Southern professor who puts together a group of thieves to rob a casino. They rent a room in an old woman's house, but soon she discovers the plot and they must kill her, a task that is more difficult than it seems.
| Tom Hanks | Professor G.H. Dorr |
| Irma P. Hall | Marva Munson |
| Marlon Wayans | Gawain MacSam |
| J.K. Simmons | Garth Pancake |
| Tzi Ma | The General |
| Ryan Hurst | Lump Hudson |
| Diane Delano | Mountain Girl |
| George Wallace | Sheriff Wyner |
| John McConnell | Deputy Sheriff |
| Jason Weaver | Weemack Funthes |
| Stephen Root | Fernand Gudge |
| Lyne Odums | Rosalie Funthes |
| Walter K. Jordan | Elron |
| George Anthony Bell | Preacher |
| Greg Grunberg | TV Commercial Director |
| Ethan Coen |
6.20 out of 10 (29551 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Quite enjoyable but lacking few really good touches and it is certainly far from being a match for the Coen's best work or the original
posted on 30 Aug 2009Marva Munson is a religious woman in the Deep South who has a room to rent and a large character. She takes in the rather eccentric and rather charming gentleman Professor G.H. Dorr, who asks if he may use her basement for his musical ensemble to practice. However Dorr's real plan is to tunnel out of the basement and into the underground money store of a nearby casino.However, the plan doesn't go exactly to plan and the one thing Dorr hasn't accounted for is a little old lady discovering what's really going on.Having spent last Saturday afternoon in the company of the original (very good if not a classic) I decided to spend part of this Saturday in a cinema with the remake. The plot is pretty much the same as the original, with only the characters and the specifics of the job changing; in terms of concept, some plot details and even some scene set ups it hasn't changed that much and I quite enjoyed seeing elements I recognised. The film is quite fun on its own terms but it is not great and it becomes rather frustrating to not only compare it to the original but to also have in mind that this is a film from the Coen brothers. I say this because, aside from Dorr himself, the film lacked their usual assured wit and eye for character.Dorr is a fine character in the mould of the original but the rest of the characters are really lacking. How many Coen films have the characters been more important than anything else? Here we have characters with the usual 'things' about them, but here these 'things' are really lazy and obvious – like someone was trying to ape the Coens. So MacSam becomes a lazy 'mo-fo' talking black character, The General is a quiet, calm Oriental and Pancake's twist is that he has IBS – practically giving us fart jokes, in a Coen brothers movie!These secondary characters deliver very little whereas usually the Coens provide much to love in their support. The change to the character of the little old lady is a big mistake too – the whole idea is that the lady is not a match for the crooks but overcomes them by accident, here it is apparent from the start that Munson is more than a match for any of them! The cast are pretty mixed and pretty much do what they can with what they are given. For that reason Hanks is great and adds cream to the top of Guinness' performance in the original – he is funny and well worth watching but the film dips when he is offscreen. Hall is very good and it is not her fault that her character is misjudged; she works her facial expressions very well and I enjoyed her even if I longed for a role like the original had. Simmons tries hard but the IBS thing spoils what little he had, Hurst is just a lump (literally) and is annoying rather than funny, Ma is pretty funny because of how he acts but even the whole flip-cigarette-inside-mouth thing is an old joke. And then we come to Wayans. Wayans is not the sort of person I ever thought I'd see in a Coen brothers movie and he just does his usual 'mo-fo' ethnic stereotype thing here, he is annoying and his character just smacks of a complete lack of imagination.The soundtrack is full of good gospel stuff and it makes it feel a lot more lively than the original and this energy does help cover some of its failings – but not that well. Overall it is fun and it is worth a look, but if you have seen the original or like the Coens then you will struggle to see past its failings at times. The characters are not as well written as they could have been and it is not as funny as it needed to be (the original wasn't laugh out loud either, but then it had other strengths that this doesn't). It has just about enough going for it to be worth watching once but it is both a sub-par Coen brother's film and a sub-par version of a better film.
Tim Currie would have been better than Tom Hanks
posted on 28 Aug 2009A gem of a movie. The same idea as the original Ladykillers, but has been effectively transplanted from 1955 England to the 2000 southern United States. Visually interesting with lots of color. A diverse group of characters with many fun interactions among them. Even the minor characters are fun to watch - how about the young lady followed through the casino by Wayans/MacSam. Of course, the soundtrack and music are great. But Tom Hanks really didn't fit the role of the Professor, although he was probably needed to help the movie at the box office. Tim Currie would have been my choice. I also thought the changing expressions on the husband's picture over the fire place detracted from the movie. Fun to watch.
woke up just in time to leave theater
posted on 22 Aug 2009Worst movie Tom Hanks has ever been in . Just not funny . Good premise but the cast didn't pull it off . Would have been better had Tom not been in character when old lady not around . Only funny part of movie was provided by the cat... Cast seemed to be walking through the action with no emotion. Wish I had gotten up and left instead of suffering through this movie. Save your money , even when it comes on on video , which shouldn't be too long now.....
Too long
posted on 20 Aug 2009This film has all of the Coen brothers elements. It had great potential to be an awesome movie. Unfortunately, it falls short. It feels as if the film is much longer than 106 minutes. The film begins to drag in the middle. Tom Hanks is wonderful in this film however, even he can't save this film. There are some wonderful comic breaks. Erma (I believe that is how you spell the characters name) is without a doubt the best character in the film. She provides most of the laughs. Without giving anything away, the ending is quirky but somewhat predictable. It is a typical Coen ending. The film would have been much better if it were about 20 minutes shorter. 5/10 stars.
Cheap Gems
posted on 18 Aug 2009The Coens are so stylish. Or so mainstream viewers and critics now say. Blood Simple was not enjoyable, but Raising Arizona is one of the best comedies ever.But after that, despite more recognition, it's been basically downhill. The Coens fit in the cracks between one genre and another and no one comes away satisfied.Tom Hanks lends credulity to this strange makeover of the 1955 classic with Guinness, Lom, and Sellers, but no matter how good his voices, Hanks can't compensate for the transplant or the total lack of humour.The Coens like to make their humour subtle, but that can backfire, especially if the humour is so subtle as to be nonexistent. As in this case.It's nice to find one's expectations fulfilled or even better: surpassed. But this one does neither. It's fickle writing without purpose, and the end result is a product that falls flat.
It's a matter of taste, and many will not like 'The Ladykillers' by the Coen brothers.
posted on 23 Jul 2009'The Ladykillers' has a style similar to 'O Brother Where Art Thou'. Tom Hanks plays his character much like the Chinaman in the Nepalese bar in Indiana Jones, smiling and rapidly breathing as he talks, in very flowery prose. He finds a older single black lady who has a room to rent, but more importantly, a root cellar! The music team don't really practice in that root cellar, their plan is something much bigger. A very quirky movie, many will not appreciate, but I found it a thoroughly enjoyable, entertaining dark comedy. Tom Hanks is superb in a very different role for him. On DVD, a loan from my local public library.SPOILERS FOLLOW, do not read if you haven't seen the movie yet. Really!!There is a floating gambling casino down at the river, but all the money is kept in a small, heavily guarded brick building on shore. The plan is for these 5 erstwhile musicians to pretend to be practicing in the root cellar, but in fact tunneling to the wall of the fortress. Each of the 5 has a specialty, and must execute his correctly for the team effort. Tunnel to the outer wall, steal the money, brick and plaster the hole for the inside, set off explosives to collapse the tunnel so that it cannot be traced to the house.Bad guys get killed here and there, and the disposition is always the same -- drop the body over the bridge railing as the garbage barge passes under. The heist is pulled, the $1.2Million is in the root cellar, but the old lady suspects something. They try to bribe her, but being an honest, church-going woman, will only agree to turning it in. However, in a series of funny missteps, each of the 5 crooks die, she is left with the money, goes to the local police with her story, they don't believe her, humor her by saying, "Why don't you just keep the money!"The DVD has a very interesting extra on Danny Ferrington of Louisiana, who made from scratch all the ancient instruments featured in the crooks' scam. He is a real life master string instrument maker, and has made guitars for many music professionals.
just another cookie-cutter movie
posted on 17 Jul 2009The movie is generic. Ive seen it all before. There are enough laughs throughout the movie to make it a comedy, but not enough to make it funny. Though, those of you with a fully developed vocabulary will find the movie much more amusing than the general public; a major design flaw considering the 'cookie-cutter-lets-just-put-a-big-name-in-a-generic-and-trite-movie' plan the movie was going for. Stupid people aren't going to get half the jokes but they'll love the plot, while the smarter people will understand the jokes but will probably walk out. The end is surprising, because your not thinking the movie will turn that direction [and by that direction I mean good) but it should have stopped about 10 minutes earlier. oh, and its no mind blowing ending either. All in all, its one of those movies that will come and go. You're really not missing anything by picking something else.
The Coens miss the joke
posted on 17 Jul 2009Sometimes it only takes a single mistake to destroy a movie. The joke in The Ladykillers is a very simple one: namely, that a sweet tiny little old lady who lives in a world of her own and who wouldn't hurt a fly not only thwarts a gang of criminals who want to kill her and ends up with their ill-gotten gains but does it without even knowing it. Unfortunately, the Coens just didn't seem to get it and make one disastrous change in their remake: Mrs Lopsidey is now a huge, loud, obnoxious, hateful and extremely violent black woman who you want dead on sight. Not only do the crooks never stand a chance, but within seconds of her first scene you have no desire to watch a minute more.Things improve slightly when Tom Hanks' loquacious decayed Southern gentleman appears, but he's fighting a losing battle with her spite and vindictiveness. They then compound the error by casting Marlon Wayans, whose ability to spout obscenities is almost miraculously untouched by the ability to make any of them remotely funny. Thus the stage is set for the Coen's worst movie, and one that alternates too few genuinely funny scenes – most involving J.K. Simmons and Tzi Ma's early scenes before the script run out of good ideas for them – with moments of pure torture (the less said about Ryan Hurst's painfully misfired performance as the dumb lummox of the gang the better). By the time the miscreants finally put their minds to lady killing, the Coens have long since run out of ammunition, making for a flat, unfunny and painfully unimaginative last half-hour.
Brilliant. This one matches -if not out stands- Big Lebowski
posted on 15 Jul 2009First, 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 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.
"Typically Coenesque and yet NOT Coenesque". (G.H. Dorr)
posted on 05 Jul 2009Very enjoyable for fans of the Coen brothers, certainly somewhat less so for moviegoers that don't follow the work of these mad geniuses.From the opening scene, with it's attention to set detail and the amusingly interesting camera work, fans will know that they they are not about to be disappointed.The cursing may be too much for those looking at this as a remake, but by today's standards, in my opinion, it's pretty tame.Pretty much a laugh out loud comedy, with an ending that our friends Joel and Ethan, wrap up in a way as only they can.At least a 7/10 for fans.
Disappointing
posted on 03 Jul 2009Having seen many of the Coen brothers films and seen practically everything that Tom Hanks has ever done, I was excited with anticipation in seeing the collaboration of this team. I was left disappointed and felt roped in to seeing a film that was OK at best. The movie starts out in a very disjointed way as the main characters are introduced to the audience with harsh edits between scenes. The audience is not given any explanation as to what they are seeing or why they are seeing it. It is only about 25 minutes into the film that Tom Hanks character (The Professor Dorr) actually introduces the members of his band (of criminals). The whole premise of this film is that a group of smalltime criminals sets up operations in an elderly black womans house to tunnel next door into the vaults of a small riverboat casino. The elderly womans character is the only character in the film which the audience connects with and can actually relate to. For the most part all of the criminals characters are drawn up very two dimensional including the character played by Tom Hanks. I have read some reviews stating that Tom looks like he had more fun doing this film than he has had since making Forrest Gump back in the mid nineties. Nevertheless, the Coen brothers fascination with morbid humor does show occasionally throughout the film as well as their decision to use period type folk music to enhance their soundtrack is typical of such films as Raising Arizona and O' brother where Art Thou? The comedic moments in this film contrary to the trailers I have seen are few and far between and I was left with a feeling of wanting more to make this film complete. Having never seen the original movie that this version is based on I can only suggest to the Coen brothers that they start writing their own material again as they seem to have a much better time at it when they come up with everything from scratch. I also felt that there was an excessive amount of profanity in this film that I cannot remember from other films the Coen brothers have made. Ultimately a disappointing film, lucky it was on discount night at the theater or I would feel more cheated than I already do. I won't even consider purchasing the DVD when it comes out!
Not an adequate remake, but rather a reinterpretation
posted on 15 Jun 2009Certainly, 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 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.
The undoing of a masterpiece
posted on 13 Jun 2009I had never heard of the American 'Coen Brothers' work previously, and I only chose to view this movie because of the original 'Ealing Studio's' classic masterpiece. So, I was looking forward to seeing this American version, and also how Tom Hanks would play the Alec Guiness role of the 'Professor'.But this remake was such a letdown, and a shadow of the work done by 'Ealing', why on earth did they choose to use of the 'F word' in the script I can not imagine, that was a turn off in itself, and which I would of done long before the end of the film, but for the fact that I had just paid £4.00 for it on ebay.I was however, pleasantly surprised with 'Hanks' performance, and his interpretation, the only criticism I have is that he did try a bit to hard to copy Alec Guiness, who 'Hanks' must have viewed the original '1955 Ealing comedy' countless times before deciding on his approach.'Hanks' was also let down by a very weak group of fellow actors, who had no idea on how to portray character acting roles. He must have known it was going to be a disaster, but the huge amounts of money soon change one's thinking! There are some films as in this case, that maybe should not be attempted at remake because of the embarrassment in the failure of trying to recapture something that is not possible.Yes!, this remake could have been better, but it would have taken more than just 'Tom Hanks' it also would have required high calibre production, direction, and all, which sadly this remake does not have.
Copycats
posted on 07 Jun 2009Why bother to fix perfection? The Coen brothers didn't take into consideration the fact they were messing around with a beloved classic of the English cinema that was the real thing.By placing the story in America's South, a territory that appears often in their films, would have seemed they had the right setting in their update. Well, the Coens, who are one of the most talented people in American films today, don't have a clue of how to make this version better. As far as this movie being fun, judging from the reaction on the screening I attended, it didn't arise any laughter at all.The best thing going for the film is Tom Hanks, as the oily, fake Professor G H Dorr, a man with a gift of glibness. The other reason is Irma P. Hall, as the landlady, Marva Munson. Ms Hall is an actress who tends to steal the show from under more established performers. Having seen her on stage, as well as other films, it is a rare treat whenever she graces anything with just her regal presence.
Swing and a miss by the Coen brothers
posted on 07 Jun 2009This is hands down the worst film that the Coen brothers have ever made. They need to take a year off and pool their creative genius, so they can give us another gem like O Brother, Raising Arizona or Miller's Crossing.In this film, the Coen brothers attempt to exploit America's ever growing fascination with ebonic speaking thugs. Never have the Coen brothers tried to appeal to the mass audience before, and I wonder why they are trying now.Tom Hanks' performance is cleverly eccentric, but becomes grating as time elapses. The typical Coen brothers characters, complete with a unique feel for dialogue, aren't found here. Marlon Wayans plays his typical loud obnoxious ignorant fool character, and Ryan Hurst was horrible as the Coens attempted to incorporate a blissfully ignorant character.Coen fans, soak in my words. AVOID THIS, YOU WILL BE UTTERLY DISAPPOINTED
Awesome Film
posted on 28 May 2009This is a great film. While a little strange at times, it is pretty funny most of the time, and even dramatic once in a while. All the performances are fantastic. Plot flows along very well. The cinematography is outstanding! I can't think of anything that stands out as flawed or imperfect. There hasn't been an overall package like this movie in a long while. Not enough good things can be said about this wonderful film. If you like "Forrest Gump", or "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", then you will like this film as well. Tom Hanks is at his best. If you are a fan of his, check this movie out. I highly recommend that everyone go and see this movie as soon as possible! Absolutely wonderful film.
could have been for a wider audience but ....
posted on 24 May 2009foul and unnecessary language did this film in for full family viewing. I wonder why such a wonderful and entertaining film featuring Tom Hanks felt it had to scoop so low with the typical 4 letters words which did not add anything (as if these words ever do)for a pretty good film. The story itself is very consistent with the characters sleepy little town on the mississippi river who have a very clever scheme of robbing the local gambling boat of at least 1.6 million dollars ... George Wallace (black comic not the ex governor of Alabama) did a real good job as the county sheriff as well as I have ever seen him before. See this film and judge for yourself whether having less foul language would had made any impact on the effectiveness of this movie or not.
A little different from Tom Hanks, but good never-the-less
posted on 16 May 2009Tom Hanks stars in this strange well-worded movie. Its, I think, a departure from his previous works. The movie is filled with minuscule details which takes a few viewings to truly appreciate. I thought it was just an "ok" movie the first time I watched it, but after seeing it a few more times realized that it was very good. The co-conspirators are very funny and each have something about them that adds to the movie's overall appeal. There is a lot of dialog in this movie and I will admit that I put the caption on a few times to see exactly what the characters (mainly Hanks character) was saying. I'd say, overall, very good movie.
Generally misbegotten remake, with foul language and cartoony characters...
posted on 12 May 2009Joel and Ethan Coen's remake of the 1955 British comedy starring Alec Guinness begins wonderfully, with righteous-living Irma P. Hall renting out her empty room to 'professor' Tom Hanks (with funny teeth and Southern drawl). But as soon as Hanks' motley team of casino-robbing cohorts come into the picture, the jokes get stuck in a boring rut, undermined by nasty talk, stereotyping, and hyped-up action. The old-fashioned trimmings (such as a lengthy sequence with Hall attending church, presided over by a flamboyant minister and gospel choir) do not jell with the low-ball humor permeating the majority of the film; and, while it's a great-looking movie with a handsome production design, it isn't particularly well-acted or convincing on its comedic terms. A misfire. *1/2 from ****
i thought it rocked
posted on 30 Aug 2009a lot of people have criticised this film for not having any meaning or point to it, no necessary reason for it being madeThis, however, was the aspect that I enjoyed most about it. This is one of those films that, if you are willing to accept the film as tongue-in-cheek rather than a serious work, then it is actually a very, very good film. Hanks I thought was brilliant in his role as the doctor, and Hall was awesome in her role as the old lady. The only slight disappointment in the whole film for me was Wayans' performance, as a slightly over-emphasized black youth whose every other word was f*ck.Overall, a very enjoyable film