User reviews

I recently purchased "Barton Fink" along with "Miller's Crossinhg", another Coen Brothers gem.

Barton Fink quite simply is a writer who cannot see the forest for the trees. He is so taken with the fact that he is a writer that he can't write. He is so idealistic that he misses fantastic opportunities to become a writer for the ages because he wastes precious time proselytizing. John Goodman perfectly sums up everyone's frustration with Barton Fink when after a series of unfortunate occurrences, Barton asks him "Why me?" to which John's character answers "Because you don't LISTEN!" Set in 1930s Hollywood we follow the exploits of a one-hit wonder, Barton Fink, who has written a successful Broadway play and is summoned by the powers that be to Hollywood. After much cajoling to take the job from his agent, Barton arrives in Los Angeles determined to become the writer for the common man where he insists true stories live. The trouble with Barton, however, is he does not have time for the common man because he has so romanticized their lot as well as his particular quest in speaking for them.

Excellent performances from John Turturo, John Goodman, Judy Davis, John Polito (often overlooked, but his scenes ALWAYS become his!!) and the inimitable Tony Shaloub.

I have decided after a slew of Coen Brothers films I currently have in my collection, that any project these guys are involved with deserve more than passing scrutiny.

I'm still not entirely sure what to think of this film. One thing is sure, it won't be easy to forget. This movie is clearly the product of a writer who has struggled with their muse, and equally one who has a healthy mistrust of Hollywood - the sausage grinder. Although Hollywood has been critiqued in film before in similar ways, memorable scenes, clever dialogue, quality acting, and a surreal plot and setting, add together to make this an unusual and different film. Maybe another viewing might add a different dimension. This is by no means 'light entertainment' and it leaves plenty of questions unanswered. But on the whole, an intelligent movie, if something of an enigma. My vote 7/10

Watched the film, understood 60% of it. Went to read its reviews after, understood 75% of it. Now i have to watch it again from another angle to completely get it. This is what the Coen brothers make you do.

I am absolutely amazed at the fantastic taste of the imdb readership, having loved this film for years and always been told by people I'd told about it and persuaded to watch that it was no good, I finally find some other people out there who love it as much as me, posting (mostly) extremely positive comments...This is a fabulous film, dripping with a brooding, sticky atmosphere that draws you in to the clammy world of Barton Fink, sat in his hotel room listening to the creaking of the wallpaper as it dribbles moistly from the walls, searching for inspiration in his tacky painting and dusty typewriter...Perhaps it is a little dark for some tastes, but as black comedy goes this is the blackest and the most biting there is, the Hollywood system and New York theatrical snobbery lampooned with equal viciousness. Deep insight into the nature of the creative spirit, a plethora of fine performances bringing at first stereotypical characters to full life (despite the unreal, fable-like atmosphere created by the slimy, glistening colours reminiscent of the films of Jeunet&Caro...), and many moments of hilarity make this a perfect movie, one I would not hesitate in recommending to anyone despite the fairly high probability they will hate it. A lack of any underlying morality, an absence of absolutes of right and wrong, good and bad, give this film a unique feeling that it could go anywhere. The last twenty minutes are about the most powerful I have ever seen in anything, at the end of almost every scene I thought it could end there and be an amazing film, yet each further scene only added further depth and poignancy. The first time I saw it, it left me drained, mind spinning, hands shaking, barely able to reach for the remote to rewind it to watch it again...

This is a satire which really eviscerates its main character, nebbish Barton Fink, a semi-successful, very Jewish New York playwright who comes to Hollywood to make his dreams come true, which in his case is definately not writing the next Wallace Beery wrestling picture. There are just too many funny things in this movie to mention them all, so I won't mention any. But this is a movie that is going to stand up to the test of time; it may be the Coen brothers' best movie, because it is both dead funny and dead serious.

Turturro gives the performance of a lifetime as Barton, and Goodman proved with this movie that he was a first class acting talent (what made the Coens think of him in this role, anyway? surely a mark of genius). Davis also shows herself off extremely well, in one of this underrated actresses finest roles.

There is, simply put, no better satire of Hollywood, and none that I can think of that so successfully manages to also spoof the pretentions of those who despise it.

The Coen brothers have come a long way from their start with an 8mm camera. They have written and produced some great homages to the film noir era of Hollywood, and this film is no exception.

First, is the great dialog written by the brothers. Great dialog is a feature of their films, and this one has some of the most memorable I have heard. You can almost turn off the visual and just listen and be enchanted and know you are listening to a Coen brothers film.

But turning off the visual would deprive you of the great cinematography of Roger Deakins. His can frame a scene to the point that you could pause the film and just soak in the texture and color and realism. It is almost as if every frame is a painting.

The Coen brothers also seem to get the best performances out of an actor that I have seen. John Goodman is brilliant in this film and he seems to do his best work for the Coens. John Turturro is captivating as the hack writer who talks about his love for the common man, but just really doesn't know the common man and really doesn't care about them. Michael Lerner was brilliant as the requisite man behind the desk that is the feature of 40's noir.

One doesn't always know what is in the Coen brothers minds. Is this a foretelling of the rise of Nazism, of intellectuals who really didn't understand the appeal of fascism to the common man, or a surreal portrait of someone who sells out. No matter what their intention, they make you think and return to see their films again and again.

This is a movie with very good actors, interesting characters and some good dialogues, but it's a bit overrated and it's far from a masterpiece. The plot is very slow at the beginning and it doesn't seem to get anywhere during the first half. The second half is a bit of a mess. The plot does become interesting for a little while as unexpected things start to happen and it makes the viewer wonder where it's going and what's going to happen next. But in the end the new plot turns pointless as it doesn't really add anything and the ending is just disappointing. There's no character development whatsoever and there is no good tale to tell. So why tell it?

Some individual scenes in 'Barton Fink (1991)' are great, emphasising the Coen's philosophy that the scene takes precedent over the story, and there's a chunk just after the halfway point where things really pick up steam and a proper 'plot' seems to be getting underway - until the film just ends without any real satisfying resolution, that is. For most of the run-time, though, this off-kilter 'comedy'-drama lacks drive and instead meanders around through ponderously aloof satirical sequences in which the protagonist pretentiously proposes that his writing must come from a source of pain and how that's more important than critical acclaim or audience acceptance. It's frustrating that there seems to be some hints of a sub-layer to the narrative, indications that perhaps something supernatural is going on beneath the surface or that we're going to get a big 'reveal' in the third act that makes sense of some of the stranger moments (or at least cements the necessity of their inclusion), but though there is a 'twist' of sorts that slips a slice of sinister into the otherwise lukewarm narrative, these hints and this plot point peel away to surmount to nothing and, as such, seem like hollow inclusions only added to infuse a false sense of depth to a hopelessly shallow narrative. This seemingly indicates that the Coens themselves fell victim to the writer's block that consistently aisles their bespectacled creation. 6/10

This is probably one of the most hermetic, personal and autobiographical films that the Coen Brothers have ever presented. Many people find it boring. I understand and I can even agree but I also believe that I understand, at least in part, what the directors wanted to tell us.

There is a lot of common between the Coen's and Barton Fink, an idealistic intellectual Jew who idolizes ordinary people and, therefore, cannot see how stupid they are (the Coen's can). Suddenly, Fink is hired to write the script for a mediocre B movie about pugilism. The kind of movie ordinary people pay to see even today. Of course the script, by an intellectual full of ideals, would never be useful in these kind of film because Fink didn't know how to adapt himself to the task. He is far above ordinary men to realize what they want to see and that is why he would never please them. This is not just with Fink: today, the majority of people don't like theatre or art because it has become too elitist and intellectual to appeal the masses (taking theatre and the arts as an example, we can still think of classical music or even cinema).

From this point of view, this film is deeply intelligent: it starts out as a very intellectual and hermetic film which will make the most idiotic audience flee from the theater and, then, it gradually becomes more "normal" through action and violence. Even so, it always contains some intellectuality, through elements and moments that the film never bother to explain (the importance and content of the box that Fink receives near the end, for example, a thing that left me confused and curious). Its as if the film, even making an effort to adapt itself, never ceased to be what it really is. In the midst of it all, I enjoyed the work of Turturro, which gave life to the protagonist. He knew how to make his character naive and dreamy. Fink sometimes seems so oblivious to the world around him that he seems to be stoned. What counts for him is the world he has inside his head. Very interesting, but difficult to swallow for commercial audiences.

No-one makes films like the Coen brothers and Barton Fink is a film like no other. Like all their movies it can be watched over and over and each viewing is as rewarding as the last. It's basically a film about writer's block (it was written when the Brothers Coen were struggling with 'Miller's Crossing',in the midst of their own block) and how lonely the "life of the mind" is. But the message here is that a writer must do everything he can not to be isolated from his fellow man. Barton is trying to write a screenplay for the common man but won't even listen when one such common man (his neighbor in the Hotel Earl, played by John Goodman) tries to tell him stories. He's too interested in spouting clichés about the nobility of the art of writing and the great service he is providing in his works. From the above Barton Fink may sound a little dry but it is anything but and as is customary in Joel and Ethan's films, the narrative never goes where you think it will. If you see Barton Fink for anything though, it should be for the characters, because they are incredibly well written and acted.

The Coen-movie I liked best was "Raising Arizona". But being realisic, I know that "Miller's Crossing" and "Barton Fink" were better. There is so much inside and behind this movie, it's impossible to refer to every single detail. John Turturro has never given a better performance than here, as arrogant, too ambitious author Barton Fink. John Goodman also plays his role for a lifetime. And of course, Michael Lerner was nominated for an Academy Award. The reason why he still is no star is that he didn't act in any other Coen-brothers-movie. It's a fact that with their direction actors reach their climax.

Some of my friends who saw this film disliked it because they didn't understand the plot. Well, this is not a movie for people who need instructions how to handle a film. You have to think, to guess what all the symbols mean, what the ending means. Whatever you'll guess it can't be completely wrong because a real masterpiece like this offers many possibilities for interpretation.

"Barton Fink" is, in my opinion, probably the Coen brothers' weirdest movie ever. Portraying the playwright title character (John Turturro) getting called to LA in 1941 to write a movie script and experiencing several strange things while suffering writer's block, they let out all the stops here. I should identify that although we usually expect unusual things from the Coen brothers, this is beyond bizarre. Of course, it is very likely that they're just showing how hellish Hollywood is (how many movies have shown that?). But that bug, plus Charlie Meadows (John Goodman), plus the picture on the wall - and of course the end scene - all add up to something really far out. What does it all add up to? I don't know, but the movie is worth seeing. Just be forewarned, this is not really an "easy" movie (well duh, it's a Coen brothers movie). Also starring Michael Lerner, Judy Davis, John Mahoney, Steve Buscemi and Tony Shalhoub.

I knew I was entering the world of the insane when I picked this up. I wasn't disappointed. This is a dark comedy where people don't talk to each other, they just talk. Barton Fink is a big phony one hit wonder. He has these high ideals which he really doesn't understand. He's unable to see the forest for the trees. When he meets John Goodman's character, Charlie, he has an opportunity to find his muse, but he doesn't even listen. When he does, it's too late. The events of this film are wonderful, from Barton's speeches and his block. To Mayhew, the ersatz Faulkner, who drinks constantly and screeches. Barton Fink is so unlikeable that we don't even care what happens to him in other than a casual way. Goodman steals every scene he is in and ends up so much more that originally thought. This is a movie about taking everything to a higher pitch. It's about the artist and the dilettante. It's about the movies being a purely commercial enterprise. Wallace Beery is the king of the screen. It's a wrestling movie. For God's sake, they're asking for so little. Barton Fink is a whiny loser and he pays the price. The Coens are, without a doubt, the most refreshing thing of the last two decades.

Ahh…I am really not sure what I think of this movie. I mean, I could tell it was good – I have seen enough films to be able to make the distinction. The performances were spot on, with Turturro and Goodman excelling. It all looked very pretty and very characterful and all that sort of thing but I always seem to feel with Coen brothers films – what's the point? As with Fargo, I found the quirks of the characters interesting and watchable, but not very engaging. It was difficult to care who was doing what and why. There always seems to be a certain distance, which I felt in this and Fargo and Hudsucker, where the cleverness of the set ups kind of distances the audiences – the sort of problem that Barton faced whenever he held forth on his ideals. Maybe Barton Fink is a self-fulfilling prophecy?

While many of us know "Fargo" and "Big Lebowski", many fans still haven't heard of "Barton Fink", which is too bad. This is probably John Turturro's best role (and his least weird). Tony Shalhoub also gives an outstanding performance (at least as good as he was in "The Siege").

John Goodman? Heck, even he is pretty good here and I'm not a big fan of his (though the Coen Brothers do him justice like no others can). His portrayal of the questionable neighbor just really suits him.

There is supposed to be deep symbolism in this film -- some say it's an allegory for the rise of Nazism (and I can see that), while others say it's just a critique of Hollywood. I don't know. But, you know what? No matter what it's about, it's beautiful in a nihilistic way... and you will want to know: what's in the box? And I'm not going to tell you.

First it should be noted that this is not so much a comedy as a comedy/drama. The comedy parts are indeed funny, but there aren't that many of them. The drama parts are desperately slow and dull, but the entire movie is absolutely rife with metaphor and symbolic meaning. Also, the acting performances are fantastic.

So if you're the kind of person who likes to think about every possible idea the filmmakers could have been intending to communicate in every scene, then you'll have a great time with this movie, but if you prefer a story that moves from plot point to plot point at a reasonable pace, then you might find this very hard to sit through.

Personally, I felt the filmmakers were trying to beat me over the head with symbolism, metaphor, and atmosphere to try to make a point that most people already agree with.