dear fans of "the big lebowski"

[rone]

What the fuck, over?  This movie is not funny, it is not memorable, and it is not enjoyable.  It's a story that reads like it was written by some pinhead with ADD who heavily self-medicates with marijuana; a ridiculous amount of random things happened for no damn discernible reason or even a more than tenuous connection between them.  I am a charter member of the Jeff Bridges Fan Club and the way he was wasted was nearly criminal, and the same goes for Steve Buscemi.  The movie needed a lot less John Goodman and a lot more John Turturro.  It feels like some film student decided to ape the Coen brothers.  If i hadn't rented this movie for free with a coupon, i would feel totally ripped off.  Something about the movie made me dodge it when it came out, and all the years since, but i finally decided to fill in a gap in my Coen brothers movie track, and now i'm sorry.  I blame all of you jerks.

Oh, by the way, since it seems that "watch it again another 10-40 times and you'll get it" is a really popular suggestion, i have two words for you: Stockholm syndrome.

Comments

[sanspoof.livejournal.com]

That is very nearly exactly what I wanted to say. I do think it's worth watching, but it's a second- or third-time kind of thing for me.
I still don't love it as well as some of their other work, but I can see a lot more in there. See also (http://toddalcott.livejournal.com/19382.html).

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

"The Big Lebowski is a movie about how nothing means anything anymore."

Wow, i think i can safely stop reading. In a strange coincidence, yesterday someone compared people who liked this movie to people who like Seinfeld, another show whose fans proudly declaim its about-nothingness. What is this shit, pop nihilism? Is it like people who like comedians who are purposely not funny, like Chevy Chase and Norm McDonald and Chris Elliott? What the fucking fuck? What is wrong with you people?

[wisn.livejournal.com]

Seeing 'The Big Sleep' first is more or less mandatory, and it's probably even more existential than this one. 'Lebowski' might be easier to take if you see it as a story about the minor characters of somebody else's noir drama, where the minor characters accidentally take over the narrative and Philip Marlowe ends up irrelevant to his own screenplay.

I never though it had much to do with 'Seinfeld' and his kind at all. I was thinking Brecht, even if the movie lacks his high-art creds.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

So, basically, if Tom Stoppard was a pothead noir fan.

[sanspoof.livejournal.com]

Possibly!

Jeez, don't be throwing Seinfeld at me, though. That shit's not okay.

You know, I think the movie's quotability really hurts it on first view, as demonstrated in this thread somewhat, even though I think that's intentional. The way Jeff Bridges mindlessly repeats things is a template for fans. This makes me think that there's a little more tongue in the cheek than may be obvious.
I've never liked it as much as a lot of people do, but I do think it has some merit.

huh? what?

[venividi.livejournal.com]

I've seen all the versions of "The Big Sleep" and I'm not following this reasoning.

[mezdeathhead.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but the big difference between The Big Lebowski and Seinfeld, is that one of them stars Jerry Seinfeld and the other one can not be accused of such.

I have some friends that think this movie shits diamonds out of a platinum asshole. I like it, but I just like John Goodman no matter what, even when I'm wrong. Not the best Coen bros. movie.