Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Starring: George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Geoffery Rush, Billy Bob Thornton, Edward Herrmann, Richard Jenkins

Director: Joel & Ethan Coen

The Lowdown: A serial gold digger (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and a charming divorce lawyer (George Clooney) become entangled in this romantic comedy.

My Take: Every great artist has misstep and most even have a brief period of failed efforts. For instance Woody Allen had a terrific artistic period in the 70s and 80s only to later struggle with his latter career mostly being a rollercoaster as far as quality is concerned. Its to be expected that an artist will hit a rough spot and make a film lesser than their other films or even a film that's just plain terrible. Whether its because the artist has run out of creative juices or simply doesn't have their heart in a particular project that they're only participating in so they can buy a new house or fun a better project doesn't matter. It happens to even the greatest artists. However, just because its expected doesn't make those low points any less painful for fans.

That brings us to "Intolerable Cruelty", far and away the Coen Brothers' weakest film to date. "Intolerable Cruelty" is the first and to date only film the Coens have made based off of somebody elses idea. The brothers signed on to direct the project after another more personal project fell through. In other words, its not really a project that comes from the heart, and the Coen's lack of personal interest in the material shows throughout.

The credits insist that the brothers did some sort of revision to the script but as far as I can tell all they did was add a couple hints at their normal creative and darkly comic style to plant hope in the hearts of their fans that the film may eventually get on track. They were also probably instrumental in attracting the talents of George Clooney, Geoffery Rush, Billy Bob Thornton and others to assist in giving the audience even more hope that the film's clumsy beginnings will eventually give way to a film that's actually funny. However, this never occurs and we are instead left with an unfunny mess that reeks of laziness throughout.

The two lead performances from George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones feel half hearted at best. Clooney does bring some charm to his role but it feels phony and its a pathetic performance in comparison to his similar role as a cynical but vulenerable character in 2009's "Up in the Air". Catherine Zeta-Jones has similarly seen better days and that this was her first role after her Oscar winning turn in Chicago makes her absolute lack effort all the more confounding.

The supporting cast is similarly frustrating. Geoffery Rush is woefully underused and miscast as a character that appears in no more than three scenes (but somehow still receives third billing). After his character's first appearance Rush's character is so inconsequential that if one didn't know the actor they might assume it was three different characters. Billy Bob Thornton, who was spectacular as the lead in the Coens' then most recent film "The Man Who Wasn't There", is well cast but gives a lifeless performance that makes one feel that the actor didn't even want to be there. The most confounding bit of casting however is Cedric the Entertainer as a PI that works for Clooney's character periodically. The so called Entertainer takes what should have been a forgetable bit part and makes it the most annoying performance of the whole picture. Most frustrating is that all three characters more or less exist to help facilitate the film's worthless and eye roll inducing final scene.

There are also a number of odd but ultimately forgettable supporting characters that serve to more or less provide the audience with tantalizing possibilities that they may turn this into another Coen masterpiece. Unfortuanately, all hope of this happening is squashed just before the third act when Clooney's divorce lawyer character gives a speech about the importance of love and rejects his divorce lawyer profession at a national convention for divorce lawyers. The speech itself is not as cheesy as the fact that the ENTIRE AUDIENCE at the convention erupts with applause and cheering. Its this scene that is the point of no return and erases all hope that the film will ever become worthwhile. This is a scene that in another Coens' film may have been a dream sequence written so as to lampoon such a ludicrous scene.

Scenes like this abound with only a few feeling as though the Coens had any hand in them. However, even when there are scenes that feel Coenesque they are so mild, lazy and in one case down right implausible that it is impossible for me to derive any pleasure from them. Similarly, the cinematography by the usually great Roger Deakins is so mild and the score by their usual compose Carter Burwell is so grating that it seems both men felt as much indifference (or is it contempt?) for the material as the Coens themselves.

In Short: Due to the talent involved it should be so much more and because it remains the only bad Coen brothers' film one can only feel that this is a cruel prank the Coens decided to play on their fans. If they did indeed make revisions to the script they had to be small and are not readily apparent in a final product that reeks of an apathy and laziness that is similar to watching Mozart drunkenly and lazily compose elevator music. In other words, the result is disheartening and though we've been proven wrong and the brothers have created great films since I don't blame anybody that thought twice about seeing any of their new movies after watching this one.

3 out of 10