komradekontroll

I'm not going to write a long lengthy review, just going to help people understand what makes a horror comedy, a horror comedy. It's unfortunate that the movie is listed solely as horror, since it's clear that it's in service of the comedy...

A horror comedy can't be both genres. That's how you end up with tonally confused snore fests like M. Night's "The Visit". Typically, a horror comedy is just a comedy, using horror elements or cliches to drive the comedy. I bet most people wouldn't consider Shaun of the Dead to be a horror movie, would they?

I'm sure the marketing for this movie went all in on it being a horror movie, and that's too bad. Expectations were probably much different for what they got. All I can say is maybe give it another chance. I'm not going to say lower your expectations, cause I think the movie exceeds them, but I will say you should have an understanding that this isn't a horror film.

The Coen brothers have hit it big in the past with a seemingly boring, slow plot in movies like No Country for Old Men. They've shown us that they can do westerns, comedies, dramas, and movies with fantastical elements.

All of these things are present in Scruggs, but the overall package fails to achieve what the Coen Bros have done in the past.

However, Scruggs manages to have a few short stories that are very good. The title story in question to start was very tongue in cheek, fast paced, fun, and lighthearted. The fourth wall breaking was even done just the right amount. The problem is that this level of effort doesn't seem to carry over until the fourth story with the prospector.

The dark humor is present in every story, but some are better than others at winking to the audience. This can create a feeling of tonal inconsistency.

By the second story the movie has already turned away from the lighthearted nature of Scruggs and has focused more on irony. It does well enough, and the "panshot" character brings some needed levity.

The third story seems fairly divisive. Some see it as the slice of dark comedy that it is, while others simply see it as depressing. Well, it's both. The biggest issue is the sheer lack of winking to the audience. The lighthearted nature of the movie is now gone and the comedy is told through very subtly placed shots. No doubt it is very depressing though.

After the story of the curator I was convinced that the tone wouldn't shift back at all, but then Tom Waits appeared on my screen. Waits has consistently shown how terrific of an actor he is, and this might be my favorite performance of his. This segment is beautifully shot and the story very simple. Waits' performance packs enough raw and real humor to make his gold obsession seem hilarious. The twist towards the end does a great job of displaying how harsh the world was then, while adding a fat layer of dark humor to it.

Honestly after the fourth segment I would suggest turning the movie off. The next two segments are as well shot, as well acted, and as well executed as the rest, but they (mainly the fifth segment) are really trying your patience. You could watch them if you're curious, or at least skip number five, but that's the beauty of an anthology movie, you don't have to watch the whole thing. There's some dark humor to be had, but make no mistake that the incredibly dry tone, reserved performances, and overall length of the fifth segment make it a drag, and naturally, ends on a low note that doesn't feel earned.

If you made it to the end you'll be greeted with a shorter story set in one location with dialogue that is rather mundane, though the performances themselves are at least a little witty. It's a pretty weak way to end the movie and it's why I say shut it off after the Tom Waits segment.

Scruggs was really enjoyable at its best, and mediocre or boring at its worst. Recommended for the first four segments, but after that, click off.