A movie that has funny moments, but overall not a funny movie.

Dragged along too slowly, made semi-fun jokes and for someone who isn't into gospel, the musical scenes were WAY too long.

I used to be of the school that even a bad Cohen Bros. movie is better than most other movies. This is becoming less true with each release.

Too much profanity. I gave up watching it because of the cussing. My husband liked it and thought it was funny in places. I was disappointed because I do like Tom Hanks and expected more.

Horrible..simply bad! it had some little funny parts, thats why i gave it a 1. but i wouldnt waste my money seeing.

What a lame film. The plot seemed so disjointed at the beginning that I thought the DVD was corrupted and had switched to a different film! The characters are weak, the inclusion of the foul mouthed cleaner seemed totally out of place and added nothing. With parts of the film seemed set in the 30s and other parts in present day made it a confusing mix. Became slightly amusing at the end. One of the worst films I have seen.… Expand

One word could describe it best, but I'll use two..."REALLY BAD." Even if I wasn't familiar with the original 1955 version I would be utterly disappointed and even more disappointed if I wasn't a Coen Bros. fan, but the thing is...I AM a fan of the Alec Guiness film and I do like the Coen Bros, which made my experience all the more excruciating. Tom Hanks did such an amazing role with Road to Perdition and just when I though he was back on top he goes and does a Spielberg film and then ruins a classic! This is just unforgivable! What bothered me the most was that the script went all out to be R-rated, which never works well for a screwball or a dark comedy that is relying on style and brains. Instead we are left with a movie that has the F and N word being shouted out in the most inappropriate and undermining ways. After Intolerable Cruelty and this mess I am wondering if the Coen Bros. have gone completely mad. … Expand

This movie was unsatisfying. The first half was boring and disconnected. The last half had a better pace, but felt like disjointed vignettes. The gospel music was energetic, but not relevant to the movie. The only times I laughed were when I found myself thinking how sorry Tom Hanks must be that he got involved in this disappointing move.

In all reviews I've read thus far of Ladykillers, I've noticed two distinct discussions (or almost two different reviews): the merits of Tom Hanks' performance, and the rest of the film. This is fair, because these points are two different things altogether. Firstly, Hank's performance. I personally loved it, and wished desperately that the Coen Brothers had spent as much time with the rest of the film as they did with his dialogue. Others detested Hanks, but I feel that unfair, and perhaps their reactions are due to the combination of a radical departure for him, and a movie surrounding his performance that drags him down with it. And the rest of the film. Either the Coen's desperately hope to garner more box office by dumbing down and dirtying up the comedy, or they just didn't know what else to do (again, perhaps they put to much energy into Hank's character.) Did we need the irritable bowel humor? Or Gawain's love of booty plotline? Or rather, if, as the Coen's insist by having them there, they are so critical to the plot, why not deal with them with the level of class Hanks and Hall show? Sadly, bad parts of a film can snowball together and make everything else in the film seem equally tarnished by comparison, and that's a shame. I could see Hank's performance in another (wittier, classier) film, without anyone having single complaint. … Expand

I'm used to automatically seeing anything associated with the Coen Brothers. The previews for The Ladykillers made it look like a charming, Southern US, caper film. Sure enough, there were plenty of grey-haired folks in the theatre. I can't imagine they expected the constant MF swearing from one of the chracters. This is a remake of the 1955 hit UK film of the same name starring Peter Sellers and Alec Guiness. The new version relies on repetitive gag humour and the clash between a conservative Christian woman and a foul-mouthed, "hippity-hop" criminal, to get most of its laughs. Some of the other supporting cast members are nothing but dumb cliches (big, dumb jock, quiet, sly Communist Chinese General, etc.) Tom Hanks plays the role of ring leader as if he were a cartoon character. There's really no intrigue or really good humour in this obvious Coen Brothers sellout. Not a must-see film. by Triniman… Expand

Just terrible - after the letdowns that were O Brother Where Art Thou? (muggingly average at best), The Man Who Wasn't There (meh) and Intolerable Cruelty (absolutely mediocre); The Ladykillers (their worst comedy since The Hudsucker Proxy), finally erases my hopes of the Coen ever making a half-decent picture (i.e. Lebowski) in the near future to a sliver. Feels about as disdainful for genuine (re: non-arch) wit and charm as your average Hollywood rom-com, or an Adam Sandler movie. Most tolerable actor on display is Irma P. Hall (not saying much). As for Col. Sanders....er, Hanks, he turns in one of the lousiest caricaturish performances I've seen in a while, and in a *Coen* movie to boot (now that's saying a lot). Avoid. … Expand

Very odd and disjointed. it had some laffs, but i agree with roger ebert that a) the janitor's "potty-mouth" was out of synch with the rest of the movie and b) that the 'bob jones' sub-plot was wrong in that bob jones u is known for its racial discrimination. also, altho i love tom hanks, his professorial speech was hard to follow at times. it got a '3' mainly for the few laffs it provided in the last act. i was actaully ready to walk out after about 20 min (I was starting to nod off). my fiance and myself talked with a few folks after the movie and they seemed to share the same opinion (some for different reasons). nobody seemed to really like it. it also seemed to be an older crowd (target audience?). … Expand

I agree with one of the other reviewers: I was overwhelmed by how racist this movie was - is this possible? is what I was thinking - and am shoked that this element of the movie isn't receiving more attention. While one might say that the stereotypes are leveled with an even hand, one need only observe the SPECIFIC CHARACTER of these stereotypes to find that they are particularly insulting when it comes to blacks. While the "professor" might be ridiculed for some critical and fatal blindness despite his intelligence, there is no black character in this movie who has a clue about anything, least of all issues relating to their own identities as African-Americans. Marlon Wayans's character, in addition to being universally rude, irresponsible, and incompetent, is apparently entirely ignorant of the civil rights movement and moreover could care less (this is how all 20 something black men who listen to hip hop and wear long hair and work as janitors are, right? - remember stereotypes are based on a perception of an element of reality). The mark (Marva Munson) is so oblivious that she's going to give all the money she gets at the end to Bob Jones University, not to mention being just unbelievably and, nevertheless, unhumously incapable of discerning anything about what is happening - and she's ridiculously bad at math of course (only a penny...). Tom Hanks at least has read some books and can orchestrate a plan, the vietnamese guy can tunnel (I don't find this stereotype particularly funny either) and the guy from Scranton can blow things up. What competence at anything does any black character have in this movie? The mark wins out in the end some might say, but she is a bumbling fool to the end, giving her money to Bob Jones, and so is duped throughout, as is even the black Sheriff. Church going black folk don't even know the word smote, or anything else much about the old testament: their preacher tells them - smote means slapped upside the head. Is that funny? The rest of the humor in the movie is just bad - the irritable bowl jokes and the dog suffocating to death and on and on. I was honestly second guessing whether this was actually a Coen brothers movie, but when the music kicked in, you knew it was. Also, the visuals were just amazing, the best part is the caricaturing because it was aesthetically pleasing: the larger than life gospel choir in a church seating maybe 100 for example. I want to give the Coen brothers credit, but I can't find any way their stereotyping came across to me as anything more than thinly veiled racism. See this movie to see what you think about it.… Expand

This is the most racist movie I have seen in years. Why is it that no critic mentioned this or was offended by it. Did everyone think it was funny?

Ahhhhhhhhhhh ...... A piece of trash. Hanks performance is an embarrassment. Not even a video rental on a slow night. Don't waste your money. If you want to see Ladykillers rent the original with Alec Guinness, it's brillant!

The movie isn't very good... there are some funny gags... tom hanks acts wonderfully... but overall-- real bad. racist, though? everyone in the film is a stereotype-- not just marlon wayans and irma hall. is a film that offers any negative portrayal of someone in a minority group Racist? i mean, the movie is crap-- the first coen brothers film yet that could aplty be called "crap." i'm just saying. … Expand

Sloppy, silly, and pointless. If the movie could attain the opposite of any of those attributes, it might still be good. It doesn't, and isn't.

As another critic noted about a different Coen brothers film, most of their movies seem to be based on an "inside joke" from one brother to the other, and if we as the audience "get" it, great. If not, then too bad. Well, I didn't "get" this movie at all. The only good thing I can say about it is that it wasn't as bad as "O Brother, Where Art Thou." Hanks' character is amusing for the first 15 minutes or so, then becomes grating and annoying. And I guess Marlon Wayans dropping the F-bomb every time he opened his mouth was supposed to be hilarious, but instead was insulting to the audience. I'm not sure if this film is racist, but I do know that it's bad. … Expand

For years when friends asked me for recommendations, the Coen Bros. were the first names from my lips. Now, I'm seriously worried. Really worried. "Intolerable Cruelty" was strike one. The Ladykillers is #2. Yes, they're still inventive and know their genres inside-out, but these last two have been a sad waste of talent.