User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 79 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 38 out of 79
  2. Negative: 22 out of 79
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. RichardG.
    Apr 2, 2004
    7
    This movie just made the grade. Good watchable movie. Tom Hanks carried this movie, and it was poorly directed and casted in my opinion. The movie shifts gears way too quickly from sad to happy to fu.k this and fu.k that. and those parts seemed very forced and out of place. Anyway, good movie go see it.
  2. DanaMc.
    Apr 3, 2004
    7
    I must say I was mildly disappointed with this movie. I was expecting the usual Tom Hanks performance, and I think he did a good job with the script. Irma Hall stole the show in my opinion with her acting. The use of MF expletives by one of the characters was WAY overused considering the situation. I was wondering if it was possible to make it through any comedy without the usual body I must say I was mildly disappointed with this movie. I was expecting the usual Tom Hanks performance, and I think he did a good job with the script. Irma Hall stole the show in my opinion with her acting. The use of MF expletives by one of the characters was WAY overused considering the situation. I was wondering if it was possible to make it through any comedy without the usual body waste humor, but sure enough filmmakers feel it has to be included to satisfy those moviegoers who find it humorous. I feel it's worth seeing but don't expect oscar material. Expand
  3. LarryS.
    Mar 27, 2004
    2
    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!
  4. NeilS.
    Apr 19, 2004
    7
    How sad that people are finding racism where there is none. Do these characatures exist in real-life? Yes they do! Are stereotypes eploited for comedic ends? All the time! But in a knee-jerk rush to avoid being labelled racist themselves; people are pointing out these canards as they were in 'Lost in Translation'. Here's a clue for those that need it: Few filmmakers would How sad that people are finding racism where there is none. Do these characatures exist in real-life? Yes they do! Are stereotypes eploited for comedic ends? All the time! But in a knee-jerk rush to avoid being labelled racist themselves; people are pointing out these canards as they were in 'Lost in Translation'. Here's a clue for those that need it: Few filmmakers would devote an entire film to a given subject were they truly prejudiced in that regard (Leni Riefenstahl aside). The Wayans clan would have ripped them a new one were this real racist screed. Make no mistake, racism exists. Just not here. Have YOU hugged an Arab today? This was a delightful comdey throughout which I, and it seems my fellow audience members, laughed. The music was great, the acting fine, Hanks bearable, and apart from me waiting unsatisfyingly for J.K. Simmons to bend someone over and carve a swastika in their butt, I enjoyed this movie on every level. Someone else wrote how this was the 'worst Coen film since Hudsucker Proxy'. That clarifies the prejudices of the reviewer so aptly, in fact, I shall say no more. Collapse
  5. MikeL.
    Jul 14, 2004
    1
    Horrible..simply bad! it had some little funny parts, thats why i gave it a 1. but i wouldnt waste my money seeing.
  6. AMovieCritic
    Sep 27, 2004
    7
    I thought the movie was good. It had a lot of hilarious moments. Very entertaining. Unfortunately, it was a little on the slow side. Things take a while to pick up, and when they do, there are still a few dull moments. Still, definately recommended if you want an entertaining, unusual heist movie.
  7. Rico
    Sep 8, 2004
    3
    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.
  8. CoryC.
    Mar 28, 2004
    4
    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 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
  9. JoeyM.
    Mar 29, 2004
    9
    I watched this movie in a packed theatre that rolled with laughter from start to finish. Hanks is, suprisingly enough, a riot in this role - it is really nice to see him play a character outside of his normal "type." J.K Simmons (as Mr. Pancake) was a particular joy in the film - he is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. While I recognize that this movie might not be for everyone, I watched this movie in a packed theatre that rolled with laughter from start to finish. Hanks is, suprisingly enough, a riot in this role - it is really nice to see him play a character outside of his normal "type." J.K Simmons (as Mr. Pancake) was a particular joy in the film - he is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. While I recognize that this movie might not be for everyone, Coen Brothers fans will not be disappointed by this broad comedy about, well, the indifference of the universe. Expand
  10. LeeF.
    Apr 4, 2004
    3
    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 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
  11. JudithS.
    Apr 6, 2004
    3
    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?
  12. BillR.
    Apr 7, 2004
    2
    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 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
  13. JamesM.
    May 31, 2004
    2
    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. 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
  14. JedG.
    Jul 15, 2004
    8
    Very funny. Best comedy of the year so far.
  15. MWalker
    Sep 18, 2004
    0
    One of the most boring movies I've ever seen.
  16. ZackO.
    Sep 20, 2004
    7
    I thought this movie was hilarious. it had a wacky mix of characters, and their actions and dialogue between eachother is hilarious. however, there is an appauling amount of foul language, mostly from the mouth of marlan wayans. this took away some of the charm from the movie. this easily could have been a family friendly movie, or pg-13, but there is so much unneeded language in it that I thought this movie was hilarious. it had a wacky mix of characters, and their actions and dialogue between eachother is hilarious. however, there is an appauling amount of foul language, mostly from the mouth of marlan wayans. this took away some of the charm from the movie. this easily could have been a family friendly movie, or pg-13, but there is so much unneeded language in it that it is rated R. Expand
  17. MikeE.
    Sep 7, 2004
    4
    Dragged along too slowly, made semi-fun jokes and for someone who isn't into gospel, the musical scenes were WAY too long.
  18. MR
    Oct 1, 2004
    8
    It wasn't as good,witty,or funny as the original Alec Guinness Lady Killers, but I did get a few laughs out of the movie.
  19. SteveT
    Oct 2, 2004
    4
    A movie that has funny moments, but overall not a funny movie.
  20. Matt
    Oct 25, 2004
    9
    Working in a video-shop I see most new-releases and I think this has to be one of the better films of the year. I found it to be enticing and wholly charasmatic. The vague 1950s/2000s atmosphere which it inhibated bode perfectly and the direction was laden with good cinematography and, on the whole, witty and almost dark dialogue.
  21. NateG.
    Mar 25, 2004
    1
    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 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
  22. MattM.
    Mar 27, 2004
    8
    While I respect the scores of the other people who rated this, I really thought it was a very funny movie that survives even though the plot is thin. I really enjoyed it.
  23. Triniman
    Mar 28, 2004
    4
    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 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
  24. Phil
    Apr 11, 2004
    3
    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." 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
  25. MarkB.
    Apr 12, 2004
    7
    Is it top-notch Coen Brothers? Nope. Is it in the same league as the 1955 Alec Guinness gem? Absolutely not. But these days, you gotta take what you can get; it looks great, Hanks' villainous caricature is absolutely delicious (and it clearly looks like he had a wonderfully good time doing it); the underemployed character actress Irma P. Hall is a splendid match-and-point; J. K. Is it top-notch Coen Brothers? Nope. Is it in the same league as the 1955 Alec Guinness gem? Absolutely not. But these days, you gotta take what you can get; it looks great, Hanks' villainous caricature is absolutely delicious (and it clearly looks like he had a wonderfully good time doing it); the underemployed character actress Irma P. Hall is a splendid match-and-point; J. K. Simmons is hilarious as an explosives expert who, it turns out, isn't so much; the Coens honor the unbeatable structure of the original (while their additions, for the most part, work quite well, especially the coda involving Hall's cat), and it looks great. (Then again, maybe I'm just overly grateful that the Coens didn't bomb out twice in a row, following last year's laugh-free and very aptly named Intolerable Cruelty!) Expand
  26. PetrosK.
    Apr 21, 2004
    8
    Another bit of wonderful from the Coen brothers. Roger Deakins' lush cinematography and some great references to pop culture, along with a cartoon-esque cast helped to make this one of the most enjoyable films this year. I think that it stands up quite well next to the original, and every inch is filled with Coen Brothers goodness. For 90-or-so minutes of light-hearted entertainment, Another bit of wonderful from the Coen brothers. Roger Deakins' lush cinematography and some great references to pop culture, along with a cartoon-esque cast helped to make this one of the most enjoyable films this year. I think that it stands up quite well next to the original, and every inch is filled with Coen Brothers goodness. For 90-or-so minutes of light-hearted entertainment, it succeeds admirably. Expand
  27. MikeD.
    Apr 29, 2004
    3
    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.
  28. BL.B.
    Apr 8, 2004
    2
    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 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
  29. VinceH.
    May 29, 2004
    5
    Definitely the worst film the Coen Bros. have made thus far. Many people complained about their last one "Intolerable Cruelty", which was actually pretty good (though not great). The only reasons to see this movie are Tom Hanks as Dorr in a hilariously over-the-top and witty role (he seems like a character literally taken out of an Ealing comedy...which seems to be the point) and instead Definitely the worst film the Coen Bros. have made thus far. Many people complained about their last one "Intolerable Cruelty", which was actually pretty good (though not great). The only reasons to see this movie are Tom Hanks as Dorr in a hilariously over-the-top and witty role (he seems like a character literally taken out of an Ealing comedy...which seems to be the point) and instead of just stealing Alec Guiness' body movement, he creates a unique role himself. The other reason is Irma P. Hall, who is so good and memorable in this that she was recently awarded a Special Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival. Not worth spending $10 in theaters for, but rent one night when there's nothing else around. Expand
  30. ChadS.
    Jun 16, 2004
    7
    At least, "The Ladykillers" isn't the lifeless corpse that "Intolerable Cruelty" was. Irritable bowel syndrome isn't funny, but maybe the Coen Brothers are taking a stab at high brow bathroom humor. Tom Hanks' precise diction could be seen as a jab at Kelsey Grammer, and how he almost became a spokesperson for irritable bowel syndrome a few years back. The seemingly At least, "The Ladykillers" isn't the lifeless corpse that "Intolerable Cruelty" was. Irritable bowel syndrome isn't funny, but maybe the Coen Brothers are taking a stab at high brow bathroom humor. Tom Hanks' precise diction could be seen as a jab at Kelsey Grammer, and how he almost became a spokesperson for irritable bowel syndrome a few years back. The seemingly pointless church scene, in which an entire gospel song is performed, could be a reference to William Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury", after all, "The Ladykillers" is set in Mississippi. If that was the Coen Brothers' intent, the characters played by Irma P. Hall and Marlon Wayans could serve as a debate as to if Faulkner was a racist author, or not. Hall can't tolerate the n- word, but Wayans is continuously dropping the bomb. In James Toback's "Black and White", Bijou Phillips explains the difference between the n-word with the ending -az, as opposed to -er. Wayans uses both here. There's a dialectical argument between Hanks' queen's English and Wayans' street talk; the sort of subtext you don't find in other films, because even when Joel and Ethan Coen slum, the results are still pretty interesting. "Intolerable Cruelty" sucked. Don't get the two confused. Expand
  31. D.Q.Slotkins
    Mar 3, 2005
    2
    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.
  32. PaulB.
    Mar 27, 2004
    3
    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.
  33. MarcK.
    Apr 14, 2004
    3
    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 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
  34. RyanP.
    Apr 14, 2004
    10
    Joel and Ethan Coen's version of "The Ladykillers" is a comic masterpiece. Is it as good as the Alexander MacKendrick orginal? No. Is it as good as the Coen's very best ("Fargo" and "Raising Arizona")? No. But it updates the ingeniously conceived premise for a new generation of movie-goers. The screenplay is dense and hilarious. The frame is often bursting with sight gags. The Joel and Ethan Coen's version of "The Ladykillers" is a comic masterpiece. Is it as good as the Alexander MacKendrick orginal? No. Is it as good as the Coen's very best ("Fargo" and "Raising Arizona")? No. But it updates the ingeniously conceived premise for a new generation of movie-goers. The screenplay is dense and hilarious. The frame is often bursting with sight gags. The performances (Tom Hanks, Irma P. Hall, Marlon Waynes, and J.K. Simmons) are precise and beautifully nuanced. The music is glorious. I pity any critic who didn't enjoy (or at least appreciate) this movie. Its indicative of a decline in the appreciation of cinematic aristry. So many critics (and viewers) seem intent on tearing down any film that doesn't speak literally and exclusively to their limited worldview. A movie like "The Ladykillers" is both broad and precise, ironic and sincere, smart and stupid at the same time. That's no small feat. And by the way, the accusations of racism are ridiculous (and downright offensive to those of us who liked and understood the movie). The Coen Brothers are, by nature, inclusive writers and filmmakers. Their cartoonish world includes EVERYBODY, not just the smart, attractive, and politically correct. The only people who'll be offended by "The Ladykillers" are those so afraid of racial satire they'd just as soon not see African-American characters in movies at all. Expand
  35. DanielleB
    Jul 18, 2004
    5
    Obviously not the best of Tom Hanks' films.
  36. SScott
    Sep 13, 2004
    1
    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.
  37. S.Toncray
    Sep 13, 2004
    9
    The Ladykillers is quirky, wacky, well-acted, and flat out hilarious! Hank's performance was magnificent and completely different from any other role he has ever taken. This is yet another classic Coen brothers movie, recalling the vivacious wit of O Brother, with that same style of humor transcending into our modern time, in a madcap caper that is unforgettable and worth repeated The Ladykillers is quirky, wacky, well-acted, and flat out hilarious! Hank's performance was magnificent and completely different from any other role he has ever taken. This is yet another classic Coen brothers movie, recalling the vivacious wit of O Brother, with that same style of humor transcending into our modern time, in a madcap caper that is unforgettable and worth repeated viewing. Cartoonish as it may be, it is the characters that make this film work; and, oh, what a strange, fascinating lot they are. The script is a real humdinger, as well, with dialogue that shines throughout. Check it out, especially if you are a Coen Brothers fan. This is an exceptional film that is also the most painstakingly funny comedy of the year! Expand
  38. TonyB.
    Oct 19, 2005
    5
    Not one of Tom Hanks' best efforts, it does provide some pleasantries, not the least of which is the wonderful Irma P. Hall.
  39. DavidD.
    Mar 27, 2005
    0
    Slow. Looong stretches waiting for a laugh. Saw no reason for repeated use of the n word. Expected an entertaining movie because of Tom Hanks, but definitely Hank's worst I've seen.
  40. May 6, 2015
    6
    Ahh, The Coen Brothers, Joel and Ethan. The two dudes who masterfully made American cinema more peacefully nostalgic. The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink, and Miller's Crossing and Fargo. The Ladykillers...not so much. I know it's a terrible idea to remake a movie, but somehow I liked the movie. Although the story felt a little fishy, but the cast look great. I thought either Tom Hanks orAhh, The Coen Brothers, Joel and Ethan. The two dudes who masterfully made American cinema more peacefully nostalgic. The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink, and Miller's Crossing and Fargo. The Ladykillers...not so much. I know it's a terrible idea to remake a movie, but somehow I liked the movie. Although the story felt a little fishy, but the cast look great. I thought either Tom Hanks or Marlon Wayans were pretty funny, but Tom Hanks needs a better hard R-rated comedy rather than Joe Versus The Volcano. Not quite as bad as critics think, but still the Coens just made a mistake on choosing this forgotten but somewhat above average film that didn't qualify as a Coen Brothers king of arthouse masterpieces. Worth a rental or watch it on Netflix. Expand
Metascore
56

Mixed or average reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 40
  2. Negative: 5 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Richard Schickel
    80
    The Coen brothers merrily subvert that standard caper trope.
  2. Where the best Coen brothers comedy is a matter of finely tuned tone, diction, attitude and visual rhythms, everything in The Ladykillers feels out of kilter. With Tom Hanks delivering -- arguably -- one of the most perplexing performances of his career.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    The souffle falls a little flat in The Ladykillers, a Coen brothers black comedy in which the humor seems arch and narrative momentum doesn't kick in until the final third.