Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Some individual scenes in 'Barton Fink (1991)' are great, emphasising the Coen's philosophy that the scene takes precedent over the story, and there's a chunk just after the halfway point where things really pick up steam and a proper 'plot' seems to be getting underway - until the film just ends without any real satisfying resolution, that is. For most of the run-time, though, this off-kilter 'comedy'-drama lacks drive and instead meanders around through ponderously aloof satirical sequences in which the protagonist pretentiously proposes that his writing must come from a source of pain and how that's more important than critical acclaim or audience acceptance. It's frustrating that there seems to be some hints of a sub-layer to the narrative, indications that perhaps something supernatural is going on beneath the surface or that we're going to get a big 'reveal' in the third act that makes sense of some of the stranger moments (or at least cements the necessity of their inclusion), but though there is a 'twist' of sorts that slips a slice of sinister into the otherwise lukewarm narrative, these hints and this plot point peel away to surmount to nothing and, as such, seem like hollow inclusions only added to infuse a false sense of depth to a hopelessly shallow narrative. This seemingly indicates that the Coens themselves fell victim to the writer's block that consistently aisles their bespectacled creation. 6/10

To be helpful, I will say that if you enjoy dreamlike movies with dreamlike plots, you'll love this one. It has scenes of such total brilliance that they create doubts about other filmmakers wasting their time all these years. On the other hand, if you get your dreams for free at night and that's about all you need, you may not like this. It has some brilliant scenes, but no plot, nothing resembling a plot, tension as the eponymous Fink (why that name, you will wonder) struggles to fulfill his Hollywood assignment but the plot was axed by the movie executive in favor of what is, after all, a Dadaist wrestling movie. You'll understand that comment after the movie.If you enjoy a tightly plotted film in which template characters pursue a goal (e.g., the Mission Impossible films), and you just want a story, without an admixture of meaning, you will probably hate this film. The brilliant scenes -- most of them involving John Goodman -- are character pieces, not plot devices. They advance nothing but themselves. Because there's no plot, remember. I could appreciate several great scenes, including the conversations between Barton Fink and his neighbor, the overbearing film director, and the two caricatured police detectives, but frankly the Mulholland Drive -- like nonplot drove me nuts. Because I get my dreams for free at night; when I buy entertainment, I prefer a plot as well as surreal imagery and character scenes, however well done. Call it a 5.

I don't think anyone makes movies as different as Joel and Ethan Coen. Every single one of their films is so dramatically different from the last that you never know what to expect going in. That was how I felt when I saw Barton Fink for the first time. Out of their entire filmography I had only seen The Big Lebowski, and I thought it was a good, but not great. The story didn't go anywhere and a lot of the plots that the movie sets up never really finish, but I think that was what they were trying to go for. With Barton Fink, I can't think of a single problem with it. Everything is great, the direction, the writing, especially the acting, with John Goodman once again being the highlight. Another great thing about the film is its cinematography from Roger Deakins, who worked on most of the Coen Bros movies. The story is as follows: Barton Fink (played brilliantly by John Tuturro) is a playwright who is offered a chance to write a film for Capital Pictures. Once he gets there, he suffers from Writer's Block and seeks help from his friend, Charlie, among others. That's all I'm going to say about the plot, because I don't want to ruin it for you. The film has an almost dream-like setting, and a lot of the visuals are fascinatingly strange and intriguing. Barton Fink is one of the greatest movies about movie-making I've ever seen (topped only by Ed Wood) and I strongly recommend you watch it, especially if you're a film student.

I've only seen a handful of the 'Coen Brothers' movies so far, and each time, I'm left surprised by the range of their oeuvre. I haven't necessarily liked all they've had to offer ('Intolerable Cruelty' is the first that comes to mind), but they've transcended so many genres through their movies that they've come to define their own. And regardless of the purported genre, whether it be a Western or a Musical, a Comedy or a Slow-Burning Drama, they've never failed to leave that indelible impression on each of their outings, one that reassuringly proclaims from the moment you see their names in the opening credits that you're witness to something special. 'Barton Fink' is no exception - it's a beautifully-crafted, ably-acted and soundly-written drama, that is unlike any other 'Hollywood-Writer' drama you've ever seen before.Barton Fink is a New York playwright, and when we're introduced to him, he's right at the cusp of fame and success, having written a 'common-man' play that's received rave reviews from audience and critics alike. Although, fame, he doesn't seem to desire, and success, he wants on his own terms, believing that his best work is still ahead of him. Despite his strong beliefs and principles, he's reluctantly convinced by his agent to accept a studio contract in Hollywood, in order to cash in on his new-found fame. Although once he gets to Los Angeles, he finds himself completely out of his element, while rubbing shoulders with a motley of characters - the flamboyant studio-head whose praise and reverence for Barton seems conditional on his ability to make him money; the established Hollywood screenwriter that Barton looks to for inspiration, but quickly realizes has his own share of personal demons; the beautiful and charming secretary who could easily have been reduced to a prop in a lesser movie; and of course, the mild-mannered and ever-smiling neighbour that provides much-needed companionship to the ill- adjusted writer. And the cast did a commendable job in bringing these characters to life - Judy Davis was every bit as charming as the character she portrays; Michael Lerner as Lipnick stole every scene that he graced, and provided much-needed comic relief to an otherwise somber movie; it was great to see Mahoney & Shalhoub outside the TV roles that've made them so famous; and John Turturro, it seems, was born to essay this soft-spoken, ill-at-ease, anxiety- ridden writer. But the highlight of the movie was definitely John Goodman, whose affecting candor and lighthearted personality is the centerpiece of this fine drama. The movie is rich in symbolism, for one who is willing to pay attention. For one who isn't, it's still a beautiful tale of a man's struggle, with himself as much as the outside world, and of finding poetry in the routine and the mundane. That was one of the aspects I highly appreciated - the symbolism and subtle layers in this movie aren't stuffed down the viewer's throat; the movie can be watched within or without that context, and it would still be a rewarding experience. The movie touches upon a number of themes as well - the difficulty of the writing process, the classification of high versus low art, the subjective nature of artistic assessment, the commercialization of art in recent times, the struggle to find meaning in one's life, the beauty that lies in the life of the common man, and of course, the life of the mind. Some people might take issue with the inherent ambiguity of the film or certain unresolved strands that are left for the viewers to untangle. And I do concede that there are movies where I find such tactics annoying, seemingly employed by the makers in the name of post-modern artistry to hide the fact that they were at a loss to resolve their tale with a satisfying ending. But the Coens lay no claim that this is movie is a straightforward one, imploding as it is with abstract moments and hidden meanings from the first frame. It therefore is only consistent that the ending be such as well.As to the reasons I've shaved 2 ratings off this title, they are two-fold - one, I reserve a perfect score of 10 for a select few movies that shake me to the core, and this, despite being an excellent film in its own stead, wasn't one of them. And two, I wasn't entirely convinced behind the motivations of a certain key character in this film, or more likely, enough time wasn't devoted by the Coens to explaining the motives, which I feel was essential since it forms such a crucial aspect of the storyline. I also felt a couple of characters deserved better from the script than just a passing mention in the second half and never to be seen of or heard from again. But these are trivial complaints against a highly competent and enjoyable film, and if this movie were ever to serve as a subject matter in the debate of high versus low art, I've no doubts it'd be unanimously placed in the former.