I liked "Fargo." It is a very good movie, with a great deal of originality and spectacular performances by Frances McDormand and William H. Macy. McDormand definitely deserves her Oscar, although it's a bit tragic that Macy didn't get one, since he gives the better performance (although I emphasize that both performances are spectacular). The film also presents an interesting contrast, with complications, violence, and sin on one side, and simple folksy down-home humanity on the other. It is this contrast that makes "Fargo" difficult to categorize. Crime plays a central role in the story and yet it's not a crime story, thriller, or mystery. The scenes with Frances McDormand are laugh-out-loud hilarious (and she is a true master of the art of awkward smiles for awkward moments), and yet the film is not a comedy (not even a black comedy). It's a different kind of film altogether.

And yet, I can't quite join the critics in calling this "one of the greatest films ever made" or "the best film of 1996" or anything like that. It is a very good movie. The Coen brothers are talented filmmakers. But, when I watched "Fargo," I felt like something was missing. I can't quite put my finger on what, though. There's just some je ne sais quoi that's missing from this film.

Maybe I felt like the link between the violent plot and the comedic plot was not strong enough, that they were connected, but not strongly enough. Maybe I thought the movie was driven too strongly by the characters and not enough by the plot. I usually love character-driven stories more than plot-driven ones. (The character-driven films of Martin Scorsese, especially "Taxi Driver," are probably my favorite films). Yet, maybe I was looking for a bit more plot in "Fargo." I really don't know. But there's something that's preventing "Fargo" from being one of the greatest films of all time, and I don't know what it is.