Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

ClintonPsych3 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.

mark.waltz Ever since the day those brave pioneers came out west from the east coast with dreams of sunshine and perfect weather conditions for making movies, that ideal known as Hollywood (not the place, but the state of mind) has dashed many hopes and dreams. Whether it be for the phoniness of the people, lack of artistic respect of how movies are made and the absence of creative aspects has turned off many artists. Writers have exposed the shady world of filmmaking, both in California and abroad, and when Hollywood does it and gets away with it, it is practically a work of genius.Praised playwright John Turturro finds that Broadway success make him wanted buy the biggest movie studio in Hollywood and when he arrives, he's fine he has been given a story he has no passion about. Struggling to find ideas in a dilapidated Beach Hotel, he meets wacky neighbor John Goodman (who turns out to be quite off the beam), finds a hopeful mentor in alcoholic author John Mahoney and falls in love with Mahoney's younger mistress/secretary, Judy Davis. Slowly but surely, Turturo finds out how Hollywood works behind the scenes, hiding scandal, building and breaking careers (and hearts), and ultimately how profit is more important than artistic integrity. Oh, and don't forget about the mysterious box that Goodman leaves behind.An excellent cast walks around a very avant garde set (which got a well deserved Oscar nomination) as if they were in an ongoing dream state. The hallway set alone in the hotel is worthy of that honor. Oscar nominated Michael Lerner plays the flamboyant but crude studio head, with Tony Shalhoub outrageous as well as the talent scout who becomes his adviser. Steve Buscemi also steals scenes as the hotel clerk dressed in bellboy attire. While Lerner is excellent, I would have preferred the Oscar nomination go to Goodman, then very successful on T.V.'s "Roseanne". For those who have gone to Hollywood hoping for some sort of success in film, whether it be in front of the camera or behind the scenes, it is a revelation especially if you have decided want you got there that it's not worth the destruction of your ethics. I am one of those who thought of a career as a film editor but unwilling to compromise my personal standards decided to remain a fan of the movies from afar. Like "Sunset Boulevard", "The Bad and the Beautiful", "The Big Knife" and others, this doesn't ask for apologies for biting the hand that feeds it, and in the end, got applause for taking a chunk out. It might not be for all tastes (as are most Cohen films), but artists should totally check it out.

Anshul Gupta 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.

mikeg994 This film is not for everyone. Not sure it was for me. It reminds me of jobs I've had, which means basically that just because someone offers you a job doesn't mean it's good or they know what they are doing. It may be better than unemployment, but just barely. It demonstrates the fleeting nature of fame, and the fact that there are more than a few people running around loose who are not all there and some of them are staying at fleabag hotels and others are heads of movie studios. Barton Fink (John Turturro) is a socially conscious New York playwright whose specialty is writing about the people living at the fringes of society. Because he has just written a celebrated play in New York, he gets an offer to become a contract writer for a big film company. It is 1941 just before the war (so far as Americans were concerned) started.When he gets to Los Angeles, it is as though he has arrived in career hell. The studio head is a fast talking fellow behind a big desk in a luxurious office who assigns him the job of writing a wrestling picture. The studio head will not take no for an answer or even let his listeners get a word in edgewise. Meanwhile he meets a famous southern novelist W.P. Mayhew, who must be patterned after William Faulkner who wrote for Hollywood for a while. He tries to gather advice from this eminent writer but he is seemingly constantly in a raging drunk. They are having this talented writer write "wrestling pictures" too.So he goes back to his hotel, which is an unmitigated dump. Wallpaper peels off the walls, the plumbing sings, and the walls are paper thin. While complaining to a neighbor about the noise, Charlie Meadows, (John Goodman), he makes his acquaintance with him and he becomes his only friend/confidant. Meadows says he is an insurance salesman who does his best to buck him up and help him out of trouble.Unfortunately Meadows is crazy as a loon as well. Unpleasant things happen such that you are hoping he just wakes up from a nightmare.When I think of the hair that Barton Fink has in this film, I am strongly reminded of another surreal film, David Lynch's "Eraserhead." Just like that film, things happen that are never explained. The characters exist in unremittingly bleak surroundings and, above the oscillating fan at the writer's desk where Barton Fink suffers from severe writer's block, you see a girl sitting on the beach. He brought a box tied with string that Meadows had given him before leaving for New York, and, strangely, while walking on a similar beach meets the girl on the beach in the picture back at his hotel. I could guess what was in the box, but you never see it.