I think this film, probably more than any other, causes me to talk to the characters on the screen in an exasperated way--something akin to the way you want to yell at the characters in a slasher movie not to run outside to investigate sounds.

The only difference is that this film is fantastic, whereas cheap slasher movies are not. Blood Simple is emotionally involving and the suspense is played to perfection. While the characters are completely clueless as to what has gone on around them, we know everything. What we don't know is what the characters are going to do next.

As in every Coen film, things quickly get out of control. Some people have commented that the characters here acted unbelievably, but I'd have to say that when you think about their situations, the reactions are completely compatible with the way the characters are set up. The problem is that nobody knows what's going on except the viewers.

Coen fans will notice many recurring themes from their other films (especially Fargo and The Big Lebowski) such as the use of headlights, passing motorists witnessing a crime, shower curtains and bathroom windows, detectives driving VW beetles, husbands hiring the wrong people to carry out a crime... I had a longer list in mind earlier while watching it but I've forgotten some. It's almost like these films all go together as a series of films depicting how similar situations would end up in different locations in America.

Blood Simple is pure Coens. There are the usual bag of cinematic tricks, the twisting storyline, the seamy characters, and the occasional droplet of dark humor. The story concerns a bar owner who thinks his wife is cheating on him. He hires a sleazy private investigator to find out, and when he learns the truth, he wants them dead. Trouble is, things get kind of complicated when a murder occurs. The film creates a palpable feeling of tension, where you don't know what to expect next. Half the fun of this film is trying to figure out what will happen. A true testament of the well sturctured nature of the film, is the fact that there are only four main characters, and they hold your attention till the very end. And in traditional film noir fanfare, all of these characters have some sort of sordid business to attend to. The Coens drew on their experiences on Blood Simple and made the similar, but very different, Fargo. Watch Blood Simple for a good old fashioned film noir that will keep you guessing.

As far as directorial debuts go, few are as ambitious and inventive as the Coen brothers' first film, Blood Simple, as it mixes genres and moods in a way that anticipated Tarantino's similar experiments by a decade, while still retaining an apparent simplicity, both narratively and formally, that few people originally saw as the beginning of one of American cinema's most extraordinary careers.

Set in a stark Texas landscape, Blood Simple opens on a premise that seems to be borrowed from the likes of Double Indemnity or The Postman Always Rings Twice: someone steals another man's wife. However, the two adulterous lovers (Jamie Getz and Frances McDormand) do not plan to assassinate the betrayed husband (Dan Hedaya). On the contrary, he hires a sleazy PI (M. Emmett Walsh) to spy on them to carry out some twisted plan of his own. That is, until the investigator goes rogue and the situation escalates in the most grotesque of ways.

This escalation is matched by the Coens' constant shifts between genres, achieved through lighting, music and camera movements. Noir, straightforward thriller, horror, black comedy: Blood Simple is each of these and all of them at once, but the transition is never forced or unnatural; in fact, these transitions occur because somehow the story itself demands that they happen. In a way, this is a film that is aware of its own fictitious nature and toys with it as much as possible - because it can. This has since become a trademark of the two brothers, and it is as fresh and original now as it was back in 1984.

The same can be said of the four main actors: Getz and McDormand (soon to be Mrs. Joel Coen) form a solid leading couple, thoroughly menaced by the sudden ferocity of Hedaya, then best known for playing Rhea Perlman's dim-witted ex-husband on Cheers (an image he gladly, and expertly, reverses here). And then there's Walsh, who takes his practically identical role in Blade Runner and increases the character's unlikability, turning in one of the most brutally charming villainous performances of the '80s (and of the Coen canon).

Joel and Ethan Coen had a very clear idea of what they wanted to achieve in the movie business from the get-go, and Blood Simple is one of the best examples of this: for 90 minutes, it takes you to a whole new world, one that most people are happy to revisit as often as they can.

This was the Coen Brothers first movie and I think it might rank second-best to more-famous "Fargo."

This is suspenseful neo-noir (modern-day film noir) filled with fun direction by the Coens: low camera angles, closeups, concentration of sounds such as the whirring of an overhead fan, some dramatic pauses, strange characters and even stranger events taking place. The only thing missing I'd like to have is 5.1 surround sound.

Warning: some bloody scenes in here are downright gross, but they sure produce some memorable scenes.

Character-wise, Dan Hedeya proves to be the toughest man to kill I've ever seen in a movie! Frances McDormand is young and looks pretty, the best I've ever seen her look. John Getz's character is strange and sometimes to frustrating to watch and Emmet Walsh is outstanding at playing the sleazy private detective. Those four, along with Samm-Art Williams, comprise almost all the speaking parts in this film.

This is an involving movie. Once started, you're hooked on this strange story. I wish the Coens would have made more movies like this.

Demented and dominant directorial debut for Joel Coen as he and brother/co-writer Ethan Coen weave a film noir-styled tale of bad coincidences and worse planning. Sound familiar? In a bleak Texas landscape the wife (Frances McDormand) of a bar owner (Dan Hedaya) has a torrid affair with one of her husband's employees (John Getz). Hedaya hires mysterious private investigator/windbag M. Emmet Walsh to spy on the duo and then re-hires him to kill the adulterers. Naturally though nothing is as simple or clear as it seems. An excruciatingly dull start takes a backseat finally to a tense little tease of a film that benefits from a deliberate pace and a haunting musical score. "Blood Simple" is so well realized that it would have worked just as effectively as a silent flick. The dialogue is just a distraction to the picture's creepy atmosphere and enigmatic Texas landscape. Walsh, always known as a character actor, dominates most within the production's unique ensemble. Could be called "Pre-Fargo". 4 stars out of 5.

This film is the Coen brothers' homage to the great noir thrillers of the golden age. Cheating spouses, feckless private dicks, mistaken identities, a bundle of dirty cash are rendered to their bare essence in the mess of rotting fish sitting on Marty's desk. The film is notable as much for the audacity of the Coen brothers in getting it made as it is for its success in turning the broad, open expanses of west texas into a claustrophobia unknown even to Saddam in his spider hole. It appears the Coens made five minutes of the film to show to investors, though they had absolutely no idea what the rest of the film would look like. They basically sold the mood of the film, and their efforts bore fruit. The film established the Coen brothers as a creative force and Frances McDormand as a rising art house star whose journey would eventually garner Oscar for the Coens' "Fargo." I rate it highly for visual appeal, intelligent story and good sheer suspense and terror.

The Coen Brothers' first foray into feature film is a darker, more brooding affair than usual. 'Blood Simple. (1984)' features less fanciful dialogue and more slow-burning tension and when it works, it really works. Its blistering, nail-biting finale is a real highlight of the piece, as well as the eclectic directors' career. Often there are long stretches where I was honestly starting to get a little bored, though. This is down to is mostly down to a lax pacing that give the flick a laid-back and loose feel but contributes to a lull in excitement on more than one occasion. Still, the moments that stand out are really good. 6/10

The Coen Brothers first commercial film tells a noirish tale of murder, double-cross, and betrayal in small town America. A greasy small-town Texas saloon owner discovers his wife is having an affair with one of his bartenders. He hires the private detective that documented the affair to kill the couple. But the PI has different plans, and then everything starts going wrong, very wrong. The acting is great especially M. Emmett Walsh as the double-crossing PI. The direction and camera work presage the Coens subsequent work.

This movie is a treat of a rental if you can find it. It's worth looking for.

Blood Simple. follows a man who, upon discovering that his wife is cheating on him with one of his employees, decides that he wants to get rid of both people.

The story itself is very good. It's an interesting revenge-ish murder story that is presented very differently from how one might expect, as are many Coen Brothers' movies. The audience might make a prediction as to how it's going to go, then something totally unexpected will happen. Sometimes the movie will focus on something simply for the sake of throwing the audience off, which I think was an awesome idea.

Despite the amazing story and mostly great presentation, this movie is one of the most boring ones I've seen all year. I don't know why, it had everything going for it, I just couldn't enjoy it as much as I was probably supposed to. I ended up taking a couple breaks even just so I could move around and wake myself up a little more.

Nothing else about this movie is particularly exceptional. The acting is fine, the camera work is fine, the soundtrack is fine. There's nothing else worth mentioning, despite the fact that that's exactly what I'm doing right now.

Overall Blood Simple. is an unpredictable, interesting story that drags it's butt slowly along a bed of nails. Sure, there were parts of the movie that did pick up, but that was maybe ten minutes of this 95 minute movie. In the end I'd still recommend this movie. It's a story definitely worth seeing, and who knows? Maybe you won't find it as boring as I did.

The Coen brothers' debut feature is a sign of what was to come in their careers. Smart uses of tension, outlandish situations, and camerawork are on full display here and set the tone for their unique style. The story is pretty simple, but it's the viewer's perspective of all the misunderstandings between characters that make this film interesting to watch. Great suspense makes Blood Simple a worthy watch and debut for the Coens.

All in all, the movie's cinematography is superb. The camerawork is outstanding. The angels, perspectives, the film's noir style lights an shadows takes the breath away. It's the story that baffles me. From the the 47th minute it descends to stupidity (very annoyingly I must add), and then to total chaos. In the end one may see what was it all about but even 'her' cannot be sure. Very disturbing.

I am such a fan of the work of the Coen brothers and I thought I have to watch their very first movie. Everything sounded great. The plot, the actors even the title. I expected fun for the next 90 minutes. All I got was DISAPPOINTMENT. I am not that kind of a Person who gets bored easily but I had to fast forward the last 30 minutes because I could not handle it anymore. The plot made absolutely no sense to me. I'm sorry I feel this way.

Reading other reviews of this film, I get the feeling that it clearly separates the pretentious from the... UNpretentious? Blood Simple has its moments, the intro for instance, is awesome, but overall i think much of it is poorly written and poorly acted. While some people say it's an 'amazing debut' or whatever, it's pretty obvious to me that it really is what it is - Coens' debut. The fact that some experience was missing really shows.

It's funny how all the pretentious reviewers here constantly wanna emphasize on how much they're the real deal by claiming Blood Simple to be much better than the more popular Coen flicks, when in fact, they probably wouldn't even give it a chance if it your excluded the name Coen as directors/writers. I would have taken it as just a matter of differing opinions, but it's pretty obvious to me where it's coming from when there's barely any substance in all the positive remarks. Everything is just "brilliant" and *sigh* "beautiful". Why? How?

Blood Simple is directed, written and produced by Joel and Ethan Coen. It stars John Getz, Frances McDormand, Dan Hedaya, M. Emmet Walsh and Samm-Art Williams. Music is scored by Carter Burwell and cinematography by Barry Sonnenfeld.

Suspecting his wife of having an affair with one of his bartenders, Texas bar owner Julian Marty (Hedaya) hires sleazy Private Investigator Loren Visser (Walsh) to find the proof. When that proof comes, a deal is struck to have the unfaithful couple killed, but this is merely the start of a sequence of events that prove that when blood is shed unlawfully, things are never simple.

The Coen brothers announced themselves to the cinematic world in 1984 with this deadly neo-noir of some narrative substance, that's in turn resplendent with technical smarts. Taking their cue from the edgy film noirs of yesteryear, the Coen's wrap their own original bent for off kilter cinema around the vagaries of the human condition. The story always remains interesting throughout, continually keeping the viewer on their toes, managing to remain easy to understand, logical; and this in spite of some required convolution. Humid atmospherics are drip fed into the production, pulsing ceiling fans, seedy motel rooms, barely lighted highways and faces half bathed in shadow, Sonnenfeld's photography belying the low budget afforded production.

The characters themselves are soon submerged in a world of misunderstandings, double crosses and murder, this as Carter Burwell lays a score over it that blends a slow piano death rattle with low base throbbing, invoking images of some down on his luck gangster from the 30s lamenting on a bar stool in some back street Speakeasy. Cast are uniformly excellent, but Walsh just about steals it with sleaze, greed and cold blood running through Visser's veins. The brothers Coen show some of what would become their trademark body bag humour, while some scenes have a disgustingly cruel (gleeful) edge to them. Script is as tight as a duck's bottom, with dialogue often sardonic, and the final 15 minutes of film, practically dialogue free, is a masterpiece of tension building.

Quite a debut indeed. Essential neo-noir and not to be missed by those with a kink for such occasions. 9/10

We're dealing with other persons assuming something. It's always the case but sometimes it drops beyond even our low standards. Than we have a complete mess. This story is a perfect example of it. The characters don't talk much to each other, they study the environment instead to find out what they want to know. They think it's more trustworthy. And then they make conclusions based on what they found. Indeed, this is a sad story of misunderstanding and mistrusting. Excellently told with a lot of art-cinema stuff.

Saw this in cinema plenty of years ago and couldn't believe how much fun it was. Twisting the noir genre with abandon, while you never know which turn it's going to take, dead serious or full on parody, til the very end. All the misunderstandings. Him standing in the middle of a field almost next to a farm house after having taken care of the body (mind you, not quite just a body). Thinking it was her who shot her husband (due to the gun), while she insists she hadn't done "anything funny." The phone call from Marty, and Ray's reaction. How the talk never leads anywhere (Lynch style). Then the music. Plus many, many glorious shots (truck passing by a minute just after).

Back then when I saw it, if you got a taste for it and appreciated the film making context, this was the most lovable, profoundly engaging and beautifully crafted piece. Still is, decades later.

Lots of slow-moving details ... and very, very dull.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: The Coen brothers are gifted technicians, directors, and cinematographers. Story writers? Hmm ...

This story could have been told in about 30 minutes, not 95. It feels stretched out like filler or mortar, like there wasn't enough "story" so you pad it. This reminds me of the many British films where the story is simply not complex or interesting, and you end up relying on good acting to carry it. Doesn't work.

ACTING: The acting was OK, but none of the characters had any life. It wasn't bad acting, but more like dead characters, or maybe they were so cliche ... dunno.

ENTERTAINMENT: Low value here, not horrible, but not an entertaining movie in any genre

TEMPO: Painfully slow to the point of questioning this film's purpose

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Dark, and pivots around one building - no

DIRECTING / WRITING: Directors: The Coen bros. Apparently built a cult following, though I'm not entirely sure why (must be a generational thing). When directors write it's always a high-risk game, with most attempts failing. I think it fails for the same reason that book writers need editors (something I know a bit about). This was solid directing but for a story that's grossly lacking substance and life.

Writers: See above

Is it a good film? Not really, but it's not a bad film either

Should you watch this once? There are gobs of better alternatives

Rating: 6.5 (for directing precision)