No Country For Old Men (BEWARE SPOILERS!)

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

With 10 being the best and 1 being the worst, how would you rate No Country for Old Men?

10
23
29%
9
25
32%
8
16
21%
7
7
9%
6
3
4%
5
1
1%
4
0
No votes
3
1
1%
2
0
No votes
1
0
No votes
I'm waiting for DVD / TV
2
3%
No No Country for Me
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 78

Postby Maui on Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:37 pm

stereosforgeeks wrote:
Maui wrote:Image


I will not read the spoilers.....

I will not read the spoilers.....


You already have! You read the book! :-P


The movie, ding dong, the movie.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7633
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:54 pm

even armed with foreknowledge of the film's bullet strewn beats (tho' there are some changes from the book), the Coens prove Hitchcock's old axiom regarding audience knowledge and suspense...with my own knuckles so white from armrest gripping that the glow distracted my fellow theater goers, and today's bruised forearms a courtesy of the special lady friend, whose prehensile clutching gives new meaning to the term "gripping suspense".

pitch perfect casting, beautiful cinematography, it's the least tricked out of the bros. Coen pictures - camera lives to serve the story, not draw any undo attention unto itself. Expert craftsmanship on display throughout.

Spoiler Land!

didn't love some of the changes...having Chigurh lay waste to hordes of Mexicans around backwater border towns is one thing, but going to a major city and offing a loaded businessman would draw to much attention to him, no? They should've gotten rid of that entirely - just show the, as the credits list Stephen Root, "man who hires Wells", hiring Wells.
I understand the removal of Chigurh going to the big business muckity-muck and telling him they're going to be partners (even while getting rid of that bit does remove the tie-in to the larger picture of evil capitalism run amok) but it also removes the cold calculation of Chigurh and indeed makes him the "psycho" some characters call him.
For time and pacing, some of the pleading (Wells & Carla Jean) are cut short, but those scenes were rather awesome in the novel, and I would've liked to have seen those scenes play a bit longer.

Not sure how they could've fit it in, but losing Ed Tom's WWII story also hampers the narrative a tad, as his non-showdown with Chigurh, his not exactly cowardice but rather keen sense of common sense survival gets dampened a tad without that bit of relevant backstory.

But I fucking adored the white water dog chase; showing Moss's coolness under pressure from animal savagery, and yet how even a worthy adversary like that doesn't stand a chance under Chigurh's withering relentlessness.

and while some of the longer dialog pieces between Chigurh and his prey are unfortunately given short shrift, what I adored about the flick was the visual panache of the Coens...linking Chigurh saying "hold still" when he uses the captive bolt gun on the unsuspecting driver to Moss' first line of dialog, "hold still", when he's hunting? Brilliant. Shows both the similarities and differences of their respective characters in one swoop.

And how about the last lines, the dreams of Ed Tom? Really, really smooth set-up/acknowledgment of THE ROAD, no?
Last edited by Keepcoolbutcare on Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby Pacino86845 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:45 pm

Holy crappa Keepcool, did u rate it a 10?! :shock: (judging from the poll....)
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby Maui on Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:59 pm

Pacino86845 wrote:Holy crappa Keepcool, did u rate it a 10?! :shock: (judging from the poll....)


We have a 10 from both KCBC and MW?

All I can say is:


YEAH!!!!!!! I can't get to the theatre fast enough for this one!!!
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7633
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:04 pm

no, I haven't rated it yet, kinda forgot about the poll.

but I'm gonna give it an 8, which in my journal means AWESOME!

kinda wished I hadn't read the book first, maybe might've scored it higher if I hadn't.
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:10 pm

minstrel wrote:And of course, that "missing scene" really doesn't matter. It isn't the point of the book, though I'm sure there will be many fanboys who willl scream that they were cheated.

The same fanboys will bitch about the ending. I thought the ending was beautiful.


i did want to talk about this though...

fanboys of what, or whom? If you're a McCarthy fanboy, then you obviously won't feel cheated, 'cuz the scenes you're referring to (nearly) play out exactly as they did in the book.

and if you're a Coen fanboy, then you'll be delighted in their glorious return to the BLOOD SIMPLE, MILLER'S CROSSING dark comedy-crime genre.

I dunno, that "fanboy" crack kinda irked me, just wondering if you could clarify...
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby Nordling on Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:43 am

When I was a little boy, I would take trips out to the country with my family. With my cousins, I would play hide and seek on their 10-acre lot, or ride dirt bikes, or simply enjoy the nature of being outdoors.

Once in a while, we would come across a spider's web. A big green sucker, which for some reason I could not fathom, my cousins called "ABC Spiders." We would try to catch grasshoppers and crickets, and throw them into the web, watching the spider scamper alien-like to the helpless insect, and kill it without passion, without mercy, simply for food. The spider didn't care that it didn't come across the insect naturally - it simply consumed. You could throw in 5, 10 bugs in the web, and the spider would simply crawl to each of them and kill them, wrap them in webbing, and return implacably to the center of the web. It had more than enough after the first two bugs, but it would continue to kill any additional bugs that made their way into the web (or were thrown there by us). That is the spider's nature.

You would think that the spider would be able to determine at some point that it had enough, but either it does not know, or it does, but kills anyway, because that is the nature of it. And you are humbled against the insect nature of the world, that evil happens, and it can happen so dispassionately that you hesitate to call it evil. Evil implies a sense of moral direction in the first place, of understanding the nature of a thing, and going in the complete opposite direction. This isn't like that. It is as if the world itself conspires to their evil nature, so how could you call it a moral decision when the very existence of everything seems almost complicit to their deeds? As a "good" person, how do you deal with that? Do you struggle against it? It may seem like a valiant effort, but you're in actuality just fighting the tide. Are you brought there by external forces, or are you there because you are compelled to be there, by something in your past, or something in your nature, by your moral beliefs... in the end, you still struggle against the web. And the evil catches you, not because it is hungry, but because you are there, and that is its nature.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a masterpiece.

It's amazing. Brilliant. Pick your adjective.

For those who don't like the ending... you're not supposed to. It's an ending of randomness and evil, and you can't wrap your head around how you don't get the satisfaction of seeing evil vanquished and good triumph. Instead, it's spiders and flies in a web. And you either make peace with that, or you don't.

I don't know if it's the best film of the year yet. I have to see it again. As ONCE made me feel good about life, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN made me shudder against the randomness and the insect-like nature of it. They really don't get much better than this film.

The Coens gone and done made a Kubrick film.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby minstrel on Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:10 pm

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
minstrel wrote:And of course, that "missing scene" really doesn't matter. It isn't the point of the book, though I'm sure there will be many fanboys who willl scream that they were cheated.

The same fanboys will bitch about the ending. I thought the ending was beautiful.


i did want to talk about this though...

fanboys of what, or whom? If you're a McCarthy fanboy, then you obviously won't feel cheated, 'cuz the scenes you're referring to (nearly) play out exactly as they did in the book.

and if you're a Coen fanboy, then you'll be delighted in their glorious return to the BLOOD SIMPLE, MILLER'S CROSSING dark comedy-crime genre.

I dunno, that "fanboy" crack kinda irked me, just wondering if you could clarify...


Sorry, KCBC. I didn't know that you would identify with the term "fanboy". Most of the time I see it, it's used in a somewhat derogatory sense. Most Zoners, I figured, would rather consider themselves "film geeks" than "fanboys".

I've seen some comments around, even in the talkbacks, about the "missing scene". Its as if the fanboys (I'll call them that) just wanted to see another shootout, another bloodbath, when it's not really part of McCarthy's story. It's like watching "Citizen Kane" and complaining that there aren't enough explosions and zombies.
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby minstrel on Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:13 pm

That's an interesting review, Nordling. Too bad it ends with that sig of yours! It gives it a spin you may not have intended ...

:wink:
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby freak2thec0re on Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:25 am

Could anyone recount the 2 dream descriptions at the end? For some reason my memory is hazy as to the details of them, and I really want to think about them some more.
"Serves you right, Cartman, you're a sell-out!"
"I'M NOT A SELL-OUT! Wait- What's a sell-out?"
"Anyone in the entertainment business who makes money, is a sell-out"
User avatar
freak2thec0re
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:55 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:10 am

freak2thec0re wrote:Could anyone recount the 2 dream descriptions at the end? For some reason my memory is hazy as to the details of them, and I really want to think about them some more.


SPOILER!!!








well, the second dream involving Bell and his father I believe was just the two of them, in darkness, with his pops "carrying fire" (or something to that effect)...pretty direct and nifty shout-out to THE ROAD, I thought.

i was so awestruck by that I can't recollect Bell's first reverie. I want to say it involved either his wife or Carla Jean or, and this is probably just wishful thinking on my part, it was a nod to RAISING ARIZONA...Bell dreamed of him and his wife having a family, maybe?
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby Nordling on Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:32 am

He dreamed about meeting his dad in town and his dad gave him money but he lost it. The second dream was him in olden times on horseback riding through the mountains. His dad passed him holding a horn full of fire, like the light of the moon. And his father passed him and he believed that his father was bringing light to the darkness and he knew that whenever he got there, his father would be waiting.

And then he woke up.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Nordling on Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:34 am

Remember, this was a dream. Ed Tom's reality is that there is nothing that can pierce the darkness. That's why he retired.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Maui on Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:35 pm

I'd have to agree with you Nordling. I went to see this yesterday with some friends who had also read the book. We were all in agreement. Brilliant movie. I'd give it an 9 out of 10.

As MW pointed out in an earlier post - the lack of soundtrack to this flim only makes for more intense viewing. I thought TLJ, Brolin, and Bardem were brilliant in this. As was the gal who played Carla Jean.

9 out of 10
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7633
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby The Vicar on Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:43 pm

Opens here Wednesday.
Just in time for Thanksgiving!
Take the family!!!
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby Maui on Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:44 pm

Um....a little violent there Vic. ;)
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7633
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby Nordling on Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:02 pm

I've been chewing over this movie since I saw it, and am now reading the book. It's as close to a direct adaptation as I've ever seen.

I'm so, so happy the Coens are back. Not that they ever left, really, but this is definitely high up on their catalog.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby minstrel on Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:24 pm

Nordling wrote:Remember, this was a dream. Ed Tom's reality is that there is nothing that can pierce the darkness. That's why he retired.


This is true. But specifically, he himself can't pierce the darkness. McCarthy took his title from Yeats' "Sailing to Byzantium", but I bet he was also thinking of a couple of lines from "The Second Coming":

William Butler Yeats wrote:The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.


Beating back the darkness is a 24/7 job. And the goods ones don't have the stomach for it. That's McCarthy's horror.
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby Nordling on Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:35 pm

minstrel wrote:Beating back the darkness is a 24/7 job. And the goods ones don't have the stomach for it. That's McCarthy's horror.


Some people claim that the Coens are misanthropes, that they generally don't care for the human condition. I strongly disagree. I think the Coens love human contact and are very sensitive to it; hell, just listen to that last monologue in RAISING ARIZONA or Marge Gunnerson in FARGO talk to Carl in the car. This movie's not a resignation to me - it's a warning.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby DaleTremont on Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:05 pm

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
freak2thec0re wrote:Could anyone recount the 2 dream descriptions at the end? For some reason my memory is hazy as to the details of them, and I really want to think about them some more.


SPOILER!!!








well, the second dream involving Bell and his father I believe was just the two of them, in darkness, with his pops "carrying fire" (or something to that effect)...pretty direct anit fd nifty shout-out to THE ROAD, I thought.

i was so awestruck by that I can't recollect Bell's first reverie. I want to say it involved either his wife or Carla Jean or, and this is probably just wishful thinking on my part, it was a nod to RAISING ARIZONA...Bell dreamed of him and his wife having a family, maybe?


You know, speaking as someone who hasn't read the book, I thought the end scene was a little underwhelming...and I'm sure that was probably the point, but nonetheless, if making a statement means you end the movie on an awkward note- well, shucks, it seems like you're doing yourself a disservice. Or, rather, doing the audience a disservice. Up until that final monologue, the energy in the theatre was palpable, but then it just dropped. And yeah I totally feel like the asshole deriding the artist's vision for saying it, but honestly some things that work great in literature just don't go over as well in film, imo. I could completely imagine how in a book that would be a great grace note to go out on, a quiet contemplation on the meaning behind the title "no country for old men" tying things together and posing new questions for people to ponder on, etc..etc... But in the movie, for me personally it fell flat. I thought it was awkwardly staged to boot- the camera squarely on Tommy Lee centered in frame, static, almost like a documentary interview, then the cuts back to his wife who listens with what I took to represent a receptive, loving expression but I couldn't help but project my own boredom just behind those eyes...
Gahhh I know I'm one of those critics who "doesn't get it" and just wants to see some 'SPLOSIONS!@!!#!!!! Still....
Oh and did I mention I thought it was brilliant up until that point? Maybe I should have started with that...
Image
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Postby Nordling on Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:10 pm

You're not supposed to like the ending. The movie refuses to follow the traditional route and wrap things up neatly. What you're watching is essentially a good man giving up.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby DaleTremont on Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:21 pm

Nordling wrote:You're not supposed to like the ending. The movie refuses to follow the traditional route and wrap things up neatly. What you're watching is essentially a good man giving up.


Yes I know I'm not supposed to like it, but it wasn't just frustrating thematically it was frustrating cinematically. And sure maybe that's a necessary sacrifice to complete the message of the story and stay true to the source material, and yet I think there is a point at which adherence to the message/themes becomes detrimental to the movie. Disappointing for the sake of disappointing still leaves you...you know..umm...disappointed. Shut up. It makes sense in my head.
Image
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Postby Maui on Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:48 pm

The ending - yeah, that was interesting. There was several *gasps* and *awes* in the theatre when the scene cut to black, then showed the credits. I think a few people felt jipped. I didn't. It was a harsh ending to a harsh tale.

Brolin was great. Can't say enough how this guy is making a comeback this year. I just saw him again in 'American Gangster' yesterday - another great performance by Brolin.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7633
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby DaleTremont on Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:56 pm

Maui wrote:The ending - yeah, that was interesting. There was several *gasps* and *awes* in the theatre when the scene cut to black, then showed the credits. I think a few people felt jipped. I didn't. It was a harsh ending to a harsh tale.

Brolin was great. Can't say enough how this guy is making a comeback this year. I just saw him again in 'American Gangster' yesterday - another great performance by Brolin.


Seriously. I'm so glad this guy is finally getting the roles he deserves. He was the best thing about Planet Terror, imo. Although marley shelton was also a fantastic foil for his sleezy psychotic-ness. She took doe-eyed to another level.
Image
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Postby Nordling on Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:01 pm

I'm reading the book now, almost finished, and it makes some things a bit clearer, like how Chigurh was able to find Wells and Moss so easily, and the malaise that surrounds Ed Tom's character. Still, this is as close an adaptation I've ever seen, and kudos to the Coens for getting it so right.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Maui on Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:03 pm

DaleTremont wrote:
Seriously. I'm so glad this guy is finally getting the roles he deserves. He was the best thing about Planet Terror, imo. Although marley shelton was also a fantastic foil for his sleezy psychotic-ness. She took doe-eyed to another level.


Damn straight! He's a mighty fine actor!!

I still gotta see Planet Terror.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7633
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby The Vicar on Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:09 pm

I can see how many audiences are going to get to the end of this with the words "what the fuck?" on their lips.

I thought it was something special.
In many ways very much like Blood Simple, which I have likely watched more than any other Coen brothers film.
The voice over in the start.
The shots of texan roads.
Some scenes so low key & yet electrically intense ( the phone call down to the front lobby scene, fer instance ) that they remind you how good these guys are when they're on their A game.
Bardem was a revelation.
Jones was, well, Tommy Lee Jones.
And thats a good thing.
Solid all the way around, acting wise.
Great flashes of the Coen Bros humor, which casual readers of MacCarthy will attest aren't in the book.

Relatively tired and blessedly un-sober, but I had to run in and sing a few choruses of Damn That Was Good.

Going to see it again before the weekend is out.
This will make an excellent twin bill with Blood Simple when it comes out on DVD.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby Maui on Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:05 pm

The Vicar wrote:Great flashes of the Coen Bros humor, which casual readers of MacCarthy will attest aren't in the book.


Indeed there were some funny moments. Bell (had many), even Sugar had his moments during the multiple coin tosses.

I though Woody Harellson was great as Wells.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7633
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby Ribbons on Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:39 pm

God, this movie was so tense. I felt like I was going to have a heart attack during that one scene in the (second) motel.

I wanted to ask to the people who saw the film what they thought Chigurh's character may have represented, if it represented anything. Because he seemed to be a big believer in the the random cruelty of life, and the triumph of his character seemed to bear that out in some ways, but he was also extremely regimented in terms of how he conducted himself.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 14173
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby Maui on Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:13 pm

Ribbons wrote:God, this movie was so tense. I felt like I was going to have a heart attack during that one scene in the (second) motel.

I wanted to ask to the people who saw the film what they thought Chigurh's character may have represented, if it represented anything. Because he seemed to be a big believer in the the random cruelty of life, and the triumph of his character seemed to bear that out in some ways, but he was also extremely regimented in terms of how he conducted himself.


He represented a kind of evil that didn't feel any empathy for his actions. One would say psychotic. He does have his own logic and reason to everything - but it really isn't explained to us as the reader/moviegoer why he is the way he is. Whether it was war, drugs, childhood - we just know that he is a killing machine.

There are 3 scenes that come to mind, when you actually get to absorb a bit of who he is/delve into his personality.

1. His conversation with Carla Jean
2. His conversation with the gas attendant clerk (coin toss)
3. His conversation with Wells.

Hard to pinpoint my thoughts - but to some degree, he has his own logic and it works for him.

He represents the decline of society. He IS what makes the country not for old men, among many other things.
Last edited by Maui on Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7633
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby The Vicar on Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:26 pm

NCfOM is a treatise on chance - so much happens in it for no other reason.
The finding of the massacre - and the money.
The series of unfortunate events...
And Anton seems to be the embodiment of the Principle of Chance ... his coin flips to decide fates being the most clear example.

The film sets you up for this big climax ( "Im going to make him ( Anton ) my project" ), only to have the showdown evaporate when, by chance, the Mexicans find Moss first.
Much to the chagrin of the audience.

Reminds me of the bit Jasper has in Children of Men, when he goes on about faith & chance.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby Maui on Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:37 pm

The Vicar wrote:And Anton seems to be the embodiment of the Principle of Chance ... his coin flips to decide fates being the most clear example.


There ya go!!!
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7633
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby LeFlambeur on Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:02 am

I just saw this today, and Jesus...
Sparse, terse, razor sharp, this film slow burns into your brain. In addition to some sophisticated invocation of genre, its wonderful how this film is able to navigate some fairly elusive, nihilistic terrain without ever letting you off the hook or succumbing to it. The film's intensity is given a dry stoic demeanor, which is redeemed from any potential tedium by an adroit and appropriate utilization of humor. Death registers in this film matter-of-factly, sometimes almost walking the line into pitch black humor. Recall the exchange in the diner between the deputy and sheriff Ed Tom Bell over the couple that murdered old people and collected their social security, "sometimes laughing is all you can do." But this isn't the sub-Tarrantinian cruelty of the Departed (another borderline nihilistic procedural said to be indicative of the national mood), in NCFOM death is given a serious, palpable metaphysical weight. So yeah, anyway, if you haven't already, see this goddamned film. Its as good as everyone says it is.
LeFlambeur
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:28 pm

Postby DaleTremont on Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:20 am

The Vicar wrote:NCfOM is a treatise on chance - so much happens in it for no other reason.
The finding of the massacre - and the money.
The series of unfortunate events...
And Anton seems to be the embodiment of the Principle of Chance ... his coin flips to decide fates being the most clear example.


Ahh but is he? This is what he preaches, it might even be what he believes, but in the end, the coin doesn't decide the person's fate- he does. I thought the Coens set it up so that it seems Chance plays the biggest part in determining someone's fate: it was by chance that Llewelyn found himself at the site of the massacre and the drug money that accompanied it, it was by chance that the coin fell heads-up in the gas station store. But then the scene with Carla Jean comes up and says it all...she says it all: The coin doesn't decide. He does. The same thing can be said of Llewelyn. It was his choice to take the money and run. Just like it was his choice to go back to the site of the massacre and bring the dying man water. If there is randomness and chaos in the universe, it is only in that: the morality of your decisions has nothing to do with their outcome. Things can be thrown in your way that are impossible to anticipate- no one is untouchable (Chigurh's car wreck)- but ultimately, you choose your own fate.
Image
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Postby stereosforgeeks on Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:28 pm

AVClub has a good comparison between the book and film here.
User avatar
stereosforgeeks
Re-Wound
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:46 pm
Location: DCish

Postby Nordling on Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:45 pm

Glen Kenny from Premiere Magazine has a great breakdown on the ending and his interpretation here: http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/2007/11/a-ghost-and-a-d.html?cid=91412714#comment-91412714
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Cha-Ka Khan on Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:30 pm

Nordling wrote:He dreamed about meeting his dad in town and his dad gave him money but he lost it. The second dream was him in olden times on horseback riding through the mountains. His dad passed him holding a horn full of fire, like the light of the moon. And his father passed him and he believed that his father was bringing light to the darkness and he knew that whenever he got there, his father would be waiting.

And then he woke up.


Mr. Jones should win the Oscar for his description of that dream. Like MasterWhedon said before, the film is quiet. And with no soundtrack to underscore his delivery, and the camera fixed on his visage, Jones' delivered that moment all on his own.

Just watch his eyes alone, from start to finish in that scene... they'll break your heart.

This film was fantastic.
User avatar
Cha-Ka Khan
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 am

Postby Zarles on Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:42 pm

Finally saw this today, and although the ending definitely threw me a little, (not that it was bad, just a bit disorienting) I loved every second of it. The Coens do the whole film noir/cat-and-mouse game like no one else, and this movie was honestly the fastest two hours I've experienced in a movie theater in quite a while. I felt like I was watching a Hitchcock movie for most of it. The suspense was absolutely incredible.

Like I said, though, I need a little clarification on the ending. What was the significance of Tommy Lee Jones' last few scenes? I really think I need to see this movie again to fully flesh out some of the details of it, because by the end when the much lighter scenes with Jones came around, I felt like I was too busy trying to catch my breath to really determine what was going on. In fact, I don't think I'm going to rate this one until I really understand those last few scenes.

Easily one of the Coen Bros' best, though. It's just such a PRECISE film - not a single shot, line of dialogue, or note of music is wasted anywhere. An absolute thrill to watch, and when I finally do get those final scenes straightened out in my head, I think it will rank right up there with Fargo and Blood Simple for me.

Best scene was when the mariachi band found Moss bleeding on the sidewalk. I think that's what I love about the Coens the most - their ability to take the most truly morbid and unsettling scenes of their movies and make them hilarious. Too funny. :lol:
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby RaulMonkey on Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:21 am

The scenes with TLJ toward the end are essentially what give the movie its title. I don't want to make the significance of them sound glib by trying to sum them up in a brief paragraph, but you're probably wise to avoid making a final call on the movie before you get a better grasp on them. I'd strongly recommend a repeat viewing. I for one think I need to see it a third time to listen more carefully to the conversation between Sheriff Bell and Ellis (dude with the cats.) That is a very quiet scene, and I'm totally with you finding it tricky to focus in at that point after being so in awe of everything you've seen beforehand.

Edit--spelling.
Last edited by RaulMonkey on Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
RaulMonkey
ZONE AMBASSADOR
 
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:12 am
Location: YYC

Postby Zarles on Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:34 am

I'm with ya. This is one of the best movies I've seen all year, so who really gives a shit about what number between 1 and 10 I assign to it, but I really do want to understand that last 15 minutes or so. I was just flattened by the time Moss died, and paying attention to some subtle, quiet scenes was the last thing I wanted to do at the moment. It felt like being made to go clean my room after 90 minutes of the best sex I've ever had. :lol:

I liked the ending, but I'm just not sure what to do with it yet. I think that's about as plainly as I can put it.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby RaulMonkey on Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:36 am

Yeah, we don't want to sound like we're criticizing the pacing of the movie. We're just saying it's challenging.
Image
User avatar
RaulMonkey
ZONE AMBASSADOR
 
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:12 am
Location: YYC

Postby Zarles on Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:38 am

Spot on. I'm not criticizing anything. I just want to give it the respect it is due for the right reasons.

Oh, and for the record, challenging = good.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Conroy420 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:25 pm

Unflinching in its brutality and tense atmosphere, the Coens have a crafted a perfect film.

Best movie of the year.

I couldn't find a thing that I did not like about it. I havn't had that experience with a film since 'The Departed'. Unlike 'The Departed', 'No Country for Old Men' has a deeper subtext to it that I can't wait to dive into on repeat viewings.

Javier Bardem's preformance is the best of the year, even if it is only deemed 'a supporting role'. I have not been scared by a character in years, and I was very unnerved every time he was on screen. Iconic is the only word to describe it.

I can't wait for the DVD release, although I intend to see it once more in theaters.
To read some original works by me, please ask, I need the feedback!
Conroy420
BOMB IN RIBCAGE
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:06 pm

Postby minstrel on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:31 pm

"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby The Vicar on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:41 pm

DaleTremont wrote:
The Vicar wrote:NCfOM is a treatise on chance - so much happens in it for no other reason.
The finding of the massacre - and the money.
The series of unfortunate events...
And Anton seems to be the embodiment of the Principle of Chance ... his coin flips to decide fates being the most clear example.


Ahh but is he? This is what he preaches, it might even be what he believes, but in the end, the coin doesn't decide the person's fate- he does. I thought the Coens set it up so that it seems Chance plays the biggest part in determining someone's fate: it was by chance that Llewelyn found himself at the site of the massacre and the drug money that accompanied it, it was by chance that the coin fell heads-up in the gas station store. But then the scene with Carla Jean comes up and says it all...she says it all: The coin doesn't decide. He does. The same thing can be said of Llewelyn. It was his choice to take the money and run. Just like it was his choice to go back to the site of the massacre and bring the dying man water. If there is randomness and chaos in the universe, it is only in that: the morality of your decisions has nothing to do with their outcome. Things can be thrown in your way that are impossible to anticipate- no one is untouchable (Chigurh's car wreck)- but ultimately, you choose your own fate.


It's his rationalization, I suppose.
He believes it, though, which makes it pretty real for the people he's flipping for.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby minstrel on Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:32 pm

"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby Vegeta on Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:01 pm

I saw this several weeks ago, right after I had finished the book. Incredibly faithful adaptation.
I honestly don't have anything to say that probably hasn't been said better already.

Vegeta gives "No Country for Old Men" five out of five punches (or 10 out of 10 on this scale):
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Vegeta
PARAGON OF VACUITY
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:22 am
Location: U.S.S.A.

Postby Don of the Dead on Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:10 pm

Ok, I went to this because I was late to get into "The Mist"

Speaking as a guy who usually doesn't like films without a hockey mask, chainsaw or something eating flesh I was really impressed by the filma nd actually understood the ending while the rest of the crowd at the thearer screamed "what the fuck?!?!?!" when it ended.

Javier Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones should get Oscars
Dinner with The Devils Rejects
http://www.eternalcollector.com/dinnerotd.html
Image
User avatar
Don of the Dead
TOMBOY BEANPOLE
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Brooklyn Park MN

Its not a three act script!

Postby Roberrific on Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:55 pm

This movie is defiantly not a three act script - I was hoping that a certain person would pull through and get away with two million dollars and live happily ever after - but not in a Coen bros movie. no way.
I
Roberrific
GLIB
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:25 pm
Location: Tiverton, Ontario

Re: Its not a three act script!

Postby minstrel on Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:12 am

Roberrific wrote:This movie is defiantly not a three act script - I was hoping that a certain person would pull through and get away with two million dollars and live happily ever after - but not in a Coen bros movie. no way.


The book isn't a three-act book, either. So it's not surprising.
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests