Page 4 of 8

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:23 am
by Vameon
So I am a huge coen brothers fan and have been for many years and I found out about there movie no country for old men, I was interested because of them.But then I saw the trailer and heard the buzz, so I knew I had to see this film and nothing was gonna stop me from seeing 2 hours of the coen's directing a thriller.This movie had huge oscar buzz and the critics loved it, so I went to see this movie and I heard from some people who saw it that the ending sucked.

I am not gonna give away any spoilers on the ending, but I will say that the final act of the movie isn't as good the rest and some people might hate the ending and what happens.This movie starts great and has some slow parts but they really get you excited about what is gonna happen, there is some perfect acting everywhere and javier did give a great performance and should win best supporting actor at the oscars next year.The story of this film isn't really too complicated, but the film is made in a way that makes you pay attention to all the dialouge and what every character is doing.This movie dosen't have as much action as the trailer make it seem, but there is alot and the scene I like the most is a big fight between the two main characters in a hotel and then in the street.This scene is what made me wanna see this movie, but I have to say that I didn't love this movie as much as I thought I would from the hype it had but this movie is really original.I have to respect it for that and the great directing, I love the coens and fargo, miller's crossing and raising arizona are 3 of my all time loved movies.

I think alot of people who go to see this because the trailer made it looks action packed won't like it, and the arthouse buffs and people with culture will most likely love the movie.It has so much to like about it, and this movie really took me back to the creative genius that pictures from the 70's gave us.There will be blood, children of men and no country seem to bring back hope to a time when directors would make something challenging and original with a sense of meaning in the back of the story.

To sum it up, no country is a film that really shows human nature and everything has meaning to it and the ending really shows how the world is and will always be.This film deserves any awards it wins because it was something new to cinema, and it really makes you feel like you went into something more then a movie and It's not a movie to forget easily.

Rating 1-10
8.5

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:42 am
by critch
Not overly impressed, and I guess that means I 'don't have culture' or whatever, but it is a good example of why I don't really head out to these arthouse films. Had some great scenes, particularily the showdown between Sugar and Lewellen, but it's balanced by Tommy Lee Jones doing the same scene at least five times. "Yep, I'm old now and the world is hard." Got it. Especially the twice the point is pounded in at the end. And of course after following Lew the whole movie and then everything that happens to him happens offscreen... Meh, I enjoyed a lot of it, but a lot of it was just poorly paced, and unnecessary. 6-7 is where I'd put it, but I don't buy the 'omg best picture of years' stuff. I hope the hype for TWBB is deserved.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:48 am
by tapehead
Javier Bardems's Anton Chigurh is a remarkable character - he seems to be as much the embodiment of fate, which chance is a part of, rather than simply the latter quality, or chaos. 'They always say the same thing', he says to Moss' wife a a point later in the movie, ''You don't have to do this''. But of course, to his mind, the very doing of such deeds is what defines him - He's not a judge or executioner in his own eyes, but a determiner of fates, immune to reason, or pleading. Methodical, almost always completely calculating, but seeming to be not so much ruthless as devoid of compassion - not the homicidal lunatic he's accused of being, but more a true sociopath.

As such it's it's small quirks that get him laughs in the movie - a fastidiousness observed in the moment where he lifts his boots from the motel room floor to avoid the dark welling pool of Carson Wells' blood (a similar move later intimates that Carla Jean Moss's refusal to call the toss of the coin might have done nothing to save her from her fate), - the slight exasperation as he patiently explains the chance of the coin toss to an elderly attendant at some isolated road house. And his weapon of choice, which seems at first bizarre and even not recognised as such by the officer who first arrests him, becomes chillingly appropriate as his methods are revealed. 'You choose the right tool' he says.

Chigurh joins the likes of Charlie Meadows from 'Barton Fink' and Gaear Grimsrud from 'Fargo' as one of the scariest creatures The Coens have put on the screen.

It's 'Fargo' and 'Blood Simple' that this movie reminded me of the most, which is perhaps the highest praise I can think of to give it. Like Fargo, it eschews the stylisations and exaggerated characterisations that Coens' elsewhere revel in in favour of a stark exactitude, realised by Roger Deakins cinematography. Like 'Blood Simple' the dark irony and laconic humour of it's characters seeps into the fabric of events like a slow beeding wound.

I can only imagine, not yet having read the book, That Sheriff Tom Bell would have been more likely to quote some whimsical 'old boy' country wisdom rather than recount his own stark dreams, and been less pithy, more garrulous, had he been the Coen's own creation rather than their adaptation of McCarthy's work. The whole film hinges on his nostalgia for times past that seem simpler and more human than the crimes he finds himself confronted with now, and the legend of pioneer sheriffs and law men he mentions at the film's beginning, who perhaps seem more capable of dealing with this uniquely amoral outlaw than his own, aging self. It's this evaluation of his, evidenced in his conversations with retired fellow officers and his 'deputy' Wendell, that explains the films title most eloquently for me.

So many phrases and exchanges from the movie keep coming to mind that I know it's going to drive me back to watch this again soon. Here's those final words from Sheriff Bell for those that, like me, keep pondering on their significance (from Imdb);

Sheriff Ed Tom Bell wrote:Okay. Two of 'em. Both had my father. It's peculiar. I'm older now then he ever was by twenty years. So in a sense he's the younger man. Anyway, first one I don't remember so well but it was about money and I think I lost it. The second one, it was like we was both back in older times and I was on horseback goin' through the mountains of a night. Goin' through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and snowin', hard ridin'. Hard country. He rode past me and kept on goin'. Never said nothin' goin' by. He just rode on past and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down and when he rode past I seen he was carryin' fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. About the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin' on ahead and that he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. Out there up ahead. And then I woke up.


One of the best I've seen this year, and although I'm still catching up on titles already out for a month or two in the U.S. and elsewhere, that still puts it in very good company. I gave it a 9.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:43 pm
by Nachokoolaid
MasterWhedon wrote: And, well, it's everything it's been cracked up to be. It's a flat-out brilliant film--if not the best of the year, easily in the top three--and I wouldn't be surprised if this finally gets them the Best Director Oscar.

I don't want to say much about it because you should see this movie totally unspoiled. There are twists and turns in the plot--which never really feels like "twists" or "turns"--that need to be experienced in the quiet, tense-as-fuck environment you can only get when you have absolutely no idea what's coming next. So, if you don't know much about the movie yet, my advice is to not read another word about it and just go buy yourself a ticket.

Two things I will say:

1) I love how quiet the movie is. There is no score to the film, save for one or two moments (and even then, it's not noticeable unless you're listening for it, as I was), and it helps create both the sense of reality and, in some cases, the sheer fucking terror.

2) Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh is the scariest motherfucker alive. I know people say characters are "scary" all the time, but this guy made me physically uncomfortable every time he appeared on screen because of what a black hole of emotion he is. A brilliant performance that will likely earn him the Supporting Actor Oscar.

Fabulous movie, folks. If it's not open in your area yet, make sure you see it once it opens wide.

10/10


Pretty much my thoughts on this. I finally got to see it, (had to drive two hours to the nearest place showing it) but it was TOTALLY worth it. If you haven't seen it yet, please do so. You won't regret it.

I was surprised to see that there were about 30-40 people in the theatre for this. I hope people continue to search this movie out and enjoy it.

Question, what was the significance of the speech at the end? I feel like I missed something in that retelling of the dream, and I know I won't get to catch it again until DVD.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:50 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Nachokoolaid wrote: I feel like I missed something in that retelling of the dream, and I know I won't get to catch it again until DVD.


My interpretation was that the cold darkness was the future Tommy Lee Jones' character was afraid of and he didn't "belong" to....The symbolism of the small fire may be like trying to keep alive his values and ideals in the face of this new, ever changing world.

I haven't read the book so I don't know if my interpretation is at all correct.


I just saw this on Saturday and loved it though I did hear grumblings from parts of the crowd regarding "great movie, terrible ending". I think the average person is too used to the standards/cliches of modern movies and then get uncomfortable/upset if the film diverges from them.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:03 pm
by Leckomaniac
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nachokoolaid wrote: I feel like I missed something in that retelling of the dream, and I know I won't get to catch it again until DVD.


My interpretation was that the cold darkness was the future Tommy Lee Jones' character was afraid of and he didn't "belong" to....The symbolism of the small fire may be like trying to keep alive his values and ideals in the face of this new, ever changing world.

I haven't read the book so I don't know if my interpretation is at all correct.


I just saw this on Saturday and loved it though I did hear grumblings from parts of the crowd regarding "great movie, terrible ending". I think the average person is too used to the standards/cliches of modern movies and then get uncomfortable/upset if the film diverges from them.


I talked to three of my friends that are not of the movie geek variety. They only see the more mainstream movies and they have quite vanilla tastes. I talked to each of them on separate occasions and all three had the EXACT same response:

Me: You saw "No Country For Old Men"?

Them: Yeah it was a sweet movie, the ending was bad though

By the time I got to the third friend I almost said the response with him. It was frightening.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:07 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Leckomaniac wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nachokoolaid wrote: I feel like I missed something in that retelling of the dream, and I know I won't get to catch it again until DVD.


My interpretation was that the cold darkness was the future Tommy Lee Jones' character was afraid of and he didn't "belong" to....The symbolism of the small fire may be like trying to keep alive his values and ideals in the face of this new, ever changing world.

I haven't read the book so I don't know if my interpretation is at all correct.


I just saw this on Saturday and loved it though I did hear grumblings from parts of the crowd regarding "great movie, terrible ending". I think the average person is too used to the standards/cliches of modern movies and then get uncomfortable/upset if the film diverges from them.


I talked to three of my friends that are not of the movie geek variety. They only see the more mainstream movies and they have quite vanilla tastes. I talked to each of them on separate occasions and all three had the EXACT same response:

Me: You saw "No Country For Old Men"?

Them: Yeah it was a sweet movie, the ending was bad though

By the time I got to the third friend I almost said the response with him. It was frightening.


That was pretty much what everyone I talked to said as well. I tell them it was that way in the book as well.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:10 pm
by tapehead
Chairman Kaga wrote:
My interpretation was that the cold darkness was the future Tommy Lee Jones' character was afraid of and he didn't "belong" to....The symbolism of the small fire may be like trying to keep alive his values and ideals in the face of this new, ever changing world.


That's a pretty good reading I think Chaiman, and I think it's fine to disregard the book if we haven't seen it, as the movie stands on it's own as a complete incarnation of the story. Maybe I was thinking more of 'death' in place of the word 'future' in your explanation, however I think they kind of amount to the same thing for Sheriff Bell in that scene.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:43 pm
by Dee E. Goppstober
tapehead wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
My interpretation was that the cold darkness was the future Tommy Lee Jones' character was afraid of and he didn't "belong" to....The symbolism of the small fire may be like trying to keep alive his values and ideals in the face of this new, ever changing world.


That's a pretty good reading I think Chaiman, and I think it's fine to disregard the book if we haven't seen it, as the movie stands on it's own as a complete incarnation of the story. Maybe I was thinking more of 'death' in place of the word 'future' in your explanation, however I think they kind of amount to the same thing for Sheriff Bell in that scene.


Good one. This explanation would tie in best with the title, I suppose. When I heard Sherriff Bell's telling of the second dream - my first interpretation was that he simply had lost faith that God would ever come to him (he mentions this earlier on in the movie too), no fatherly figure will be waiting at the end of it to make it all well. No light, no warmth, no solace. Wether it is in retirement or in death.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:04 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Dee E. Goppstober wrote:
tapehead wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
My interpretation was that the cold darkness was the future Tommy Lee Jones' character was afraid of and he didn't "belong" to....The symbolism of the small fire may be like trying to keep alive his values and ideals in the face of this new, ever changing world.


That's a pretty good reading I think Chaiman, and I think it's fine to disregard the book if we haven't seen it, as the movie stands on it's own as a complete incarnation of the story. Maybe I was thinking more of 'death' in place of the word 'future' in your explanation, however I think they kind of amount to the same thing for Sheriff Bell in that scene.


Good one. This explanation would tie in best with the title, I suppose. When I heard Sherriff Bell's telling of the second dream - my first interpretation was that he simply had lost faith that God would ever come to him (he mentions this earlier on in the movie too), no fatherly figure will be waiting at the end of it to make it all well. No light, no warmth, no solace. Wether it is in retirement or in death.


Good point I forgot about that discussion which was only minutes before the end...doh.

My review!

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:25 pm
by Nachokoolaid
Innocence vs. experience. Anyone who has read William Blake, Harper Lee, or Flannery O’Connor knows this theme well. I couldn’t help but think of this after seeing the Coen’s latest film.

What the Coens have done with No Country for Old Men is amazing. It's complex and tense and everything I've missed from many recent films.

Brolin, Bardem, Jones, and the Coens should all be commended. I've tried to find a weak spot in this film, and I'm having trouble.

“What’s comingâ€

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:51 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
Chairman Kaga wrote: I just saw this on Saturday and loved it though I did hear grumblings from parts of the crowd regarding "great movie, terrible ending". I think the average person is too used to the standards/cliches of modern movies and then get uncomfortable/upset if the film diverges from them.


yeah, been getting that from folks I recommend the film to as well...but, out of all of them, my pops, who is hardly a movie/tv watcher - he felt the same way...until he started thinking about it.

"couldn't get this stupid movie out of my head" {paraphrase}, he said, as he tried to go to bed the night after seeing it.

he even called me up to discuss it with me...this man doesn't call me on my birthday (if he even knows when it is) - and yet here he was, geeking out about it.

he told me he can't wait to watch it again.

so what I guess this ramble means is that while the majority of your average filmgoers (whatever the hell that means) won't "get it" (subjective, obviously), it may get through to a few of them.

which is something, I suppose.

ETA: solid thread fellow Zoners; certain films bring out the best in us, and this is certainly one of them.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:22 am
by Seppuku
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:ETA: solid thread fellow Zoners; certain films bring out the best in us, and this is certainly one of them.


Gah! By the time movies like No Country for Old Men and There Will be Blood get released here, the conversations have always long-since fizzled-out.

Maybe threads like this hold up so well because the UK Zoners are barred from contributing to them by dint of being born on Atavism Island?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:35 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
seppukudkurosawa wrote:Maybe threads like this hold up so well because the UK Zoners are barred from contributing to them by dint of being born on Atavism Island?


yeah, well ya'll beat us to important stuff, like democracy and abolition...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:45 am
by Seppuku
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:yeah, well ya'll beat us to important stuff, like abolition...


Heh. Point. But Haiti got the jump on us, and No Country For Old Men's not coming out there for half a year!

I think there's a lesson to be learned there about not going into things too hastily...

:wink:

No Country For Old Men (BEWARE SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:55 am
by bastard_robo
I watched this the weekend before Xmas ( I took my grandmother to see it as she likes tommy lee jones)

I will say this first off, I'm a fan of the BROS!

Loves me some Lebowski and my favorite film of theirs is O Brother where art thou.

Since everyone else has given through and in depth reviews, I'll keep mine short and to the point.

I liked it, but did not love it.


And I'll tell you why.

Everything up to the last 20 minutes of this film had me hooked, Line and sinker! Josh Brolin is fantastic, Javier Bardems is an instant film classic!

But, all of that is great until that last 20 minutes, when Josh Brolin's character is killed after what seems to be a nice set up for a confrontation. After this happens, I kinda sunk a bit, and when the film ended, that last bit just left me with an odd feeling. (not to mention hearing 30 seniors simultaneously shout WHAT THE FUCK at the credits) I felt that those last few 20 minutes were a cop out...But thats just me.

I gave the film 8/10. Its defiantly one of the great films of 07, but for me, its not the BEST film that I thought it would be.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:57 am
by DaleTremont
Oh hell. I'm re-watching this as soon as it comes out on DVD, but until I give the ending a second chance I maintain my former stance! Call me a philistine if you will (everyone else does) but TLJ's monologue just didn't cut it.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:01 am
by tapehead
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:yeah, well ya'll beat us to important stuff, like abolition...


Heh. Point. But Haiti got the jump on us, and No Country For Old Men's not coming out there for half a year!

I think there's a lesson to be learned there about not going into things too hastily...

:wink:


According to the Odeon website, it's out on the 18 of January - which is long enough I know. I have to wait until the second week of February for 'There will be Blood', and that seems too far away for me right now.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:09 am
by Seppuku
tapehead wrote:
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:yeah, well ya'll beat us to important stuff, like abolition...


Heh. Point. But Haiti got the jump on us, and No Country For Old Men's not coming out there for half a year!

I think there's a lesson to be learned there about not going into things too hastily...

:wink:


According to the Odeon website, it's out on the 18 of January - you'll make it.


Thanks tapes, I guess I might make it if I stay away from anything with caffeine in it until then. I don't know what I'm bitching about, anyways, you Aussies get the shitty end of the stick when it comes to release dates more than us.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:23 am
by tapehead
Yeah - it's a lottery in the antipodes, often we're a month or two behind with the bigger indies and studio releases, but then occasionally stuff will get sneaked out for previews quite early, plus here in Melbourne I do get a really good International Film Festival every year. I may have a solution though 9easier than moving back to Europe for now), my flatmate's friend is a projectionist at one of the best cinemas in town, and she does late night screenings of new films in pre-release to check the prints. So I might get to See 'Darjeeling', 'There will be Blood' and a few others a little sooner than expected.

[/endthreadjack]

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:21 am
by Nachokoolaid
Two cool interpretations that I would have never thought of:


has anyone made the connection between the sherriff and chigurh? as in... perhaps it's a psychopathic split personality?
Here's why i think:
- sherriff is never surprised at the details his deputy brings him... just calmly collects them.
- he's never the one pointing out facts... just taking them in.
- Moss' wife calls the sherriff and says, can you promise not to tell anyone? almost like a hint because they show the Mexican's determining location but never Chigurh... how did he end up there at the end?
- the TV set and the reflection of both chigurh and the sherriff... like a different view of a split personlity. then again through the reflection in the lock hole where there were two reflections. and perhaps the sherriff was going back to the scene of the crime to finally pick up the money.
- when the sherriff goes to visit Moss' wife while Moss was on the run he talks about the farmer with the cattle gun but never comes to the amazing coincidence that, "oh hey... that's right.... that caused the same impact as the killer i'm chasing". One would think the sherriff would have caught that one. maybe that's where he got the idea for the weapon?
- When his deputy told him no bullets were found, it was almost an annoyed response and a rhetorical question.... how could that POSSIBLY have happened?!
- and finally in the end of the movie he talks about the guy always being up ahead of himi in his dream... in the future.... in the darkness, lighting the fire. Kind of like no matter where he goes in life, that psychopathic side of him will always be there.
- wait, one more "and finally"... did you notice when Moss' wife comes home after the funeral and see's Chigurh for the very first time, she's not even shocked..... almost like she already knew him and perhaps suspected some evil intentions.

...but he didn't kill Moss as he had planned. Instead, he got to the scene too late and just in time to see the mexicans kill him and drive off. A curious point to notice would be whether the locks were shot out on the door when he arrived or not. My guess is they weren't because the sherriff/ chigurh hadn't arrived yet. this would prove my point, maybe. maybe chigurh is the sherriff's younger self or something like that.




I think everyone missed the real point the C. brothers were trying to get across. They were trying to portray Moss as Mike Vick, because they are both dog killers. Then they added Anton as PETA who is supposed to track down the dog killer. The gun that Anton carries around is actually supposed to represent the gavel of a judge.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:06 pm
by Nachokoolaid
Don't you hate it when you really want to talk about a film, but the thread is dead? YEP!

I hope this thing picks up when the DVD comes out.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:52 pm
by Ribbons
Nachokoolaid wrote:Two cool interpretations that I would have never thought of:


has anyone made the connection between the sherriff and chigurh? as in... perhaps it's a psychopathic split personality?
Here's why i think:
- sherriff is never surprised at the details his deputy brings him... just calmly collects them.
- he's never the one pointing out facts... just taking them in.
- Moss' wife calls the sherriff and says, can you promise not to tell anyone? almost like a hint because they show the Mexican's determining location but never Chigurh... how did he end up there at the end?
- the TV set and the reflection of both chigurh and the sherriff... like a different view of a split personlity. then again through the reflection in the lock hole where there were two reflections. and perhaps the sherriff was going back to the scene of the crime to finally pick up the money.
- when the sherriff goes to visit Moss' wife while Moss was on the run he talks about the farmer with the cattle gun but never comes to the amazing coincidence that, "oh hey... that's right.... that caused the same impact as the killer i'm chasing". One would think the sherriff would have caught that one. maybe that's where he got the idea for the weapon?
- When his deputy told him no bullets were found, it was almost an annoyed response and a rhetorical question.... how could that POSSIBLY have happened?!
- and finally in the end of the movie he talks about the guy always being up ahead of himi in his dream... in the future.... in the darkness, lighting the fire. Kind of like no matter where he goes in life, that psychopathic side of him will always be there.
- wait, one more "and finally"... did you notice when Moss' wife comes home after the funeral and see's Chigurh for the very first time, she's not even shocked..... almost like she already knew him and perhaps suspected some evil intentions.

...but he didn't kill Moss as he had planned. Instead, he got to the scene too late and just in time to see the mexicans kill him and drive off. A curious point to notice would be whether the locks were shot out on the door when he arrived or not. My guess is they weren't because the sherriff/ chigurh hadn't arrived yet. this would prove my point, maybe. maybe chigurh is the sherriff's younger self or something like that.


I don't know about this one. I'd noticed some of the connections made between the two characters during the movie, like the parallel shot of their reflections in the TV, or Bell's discussion of how to kill cows in the same way that Moss kills people, but I don't know to what end, if any. I don't think the split personality thing really holds up, but it might be fair to argue they have traits in common. Thinking about it now, I would probably just say it was part of Bell's journey to understanding the "nature" of people like Chigurh and reluctantly accepting it.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:43 pm
by TonyWilson
I think the similarities between Bell and Chigurh are that they both believe they are agents of morality. Chigurh's dialogue before he kills Carla Jean says it all really. He has an Old Testament view of what he's doing - a punishing of the wicked as it were, Carla jean wasn't wicked in any modern way or I would argue any real way at all but she was accomplice to Moss's crime and to Chigurh that's more than enough for him to have cause to kill her. Although I think it's plain that whatever rationalisation Chigurh gives for killing people, he's a straight up psychopath - what's very interesting for me is the allusion that vengeful violence is just an excuse to commit violence.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:22 pm
by Zarles
TonyWilson wrote:I think the similarities between Bell and Chigurh are that they both believe they are agents of morality. Chigurh's dialogue before he kills Carla Jean says it all really. He has an Old Testament view of what he's doing - a punishing of the wicked as it were, Carla jean wasn't wicked in any modern way or I would argue any real way at all but she was accomplice to Moss's crime and to Chigurh that's more than enough for him to have cause to kill her. Although I think it's plain that whatever rationalisation Chigurh gives for killing people, he's a straight up psychopath - what's very interesting for me is the allusion that vengeful violence is just an excuse to commit violence.


I agree with this. Bell and Chigurh are two sides of the same coin, if you'll pardon the pun.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:06 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
you want similarities, look at the names...

Ed Tom.
Anton.

not quite a rhyme, but awful similar.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:07 pm
by TonyWilson
I don't know if I'd say they were two sides of the same coin, more mirrors of each other (the bit where Bell is one side of the door and Chigurh (not) on the other, cemented that idea for me). Bell doesn't represent or stand for any kind of violence I can think of - he's one of the minority of peaceful forces in the film. His morality is less tainted by violence than that of other characters.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:01 am
by Lord Voldemoo
I finally saw it tonight after a number of false starts.

BEWARE SPOILERS

Amazing, amazing film. I'm lazy, Really lazy. And I'll admit i often enjoy the hollywood ending, my plotlines wrapped in a tight satisfying bow.

Here the plotlines are...for the most part, tied up by default. But it's far from satisfying. As someone who gave this 9/10 (and nearly 10/10) I don't see how anyone who hasn't lost their marbles could FIND the ending "satisfying"...

...in my theater, several people booed.

I loved it. I would have taken intense visceral satisfaction in seeing Bardem's Sugar gunned down by Bell in that bedroom. I might have even taken perverse satisfaction in seeing Bell getting blasted through that front door by Sugar in an overt display of evil's triumph. Here, we didn't get either. Instead we get the "good guy" finally giving in to the inexorable tide of time, age and social decay. He finally just put on the tourniquet. That's not supposed to happen in hollywood is it???

It's dark, it's depressing, it's tragic and wholly unsatisfying. It was amazing.

I need more time to wrap my head around the end. In the meantime let me say that this was the performance to define a fine career by Tommy Lee Jones. He was nothing short of amazing. In his most lighthearted scenes, and in his final defeat, he owned the screen. You could not turn away from him. Beautiful performance, really.

Bardem was amazing, and his portrayal of Sugar makes me wish I'd read the book first because I have a feeling I would have been overjoyed with the adaptation of the character to the screen. He was...flat out...terrifying. He had his own twisted moral code of sorts. But the scene in which Carla finally called him out, making the point that the coin was not responsible for deciding his vicims' fate, that HE was responsible, really resonated and was the only time you ever saw Sugar lose control, even for a moment. Given that Bell eventually gave up...in a weird way...Sugar was the moral compass of the film. Which goes a long way toward explaining why it's so incredibly fucked up, heh.

Brolin was great. Understated. Very nice job as the "every man". He made me care about the character which was crucial.

Great movie. I want a boomstick with a silencer.

EDIT: I used the word "amazing" a lot in this review. Can't help it...it deserves it.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:26 am
by Bean
I saw this the other day and the ending didn't bother me cause I had read the book. It was a faithful adaption, and terrified me! It's like the character of Chigurh was literally lifted off the pages and manifested into Bardem's performance. Fuck yes this movie is a must see!

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:51 am
by Ribbons
Lord Voldemoo wrote:I need more time to wrap my head around the end. In the meantime let me say that this was the performance to define a fine career by Tommy Lee Jones. He was nothing short of amazing. In his most lighthearted scenes, and in his final defeat, he owned the screen. You could not turn away from him. Beautiful performance, really.


A lot of the "supporting actor" laurels for this movie will be directed towards Javier Bardem (and rightly so), but Jones was born to play Bell, and it shows.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:13 am
by Nordling
I watched it again this weekend, and seeing how all the story threads come together is even more impressive the second time. The climax is there, the ending is satisfying. I marveled at just how brilliant the film is.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:33 am
by Nordling
You know what? I've never seen this referred to. But the scene with the gas station attendant, no one ever talks about the punchline... which is that Chigurh stiffed the guy out of the gas money. He only paid a quarter.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:27 am
by Zarles
Lord Voldemoo wrote:...in my theater, several people booed.


Heh. Reactions like that make me hope that this movie wins Best Picture, only to rub it in the face of all the mouthbreathers who were disappointed because they didn't get their big blow-em-up Ratner ending.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:33 am
by Dee E. Goppstober
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:you want similarities, look at the names...

Ed Tom.
Anton.

not quite a rhyme, but awful similar.


Oh yes. And Chighur sounds like Sugar- of which Bell puts two lumps in his coffee. COINCEDENCE???

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:50 am
by Zarles
And Anton's haircut looks like he put a BELL on his head and CUT AROUND IT!

:shock: :shock: :shock:

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:57 pm
by Lord Voldemoo
Nordling wrote:I watched it again this weekend, and seeing how all the story threads come together is even more impressive the second time. The climax is there, the ending is satisfying. I marveled at just how brilliant the film is.


maybe from a filmmaking perspective. From a story perspective, aww hell no, it isn't "satisfying" in the least, though it seems to me it's not supposed to be. It's not a criticism, I loved the end and the film as a whole, but I wouldn't classify the end as being satisfying.

Maybe it depends on one's definition of the word...

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:22 pm
by Nordling
Put it this way... it's satisfying to me but it's not the strict definition of "satisfying." I love how it's not all wrapped up in a bow. At the end, for myself, there wasn't anything left to explain. I understood the message.

I still think it's hilarious how Chigurh ripped off that gas attendant by paying just a quarter for gas and sunflower seeds.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:28 pm
by Lord Voldemoo
Nordling wrote:Put it this way... it's satisfying to me but it's not the strict definition of "satisfying." I love how it's not all wrapped up in a bow. At the end, for myself, there wasn't anything left to explain. I understood the message.

I still think it's hilarious how Chigurh ripped off that gas attendant by paying just a quarter for gas and sunflower seeds.


I'm with you there. I was thinking of "satisfying" from a pure geeky desire to yell "YEAH" in the theater, heheheh.

And yes, I noticed that Chigurh never paid for the gas too, hahaha. In a weird way...thinking back on it...I kinda wished he would have actually paid when the attendant won the toss. Maybe that would have taken his bizarre "moral code" and pushed it into the realm of goofy cliche, though...and I guess he figured the man's life was reward enough. Plus it would have kind of ruined the moment..."Oh yeah, I owe you $11.50..."

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:39 pm
by TonyWilson
Lord Voldemoo wrote:
Nordling wrote:Put it this way... it's satisfying to me but it's not the strict definition of "satisfying." I love how it's not all wrapped up in a bow. At the end, for myself, there wasn't anything left to explain. I understood the message.

I still think it's hilarious how Chigurh ripped off that gas attendant by paying just a quarter for gas and sunflower seeds.


I'm with you there. I was thinking of "satisfying" from a pure geeky desire to yell "YEAH" in the theater, heheheh.

And yes, I noticed that Chigurh never paid for the gas too, hahaha. In a weird way...thinking back on it...I kinda wished he would have actually paid when the attendant won the toss. Maybe that would have taken his bizarre "moral code" and pushed it into the realm of goofy cliche, though...and I guess he figured the man's life was reward enough. Plus it would have kind of ruined the moment..."Oh yeah, I owe you $11.50..."


The gas station scene is downright hilarious. I saw a partial clip of it on some TV show somewhere and then the presenters all talked about how funny it was and I was sitting there thinking "what the hell?" but it's Bardem's reactions to the attendant that are hilarious.
And did anyone else laugh when Carla Jean's mum shouted "I've got the cancer" down the phone to Moss?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:42 pm
by Lord Voldemoo
hahaha, yup! There are a few nice ultra-dark comedic moments in the film. Not quite as wacky as some Cohen Bros stuff (which I think is good) but funny all the same.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:57 pm
by Vegeta
The ending somewhat reminds me of the ending of A History of Violence. When Viggo comes home and sits down with his family for dinner and the film just ends. You don't know if anything will ever be the same again with his family. There's a sense that he is forgiven, but you don't know.

In No Country for Old Men, I just came away with a sense of defeat. That for all the good Bell attempted to do in his life, he felt it didn't amount to shit. He wasn't strong enough to deal with what was coming and had begun to doubt if he was ever strong enough. Now he's retired and what's left for him? What's his legacy? Do these string of murders that he wouldn't solve, define him for the rest of his life?
I like what a lot of you had said thus far, and just wanted to add my thoughts when I left the theatre.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:06 pm
by TonyWilson
Lord Voldemoo wrote:hahaha, yup! There are a few nice ultra-dark comedic moments in the film. Not quite as wacky as some Cohen Bros stuff (which I think is good) but funny all the same.


Oh phew, I thought I might have been the only person who did (I certainly was amongst the people I watched it with, incidentally, all but one hatred the ending), good to see someone else who got that it was meant to be funny in parts.
And Veg I'm glad you mention A History Of Violence because that could be an alternative title for the film and fits just as well. You were definitely meant to feel defeated at the end though even the very last line, just after he's told his wife about his father carrying the fire to light up the dark, he says "but then I woke up" he's realised that one idea of hope was bullshit.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:12 pm
by Nordling
Here's a podcast with Glenn Kenny (premiere.com),Jen Yamato (rottentomatoes.com), Jim Emerson (rogerebert.com) and our generous host, H@rry Knowles (AICN)!. Moderated by Elvis Mitchell.

http://miramax.podcasts.s3.amazonaws.com/ncfom_podcast.mp3

Right click to save.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:53 pm
by Maui
Nordling wrote:I watched it again this weekend, and seeing how all the story threads come together is even more impressive the second time. The climax is there, the ending is satisfying. I marveled at just how brilliant the film is.


I've watched this a second time as well. I was able to catch more of the humour second time around. That one scene where the Mariachi band is playing to a severely injured Llewlyn.

The funny dialogue between Bell and the deputy.

What on earth is that thing called that Sugar was blasting everyone in the head with and knocking off doorlocks with???

The ending - alot to absorb at the end. Definitely nice to watch this ending again and let it all sink in. The movie ending makes sense but I feel having read the book, this certainly aided in making it more clear.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:50 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Maui wrote:I've watched this a second time as well. I was able to catch more of the humour second time around ... What on earth is that thing called that Sugar was blasting everyone in the head with and knocking off doorlocks with???


Apparently even onna the second viewing you missed a the Sheriff's monologue about a the cattle farmer who used a the "stun" gun to shoot a the bolt right inna to a the skull of a the bovine, eh? Killing it inna'stantly, anna the bolt, she retracts back inna'to a the gun, no?

Both times, you must a have a stepped out to get a the pop-a-corn refill, no? :wink:

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:53 am
by instant_karma
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
Maui wrote:I've watched this a second time as well. I was able to catch more of the humour second time around ... What on earth is that thing called that Sugar was blasting everyone in the head with and knocking off doorlocks with???


Apparently even onna the second viewing you missed a the Sheriff's monologue about a the cattle farmer who used a the "stun" gun to shoot a the bolt right inna to a the skull of a the bovine, eh? Killing it inna'stantly, anna the bolt, she retracts back inna'to a the gun, no?

Both times, you must a have a stepped out to get a the pop-a-corn refill, no? :wink:


He must've modified it somehow though, since it was definately firing some sort of projectile, rather than simply retracting.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:58 am
by Nordling
No, it retracted. That's why they couldn't find any bullets or pieces. It specifies more in the novel.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:10 pm
by instant_karma
Nordling wrote:No, it retracted. That's why they couldn't find any bullets or pieces. It specifies more in the novel.


So, what about the scene where Moss escapes out the motel window and Chigurh goes after him, resulting in the car crash. Chigurh is shooting something at him from a distance. Was he just using a gun at that point?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:14 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Chugurh, he is a the man of a many weapons, eh?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:19 pm
by Pacino86845
The key wasn't only that they couldn't find bullets or fragments of bullets (ice bullets anyone? :)), but rather that there were entry wounds and NO exit wounds.

Chigurh himself was seen walking around with the tank in one hand and some sort of modded rifle with silencer in the other.