Page 2 of 8

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:46 pm
by Maui
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:

been re-reading snatches from NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, and, after the initial rush and thrill of the narrative has soaked into my feeble brain, I think there are quite a few dialog pieces where the Coen's comedic touch will come in handy for the adaptation.



Yes, please add your comedic touch it will definitely come in handy. We'll need that reprieve after all the bloodshed that will occur.

Why is there no mention of Fargo in this thread? tsk tsk

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:47 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
since it premiered already, and since it's opening tomorrow (limited, but near ME!), moving to movie reviews...

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:50 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:since it premiered already, and since it's opening tomorrow (limited, but near ME!), moving to movie reviews...


It's what my afternoon will be spent doing tommorow!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:10 pm
by The Vicar
We'll be expecting reviews from KCBC & SFG on this sometime tomorrow.

It'll open where I am sometime next year, considering that the only things that "premiere" in Michigan are Jeff Daniels' films.

You two go see.
Report back.
No excuses for late homework.

Ora andiamo e ci portiamo la gioia.... ( thus Dino )

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:22 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
The Vicar wrote:Ora andiamo e ci portiamo la gioia.... ( thus Dino )


Err... uh... yes, what a he said, eh?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:26 pm
by minstrel
It doesn't open near me until later in the month.

Rats.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:34 pm
by Peven
for all the talk of the "new south" by people down here i still can't count on being able to see movies like "Darjeeling Limited" or "No Country For Old Men" until they have been out for weeks and weeks and this is friggin Atlanta.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:46 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
meet the new south, same as the old south...

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:54 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:meet the new south, same as the old south...


*shudder*

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:06 pm
by Maui
What you folks think?

Are we going to see Moss's death on screen?

Just done with the book. Mighty good read indeed.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:09 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Maui wrote:What you folks think?

Are we going to see Moss's death on screen?

Just done with the book. Mighty good read indeed.


From what I understand no. It has been menitoned a major scene isnt shown so thats my understanding

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:13 pm
by Maui
Did everyone keep all those motels straight?

Geesh.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:15 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Maui wrote:Did everyone keep all those motels straight?

Geesh.


It took a little bit of effort initially...

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:21 pm
by Maui
stereosforgeeks wrote:
Maui wrote:What you folks think?

Are we going to see Moss's death on screen?

Just done with the book. Mighty good read indeed.


From what I understand no. It has been menitoned a major scene isnt shown so thats my understanding


I'll have to see this movie tomorrow or ignore this thread entirely til I do see it.

Can't tell you how psyched I am to see this!!!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:56 pm
by minstrel
I finished the book today. No, I didn't bother trying to keep the motels straight.

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.

McCarthy used an interesting composition technique in this book. When he's just telling the outer story, the police procedural, the language is very, very plain. Almost a pastiche of Hemingway, and, I'm sure, deliberately ugly in parts. But when he's telling Bell's inner story, in Bell's voice, the idiom is perfect and the flow of the prose is wonderful. It's almost as if the Bell parts are in color and the rest is in black and white.

I found that interesting.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:32 pm
by Maui
minstrel wrote:I finished the book today. No, I didn't bother trying to keep the motels straight.

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.

McCarthy used an interesting composition technique in this book. When he's just telling the outer story, the police procedural, the language is very, very plain. Almost a pastiche of Hemingway, and, I'm sure, deliberately ugly in parts. But when he's telling Bell's inner story, in Bell's voice, the idiom is perfect and the flow of the prose is wonderful. It's almost as if the Bell parts are in color and the rest is in black and white.

I found that interesting.


I'm glad you enjoyed it Squirrelly. I must point out though - you do realize I do see the unimportance of keeping track of the motels. As well, the absence of Moss's death in the story not critical to the theme of the story. Alot of people are upset with the lack of detail on Moss's death - not so important for me - but I've read much about this. Apparently the book was skinnied down from 600 pages - which I didn't know.

:wink:

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:36 pm
by minstrel
Maui wrote:
minstrel wrote:I finished the book today. No, I didn't bother trying to keep the motels straight.

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.

McCarthy used an interesting composition technique in this book. When he's just telling the outer story, the police procedural, the language is very, very plain. Almost a pastiche of Hemingway, and, I'm sure, deliberately ugly in parts. But when he's telling Bell's inner story, in Bell's voice, the idiom is perfect and the flow of the prose is wonderful. It's almost as if the Bell parts are in color and the rest is in black and white.

I found that interesting.


I'm glad you enjoyed it Squirrelly. I must point out though - you do realize I do see the unimportance of keeping track of the motels. As well, the absence of Moss's death in the story not critical to the theme of the story. Alot of people are upset with the lack of detail on Moss's death - not so important for me - but I've read much about this. Apparently the book was skinnied down from 600 pages - which I didn't know.

:wink:


Makes me wonder if McCarthy had planned a sequel. He's done a trilogy before.

But Bell retired at the end, so it probably wouldn't be with him. But I bet fans would want to see more Chigurh!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:37 pm
by minstrel
BTW, maybe we should ask a mod to put a spoiler warning in the thread title.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:39 pm
by Maui
minstrel wrote:BTW, maybe we should ask a mod to put a spoiler warning in the thread title.


Yes, because I keep writing Moss's Deatheverywhere.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:54 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Maui wrote:
minstrel wrote:BTW, maybe we should ask a mod to put a spoiler warning in the thread title.


Yes, because I keep writing Moss's Deatheverywhere.


How dare you! ;)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:55 pm
by Lord Voldemoo
minstrel wrote:BTW, maybe we should ask a mod to put a spoiler warning in the thread title.


got it!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:07 pm
by minstrel
Thanks, Moo!!

:)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:41 pm
by Maui
By Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

No Country for Old Men'
In the gripping 'No Country for Old Men,' the Coens depict a society unsafe for all.


WITH "No Country for Old Men," the Coen brothers drop the mask. They've put violence on screen before, lots of it, but not like this. Not anything like this.

The story of stolen drug money and the horrific carnage it precipitates, "No Country for Old Men" doesn't celebrate or smile at violence, it despairs of it, despairs of its randomness, pervasiveness, its inescapable nature, of the way it eats at the soul of society and the individuals in it.


An intense, nihilistic thriller as well as a model of implacable storytelling, this is a film you can't stop watching even though you very much wish you could. That's because "No Country" escorts you through a world so pitilessly bleak, "you put your soul at hazard," as one character says, to be part of it.

That would be Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, a third-generation West Texas lawman who has to worry about Llewelyn Moss, a local man who absconded with $2.4 million in drug cash, and Anton Chigurh, a psychotic killing machine with a peculiar moral compass that's as hard to decipher as his accent. Or his haircut. With Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem doing the honors, respectively, this is definitely acting to write home about.

"No Country" is also all you could hope for in a marriage between the brothers (Ethan and Joel share writing, directing and producing credit this time around) and Cormac McCarthy, who wrote a novel so blistering it's actually more hopeless than the film.

Although only the spawn of the Marquis de Sade would consider this harrowing, uncompromisingly violent film a comedy, the Coens have understood the potential for acid humor in the dialogue and even added an unexpected comic moment or two, like a cheerful norteño band waking a seriously wounded man.

And although they've been making gleeful films about violence since 1984's "Blood Simple," it took McCarthy's measured, apocalyptic novel to provide the Coens with the opportunity to say something serious about situations they've largely joked about before.

The Coens were impressed enough with McCarthy's intense prose (he won the Pulitzer Prize for "The Road") and his great gift for vernacular speech to transfer major chunks of his dialogue from the page to the screen. They also put their decades of experience at the service of creating a measured, classic tone that provides the ideal vehicle for conveying the constant chaos of the plot.

Much of the film, pointedly set in 1980 when the border drug traffic was just heating up, was shot in New Mexico by the Coens' long-time cinematographer, Roger Deakins. Essential atmospheric exteriors, however, were shot in West Texas at the insistence of costar Jones, a native of the Lone Star state. "He yelled at us that [New Mexico] would be a mistake," Ethan Coen said at the film's Cannes debut. "So it wasn't all principle, it was partially browbeating."

Just as the picture demanded those West Texas exteriors, the role of Ed Tom Bell demanded Jones, who gives one of the great performances of his career as the overmatched lawman who says, "The crime you see now, it's hard to take its measure."

Though the Coens liked the idea of Jones' tartness in the good-guy role ("We had a horror of sentimentality, we didn't want Grandpa Charlie Weaver," said Ethan), both the filmmakers and the actor worried that his taking on this part was too obvious a pick. In truth, however, it's hard to think of anyone who could've brought McCarthy's impeccable ear for regional speech so convincingly to the screen. When the sheriff's deputy says, 'It's a mess, ain't it?," it's pure pleasure to hear Jones handle the rejoinder -- "If it ain't, it'll do until the mess gets here" -- with trademark aplomb.

One of the subversive conceits of "No Country" is that, for all Sheriff Bell's experience and skill, he is more of a passive character than an active one, functioning as a kind of Greek chorus who comments on and contextualizes the action rather than being at the heart of it.

The person at the dangerous center of things is Llewelyn Moss, who comes across that drug cash while out hunting and makes it his own. Smart, wary, laconic and resourceful, Llewelyn thinks of himself, his wife Carla Jean says, as capable of "taking on all comers." Despite some heady competition, the supple and ever-surprising Brolin gives what will surely be a career-making charismatic performance.

What Llewelyn doesn't count on is the nature of the man coming after him. With a sickly vampire's complexion, an unpronounceable name and an inexplicable Buster Brown hairdo, Anton Chigurh is literally a person who would as soon kill you as look at you. With a compressed-air slaughterhouse stun gun as his weapon of choice, Chigurh, played by the chillingly effective Bardem, is the key reason so much graphic blood is spilled on screen.

Though these three men gather the most attention, "No Country" has many other strong performances, including Gene Jones, Beth Grant and Kathy Lamkin in small but memorable roles. Especially noteworthy is Scottish actress Kelly Macdonald, letter perfect as Llewelyn's West Texas wife Carla Jean, a situation so unexpected that the Coens, intent on casting regionally, only saw her because casting director Ellen Chenoweth insisted.

No one should go into "No Country for Old Men" underestimating the unnerving intensity of its moments of on-screen violence, its parade of corpses and geysers of spurting blood. But as the story unfolds with the awful inevitability of a modern myth, it's clear that the Coen brothers and McCarthy are not interested in violence for its own sake but for what it says about the world we happen to live in. "I got it under control," a confident deputy says, and in moments he is dead. He didn't have anywhere near the mastery he imagined, and in this truly despairing vision, neither does anyone else.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 pm
by minstrel
Thanks for posting that, Maui. It's a potent review.

It's odd to me that Turan says that Bell is kind of a Greek chorus, not the central character. He's only partly right.

Bell is essentially a commentator for the first two-thirds or so of the book, but in the end, it's his story. He is one of the Old Men the title refers to, and the decisions he makes at the end are the meat of the story McCarthy wants to tell. It's a lament for the loss of civilization and a warning about the coming horror.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:59 pm
by Maui
minstrel wrote:Thanks for posting that, Maui. It's a potent review.

It's odd to me that Turan says that Bell is kind of a Greek chorus, not the central character. He's only partly right.

Bell is essentially a commentator for the first two-thirds or so of the book, but in the end, it's his story. He is one of the Old Men the title refers to, and the decisions he makes at the end are the meat of the story McCarthy wants to tell. It's a lament for the loss of civilization and a warning about the coming horror.


No problem :)

Well remember - this is Turan's take on the movie - not the book.

Yes, it does come together gradually to ultimately be Bell's story and his ongoing pursuit to make things right.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:53 am
by stereosforgeeks
Maui wrote:
minstrel wrote:Thanks for posting that, Maui. It's a potent review.

It's odd to me that Turan says that Bell is kind of a Greek chorus, not the central character. He's only partly right.

Bell is essentially a commentator for the first two-thirds or so of the book, but in the end, it's his story. He is one of the Old Men the title refers to, and the decisions he makes at the end are the meat of the story McCarthy wants to tell. It's a lament for the loss of civilization and a warning about the coming horror.


No problem :)

Well remember - this is Turan's take on the movie - not the book.

Yes, it does come together gradually to ultimately be Bell's story and his ongoing pursuit to make things right.


It is totally Bell's story. He is the central character that ties everything together.

I can hardly wait for 12 hours until I see this. I hope it can live up to my expectations.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:46 pm
by Maui
stereosforgeeks wrote:
I can hardly wait for 12 hours until I see this. I hope it can live up to my expectations.


It's only playing in San Fran at the moment - looks like a trip on BART.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:25 pm
by minstrel
So did you guys see this yet? Maui, did you take that BART trip?

Reviews! We need reviews!!

... please?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:17 pm
by Maui
minstrel wrote:So did you guys see this yet? Maui, did you take that BART trip?

Reviews! We need reviews!!

... please?


Nope not yet, pissing down rain here tonight. I'm in house hermit mode.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:16 pm
by stereosforgeeks
I thought the movie was great, but as a fan of the book I am missing things.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:20 pm
by Ribbons
I've got a question, you guys keep referring to Javier Bardem's character as Sugar, but I read a review the other day where he was called "Chigurh." Did they change the name of the character or does it just depend on who's saying it?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:36 pm
by Maui
Ribbons wrote:I've got a question, you guys keep referring to Javier Bardem's character as Sugar, but I read a review the other day where he was called "Chigurh." Did they change the name of the character or does it just depend on who's saying it?



In the book, they describe how to pronounce his last name, Chigurh, like the word SUGAR.

:)

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:04 am
by minstrel
stereosforgeeks wrote:I thought the movie was great, but as a fan of the book I am missing things.


No important things, I hope.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:21 am
by stereosforgeeks
minstrel wrote:
stereosforgeeks wrote:I thought the movie was great, but as a fan of the book I am missing things.


No important things, I hope.


Youll have to see for yourself.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:23 am
by minstrel
stereosforgeeks wrote:
minstrel wrote:
stereosforgeeks wrote:I thought the movie was great, but as a fan of the book I am missing things.


No important things, I hope.


Youll have to see for yourself.



(Yosemite Sam voice) OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

It isn't opening here until the 21st!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:27 am
by stereosforgeeks
Sounds like you have 11 days to wait Minstrel ;)

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:29 am
by minstrel
Grrrrrrrrr.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:35 am
by Maui
I would not be surprised if we see a review shortly from KCBC. I'm betting he saw it this weekend.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:36 am
by stereosforgeeks
Maui wrote:I would not be surprised if we see a review shortly from KCBC. I'm betting he saw it this weekend.


I'm working on it, but I am not a writer as most of you have surely noticed ;)

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:31 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
Maui wrote:I would not be surprised if we see a review shortly from KCBC. I'm betting he saw it this weekend.


you lose!

Monday, if I can't get into the Razor screening, Tuesday if I can.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:34 am
by Maui
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
Maui wrote:I would not be surprised if we see a review shortly from KCBC. I'm betting he saw it this weekend.


you lose!

Monday, if I can't get into the Razor screening, Tuesday if I can.


Conflabbit!!! Well, atleast there was no monies involved.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:02 pm
by MasterWhedon
I saw this over the weekend, a little over an hour after I saw Beowulf (my review for that HERE), and unlike that film, my expectations were sky high going in. The reviews have said it's nothing short of brilliant, and given it's from the Cohens, that means an even higher level than normal brilliance. 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 yeat, make sure you see it once it opens wide.

10/10

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:23 pm
by minstrel
MW, I was already eagerly awaiting this. But now your little review has got me practically holding my breath. I want a time machine so I can go to next week and watch it NOW!! (So to speak - you know what I mean!)

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:43 pm
by Maui
MasterWhedon wrote:I saw this over the weekend, a little over an hour after I saw Beowulf (my review for that HERE), and unlike that film, my expectations were sky high going in. The reviews have said it's nothing short of brilliant, and given it's from the Cohens, that means an even higher level than normal brilliance. 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 yeat, make sure you see it once it opens wide.

10/10


Good, I wanted Sugar to be that way!!!!! He certainly appears heartless, cold and calculating in the book. A sick twist in the worst possible way.

Soundtrack is scarce, very interesting.

I hear Brolin puts forth a pretty decent performance as well. He seems to be the comeback kid of 2007. His role in Elah was minor, but he still was great. NCFOM obviously gives him more screen time to shine.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:44 pm
by Fawst
Spoiler mode, used as point of discussion.

I haven't read the book, or seen the film, but I know that Moss dies. But considering everyone is swearing up and down that we don't need to see it, and I know that we DON'T see it, has the whole movie been ruined for me? I mean, in the end, is it a major shocker? I guess I'm wondering how big of a spoiler it really is. I'm still gonna see this, but because I can't seem to ever stay spoiler-free (even when I attempt NOT to read any spoilers... hello, Foxnews.com re: Golden Compass) I now know what would probably be a major part of the story. So... am I ruined?

This is for anyone who has seen the movie already. Thanks :)

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:55 pm
by MasterWhedon
MAJOR SPOILER

Fawst wrote:Spoiler mode, used as point of discussion.

I haven't read the book, or seen the film, but I know that Moss dies. But considering everyone is swearing up and down that we don't need to see it, and I know that we DON'T see it, has the whole movie been ruined for me? I mean, in the end, is it a major shocker? I guess I'm wondering how big of a spoiler it really is. I'm still gonna see this, but because I can't seem to ever stay spoiler-free (even when I attempt NOT to read any spoilers... hello, Foxnews.com re: Golden Compass) I now know what would probably be a major part of the story. So... am I ruined?

This is for anyone who has seen the movie already. Thanks :)

You're not necessarily "ruined," becuase there's still a whole helluva lot else that'll surprise you, but that certainly does rob you of some dramatic tension. Still, unless you've been told specifically how he dies, you'll be twisting and turning with everyone else during some of the close calls.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:05 pm
by Maui
Image


I will not read the spoilers.....

I will not read the spoilers.....

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:49 pm
by Fawst
Excellent, MW :) Thanks for the good news!

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:59 pm
by so sorry
I jsut saw the tralier for this over the weekend (am I way behind, or what?).

Looks cool for sure...and its killing me to NOT read those fucking spoilers!

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:20 pm
by stereosforgeeks
Maui wrote:Image


I will not read the spoilers.....

I will not read the spoilers.....


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