No Country for Old Men

while i had problems with NCFOM, everything on your list is what I considered its strong points. strangely enough.
 
"I tried to read through this thread before posting, but could only get to page 10 or so before I had to stop.

I can't believe how much people seem to like this film, and I have no idea how this managed to win Best Picture.

This was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Here's why:
"

OK bro. If you're a Coen brothers fan, THIS MOVIE WAS PURE COEN. Either you got the movie or you didn't. I think you have to be more objective while watching and not try to compare it to the butt-loads of cookie-cutter movies that do lame ****. This movie is brilliant. Every single frame of it. But different strokes, right?


Ps. What do YOU think should have won best picture?
 
chstick said:
Regarding the ending. A DVXuser in the 'Oscar' discussion said that, "The ending wasn't "bad", it just wasn't what I wanted".

I thought that probably describes it pretty well (for most).

My .02 on the ending is this...
It went out with a whimper....like the book...like OLD MEN...like life.

I didn't like it (the ending) when I saw it in the theater, didn't hate it either. However, after a few days to think about it, I've not only warmed to it, but it feels a little more right.
In a way it was like the Sopranos finale (didn't like it at the moment I saw it, but a few days later thought it was genius).
These two examples are kind of going back to more of a HITCHCOCK style of story telling.....where the build up & suspense IS the bang...not the ending. I think the film audiences of today have been conditioned to expect 'the big payoff' at the end of movies. One of the great aspects of filmmaking is telling a story by what you leave out.....in doing this, you really have to walk a fine line between making something great and having a "what the f*#k...that sucked" moment.

As for the Coen bros big night last night. I am stoked for them. I've been a huge Coen bros fan since BLOOD SIMPLE, and, like Scorsese last year, it almost seems like a little payback for Bloodsimple, Fargo, The Big Lebowski et al...

I'm a little bummed that Deakins didn't get the cinematography Oscar....but it probably hurt his chances being on the ballot twice in the same category. I'm sure a lot of the 6000+ Academy members just put an X next to Deakins name (be it Jesse James or NO COUNTRY)....not to take anything away from the amazing job Elswit did in "There Will Be Blood".

Cool, Coen bros, Oscar winning directors.

Well deserved.
Click to expand...
The ending in the book made more sense. In the movie, it felt like it was missing a setup to allow us to understand what was being said, thus just becoming a non-ending. I saw it twice in the theater and a couple of time on the DVD, as well as reading the book. I have a better understanding of the movie now, having read the book. But I shouldn't have had to read the book to understand the ending.

Having watched it a few times, small things are beginning to bug me, particularly the "is he there or not" motel room scene. I have finally come to the conclusion that he's not there (a change of my earlier opinion). In the book, he had already left the motel (which WASN'T in El Paso in the book, btw) but was in the parking lot when Bell arrived.

Originally, I had this RIGHT behind Fargo and just AHEAD of Lebowski. While I still like the movie a lot, and feel it was correctly chosen for the Oscar, I don't think it's in the same class as Fargo and Lebowski.
 
It's an art-house film.

And I'm happy to see Hollywood decorating such efforts.

Pretty brave to do a film like that. Unconventional.
 
Besides the ending not resolving itself with a bowtie or having a soundtrack, I thought the film was very conventional in its storytelling methods. It didn't transcend or change the genre.

The Coen Brothers are extremely good at what they do, but I don't see them as breaking-the-mold with regards to what is the finished product. Maybe off-screen they are innovators in regards to how they go about making a film. But that's another story.
 
in talking to Josh Brolin, it sounds like they have evolved to a less rigid method of filmmaking. I remember the stories of Nic Cage being very frustrated with the Coens wanting him to stick to the dialogue word for word and now, apparently, they are giving more freedom to their actors.... according to Josh, anyway. i was thinking, knowing Clooney's penchant for improvisation, I wonder if he is the person responsible in this shift in attitude by the Coens. who knows.
 
Zak Forsman said:
in talking to Josh Brolin, it sounds like they have evolved to a less rigid method of filmmaking. I remember the stories of Nic Cage being very frustrated with the Coens wanting him to stick to the dialogue word for word and now, apparently, they are giving more freedom to their actors.... according to Josh, anyway. i was thinking, knowing Clooney's penchant for improvisation, I wonder if he is the person responsible in this shift in attitude by the Coens. who knows.
Click to expand...

When you can write dialogue like the coens do, why improvise?
 
Batutta said:
When you can write dialogue like the coens do, why improvise?
Click to expand...
I came out of the theater raving about the Coen's dialogue in NCOM, but then I read the book and realized that 95% of the dialogue was lifted directly from the book. They do write excellent dialogue but Cormac was responsible for the dialogue in NCOM. :beer:
 
I was with this movie until the last 1/4, then it just falls apart.

I'm okay with fooling the audience as to who the protaganist is, but they didnt even give you the f*cking close up to show he was dead. When I was watching this the credits rolled and I yelled 'what the f1ck???" and my wife thought something was wrong. I then had to go back and re-watch the dvd (i was watching an academy screener) and go slo-mo to figure out Llewelyn had died. Then the double fake ending that went no where?

To me, bitter anticlamatic endings do not make for a masterpiece. As a writer, it's far easier to just unravel the threads and then f*ck the audience by not tying anything than it is to artfully bring it all together (such as in the Godfather).
 
Comments in bold.

shawneous said:
I was with this movie until the last 1/4, then it just falls apart.

I'm okay with fooling the audience as to who the protaganist is, but they didnt even give you the f*cking close up to show he was dead.

I could clearly tell that it was him in the theatre. I had no doubt.

When I was watching this the credits rolled and I yelled 'what the f1ck???" and my wife thought something was wrong. I then had to go back and re-watch the dvd (i was watching an academy screener) and go slo-mo to figure out Llewelyn had died. Then the double fake ending that went no where?

I'm really unsure as to why you couldn't figure out he was dead? Wasn't the body and his wife's reaction enough!?

To me, bitter anticlamatic endings do not make for a masterpiece. As a writer, it's far easier to just unravel the threads and then f*ck the audience by not tying anything than it is to artfully bring it all together (such as in the Godfather).

I didn't feel poo pooed at all. I feel screwed every time I watch a movie and I can tell what's going to happen before the mid-point. Goodbye cookie cutter movies! That's when I feel f*cked!
Click to expand...

Cheers,

Mike
 
shawneous said:
I was with this movie until the last 1/4, then it just falls apart.

I'm okay with fooling the audience as to who the protaganist is, but they didnt even give you the f*cking close up to show he was dead. When I was watching this the credits rolled and I yelled 'what the f1ck???" and my wife thought something was wrong. I then had to go back and re-watch the dvd (i was watching an academy screener) and go slo-mo to figure out Llewelyn had died. Then the double fake ending that went no where?

To me, bitter anticlamatic endings do not make for a masterpiece. As a writer, it's far easier to just unravel the threads and then f*ck the audience by not tying anything than it is to artfully bring it all together (such as in the Godfather).
Click to expand...

A lot of people felt this way. I didn't.

But man, at least the actress playing the wife had some realistic eyelashes. That would have taken me RIGHT out of the movie. :evil:
 
So I've seen this twice. First time I was riveted, second time I was looking at my watch.

I just have zero attachment to any of the characters. I enjoyed watching what they were doing, and was excited by their participation in the execution of suspenseful action scenes. The action scenes were so powerful because it looked and felt like people were really getting hurt; the characters all appeared physically vulnerable which kept me totally engaged,

The characters respond to the violence with a very real intensity, but beyond that I have zero attachment to them as real people. I could of cared less what happened to them, villian or non-villian. I was rooting in that film the way I root in other heist film or shoot-em ups for the story to play itself out. There is no real connection to people that moved me emotionally.

Then the final act happens and it is a totally different approach taken. You cannot have a movie that is built upon an egg-timer model and then turn the egg-timer off at the last moments before it goes off.
The characters in this film don't exist in a world which explores the human spirit. This movie spends almost all of its time raising the temperature of riveting, smart action and suspense with taught editing. Then at the end of the film they try to dial into a completely different depth that this film has spent no time working its audience into.

I find Fargo to be much better than this. The humor in it somehow provides the characters with a relatable humanity that is missing here. Also, the Coens seem more interested in the Fargo characters than those in NCFOM.

I think the Coen Brothers are more interested in the intense, dramatic situation of the plot rather than the actual people involved. Sure, personalities are established and dialogue is given, but there is just no soul.
 
***Spoilers***

Having watched this film for the first time last night and having just read through the thread I have to say that I am in agreement with those that felt dis-satisfied by the ending of the film.

TLJ's character was not developed enough for me to care about his realization at the end. Brolin's character was the focus of 2/3rd's of the film and is the character I was interested in. To have his character die 2/3rd's into the film and than shift focus to TLJ left me feeling cheated.

I get the deep meaning in the film but there is having a great concept and than there is executing that concept in a gripping story. Here they had that 2/3rd's of the way through and then completely lost it. The last 1/3rd was bad. Actually they were some great scenes but they were not fully connected to what came before them.

This is a good film but the ending stopped it from being great for me.
 
mjjason said:
***Spoilers***



TLJ's character was not developed enough for me to care about his realization at the end. Brolin's character was the focus of 2/3rd's of the film and is the character I was interested in. To have his character die 2/3rd's into the film and than shift focus to TLJ left me feeling cheated.
Click to expand...
This is what made it great for me. It did away with the cookie cutter mold and went in an entirely different direction. :thumbup:
I'm tired of knowing exactly how a movie is going to play out.

I also thought TLJ's character was very deep. I actually cared for his character much more than Brolin's.
Very likable guy.

Cheers,

Mike
 
mjjason said:
***Spoilers***

Having watched this film for the first time last night and having just read through the thread I have to say that I am in agreement with those that felt dis-satisfied by the ending of the film.

TLJ's character was not developed enough for me to care about his realization at the end. Brolin's character was the focus of 2/3rd's of the film and is the character I was interested in. To have his character die 2/3rd's into the film and than shift focus to TLJ left me feeling cheated.

I get the deep meaning in the film but there is having a great concept and than there is executing that concept in a gripping story. Here they had that 2/3rd's of the way through and then completely lost it. The last 1/3rd was bad. Actually they were some great scenes but they were not fully connected to what came before them.

This is a good film but the ending stopped it from being great for me.
Click to expand...

you mean, like psycho does?

:-o
 
I think a lot of the people that saw this movie that felt unmoved or disappointed really did not get it. The end of the movie came with a bow-tie.

To me, the film was about playing the odds. You keep playing with fire your going to get burned. That was the whole point of the dream at the end. The only character to realize that was Sheriff Bell. This is why he retires and walks away alive.

Llewelyn was lucky enough to make it out of Nam alive and in one piece. He comes home from that to keep playing games of life and death by getting himself involved in this whole mess. This is why he ends up dead.

Anton too. He considered himself unstoppable and in the end what happened to him. He got hit by a car... Big deal right? Yes big deal because he broke his arm. How will he recover from that? Simply he won't. What happens to him now. He cant shoot a gun, he can no longer be a killer and is on the run from the law.

The two witnesses to Antons accident were kids because there is no room for old men. You end up like Llewelyn, Anton, or Sheriff Bell's friend, because no matter how sure you are of the outcome, you can never be to sure. I think that was the point of the film.

You keep playing with fire your going to get burned...

The concept flew over my head the first time I saw it but stuck the second time around.

I went on a bit of a rant without reading anything besides the last page but thats my 2 cents. ha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top