| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 10/07/2007 : 17:35:16
The Coen brothers' latest is gorgeously staged and shot, frequently almost unbearably tense, and quite, quite violent. It's Texas in 1980, and a man stumbles upon the bloody aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong. SIMPLE PLAN-like, he decides to make off with the money, and is followed by Javier Bardem, who plays one of the most psychopathic bad guys I've ever seen. Tommy Lee Jones is around as a homespun sheriff full of Texas-style wisdom [the real kind, not the George W. Bush kind].
The Coens and their amazing cinematographer Roger Deakins are firing on all cylinders. There's very little dialogue for a two-hour film: the country and the savagery take center stage, along with an explicitly expressed feeling that modern life is getting out of control. A must-see. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 19:14:48
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Secondly much of the key action that we almost demand to see - the fate of Moss and his wife - are off screen incidents. They are purposefully downplayed and leave you disorientated and unsatisfied, much like Sheriff Bell. McCarthy and the Coens make it much more difficult for the audience; I think that`s pretty extraordinary.
Oh come on. All that's hardly Innovation Central. Sure, in a bland action film one would get a neat and balanced ending, but in any film aspiring to be at all arty it's verging on totally standard to deny the audience an instinctively satisfying conclusion. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 15:58:17
... and you all keep trying to use logic on what is a film about choices. Those made in good faith. Those made with little or no information. Those made for some inexplicable reason in the face of a hazy future. Those made while your eye's off the ball. Blah-blah-blah. And, for Bell, who's in the throes of his biggest life choice of all - as described in his opening monologue - everything that follows reinforces his bafflement at the way life's rules seem to have transformed in front of his eyes, like some kind of shapeshifter, some kind of driven presence who won't play by the rules -- yes, like Chigurh.
It's an expressionistic film. A film about a vanishing time, vanishing values ...
And that's why it ends the way it does.
As I said in my original review, if you treat it like a formula thriller you are going to be disappointed, my friend.
Now step away from the hose - it could take your eye out!
|
| Downtown |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 15:34:13
Okay, let's see:
He was stupid for sticking his nose into some serious trouble that didn't concern him.
He was stupid for keeping the money in the same bag instead of ditching the bag. He might not have been expected to know there was a tracking device but at the very least he should have put the money in something that nobody would recognize. Jeez even I would know better than to carry $2,000,000 of dirty money in the same bag I found it in.
He was stupid for going back.
He was stupid for walking so far away from his truck.
He was stupid for standing around like a fool with his mouth gaping open when he saw someone had come back and killed the last survivor, instead of just getting the bleep out of there because he might be next.
He was stupid for not immediately realizing he was in over his head and using the money to hide himself and his family instead just taking it on a road trip.
He was stupid for thinking his wife would be safe.
He was stupid for going across the border IF he was planning on coming back with the money, which he was.
He was stupid for thinking he could protect his wife from a maniac that promised him he would kill her.
He was stupid for not realizing his wife would lead his killers to him.
His wife was stupid for not realizing her mother would lead the killers to him (that's why I lost sympathy for her, too).
quote:
quote:
I WANTED him to die, and I was glad when he finally did. His stupid wife, too.
I don't get this sentiment at all. Honestly, it scares me a little.
He man, it's just a movie. But all of these mistakes I've listed are not with the benefit of hindsight. I was thinking all of these things as the events were unfolding before my eyes. He was just SO FREAKING STUPID, by the time I saw him in the hotel playing with the homing device in his hands and not TRYING TO GET RID OF IT, I'd finally had it and was ready to start rooting for Chigurh. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 07:00:56
D'oh. I actually meant Moss, yes.
But, in any case, the only thing I can think of he did that wasn't smart is that he went back to give the survivor water, a move he clearly recognized as dangerous but also clearly weighed heavy on his conscience. Nearly everything he did after that was smooth as butter.
The film is not really about Chigurh as it is about Chigurh's worldview, and how he is clearly correct about the idea that the world is without meaning, order or logic. By taking the money, Moss is trying to add the meaning to his world that his wife, the Vietnam War, and the rest of his shit-ass life in Nowhere, TX has failed to. Chigurh deals with it by choosing to be an avatar of chaos, but of course, he's as subject to the whims of fate as anyone else in the movie.
To be honest, that's a little academic for my tastes, though the Coens would hardly be able to change anything and still have the movie hold up thematically. I'd put NCFOM on my top ten list of the year but it'd be near the bottom, I certainly don't like it as much as There Will Be Blood, Spider-Man 3, last week's episode of "The Office," etc. But I do think it's a classic. Part of the reason so many felt gypped about the end is that, though this movie is not a thriller, it could easily be mistaken for one for much of its screen time.
quote:
I WANTED him to die, and I was glad when he finally did. His stupid wife, too.
I don't get this sentiment at all. Honestly, it scares me a little. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 03:27:46
Oh I thought we were talking about Moss and Chigurd. It never even occurred to me that the engaging cat and mouse game might involve Bell. |
| damalc |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 03:24:40
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
i thought Bell was stupid to go back to the scene to take the survivor water but other than that was pretty resourceful.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 03:13:03
I'd like to respond, but I don't understand what you mean when you say Bell was stupid. What exactly do you mean? |
| Downtown |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 02:43:17
quote:
Firstly the two protagonists whose gripping cat and mouse game involves us so intensely for the majority of the running time never actually meet.
But it didn't "involve me intensely" because it required so many idiot plot elements. It was a cat and mouse game only because the mouse is the world's biggest jackass. I WANTED him to die, and I was glad when he finally did. His stupid wife, too.
It was a movie where I felt no sympathy - or even empathy - for ANY of the characters. It might have been saved for me if I could have at least cared about Bell...but his character was presented in such a way as to purposely avoid that. |
| demonic |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 02:14:47
I think there are several things that make it massively original, which are, of course, spoilerific... look away you unviewers....
Firstly the two protagonists whose gripping cat and mouse game involves us so intensely for the majority of the running time never actually meet. That takes some balls.
Secondly much of the key action that we almost demand to see - the fate of Moss and his wife - are off screen incidents. They are purposefully downplayed and leave you disorientated and unsatisfied, much like Sheriff Bell. McCarthy and the Coens make it much more difficult for the audience; I think that`s pretty extraordinary.
Frankly it`s not just a bog standard dusty desert thriller and to expect only that it will probably disappoint. There are dozens of films like that - this one is far braver and provoking, hence critical and Oscar pay off.
And of course Bardem is terrifying... 
|
| Downtown |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 15:38:37
I'm discussing spoilers.
I just saw this movie and found it remarkably unremarkable. It relies heavily on "idiot plot" elements, to point of being extremely annoying. It says nothing and takes me nowhere. Just being well acted and well directed and well shot isn't enough...in the end, it's just another haunting look at a cold, ruthless killer, and there's nothing original about that anymore.
I found this movie mildly entertaining, and nice 2 hour diversion. But I can't think of a single reason it should have garnered so much attention. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 00:59:32
I enjoyed this, but not as much as I expected, as I had not been as able to avoid the hype as with many films. (I never read or watch reviews of films I haven't seen.)
I don't, though, think that Chigurh is such a great character, either in terms of creation or portrayal. He's just a machine (mainly), and what's so hard about that? I also found it frustrating that he is able to magically just track anyone down. Spoilerish: I know it's kinda the point that people are in a no-win situation, but am not quite sure whether that it is a stylish choice or a cop-out. Moss is a much more interesting character.
So, not as good as The Big Lebowski or Fargo, but still not too shabby. |
| mampers11 |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 16:59:11
Hiya guys. Have not really been on FWFR for ages. Exams and uni work has taken over my life. However I just finished my exams and as a treat, I decided to watch No Country For Old Men, after hearing amazing reviews about it. My verdict was it was one of the best movies that I have seen for a while. It has been a while that a movie has made me breath heavily and set my heart racing. Literally it made me sit up and take notice of the story and the action, I used the word literally, since I actually sat up and let this movie grab me). The acting is top notch, with Tommy Lee Jones playing a world weary sheriff, who seems to feel that the world has gone to hell in a handbasket. Josh Brolin was amazing has a street smart redneck, who seem to be caught up in a shit storm. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But my Mampers Oscar would be given to Javier Bardem. I have never really heard of him before, but after watching this, I will take him account of being an amazing actor. His character was a hybrid of the Terminator and one of the Monkees. This guy was freaking unrelentless and ruthless. There were some moments in the movie where I was shocked of how callous he killed people, but I was also in awe of how he programmed and how he thought. The ending would put a lot of people off, and since I did hear what the ending was, I was expecting it, but I am glad that it was that way. It leaves it up to the imagination, but it still caught me off guard. I am probably going to see it again to just admire a great movie.
Mampers. (Happy that exams over but needs to catch up on sleep).
|
| turrell |
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 06:52:09
I think the whole point of Bell's character is that he did not do anything to impact th estory and that was his great regret - he could not fulfil his promise to Mrs. Moss - not nearly as well as Chigurg makes good on his promise to Mr. Moss.
So the point for me is that he couldn't do enough to change the story and thats his personal tragedy. |
| randall |
Posted - 12/29/2007 : 22:17:54
quote:
Originally posted by MM0rkeleb
My biggest problem was the black hole that was the character of Tom Bell. In my view, if a movie is going to spend significant time on a character, that character should, y'know, affect things, or at the very least be affected (but the former is much much better). Tom Bell has pretty much zero influence on anything that happens (by choice, even). He also begins the movie in a state of world-weary resignation and ... um ... ends the movie in a state of world-weary resignation. As far as I can tell, Bell exists only to express a point of view on the main action, thus forcing the audience's response to it -- another thing I really don't like.
And this brings me to that last scene, which for me is the most superfluous scene in the whole movie, mostly because it involves only Bell, and because everyone else's story is already finished (Incidentally, I thought the penultimate scene was also pointless, but to say more would be spoilery). BaftaBabe's interpretation gave me pause (I hadn't considered that), but I don't buy it. In general, I don't buy any idea that's just shoehorned into a final monologue and is present nowhere else in the movie. Besides, this is film, and actions and imagery speak louder than words. Bell's action is one of capitulation, and the imagery (especially in that final scene) is sleep/death. This isn't hope. It's a retreat.
Like I said, there's a lot that's really good in the movie. Without Bell, it could've been a lean 80 minute masterpiece with a snarl. The way it is now, there's too much dead space.
[SPOILERS AHEAD, I GUESS, BUT NOT REALLY: IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN/READ NO COUNTRY, YOU'LL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT]
As a reader of the source novel, I was already set up for the quirky ending that so disappointed you [though I never thought they'd have the guts to shoot it exactly as written]. To me, Bell is the voice of the reader/viewer, an experienced observer who sadly notes that things are falling apart. Good thing he finds the energy to quit the game before it can consume him as it did the Moss character. Then he woke up. Wow. |
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 12/29/2007 : 05:40:21
I was a little bit more ambivalent about this one. I still liked it a lot (I have it rated 4/5 here) - particularly how much it was able to do with as little dialogue as it had. But its virtues are well-documented here and elsewhere, so I'll move on.
My biggest problem was the black hole that was the character of Tom Bell. In my view, if a movie is going to spend significant time on a character, that character should, y'know, affect things, or at the very least be affected (but the former is much much better). Tom Bell has pretty much zero influence on anything that happens (by choice, even). He also begins the movie in a state of world-weary resignation and ... um ... ends the movie in a state of world-weary resignation. As far as I can tell, Bell exists only to express a point of view on the main action, thus forcing the audience's response to it -- another thing I really don't like.
And this brings me to that last scene, which for me is the most superfluous scene in the whole movie, mostly because it involves only Bell, and because everyone else's story is already finished (Incidentally, I thought the penultimate scene was also pointless, but to say more would be spoilery). BaftaBabe's interpretation gave me pause (I hadn't considered that), but I don't buy it. In general, I don't buy any idea that's just shoehorned into a final monologue and is present nowhere else in the movie. Besides, this is film, and actions and imagery speak louder than words. Bell's action is one of capitulation, and the imagery (especially in that final scene) is sleep/death. This isn't hope. It's a retreat.
Like I said, there's a lot that's really good in the movie. Without Bell, it could've been a lean 80 minute masterpiece with a snarl. The way it is now, there's too much dead space. |
|
|
