| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 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. |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/07/2007 : 23:40:40
|
It's on my list now. The Coen brothers are on my "I'll watch everything they make" list, regardless of reviews etc.  |
 |
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 10/07/2007 : 23:47:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
It's on my list now. The Coen brothers are on my "I'll watch everything they make" list, regardless of reviews etc.
Couldn't agree more |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/08/2007 : 06:57:53
|
| I second (or is that third) that emotion! |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 00:10:31
|
AND Roger Deakins is British! YAY!
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 02:32:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
AND Roger Deakins is British! YAY!
From the sound of his name, I think Roderick Jaynes might be, too. |
Edited by - randall on 11/10/2007 02:32:59 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/27/2007 : 20:03:07
|
In one of life's little ironies - and this a most tragic one - as soon as the end credits rolled on this amazing film from the Coen Brothers, I learned of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. In light of the cold-water reality of the film, the news felt almost expected.
In what I thought at its beginning was going to be a disappointing year for good, if not great films, just in the last few weeks I've seen several that are destined to become classics. No Country For Old Men hovers at the top of that list. The Coens are back to the immaculate cinema story-telling form they nearly perfected with films like Miller's Crossing, The Big Lebowski and Fargo. Backed by a cast as unshowy as the scrubland and ordinary small-towns of its setting, the film nevertheless is as powerful a piece of totally accessible philosophical Americana as any you'll see.
Shot by Roger Deakins with the precision of paintings by Edward Hopper and Andrew Wyeth, the film insists there's more going on than you can see. It's more a reaction to what's happening in society than a direct exploration or explanation of it.
It's based on Cormac McCarthy's novel and extends the themes of his previous book All The Pretty Horses, filmed by Billy Bob Thornton. That dealt with reality's subversion of expectations. This one tackles the banishment of expectation in the light of an incomprehensible reality.
From the opening narration by the unmistakable gravel tones of Tommy Lee Jones as the local Sherrif Bell, recounting the change in society's need for the rule of law and how that change affects both protected and protector, we're given a container of contemplation that carries us through the increasingly insane violence to come.
Although the film fulfils its promise as a modern thriller [well, for most of the time], it's Jones, in one of his best performances, who's the focus, even though more screen time is probably given to the people he's chasing.
His immediate quarry is Llewelyn Moss - his name already marking him out as not yer typical trailer-trash hombre. Josh Brolin plays him sly and smart, but not too smart. Just smart enough to figure stuff out and hope for the best. Mostly he makes good choices, but not always. And sometimes it wouldn't matter what choice he makes.
We first meet him hunting in the hills, and no, he's not the best. But he does stumble on the seeds of an adventure that will drive the plot home, though from the start we know this is going to be a hell of a ride.
Without spoiling anything there's the remnants of a drugs meet gone wrong, and Moss finds the missing millions. From then on hunter becomes hunted and by someone who's ruthless and psychopathic enough to be pretty near the best at his bloody game. He's called Anton Chigurh and he has not even a fraction of a qualm about killing. There is no logic, at least none that's comprehensible to us about why his body count keeps jumping. But you feel if you could peek inside Javier Bardem's mind you'd at least find his justifications for his character. It's a great study of the economy of screen acting.
There's a small phalanx of other chasers, some after the money, some after Chirgurh, and some wanting to protect Moss's wife. But the greatest chase is the one Sherrif Bell leads against himself. He's at a cross-roads where a re-evaluation of his entire previous life will determine where he's going from here.
The Coen's wisely bring the curtain down on a moment of possibility. I believe they're saying yep, it sure is crap at the moment, as crap as it's ever been. Like Moss we're not always the best, and we can't always see what's coming. But if we're careful and caring we just might make the choices that will allow us to rise, instead of getting mired in further.
As Randall says, a must see!
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/27/2007 : 23:11:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
The Coen's wisely bring the curtain down on a moment of possibility. I believe they're saying yep, it sure is crap at the moment, as crap as it's ever been. Like Moss we're not always the best, and we can't always see what's coming. But if we're careful and caring we just might make the choices that will allow us to rise, instead of getting mired in further.
As Randall says, a must see!
I agree!!!!
Just wanted to point out that the film is a remarkably faithful adaptation of the Cormac McCarthy novel, including the ending you cite -- including, in fact, the very last few words! Where the movie strays is only to its credit, as for example its cinematic extension of a tense scene viewers experience from inside a hotel room. Nice job, Coens and Baffy too! |
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb 
"Better than HBO."
|
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. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
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. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
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. |
Edited by - turrell on 01/21/2008 06:52:24 |
|
|
|
mampers11 
"Lazy Lebowski Loses Rug"
|
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).
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
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. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
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. |
Edited by - Downtown on 04/16/2008 03:35:18 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
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... 
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
No Country For Old Men
