|
[PS im not trolling here or anything. I genuinely need some help because my colleague got this for me and I need to say I liked it and why. He loves it and I don't want to disappoint him]
Just finished watching it. Boy was I disappointed.
Pros:
atmosphere
acting
Cons:
paper thin characters
unimpressive, whimsical plot
unbelievable- weak on the details
Ok so here are my problems. I didn't watch the movie that scrupulously though, so I might have missed shit. IN MINE HUMBLE OPINION:
Chigurh wasn't a good bad guy imo. After having just seen the dark knight...THAT's a bad guy and a half. This guy was just death incarnate with an irritating cattle killing weapon. He didn't show any motivations...just a psychopath...what's interesting in seeing a psychopath kill people? They never showed how the fuck he managed to keep track of the running guy so closely- that really annoyed me. If it's all to make some lame point about how we make our own luck or death is inevitable or you can't run from your daemons it could have been made a lot more interestingly.
The penultimate scene was pointless. Why would you be drawn into any thought about Chigurh? What is there to think about? Once the main character is dead, (and btw his character didn't show us anything, just fucked around and died)what is the point in carrying on the film?
Tommy Lee Jones' character...wtf is the point of him. We didn't see enough of his 'struggle' to find the killer.
My overall problem with the film was that they didn't show the important parts. They showed the pointless ones. What the hell was the point of the car crash scene? Some sort of point about luck? What possible use did that have? The agency was almost a deus ex machina. So much about that film screamed deus ex machina tbh. Well...should I say the plot. My main problem is with the plot and I guess that means with the book but one never knows.
A review said the film is close to the book, in which case I probably dislike the book.
The atmosphere was tense...for a time...but more tense with the question of 'is there a point to this film? Am I wasting my time?' than with the question of what happens next.
I guess the film is supposed to be a thriller with a sort of enigmatic twist to it. But the plot just seems thrown together and coincidental.
So how the hell does this film get such high ratings? I mean if you compare this film in tension, acting, timing and story levels to for example any of Sergio Lione's dollar trilogy films; I think you'll always find this wanting.
95% on Rotten Tomatoes I just don't understand. The dark knight smothered this film imo.
Ps dont bother bashing my opinion, just give me reasons why it's good. I'll rewatch the film if I get some good reasons.
 
|
Because you have shit taste?
The stars weren't properly aligned that day?
You were too busy being better looking and more talented on TL than everyone to realize it's a good movie?
Your astrological symbol doesn't agree with those of the Coen brothers?
Or—and I'm leaning towards this one—you were conceived from the drip down from your mother's ass and are partially retarded.
|
I agree with you mostly. When I watched it, I kinda liked it, but definitely didn't think it was great by any means. I hate to say things like this, but it seems like one of those things where people don't understand it completely and think that that makes it a good movie. I think if you don't understand it the people that made it failed to communicate it to you properly, not that you failed to watch it properly. But w/e, just my 2 cents.
|
On December 31 2008 07:17 Hawk wrote:
Because you have shit taste?
The stars weren't properly aligned that day?
You were too busy being better looking and more talented on TL than everyone to realize it's a good movie?
Your astrological symbol doesn't agree with those of the Coen brothers?
Or—and I'm leaning towards this one—you were conceived from the drip down from your mother's ass and are partially retarded.
This.
|
Movie sucked.
Its all just hype.
|
No Country for Old Men was a great movie, and so was the Dark Knight. I don't really see a huge reason to compare the two, however. The Dark Knight may have been more entertaining, but in fact, most would agree that there is far less substance to it. More substance on the surface, yes, but less substance underneath. (Don't get me wrong, I loved the Dark Knight to death, it's just a different animal.)
There's a LOT of depth within 'No Country' if you look for it. Almost every "paper thin" character within that movie serves a grand purpose, and symbolizes a greater point. It's not a movie you can watch not "that scrupulously." The pointless bits you're referring to are likely in fact the most symbolic and meaningful bits to the whole movie. I've seen people write PAGES upon PAGES of analysis of just the scene where Tommy Lee Jones visits the hotel for all of 1 minute of the movie. As far as your disappointment in Chigurh, I really don't know what to say - I found him to be one of the most interesting characters in film last year, up there with Daniel Day Lewis' character from 'There Will Be Blood'.
I suppose it's just not for some people though, I dunno. I'd suggest giving it another chance when it can take your full attention!
|
you're looking at it from the wrong mindset, it's the complete shift from character development to pure plot that's shocking (which we all learn in elementary school is 'bad' but works surprisingly well here). in the beginning of the movie he's hunting something, then all of a sudden he's deep into a dangerous scheme that he shouldn't have been involved in. for me it was the struggle to relate to characters while knowing almost nothing about them that was strange
|
i guess you guys go to the movie theater to see the same movies every single time
|
On December 31 2008 07:26 travis wrote:
i guess you guys go to the movie theater to see the same movies every single time
Somebody doesn't like a movie = they are dumb.
Case closed.
|
didnt he keep track of the guy because the money had a tracker in it?
|
On December 31 2008 07:25 Mikilatov wrote:
There's a LOT of depth within 'No Country' if you look for it. Almost every "paper thin" character within that movie serves a grand purpose, and symbolizes a greater point. It's not a movie you can watch not "that scrupulously."
Cool, can you like maybe give me a general point to the film? It's quite a vague request but I mean like...what is it *about*? Is it simply about a guy getting in way over his head and then failing to stay alive? Why is no attention given to HOW chigurh finds him, how the other guy finds him, why chigurh kills? What is Tommy Lee Jones' character's point? We don't seem to learn much from any of the characters...why? And finally, what does the final scene do? Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, how does TLJ's speech relate to the film?
On December 31 2008 07:25 Mikilatov wrote:The pointless bits you're referring to are likely in fact the most symbolic and meaningful bits to the whole movie. I've seen people write PAGES upon PAGES of analysis of just the scene where Tommy Lee Jones visits the hotel for all of 1 minute of the movie.
Is there any chance you can link me to any particularly good explanations/ reviews of the film?
On December 31 2008 07:25 Mikilatov wrote:
As far as your disappointment in Chigurh, I really don't know what to say - I found him to be one of the most interesting characters in film last year, up there with Daniel Day Lewis' character from 'There Will Be Blood'.
Can you give me some reasons? If I can understand WHY then I might come to agree with everyone else ><.
Also, why does Chirugh kill outright some nonthreatening people and leave some others' lives to fate?
|
On December 31 2008 07:32 spydernoob wrote:
didnt he keep track of the guy because the money had a tracker in it?
well I mean after the guy got rid of the tracker.
|
because the bad guy was scary as fuck
|
|
|
On December 31 2008 07:33 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 07:25 Mikilatov wrote:
There's a LOT of depth within 'No Country' if you look for it. Almost every "paper thin" character within that movie serves a grand purpose, and symbolizes a greater point. It's not a movie you can watch not "that scrupulously." Cool, can you like maybe give me a general point to the film? It's quite a vague request but I mean like...what is it *about*? Is it simply about a guy getting in way over his head and then failing to stay alive? Why is no attention given to HOW chigurh finds him, how the other guy finds him, why chigurh kills? What is Tommy Lee Jones' character's point? We don't seem to learn much from any of the characters...why? And finally, what does the final scene do? Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, how does TLJ's speech relate to the film? Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 07:25 Mikilatov wrote:The pointless bits you're referring to are likely in fact the most symbolic and meaningful bits to the whole movie. I've seen people write PAGES upon PAGES of analysis of just the scene where Tommy Lee Jones visits the hotel for all of 1 minute of the movie. Is there any chance you can link me to any particularly good explanations/ reviews of the film? Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 07:25 Mikilatov wrote:
As far as your disappointment in Chigurh, I really don't know what to say - I found him to be one of the most interesting characters in film last year, up there with Daniel Day Lewis' character from 'There Will Be Blood'. Can you give me some reasons? If I can understand WHY then I might come to agree with everyone else ><. Also, why does Chirugh kill outright some nonthreatening people and leave some others' lives to fate?
Much of this is opinion, and debatable, because of the depth of the film, there's many various opinions and possibilities of what can be derived from different situations, but for me, the primary 'point' or theme was based around fate and chance - As well as the feelings of Tommy Lee Jones' character. The scene where Tommy Lee Jones walks into the hotel room is perhaps the greatest culmination of the entire theme. Granted, there's not much visual substance to it, but if you feel what his character is feeling, and realize what's underneath it, it's quite amazing.
As far as what the film is 'about' as in visual substance, that can be derived simply by reading the synopsis on wikipedia. As far as the plotholes you are suggesting, trust me, they don't exist.
The final scene where Tommy Lee Jones makes his little speech at the breakfast table, it's about his departation from the world which he described in the introduction of the film, (and the world presented in the film.) He's sitting at his breakfast table away from all that, retiring, because it's not for him in his old age. Hence the title: No Country For Old Men.
I seriously suggest re-watching the movie with a keen eye, and view it as if Tommy Lee Jones is the main character. Chigurh isn't the focus, everyone's reactions to Chigurh is, that's why he's so dynamic. He's a heartless killer who is supposedly controlled with the illusion of chance, but is bent on fate. (See the scene near the end, where he takes his last victim in the film.) The introduction especially should really be much more entertaining now that you've viewed it once. I too enjoyed the movie MUCH more the second time around.
Here's an apparently decent in-depth analysis. I've not read the whole thing, however, but it seems legitimate from what I've witnessed thus far: http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/no_country_for_old_men_out_in.html
|
I didnt read much, but :
Why in the hell would you HAVE to like it ?
The only reason i can see is you trying to get some sexual favors. If it's not the case, just tell what you think.
|
And yeah, what that guy said. =P I personally loved the movie, but it's not like it's wrong if you don't. I do suggest giving it another chance, though.
|
The reason why people like movies is because human beings are bored, dumb animals. A "movie" is like life, only fast food style. Its a "McLife". People cannot imagine things on their own, they need a film to do it for them. The proof in this is that people can sit and watch children dying of cancer, countries in need, all the horrors of the world, and they still at the end of the day desire more drama. To me if people really want to lead epic lives they could just take up a position and help real human beings. What more epic struggle is there than real life problems? They are all around us and yet we sit and watch a "Mcdrama" instead.
Long story short, people are too lazy to live their own lives, and they live through movies/music. Its no different than a teenage kid thinking a heavy metal record will make him a badass, or a 40 year old guy in midlife crisis thinking a fast car will make him young again.
I know im in the minority, but id rather be dead than sit around waiting for some movie to define for me what fear, love, sex, morality, etc are. I define that in my own mind. Movies are money making scams and they are all the story of jesus christ retold over and over, just as the bible itself is a retelling of that same story that existed before christianity was invented.
Every movie is a rearranged version of the story of jesus christ, with all the subplots being mini versions of that same story. Dont believe me? "Happy Feet" is a perfect recent example. So is "the Pirates of the Carribbean". You will always see the main character coming from uncertain or emotionally charged origins, making their way through conflicts, a sacrifice will be made through either story events or symbolism, and then they will symbolically come full circle etc etc. So fucking boring.
And yet people line up year after year for every turd hollywood shits out.
|
The biggest hint is the title of the film.
|
The movie takes a really bleak view on life - ultimately it's not really the struggle of good vs. evil, but it is the bleak realization of evil in the world, and the fact that no matter how hard people try to fight or combat it, evil really can't be understood, explained, or stopped.
Jones' character is the narrator - he's dedicated his life to being a sheriff, upholding the law, and combating evil. Bardem's character is purely evil, a psychopath. There is no real rhyme or reason to what he does, he's driven by his own perverse code. Jones can't understand it and is frightened by him. It's why he's always reluctant to put a lot of effort into searching for him, because he knows that ultimately he won't be stopped or aprehended,
And ya, Tommy Lee Jones is really the main character, Josh Brolin is really less than a support character, he just serves to drive the actual story of the movie. Why it's good is that there is much more than just the story, which by its nature, is really plain and simple (like the country).
- A guy finds money, people are looking for the money, they hired someone to find the money and bring it back. He runs, he's chased by the bad guy, he dies...
Again, that really isn't the main focus, it's more about Tommy Lee Jones and his monologues, and the fact that although Bardem's character is inherently evil, he is still guided by some sort of principles, although a normal person isn't truly able to comprehend exactly what they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
