|
[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.
|
the point is there is no point....its that obivous
|
On December 31 2008 08:00 Murlox wrote:
I didnt read much, but :
Why in the hell would you HAVE to like it ?
I just hate being out of possession of all the facts. With some analysis, and all of the opinions of other people, I could at least be given an informed viewpoint from which to make a judgement.
But aside from that I genuinely want to like it just so Jimmy and I can talk about its good parts rather than argue about it.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
imo that chick should've flipped for her life at the end
i mean, 50% at living is better than 0%
|
On December 31 2008 08:19 Xeris wrote:
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.
Cool. This is more like it! I Shall watch this movie again and like that other guy suggested, view TLJ as the main character. I've always been quite an unperceptive person and so should probably take the time to watch it again anyway. Awesome.
This exact story happened to me with the Wicker Man and it ended up being a favourite of mine  .
|
On December 31 2008 08:16 yaoherm50 wrote:
The biggest hint is the title of the film.
|
i havent watched it. but i hear it was good.
|
Have you guys ever watched a movie and thought it was crap but couldn't admit to wasting time and money on it so you just made up some reasons why it was awesome? And then when you finally got the nerve to admit you didn't get it, all your friends confessed they were pretending to love it too?
Anyway, I thought No Country for Old Men was awesome, I loved it.
|
On December 31 2008 09:49 Doctorasul wrote:
Have you guys ever watched a movie and thought it was crap but couldn't admit to wasting time and money on it so you just made up some reasons why it was awesome? And then when you finally got the nerve to admit you didn't get it, all your friends confessed they were pretending to love it too?
Anyway, I thought No Country for Old Men was awesome, I loved it.
what? I could never imagine being such a phony loser. You have some serious personal issues you need to work out.
Xeris did a great job explaining the movie. Watch it again with what he said it mind.
I thought it was the best movie of the last 5 years, but I know a couple people who didnt like it, so dont feel like you need to like it. Some movies arent for everyone.
|
On December 31 2008 08:31 Hot_Bid wrote:
imo that chick should've flipped for her life at the end
i mean, 50% at living is better than 0%
Yeah but this way she totally owned the serial killer, he was probably pretty annoyed at that.
Besides they dont show if he actually kills her right?
|
Shighur is the ULTIMATE bad guy, and in my opinion he is by far scarier than a villain like the Joker from Batman.
The Joker is motivated by certain things, materialism mixed with an enjoyment of crime. He is predictable to an extent because he cares about what he is doing.
Shighur doesn't give a shit. About anything. This is the absolute scariest thing in the world, and it IS that way because nobody can understand it. Shighur kills without rhyme or reason, simply because it's something to do, or the person got in his way, or it somehow came across his mind to kill them, or to prove a point. This apathy towards life can be seen in the scene where he randomly forces the gas station attendant to flip a coin(obviously intending to kill him if he called the coin wrong) and then teaching him a lesson about the randomness of life(Don't put the coin back in your pocket. It's your lucky quarter. Put it on your pocket and it'll mix in with all the others and be just another coin. Which it is.)
Shighur cannot be bargained with, cannot be bought, cannot be dissuaded in any way. This is because he simply does not care whether he lives or dies, or for ANY material or ideological purpose whatsoever.
Shighur's character is the most frightening thing for me.. I'd rather have a hate-crazed maniac chasing me than Anton Shighur. At least the maniac is driven by things I can understand, and has reasons for his behavior, and may stop given certain circumstances. People that are apathetic to the degree of Shighur.. There's no dealing with them.
His character is a commentary on the randomness of life. The car crash at the end displays that perfectly. While Jones and the other supporting characters have been trying to harm Shighur throughout the movie, they cannot. A random car, however, breaks Shighur's arm.
|
On December 31 2008 08:12 ForVengeance wrote:
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.
Every now and then I run into some moron like you, who goes off on some retarded tangent about how they don't watch TV or listen to music or something retarded. You're just a fucking idiot. Very first sentence:
The reason why people like movies is because human beings are bored, dumb animals.
News flash kid, you're posting on an internet forum. Why are you posting here, why did you click this thread, you are wasting time right fucking now. I'm going to assume you also play Starcraft, how is that NOT just a "video game" that serves to pass the time. Seriously you are one dumbshit moron, people don't watch movies to "define" themselves, they watch them to be entertained. The McDonald's references are very appropriate you geek.
You aren't unique. You are not special. You're a fucking nobody, so get off your high horse. You're a dumb bored animal like the rest of us.
|
hey man, im not an animal! im a PERSON
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On December 31 2008 11:37 travis wrote:
hey man, im not an animal! im a PERSON
i wrote this for you:
i'm a pissant
here's my pissant pants
oh gee whiz
i pissed my pissant pants
|
On December 31 2008 08:12 ForVengeance wrote:
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.
I enjoy movies because usually the story has some pretentious douche like you that gets killed off in a comical way.
|
On December 31 2008 10:54 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 08:31 Hot_Bid wrote:
imo that chick should've flipped for her life at the end
i mean, 50% at living is better than 0% Yeah but this way she totally owned the serial killer, he was probably pretty annoyed at that. Besides they dont show if he actually kills her right?
Chigure (the killer) wipes his feet as he walks out the door which alludes to the fact that he killed her and most likely got himself slightly dirty. Also, before the camera cuts to him walking outside of the house he says that flipping is the only thing he can do while Brolin's wife refuses to flip.
It would completely break Chigure's character and be nonsensical if he didn't kill her at that point.
I'm not really sure why I'm talking about such an unimportant part of the film
edit: but it seems out of everything in this film, people argue about this the most, my friends at least
|
I felt underwhelmed by this movie; there very well may be a great deal of depth to it as some of you allude, but I just never gave enough of a shit about the characters or plot to actually think about any of it.
Average movie in my eyes: 6/10.
|
On December 31 2008 11:37 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 11:37 travis wrote:
hey man, im not an animal! im a PERSON i wrote this for you: i'm a pissant here's my pissant pants oh gee whiz i pissed my pissant pants
Best poem I've ever read. So deep and thoughtful with careful planning and execution.
|
On December 31 2008 10:54 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 08:31 Hot_Bid wrote:
imo that chick should've flipped for her life at the end
i mean, 50% at living is better than 0% Yeah but this way she totally owned the serial killer, he was probably pretty annoyed at that. Besides they dont show if he actually kills her right?
Actually, that is one of the cooler parts of the movie (IMO), here's why:
I think it really highlights why Tommy Lee Jones is so terrified of him, because he just can't for the life of him understand Bardem's character. She thinks that he is going to kill her. She thinks that he went through all this trouble to find her and go there, that he was deadset on killing her and that the coin toss is "just a game" - that he'd kill her regardless of the result. So, she refuses to go through with it.
It shows how she doesn't really understand him either, he never deviates from his "code", which is a point they tried to really hammer home throughout the movie. He doesn't give a shit whether she lives or dies, he said that he would kill her, but he's giving her an opportunity to live if she makes the right call. What she does has no consequence to him. She refused to call the coin, she died. He just walked right out of the house and moved forward.
|
sort of along the lines of what Track said - I think that Dark Knight dealt with a lot of the same themes as No Country for Old Men but No Country was done much more artfully.
If you remove Heath Ledger's performance of the Joker from the movie - the movie as a whole would be good, at best. His performance particularly was off the charts, but as far as thematically and symbolically, it didn't deliver the same punch as No Country, although having similar underlying themes.
|
On December 31 2008 11:12 Track wrote:
Shighur is the ULTIMATE bad guy, and in my opinion he is by far scarier than a villain like the Joker from Batman.
The Joker is motivated by certain things, materialism mixed with an enjoyment of crime. He is predictable to an extent because he cares about what he is doing.
Shighur doesn't give a shit. About anything. This is the absolute scariest thing in the world, and it IS that way because nobody can understand it. Shighur kills without rhyme or reason, simply because it's something to do, or the person got in his way, or it somehow came across his mind to kill them, or to prove a point. This apathy towards life can be seen in the scene where he randomly forces the gas station attendant to flip a coin(obviously intending to kill him if he called the coin wrong) and then teaching him a lesson about the randomness of life(Don't put the coin back in your pocket. It's your lucky quarter. Put it on your pocket and it'll mix in with all the others and be just another coin. Which it is.)
Shighur cannot be bargained with, cannot be bought, cannot be dissuaded in any way. This is because he simply does not care whether he lives or dies, or for ANY material or ideological purpose whatsoever.
Shighur's character is the most frightening thing for me.. I'd rather have a hate-crazed maniac chasing me than Anton Shighur. At least the maniac is driven by things I can understand, and has reasons for his behavior, and may stop given certain circumstances. People that are apathetic to the degree of Shighur.. There's no dealing with them.
His character is a commentary on the randomness of life. The car crash at the end displays that perfectly. While Jones and the other supporting characters have been trying to harm Shighur throughout the movie, they cannot. A random car, however, breaks Shighur's arm.
I guess the reason he doesn't scare me is that I always play this sort of character in role playing games in my second play through. Entirely whimsically evil, killing whenever I feel like it lol. It just felt quite normal to me haha. But I understand where you're coming from. My point was that I could relate to the Joker whereas with Shigurh Im just like meh. So where I should be fearing him, im just trying to work him out.
|
On December 31 2008 13:44 Xeris wrote:
sort of along the lines of what Track said - I think that Dark Knight dealt with a lot of the same themes as No Country for Old Men but No Country was done much more artfully.
If you remove Heath Ledger's performance of the Joker from the movie - the movie as a whole would be good, at best. His performance particularly was off the charts, but as far as thematically and symbolically, it didn't deliver the same punch as No Country, although having similar underlying themes.
I guess my issue is that Batman was more of a visceral, face value BUT at the same time profound thriller. Whereas this film was entirely latent and subtle. Batman thrusts some really cool concepts in your face, and puts in you in a tense, heady world...where there is a lot of head scratching and challenging things the protagonists have to get out; this film is just as tense but the head scratching is more of a sort of meta head scratching. There is no trick to the way people do things in the film, because that's not what you're supposed to focus on.
As such I guess you need to view the film in a different light...and because I like to get absorbed in films and try to conflate their reality with mine, I guess the batman just works better for me. Interesting to see how other people view it though. I personally think batman was just full of a rich clever plot but that's my opinion.
|
Dark Knight is overrated.
...so was the Joker
I went there.
|
So, the movie is great because... Chigurh is an extreme sociopath that can't be reasoned with? Anybody can envision a character like that.
|
1584 Posts
it's good cause it's by the cohen brothers.
that is all.
btw, movie was kinda boring but had a eerie feel to it which made it okay enough after all.
still nothing I would remember more of than that it was a good movie.
|
On December 31 2008 07:09 HamerD wrote:
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.
The point of the car crash scene was to show that even a seemingly unstoppable force, Chigurh, is subject to chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
