THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: Johnny C on 19 Nov 2007, 15:10
-
I'm going to see it tonight.
Jesus I'm excited.
-
Have you read the book? I really liked the book, except for the final climactic battle between Moss and Sugar(Can't spell the name). I really want to see what the Coen brothers did with it, the trailer looks great, Javier Bardon seems to have really gotten Sugar's character down, I'm excited, but will wait til the end of the semester to see it.
-
Chigurh, I think? I haven't read the book - I'm working my way through Blood Meridian whenever I have time, and I still need to read Child Of God which I got from the library.
-
I don't think this opens in Australia until January, which is pretty crappy. You'd hope there'd be enough interest here for it to open a bit sooner.
-
It is a Coen Brothers movie and has Tommy Lee Jones in it
I need to see this movie
-
Are you sitting or lying down or anything, and do you have access to the internet?
Good.
Find out right now if there is a theatre playing this movie near you.
Have you done that yet? You have?
Are you still in front of the computer?
Why?
-
I still need to read Child Of God which I got from the library.
Hooray for necrophilia!!
McCarthy is a brilliant writer. Blood Meridian is scarily good. No Country for Old Men is really his weakest book, which is a shame, but from what I've heard, the Cohen's translation may be their best film. I find myself wondering if it's really better than Barton Fink or Miller's Crossing but I have very high hopes. Even if it's not I'm sure it's a brilliant film. Why the fuck am I stuck in the middle of god damn nowhere New York state?!?!? I won't be able to see this until late December when I go home and that makes me sad.
-
Why are no more people talking about this movie? It's the Coen brothers for Christ's sake.
-
I don't think this opens in Australia until January
-
Move.
-
I want to see this more than any other movie that is out right now.
-
I want to see this more than any other movie that is out right now.
-
I want to see this more than any other movie that is out right now.
Word.
I've read some backhanded reviews, but those reviewers seemed to either not like the Coens or not have good taste (or in most cases, both) I'm going to see it just for Javier Bardem. He's scary good scary, or so they say.
-
Backhanded reviews? It's got a 96 on Metacritic.
-
my favorite movie of the year so far. NCfOM is well put together, well acted and very well presented. i suggest anyone and everyone see it.
if you live somewhere where it isn't released yet, http://www.projectfreetv.co.uk/divx.php?id=1883014 is the full movie streaming. (quality is probably a little lacking.)
-
"These boys appear to be managerial!"
Excellent movie. Javier Bardem is bone-chilling.
-
my favorite movie of the year so far.
Honestly, it has to be the best film of the year by default. Nothing could conceivably top it.
-
There Will Be Blood does, at least for me.
-
I just saw it and words cannot describe how good it was. Johnny's right, I honestly can't imagine a better movie coming out this year. The acting was truly excellent for all the main characters, the script was great (can't really expect anything else from a Coen Brothers movie though), it was tense, violent, beautifully shot and the pacing was pretty much perfect. I'm not sure if this is the best Coen Brothers film but it's in the top 4 to be sure (Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink and Fargo are the other three on that list) and it may just best those three. I have to see it again to be sure. Still, it's far and away the best movie I've seen in recent memory and I can't imagine anything replacing it anytime soon (especially not "There Will be Blood" even if that does look like it's going to be pretty good).
-
I really like it when a character is strong enough that it doesn't really matter who the hell they are. That's what Anton Chigurh is like; very little background is presented about him, but his presence and actions are just so intense you kind of forget that he's practically without identity.
Another point I was impressed with was the series of landscape shots and accompanying voice-over at the beginning. It's really hard to make a voice-over without succumbing to stupid, but this one (as everything moment in a film should) furthered the effect of the movie as a whole. For the most part, I agree with those who praise it lavishly.
-
I'm seeing it, like tomorrow. Rotten Tomatoes is great - a whole scad of reviews from all over the spectrum, you find reviewers that love it, hate it, and everything between.
And Rotten Tomatoes gave it 96%! which is an almost unheard-of top rating!
-
I think I really liked it, but it's one of those movies I'm going to have to see twice to make definite sense of.
-
I liked this movie up until the last 20 minutes or so of it, where everything was thrown out the window along with story anything that even slightly resembled sense.
-
I genuinely don't know what plot detail you're missing in the last twenty minutes. Thematically it might be tough to follow but the events themselves are fairly clear.
-
I am just the opposite. The first bit of the movie with the voice overs and long shots with no action/dialogue were absolutely horrid. I was practically falling asleep, cursing all of you people that made it sound good. Then shit started to actually happen, and I was fine.
Overall I didn't find it as amazing as I was expecting to, after reading what everyone thought of it, but I'm guessing that's because I was pretty much expecting the greatest movie of all time by the hype it had been getting. But it was still pretty darn good, so no worries.
-
How can you not enjoy that gorgeous Texas landscape? When that cloud moves over the elk herd, man, that almost makes me want to visit. And the movie I saw began with a vicious strangling.
But I do agree with you that the hype was pretty ridiculous. It ended up being a lot more subdued than I thought it would be. But Javier Bardem was just as good (and terrifying) as everyone said he would be. He'd make the movie if the rest of it wasn't as good as it was.
-
Actually this movie really actually looked like texas, and it made me happy and homesick
-
I personally thought the last 20 minutes were fantastic. I loved how
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
n the end, Moss is dead from random violence and Chigur has escaped. The final scene is really excellent and reminded me in some ways of the end of Barton Fink (albeit with even less closure).
END SPOILER, END SPOILER, END SPOILER
I can understand how people would be unsatisfied with the ending but it does remain faithful to the book and while it isn't really a traditional ending its message is clear and, while not very gratifying, is still extremely well conveyed in both the book and the movie.
-
Definitely. I can see where people are coming from complaining about the ending...but I think they're wrong XP. I thought it was a really good ending, and very consistent with the spirit of the rest of the movie.
-
just say it, and god damn I love it. The ending made me laugh with all of the swearing that came with people realizing it was the end
One thing that I didn't like was the lack of music
-
One thing that I didn't like was the lack of music
I thought it was an asset. Pulls you in, makes you listen to what you would normally be ignoring. Makes the hotel scenes that much more tense.
-
I loved the lack of music. The fact that the movie was incredibly tense without relying upon music to establish atmosphere is a testament to the Coens' and Deakins' talent I think.
-
I saw it again yesterday. It definitely didn't seem as humorless as it did the first time around. The lack of music was definitely a style point, heightened your awareness of little details in the movie and in general gave it more punch. The movie is also really good when it conveys all sorts of information without dialogue. It's like a big hunk of emotion that you sort of have to digest yourself.
That's kind of how the movie feels: Javier Bardem with his weird haircut walks up to you and punches you in the face a bunch of times until your nose breaks, then you fall back and he just stands over you glowering with those giant eyes, eyes surrounded by rings that make it look like he hasn't slept the whole span of the movie, and you're totally bewildered and unsure of what to do, until he just sorta walks away and you're still on the ground with a face covered in blood, reeling. Then you wake up.
-
Man, I didn't even notice the lack of music until the end credits rolled around. Then I realised it.
So good. I'm seeing it again on Saturday.
-
I saw it with my son the movie kid, and we both loved it and want to see it again, but we have a weird disagreement:
SPOILER - SPOILER - SPOILER - SPOILER - SPOILER
SPOILER - SPOILER - SPOILER - SPOILER - SPOILER
ok, don't read this if you haven't seen it!
When the sheriff goes back *alone* to the motel crime scene, and actually enters the room, don't we see Chigurh hiding in a closet? So he's actually got the lethal killing machine bad guy cornered! ...but then he lets him go...?!? If I have that right, then that's a major moment: the sheriff either knows or suspects that Chigurh is still there (came back after everyone left, to find the money stuffed in whatever air vent) but he also knows that he's outmatched, that trying to capture this particular bad guy, he can't do it, he'd die and Chigurh would get away anyway.... MAJOR realization, for him and us - the good guy can't always win...
-
I don't think he knows he's there. He's behind the door and I think Chigurh slips out while Bell looks in the bathroom. It's a pretty confusing scene though, with a lot of possibilities, but I think him hiding behind the door and slipping out is the most likely.
-
He went out the bathroom window.
-
Aye. Why else would the camera focus on the latch to the bathroom window?
-
Saw it today!
What was that end speech all about? I zoned out.
-
I am just the opposite. The first bit of the movie with the voice overs and long shots with no action/dialogue were absolutely horrid. I was practically falling asleep, cursing all of you people that made it sound good. Then shit started to actually happen, and I was fine.
Overall I didn't find it as amazing as I was expecting to, after reading what everyone thought of it, but I'm guessing that's because I was pretty much expecting the greatest movie of all time by the hype it had been getting. But it was still pretty darn good, so no worries.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v12/sademie/Big_Dog-1.png)
What's the matter? Too... deep for you?
-
I just saw it last night. One of the best films I've ever seen.
-
So, I finally got to watch this, and....yeah. In my top five.
-
Saw it a few days ago. It's easily one of the best films the coens have made. And that is saying a lot.
-
As one of my buddies put it "One of the most intense slow movies ever."
What other movie can you watch a man spend 15 minutes walking across the plains and be on the edge of your seat?
What's the most you've ever lost in a coin toss?
-
The Coen Brothers had pretty decent luck adapting Pulitzer Prize winner Cormac McCarthy for No Country For Old Men, so why not take on another high-falutin' writin' person? The dynamic duo has signed on to do a film version of Michael Chabon's bestselling The Yiddish Policeman's Union. In the book Chabon sets up a contemporary scenario where Jewish settlers are about to be displaced by U.S. government's plans to turn the frozen locale of Sitka, Alaska, over to Alaskan natives. Against this backdrop is a noir-style murder mystery in which a rogue cop investigates the killing of a heroin-addicted chess prodigy who might be the messiah. The Coens will make Yiddish after they shoot their next project, A Serious Man. Yet another Coen Brothers film, Burn After Reading, will come out later this year.
Yesss. I loved the book, and it's pretty straight noir, which is just up the Coens alley. I wonder who they'll be casting.
-
Oh man oh man. Coens, hurry up and film A Serious Man please.
-
I'd say it's not as good as Fargo, Barton Fink or Miller's Crossing but better than the rest. What five are you referring to?
-
I don't think I will ever be able to fully appreciate Fargo as every time I try to watch it I just get caught up in the horrible accents. If they would have spoken like people in this area actually do, I would be able to watch the movie without constantly cringing.
-
I didn't sleep well for a week after watching this movie. Cloverfield, on the other hand, sent me straight to the land of Nod.
-
NEWS FLASH!
It just won Best Picture and Best Director, also Best Adapted Screenplay earlier this evening. Javier Bardem got Best Supporting Actor.
Hooray!
-
I'm so glad this movie got the reward it deserves--great movie! Certainly the best I saw all year, and I'm glad it was recognized as such.
-
Wooooo!
-
Tommy, do I take this to mean you actually got around to seeing this film?
-
I watched it tonight.
On one hand, the best film of the year.
On the other, not in the top five films the Coens have made.
-
Guys, I was really not impressed with this movie. There were things I liked about it, like Javier Bardem's performance and that amazing scene in the motel when he finds the tracker in the bundle of money. That motel scene was really tense and creepy, but I wasn't grabbed by much else. It was a well made movie, but I thought There Will Be Blood was far better
-
Wooooo!
-
Guys, I was really not impressed with this movie. There were things I liked about it, like Javier Bardem's performance and that amazing scene in the motel when he finds the tracker in the bundle of money. That motel scene was really tense and creepy, but I wasn't grabbed by much else. It was a well made movie, but I thought There Will Be Blood was far better
There Will Be Blood is, for all intents and purposes, a character study. An amazing one, but still. It lacks much of a compelling plot. No Country was a better all around movie, even though DDL's performance in Blood was easily the year's best.
-
Scorsese getting best director and picture last year, and the Coens getting it this year? Is it just me, or are the Oscars seriously improving?
-
Well, you can only go upwards from the travesty that is Crash.
-
I couldn't even listen to crash because the music was threatening to destroy my ears half of the time. Some people think There Will Be Blood had an earsplitting soundtrack. This one was louder than any of the noises in the film, including the acting at points.
Also, I personally liked Javier Bardem's performance better than Daniel Day Lewis's, but that's probably because I liked the film better in general. There is no doubt that Daniel Day Lewis deserved the award though, because he did pull off the best acting job last year.
-
Bardem won Best Supporting Actor though.
This is the Academy, having its cake and eating it as well.
-
Bah, humbug. Tommy Lee Jones's performance in No Country was better than either Bardem's or Day-Lewis's.
Not that those two performances weren't great, but Jones's was just beautiful. The performance of an actor who's been around long enough to not have to prove anything.
-
I wonder why he was nominated for Elah over No Country?
I mean, I assume they were the same calibre of performance. Shit, dude brought chops to Space Cowboys.
-
Producers and studios tend to put all their eggs in one basket when it comes to the Oscars. A specific performance gets targeted as the likeliest winner, then pushed to the Academy's voters, and pushed hard. The level of manipulation of the Oscars, or at least attempted manipulation, is by all reports incredibly high. And let's not forget that the studio behind No Country is Miramax, which had the worst reputation of all when it came to trying to influence and curry favour with Academy voters (at least when the Weinsteins were running the company).
Basically, what I'm saying is the Miramax will have decided to focus all their efforts on getting Bardem nominated because they believed he had a better chance of winning - which he probably did, seeing as how the Academy generally has no time for subtlety or nuance, the two qualities which more than any others define Jones's performance.
-
I watched it tonight.
On one hand, the best film of the year.
On the other, not in the top five films the Coens have made.
Hmm. I dunno 'bout that.
-
The reason I think it's one of their best is because as much as this is a Coen Bros. film, it's also a film that breaks some of their own motifs and explores them in scenes that are not just minor turns on their own style but compelling scenes in their own right.
If there is a favorite image in the movies by the Coen brothers, it's of crass, venal men behind desks, who possess power the heroes envy. Maybe that's because, like all filmmakers, the Coens have spent a lot of time on the carpet, pitching projects to executives. In "Blood Simple," the guy behind the desk was M. Emmet Walsh, as a scheming private detective. In "Raising Arizona," it was Trey Wilson's furniture czar. In "Miller's Crossing," it was Albert Finney, as a mob boss. In "Barton Fink," it is Michael Lerner, as the head of a Hollywood studio. All of these men are vulgar, smoke cigars, and view their supplicants with contempt.
No Country, suddenly and violently, reverses this. The man behind the desk is powerless. Never mind it's a great scene in and of itself - it takes this notion they've been exploring and casts it into new, ambiguous light.
It also explores the aftermath of violence in greater detail. I guess that's a result of having three characters separately cross a particular bloodbath, right?
-
I'd agree with you if the violence didn't get gradually turned down as the film goes on. By the last third of the film, all the murder takes place off-screen.
-
We're left instead with scenes where people pry bullets from wounds and check their shoes for blood. The latter scene is haunting.
-
The film's dark, of course, but the wanton slaughter decreases notably over time. At the beginning of the movie we're treated to Anton graphically strangling and bolt-gunning people, and by the end of the film we don't see him kill people, but we know that he does. Dark, but not graphic. Either the mercenary or his employer (I don't remember which) is the last person we see die.
-
(SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER)
I didn't think it was "random violence" as you put it. Remember that the Mexicans were talking to his wife's mother?
-
i just watched this for the first time (finally) last night and i thought it was excellent. everything i imagined. i'm gonna be watching it again later today.
-snip-
Either the mercenary or his employer (I don't remember which) is the last person we see die.
the last person you actually see die is the employer. when he kills the mercenary, we are in the room with him, we see the gun go off, but the victim is obscured by the chair he's sitting in. that's the actual point where it transitions from seeing the violence, to seeing only the aftermath.
it's sort of a half way point as far as that goes.
my only grievance with this whole movie is that Chigurh (sp?) initially appears to be shooting buckshot/birdshot/pellets/whatever out of his silenced shotgun; which is obviously preposterous. it only happens a couple of times before he appears to switch to slugs but it really bothered me, for some reason.
anyway, if that's my only beef with a movie then i'd call it a resounding success.
-
my only grievance with this whole movie is that Chigurh (sp?) initially appears to be shooting buckshot/birdshot/pellets/whatever out of his silenced shotgun; which is obviously preposterous. it only happens a couple of times before he appears to switch to slugs but it really bothered me, for some reason.
anyway, if that's my only beef with a movie then i'd call it a resounding success.
If I recall they covered that in the book. But damn if I remember how.
-
yeah, i need to read the book. i absolutely loved The Road so i've been meaning to check out his other books but haven't gotten around to it.
-
i absolutely loved The Road...
Yeah. I actually listened to the audio book of No Country... but I read The Road and All the Pretty Horses just recently. The Road read just like poetry. Incredible stuff.
-
I bought the DVD today. I am not letting myself watch it until I finish my anthropology assignment and study for the two tests I have tomorrow. So I will probably be viewing it again on Friday, I'm thinking.
-
So I just had a dream I was being chased by Chigurh last night. Scariest fucking nightmare I've ever had.
-
Saw the movie tonight. The movie itself was... good. I didn't feel like it was amazing, but it was very engaging. Maybe I need to see it again, I dunno, but it just didn't grab me and shake me like a bad babysitter.
I really liked Inlander's statement, but my only difference with him is how I see the performances: [Day-Lewis ≈ Tommy Lee Jones] > Javier Bardem well damn, I've been going back and forth over this for the last 10 minutes, I can't rank these performances, they were all great.
BUT i definitely feel like TLJ was overlooked in this movie. Inlander said it best, his performance was beautiful. Understated but powerful, also very funny without overdoing it.
One thing I really liked about it was how the Coens trust the audience to be smart, and to understand without having things explained to them. One of my favorite parts was when Moss is lying in bed, in a hotel, and says "There's no way." It brings to the forefront exactly what the audience has going on in the back of their minds, and it doesn't overexplain. It trusts the audience to finish that thought in their minds, and it also really shows what a keen guy Moss really is. I'm not sure if I explained that well; if someone could do a better job, have at it.
Also, the Coens DEFINITELY deserved the Oscar for Best Director. Gorgeous film, the filmmaking said SO much in this film, great stuff.
Finally, the BEST line in the movie: "How them Larry's workin' out for ya?" I laughed so hard, I almost missed that entire scene. :laugh:
-
It's better the second time around. Everyone that has only seen it once needs to see it again, you pick up on all the little things you missed the first time. I definately payed attention to the lack of music, which I kinda noticed before, and it just makes the whole movie more tense. I swear I was holding my breath for about half the movie even though I knew what was going to happen.
-
ha
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0730,idea,77350,9.html
-
I finally watched it the other night. I loved it! All of the acting was wonderful (Javier Bardem's performance was scarier than any horror movie). The biggest reason I liked it, however, was that there is finally a movie out that is different! I have one question though..
How did everybody know that Llewelyn took the money?
I guess the thirsty Mexican guy could have told on him, but how did any of the Mexicans know his name?
-
Nah, he left his truck to give the dying gangster water, and the other gangsters slashed his tires and took the registration plate from inside the door. So in the non-internetted world of 1978 (I think that's when it takes place?) the gangsters had to wait until the next day to verify Llewelyn's identity, giving him plenty of time to orchestrate an escape. I think Anton figures it out through the license plate, or something.
-
The organization/man who hired Chigurh also gave the information about Llewellyn to the Mexicans. That's why Chigurh goes to the office building and blows away the unnamed man behind the desk--the Mexicans were getting in his way. That, and the guy hired another hit man to kill Chigurh for drawing too much attention to the whole situation.
I watched it again last night, and the meaning behind it really struck me this time. I personally interpreted the movie's message as: even when you know that there's no way out, even when faced with a situation where it's literally impossible to win, there's no alternative but to live, to live until your number's up. That, and, along that same line, that even in the darkest, harshest conditions, you have to go on and believe that there will be some reprieve in the final score--that's what I took from Jones' final monologue at the end.