MedVision ad

No Country For Old Men (1 Viewer)

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
http://www.aznightbuzz.com/stories/212562.php
and is so cold he sometimes decides on the fates of some victims with the flip of a coin.
IS THAT REALLY SO FUCKING AMAZING?!?!?!

THAT'S HARVEY FUCKING TWO-FACE FROM BATMAN!!!!

This was a typical boring chase/thriller plot that had was created by an ostentacious enough couple of writers and left enough long pauses/pan shots/prolonged dialogue that people who like to wank about films had time enough to conclude it a masterpiece.
 
Last edited:

hiphophooray123

Twisted firestarter
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
4,982
Location
Sydney University Village
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
"I realized that sometimes you can judge everything you need to know about a person by their response to certain films."


hahahahahahahahahah where the hell did you find this review.

- i hate vin disel

- i only like ice cube when he plays roles like he did in boyz n tha hood and higher learning

- i think the fast and the furious movies are really shit

- i think this movie is really shit

The "stupid girl" in the cinema that person writes about > the wannabe-critic

"It was interesting to me to see a movie with no music throughout, but the silence only perpetuated dread and horror in many of the scenes"

wolf creek did it better in parts of the film.

the character development in this film was really bad as well. well mainly just for Tommy Lee-Jones' character.
 
Last edited:

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
and by the way, the anticlimactic ending was seen comming from miles away, it's not that I'm a fan of a 'happy ending', it's that I'm a fan of an ending or at the very least a message to be conveyed before the film ends.

"No Country for Old Men" is for the kind of film fan who remarks, "Gee, wasn't that murder a clever mise-en-scene?" and who asks, "What kind of lens do you think they used in that strangulation shot?" The skeleton of "No Country for Old Men" is a cheap, 78-minute, gun-monster-chase B movie. Javier Bardem plays Anton Chigurh, the monster. He is Frankenstein; he is Max Cady from "Cape Fear;" he is from your childhood nightmares. He may be death personified.

One of many completely implausible scenes: an arresting officer, defying any logic, turns his back on Chigurh. Chigurh, displaying the supple sinuosity of a Cirque du Soleil contortionist, or an orangutan, slips out of his handcuffs. This is done out of camera view, because for Bardem it would be impossible; thus the scene's implausibility. Chigurh then, in real time, strangles the young police officer to death on camera. This is an extended sequence. This is the payoff for "No Country for Old Men": watching one human being kill other human beings, in scene after scene after scene, using various weapons, including a captive bolt pistol usually used on livestock. Guess Chigurh couldn't get hold of a Texas chainsaw. This is a slasher flick for the pretentious.

Early on, there are well-done, if standard, chase scenes. A man outruns a car: not believable, but fun to watch. A pit bull chases this fleeing man down a whitewater river. The man reloads his gun at the very last moment (of course) and shoots the pit bull dead just as it is about to sink its teeth into the man. Later, in a hotel, a beeping transponder informs the killer where his prey hides. Your pulse may race and you may think that this is all leading up to something interesting. You will be disappointed.

Tommy Lee Jones, whose ear lobes appear to be metastasizing as he ages, wanders aimlessly through the film as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, delivering cornpone, homespun, cowboy poet ruminations that are more or less opaque in meaning. No doubt the film's fans are even now feverishly compiling a companion volume that decodes Bell's dreams and conveys their depth.

Woody Harrelson, late the bartender of the TV sitcom "Cheers," shows up for a completely pointless half-hour role that yanks the viewer right out of the movie. "What is Woody Harrelson doing here?" Some years back, some bored English majors decided that conventional narrative structure was not intellectual enuf, and decided to play games with narrative. "No Country for Old Men" plays these sorts of games. The viewer is invited to invest time getting to know characters who are eliminated from the plot in ways that convey no meaning and are not moving. The narrative flow is truncated and yet the movie keeps going; viewers ask themselves why the movie is continuing -- sometimes out loud, even in a movie theater -- this is supposed to be a deep, intellectual experience. It is not. It is merely annoying.

Other than bratty English major head games, pretty much the entire substance of "No Country for Old Men" is a series of murders and tortures committed by Chigurh, who may symbolize your high school's worst bully – a bully so terrifying exactly because he targeted English majors. His victims are often courteous; their likability makes watching them be humiliated and then murdered an uncomfortable, and, given the film's structure, ultimately pointless exercise. Not only are the Coen Brothers torturing their characters, they also torment their ticket-buying audiences.

Chigurh's nice victims are often poor, rural, Southern, whites, the kind of people often not featured as positive, lead characters in Hollywood entertainments. They are often villains – witness films like "Deliverance." Here they are murder victims. Chigurh is associated with Mexicans, part of a rising "dismal tide," as one Anglo character puts it. No matter how you feel about immigration, you may find this association of Mexicans with a rising tide of evil to be offensive.

The film's boosters insist that the movie offers three deep and shocking lessons: life doesn't always follow a neat narrative structure; evil often triumphs; and the old days were more peaceful and, nowadays, things are getting really bad. In truth, everyone walking in to the theater already knows the first two "lessons." No one needs the Coen brothers to inform him that life doesn't always follow a neat narrative structure, or that evil often triumphs. We expect filmmakers, and all artists, to offer us a more substantial thesis. As for the third "lesson," that the old days were more peaceful and things are getting really bad today -- have the Coens, or Cormac McCarthy, heard of Attila the Hun, or any number of other less-than-peaceful and courteous personages from our common human past? One might well be dubious about "No Country"'s "lessons." Visit internet discussion boards devoted to this movie, and you will find fans asking, not "What is fate?" or "What is the role of a good man in a bad world?" but questions like, "If Hannibal Lector and Anton Chigurh were locked in a room, who would come out alive?" Given such reflections, one is safe in concluding that the appeal of this film is its emphasis on graphic violence, rather than on any more advanced intellectual or artistic merit.
 
Last edited:

hiphophooray123

Twisted firestarter
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
4,982
Location
Sydney University Village
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
wasn't even that graphic but that article trashing the movie is well-written, but so are the reviews praising it.

It can just all be summed up in three words

it was shit.
 

nandayo

ismist
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
252
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
I agree that most of the suspenseful scenes were really well executed, and that the film was stylistically rich, but otherwise I didn't like it too much.

I'd call it a 'good movie', but it'd stay right at that - I have no intention to ever watch it again, if I want something to the standard of Tommy Lee's 'fantastic' monologue, I'll just sit down with my grandfather and listen to him yap about the 'old days'.

Fargo was better.
 

icecreamdisco

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
989
Location
manly
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
holy backlash batman! calm down kids, lemme clarify a few things.

brogan77 said:
Never before have I seen someone use so many words in such a pretentious manner to say basically nothing.
read the sentence that follows... i'm perfectly aware of the pretentiousness of that statement and was poking fun at such academic gushing.

seriously, none of the replies of you haters have anything useful to add except pointing out that you were too bored/uninterested in the film (which is OK!) and are gonna take your anger out on the film's fans. countering my hyperbolic enthusiasm with, "yeah right" and then recounting the scenes in question out of context by making it sound mundane isn't helping your cause.

without taking the 'stick with transformers!' route, lemme address a few complaints, since the 'pretentious' comments seem directed at me.

Seriously, I have never witnessed such boring and pointless dialogue. The best part in the movie was when the credits interrupted Tommy-Lee Jones' uninspired speech about his stupid dreams.
it didn't interrupt them... he'd actually finished his speech. and what he was saying outlines the film's theme about the illusion of security, and fate, and stuff.

Enteebee said:
and by the way, the anticlimactic ending was seen comming from miles away, it's not that I'm a fan of a 'happy ending', it's that I'm a fan of an ending or at the very least a message to be conveyed before the film ends.
weird that you'd say this then post a review you apparently agree with, which then specifies the film's message and disagrees with it.

i personally don't think the film is all doom and gloom, and isn't saying that things are getting progressively worse and that evil will always prevail... if it was saying that, the film would be pretty shallow (but still a pretty kickass suspense thriller, which is what i mainly dig it as). the scene at the end where the kid (the youngest generation seen in the film) gives chigurh his shirt while momentarily turning town the cash is a pretty humane moment and suggests hope for the future in some weird way... at least that was my take.

also, the film isn't supposed to be entirely realistic - didn't the bit with the mariachi band clue you in on that? it's supposed to be absurd, slightly surreal, disorienting, etc... a heightened depiction of a world gone mad, and all that jazz.
 
Last edited:

hiphophooray123

Twisted firestarter
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
4,982
Location
Sydney University Village
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
brogan77 said:
Except he takes the money in the end and then makes a whiney comment to his mate, who wants to split it, about how he was the one who had to give up his shirt...

Rightfully so, that kid made the sacrifice he should get the material object which is portrayed as a reward for such a good deed. The other kid has no right to claim a fraction of this holiest of reward just because he simply witnessed the act of incomparable kindness.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
weird that you'd say this then post a review you apparently agree with, which then specifies the film's message and disagrees with it.
To me such shallow, cliche, lame, boring messages are no message at all, so if you want to base a film on such concepts you had better stick to convention and give us the appropriate ending.

i personally don't think the film is all doom and gloom
A guy with no morals goes around killing people, no one stops him and there appears to be no end to his killing, the characters you feel the greatest sympathy for (in particular Moss's pretty wife, but even Moss himself) all die. How exactly isn't it all doom and gloom?

(but still a pretty kickass suspense thriller, which is what i mainly dig it as).
Maybe you're held on the edge of your seat easier than me? I wasn't feeling the suspense much at all, especially once I'd worked out chigurh to be nothing but a senseless lunatic killer... all his victims were to die, their only hope being that he decided to toss a coin and it saved them (wow he has the complexity of harvey two-face). Perhaps the problem is that you don't experience as much 'trash' cinema as I do so find this (what I consider to be common-place trash) to be something amazing?

the scene at the end where the kid (the youngest generation seen in the film) gives chigurh his shirt while momentarily turning town the cash is a pretty humane moment and suggests hope for the future in some weird way... at least that was my take.
When humanity looks to examples of people lending a shirt to someone who has a bone sticking out their arm so they can splint it up as an example of altruism we have truly gone down a dark road.

This film just simply wasn't that great and I have absolutely no idea how this film is getting the reviews it is. I normally wouldn't care that much but the disparity between how some people are rating this movie and how I saw it is just so large it warrants discussion.
 
Last edited:

icecreamdisco

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
989
Location
manly
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
brogan77 said:
Except he takes the money in the end and then makes a whiney comment to his mate, who wants to split it, about how he was the one who had to give up his shirt...
except he hesitates at first, unlike those dumbass fratboys in the earlier and similar scene who demand that llewellyn gives the money first, and then one asks how much for the beer. the difference in general decency between the younger and older generations in both scenes is quite clear, is all i'm saying.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
icecreamdisco said:
except he hesitates at first, unlike those dumbass fratboys in the earlier and similar scene who demand that llewellyn gives the money first, and then one asks how much for the beer. the difference in general decency between the younger and older generations in both scenes is quite clear, is all i'm saying.
But that's a totally different situation, that's not someone whom you've just seen have a car accident, that's some random walking up with blood on them who is hessitant to explain how it got there asking for items which will not aide their immediate well being (unlike the shirt to be used as a splint).
 

icecreamdisco

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
989
Location
manly
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
also...
Enteebee said:
I fucking swear you pretentious fucks just like to pick movies that you know no one else will find amazing so you can keep your precious little niche where you have something 'special'. This movie gets 1/5 for me, it would have been 2.5-3 with the same plot if it wasn't drawn out so pointlessly.
wtf? this film has cleaned up at the us box office (relative to its small-ish budget and lack of big stars), had been more acclaimed & awarded than any film this year, has secured the #16 spot in IMDb's mainstream-centric top 250... i'd say it's pretty popular and well-loved, no?
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Aliens Vs Predator requiem sold more tickets in its first week, even if we combine NCFOM's original opening week and their wider release week. It sure is a movie for the people when it can't out-do some random horror flick.
 

icecreamdisco

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
989
Location
manly
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
ok, i get that you guys didn't buy into the film's world... i saw atonement recently and couldn't get into it because of a few implausibilities, so i'll lay off that. however, i summon a tidbit from jim emerson that'll at least have you conceding a few points:

No Country for Old Men" is one of those movies I think provides a critical litmus test. You can quibble about it all you like, but if you don't get the artistry at work then, I submit, you don't get what movies are. Critics can disapprove of the unsettling shifts in tone in the Coens' work, or their presumed attitude toward the characters, or their use of violence and humor -- but those complaints are petty and irrelevant in the context of the movies themselves: the way, for example, an ominous black shadow creeps across a field toward the observer ("No Country" has a credit for "Weather Wrangler"); or a phone call from a hotel room that you can hear ringing in the earpiece and at the front desk, where you're pretty sure something bad has happened but you don't need to see it; or the offhand reveal of one major character's fate from the POV of another just entering the scene; or... I could go on and on. To ignore such things in order to focus on something else says more about the critic's values than it does about the movies."
plus, i think you three are being combative against an allegedly dominant mode of pretentiousness and stuffiness amongst cinemagoers (which, like, doesn't exist) and thus ignoring so many of the great things that the film has to offer.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
the way, for example, an ominous black shadow creeps across a field toward the observer ("No Country" has a credit for "Weather Wrangler");
I've seen these sort of effects a million times, they seem pretty damn stock standard if you ask me?

or a phone call from a hotel room that you can hear ringing in the earpiece and at the front desk
This too?

or the offhand reveal of one major character's fate from the POV of another just entering the scene
And this was done in the sort of way that I imagine critics would usually say the film seemed rushed. I've seen a lot of crappy little horror flicks where they'll just randomly kill off one of the characters because they need to, I don't see how this is great.

Of course it says something about the critics values, just as his insistence to point out fairly mundane little features of the film and blow them out of proportion into something groundbreaking tells me something about his values. But I submit that for him to claim 'I don't know what movies are' is more wank from some pretentious jerk when the appreciation of any art form is a subjective experience.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The best film this year was Die Hard 4.0 imo.

My favourite films are:

A Beautiful Mind
Animal House
Lord of War
Johnny Got His Gun
Ace Ventura II
Eternal Sunshine
Enemy at the Gates
Schindlers' List
Pulp Fiction
Fight Club
The Breakfast Club
The Exorcist

edit:

Also American pie 1,2 and 3.
 
Last edited:

icecreamdisco

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
989
Location
manly
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
brogan77 said:
I'd just place them in the same category *shrug*
hmm. i wouldn't because...

ncfom has a sense of humor, even in the most unlikely places (eg, the dog chases llewellen downstream)... babel doesn't.
ncfom doesn't feel that just because it has MEANING and IMPORTANT THEMES from a PULITZER-WINNING NOVEL, it doesn't have to be thrilling and suspenseful... babel beats you over the head with it's theme in every single scene to the point that there's no other way to feel about it other than think 'aha, such a brilliant way of depicting the themes of miscommunication in modern society' while stroking your chin.

etc.
 

hiphophooray123

Twisted firestarter
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
4,982
Location
Sydney University Village
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
icecreamdisco said:
ok, i get that you guys didn't buy into the film's world... i saw atonement recently and couldn't get into it because of a few implausibilities, so i'll lay off that. however, i summon a tidbit from jim emerson that'll at least have you conceding a few points:



plus, i think you three are being combative against an allegedly dominant mode of pretentiousness and stuffiness amongst cinemagoers (which, like, doesn't exist) and thus ignoring so many of the great things that the film has to offer.

the first few sentences of that horrible review pretty much tells me the POV of that writer. Just another wanker trying to make something sound really good. He writes that if we don't appreciate the movie we don't know anything about movies. That is complete and utter bullshit.

That is completely ignorant. Movies have many different contexts, let me guess, if he doesn't like the message of a certain movie (let's say um boyz n tha hood coz its about tha ghetto kidzlol) then he would dismiss it as 'not a movie.'

I reiterate, this just goes to show the psuedo-artfaggery psuedo-intellectual trend is expanding.

Watch gummo's dvd sales rise higher and higher (which is probably one of the worst, most pointless movies ever made, but even then I would admit it is a movie in every sense of the word, no matter what the message is, even if it's 'blank') and the reviews slandering it will be edited into lyke 'omg this is brilliant and so moving and inspiring'
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top