Discussion in 'Entertainment' started by bull1683, Jan 18, 2008.
Sweeping review Ebert. I loved the part where you explained why it sucks.
lol, this forum is the worst movie forum i've ever been a part of.
the movie was great, up until teh last like minute. Then the whole tone and feel of the movie changed and left me with a wtf feeling. still top 3 of the year.
I agree, the movie portion of offtopic is rather sucky, can someone recommend a better movie forum per chance?
rottentomatoes or imdb.com
movie forums suck because people all think that their opinion is correct and everyone else is wrong.
IMDB has a terrible setup (Message Boards is what I'm assuming you're talking about) and yeah, neither of those places really seem much better.
No one really wants to discuss anything, they just want to echo their own opinions, which more often than not are either irrelevant or plain wrong.
edit- RT's forums seem intelligent, much better than IMDb's.
I think my poster above says it all.
Fucking great movie.
You are probably one of the douche bags that saw No country for old men and left saying, OMG WTF WAS THAT ENDING?! Completely missing the allegory of the film.
Allegory is best left to classic literature, not counter-critical masturbation fests like this film.
Its Daniel Day lewis being an asshole for 2 hours so that critics can smoke a blunt and talk about "the all-important ""interesting""" (in triple quotes).
Daniel Day Lewis plays the same character (an asshole pretending to be a human version of the devil) in every role he plays.
The director took a line from the film "Saw" and made a dumb-fest of assholery out of it. OH SHIT, WHAT A GENIUS.
Gangs of new york was the same idea in a different setting.
I'll go back to reading Faust, thanks.
I also don't like that films which explore the most depraved aspects of humanity heap all of the critical praise while hero epics get praise from the public but win no oscars.
I disagree with alot of the ratings that rotten tomatoes ends up listing movies at, maybe that was my objection.
I do too, but I don't put much stock in other peoples ratings of movies, I only use them as a general guideline as to the quality of the film. I don't think I've ever truly loved a film rated under a 6 on IMDb, nor hated a film rated over 8.5, but aside from those fairly loose guidelines I see a film and judge for myself.
Anyway, RT embraces self-indulgence to leagues I haven't seen since the last Michael Moore flick. Everyone seems to have their own top-10 thread, or year recap, whatever, pretty much "I'm gonna be a movie critic and state a bunch of stuff without getting payed for it." Normally I'd just ignore it, but on RT for some captivating reason people eat it up. Some dude posts a bunch of random opinions and all the responses are "Great start, looking forward to the rest of this thread," as if an epic journey in movie criticism was about to begin. It doesn't bother me, I just find the behavior odd. Discussing movies specifically is one thing, giving sweeping opinions of an entire region of film, be it by genre or year seems irrelevant unless presented by some manner of industry professional. Irrelevant at the least, and yet the forum as a whole embraces it. Odd.
And yeah, some of their ratings are totally fucked up.
Yes, I hope I don't find Daniel Day Lewis distracting.
I loved him in Unbearable Lightness of Being, but lately he almost oozes, "I am acting".
Yea, apparently you have no idea what no country for old men was about....as for There will be blood.
Why would you criticize someone for playing a role they are good at? lol Makes no sense. He plays good villians so you give him shit about playing the same role? WTF?
What line did he take from Saw? I would love to hear that.
Funny how you brought out Faust as a case of "classical literature." It's a great book but such and obvious choice? Come now. Why not Animal Farm by George Orwell?
Faust is a great book. I remember being about 17 and reading that in my English class. Not as part of the curriculum but because I was one of the few kids who didn't spend 20 hours a day watching TV.
I would love to hear what movies have come out recently that are even CLOSE to having the depth of this.
Hands down it's the best movie to be released in 07. The ending was classic and there is so much to be taken in from it that it's no wonder American audiences were pissed at the end. All people are interested in is jerk off moments and violence.
Here is an explanation of the movie. I'd love to hear something intelligent in response but I don't expect it.
Don't for a second tell me you took from the movie what this author of this write-up did. I'd call BS 24 hours a day because I know for a fact you didn't and couldn't just based on what you said.
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is an ALLEGORY.
The title is from the first line of Sailing to Byzantium by William Butler Yeats, a poet classically trained and considered by many to be the greatest 20th Century poet.
Death is Anton Chigurh. His hair style (hood-ish, shroud-ish) and black clothing suggest Death. Death kills the innocent as well as the guilty and has his own set of rules. When the witness to the high-rise killing asks, “Are you going to kill me?” Death answers, “It depends. Do you see me?” When the kids on the bicycles help him after the car accident he tells them, “You didn’t see me.” If you see Death, you die; if not, you may live. Chigurh seems to come and go at will and seems to know where Moss is without trying very hard. His rules are his rules and they seem arbitrary and random. He is referred to by the sheriff as a “ghost” and he seems to be able to go wherever he pleases.
Death kills with a cattle stun gun, almost like a member of the clergy administering a cross to the forehead of a parishoner. Death is often portrayed as a hooded figure with a scythe; in this case he’s a “hooded” figure with a cattle stun gun.
Man is Llewellen Moss, part sinner, part saint. He is offered a deal with Death when Death offers to ignore his wife but take him. Instead, Llewellen challenges Death and chooses declines the offer. This is straight Faustian bargaining. By declining Death’s “This is the best deal you’re gonna get” Moss signs not only his own death warrant but his wife’s, too.
Llewellen challenges Death to a showdown and when his wife tells the sheriff, “He won’t quit, neither. Never has.” the audience expects a later showdown because we’ve been trained to see the protagonist take on the antagonist at the climax of a story — but before that can happen life’s randomness gets in the way and the Mexicans kill him. This is the major turn in the movie and the one that takes the sail out of the audience, which has been cheering for Man in his struggle against Death without realizing it.
Free Will is Carla Jean. She chooses at the end of the film not to allow Death to be random. She has a 50% chance of saving herself but chooses not to avail herself of the opportunity. She is the bravest of the lot, choosing to die by her own decision and not the randomness of Death.
The sheriff is the philosopher trying to understand the universe. He cannot and is defeated by Death in his attempt. At the movie’s end the Sheriff bemoans the fact that God never entered his life. One of God’s creatures, Death, was in the Sheriff’s life but he didn’t realize it (see “Scene with Sheriff” below). The story is the Sheriff’s, his quest to understand Life, and the dream he tells at the end of the movie explains that his own father, long dead, has gone before him into the darkness of death and awaits him.
Interesting parallel — Moss pays money for a coat as he crosses into Mexico; Chigurh pays the kids money for a shirt after his accident. What is meant by that? Cannot be a coincidence.
Chigurh walking away from the accident at the end shows that Death cannot be stopped. It will always walk the streets. It is a part of our existence forever.
Scene with the Sheriff and Death at the same hotel room at the same time but the Sheriff does not see Death. This scene is vital — it solidifies the allegory. The Sheriff enters the room but does not see Death and so he does not die. Death sees the sheriff but chooses not to kill him because he’s not seen in return. This scene is the “supernatural” scene which signals that we’ve watching an allegory, that what we’ve been watching is more than it appears.
Why 1980 for the book/film when it was written in 2005? Could it be it was begun then and the author simply chose not to update it? What is the reason? Must be one. Might be nothing more than the author started this 25 years ago and didn’t feel like updating it to present times.
This is a wonderful movie!
Having had more time to ponder this fabulous film a few more things have become evident:
Carson Wells, when asked by the businessman in the tall building, compares Anton Chigurh to the Bubonic plague. The plague, one recalls, was vectored by rats, upon which contaminated fleas resided. Where I grew up, one small flea-like parasite was called a “chigger”. Yes, like “Chigurh”.
Sheriff Bell at the story’s end bemoaned that God hadn’t come into his life. The irony was that God had. God had visited a plague upon Sheriff Bell’s land in 1980 and it, like the Great Death of 1348, chose its victims pretty randomly.
There’s no question both Chigurh and Bell were in the same motel room. Bell did not see Chigurh and therefore lived.
The story is narrated by Bell. It’s his story, not Llewellen Moss’s, though we certainly misinterpret the protagonist until later, that’s for sure. Excellent misdirection by the filmmakers. The High Noon showdown never occurs. That which does is off-screen, to boot! Some have criticized that after Moss’s death the story is anti-climactic. Viewed with Moss as the protagonist it certainly would be. But Moss never was the protagonist. Bell is. Though a case for Chigger might be made, too, but would fail to the near-soliloquy by Bell at the end.
No filmmakers chose a time 30 years ago to film a story unless it’s relevant to the story — it costs extra money to rent those old cars and to be sure the backgrounds are authentic and the prices of items are retro’d and the clothing is non-anachronistic. 1980 was chosen deliberately for a very good reason. I’m still working on it. It may be obvious to others but I don’t see it yet. Perhaps the Barry Corbin (Ellis) scene near the end is a clue — he says “it’s coming”. By now it’s here. Maybe that’s the message. Stay tuned.
I’m also pondering what it was Carson Wells represented. Was he perhaps a symbol for the attempt to reconcile Man (Llewellen) to God’s creature Death? No, I don’t see him as a Christ-figure but am open to suggestions.
Both Death and Carson Wells were sent forth by the man in the high glass tower to do specific things. I don’t want to stretch the allegory too far here but “man in the high glass tower” has obvious symbolic religious connotations. And Death obviously rebels against that man later so let’s not jump to conclusions about Death rebelling against God, etc.
There were significant differences between the book and the film — specifically, Carla Jean refused to call the coin in the film; the hitchhiker was eliminated in the film, probably because of time limitations and the fear some might misinterpret Moss’s intentions toward her. I think the changes in the movie increased the effectiveness of the allegory. Free will and self-determinism are more evident in Carla Jean’s film portrayal than in the book. It is also possible the book’s author, McCarthy meant something different than the screenwriters did. The film also omitted Bell’s “confession” and one great cause of his regret. Again, to the betterment of the film.
Carla Jean’s mother probably just died of the cancer from which she suffered. There’s no thought that the Mexicans killed her, too, as well as Llewellen. Presumably, Carla Jean had already buried her husband then later her mother died and Carla Jean then buried her. A period of weeks or even months might have taken place here. It was then that Death showed up to claim her, after she’d settled her affairs, so to speak. He advised her not to worry about the unpaid bills. Her refusal to call the coin was the self-deterministic free will mentioned earlier. And there’s no question Death took her then — checking his shoes eliminated any possibility of any other result.
Another thing — please do not consider Death to be evil. Death is as much a part of life as its other facets and remember Orson (not Carson) Welles’s quote, “Without death, life would have no meaning.” It does make one wonder whether the screenwriters recalled this quote when assigning the name “Carson Wells” to the Harrelson character.
I’m fascinated by Moss’s purchase of the coat at the bridge and Death’s purchase of the shirt from the bicycle boys. This was intentional and has meaning but I’ve not nailed it down.
The scene where Chigurh shoots at the bird as he drives across the bridge puzzles me — was the bird a black bird (also symbolic of death) or another colored bird? Why shoot at it? I could use some help on this one as well as others, obviously.
I just noticed another thing — Ellis, in the Blue version of the screenplay, is described as having “one clouded eye”. I also mentioned that Yeats’s classical Sailing to Byzantium offered the title of the book/movie. In the Coen brothers’ hillbilly tribute to Ulysses/Odysseus they utilized classical mythology — remember John Goodman’s portrayal of the Cyclops and the blind Homer figure on the handcar at the beginning? Is Ellis the Greek Sophoclean chorus? There’s no question that the screenwriters have used allusions effectively before, so why not now, too?
Ellis says, “You can’t stop what’ comin’” and Llewellen, when asked by the girl at the motel, answers, “Lookin’ for what’s comin’”. Her answer to him is “Yeah, but no one ever sees that.” This is good thematic planting and I wish other moviemakers took the time and effort to produce quality work like this instead of offering us the drivel they do.
Was the movie any good? I've enjoyed the book so many times over I'd hate to watch the movie and it ruin it like so many others.
I tried my ass off to enjoy this film, and I just... don't fucking get what's so interesting about it. Normally I stop watching a movie I don't like around the end of the first reel, but I stuck with there will be blood for an hour and a half. Boring, uninteresting, don't get it. #20 IMDB alltime, 8 oscar noms...
Don't get it.
i thought it was a bit boring but wouldn't go so far as to say it sucked. it was worth watching but i probably won't watch it again.
i guess i'm in the middle of the road on this movie, it you can watch it without paying any $ then it's worth it but paying for movie tickets well,,,,probably a bit to boring to warrant that
daniel day lewis always does a great job regardless of the movie he's in
The movie was very well done. PTA is an excellent director & Daniel Day Lewis played a very memorable character, but the movie wasn't my cup of tea. A little long, too disjointed, & Lewis's character overwhelmed everything else.
I give it 4 out of 5 soda straws.
The movie didn't appeal to me either; the last scene is fucked up memorable though.
the movie was horrible, besides good acting, there is nothing likable about that movie. The trailer makes it seem like a blood bath one would see in gangs of new york, but no, i was waiting for someone else to die and 2 hours and 40 minutes later, i walked out pissed that i wasted 2 hours and 40 minutes of my life. Suck it Paul Thomas Anderson
What trailer did you see that made it look like a blood bath?? That confuses the fuck out of me. I never once figured that....ever. You didn't like it because no one died? WTF? Sweeping review.
So does anyone want to spoil it and tell me the ending? I keep hearing how amazing it is except that the ending is so awful. I feel I should know what I'm getting into.
I loved it, and the ending is not awful. I thought it was amazing.