No country for old men

BigDuffman

It being the year of a decade etc. people talk about films of the decade. Some people claim this to be one of them. I personally HATED it when I left the cinema I had a look around to ensure that I was not alone in my opinion....To my delight I was not! 99% of my mates all were of the same. It seemed that our group was not the only one as the majority of people had the same look on their faces.

Btw, one member of the group (the resident movie buff) enjoyed it. But his film choices are not what one might call popular or enjoyable!

Some one please explain how the hell it is so popular as I wouldn't even call it a cult classic!!!

Vic Vinegar

BigDuffman wrote: »

when I left the cinema I had a look around to ensure that I was not alone in my opinion....To my delight I was not! 99% of my mates all were of the same.

So you went to the cinema with a 100 mates? gees...

What didn't you like about it exactly? i thought it was a really good film, not a bad part in it to be honest... Each to their own i guess.

geoffraffe

I loved it too. The tention as he flipped the coin for the old man in the garage was incredible and although it was just a case movie in essence, it really put a new spin on it I thought. Also I love films that don't fall in with the normal rules of the cinema

In the end you don't expect the bad guy to win, or to come back and kill the wife, or to get up and walk into the sunset

I must watch this sgain soon actually.

Raging Bob

Well you do with the Coen Brothers tbh.

L31mr0d

BigDuffman wrote: »

I personally HATED it

Seems to be a common case of people just not understanding the film and feeling robbed of their expected crescendo. The simplest way to rectify this is to ask yourself why do you think the film is called "No country for old men"? Of what relevance is this title to the film?

Karl Hungus

It's an absolute masterpiece as far as I'm concerned. I've watched it multiple times now on DVD, and it just doesn't fail to be one of the best film experiences possible each time. I have one friend who hated it also, his reasons for this was that Tommy Lee Jones' character was a terrible sheriff, which kind of misses the entire point of the film. Most of the people I've noticed who didn't like it just didn't get what the film was about, they'll throw out the old "it has no ending" nonsense. It had an ending, the story starts with Jones' character and finishes with him, resolving his character arc. As L31mr0d says, the title of the film is of importance here. It's an absolutely terrific story, extremely well acted by all involved, the pace, tension and sense of dread throughout was incredible. It's a film I consider downright brilliant.

Agricola

Yeah most peoples problem with it is that it doesnt pan out the way 99% of these type of films do.

You expect Josh Brolins character to hunt down Javier Bardem and walk off into the sunset with his wife and the loot.

I felt it was abit of an anticlimax in the cinema too but after a second viewing I really enjoyed it for what it is, just a brilliantly crafted film.

Ally Dick

I thought it started off promising, with plenty of menace throughout, but the ending was DREADFUL. Overall it left a bad taste in my mouth as it was by no means the classic I was led to believe. If only every director could be like Martin Scorcese, and tie up all the loose ends....

Sleazus

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Most of the people I've noticed who didn't like it just didn't get what the film was about, they'll throw out the old "it has no ending" nonsense.

What's interesting is that I know people (my mother included) who use that line, but still think it's a classic anyway. Even if you don't "get" the ending, in is a beautiful film - any number of amazing scenes and one of the most interesting "bad guys" of the decade.

Ally Dick

Sleazus wrote: »

one of the most interesting "bad guys" of the decade.

Another deadpan bad guy like Peter Stormere in "Fargo". Hardly original from the Coens

claiva

Ally Dick wrote: »

I thought it started off promising, with plenty of menace throughout, but the ending was DREADFUL. Overall it left a bad taste in my mouth as it was by no means the classic I was led to believe. If only every director could be like Martin Scorcese, and tie up all the loose ends....

I have to disagree.
What would be the point of every film following the same scripted pattern ?
I loved the movie and left the cinema with a wtf just happened feeling.
Then later that night I realised how amazing it was and how it did not follow the usual norms.
I really came to appreciate it after I had time to think about it as the movie's pace gives you very little time to dwell on what is happening.

I think its a classic.
Javier Bardem is proper scary in it aswell and I think his performance in VickyChristinaBarcelona was even more enjoyable having seen him play the demonic character from No Country.

Some people just want clean cut heroes and big explosions and simple plots hand fed to them.
We're all God's creatures after all :rolleyes:

Joycey

Ally Dick wrote: »

it was by no means the classic I was led to believe. If only every director could be like Martin Scorcese, and tie up all the loose ends....

Let me start off by saying that the above is absolutely not the reason I didnt like it that much. Ive seen it twice now and neither time did it seem all that incredible to me TBH. Theyve made so many better films, Millers Crossing is one of the best gangster films ive ever seen, so tightly constructed, not a single second of screen time that doesnt contribute to the whole. Now I know they were going for a different effect in No Country but it just didnt have anything like the impact I was expecting from it. Really looking forward to the new one though, few people have told me its brilliant. Come on the DVD release

BigDuffman

Bombleswizzum wrote: »

So you went to the cinema with a 100 mates? gees...

heh heh touché Sir.

I am by no means a film aficionado. In fact, I embrace the cheese associated with terrible B Movies!

There was nothing that I did not "get" nor am I one that dismisses a film that breaks the standard mould. I just could not connect with the film. I was not expecting a "good guy walking away from an explosion" ala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqz5dbs5zmo but I was expecting something more.

I appreciated the anticlimax I also thought that Javier Bardem took dead pan "bad guy" to the next level. But I really don't think the film as a whole is worthy of the Best Film Ever Made Ever x 1000 and no come backs title.

Each to their own I suppose.:) Now I'm off to watch Die Hard 2

indough

BigDuffman wrote: »

I embrace the cheese associated with terrible B Movies!

nothing wrong with that at all

genericguy

no country ... is my favourite film of all time.

some people just need adam sandler screaming at the top of his voice, or sylvester stallone manning a machine gun turret before they can consider a movie interesting.

indough

is it really a case of if you dont like this movie youre some sort of ignorant pleb?

magma69

indough wrote: »

is it really a case of if you dont like this movie youre some sort of ignorant pleb?

There seems to be that kind of attitude here alright. The "oh go back to watching Transformers 2 so" response. I loved this movie but I'm not going to condescend to people who didn't like it. It is a matter of taste and I can see how this movie may not be everyone's cup of tea. I know some serious buff's with encyclopedic knowledge of movies who despised this flick.

beans

Anyone who'd call you a pleb for not liking a movie is pretty ignorant themselves!

I have a bit of a Cohen-fetish, and this would be up there at the top of their list for me. The scene

where Chigur shoots yer man in the kneck while the guy from accounts is sitting across from him

is so darkly funny But I love it all, if I had to call it on anything it would be the performance of the mother-in-law, which gets on my wick

DazMarz

Ally Dick wrote: »

Another deadpan bad guy like Peter Stormere in "Fargo". Hardly original from the Coens

The character of Anton Chigurh was not a Coen Bros. creation anyway; he was always a dead-pan, soulless, deadpan killer/bad guy in the book too.

No Country For Old Men was one of the best films of the Noughties, seamlessly blending the story with genuine senses of tension and dread. It was one of those films where you just knew that the plucky good guy (or plucky guy just trying to make it on his own) was probably going to get a rough time of it. The ending was so chilling and haunting that it remained with me for a long, long time.

I believe that most people went into this movie expecting nothing but wall-to-wall violence and killing, and cared little of the plot. Look beyond, and think wider and you'll find a near perfect film that you could watch again and again.

Valmont

I really enjoyed it but to say that I wasn't a bit confused at the ending would be a lie. It was after I thought about it for a while and then watched it again that it really clicked if that makes sense.

It's so pleasant to see a film avoiding the usual shoot-out overly punctuated ending that ties the ribbon for you. I guess some of us are just conditioned to have this sort of an ending so when it is absent there is a sense of incompleteness even if the story does resolve itself.

This reminds me, I must get the book.

Chinafoot

Ally Dick wrote: »

Another deadpan bad guy like Peter Stormere in "Fargo". Hardly original from the Coens

Read the book tbh.

Its actually a fantastic adaptation because it stayed very close to the book, which is in itself amazing. The only thing that irritated me a little, and just a little, was

the girl in the hotel. In the book he turns her down because he loves his wife and he ends up trying to help her. In the film it's open to interpretation as to whether or not he did the dirty with her.

Again, only something small but in the book I felt it gave a further insight into his character.

BostonB

Its nice to see a movie that doesn't follow the expect formula. Also it has more space in it for people to act than your usual movie. It was well acted and well directed. IMO. Its a dark movie though, so thats not to everyones taste.

I liked it, its a good movie, but its not one of the greatest of all time or anything.

Mackman

I really enjoyed it, but the ending for me was a WTF?? moment, but afterwards i realised that it was more about Tommy Lee Jones' character and how

he was unable to catch the bad guy

. Once that penny dropped i got it, and loved it

The tesion in some of the scenes is amazing, and its brilliantly acted and shot. i dont know about the best movie ever, but its definatly a contender for one of the best of the decade

ToniTuddle

I'll admit when I watched it in the cinema I didn't quite get some parts.

Javier Bardem was....amazing!
The ending....loved it. Was not expecting it.

I will definitely watch it again at some point. I wouldn't say it's the most amazing film of the last decade. Definitely not....but with a psycho killer character like that in it.....is was DAMN good.

podgemonster

i havnt read the book but saw the film once on DVD and I aint quite sure bout the ending, so maybe someone can answer this?

Did yer man Kill the wife in the end coz I taut maybe he finally cut someone a break?

BigDuffman

To echo some previous posters, there is an incredible amount of elitism associated with this film...in my OP I stated clearly that it was not my cup of low fat soya late. My opinion, it mightn't be yours, but its certainly not wrong.

I simply did not enjoy it. The general stigma attached to some-one who did not enjoy it tends to be "Oh your just an ignorant pleb" blah blah blah. I'm sure plenty of you aficionados did not enjoy 300 / *insert recent mindless action film here* for example...it would be horribly ignorant of me to assume that you did not like it as "you did not understand it".........

As Beans said by all means embrace whatever Coen Fetish but don't expect everyone else to follow suit.

And before the torrent is unleashed, this is not attack on this film in particular. This film in particular was the camel-back-breaking-straw that spurred my rant! It is however a statement about the snobbery radiated by film buffs towards the average plebeian who dare to enjoy special FX laden popular block busters.,

BostonB

podgemonster wrote: »

i havnt read the book but saw the film once on DVD and I aint quite sure bout the ending, so maybe someone can answer this?...

IMO did what he said hes was going to do. He was relentless.

BostonB

BigDuffman wrote: »

To echo some previous posters, there is an incredible amount of elitism associated with this film...in my OP I stated clearly that it was not my cup of low fat soya late. My opinion, it mightn't be yours, but its certainly not wrong.....,

Its not film, its who YOU are talking to about it. Know your audience etc.

No point talking about a ScFi movie with someone who doesn't like the genre. Etc.

Neonjack

For me, it's one of the all time greats, but I can appreciate that it's not to everyone's taste. I would like to ask the OP what he would consider the best film of the decade?

Damian Duffy

Why do people make such stupid uninformed statements as " a typical Coen brothers creation". It is a Cormac McCarthy creation, he wrote the damn book. The characters and events, however diagreeable they are to some poeple, are a creation of the author. Reading the posts in this thread, you'd swear the Coen's thought up everything in the film. Ridiculous to compare the character in Fargo (can't think of his name) with the character In NCFOM (Bardem) because they weren't created by the same people.

People should know that the book originally started out as a screenplay but McCarthy couldn't find any interest, when he went back to it a few years later he decided he could turn into a book. When the Coen brothers received their oscars for this film, McCarthy was present and sitting with them. When they won the award for 'best screenplay' , Ethan came back to the table, turned to McCarthy and said "well I didn't do anything for that but I'm keeping it".

With regards to the OP last post. I'm not really a film snob, I just like good films. I very much am a music snob. I'll watch anything from 'Cloudy with a chance of meatballs' to 'the White Ribbon'. The problem with people who just go see these FX laden films which are. a great deal of the time, ****ing ****e, is that the more people that go see them the more money they make and the more unbearably ****e sequels we have to put up with. Take Transformers 2 for example, 3 hours of self indulgent tripe. The unique, different and original films then get completely overshadowed, in most cases they don't even get a slot in a decent cinema or if they do they get one showing at 9.30 somewhere which is incredibly irritating. Even more so when you see 15 showings of ****ing twilight. Meyer the ****er. If you want to go see 'The White Ribbon', one of the best (probably unheard of films of the year) you had one choice, the IFI and there was a few showings. Mesrine was on in cineworld for about 5 days for a couple of showings. The list could go on and on but I wont bother. Less money is going to original work because people don't go see these and it's a problem.

John Hillcoat is quoted as saying recently " Viewers are being hardwired differently. In film, it's harder and harder to use wide shots now. And the bigger the budget, the more closeups there are and the faster they change. It's a whole different approach. What's going to happen is there will be the two extremes: the franchise films that are now getting onto brands like Barbie, and Battleship and Ronald McDonald; then there are these incredible, very low-budget digital films. But that middle area, they just can't sustain and make it work in the current model. Maybe the model will change and hopefully readjust."

I understand people, especially in this country will follow the masses, but it's frustrating when your options are limited when producers etc just see what crap thousands of people will flock to go see and then produce never ending amounts of it.

NCFOM was a very well made film based on a very good book BUT I can see why people would have a problem with it. To understand and appreciate it better, I think people need to have read the book because only then will you appreciate the story arc involving Tommy Lee Jones because primarily, believe it or not, that is the primary purpose of the story.

Did he kill his wife? Why do you need to know? Based on what you saw, why don't you draw your own conclusions. People just get spoon fed everything. Like at the end of 'A serious Man', you just have to make up your mind. Good films generally ask the audience to participate with thought. That's just my opinion anyway.

abouttobebanned

Out of curiosity OP, what's your favourite film of all time?

Odds on he says Shawshank Redemption.

Damian Duffy

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Out of curiosity OP, what's your favourite film of all time?

Odds on he says Shawshank Redemption.

I'm not having a go but even if he does...what does that prove?

It only just adds another person to the lengthy list of Irish people who call that their favorite film. I see what your trying to get at but with regards to this argument, I just don't see what it will prove about the OP.

Kess73

It is a great film adaptation of a brilliant book.


A rare adaptation that has all the actors looking and feeling right to how you imagined them when you first read the book.

The pacing is excellent, and it tells the story without making concessions for the movie going audience.


the laconic tone of the dialogue is done in a manner that brings Kurosawa to mind in places, just as McCarty's written form brings Hemingway to mind, and I can pay no greater tribute to the Coens than to make that comparison.



But I do not see it as any slight on the OP if he/she dislikes it, as with most things in life, films come down to a matter of personal choice and taste.


The OP hates NCFOM, and I love it. I hate the Godfather, and the OP may love that. It is just individual taste, nothing more.

BigDuffman

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Out of curiosity OP, what's your favourite film of all time?

Odds on he says Shawshank Redemption.

How to lose a guy in 10 days.

Out of curiosity what exactly do you hope to gain from knowing my favourite film of all time?

Why exactly did you feel the need to make a remark written in white text regarding your prediction? Would it be that you have already formed an opinion about me based on my dislike of one film?

EDIT: Response may seem hostile, it is not intended to be so. Merely curious

L31mr0d

BigDuffman wrote: »

I'm sure plenty of you aficionados did not enjoy 300

I loved 300

This also isn't about film elitism, I fully accept that it is possible to dislike this movie based on personal tastes, however the majority, I've found, do not argue their reasons for disliking this film based on an understanding of it's plot. The majority of the arguments for disliking this film have been that it didn't tie up the loose ends and "that ending was rubbish".

This, to me, shows a basic misunderstanding of the film. The ending ties up all of the loose ends that needed to be tied up. It is, by far, the most perfect ending to a film that I've seen in a long time, if ever.

BostonB

L31mr0d wrote: »

I loved 300

This also isn't about film elitism, I fully accept that it is possible to dislike this movie based on personal tastes, however the majority, I've found, do not argue their reasons for disliking this film based on an understanding of it's plot. The majority of the arguments for disliking this film have been that it didn't tie up the loose ends and "that ending was rubbish".

This, to me, shows a basic misunderstanding of the film. The ending ties up all of the loose ends that needed to be tied up. It is, by far, the most perfect ending to a film that I've seen in a long time, if ever.

I thought the ending was fine?

Unforgiven, now theres an ending...

L31mr0d

BostonB wrote: »

Unforgiven, now theres an ending...

It's a good ending all right, but it's a crescendo. I think it is a lot easier to go out on a bang than on a diminuendo. In fact any form of crescendo is purposefully removed from the last act in NCfOM.

We are left with a feeling of a lack of closure, a lack of justice, a lack of consistency... the kind of uneasiness that mirrors the Sheriffs, in living in a country that he does not understand, that is foreign and alien to the one he grew up in.

Simian!

Damian Duffy wrote: »

NCFOM was a very well made film based on a very good book BUT I can see why people would have a problem with it. To understand and appreciate it better, I think people need to have read the book because only then will you appreciate the story arc involving Tommy Lee Jones because primarily, believe it or not, that is the primary purpose of the story.

I don't think that's true at all. I think the Coens and Tommy Lee Jones captured the essence of the character absolutely perfectly.

Simian!

I actually think it's one of the best adaptations of book ever. One of my favourite lines from the film isn't even in the book:

Deputy:
Aww hells bells, they even shot the dog..

Karl Hungus

Here's a question. Why is there such a stigma about not 'getting' a film on first viewing? Why do people take that as such an insult? There are plenty of films that I personally did not get first time round, ones that took me a second viewing to really appreciate. Did I get what Barton Fink was about the first time I saw it? I'm not even sure I get it now, but it's a film I absolutely love. I had absolutely no clue what the hell was going on when I first saw Lost Highway either. Why is the idea of giving a film another chance so abhorrent? I find a lot of great films are dismissed far too easily when they don't meet expectations, and can greatly benifit from a second viewing.

No Country For Old Men is a film that I think is very often misunderstood. In my post I've said that the story is about Tommy Lee Jones' character's arc, some people miss that and focus on the more intense Josh Brolin/Javier Bardem aspect of the film and feel let down because of it. That's a suggestion to look at the film in a different light. If you want to misconstrue that as "You're a pleb if you don't like it" then you're just being standoffish.

Joycey

Damian Duffy wrote: »

With regards to the OP last post. I'm not really a film snob, I just like good films.

The rest of your post would lend itself to being more of a snob in the future TBH. Dont be complicit in the further degeneration of cinema = dont support hollywood. I wont watch something if I can at all help it if I know its going to be sh1t, as 99.96 of hollywood films (made in the last 10-20 years anyway) are.

BostonB

L31mr0d wrote: »

It's a good ending all right, but it's a crescendo. I think it is a lot easier to go out on a bang than on a diminuendo. In fact any form of crescendo is purposefully removed from the last act in NCfOM. ...

In the unforgiven the story of the character been cold and mean, and generally a nasty character doesn't really fit at all until the ending. It ties the whole thing up. Its a twist on the happy ending that just works. Not entirely unexpected.

I think the ending in no country fits the film perfectly too.

Another movie with a good ending. Dangerous Liaisons.

A movie which I think its great, but I don't like is Seven. I'm not mad on the ending either its too obvious. The movie is grim though. Just not my cup of tea.

Joycey

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I had absolutely no clue what the hell was going on when I first saw Lost Highway either.

I watched that fairly recently and thought it was absolute gak. I used to be mad about Lynch but bar about 2 or 3 of his films I have entirely lost faith in him. Lost Hightway was the icing on the cake, I was just thinking WTF are you at? the whole way through. Maybe I need to watch it again, but he seems like a bit of a one-trick pony to me, with Blue Velvet the one exception to the rest of his films, though Eraserhead is better...

Karl Hungus

Joycey wrote: »

I watched that fairly recently and thought it was absolute gak. I used to be mad about Lynch but bar about 2 or 3 of his films I have entirely lost faith in him. Lost Hightway was the icing on the cake, I was just thinking WTF are you at? the whole way through. Maybe I need to watch it again, but he seems like a bit of a one-trick pony to me, with Blue Velvet the one exception to the rest of his films, though Eraserhead is better...

I'd say he's anything but a one trick pony myself, just take a look at The Straight Story or The Elephant Man, I think he's a director with a very broad range. Lost Highway is definitely one of his most dense and surreal works of course, but it's just an example of a film that just didn't click with me at first viewing. Like it or loathe it, I'm just saying that not getting something at first isn't a bad thing.

Damian Duffy

Sticky Romance wrote: »

I don't think that's true at all. I think the Coens and Tommy Lee Jones captured the essence of the character absolutely perfectly.

Yes I agree but in my opinion the point was more well rounded when the book was read as well as watching the film.

Damian Duffy

Joycey wrote: »

The rest of your post would lend itself to being more of a snob in the future TBH. Dont be complicit in the further degeneration of cinema = dont support hollywood. I wont watch something if I can at all help it if I know its going to be sh1t, as 99.96 of hollywood films (made in the last 10-20 years anyway) are.

I'm really not a snob. I would never give out to someone for watching crap or belittle them. I would just never insult my own tastes by watching hollywood garbage. My point, although long winded, was very simple. For original cinema to survive, big budget hollywood films need to be cut down which they never will be because people will always go see them, mainly because they have low attention spans and want action, some hot girl, conclusive ending.

I'm pretty sure we both agree on the same principal at least. We just want good original cinema.

Kess73

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Here's a question. Why is there such a stigma about not 'getting' a film on first viewing? Why do people take that as such an insult? There are plenty of films that I personally did not get first time round, ones that took me a second viewing to really appreciate. Did I get what Barton Fink was about the first time I saw it? I'm not even sure I get it now, but it's a film I absolutely love. I had absolutely no clue what the hell was going on when I first saw Lost Highway either. Why is the idea of giving a film another chance so abhorrent? I find a lot of great films are dismissed far too easily when they don't meet expectations, and can greatly benifit from a second viewing.

No Country For Old Men is a film that I think is very often misunderstood. In my post I've said that the story is about Tommy Lee Jones' character's arc, some people miss that and focus on the more intense Josh Brolin/Javier Bardem aspect of the film and feel let down because of it. That's a suggestion to look at the film in a different light. If you want to misconstrue that as "You're a pleb if you don't like it" then you're just being standoffish.

Come on and tell the truth. It was Maid In Manhattan that stumped you and not Lost Highway.

BostonB

Damian Duffy wrote: »

I'm really not a snob. I would never give out to someone for watching crap or belittle them. I would just never insult my own tastes by watching hollywood garbage. My point, although long winded, was very simple. For original cinema to survive, big budget hollywood films need to be cut down which they never will be because people will always go see them, mainly because they have low attention spans and want action, some hot girl, conclusive ending.

I'm pretty sure we both agree on the same principal at least. We just want good original cinema.

Hang on a minute. Sometimes you want action and hot girls too.

Damian Duffy

BostonB wrote: »

Hang on a minute. Sometimes you want action and hot girls too.

Damn right but not just in your face repetitive bull****. Like Transformers 2 or Megan Fox's Tits and The Explosions in the Desert 2.

BostonB

Damian Duffy wrote: »

Damn right but not just in your face repetitive bull****. Like Transformers 2 or Megan Fox's Tits and The Explosions in the Desert 2.

I could watch Megan all day. But Transformers 2 is one of the worst films I've ever seen. The first one was simplier and better for it. Its just mindless action though.

I don't get why they make kids character movies, transformers, superman, spiderman, harry potter, star wars, all 12 cert so kids can't watch them. Who is going to buy the toys? If they can't watch the movies. They don't really think this through. I think the directors don't want to make a kids movies, so they picked the wrong director.

Theta

I hate that **** about ah you enjoyed this movie or didnt enjoy that movie so you must be a total reatrd.

Movies are a personal choice and each viewer should get something different out of them. The OP didnt enjoy the movie becuase he didnt get what he wanted out of it. Anyone who says he should have gotten it because its a great movie is a snob.

And people who say movies are rubbish because they are all action or have plot holes are the worst people to discuss cinema with in my mind.

Some movies have great stories are entrawling and bring you into the world of the story and make you think as it goes along which is great. But then there are movies which are eye candy and an equally good distraction for your mind to switch off and enjoy the show and they are still good cinema.

So when someone says oh you liked Transformers 2 how could you. I laugh and say it was a movie I enjoyed because it did what I wanted and expected it to do, switch off relax and enjoy a show for a few hours.

Personally I thought No Country was excellent but I can see why people would not enjoy it.