No Country For Old Men

[CaliforniaPeggy]

Who understood this movie?

I sure as hell didn't...


Tommy Lee Jones is the shit, though...

I wanted the bad guy to die a fitting death...:mad:

[RoyGBiv]

1. Oh, understood it ...

It's pretty simple. People are greedy. People are stupid. People are nuts. And there's this myth that it "didn't used to be that way" but that's all it is, a myth.

That said, I thought it was mostly a dumb movie, or at least not as good as the hype portrayed it to be. Having an obscure ending seems to be what you need these days to be considered a serious filmmaker. The truth is, it was just a decent movie with an obscure ending.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. That's about it...

The Coen brothers are known for their weird movies...

But this ending just came out of nowhere.

It almost felt as though they had grown tired of it, and decided to put it (and maybe us) out of our collective misery.

I appreciate your input.

[Whisp]

72. I think what they were trying to get at is

life is unpredictable and chaotic and sometimes the bad guys win.
It's not like a handy movie that has a clear start and finish where the heros usually prevail and all is well or at least has some closure. If Llewyn is to be considered the subhero in this one - his demise was abrupt and out of the usual formula.

another message I took from it was the old guard law officers are now retiring or gone. The common sense, small town sheriff that has emotional investment in his community over the years and is privy to inside info of what the neightbors are up to, etc., is being replaced by technology and churned out people that don't have these traits.

On first see I was really bummed out by the movie. always a Coen fan, but it really really depressed me. I mean, I haven't seen a 'bad guy' like Chughar in ages. he just made my skin crawl, pure evil roaming about doing whatever the hell he pleased.

[mitchum]

81. I agree with your analysis

I think those are the points that the Coen Bros are making

I wasn't bummed by the movie; it's one of the best I have seen in a long time.
For me, the only thing depressing was the West Texas landscape. I kept asking myself, "Why in the hell would anyone wanna live there?"

[Whisp]

85. bummed out on the initial viewing.

but I think it's one of the best movies I've seen for a long time on second viewing and some further analysis.

it's just that it made us think, and talk about it a lot, and that's unusual with most fare these days. The surface of it all ws a bit confusing when you compare it to the regular recipes hollywood cranks out, but the more we got into the depth and layers the more we realised what a fantastic piece of work it was.

like one of those nesting doll thingies. always something more inside something else. ;)

[Wetzelbill]

124. the ending is straight from the book

Verbatim.

[Forkboy]

4. I thought the ending was almost poetic, and a fitting end for the movie.

It totally summed up the whole point behind the name of the movie. I didn't see the ending as obscure at all. :shrug:

Of course, I liked Howard the Duck, so take my opinion on movies with a grain of salt the size of Utah. :)

[RoyGBiv]

7. Hey, I liked the Duck ...

It's not the "ending" per se, so much as the last 10 minutes of the movie as a whole. Jones's monologue was good, but it was a shiny wrapper on what comes off, to me, as a story without an ending.

And maybe that *is* the point, that there is no end, but technically they rushed the thing ... just "snap," okay, it's over. All this violence stuff you just sat through comes down to this: shit is fucked up.

Yeah, well, okay. I don't need a movie to tell me that, but if a movie/novel/whatever is going to tell me that, then please do it in some way that justifies the 10 bucks I spent to hear about it. As Peggy said, I got the idea during that last ten minutes that they didn't really know how to end it. They had Jones's monologue already in the can, and they needed to work up to it, but they didn't have a clear line to get there. So, they just cut it all off and went to him to give it the Oscar Moment.

I didn't hate it by any means, but I was left with a "so what" feeling. The built up characters too well just to drop them the way they did and move on to The Point in that manner.

[Skittles]

17. you know the movie was a faithful adaptation of the book, yes?

[RoyGBiv]

24. I've heard that, yes ...

Haven't read it. I have trouble believing it is truly faithful as some have said since I have yet to see a movie that has ever faithfully followed a book, right down to the pacing. (I'll fully accept I could be wrong since I don't proclaim to be able to judge things I have no read.)

What I will suggest, though, is that pacing that comes off well in written form often translates very poorly to the screen, which is why screen adaptations change things somewhat. _For Love of the Game_ is a "faithful" adaptation of the novel, but it changes things that serve to direct the flow of the movie. In the end, the meaning is changed if you don't have the novel as a guide. A completely faithful transcription of book to movie wouldn't have worked. It's somewhat the same for _Field of Dreams_. It's one of the few movies I found better than the book, and I liked the book. The movie is a faithful adaptation of the story in and of itself, but the pacing changes as do names. Also, the wife's character has a completely different role in the movie than in the book, which is one of the reasons the movie works where the book doesn't quite as well.

Anyway, if the book works precisely like the movie did, I'd have the same criticism of it.

If I could draw graphs well, I'd try to provide a visual of how I perceive the flow of the story. It's technically jarring. I thought it was a good movie right up to the last ten minutes or so and that it sought redemption for those last ten minutes in the final monologue. I am guessing the book would not have been that jarring.

[Skittles]

28. I believe it is "jarring" to those who are used to tidy Hollywood endings n/t

[RoyGBiv]

32. Nice ...

Perhaps it is jarring to those of us who find it jarring? Nice little tidy "Hollywood endings" has nothing to do with it, but I will say this. It is a "typical" Hollywood movie in one very important way. It's a male-centered movie (story) in which women are only an afterthought, offered up to the masses as subservient beings with no original thoughts of their own. Yes, I have had inctricate discussions about this movie with many people, including a forum on gender studies at Rice. I chose to summarize. So, please spare me the snark.

You love the movie. I get that. Are you insulted by the fact I don't? If so, why? Why is it not possible to have a simple disagreement about a freakin' movie without it devolving into personal assessment of another person's ability to judge things for him or herself?

Geezus.

Carry on.

[Skittles]

41. no, I am serious

people are simply used to Hollywood endings and feel cheated by anything different

[RoyGBiv]

43. Well, not me ...

That has little to do with what I dislike about it.

[Skittles]

46. read the book n/t

[RoyGBiv]

50. I may sometime ...

But reading the book will have no affect whatsoever on my opinion of the movie.

Movies stand or die on their own as they are a different art form.

[Skittles]

54. done n/t

[RoyGBiv]

55. Good n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

98. OMG, your sigline

I may be the only geek here who gets it, but wow, :thumbsup:

[RoyGBiv]

102. :-)

Glad someone noticed it.

Minsc is one of my all-time favorite characters ever. Minsc and Boo against all that is evil. :-)

[LanternWaste]

125. Second geek chiming in... (my favorite PC game!)

Second geek chiming in... (my favorite PC game!)

[RoyGBiv]

126. This does my heart good ...

Boo is such a cutey ... I wouldn't want to get on his bad side, but still.

That's it ... gotta fire up the Windows box again so I can play for awhile. :)

[madeline_con]

63. I've been reading the thread, haven't seen the movie...

I was wondering about the role you said it gave to the women. I've found, through experience, that men who are strung out, on a mission or just out of their friggin mind crazy usually put any women who might be in their lives in that position, at least in their own self centered point of view. The reasons many of them accept it is another thread entirely. In some cases the women don't even know that they are relegated to that nether region, depending on the length and intensity of the mean's obsession with his personal struggle.

Anyway, their drug/quest/life's journey or whatever profundity they may be caught up in is foremost, everything else is just survival and urges that come and go. Superfluous fluff, as it were. Perhaps that is what the writer was trying to convey. :shrug:

[RoyGBiv]

101. You should probably see it first ...

... before drawing any conclusions about its portrayal of women.

There have been enough spoilers in this thread for you already, so I'll just leave it at this.

The three main characters around which the story revolves are men. They apparently embody all that needs to be said about the world. There is one important female character, Moss's wife Carla Jean. She is one-dimensional and a subject that in my view is meant to be pitied. There are two other women who have any importance at all, Carla Jean's mother and the sheriff's wife. The mother is a caricature who has one important role, which I won't reveal except to say it's a negative one, a sort of Judas or Eve thing. The sheriff's wife serves as an object of his love, his one lingering possession.

[mitchum]

83. The young widow is obviously the bravest character in the film...

she is the only who truly stands up to the killer. Granted, she does lose her life, but unlike the sheriff, she does not lose her nerve in the face of Anton.
I would hardly call her a subservient being with no original thoughts of her own.

[RoyGBiv]

99. What was her original thought?

She spends the entire story taking orders from her husband, only disobeying him once when she informed the Sheriff of her destination. That too was an action dictated by another man, who is portrayed as clearly more wise than she ever could be, and in the hopes of saving her husband. There is no part of her character or her actions that is not dictated by those of her husband. She has little self-interest and seemingly no capacity for self-preservation.

Her stoicism in the face of Chigurh is an odd sort of courage. Informed by the original author's views and they way he tends to portray women, I hardly think his intent was to portray her as courageous. Rather, her part -- in life it would seem -- was done. Her courage was a simple resignation to fate. Drawing on the theme of movement (in movement there is always hope), which pushes the plot, she stops moving once her husband does, i.e. she loses all hope and gives up.

[Whisp]

73. It is Very true to the book

Sheriff's ramblings get more space but other than that almost right spot on.

[RoyGBiv]

104. I read a review ...

I read a review of the movie that said there are two important plot set points in the book that are either omitted or totally missing from the movie, which I took to mean one is changed, the other gone.

Do you know what this refers to?

McCarthy is a master of narrative flow, and I suspect that if the review is accurate, this might have something to do with my problems with the pacing of the movie near the end.

Just curious.

[Whisp]

107. I'll have to get back to you on that. Husband read the book, not I.

we're in a rush to get out the door right now but I'll ask him on the way.

one thing tho, usually it's the book you get to fill in the details that a movie often has to leave out for flow and time considerations, but this was the opposite. we were a bit dissapointed in the book (a fast read) because it didn't really give that much more detail.

[Whisp]

108. could be these things that the book handled differently:

in the book the woman did accept the coin toss and lost. in the movie she refused.

also at the end we don't see, in the movie, that he had returned the money bag to his new bosses. that was something we found missing in the movie - where was the money? we just assumed he stashed it somewhere other than carrying it around in the car.

[RoyGBiv]

109. Interesting ...

Thanks.

FWIW, I was inspired to watch this movie again this afternoon to see if opinions I formed about it when I first saw it and after having some discussions about it in particular contexts still held true.

The discussion here, particularly jobycom's analysis, helped me think of a few things in different ways than I did before, and I think I liked the movie more this time than I did the first. (I don't think jobycom's analysis was the original author's intent, but it may have been the Coen brothers' intent.) On the other hand, some of those earlier opinions were reinforced, particularly the male-centered universe it seems to construct as defining of meaning and the lack of depth to the female characters. I also saw a bit more of something I hadn't touched on in this thread, to wit McCarthy's conservatism driving the definition of what's wrong with the world and why those things are wrong.

I've also realized that a fundamental part of my disliking the movie -- the foundation on which my complaints are formed -- lies with the origin of the title. As mentioned, I have not read the book, but I'm familiar with Yeats and "Sailing to Byzantium." Understanding the story as conceived by McCarthy really only requires having a familiarity with Yeats, that poem in particular. That is, from my first viewing, I worked under an assumption that this story was a modern and extended re-telling of the Yeats poem. And, it was in a way, or at least the novel was based on my familiarity with reviews.

And here's a coincidental bit of trivia. One of the strongest contemporary criticisms of Yeats's poem was from a fellow literary type (I can't remember the name off the top of my head) who said the fourth stanza did not meeting the superb artistic standard set by the previous three. In other words, the critic didn't like the ending. :-)

[Forkboy]

30. I think they knew exactly how to end it.

I don't feel that any characters were dropped by the ending. Brolin's character getting killed was great. How often do you see what seems like the hero of a movie get killed before the third act? :)

As for it seeming like "okay, it's over", it was over. TLJ's character knew he had reached the end of his career, that he was outmatched, so he calls it quits instead of getting himself killed. What's there to tell after that? He's the old man in the title, and his character had run it's course.

I felt by the end that all the character stories were neatly resolved. Chigurh was like the anti-Man With No Name from Eastwood's westerns. He comes into town, does his thing, then fades away. We know nothing about his past or his future. He just exists. It's a metaphor for violence itself. It just exists.

Brolin's character getting offed was a shock to me, but it worked for me as well. It underscores what TLJ's character was up against. Sudden violence.

Brolin's wife getting killed was a further statement on the motivations for violence. Chigurh didn't have to kill her, but he did anyways. What motivates that kind of violence? It wasn't just because he gave his word to Brolin that he would. Clearly, he enjoys his work. What creates such a person?

The Mexicans were just a plot device, and that angle not being tied up is inconsequential to the movie anyways. The were just props.

Let me say that I didn't get all this the first time I watched it. I felt like I was left hanging the first time, and that made me think about it so much I watched it a second time later that day. That's when all this hit me. The speech at the end about the dream is the whole meaning to the movie, and the key scene to "getting" it. I was expecting another scene after it, and when it ended I was like, "What?"

Obviously, people take movies in different ways, so my take may not be the right one, but it's the only one I can think that both makes sense, and satisfies my need to understand the movie. That damn dream speech messed with my head. :)

[RoyGBiv]

40. Brolin ...

I liked that part. It was shocking. I wasn't expecting it, and it does make sense, in the context of the story anyway, a story which highlights the fact that nothing really makes sense, nothing follows a "plan" or some universal moral truth. As I said, shit is fucked up.

But that turn of events is one of the reasons the last ten minutes disappoint me.

I do not understand his wife being killed. That doesn't make sense in the same way other things that don't make sense don't make sense, if that makes any sense. :) What really motivated Chigurh? Everyone has motivation, even nonsensical serial killers. Not that this is The Answer to that question, but one part of the answer is that he remained obscure, unknown, a dark, evil wind that blew through your life and left no trace. Look at all the care he took to keep "clean." He didn't *have* to kill the driver of that first car he took, but he did, in part to stay clean, to leave no real trace of himself. His weapon was a manner of leaving no trace. In the end, he did what he did because it was he lot in life, and he got paid for it, and he was good at it.

Given that piece of motivation, going and killing the wife comes off as vengeance for ... something. What? I dunno. He pays off the kids not to let anyone know he'd been around. Are we supposed to believe they took that hundred bucks to be all that much when they found out a woman down the street got killed about the same time they saw some fucked up dude nearly get himself killed and offer them money not to tell anyone about him?

I dunno ... it just left me cold, unbelievable ... that a killer that smart, that good at what he did screwed up like that.

The other big problem I had with the movie (and book if it is faithfully portrayed) is the chase through the streets between Brolin and Chigurh. I don't buy that it went down like that with no one coming along at all and at least ending up as collateral damage. Cars get smashed and shot up and no one comes running out into the street to see what the hell is going on? No cops? No traffic of any kind really? I've lived in a town with less than 10,000 people in it, and no street in that town was that silent for that long, not even in the middle of the night.

From my perspective, the annoying thing is I do get the point of the story. As I've said, I liked the final ending, Jones's monologue. There are just things leading up to it that strike me as contrived. In a story that is supposedly showing the reality of the injustice of the world, some of the things that work to show that point struck me as unrealistic.

[Skittles]

45. Chigurh was a sociopath

killing that gal was no more significant to him than stepping on a bug - there are more of these kind of folk in America, way more than most people realize and some of them are high-ranking government officials

[RoyGBiv]

49. I know that ...

But he was a smart ... well, brilliant sociopath, so brilliant the audience could be forgiven for not knowing whether he or Brolin is supposed to be the hero of the story. The reality is of course that there are no heroes. We're all consumed by our own personal prejudices, demons, greed, or what-have-you ...

But he was smart. The story made a point of showing just how smart he was through everything he did ... right up to the point he tried to pay off some kids not to tell anyone he was there after he'd gone out of his way and taken the kind of risk we are led to believe he doesn't take. A flip of the coin isn't even really involved there. He just does it, then ensures that there is a witness.

Why didn't an acknowledged sociopath just kill the kids or at the very least just not engage them at all?

[Whisp]

75. I think he killed the woman because he found it to be an obligation

he said he'd do it, so he had to do it in order to keep true to himself. a pyscho honor thing.

why he didn't kill the kids or go on rampages - that just wasn't his style, there are others that do that, he had to have a purpose and a mission, a code to follow.

[RoyGBiv]

105. I'll buy that ...

I'm still not satisfied with the way he went about it or the way the scene was set up. Yes, it was very powerful, and it captured you, but on reflection it rings hollow to me.

I kept getting the impression we're supposed to believe that there's something supernatural about Chigurh, which would be fine if it fit with the broader story's context, and it doesn't.

[mitchum]

111. I don't think he really paid off the kids not to tell anyone he was there...

he gave them the money because he knew what would happen to their relationship once it was introduced. And it is did. They began to fight over the money. He needed a reassurance of what he holds to be the nature of people. Especially so soon after his frustration with the widow.

[RoyGBiv]

112. Okay, now that's interesting ...

I can wrap my head around that.

Thanks.

[Skittles]

42. FORKBOY NAILS IT AGAIN

awesome :thumbsup:

[madeline_con]

62. Good critique. I'll have to watch the flick.

Threads like this are spoilers for some people. I like a review, especially one as in depth and thoughtful as yours is. Thanks! :hi:

[Forkboy]

89. There should probably be a spoilers warning for people.

I usually don't them mind them myself. If it's the killer in a mystery maybe, but anything else is fine. It won't ruin my enjoyment of a movie at all if I know parts of it. I usually watch most movies a couple of times within a day or two anyways, and I usually get more the second time around even though I know what's going to happen.

But I understand why people don't like them, too.

[Critters2]

3. I didn't like it. Too violent for my taste.

Spent so much time cringing I couldn't really pay attention to the plot. There was a plot, right?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. It was very violent, in bits and pieces...

And then there were stretches where the violence was only felt.

I had moments when I could not look at the screen, and as a nurse, I'm used to blood and guts.

There was most certainly a plot.

It concerned a man who found a whole lot of money, and the catastrophic events that followed from his decision to take it.

[Robeson]

6. I'm ashamed to say, I haven't seen it. I usually only get excited when a new....

...Woody Allen movie comes out... :hi:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. I like him too...

But Woody Allen's stuff is a bit much!

I'd have to say that my favorite film by him is "Hannah and her Sisters."

No Country is worth seeing, if only for the Tommy Lee Jones character. He never disappoints!

:hi:

[mockmonkey]

11. New Woody Allen movie

http://www.vickycristina-movie.com/#/about/

[Skittles]

8. AWESOME MOVIE

being both the hunter and the hunted - and no "Hollywood ending" - AWESOME

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. That is a good way to look at it!

I would have preferred a tidier ending, though...

This just stopped.

[Skittles]

12. SOMETIMES THERE IS NO JUSTICE

you should know that Peggy!!!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

25. True dat, my dear Skittles!

How well I do know...

[Forkboy]

13. What part didn't you understand?

The name of the movie is the clue to the meaning of it. Tommy Lee Jones character is the old man, and the times have passed him and his understanding of "good and bad" by.

In the dream he talks about at the end of the movie he says he heads into the snowy mountains, (representing his life as a sheriff), and that a man goes on ahead of him (the killer awaiting him). And then he woke up and realized he was in the process of acting the dream. So, instead of having that dream come true, which it was, he chooses the safer life of retirement, no doubt influenced by the handicapped friend he visits in the movie, a former lawman who paid a heavy price and is now confined to his wheelchair.

The new breed of criminal that he encounters (circa 1980 Texas, which the movie is set in, when drug smuggling was really taking off) shakes his faith in what he does and whether he's good enough to match them, and the dream he talks about at the end is a way of him saying he finally recognizes that he's out of his league now. Hence, "No Country For Old Men".

The movie is also a strong statement on the nature of violence itself. Jones' character can't understand the "violence for violence sake" of Chigurh. Chigurh can't be pinned down because he gives one nothing to go by. Is he driven by revenge, by greed, by just liking to kill? How do you wrap your head around such a man?

The new Batman movie uses the Joker to touch on the same theme of the meaning and motivation for violence, just in a simpler, flashier, more Hollywood type of way.

I think No Country For Old Men is one of the best movies I've seen in years. It's a frighteningly deep and textured movie that works on multiple levels.

[Skittles]

15. YOU KNOW IT FORKBOY

it is indeed an awesome film - you think as I do - I thought it was one of the best ever too

[CaliforniaPeggy]

18. Thank you for that explanation...

You have articulated what I could not, and extremely well.

I felt (or sensed, perhaps) what you were saying.

I could not wrap my head around Chigurh at all...

The movie perhaps showed the chaos of the drug wars...

[Forkboy]

22. I didn't really get it at first.

I watched it, thought about it all day trying to figure out the meaning, then watched it again. The second time everything just fell into place for me.

What I like is that the movie doesn't give us nice tidy answers, just like life itself. A phony or forced ending would have ruined the movie for me. It just stops after the speech about the dream, and that speech was the key to my getting the whole movie.

I enjoy a lot of movies, but few really make me think in any deep way. This one did.

[Ichingcarpenter]

36. Well, you really wrapped that up for me too.

I've been chewing on that movie for a while,
yes, it is disturbing, yes, I knew it was a great movie but
I just couldn't put my finger on it why I knew it was exceptional and disturbing
at the same time.


Thanks Forkboy, you should put that synopsis into Rotten Tomatoes.
It was brilliant.

[Forkboy]

39. Now if someone could just help me get Momento.

I'm still trying to figure that one out. :)

[madeline_con]

64. Maybe the visual is easier to deal with...

the Wikipedia write up is wild. It has a link to the Salon article...





http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/06/28/memento_analysis/index1.html

[Forkboy]

68. Damn, thanks.

That's an awesome write up and explanation. I watched the movie three times and each time I felt more lost than before. The movie totally messes with your mind, which is awesome. :)

Thanks again for the link!

[Whisp]

77. hahahah! we have a copy that we play every 3 months or so.

and I still don't get it.
My husband is just nuts over that movie - but he just loves puzzles and playing detective.

[Forkboy]

84. It is a great movie.

I love it when the motel owner tells Leonard that they've been renting him two rooms because he never remembers, and Leonard says, "You don't have to be that honest, Burt."

My friend makes music under the name Consider The Source, and when we saw the movie that's one of the tattoos Leonard has on his arm. We both looked at each other and went, "UH!". So I still get a chuckle every time I see it.

It's a clever, funny, and mind-bending movie. What's not to love? :)

Christopher Nolan did a movie before that called Following that's pretty good too, if you haven't seen it already.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0154506/

[Kat45]

114. I loved Memento.

Saw it three times. The first time I saw it, I thought I got it but I wasn't certain. I saw it a second time to see if it would confirm my assumptions, and it pretty much did, though I probably caught additional things on the second (and third) viewings.

[Whisp]

76. hub and I talked about this one a lot after we saw it.

at first view I found it deeply disturbing, it's not that I didn't like it, but it touched on something so scarey it startled me.
but after dissecting it with hub and watching it over again, I have to agree that it is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

[HEyHEY]

93. Dude, you really watched that movie.

[susanna]

14. I think I see what you're getting at.

It was sort of weird, but it seemed fitting to me. Like, "there's no way in the world to account for this kind of violence/ugliness/greed." It's the movie equivalent of what most of us have experienced in life: sometimes, things don't make a hell of a lot of sense. That's what I took away. Did I like it? Not all that much. But the acting was top-notch, so I console myself in that regard...

on edit: more descriptive subject line

[CaliforniaPeggy]

20. My feelings were similar to yours...

The acting was top-notch!

A very atmospheric movie...

Superbly filmed...

[susanna]

27. Exactly. I didn't walk away...

...hating anything about it, I was just nonplussed. Kind of "no resolution here." Which is pretty much what they intended. I don't feel cheated, I just don't like a world where this kind of story is glamorized? I don't know. It was a strange thing. I understood it, but didn't want to understand it. Does that make sense?

I think I am horribly old school. :-)

on edit: clarity (I AM terrible at that)

[Forkboy]

34. "I understood it, but didn't want to understand it."

I think one of the thrusts of the movie was whether we can fully understand the nature of violence. Your words are close to what I think Jones' character felt. I think he could understand it, but didn't want to. He wanted an older, simpler sense of justice, and that time was over. And he knew it.

So to me there was a great resolution. The talk about the dream explains why he finally realized he was in over his head. He was the "Old Man" in the title, and his country was no longer his country.

[susanna]

74. Yep. And I'm an old lady, I guess. Who's not really that old LOL.

Thanks for your insights, Forkboy. They were very well-reasoned. You ought to be a movie reviewer. :-)

[dysfunctional press]

16. it was fine right up until tlj finds josh brolin shot at the motel.

it really goes in the shitter after that.

and i am a HUGH coen brothers fan. i even liked barton fink.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

21. That was a very bad moment for me...

I wanted him to live and return to his wife, and to destroy the villain completely...

Alas, those things didn't happen.

I am hooked on happier endings.

[ZenKitty]

19. It's one of the few book to movie coversions that I was not...

left feeling disappointed. In fact the movie was almost better than the book (TLJ might have had something to do with that assessment).

[CaliforniaPeggy]

23. That's interesting...

Normally the book is better.

So much of it has to be left out of the movie, and so the movie suffers by the lack of material, the lack of nuance.

But Tommy Lee Jones brings an atmosphere to whatever he acts in that really makes a difference.

[ZenKitty]

35. Exactly, I'm more of a book reader than a....

movie goer. I usually avoid movies based on books that I have read.

However, this movie did not disappoint. Definitely veered off the book in interesting ways but didn't irritate like most book to movie adaptions.

Of course the Coen brothers might have had something to do with it. :-)

[Forkboy]

38. The only example I can think of where the movie is better is Jaws.

The movie is fantastic, one of the best ever. The book was average at best, and thankfully the movie dropped the pointless subplot involving an affair between Hooper and Brody's wife. Also, at the end of the book the shark doesn't get blown up. It's swimming right at Brody, who is all that's left, then the shark just dies from wounds and sinks under him. Just a tad anti-climatic. :)

I haven't read the book NCFOM is based on, so I can't say if that's better than the movie or not.

[ZenKitty]

47. hahaha!

It is funny that you bring up Jaws...fabulous book! Years ago, I had the misfortune of reading the book on a flight to Hawaii!

Spent the week on the beach. No way I was getting in the water. hee!

[Forkboy]

48. LOL

When Jaws 2 came out my father took me to see it, then took me to the beach the next day. He's like that. :)

[jobycom]

65. Hehe! I read part of Jaws on a boat on Back Bay, in Biloxi.

Was supposed to be fishing with my dad and brothers, but I hated fishing, so I brought the book, sat in the boat, and read. Any time the boat rocked, I almost cried!

[RoyGBiv]

52. Interesting, that ...

I know that you weren't the one who introduced the point, but since the point was made, I am compelled to note that Jaws, the movie, developed a typical Hollywood ending from a book that did not have such a thing. The author was in fact almost violently opposed to the way they ended the movie. It changed the whole meaning, in his view.

But, I agree with you. The movie is better, even if it is typical Hollywood.

[Lionel Mandrake]

57. How about the African Queen?

Good book; great movie IMHO.

[jobycom]

66. Or The Godfather?

[Forkboy]

70. That's a good one.

Great movies (well, the first 2 anyways).

BTW, how's your kitty doing? I saw the thread where you said she had some lumps in her neck.

[Forkboy]

69. I didn't even know that was a book.

The movie is fantastic. I love Bogart movies.

[Lionel Mandrake]

90. The book is by C. S. Forester,

who is better known for the Horatio Hornblower series.

[Forkboy]

92. Cool, thanks.

I'll have to check it out. I always like to see the differences between the two.

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. Scared the shit out of me I bought the movie on iTunes anyway

I don't buy many from them but this movie is one to be digested on many levels


I think it is not a movie for the masses, it touches on many psychological bases
that we are not comfortable talking about. What is justice and those that seek it, what is security, what is
the difference between the protagonist and the villain? The villain was one of the most
realistic and frighting psychopaths that we know that can exist.

I think the brothers that gave us the Matrix, V for Vendetta and other great movies
have always brought us to a deeper questioning our reality.

I'm still digesting that movie.

I was pissed the evil asshole didn't die
but I think he did after injuries.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

29. You can always tell who the truly bad folks are...

They are extremely hard to kill...

I hope he died too, after that auto accident. It certainly slowed him down.

A very frightening psychopath, indeed...

[EstimatedProphet]

67. The Wachowski brothers?

[IndianaJones]

31. this movie rivals Crash for the most overrated of the decade. nt.

[mitchum]

87. No, that honor goes to Mystic River, The Hours, or Brokeback Mountain

handsome productions all, but...meh

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[bridgit]

37. If you wanted the bad guy to die a fitting death, then you may have understood the premise after all

As a piece of Lit, it's not so much non-linear as it identifies novel, contemporaneous ways to express rather comfortable, time-tested themes. Primary: The Intractable Evil.

Plopped in the midst of just plain folks, the innocent, pointed questions sent through soul-less eyes, sitting right there in front of young people buying their shirts with bloody money, good men & women on the edge of retirement now delivered there along with the ghost of what is a shape-shifting thing, the pernicious-personified...with an inconceivable, otherwise useful, if while when in the hands of so indescribable a foe: his weapon, most deadly in the extreme itself a near immeasurable oddity.

And I just love Tommy Lee. His body of work is wonderful :thumbsup:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

51. Well said...

[PittPoliSci]

44. i always viewed him not as a bad guy,

but merely as a presence that had to be there. does that help at all? i can't really think straight right now.

:beer:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

53. Cheers!

I'd say your thinking is very straight...

So the bad guy is a plot device? He creates coherence so the plot makes sense...

Well, sure...

:toast:

[PittPoliSci]

56. well, he's not really a bad guy is what i'm saying.

he's just like a constant. kinda like death. he just is there. there is no way to best him or beat him, and he can't go away because that's not what he does. he just is what he is...

but :toast: anyway! :D

[Lionel Mandrake]

86. The bad guy is what makes the movie work.

Think of Darth (sounds kinda like death) Vader (sounds kinda like invader) in the the first two Star Wars movies. When he went all soft and cuddly in the third movie, that was really disappointing.

Or think of the two heavies in the first Godfather movie (the ones killed in the restaurant). One of them was astute and the other was clueless, but they were both evil and scary. The movie would have failed without them.

[jobycom]

59. That is it. nt

[jobycom]

60. That is it. nt

[jobycom]

58. I did, or at least I got something from it. And it was different than others here, it seems.

The movie was about fate and free will, and about the order of the world, more than about randomness or violence. Chigurh believed that he was the hand of fate, that when he killed someone, he simply carried out what had been decreed, or what circumstances up until then had dictated. He killed when he was paid to kill, or when he needed to to complete his mission (like the deputy or the car owner at the beginning). At times he allowed chance to decide, like when he flipped a coin. He was more like Two-Face than the Joker. He wasn't a nihilist or anarchist, he was the opposite--he believed in a higher order that dictated his actions. If he killed you, then fate caused you and he to be there at the crucial time.

But he wasn't certain. He constantly analyzed. When he gave the store clerk the coin that had decided his fate, he told the clerk not to treat it like just another coin, then added "which it is." The coin was a coin, but it had controlled fate, and that made it more. To Chigurh, the coin had been the order of the universe, for a moment.

His idea of himself as fate, or the hand of fate, is what made him kill the wife. He had no control over it. He had made the threat to her husband, and had to carry it out, or the threat made no sense. If he didn't kill her, then the threat was random, and so it had no power, and that negated his whole sense of order, and in many ways negated his own idea of himself as a tool of fate, and of himself as a moral person (as Woody Harrelson had said earlier about him). However, when she pleaded for her life, he gave her a chance, by offering to flip a coin. As with Two-Face, the coin further took the control out of his hands, and made the decision even more the result of fate, not free will. The wife refused to flip, saying that it was his choice, not the coin's. She saw his need to be blameless, and turned it back on him, saying it was his decision alone. Even that he dodged--he and all the circumstances that had brought him to her door had also brought the coin.

So he left with his sense of order intact, and as he was driving away, feeling good about himself, he is severely injured in an accident that is as random as can be. The movie is unclear whether he acknowledged the randomness, but the audience sees it.

Meanwhile, the Sheriff understands nothing. Everything seems random to him, from the events of the crimes he is investigating, to the events of his life that lead him to that point. His father died randomly, his uncle (Barry Corbin) was paralyzed randomly. It is his job to make sense of the randomness, but in this case he can't see the order anymore. At the end he realizes that it's time to retire, because he no longer sees the order.

Brolin's character was a third path. He thought he could control everything by being smart and cautious, but he is ultimately killed by a completely different force than he was watching out for.

The key scene to me was when the Sheriff goes into the motel room to investigate Brolin's murder, and Chigurh is waiting. The sheriff doesn't see him, but sees signs that he is there. All three characters and all three ideas of order and chaos come together at that point. Brolin is dead because he thought he could control a situation beyond his control. The sheriff is trying to make sense of the random violence around him. And Chigurh is still trying to bring his job to an orderly close. As the sheriff--the last to leave the room--investigates, he finds the vent in the room opened, presumably by Chigurh (who one assumes found the money, since Brolin had used the same hiding place earlier). But along with the screws and the vent facing on the floor, the sheriff sees a coin--face up. Chigurh had found the money, and had no reason to kill the sheriff, so he had let fate decide. The sheriff lived because of the coin flip.

So, you can't control everything, as Brolin found out, and you can't understand everything, as the Sheriff found out, but things are not as random as they seem, as Chigurh constantly proves--until the car accident, when even he becomes a victim of fate. But even though Chigurh felt that the universe controlled him, that fate decided everything, he was still the trigger, and his actions still were often dictated by him, even if he tried to escape that fact.

Brilliant movie, and it follows exactly the same issues that the other Coen dramas, and even their comedies, explore. They are obsessed with the knowability of things, and that's been there them since "Blood Simple." Their characters almost never fully understand what has happened to them, even though the audience sees it all, and they are constantly exploring the relationship between chance and order, and between free will and fate.

Anyway, I liked it. :)

[Forkboy]

71. Great analysis!

It's awesome that any movie can make people think as much as this one clearly did for us. You totally added a different take than mine, and yours seems even more spot on.

And I totally agree that the Coen brothers keep exploring the same issues in their movies. In my opinion, they're the best directors going right now, and have been for some time. Even Scorcese has made a couple of dogs (although after Raging Deniro..er Bull...he could have never have made another again and I'd still think he was awesome).

[jobycom]

88. Yeah, they are amongst the best.

I've been a fan since "Blood Simple," back in the mid 80s, and they've let me dow completely, although a couple have been closer to average than others.
"Cruel Intentions" wasn't their best work, but it was better than what most directors ever create. And it, too, dealt with the impossibility of understanding the motives of other people, and how events could seem one way when they were really another.

Scorcesse is brilliant. I was amazed by "The Aviator," and how he managed to tell a cohesive story in what was basically a biopic. I think Chris Nolan is moving into that territory, too. But the Coens have a special place, to me.

[Forkboy]

91. Cruel Intentions is the only one I haven't seen.

I saw Blood Simple way back in the early days of HBO, but I didn't know who the Coens were and didn't even think about it beyond just a cool movie. Like a lot of people, it was after Raising Arizona that I took notice of who they were and knew to keep an eye out for future works.

My least fave is Ladykillers, but even that is pretty good. I not a huge Tom Hanks fan so between that and it being a remake of something I had already seen I was nervous going in. But Hanks was funny as hell in it.

My fave is Miller's Crossing. I always liked gangster movies set in different times (The Krays is another good one), and MC just works perfectly for me. I'll never get tired of that movie. I also think NCFOM is among their best. Though trying to pick just one favorite is really a fool's game with them. It could be whatever one you're watching at the moment.

I think The Aviator is the best Scorcese movie in awhile, in many ways even better than The Departed, which I liked a lot. The Aviator made me see DiCaprio in a total different light than how I saw him before. I knew he was a good actor, but he had that Hollywood handsome hunk thing going too much for my taste. But The Aviator changed all that. Brad Pitt was another actor I didn't like much at first for the same reason but now like a lot. Fight Club and Snatch cemented that. :)

[jobycom]

94. I've never seen "Raising Arizona."

When it came out I was working 48 hours a week and taking 15 hours a semester in college, and handling a major personal crisis, so I wasn't much into movies. I didn't realize until later that it was the same people who did "Blood Simple." Somehow, I've never gone back and watched it.

I've always rated DiCaprio highly. He tried to be the Hollywood hunk in Titanic, but even there he wasn't a very traditional type. (I still love that movie, even if it's no longer cool to say that). Same thing with Brad Pitt. I guess I keep seeing these actors when they are young and struggling, so I don't hold it against them when they suddenly get popular and play the Hollywood hero role for a while. Like Johnny Depp, too. I think of the sex symbol roles as payoff for the earlier stuff they did. As long as they don't get trapped into that type of role.

Matthew McConaughy, on the other hand, started out really good, then got sucked into one type of role that he just won't abandon. He went from roles like "Lone Star" and "A Time to Kill" to being the male equivalent of Meg Ryan. I don't hate him, and I still figure he has that talent somewhere inside him, but until he does something interesting again, he just bores me.

[Whisp]

95. wow, so many things I agree with you on.

I haven't seen Raising Arizona either. Been meaning to for years now, friends say it's great, but somehow never got ot it.

I also like all those young hunks - besides their looks. DiCaprio stole my heart in What's Eating Gilbert Grape and I was watching out for him ever since I saw that one. and I too Loved Titanic, but feel like I have to apolgize for that? no, I won't. Initially I was not interested at all, didin't even pay attention to the previews because I bought the negative previews on it. was I wrong on that, it had our whole family chattering about it for hours after and we still run it once in a while.

Brad Pitt - I purposely ignored him in his early career because he was good looking. Now how's that for stupid reverse discrimination. I thought he was just a pretty face, how wrong I was. Interview with a Vampire changed my mind on him, he was gorgeous And a good actor! omg!

Johnny Depp - Edward Scissorhands - I know a lot of people think it's a corny movie but I just loved it and still do. That one made me a fan and I like most of was Depp does.

and I share your view on Matthew as well! lol. He was really great in Ed TV I thought, that may have been his springboard movie, I'm not sure. He comes off as too egocentric in interviews, maybe it's just insecurity on his part but he just rubs me the wrong way. Really handsome dude but that just doesn't cut it with me.

So now that I see I agree with you on a lot of movies and actors, can I ask you your opinion on two movies that I especially like but have a lot of people groaning like they were Titanic all over again?

1. Crash (the latest one, not the Cronenburg)
2. Magnolia

I really like the diffrent people stories coming together in th end. Both movies were a bit depressing, sure, but life is sometimes like that with no happy endings. In Magnolia I felt the movie was more about forgiveness and understanding at the end altho we had to suffer through some horrible atrocites some of the characters underwent.
Same reasons basically I liked Crash, but was a bit more diluted than Magnolia.

[jobycom]

96. You picked two movies I don't know well

I never saw Crash--no reason why, I just never got to it.

I saw about half of Magnolia, and liked what I saw, but I didn't see the whole thing. He lost me a little bit with the frogs, but it wasn't fatal. I liked what he was doing, but I thought he could have stuck to realism and done it just as well. But since I didn't see the whole thing, I didn't have a complete feel for it, and didn't know all the characters well enough. But I liked what I saw going on, in the acting and storytelling and directing.

I like Paul Thomas Anderson's directing, in general, and he got some of my favorite actors for Magnolia. Julienne Moore, John C Reilly, Hoffman, Robards, Molina... I even like Tom Cruise, though you have to duck when you say that on DU (Though I refuse to be embarassed or apologize for what I like :) ). Yeah, he takes some boring roles, but he also takes on challenges like Fourth of July, Collateral, Interview with the Vampire, etc, and he's more respected by his acting peers (or was until he went Shirley McClain on everyone) than by popular audiences. He is (or was) known as an Oscar magnet for the number of people who got Oscars or nominations in his films. Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman, Jamie Foxx, Ken Watanabee, Cuba Gooding Jr, Holly Hunter, Jack Nicholson, Oliver Stone... And he's been picked by some of the best directors--both popular and "artistic"--in the industy. He was originally cast to play Edward Scissorshands, but didn't like the ending and backed out (Johnny Depp was originally considered for Lestadt, which went to Cruise).

[Whisp]

100. the frog thing puts a lot of people off.

but if you pay attention to the very beginning of the movie, (the 3 snippets of odd happenings - those are true stories!) it fits in. Some very bizarre things happen to us and around us while we are plodding along through life.

Cruise was just awesome in it.
what a hateable character! I still cringe when I hear his pep talks to the boys.
but it all makes some kind of sense in the end.

Aimee Mann's song at the end, Wise Up...
still gives me goosebumps.

[Whisp]

79. Bravo! what a terrific analysis.

[RoyGBiv]

106. Interesting analysis ...

I disagree mildly with your point about the Sheriff not seeing order.

I think the final monologue shows that he does see an order to the world, but that he, as an old man, had transcended the order and is being controlled by a higher order that dictates his own fate. He is still moving forward in his life toward an inevitable end, which he is coming to accept is near on the horizon. This idea recalls the Yeats poem on which the title is based. The natural world in which he currently exists is no place for old men, and he is sailing off, figuratively speaking, to another place.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

119. Excellent analysis.

:thumbsup:

[DS1]

120. Damn, that write up reminds me of film classes

Nicely done.

[NJmaverick]

123. That is one hell of a write up

Damn! Do you teach film or literature at the college level?

[fizzgig]

61. my first reaction:

what. the. fuck. did i just watch?

but the acting in the movie was superb

[Whisp]

80. give it another go - it's worth the effort. nt

[blogslut]

78. I dug it

The film still haunts me. In retrospect, I think that was the intent. It was a tale about unfathomably cold and cruel people and the normal folk that cross their paths.

[bigwillq]

82. I got it.

I thought it was really good. It was a well-made, well-written, acted, directed movie.

I was a bit disappointed at a scene near the end but I didn't think the final scene was as bad as some have said. Overall, I thought it was great.

[av8rdave]

97. I think it's just the way McCarthy writes

He gives you a span of time, and assumes you're ok with the way things are/were at the beginning and end of that time.

I loved the book.

[npk]

103. This is the kind of movie you have tlo see more than once.

To really enjoy it.

[cwydro]

110. I love Tommy Lee.

Did you see him in The Executioner's Song?

And I know you know he was Al Gore's roomie in college.

But I have not seen the movie.

[Kat45]

113. I really liked that movie a lot.

And I did 'get it.' I knew ahead of time that it did not have a Hollywood ending, though I didn't know what the ending would be, so I wasn't shocked when it ended like that. My boyfriend was flipped out when it ended, he was totally flummoxed. Then I reminded him of the name of the movie and connected it for him.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

116. bull

I think it's one of the best films ever made

[Spiritinthesky]

117. Good film

I had some friends watch it over the weekend, I'm going to ask them. Good film anyway!

[NJmaverick]

118. As with many of the so called good movies of today

it was long on style and short on substance. Sure they were very stylistic with their story telling. The visuals were stunning and the way they told their story was compelling. However it lacked substance and an actual plot. It also lacked any sort of message. Sadly this movie is very typical of today's offerings.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

121. I would say it's not typical at all of today's movies.

Film is primarily a visual medium, and the story/plot is secondary to it.

And it lacked the "message" in terms of standard Hollywood messages -- Forrest Gump-like Hallmark platitudes. Jobycom's analysis upthread is well worth the read to see what kind of message the film actually put forth.

[NJmaverick]

122. Thanks for cluing me in to Jobycom's analysis

it gave me plenty to think about.

[LibertyorDeath]

127. It was made by the Coen brothers

They are fucking brilliant imo

and Javier Bardem as the bad guy was Fan fucking tastic!! http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000849/

check him out in Before Night Falls http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0247196/


Filmography http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/03/coens.html

Joel and Ethan Coen as writer, director and producer:


Blood Simple (1983) also editor as Roderick Jaynes

Raising Arizona (1987)

Miller's Crossing (1990)

Barton Fink (1991) also editor as Roderick Jaynes

The Hudsucker Proxy (1993)

Fargo (1996) also editor as Roderick Jaynes

The Big Lebowski (1998) also editor as Roderick Jaynes

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) also editor as Roderick Jaynes

The Man Who Wasn't There (2001) also editor as Roderick Jaynes

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

The Ladykillers (2004)

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Joel Coen http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001054/

Ethan Coen http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001053/