Cool News
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN Just Pisses Massawyrm Off!!
Harry here - He's retarded...
Hola all. Massawyrm here.
Look. I know. People are going to get defensive about this one right out of the gate. The Coen's have their legions of vocal fans and the critical set loves them. The buzz on this one has been high and God almighty does that trailer look awesome. But that doesn't stop this film from sucking the very marrow of life right out of the audience that sits down to watch it. This thing isn't just a disappointment – it is a fucking tragedy.
You see, the first 2/3rds of this film are completely awesome. Not good. Not great. Awesome. Incredible. The best thing the Coen's have done. Ever. Imagine crossing Blood Simple with the perfect local color, characterization and humor of Fargo. It is everything the Coen's do well, executed perfectly. But the Coen's have another streak in them. They like to be experimental. They like to break the rules of storytelling to achieve new and different effects. Sometimes it works. Sometime's it doesn't. This time they went way too far. This time they made a wonderfully paced, taut thriller…and thought it would be great to skip the climax.
No, I don't mean the film simply lacks a climax. It builds to one. Watch that fantastic trailer again. Feel the promise of that film? Do you see where it is headed? It's headed to a showdown. And man does it build up to it well. This is the story of what happens when a normal guy runs afoul of some very bad people over a big bag of money. And every single beat hits its mark. And then the moment arrives when the climax is about to go down…and we as an audience come in just moments afterwards. And for a few minutes everything seems fine. Until, that is, you realize that the Coen's have zero intention on telling you what happened. And what happened is MAJOR. Huge. It is everything the story was building up to. And what happens changes everything. What they don't show you is so vitally important that you begin to wonder if the projectionist somehow missed a reel.
It is an experience akin to watching a really incredible sporting event, a real nail biter that comes down to the wire…only to have your television go out for two minutes. When it finally comes back on you hear the announcer shout "OH MY GOD! Who would believe that? That is an incredible moment of sports history right there and I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it with my own eyes!" And that announcer is more than happy to tell you who won, but never explains exactly how it happened. That's the ending of No Country for Old Men. And it is entirely intentional.
This is The Soprano's all over again. The Soprano's was a great series with a run up to what could have been one hell of an ending…that just plain ended and left the audience hanging. If that ending got under your skin, just wait until this one hits ya. The crowd I saw this with, all critics, were into this the whole way. We were laughing, cheering – the energy in that room was high. And you could actually feel the whole room deflate once that moment hit. And despite the few great scenes that follow the missing climax, no one seemed impressed. The energy was gone.
Sure, I'm certain a number of Coen devotees are gonna defend this claiming that it is the lack of a climax and the sudden change in the story that makes it that much more powerful. That it was an effective storytelling technique and just more proof of the Coen's genius. And all I can say is that if this didn't have the name Coen on it, these same people wouldn't stand for this bullshit. They went too far this time. The rules they decided to break are too big. They commit a sin so large, so irredeemable, that it kills the whole film. It isn't just a great film with a lame ending. It becomes a film that depresses you. Then it makes you angry. Not because the material moves you – but rather because they fucked up something really great.
Javier Bardem is a man-god in this. The trailer only gives you the slightest glimpse of how good this guy is in this movie. He's creepy, brooding and creates a uniquely terrifying character. It's one of those roles that were it in a better movie, would become Hollywood legend. It would become one of those characters that pops up in a montage reel every year come Oscar time. It's what happens when you cross Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter with Michael Madsen's Mr. Blonde without cribbing from either. The guy is one bad hombre. And if there is any reason to see this it is for Bardem alone.
But really, it isn't Bardem alone. Everyone in this gives their best turns in years, if not ever. Tommy Lee Jones reminds us exactly why we love him by playing the small town Texas Sheriff he was born to play. Woody Harrelson takes every scant second he's given in this and makes the most out of it turning in exactly the kind of character work he's best at. They white trash-up Kelly Macdonald and she only gets sexier and more likable. But Josh Brolin, dear god. Here's a guy that I never gave the time of day to, a guy I honestly never thought was worth a shit. The only times I've liked him was when he was allowed to be stiff in Grindhouse and that insane underwater slap and tickle fight with Paul walker in Into the Blue. But never because he was good. Here he's the best he's ever been. And that ain't faint praise. If someone's willing to give him material like this again, I'd slap down my ten bucks to see him. This is some killer character work.
But it is all wasted. Every bit of it. Because no matter how great everyone is, no matter tight the dialog, hell, no matter how good the story is as it chugs along, it never makes up for the monumental suck that is the third act. Anyone who was hoping for the triumphant return of the Coen's are gonna be let down something fierce. It's like having great sex but never being allowed to cum. If you can imagine that disappointment, then you can grasp exactly what you're in for with this one. Only recommended to those who are ready to defend its genius before even having seen it.
Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em.
Massawyrm
Oh God. It's going to be one of THOSE days, isn't it? Send it here.
-
+ Expand All
-
Massa, did you read the book? The book ends the same way. If the Coens would have constructed an ending it would have been offroad from how the novel ended.
-
The book finishes like that, you don't know why but it does. Inevitability I guess.
-
Or blame them both. Blame McCarthy for writing the ending the way he did, and blame the Coen's for making their film exactingly faithful to the novel.
-
I don't think the Coens did it, Cormac did it.
-
As I recall the POINT of the film is the Tommy Lee Jones character's disgust and nihilism in the face of such inhumanity. It only makes sense it ends wierd. Sorry folks. It's the journey.
-
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/schindlers_list/
I am still going to see this opening day. -
he's retarded.
It isn't important to see, yet another gun fight - and that isn't the CLIMAX, it was an eventuality. You never see it coming, that which gets ya. But more so - the film is about how the evils of this world are over-whelming. Too much to fight with.
The film is one of the most literate crime films you'll ever see and is note perfect. Is it my fave Coen film. No. I love the romance of MILLER'S CROSSING too much. DANNY BOY and Albert Finney are too much to fight. But I'll write my review on the plane ride to L.A. -
you didn't get The Sopranos finale or this. Oh well. You could have at least tried to criticize the film in some way, shape, or form other than "I didn't get it."
Also: "Only recommended to those who are ready to defend its genius before even having seen it" is probably the most offensive comment I've seen a critic make towards his readers in awhile. So good on you, mate. -
In any event this film and the Coen's work in general often seeks to transcend prossaic plot patterns and characterisation and the conventional formulas inherant in the thriller genre. It's the exploration of themes and subtext implicit in their earlier body of work that has won them such appeal and critical attention. I've read nothing but praise for this film and the skillful adaption by the Coen's of McCarthy's book, it sounds like a real return to form, I'm looking forward to it.
focusses on conveying themes and without -
Are all they all idiot's. See, I can do it too.
-
compromise. ;-)
-
I think Massa is the only person in the world who doesnt like this movie...
-
Will you please start reviewing movies again... This site lacks quality reviews from you, mori, and quint..... Life is busy yes, but it's your site, we still want to hear from you, even if you get your teeth kicked in from most of the TB's...
-
and to be honest i'm glad the coens had the balls to follow the book and not some over paid exec saying "let's blow shit up and have them shooting machine guns at one another through a maze of dead bodies!"
the whole thing is an exercise in futility and Bardem will probably even say that somewhere in the film, that nothing is under anyone's control and how it all just spirals into oblivion. look at the trailer again, look at the desolate landscapes filled with nothing, emptiness. it just suits the coens and i'm sure the ending will suit too. -
Why are you giving him space. Massawyrm's reviews are not only poorly writen, but they lack any idea what film history means to todays movies. I also remember a review where they guy just parroted the events of the movie and how they pissed him off. Fuck this guy.
-
This shouldn't be about The Coen brothers! Adapting anything besides the docile border trilogy (of which All the Pretty Horses consisted) is going to be a Herculean task
-
I Just don't want to know what they do that's Two aweful because if this is the best thing they've ever done but goes weird or shit 2/3rds in then i'll make up my own mind 2/3rds in!Even if it does go shit 2/3rds in it's still the event I've waited 1/2 my life four (ever since I first saw Bloodsimple as a kid) because although i love me some Coens in all their comedy quirkiness, recently they have sucked pretty bad for the Coens and nothing they ever did after BloodSimple hit me 1/2 as hard as that motherfucker did! I got addicted to that like yung-uns are addicted to textmassaging or Myspacing or crack! although Fargo was almost there it just wasn't 1/2 as dark as BLoodSimple.
-
The dumbshit Swearengen henchmen who wanted Al to "tell him something pretty". The sad, naive, fool who can't wrap their brain around cold hard realities. You have my pity.
-
Translating any of the darker and more violent Mccarthy works is going to be a Herculean task. This is a book that was compared by MORE THAN ONE legitimate critic to The Bible. All that I am looking at with the Coens here is their quality of translation. People seem to be starting to get the picture with graphic novels, hopefully more novels are next, if they pick the right novels.
-
Why won't the movie tell me exactly what happened so's I never have to use my imagination, Mommy?
-
And let's end this.
-
I probably won't agree with Massawyrm. I will probably really like this movie. I am, however, glad to have a movie reviewer on the site who speaks for "Joe Audience". The people who go in to the movie not knowing that this movie is based on a Cormac McCarthy novel (that was me about 10 minutes ago), or who have been misled by the trailer to expect a Hollywood ending. Face it, the man has his uses. I see him as no more or less annoying than reading a review by Harry in which he quotes a bunch of silent movies that he's pretended he's watched and then given 5 stars to The Phantom Menace because the studio got him some pornstar hookers. (...I love that episode of Entourage :D)
-
He says his reviews in a no nonsense bullshit kind of way, but still manages to command a kind of respect when reading his stuff. While other reviewers on this site can go off on these psuedo poetic tangents or profanity filled tirades, Massa just puts it out there with a little bit of something extra.
Still gonna see this movie. -
Not much of a fan of Massawyrm's reviews and opinions, as it happens. I'll wait on some other reviews.
-
I know too much already, and why spoil it, right? This review just made me look forward to this movie even more, though. Good work, Massa.
-
That's about all I have to say.
-
I can handle it in a movie form, but for a series that really wasn't about being the most creative and foward thinking series ever....
we needed an ending. -
Harry loves everything (especially the shit he gets paid to like) and Masa just doesn't sound very bright. ban me i dont care
-
I like to read Massa's reviews, but I'm glad to see this one's so wayyyyy off. Maybe you shouldn't need to read the books to understand most movies, but you can't say they don't help. I mean, who doesn't see and review a Harry Potter movie on this site that doesn't bitch about the discrepancies between the film and the book? For me, I have been most worried that the film would Hollywood-up the book's ending (despite being in the capable hands of the Coen Bros.). Reading this review, I know they stayed true, so I'm now officially dying to see this tomorrow night at the Alamo with Brolin. I wish they were serving up southwestern hamburgers with the center of them cored-out - I just think that'd be perfect for the movie. Anyways, ever since I finished the book I've felt that I needed to go back, slow down, and re-read the ending. Cormac's definitely got something there that I was in too big a rush (from the book's pacing) to digest thoroughly. Sounds like the movie did a perfect imitation!
-
I think we were all looking forward to this, but I don't know now. The idea that it's missing a payoff even if it's that way in the book, sounds bad. The flipside to this is that now that I know there isn't one, I may not get pissed off not seeing one. I don't know, we'll see what happens. But with such a badass trailer, I'm kinda shocked to hear there isn't a climactic ending. I imagine it'd be like Luke and Vader fighting offscreen and then just seeing some white guy dying.
-
I haven't seen the film but I've read the book and the whole point of the story is that he's dead as soon as he takes the money and he knows it (he even says that!). Chigurh is the embodiment of inevitability (he even says that!). That's why he does what he does at the end and why isn't important to show what you wanted to see. Either you just didn't get the point or the Coens' dropped the ball communicating the point. Since Harry understands it perfectly I'll assume you're the problem.
-
AN I PLUM DONT LIKE IT WHEN THE FILMMAKERS FORCE ME TO THEENK FER MAHSELF!!! I WANT TUH SEE THE GOOD GUY THROW A JAVELIN THRU THE BAD GUY!! WHY DIDNT THE SOPRANOS EEEND WITH TONY GETTIN SHOT IN PLAIN VIEW?? IT MADE MAH HEAD HURT TUH THINK BOUT THE SYMBOLISM OF HEEM NOT KNOWING WHEN THE EEND IS COMING, WHICH THEY PRETTY MUCH FORCE DOWN YER THROAT THE WHOLE SEAAASON. OH WELL, BACK TO WATCHING 'COMMANDO' ON LOOP. I LIKES THAT ENDING.
-
I like his reviews.
-
for those who haven't, I can see massawyrms point of view. Especially with the society we have now, where a movie like "saw" can spawn three sequels, the ending is going to piss a lot of people off.
-
...from both McCarthy and the Coen Brothers sounds like a time/space impossibility. Massa just sounds let down by conventional thinking. Understandable, I suppose.
-
Quote: "This is a book that was compared by MORE THAN ONE legitimate critic to The Bible."Are you sure you're not thinking of BLOOD MERIDIAN there?
-
It was missing a climax. And it might be the most haunting detective movie ever. Hmm...
-
Sheesh - If he loves the movie he's a Coen brothers ball-licker....if he hates it (even if he explains convincingly WHY) he's an idiot/hick/douchebag. I'd rather get an honest heads-up from a non-movie snob than the blathering of Harry or the obscure referneces from Mariarty (although I generally like his reviews and agree with them) I am about 50/50 on the Coen's films - loved some - hated some. Will probably see this for the fine work everyone does, but I am with Massawyrm - I see movies for traditional narrative and entertainment for the most part, and I don't mind dark films with unhappy endings, but no resolution at all WOULD suck.
-
Sorry about the refeNECES and the MARiarty.....goddamn new keyboard's to blame......
-
It had an ending. David Chase himself said "there was nothing ambiguous about it, every clue is there". Thank you.
-
So what happened then? And what were the clues that lead you to that conclusion?
-
I doubt I have anything in common with Massa, so this is one I might like. The Coens are good, but they do have a few movies I don't really care for, but the ones I do like, whoa dolly. They are fantastic. So, I only think it's fair to give them a shot. I never read the book, but it sounds intriguing. As for the sopranos ending, I got it, you'd have to be a little slow not to understand what happens there. But still, the show had always been about big payoffs. You don't need to show the whack, just give us a quick snapshot after the fade to black showing AJ or Carmela with blood spattered on them.
-
...when it was called A SIMPLE PLAN. While that wasn't the greatest movie ever made or anything, would it kill Hollywood not to rip itself off all the time?
-
...OK fine then. I liked A SIMPLE PLAN more back when it was a little ol' Ewen McGregor movie called SHALLOW GRAVE. We could play that game all day I think.
-
Going by only what has been written above...This is just another case of: "Let's let their imagination do the rest."....F that man. I want to see beginning, middle, and the God Damn Climax! It's like all those scenes in movies where the person dies and goes to heaven. You see them smile and then rise to the light and...well that's it, now you're supposed to use your imagination to visualize what that better place is. Screw that, I paid to see what the hell heaven looks like, now show me damn it! Well, the truth is, they can't. They know if they try, they might fail and it will ruin the movie. Perhaps that's what these guys were afraid of, screwing it up with a shitty climax. So they got all artsy fartsy and left it up to the audience to fill in the blanks. Not that I give a shit, nor will I even see this flick unless years from now it happens to be on cable and I have nothing better to do.
-
... that he's read the book and that's what kills this review.
It might be that he read the book and was just pissed off with the way the Coens adapted it.
I don't get that impression, though. Without giving anything away, suffice to say that a key character in the book is dealt with in a way that challenges traditional narrative expectations. It certainly took me by surprise when I read the book, but it's also clear that it was meant to. It's part of the way the story is told and, in my view at least, completely of a piece with the themes of the book.
I'm inclined to think that Massawyrm is shooting at the wrong target here. He may have a legitimate beef with Cormac McCarthy but it sounds as though the Coens only sin here is fidelity to the book.
-
the ending to the book threw me at first, but Harry & others are 100% right. The outcome was decided from the very beginning, it was a when, not if situation. Great book, but it shouldn't be necessary to read to understand the movie. This won't be a huge hit, probably because of that very reason - they just won't get the ending. This review was lame because the only gripe was the ending and the reviewer made no effort to understand it - nothing that came before seemed to make an attempt worth the effort, which seems odd given the praise that he heaps upon much of the film--but that's probably going to be a common reaction. And I see we have at least one more member of the "Tony is dead" camp, which I personally don't below to - that's why the other Journey song in the jukebox was "Any Way You Want It." If you think that was an accident, for a show as tightly written as the Sopranos was, you're nuts. It was a final F you from Chase to everyone who pestered him about the Russian in the woods.
-
I like Massa and enjoy his reviews. I doubt his review is gonna stop anyone from seeing this, it's just one man's opinion. And he might be retarded but at least he's not morbidly obese...Let's bring on Harry's review where we explore his childhood, married life, nephew, and masturbation and it all leads up to him saying it fucking rocks! YEAH!
-
comparing "Ghostbusters" to "The Exorcist," without any insult to either work. They just ain't the same.
-
No offense but Massawyrm's review is a piece of fried piss. The film is brilliant.
-
is that if you're a Coen brothers fan, then you're an apologist for their bad films. Thanks, Massa. I'll be heartily endorsing this movie to everyone I know. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie....
-
Or go see Transformers again. What a waste of space.
-
Oct 22, 2007 11:47:18 AM CDT
a guy stumbles across a &$%^load of money, things go bad...
by www.revyou.tv
As a matter of principle, filmmakers should try not to repeat other films. I mean sure, they might be able to improve on a concept, but it's just lazy. It's like in comedy - if someone already made a joke, you can't really make it again. There are so many stories to tell, no reason to dip into the same wells, y'know?
-
Gotta respectfully disagree - not the same thing. I mean, they're both KIND OF about ghosts... Now if someone made a movie about a group of people who hunt and capture ghosts and then contain them, well sure, then you've got a Ghostbusters rip-off. I'd say THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE is a little too close to THE EXORCIST, but it's saved by the fact it's (supposedly) a true story.
-
Either that or don't praise Cuaron for taking liberties with Azkeban, and don't thank PJ for making Boromir a more rounded character, don't thank Scott for making Blade Runner filmable.
It's a different medium guys. You can't say that a film maker was RIGHT or WRONG to copy what was in the book they adapted because it's a different artform. All they can do is make it a good movie or not. I haven't seen it but to say it's in the film just because it's in the book doesn't mean they did as good a job with that theme as McArthy did. Just the decision based on how it plays out in the film. -
sorry that last sentance was supposed to read...JUDGE the decision based on how it plays out in the film.
-
Is Ridley Scott still making Blood Meridian? That'll piss off Massawyrm too, methinks. It'll also be fucking weird...
-
...but this is a NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN Talkback - not another one of your "Bayformers" rant blogs. You need a new schtick, buddy.
-
I've read tons of reviews from people explaining the ending, how it's not about a confrontation but rather inevitability, but I don't see it just yet. I'm hoping the film will make the ending "work" for me. I'm no Hollywood plebian who needs a happy ending for everything or some such bullshit... but damn it, I want an ending period! The book felt like it just stopped arbitrarily. I hope the movie will finally make me go "Ohhhh, I get it, I see why it absolutely had to end that way." But so far, I just don't. Not in a way that feels satisfactory from a storytelling standpoint. As such, I sympathize with Massawyrm, even though I sincerely hope to disagree with him.
-
As far as I know, Scott is still making BLOOD MERIDIAN. If he follows the book, it will be interesting to see how certain parties will react to THAT particular ending.
-
but I'm glad his opinion is out there. Personally, I felt the ending was effective, like a sucker punch when we all (those who hadn't read the book) expected an epic showdown. Nice review.
-
Suck the wind right out of your sails. I didn't even want ice cream after I read the book. For two years or so. It's kind of a writer's mean streak, and I bunch of great writers have it -- build up a great character or group of them, hose them down with gasoline, light a match, and in the words of Don Martin, "Phloomphf", torched, immolated. As to that whole "the joy is in the journey", I prefer what my 10 year old said at the end of "High Noon". Quote: "I like the good endings best, Dad." And deep down, we all know what the good endings are, since we hope for them in our own life. Resolution with meaning that says 'good wins'. You can disagree and you can suck it.
-
Uh, this whole website speaks for 'Joe Audience'. Please, go find me another movie review website where there are comments like 'this movie fucked me in the ass and didn't give me a reach-around' in their reviews?
If you think this site is high-class, you've got problems... -
He intentionally writes reviews that will cause controversy and create popular talkbacks. Don't believe me? Check his reviews of Ant Bully and Happy Feet... Personally I think it cheapens the site, the idea a guy is just writing to get page hits (which Herc has hinted is how the pay of the editors is calculated), but hey, it's not my site...
-
Every time I read one of his reviews and then go see the movie, I always end up with the EXACT OPPOSITE opinion. Every fucking time. He never has any idea what he is talking about. I wasn't sure until now, but now it's certain that I will love this movie. Especially the third act.
-
How is this relevant? Oh, some review about some movie... yeah, must suck... oh well
-
I'm a stickler for the details of my favorite beverage.As for the film, I'm curious...
-
From the start of the story, it's pretty clear how things are going to turn out for Llewellyn Moss. I love the surprising turn the ending takes. It turns what could be a typical "man on the run with a sack of cash" story and turns it into something extraordinary.
-
And what is with that monicker?
-
Chill out a little bit dude, you're always so angry. Here, have a toke...
-
So I suppose then if I like this book, like the Coen, and like the last Sopranos episode, then I'll like this movie.
-
I don't need homework assignments.
If the movie doesn't make sense on its own then I'm not wasting my time on it.
You "read the book" types are elitist sh8heads.
And Harry calling Massa retarded is hypocrisy. It appears to me that Harry has the mentality of a twelve-year old.
"the film is about how the evils of this world are over-whelming." oooooooh!!! I'll bet you write "life sucks" on your Trapper Keeper.
-
Is that Massa is criticizing the Coen Brothers for something Cormac McCarthy did in the original source. It's not about reading the book first, it's about understanding what you're talking about. Before launching a tirade against the Coens, Massa should've checked with someone who read it to find out if it's the Coens' fault.
-
I read the book and the end really threw me and I didn't really care too much for the philosophizing interludes with the sherriff-- I just wanted back to the most fucking compelling thriller I'd read since Richard Stark's Slayground (which I read at about 12).
But I read it again about 6 months ago, and the thriller stuff still worked great (why the fuck didn't he blast Chigger when he had him?) but I also really liked the Sherriff chapters and the ending felt just fine.
I'll be calling in sick the day this fucker opens.
More than the skip in time, it's really gonna bother my wife that
Spoiler
Moss's wife dies thinking he cheated on her with the little hussy. Gaurantee that'll bug her more than skipping ahead and Moss being dead. -
So I guess I'll give this one a try!
-
...which kinda misses the point of the movie (and, indeed, the source novel).
-
I'm a fan of Cormac McCarthy, particularly "Blood Meridian" and "Suttree" (which is probably his best overall novel), but I thought "No Country for Old Men" was an artistic failure. The book was a rare McCarthy misfire, in my opinion. It's not that I couldn't see what McCarthy was trying to do; I just don't think he pulled it off. On one hand the first two-thirds are a taut pulp noir yarn, and it was refreshing to see an author of McCarthy's status try his hand at that more fast-and-loose material, but the final third is McCarthy trying too hard to revert to being the self-consciously poetic "Border Trilogy" McCarthy, and it just seems jarring and --frankly-- way overwritten. If you're a fan of the "Hard Case" crime series of reprints and updates of noir pulp, you'll see how the guys who made their careers writing some pretty amazing noir stuff, like Donald Westlake, "Wade Miller" and particularly the early Lawrence Block, could often pull the same kind of grim pathos out of their novels without all the ham-handed "reflective" scenes McCarthy shovels on in the last third of "Old Men." McCarthy's a genius, but some of the guys who got paid chickenfeed turning out book after book in the nineteen forties and fifties could still teach him a lesson on how to subtly hit that scary emotional darkness at the heart of noir fiction without getting all mopey and long-winded about it. The last third of MCCarthy's novel feels like a bad combination of him wanting to leave out important information (as happening "off stage") while at the same time needlessly trying to belabor the novel's emotional point. I'm actually hoping the Coen's translation of the book to film can hit the novel's noir darkness in a more consistent way but ditch the problems with McCarthy's late-in-the-game overwriting. The test isn't so much if they leave out that big climactic scene that McCarthy doesn't let us see; it's whether they keep the final third lean and mean or keep it pompous, over-cooked and self-consciously artsy.
-
Eventually the Coens will do a children's movie. You know, for the kids.
-
How can you be some "ignorant" of what you're reviewing? The novel ends this way as you've been told, and we don't need to see another gunfight. You claim the first 2/3rds is "awesome" which really means the movie actually kicked ass for you but you're letting the ending, one that couldn't have been done any differently...period...cloud your judgment. This sounds like a 4-star review to me no matter what you say.
-
Pretty much my feelings on No Country for Old Men. The last quarter of the book was self aware in a way that seemed to be trying (and failing) to comment on the genre instead of embracing its conventions to a purpose. But Blood Meridian's still my favorite McCarthy.
-
...One of those movie that every person has to see for themselves. It's not fair to judge the movie based on the book, however. The ending might be perfect for the novel but just plain wrong for the big screen. Time will tell.
-
I lump those that lament the absence of a slam bang climax in this film into the same mouth-breathing category of tards who are eagerly looking foward to the exciting conclusion of THE TRANSPORTER trilogy. Nuff said.
-
It's good to hear someone else besides me fucking say it. The Coens fucked up. The ending isn't the tragedy that Massa makes it out to be but it just isn't satisfying at all. I told you guys, the last 10 mins drops the ball and that is what you leave the theater talking about. This is no Best Picture candidate. Review coming soon, along with 3,000 words on a little movie called Southland Tales.
-
Colour me damned...
-
Wrong though it is. And since when was leaving a movie talking about the ending EVER a bad thing?
-
No Country for Old Men was a misfire? really?
In my view, it's one of McCarthy's finest, possibly even his finest. And it sounds like the Coens have nailed the adaptation.
But if you want to talk McCarthy misfires, read The Road. Since making Oprah's list it's probably one of his best known, and in my view the weakest. I'm as big a fan of dystopian SF as the next AICN talkbacker but The Road was implausibly, hyperbolically bleak, even for McCarthy. Also, there are only so many synonyms for 'grey' and 'ash'.
-
Cormac McArthy did not film the end of this movie, or any other part. Whether or not he was correct in his assessment, Massa's criticizism was aimed true, at the people who made the film. Let me put it this way...J.K. Rowling wrote 2 crappy hollywood books, a really amazing, inspired third book, then two "ok" books after that....Of course that's all based on how the movies panned out. See what I mean?
-
Wrap Everything Up! Answer all questions! Give me what I want! What do you think you are, art or something?
-
but its mostly all been said. The book was amazing. I've been waiting for the movie forever. The rated-r trailer is one of the best i've ever seen. I actually love the ending to the book. I loved the ending to The Sopranos. I think that if the movie ended with a big action scene at the end, then everyone would be bitching about how the Coen brothers weren't faithful to the book. They are gonna get shit for it either way. I look at it like this: Crimson Rivers is, to me, one of the best thrillers ever even though the ending is horrible. Everything else was so good that the end didn't ruin my experience. It's all about where a movie goes to get to the end. I still can't wait for this movie more than anything else coming out this year.
-
But man, I have more fun disagreeing with him than I do agreeing with anyone else. Having spent enough time talking to him in person, I can say the guy knows his stuff. In the end, every review is just an opinion that can go one of three ways: you love it, you hate it, or you don't give a fuck either way. All the rest is only justification, and Massa can justify. I haven't seen this yet, but yeah, I love the Coen Bros, and yeah, I want to. If it's as true to the source material as I'm hearing, what could they do? A shitty source has to end in a shitty movie if they're faithful to it, right?
Still, hating on the Sopranos ending? That's kind of retarted, man. -
Think all Pretty Horses was a Cinematic mediocrity? Its a Cormac McCarthy Masterpiece. As is NCFOM.
There is no way you are going to get Cormac's Story in a film in the right way. This is where a filmaker needs to decide when not to follow the author. The book ends very much the same way and it comes off as a much greater tragedy than you could imagine. But in film....people walking out looking for the final fight they were deprived will be an absolute.
Studio filmakers should just stay away from Cormac. They cannot translate to film what he puts in between the lines. -
I respect Mirajeff's reviews, and this review of No Country makes me want to skip it entirely. I thought the ending to the Soprano's was a complete spit to the face of fans and a total cop out by David Chase. He could make a decision himself, so he pretended it was "artisitc." Sounds like the Coens did the same thing. The movie builds and builds but when it comes time for a Climax they can't possibly live up to the build, so they cop out...Oh well.
-
The Road a misfire? That's crazy talk. Just cause it ended up in Oprahland is no reason to doubt it is among his best. Maybe his best (after Blood Meridian). And I don't know if NCFOM is a "misfire" - it's great for a while but certainly loses steam. Even when it's great, though, it's "small" great. One of his minor works, as the Jeff Daniels character in the Squid and the Whale would say.
-
I'm racking my brains but I can't think of any good Coen movies that were adaptations. The point of Coens for me is their brilliant world creation and writing (and how masterfully they direct same). Why are they on this adaptation kick now? If they are so totally faithful to the book should I put an asterisk on this movie as a "Coen Brothers Film"? Like I already do with Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown.
-
But then it was so out there different I don't know how much of an adaptation you can call it. It was so Coen in so many ways. But I am sure they LOVE Cormac McCarthy and want to be true to him. Its just not what they do best.
-
I thought the book was great! In the context of the book that ending was perfect. I could see how it would be a disapointment in a movie.
-
they're showing this at the Somerville Theater this week, so maybe I'll get to check it out.
-
Wrong. Stop acting like No Country is a balls-out action film. This is no successor to Die Hard. The fact that everything doesn't work out is refreshing. It makes the the film a realistic depiction of such a situation. No Country isn't about Moss, it's about Sheriff Bell. If you can't see that, you shouldn't be reviewing the film.
-
...that feel the constant need to write in the second person. "It depresses you. It makes you angry." No. It depressed YOU and made YOU angry. So you should write "It depresses me and makes me angry." I know beginning writing classes tell you not to speak in the first person, but that's because those classes are CRITICAL writing classes (i.e. you actually critique something using facts and logic, character or plot as your reasoning behind your critique.) Here, all we get is kneejerk emotionalism in reviews substituting for film criticism. Not that I'm commenting on whether your review was spot on or not (and I've enjoyed your opinions in the past) but you've been doing this long enough that you really need to move past the amateur hour of taking YOUR opinions and trying to make it seem like the world is in sync with you because you use the second person.
-
I'm so glad that so many people stay calm and polite when someone doesn't agree with them about a work of art (like a painting or movie or piece of music).
-
Oh, and everybody take note of this article for the next time they are banned for slinging insults. Harry loved "No Country For The Old Man" so Massa is a retard.
-
And I'll no longer be reading your reviews. You're a child.
-
Top 5 material for sure. Fits into its Best Picture slot perfectly. It's going to be taking all the Critics groups awards. Just please stop.
-
Massawyrm needs to learn how to read (books). I know you assholes are busy with graphic novels on top of all the movies you watch, but Cormac McCarthy is THE greatest living author, and Massawyrm's complaint is clearly an issue he has with the way the book is designed. The Coens adapted it accurately, from all descriptions. They prominently say "From the novel by Cormac McCarthy" in the trailers. The Coens realize that Cormac is a genius, any art this movie achieves is drawn from something he did on his own and therefore they are indebted to him, but these sheltered assholes are still clueless and leave all mention of the novel out of their reviews. It's fucking offensive.
Cormac does not write stories which need the kinds of resolution Masswayrm is missing here. Chigurh killing the wife character and then getting away with it is all the resolution you need and it's fucking intense on top of that. Everything that comes after that is just rumination, and life does not stop at the final plot twist. It's therefore not cinematic. But fuck you Wassawyrm, BOOKS. READ BOOKS. -
Seriously. While Vern and Moriarty (and to a lesser extent Quint and Harry) have earned my respect through the years, these two guys continue to stink the place. Remove them, please. Oh and take the black box privilege away from Mirajeff, he only talcks back to say "what that guy said". It annoys the fuck out of me.
-
Gilkuliehe, stop your crying. I'm a cancer because I thought No Country For Old Men was Top-10 and not Top-5? Well, EXCUUUUSEEE ME!! Have you even seen the movie? I bet not! So why are you defending it? You know what annoys the fuck out of me? Talkbackers like you. I don't need respect from douchebags like yourself and Tom Bodet. See the movie, then judge its merits. And if you have seen it and think that was the perfect ending, I don't know what to tell ya, and Paint, I did not see it as TLJ's story at all. But I haven't read the novel so I guess I should just stay out of the conversation, right?
-
Is there a Massawyrm/Mirajeff buddy movie brewing in here?
-
God dammit all that review needed was for you to misspell DEFINATELY and it would be complete.
-
... how one person's opinion of a movie can be right or wrong. It's, um, an OPINION. The review made it clear how the reviewer viewed the movie. What more could you want from a movie review? And how many times can I insert the word "review" in this response? I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know if I agree with the review or not.
-
to say that the first 2/3rds of a film is awesome/incredible, but then call it a fucking tragedy because the ending left you wanting more? A bit immature me thinks.
-
a retard, it seems. :)
harry -
Then I know I'll love this one as well. Because I loved how the Soprano's signed off and when people express their displeasure with disjointed ending I just shake my head and think -- geez, what spectacularly failed imaginations you people have. Don't you get it? The film is counting on you to supply it with something. Because good cinema is interactive . . .Penway
-
Why are we so mad at MiraJeff and MassaGrm? It's that GingerWhale Harry that keeps letting them post their shit-for-brains reviews. Apparently this site CAN stoop to new lows. And to the two innocent cretins, please-please-please keep defending your pea-brained, limp-dicked, dumb-fuck opinions. I can't wait to rub your faces in it come awards time.
-
If you show a loaded gun in the first act you better show the gun firing in the third.
You can't go from loaded gun to an already fired gun.
/just my two cents -
Go ahead Harry, call me names, but was this really your favorite Coen brothers movie? I mean, it seems like lately, people have been lining up to annoint new films, the best works their directors have ever done. Like the Coen Bros with No Country, and Sidney Lumet with Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Both are very, VERY good films. But the best films their directors have ever made? Come on! Have we no sense of history? The Coens have 20 years of AMAZING work behind them. Do you really think that this, an adaptation of someone else's novel, someone else's story, is really the best film they've ever made? What about Fargo (originally #96 on the AFI's list) or Blood Simple? I mean, you guys have me ALL WRONG and Harry, you are NOT HELPING. I really enjoyed the movie. I was on the edge of my seat. I'm the fucking guy who compared Bardem's performance to Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. So please, everyone just SETTLE DOWN. The movie is really good. But that final 10 minutes just did not sit well with me. It tried to tack on this metaphoric significance that it didn't need. The finale is rushed and we don't get to say a proper goodbye to the main character, and maybe the point is that in life, there isn't always time for proper goodbyes, and while I liked its themes of fate and that stuff, the convo with TLJ and the old man at the end just felt a little unsatisfying. It's a stumbling block at the finish line of an otherwise perfect race. Blame it on a lot of things. High expectations. An amazing trailer that sells something a little different than what you get. The fact that I haven't read the novel and thus can't appreciate the beauty of the source material. But the fact remains that most folks are going to walk out of that theater agreeing that they just saw one of the best films of the year, albeit one that leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I had an intense convo on the way home about the film and we both agreed that it was THISCLOSE to perfect but alas, perfect it was not.
-
I'm really not trying to be snarky here and I'm not trying to hurl any (more) insults, but...is MiraJeff actually a dude?!? I seriously thought he was a lady all this time. Something in the way he writes is distinctly feminine. And that's not a bad thing!
-
Sounds like the end of Halo 3 to me. Lame game. -
I mean, if you said about the sixth sense, "at the very end, we find out that a major character who had been, let's say, hurt earlier...is actually much more hurt than we though...in fact, he might have actually DIED HARD...if you catch my drift..."well, you didn't actually say it, but it's a fucking spoiler, isn't it? the fact that this review does not have a spoiler box around it is much more retarded than Massawyrm could ever be. come on, Harry. name calling is fun, but if you like this movie, don't you want to preserve, in the spirit it was intended, a huge artistic ending like this seems to be?SPOILER BOX!!!!
-
this entire review is a tirade against the ending of the film, which is a fairly faithful adaptation of the end of the novel, as I understand it. (I obviously haven't seen the film yet, so I'm just going by what's been said on here).but isn't complaining about that a bit like saying that the astronauts surviving in Apollo 13 is a Hollywood ending? if the Coens (or the "Coen's", as Massa seems to call them repeatedly) had taken this novel with an ambiguous and ambitious ending, and turned it into a normal Hollywood shoot-up ending, they might have got Massa's vote, but certainly their fans who appreciate them pushing the envelope, to say nothing of the fans of the source material, would have been disappointed. which do you think is more important to them, in terms of reching their own artistic goals? why would you ever expect them to take the easy, traditional road? at least do a LITTLE research on th source material before writing such a scathing review.I don't always agree with Massa, but I always tried to respect him. but this petulant, poorly researched, and ultimately misguided review has really dropped him down a notch, in my opinion.not that Massa will care what I think, but you know, just saying. I'll take the Coen brothers, with their eschewing of the norm, and their sense of adventure and obligation to cinema as an art form. you can have Transformers...or is it "Transformer's"?
-
The way he describes this reminds me of how I felt about "Broken Flowers."
-
funny, my 9th grade writing professor told me the EXACT same thing. I was the only freshman in a class full of seniors. Young Mira had potential back then. Seriously. I turned in a short story about a girl who gets tormented in school, commits suicide, and her father goes after the teens who made her life hell. My teacher couldn't believe I had written it, because I had captured the girl's voice too well. So thanks for the compliment, big guy!
-
and the "anti-climax" was deafening. sudden, violent and, as it often happens, "off camera". sounds like they were not only true to the source, but true to life. reading bewteen the lines here, i'd say they nailed it. 100%.
-
Oct 22, 2007 10:18:12 PM CDT
Oh Man MiraJeff's last comment is the saddest thing ever
by imfixingtodie
But now I know why you guys let him write for you; he speaks for all the tormented girls.
-
" It's like having great sex but never being allowed to cum."
Do you get paid for this? I mean seriously- where do I sign up? If this is what is meant by movie reviewing I can do it!! I need the money!! -
than about the abortion doc. You guys are hilarious.
-
of his is kinda nauseating.Reminds me of Glengarry:
"I find out whose fuckin' cousin you are..." -
Wow, that last comment just reeks of tormented pathos. I mean Tormented! Pathos!
Kudos: it's hard to stir much sympathy in my hard-hearted internet perusings but, brother, you did it.
Pity about the whole not having a penis thing, though. -
The book was fantastic, as was the ending, and thank God we're not getting another Lady Killers out of the brothers.
-
Douchebag, shithead, asshole...fine. But people who are truly retarded can't help it. And they aren't stupid. If you ever have a child, maybe you'll get it. In the meantime, show some respect for difference--and this isn't a PC complaint. Anytime I hear people complaining about PC, they are usually doing nothing more than defending rudeness.
Oh, and neither Massa nor MiraJeff can write worth a damn, so if you really think so little of their work, why do you allow them to stink the place up? -
Dude, don't tell me how I experience the movie. Every sentence you write using "you" shows your unwillingness to accept your opinions and defend them. Use first person pronouns. These are, after all, your opinions.
Read this and see how it reads..."It becomes a film that depresses you. Then it makes you angry. Not because the material moves you – " Don't try to tell me how it impacts me when you don't know me; that's what you're doing, even if you don't realize it.
And while you have a right to approach a review from any angle you wish--free country and all that--to write a review of a film with no mention made of the fact it comes from a book is lazy and misleading. It's not fair to criticize filmmakers for sticking close to the source material (when that's what they have obviously done here) unless you are willing to take your complaint to the source. I can't think of a more important quality for a reviewer to have than fairness. Honesty and integrity are the hallmarks of a good critic. Ignorance and weakness are the hallmarks of a bad one. -
But Massawyrm suddenly turning this into a negative review over one piece of script he disagreed with strikes me as...um...freakin' retarded. It's like a critic praising a movie as perfect, then saying "but this character sucked!" and suddenly giving the film two stars out of four. It's a gross exaggeration.
Something tells me Massawyrm's gonna watch the film again later and regret this review.
But, hey, what do I know?
By the way, MiraJeff, I haven't heard one person say Before the Devil Knows Your Dead is Lumet's best film. I call bullshit on that. -
Are you calling political correctness for the word "retarded"??? WTF?! Does anybody actually use the term "retarded" in serious reference to the handicapped (I think 'handicapped' is also out. Maybe 'differently-abled' now... I don't care)? It's dated slang which has stood the test of time to mock idiots who are often smart (or vice-versa).Kinda like 'gay' which used to mean happy, then homosexual and now it means bad AND homosexual as two separate connotations.If you are in the confrontational mood, perhaps call out Harry for essentially stating that Massa and Mira's opinions are incorrect as a matter of fact. That is the kind of shit that folk get banned for round these parts.Funnily enough some of my best friends are differently-abled and loved the stuffing out of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN's ending! So there, Harry. ... Actually, I'm just kidding. I wouldn't be friends with tards!
-
Harry's kidding...kinda.
-
Mira's got a giner, Mira's got a giner!
-
My gripe with people who use "retarded" as an insult is very basic. Immature people are uncomfortable with people who suffer from mental retardation. They ridicule them, taunt them, sometimes even physically confront them, all because they were unfortunate to have been born that way. And people who use "retarded" to insult an idiot are guilty of the same sort of uneducated and ignorant behavior.
And calling things "gay" to mean "bad" is just as ignorant.
Harry's welcome to his opinions, as are Massa and MiraJeff. And so am I. And I think people who use "retarded" as an insult are ignorant.
As for the differently-abled biz, sorry, but if I have a handicap, then that means I am handicapped. Just like everyone else in the world. -
People who read books must have read No Country for Old Men. Right? And people who didnt read No Country for Old Men dont read books at all. Right?
Books and movies are different things. Completely different. What worked in the book doesnt have to work in the movie. A faithfull adaptation doesnt guarantee a good movie. And somethimes good movies dont't completely follow the source material, for bettter (Blade Runner to begin with). I didn't read this book and i didnt see this movie, so I won't make any judgement on them, im just talking in theory. But it seems to me that the ending in No Country is completely out of place. Faithfull adaptation or not, could it have been changed for better? And who says they would have suddenly gone all Michael Bay on it? There are so many examples of awesome shootout climaxes in movie history that i really dont know where to begin? -
...that what was already a jolt of studied anti-climax (and a little hard to swallow) would be a real bucketful of dramatic ice water. Cinematic action and violence arguably create different expectations in the audience and I wondered if even the Coens could avoid the ending being a titanic letdown. I guess it depends on whom you ask.
-
The book is fantastic and the film is fantastic. I saw it at
Cannes, and the audience had the exact opposite reaction
Massa described
in his review. Different continent, though.
The novel provokes a lot of passionate reactions, too. Some
people cannot stand the way McCarthy punctuates his dialogue, and what some
feel is his hurried pace through descriptions, as though he was only interested
in writing speach. He's a minimalist, you take it or
leave it, and that's what's great about the film version: it was made by people
with their own distinctive style, which also provokes passionate reactions. I
don't know if it's a perfect film, but it is a perfect adaptation, that's for
sure. -
As for the Oscar talk, who gives a fuck? They gave one to
that fat chick from dreamgirls, and they named crash
best movie of the year that saw Munich,
A History of Violence, and Doom. Just kidding with that last
one, there. Keep 'ya on your toes. Damn Oscars
are nothing but a prom night popularity contest among people who are so thin-skinned, that hearing someone called a "retard" is
reason enough to call Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
But you know what they say about the prom queen; she's
nothing special at all, unless you're fucking her. -
Now get in Thunderdome and fight to the nerd death.
-
I thought it was great. Twenty minutes of this film was better than the Coens last three films combined.
-
awesome and spooky, friendo.
-
1. Lord of the Rings: totally pissed off at the way Gandalf died in the first movie - falling off a bridge? fuck that shit! Also, why don't they get to Mordor in the first film? Two more films was just dragging it out.
2. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Sirius dies by falling through an archway? Fucking lame dude! It's like having sex and not being able to cum!
3. Titanic: how come the boat sank after hitting the iceberg? wasn't it supposed to be unsinkable? James Cameron totally dropped the ball! -
is pretty compelling and competant and would do just fine in any other story of this type, but here he is in over his fucking head.
-
www.tardhard.com
-
Oct 23, 2007 7:06:23 AM CDT
I gave up on the Coens 20 minutes into Intolerable Cruelty
by spandau belly
Sorry guys, the way you'll get me back is a great-looking 2 Big 2 Lebowski: L.A. Drift
-
was pretty funny and is the only thing I remember.
I was lucky enough to have the kind of parents that'd drive 100 miles to see a no name flick their kid read about in Fangoria of all places. We made a trip to the city to see Blood Simple when I was about 13 or 14 and I fucking loved it. It'll take quite a few more Intolerable Crueltys and Lady Killers before I give up on them. Unfortunately, if history holds, we'll probably get plenty more.
-
If John Woo will make video games why not the Coens?
-
You know how I know that? Because you just said you didn't get the ending to "The Sopranos", which had the ballsiest, most awesome ending to a major TV drama EVER!
-
That kinda seals the deal for me. Harry, why are these idiots working on your site? Get rid of them! You've got enough intelligent reviewers, you do not need MiraJeff and Massawyrm. Especially MiraJeff.
-
"I stopped reading after the second "Coen's"
omg that not only sums up the review, but it made me spit diet coke... hahah great stuff. -
"I stopped reading after the second "Coen's"
omg that not only sums up the review, but it made me spit diet coke... hahah great stuff. -
We don't care about your prize winning ninth grade essay. Actually though, I like your reviews, I'm just taking the piss.
-
I'm convinced that this film should at least be interesting and is definitely worth a try. I'll probably like it.
-
Someone is rude to mirajeff in a TB (for fuck's sake) so he posts to bitch slap them, but then later after a rebuke from Harry he comes on with "I mean, you guys have me ALL WRONG and Harry, you are NOT HELPING"Grow a thicker skin THIS IS TAAAAALKBAAACK the home of personal abuse, unsustainable opinions, and petty on-line fueds. Oh, and movies get mentioned occasionally.
-
Intolerable cruelty was shite all the way through, and The Ladykillers was awful. How've you been- still grinding that Bay axe? Still a dick?
-
and there is arguably a fifth and sixth: Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe. Both of whom departed before the Beatles made it, one of whom is dead. Pete Best is a better drummer than Ringo. Mind you, almost anyone is a better drummer than Ringo. But Ringo is still cool. Unlike McCartney- who is a po-faced cunt.
-
Oct 23, 2007 12:00:13 PM CDT
Memories-Of-Murder, I have already built a bridge and am over it
by spandau belly
I really disliked O Brother Where Art Thou?, I got why it was a clever adaptation in terms of setting, but I just found it boring to watch. Maybe jokes about Southern folk and hair gel are more amusing to other people. I shut off Intolerable Cruelty because I could tell it couldn't get better because the idea of a Marilyn Munroe-type comedy made today was clearly not working for me. Then when I saw the super-unfunny trailers for Ladykillers it confirmed my conclusions that these guys were in a slump.The Big Lebowski remains one of my favorite films ever, but that doesn't mean I have to waste my time and money watching anything these guys produce and pretend it's good.I'm sure you can accept that good filmmakers can "lose it" or just make a bad movie or two without it tarnishing the glory of their other works. And I'm sure you've seen movies you've disliked get all sorts of undeserved praise because of names in the credits and not on the merit of the film. Or maybe you liked Gangs of New York and felt it deserved all those Oscar nods. I don't know.That being said, maybe this film is good. It doesn't have George Clooney trying to be funny and it looks like they've retired their hobby of making fun of hillbillies. It could be another *okay* flick like The Man Who Wasn't There.And no, I'm not from the South or even from America.
-
You're thinking Kentucky or West Virginia, where the presence of hills generally helps.
"And I'm SICK TO DEATH of Blood Simple making fun of Texans! It ruined my whole enjoyment! And Fargo's cruelty to Scandinavian-Americans! And the poor nihilists!" Christ, cram a sock in it. -
this is snobbish but fuck if I care: Harry is right. and I will venture that those capable of getting through a McCarthy novel AND understanding it, will love this film. the Coen's have had some missteps in the past decade, but this is a return to form and it surpasses everything they have done with the exception of Fargo and Miller's Crossing, which are not better, just on an equal plain. I saw this at a screening in NYC 3 months back and have not been able to get it out of my head. it is utterly brilliant and Bardem solidifies himself as an actor comparable only to Hopkins, DayLewis, Crowe (all of whom are better than Bale, just to add some fuel for you kids). I'm no reviewer so I will not go into everything, but I agree, on this rare occassion, with Harry, the film is note perfect and I feel sorry for those that just didn't get the ending (which was at least half the audience I saw it with). then again we live in a world where Dane Cook is selling out Madison Square Garden, so I don't have much faith the humble masses will understand great anything when they see/hear it. it certainly is not for those that say "I just want to be entertained" or that films and literature must have a typical beginning, middle and end with a big payoff.
-
Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's a fucking ethos.
-
I wasn't crying, nor whining. I was bitching like a man, spitting insults at you and your style and taste. I wasn't blindly defending the movie either, so that was out of place. I'm not the kinda guy who does that. Also, I was stating how annoying it is to find your black box in every talkback only to say "what that guy said" or "Whoever is RIGHT". It annoys me. Oh and that part about your school paper was gold. Piss gold that is. Cheers.
-
Aquatarkusman, maybe I should've used the word "yokle" or "redneck" or "good ol' boy". Sorry for using the term "hillbilly" too broadly. I don't have a problem with making fun of people including nihilists, bowlers, and Nicholas Cage. I guess my problem is that Southern rural folk are such an obvious target that it's not funny. I will not cram a sock in it because that goes against my samurai code.Memories-Of-Murder, I have no idea what you are saying anymore. I was not advocating travelling through time and elminating the Coens at birth. I just doubt whether they have another great film in them and choose not to view their failures.
-
By your logic Bakshi's LOTR and PJ's LOTR should be both equally good films, exactly as good as the book. And Newell didn't have to explain anything about Sirius' death or Priori Incantatum in GoF either because it was fine in the book, right? If a movie sucks, it's the directors fault. If a movie rocks, it's the directors fault. Two examples 1. All the Pretty Horses (crappy movie adaptation of a real good book by this author named, what was it? oh yeah cormac mcarthy) 2. Babe, as in the pig movie (childrens story plot that carries one of the smoothest, most well executed narratives in cinematic history) And on another note, if you read the entire talkback before posting people don't have to repeat points as often and the debate can actually progress.
-
That's all fine, but did you look over and see that Kurt Russell was laughing pretty hard. Because I guess that would make it all okay.
-
"Should MiraJeff ever contribute to this site again?!". Then just ask for simple yes or no answers. It would be an interesting exercise for a few reasons. Does anyone like him? Would those that do not be willing to make a "man" lose work? Finally, it would be hilarious watching him try to defend himself on the Talkback. Almost as funny as him getting battered by the worst director in the world.
-
then all is fine my friend.
-
I've read the book, and will be seeing the movie next week. But I'm interested in what they've done. God knows there are an infinite number of movies I can see a regular old "show down" at the end. It's been done over and over again. So I'm curious to see what the Coen Brothers do. And I for one like it when I have something to talk about after the credits roll.
-
Man are you reading all this talback or just parts? If you can refute the point I've continually made, please do so. That point again, in case you missed it, is that source material does not make a good product. It does not matter what was in the book, it does not matter if it is new or original, it does not matter where it comes from in any way because films are EXECUTION DEPENDANT. It doesn't matter if they made an ending that doesn't have a shoot-out, it matters if they made a GOOD ending that doesn't have a shoot-out. If they did that then we have something new that works in film to talk about and draw from creatively. If not, then it's back to the drawing board. Capisci?
-
You'll be the judge of what when you see the movie? That movies are execution dependant? You don't need to see one to figure that out, it's logical. As to laying into people who disagree, hell yeah man, lay into them, once your opinion of the FILM is an informed one. I haven't seen it yet so I don't know what side of that line I'll end up on.
-
Oh man I'm gonna cut my wrists just because you mentioned that freakin movie. There is an excellent example of when good source material and good execution work together to make something with real integrity.
-
uh, what?
Massawyrm and MiraJeff complain about an adaptation of a book they haven't read and you bring up Bakshi and Jackson to DEFEND them?
Wow, friendly fire much?
The essential complaint here is that the Coens adaptation of No Country for Old Men left out what would in conventional terms be regarded as a key piece of the narrative. Except that that is exactly how the book deals with it. It would be like adapting Macbeth and showing Lady Macbeth's death scene, whereas the fact that her death offstage is a critical part of the story.
Ultimately, you guys can moan all you want. The fact that you're moaning about the ending doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that it's ignorant fucking moaning.
-
Oct 23, 2007 8:22:53 PM CDT
Did the people who bitch about The Sopranos ending ever watch th
by barry egan
It was famous for being obtuse and leaving major plot threads unresolved. I went into the finale expecting something similar to what Chase delivered. And that final scene in the restaurant is a master class in filmmaking.
-
F-in' A right man. Rod Beck deserves a better memorial than he gave himself. One of my favorite baseball players of all time, and I was a Giants fan at the right time, and I lived in San Diego when he came in with nothing -- no fastball, no arm left, nothing -- and saved 20 out of 20 games for the Padres with nothing but sheer will. He would always let the other team hit and score but he always brought it home. Once by striking out Barry Bonds with two men on in the bottom of the 9th with an 80-mph fastball. That dude had stones of IRON. I miss him already.
-
Anyone know if there are any plans to make this a movie? Best of the Border Trilogy.
-
It's absurd how completely you missed my point. I did not defend anything that either of them have said, I have only taken issue with people who seem to think that because it's good in McArthy's book, it's good in the Coens film. That just doesn't make sense now does it? The film makers have to do that. That's all I'm saying. Read closer.
-
We need to get back on the subject of Massawyrm and MiraJeff being retarded .
-
Or at least a documentary. Seriously -- think of all the standout moments Rod Beck had in his life. Remember when he was on the Giants and he came on in the top of the ninth with a one-run lead, and loaded the bases with no outs just from sheer bad luck? With the home crowd booing in anger? And he somehow got out of it with no runs scored? Everyone who was booing went crazy, and when he walked off the mound he was screaming obscenities -- celebrating, and also bitching back at his fair-weather fans -- awesome. Or the year he spent in the minors, just before the end, where he parked his trailer behind the outfield fence and lived in it, and anyone could come and shoot the shit with him? He needs to be in a film. Maybe Tom Sizemore could play him.
-
Eastern promises. A pretty good flick right to almost the very end... and then... nothing. Half a movie with a quick ending.
-
sounds like they stayed faithful, good for them
-
while it doesn't always work in all adaptations, they did stay faithfull and it works perfectly
gonna miss Wake on the roster and Beck went before his time. saw him many a night at Fenway. such a unique individual. went before his time. sad that he couldn't get it together for his daughter. such is addiction -
Oct 24, 2007 2:44:32 AM CDT
You really should step out of a theater and READ A !#@$ BOOK
by tired eagle
I know I'm piling on here, but what you described is exactly how the story unfolds in the book. So you apparently have a problem with A) the Pulitzer winning author of the book and B) the Oscar-winning filmmakers who had the BALLS to stay true to the source material. Referring to the change in direction as the Coen Bros "experimenting" only exposes your own ignorance to the printed words that the film was born from. The book was @#%! awesome and I can't wait to see this.
-
It happens to be a different sense of the word, that's all. It means "Me and others like me, who I believe to be many". You can substitute the word "One" in place of "You", eg: "One feels", "the film offends' one's sensibilities" or he can say "You feel" or "the film offends your sensibilities". He's not putting words in y'all's mouths, so unbunch your panties. He's just using a turn of phrase that you aren't used to.
-
if it's good in the book, but the adaptation is loose, then you can criticise the adaptation.
if it's bad in the book, but the adaptation is good, then you can praise the adaptation.
but if it's good in McCarthy's book, and the Coen bros adaptation of the book is dead-on, then you can't criticise the adaptation can you now?
clearly you haven't read the book either, dude. more fucking ignorance.
-
So you think that good books should be adapted verbatim? Is that what you're saying? If it's not what you're saying then I think we're agreeing dude. I just never said it was good or bad in the movie either way, now did I? You really should look over my posts and see if you can figure out what I'm saying man. Unless you think that adaptations from good books should be verbatim, which would make you the ignorant one.
-
even the most snubs guys outthere want to be satisfied. think LA Confidential, Bud White and Exley, gun blazing in the end...and winning. And that didn't make the film less hardcore and less true(whatever if it was similar to the book or not).
-
You're right. I don't like you. It wasn't a pun- it was a straight up insult. You clearly are still a dick.
-
It's like having great sex but never being allowed to cum. I don't think anyone else has said it. Also am I the only person that has the The Hudsucker Proxy as their favority Coen movie? Barton Fink close second, that movie had a kind of let down ending as well i thought.
-
S/he may be a doofus, but s/he's our doofus...
-
It doesn't mean he was craving a big bloody shoot out. He wanted the end to be satisfying in some way. He's not the only reviewer to say this. Many reviewers are saying that the film suffers from being TOO CLOSE of an adaptation to the book.
Those of you who think Massa wasn't happy with the ending because it wasn't an explosion are simply mischaracterizing his point of view to make your point of view seem so much smarter.
If the books ending was so satisfying for everyone, then there may possibly be a cinematic equivalent that could be true to the nature of the book and yet be satisfying.
The fact that many of you equate not liking the ending with desiring a Big Happy Ending leads me to believe the great lot of you were educated in Public Schools and have very remote critical thinking skills left in your mushy skulls. -
Oct 24, 2007 1:09:45 PM CDT
It's not his objection to the ending, it's the hyperbole
by imfixingtodie
Somewhere between "Sucks the marrow out of the audience" and "a fucking tragedy" he completely lost it. If he just said it was an extremely strong film with a weak ending, that'd be fine. But he's acting like it's the worst film of the year. He'll get better as a reviewer only if we kick his ass when he pulls stupid shit.
-
Have you read ANY other review or breaking news here ever?
People here are pissed at Massa because he didn't know the book ended the same way.
My point is that if the Coens had produced a movie that justified missing the climax with the same effectiveness as the book then Massa would have enjoyed the complete film with the same amount of hyperbole. -
I make goober.
-
This from the guy who gave us such brilliant morsels at "RAMBO eviscerates all that watches his 1st Official Trailer!!!"
I believe you were looking for "all who watch". -
I thought that was pronounced Missy Peregrym.
-
" And you can't insult me as badly as you insult yourself. Though shit, dude."I have no idea what that means. At a guess, I think you mean that I cannot insult you any more than I insult myself. Seeing as I don't make a habit of insulting myself, I can now prove you wrong. You fucking disgrace to the species.
-
MEMORIES OF MURDER IS A FAGGOT!
I HEART GEORGE BUSH!
MICHAEL BAY RULES!
*BOOOOOM*
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 435 total posts 435 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 88 total posts 88 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 86 total posts 80 posts
- Rest In Peace Bethesda’s Adam Adamowicz -- 76 total posts 76 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- Quint travels to Barsoom and visits the John Carter set!!! -- 127 total posts 62 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 159 total posts 61 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 88 total posts 60 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 58 total posts 57 posts
- Ridley Scott's Next Will Be Cormac McCarthy's THE COUNSELOR! -- 50 total posts 50 posts