Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Moriarty Gets Cold-Blooded With The Coen Brothers And NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN!

First by henrydalton	Nov 22nd, 2007 06:42:00 AM
Looking forward to this big time :)
Also by henrydalton	Nov 22nd, 2007 06:47:01 AM
I'm glad I gave the Ladykillers a miss. Hmm. I might watch Lebowski tonight. Still my favourite Coen film.
And by henrydalton	Nov 22nd, 2007 06:47:33 AM
.....quiet in here today.
Agree totally. by tile_mcgillus	Nov 22nd, 2007 06:58:42 AM
Enjoyed the hell out of this movie last night.
Agh! by BangoSkank	Nov 22nd, 2007 07:02:46 AM
This isn't playing within a hundred miles of where I'm living right now. Just when I think I've come to terms with living in the Raleigh area "triangle" they pull this type of shit. Fucking hicksville.
I guess... by henrydalton	Nov 22nd, 2007 07:15:20 AM
I mean, I'm waiting for Sweeny Todd before I give up on Burton...
Score? by Shoegeezer	Nov 22nd, 2007 07:15:58 AM
Was there music in this film? I honestly don't remember hearing any, apart from the Mexican band.
good book by gord	Nov 22nd, 2007 07:30:59 AM
It's a very good book (not quite The Road, The Border Trilogy or Blood Meridian) and well worth a read. The trailer for this looks great. Looking forward to it. Ditto on Kelly McDonald - her scene in Trainspotting where she is revealed as a school girl still cracks me up.
Apology by Papa Lazaru	Nov 22nd, 2007 07:50:51 AM
Mori.Seems like the classiest thing to do would be to write an apology . They might never read it , but if you had the balls to tell the COEN BROS of all people to stop making films . You should at least have the courtesy to apologise for being wrong , but hey . What do I know . I'm just a TB troll .
Stephen Root by filmcoyote	Nov 22nd, 2007 07:51:12 AM
is a Coen regular. This is his third collaboration with them after O Brother and Ladykillers. Sure he's not as well recognised as Goodman, Buscemi or Turturro but there are many Coen regs and he is one. Get it right man. On the other hand though, this film is brilliant - it's between this There Will Be Blood and Into The Wild for my film of the year right now. Seeing No Country for the second time tomorrow having seen it in Cannes originally. Can't wait.
Agree with derlang by lex romero	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:25:31 AM
So many critics are proclaiming this film as a "return to form for the coens", whilst this may be true, does it really only take two mediocre films for a director to fall out of favour with critics?
Barry Corbin by Darth Kong	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:27:30 AM
was fantastic in this film. His scene, and his storytelling, reminded me of Robert Shaw's story in JAWS!
A few questions (BIG SPOILERS) by Garbageman33	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:41:12 AM
Who was the guy in the wheelchair Tommy Lee Jones went to see? More importantly, did anyone else think that maybe, just maybe, Anton Chigurh didn't really exist? That he was simply a representation of evil? Or is it because I was drunk when I saw it?
Hope you learnt your lesson Mori... by UltimaRex	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:44:46 AM
...Never, EVER ask someone to stop making movies. 1) You'll come off as a dick. 2) If the Coen's had stopped you wouldn't have that "new classic" on your shelf 3) Everyone finds their place at least once. Postal may be good, more likely it'll be crap but I wouldn't want anyone but Uwe Boll wasting their time on it.
Blood Meridian by CrazyJoeDavola	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:46:25 AM
Directed by Ridley Scott?! COME ON! Piss poor.
Coens by ZooTrain	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:47:59 AM
I've been excited for this film for a while now. Ever since I read about it, ever since I saw the trailer. The thing about The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty is this...they are, in no way, BAD films. They're just not Coen Brothers films. We've set them to a higher standard. I'm glad they're doing what they do best again. Personally, I think the Coens own Tarantino every time they light up the screen (with the aforementioned exceptions)...but that's just me.
I want to see Billy Bob's cut of... by Barry Egan	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:50:56 AM
Pretty Horses. I have heard stories of their being a much longer, better cut of it before Harvey got his hands on it, kind of like what happend to Gangs of New York. I would love a director's cut DVD of both of those films.
I'm with you Dr Zoidberg... by UltimaRex	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:54:29 AM
A Coen Bros JLA would come across a little off but at least it'd be worth watching. (sob Peter Jackson for JLA sob)
I want the Coens to co-direct with the Wachowskis and by CreasyBear	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:55:21 AM
the Hughes brothers, and the Farrely brothers. They could remake Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. HA-HA-HA-HA! Get it?! Okay, I'll shut up.
Just saw No Country by That 70s Venom	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:59:13 AM
yesterday with my brothers and it was an amazing film. go see it. Javier Bardem is insane in this movie.
geeks = traitors by CuervoJones	Nov 22nd, 2007 09:01:40 AM
Some good director makes two mediocre movies and the hate begins. Now everybody loves the Coens again.
Intolerable Cruelty improves on subsequent viewings by newc0253	Nov 22nd, 2007 09:05:41 AM
i was seriously disappointed the first time i saw it, but i've warmed to it on subsequent viewings. as goofy slapstick, it has still none of the brilliance of O Brother, but it was nonetheless a better film than i remember. Ladykillers, on the other hand, i have no intention of watching again. It wasn't the worst film in the world, but it was certainly the worst Coen bros film and that's not a pretty thing to watch.
Intolerable Cruelty was entertaining by jrbarker	Nov 22nd, 2007 09:28:22 AM
not their best of course. but not as bad as people say.
SoylentMean...the music by Lazarus Long	Nov 22nd, 2007 09:29:04 AM
You're right in that the music throughout the film was minimal, and barely noticeable save for a couple small moments. However, there is some extremely unsettling music over the end credits that is Burwell's, and if you're sitting there dumbfounded, shocked, amazed, confused, etc. it's the perfect soundtrack for the few minutes you may be staring at the screen trying to digest what you've just seen.
Woww...Dooo nottt Miss it in Theatres by T 1000 xp professional	Nov 22nd, 2007 09:39:40 AM
Moriarty was pretty close to hitting this one dead on...There is a way bigger picture in the story, but it still gives you all the thrills you want....What an amazing tight knitted movie...wow....Extremely glad I saw this at the theatre...just wow...Now time for There will be Blood
Reason NUMBER ONE that it's good by T 1000 xp professional	Nov 22nd, 2007 09:41:08 AM
I'm dying to see it again
Woo-Hoo! by BangoSkank	Nov 22nd, 2007 09:42:22 AM
I jumped the gun, it wasn't playing anywhere yesterday, but is in three different local theaters today. Can't fucking wait!
I don't hate The Ladykillers. by Barry Egan	Nov 22nd, 2007 09:50:26 AM
I thought it was working so hard to be funny that the strain really showed, but it does have it's moments that are pretty good ("Actually madam we are shocked, you are taken aback."). I would love to see Hanks do more comedy, the dude is such a great screen comic.
Barry Egan by rhett beavers	Nov 22nd, 2007 10:01:25 AM
Yeah it would be great if Tom Hanks did more comedy. Sincerely- Splash, The Money Pit, Big, Bachelor Party, Volunteers, Dragnet, Turner & Hooch,The Burbs and Bosom Buddies.
Mori, you're a great writer, why does your webpage suck? by Spandau Belly	Nov 22nd, 2007 10:03:15 AM
Great review. I always love the stuff you write here, but whenever I go to your own webpage it's always a bunch of short little diary entries and one paragraph mini-reviews that feel more like the back of a DVD box. It's kinda wierd, I mean, Vern's personal page is just the Vern we see here expanded into a complete Verniverse, but your page feels like a totally different guy. It rarely hits the same thoughtful balanced insightful note that most of the stuff you post in AICN does. I'm not trying to be insulting, it's just wierd.
loved this movie by Leafy McPlantsalot	Nov 22nd, 2007 10:25:29 AM
so freaking good. awesome.
I'm sorry by Lost Jarv	Nov 22nd, 2007 10:29:39 AM
but Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers were not just bad by the Coen's standards (which would make them average-good by almost everyone else's), they were bad by ANY standards- Ladykillers especially. A return to form can be used for this as they have produced 2 substandard efforts and have now produced one up to par- hence "return to form"
Bring on Blood Meridian baby! by theredtoad	Nov 22nd, 2007 10:36:12 AM
Also I finished The Road a bit ago and I personally love that book, so I can't wait to see the guys from The Proposition go at it.
Moriarty, that ending SUCKED. by soccerfan33	Nov 22nd, 2007 10:57:24 AM
It was completely dissatisfying for what came before it. I am all for not following the hollywood style of filmaking, but if you're going to divert from the norm, YOU BETTER HAVE GOLD. This movie's ending was not gold. Sure it was different, but different in itself does not qualify it as great. I could take a dump at the end of the film and it would be different, but not great. An example of a movie in which the ending didn't follow the rules was Se7en. It was different. Shocking... and satisfying. The big dissapointment in No Country For Old Men is that it simply has a very average ending that diminishes the greateness came before it.
Ladykillers was torture because of the Wayans fucktard by BMacSmith	Nov 22nd, 2007 11:10:27 AM
he was torture every moment he was onscreen, and he was onscreen far too often. I thought Hank's great character was supposed to be the star. The Wayans' should be banned from movies.
ya folks read the damn book by bobbywatts	Nov 22nd, 2007 11:12:55 AM
My only gripe is that they cut my favorite conversation of the book (chigurh and carla) short...that was going to be Bardems best moment I thought..other then that, pretty damn perfect
bigger picture here :::SPOILERISH::: (just in case) by T 1000 xp professional	Nov 22nd, 2007 11:25:43 AM
not ruining anything...there is a bigger story to be told...thrills are fun, but they are being told within a bigger picture of morals, , life's short lived pleasures and the consequences that follow...holy shnikes, some light just got shined on me and bestowed a revelation about the film just this second, mainly about the characters' representations
Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykillers were FUNNY, dammit by Osmosis Jones	Nov 22nd, 2007 11:28:00 AM
Get off your high horse, Mori. I love the "wacky" Cen pictures every bit as much as their "serious" ones (and even No Country has it's handful of classic Coen gags).
:::spoilerish:: once again by T 1000 xp professional	Nov 22nd, 2007 11:29:43 AM
i'd compare this to a darker alternate universe of the classic tale "Pilgrim's Progress"...What ya guys think?
I'll stand by Intolerable Cruelty. by Mostholy	Nov 22nd, 2007 11:30:46 AM
It's not in the top tier of Coens by any means, but I enjoyed it a lot more than the dismal reviews would suggest. (http://www.ghostinthemachine. net/001285.html#001285) Can't back Ladykillers, tho'. (http://www.ghostinthemachine. net/001651.html#001651) Also, filmcoyote is right -- Stephen Root is part of Team Coen. And, while I'm Not There ultimately knocks it out of the top spot for the year for me, NCFOM is a certifiably great film. (http://www.ghostinthemachine. net/005039.html) There is music in some scenes -- the gas station coin-toss, for example -- but I didn't notice it at all until a second viewing.
"You brought your BITCH....to the Waffle Hut?" by Osmosis Jones	Nov 22nd, 2007 11:36:49 AM
Wayans actually was pretty funny in Ladykillers. I liked how each of the actors in the film were so wildly different from each other. And as for music in No Country, there are a few, almost subliminal electronic drones scattered around (like when Bardem drives past the motel). Then again, aside from Intolerable Cruelty, the Coens have been wasting Burwell's talents for years, now. Ever since The Big Lebowski, they've been using either song soundtracks or utter silence. While that was appropriate for No Country, as a Burwell fan, I'm still disappointed. At least he got some good music in Before The Devil Knows You're Dead...
"NO COUNTRY may play rough, but it goes down smooth" by Montag666	Nov 22nd, 2007 12:16:43 PM
I think they should use this as one of them press quotes. Seriously, I finished the book about 4 days ago. I read it in 12 and a half hours and the writing on the page was structured so that it was almost impossible to stop. The weird thing is that my feelings for the book went through a 3 day gestation period: first I thought "this is just about the darkest most nihilistic book I've ever read" then the next two days everything changed and I don't see the book as all that pessimistic. The ending is very non conventional at the very least. But my perspective keeps changing on the whole outlook of the book. Has anyone here seen the movie and read the book? I haven't seen the movie.
Their best since BLOOD SIMPLE by topaz4206	Nov 22nd, 2007 12:20:01 PM
I absolutely loved this movie -- been waiting forever to see them return to this genre, and they did it justice. Brolin was the best thing about American Gangster and he continues his streak with this movie.
*MAJOR SPOILER* by soup74	Nov 22nd, 2007 12:26:21 PM
major spoiler..dont read if you havent seen the movie* shouldnt there be a spoiler warning on this review? my made a 'MAJOR SPOILER' warning in my post only because im going to quote your review.."As much as I said this is a story about a guy finding some money, it’s also a story being told by the guy who finds the remains of the guy who found the money"... i guess you can gloss over that, but damn.
The Coens films are like artists colour periods - by FILMFUNK	Nov 22nd, 2007 12:36:34 PM
Blood Simple - Blue, The Big Lebowski - Green, Fargo - White, The Man Who Wasn't there - Black and White, Oh Brother - Ochre yellow, Barton Fink - Sepia, Raising Arizona Orange, Millers Crossing - Brown
I want a sequel to MILLER'S CROSSING by NoHubris	Nov 22nd, 2007 12:36:58 PM
The greatness of MILLER'S CROSSING is grossly under-appreciated!
Miller's Crossing and Big Lebowski = Night at the Opera by Alfred_Packer	Nov 22nd, 2007 01:03:15 PM
As The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty = Room Service
such a great film... by restless_438	Nov 22nd, 2007 01:26:49 PM
really made my thanksgiving holiday.. saw this last night and i'm seeing it again either tonight or tommorow.. i don't throw the word brilliant around very often, but i think its got merit here
Garbageman33 by Darth Kong	Nov 22nd, 2007 01:36:38 PM
That was Barry Corbin (see my post above yours). If you meant his character, I assumed it was Tommy Lee Jones' Uncle (ie. His father's brother)
He's got a silly name... by Hoots Mon	Nov 22nd, 2007 02:16:05 PM
but Garret Dillahunt is a fucking excellent actor. He was one of the best thing in Deadwood for about a dozen episodes - which is really saying something.
Yeah, that makes sense, Darth by Garbageman33	Nov 22nd, 2007 02:24:13 PM
Thanks.
soup is right, SPOILER BOX by BadMrWonka	Nov 22nd, 2007 02:34:10 PM
just for that one line...subtle as it is, Mori, it gives away a huge part of the story...
The score by bb6634	Nov 22nd, 2007 02:37:21 PM
Great review Mori, and great film. Easily one of the year's best. But you mention Burwell's score. Actually there is none. Except for the closing credits; but throughout the movie, none.
There Will Be Blood is a better movie. But not by much. by iamnicksaicnsn	Nov 22nd, 2007 03:41:31 PM
Saw it last Thursday. Wrote a review for AICN, but they didn't post it, that's ok, I guess, wasn't my best review, but I really didn't want to give too much away. There Will Be Blood is just so fucking brilliant it's sickening. I went in knowing nothing about it, and that's exactly how I want others to go in. So just saw No Country the night before, and also thought it was brilliant. It's so great and so sad that we're getting movies of this caliber so close together. Just means we'll have to wait another year through the garbage for the really amazing stuff. Except for The Dark Knight, bet that'll be my favorite movie ever.
MORIARITY, YOU ASSHOLE by Darwyn	Nov 22nd, 2007 03:42:05 PM
Shouldn't there have been some kind of SPOILER warning??? "The story of the guy who finds the remains of the guy who took the money????" Come on, man! I didn't know that! All I knew was this was a great Coen flick that returned to their Coen Bros world where anything can happen, which means that part of the thrill was wondering where this movie could have gone, which means that I don't want to know that Llewelyn fucking dies! I know I'll still have fun getting there, but come on - of all critics I trust you the most and your work is the most satisfying on multiple levels, but that makes it even harder to get suckerpunched by you - Faux Pas!
great great great great great film (SPOILER WARNING) by slappy jones	Nov 22nd, 2007 05:02:10 PM
My favorite of the year. I keep readin complaints about the ending but I thought the ending was wonderful...would people have of preferred a rooftop shoot out between chigurh and moss with carla hostage and tommy lee jones showing up at the last minute to save the day? this aint that film. in fact the way this story plays out is a lot closer to real life than any movie shoot out nonsense. Sure the ending is unconventional to say the least but I thought it was refreshing. It never ever did what I expected it to do and for thayt I am grateful. Very few people will be able to predict where the film is heading. not to mention that the way it plays outs if kind of, y'know, the entire point of the film. This is a bleak tale and the coens handled it wonderfully. I am so excited to finally have another film this year that I want to revisit over and over. I think it is an absolute masterpiece and I can't wait to see it again.
favorite scene of the year by slappy jones	Nov 22nd, 2007 05:04:05 PM
the hotel/hallway showdown....so fucking tense.....amazing set piece.
Bardem should win an Oscar by bigbadbua	Nov 22nd, 2007 05:49:39 PM
and as of right now, this should win Best Picture as well. Still some great films to come out this year, but this was an amazing film. Its non-traditional storyline added to the film for me, and makes you realize that there are more than 2 characters in this film. Anton Chigurh is one of the great villians of film, and Brolin and Jones do a great job as well, but give Bardem the gold statue right now.
and one more thing (spoiler) by bigbadbua	Nov 22nd, 2007 05:54:00 PM
the cow-killing gun for a weapon is fantastic. not something you see often in films, but effective as hell.
Carter Burwell's score? by jabbathegriffin	Nov 22nd, 2007 05:55:44 PM
Thorbbing with meanace...but where? I don't remember a note of music in the film save for maybe the end credits. Did he score the silence? If so, he should be nominated.
2 THings by lecter1914	Nov 22nd, 2007 06:19:38 PM
First, there is "music" throughout the entire movie. I dont know how many saw silent hill, but you remember how it would get all bassy whenever it would go dark..that time of throbbing base was throughout the entire movie..can't remember particular scenes, but it was all throughout though. 2...SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER::: so me and my friends saw it and were all confused at the end...did those shady mexicans kill Moss or was it Chigurh??? We were unclear END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER::::
The Ending by kem070396	Nov 22nd, 2007 06:33:55 PM
have to agree to disagree on this movie's ending...I ahve never been to such a GOOD movie where people where LOUDLY vocalizing their disapproval as to the final 10 minutes of the film...I KNOW I will be seeing this film again to try to understand it better
MiraJeff by VegasRon	Nov 22nd, 2007 07:56:52 PM
You see how he didn't give the ending away, you stupid fuck?
Total Spoiler by JimBobCooter	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:13:38 PM
That was such a dick move, Moriarty. To call it "the ending" as if you're coyly avoiding telling us anything, then tell the ending without a spoiler alert?! Why do that?? Especially to a movie you liked? As a screenwriter, you should be embarrassed at best at that review.
First half of that review: Unreadable by eXcommunicated	Nov 22nd, 2007 08:58:42 PM
The second half: Very good.
Josh Brolin was amazing. Best film of the year. by eggbeater	Nov 22nd, 2007 09:32:28 PM
I'm sure he will be overlooked because of Javier Bardem's performance (which was incredible) but Brolin played Moss so straight. Llewelyn was a fighter throughout the entire film. He was an average guy up against a psychopath and he played it brilliantly. I hope people don't forget him come oscar time. What an amazing film.
Clarification by kem070396	Nov 22nd, 2007 09:37:22 PM
I just reread what i wrote...let mwe clarify...the movie was AMAZING! Tommy Lee Jones was at his BEST, Chigurh was SO EVIL he gave me GOOSEBUMPS! The camera work / soundwork was alonr worth the price of admission. The entire movietheater was captivated...until the end. A 50-60 year old near me yelled out WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?!?! and everyone was like YEAH WHAT WAS THAT? I sually read the book first before seeing the movie, maybe that would have explained it better. I seriously do want to see it again just to see if it was something I missed...well, OK, I really do want to see and hear that dialogue again! Also, nobody (Moriarty included) has made mention of the timeframe this movie takes place in. The film does not really empasize this, but it appears to take place in the 70's, although the film has that timeless feel to it. Again a good reason why I think I have to read the book...maybe I'm wrong?
Anyone remember TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA? Similar ending by Stormwatcher	Nov 22nd, 2007 10:15:59 PM
I love that movie, never have watched an episode of CSI but TLADILA and Manhunter are two of my favorite films from the 80's. That movie has a totally shocking and jarring ending that moves so quick you don't have time to say, what the hell just happened? If you haven't seen it, rent it, great car chase, one of the best ever, Ronin ripped it off.
The movie is set in 1980 by alex_cutter	Nov 22nd, 2007 11:03:08 PM
There is a comment about a quarter that was minted 22 years ago in 1958.
That was a pretty darn modern-looking Carl's Jr by enrique_o_k2000	Nov 22nd, 2007 11:34:13 PM
Did Carl's Jr always have the same-looking logo with the star? It's just something that caught my eye in that one scene...
Oh and we need a sabbatical on CGI animals by enrique_o_k2000	Nov 22nd, 2007 11:36:41 PM
They get away with the dogs for the most part, but those CGI deer took me out of the film in that moment.
Mixed Feelings - Overall Atrocious Filmaking. P. WS. A. could ha by tailhook	Nov 23rd, 2007 01:13:01 AM
On the one hand.. there was a lot there to like.. on the other hand.. the Ending just completely destroyed the entire movie for me. Here's a fucking clue hacktastic Coen Brothers.. if you're going to build up to a scene in which your protaganist is to have the big showdown with the antagonist where all hell breaks loose... and you've played this up in the previews.... THEN FOR FUCKS SAKE IT HAD BETTER NOT GOD DAMNED HAPPEN OFFSCREEN. Coen Fucking Idiot Brothers. Here's a thought.. lets rewrite Die Hard in this Idiot Style and say.... remove everything from the point John MacClane starts shooting on the roof to get people downstairs... and simply cut to the cops watching Hans Gruber falls. I seriously felt that it was my money in that case that the Coen Brothers walked off with. They burned whatever cred they had remaining as serious filmmakers with this bullshit.
I enjoyed the hell out of Intolerable Cruelty... by Sledge Hammer	Nov 23rd, 2007 04:06:54 AM
...was it a classic? No, but it was a damn fun modern screwball comedy, and that's all it really ever set out to be. The only people with the expectations of seeing a film classic every time out are delusional film geeks, so to call merely making a good, fun film a "failure" seems way overboard to me. Ladykillers? Yeah, not a fan, but I'd hardly write off a team as talented and who has contributed so much to cinema based on a wrong step or two, that's for damn sure.
Umm tailhook spoiler by IndustryKiller!	Nov 23rd, 2007 04:23:07 AM
Moss never had a final showdown with Chigurh (sp?) on or offscreen. The Mexicans got to him first and that is who the showdown was with.
And Intolerable Cruelty is criminally underrated by IndustryKiller!	Nov 23rd, 2007 04:24:23 AM
If you think Clooneys performance is that shallow then you need to look again. He is an absolutely wonderful mess of confidence and self loathing wrapped in one.
You should have written a letter to Tim Burton by IndustryKiller!	Nov 23rd, 2007 04:29:20 AM
Who has made 6 disappointing films ranging from unwatchable (Apes and Willy WOnka remakes, two of the worst and most pointless of all time) to mediocre letdowns (Big Fish) in a row. That's a hell of a bad streak. Sweeney Todd could turn it around though.
this movie was crap by jivatmax	Nov 23rd, 2007 05:41:05 AM
and you all know it.
You see...no. by Michael Corleone	Nov 23rd, 2007 05:51:58 AM
"An open letter where i begged them to stop making movies" "All movies" "I still stand by" "I knew they wouldn't, I never wanted them to". I have noticed a growing arrogance in moriarty over the years and this is a kind of pathetic illustration of that. Just admit you we're wrong. And yes moriarty you WERE wrong. I seriously doubt he will, i think he doesn't even see the blatant contradiction in what he is saying. Arrogance is one of the least attractive human traits.
This flick looks and sounds interesting. I'll be there. by JDanielP	Nov 23rd, 2007 09:12:15 AM
Looking forward to this one. Thanks for the write-up, Moriarty.
The Coens Improve on the Book. by bobbyjoe	Nov 23rd, 2007 10:05:10 AM
The anachronisms fit with the novel, though. McCarthy blurs the line about when exactly the novel's taking place; you might say its to give the book some sort of timeless quality, but when I was reading it, the anachronisms just seemed a little lazy, since McCarthy obviously wants his main character to be a still young-ish Vietnam vet but also wants useful plot mechanisms like ATMS to be widely available. Since I was aware of them from the novel, the anachronisms don't bother me so much in the film. The Coens do an excellent job actually, balancing between being faithful to the novel and getting rid of some of its more overblown and useless dialogue (like the implausible Batman villain "now before I kill you I'm going to explain to you my motiviations" speeches McCarthy sometimes gives to Two-Face... uh, I mean, Chigurh). And I know a lot of folks who post here disagree, but the book is still McCarthy's weakest. The pulp elements in the first two-thirds of the novel are interesting, and I'd like the "twist," if it didn't lead to McCarthy suddenly and jarringly trying way too hard to be the artsy McCarthy from the Border trilogy again with needless ruminations that the Coens wisely cut way down. Truth is, all I was left with at the end of the novel was a feeling of how much a naive dope Sheriff Bell is (which I don't think is the feeling McCarthy is going for with that character), as he rambles on and on about "kids with green hair" and violence in the modern world, when McCarthy has always suggested in his other books that crazy, extreme violence has historically ALWAYS been a part of the world. The Coens cut a lot of Bell's ramblings, or else put it in the mouths of more comical characters (the "green hair" comment for one goes to a fat dude in a white suit), and play up that scene with Barry Corbin that stresses that violence has always been around (more than the novel does), so that in the end we feel more for the good Sheriff Bell than that he's a grouchy, deluded old crank. In the film version of "All the Pretty Horses" cutting out much of McCarthy's poetic streak took away what made that novel special; in contrast, here in "No Country," cutting back on McCarthy's (lesser) poetics actually improves the material.
I can't decide whether to move by CherryValance	Nov 23rd, 2007 10:18:06 AM
or kill myself. This movie did not come out in my town. I could barely drag myself out of bed Wednesday after realizing my horrifying situation. sigh I don't know if you should have reminded us that you told them not to make any more movies. That's kinda silly. I mean anyone who has it in them should always continue making movies because someone will like them. I like plenty of movies no one else likes. And as far as I'm concerned the Coen brothers get a free pass for all time. Even if they only had RAISING ARIZONA on their resume I'd still give them that pass. Even if they made several films about mucus and tin foil, I wouldn't rescind it. Shame on you. I'm glad you enjoyed it though. :)
Stephen Root is in the Coen canon by bah	Nov 23rd, 2007 10:52:25 AM
O Brother and Ladykillers. Hate to nitpick, but since you were specifically listing people they haven't used.... By the way, I kind of like Intolerable Cruelty. Not the way I love their other stuff, but I liked that they were abd people who fall for each other for bad reasons, as opposed to real chick flicks, where any faults must be redeemed for the romance to work. And the ubiquitous paper works as one of the Coen's signature objects-that-become-characters (The Dude's rug, the hat in Miller's Crossing, the Spock book in Raising Arizona)
The Trouble with the Ending by lagomorph	Nov 23rd, 2007 12:15:53 PM
Is that it's not a conclusion. Imagine two trains racing towards one another at breakneck speed bound for collision and then CUT to a ripple in a pond. That's it in a nutshell. And frankly, a bit of the 'ol Hollywood glitz would have been the smarter choice in my opinion -they still could have gotten all their points across without denying the audience the payoff. It still could have ended the same way essentially.
Not much of a SPOILER at this point... by butcher71	Nov 23rd, 2007 12:56:35 PM
Book vs. movie: I thought too much of the novel was missing from the movie... each chapter began with Ed Tom's thoughts, so it was a little easier to see all along that it was about him. I missed the WWII story, I missed Chigurh's "interview" with a new employer later in the novel, I missed the additional dialogue with Carla Jean. One thing I loved about this story (novel and movie), is that the only person who was even close to being right about how it would all turn out was Ed Tom. Even Chigurh was wrong, and disappointed, and perhaps shaken (he hides from Ed Tom and looks sacred, he doesn't get the money delivered to him, he's in the wreck at the end). Anyhow, I'd like the Coens to make "The Road," but I know someone else has it already...
IndustryKiller... by tailhook	Nov 23rd, 2007 01:07:29 PM
This is somehow supposed to make things all better? The previews, the entire first half of the movie show a buildup to the big showdown between two ultimate badasses.... which never comes. We had one skirmish in the middle that was a draw with both sides pausing to fix their wounds and when the big finale is to come we get a bunch of mexicans piling out of the motel post-gunbattle into a pickup truck. Just wtf. Even PWSA couldn't fuck up that bad. What it feels like is seeing Joe Dimaggio take this awesome swing... and not hitting anything. Thing most people don't understand.. is no matter how great you swing.. if you don't connect.. its still a strike. In the end... the entire greatness of the first half of the movie gets tossed out the window because of the fucked up last reel. I don't care if the movie is about the sheriff and he ponders over what happened for 10 more minutes.. but FOR FUCKS DONT HAVE YOUR CLIMACTIC SHOWDOWN(Mexicans or Chagrin) OFFSCREEN. Fucking Coen Idiots.
The Trouble With The Ending (SPOILER WARNING) by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 01:08:23 PM
Is that it had to end that way. Lagomorph, if you were the writer what would you have suggested to give it "the 'ol Hollywood" glitz? Because to me, the ending was devastating. SPOILERISH PART BEGINS I completely identified with Tommy Lee Jones's "Sheriff Bell" in the complete paralysis he felt in the face of Chigur's evil. The whole movie plays up Chigur's unstoppable power. The heroes in this film are way out of his league. There are no more Wyatt Earps or Dirty Harry's out there. Just normal people who don't cut it. That's one of the reasons why I loved this movie. END OF SPOILERS By the way, this is my first post. Long time reader and lover of aintitcoolnews.
bobbyjoe by troutpencil	Nov 23rd, 2007 02:17:09 PM
Yeah, Bell is naive, but most people are concerning violence and the grotesque, horrible things that people are capable of. When anyone discovers or experiences a deep revelation concerning this kind of violence, it is an event worthy of the kind of meditation McCarthy expresses in No Country For Old Men. It's the typical view taken by an old man (and he is not a stupid old man), and McCarthy found that worth writing about. And as for the poetics, I think in that moment, when Chigurh is in the process of doing something so outrageously unreasonable and horrible to most people, it is tense enough to sell almost any dialogue. Most storytellers couldn't make it work, but the evil, calculating villain of a McCarthy novel in his most intense moment can pull it off. I also like that dialogue. Chigurh exists in his own world, but I still like trying to figure out his whole creepy logic. But I agree with you that it is the least of McCarthy's books. Still great, though.
NO trouble for GOOD Ending (minor spoiler) by nutnics	Nov 23rd, 2007 02:49:02 PM
The ending was fine. I felt 100% satisfied with the way it wrapped up. It was even better with Lee Jones' amazing line for line description of his dream that brought McCarthy's words to vivid life. Id listen to Tommy Lee narrate an entire McCarthy book for that matter. It was perfect.
Christian Bale cast as John Connor in Terminator 4... by American Mythos	Nov 23rd, 2007 02:52:51 PM
This project just now right this second got a little more interesting to me. What, are the writers on this site on strike with the WGA?
Another anachronism by Bobo_Vision	Nov 23rd, 2007 02:54:48 PM
When Chigurh asks Moss where the money is, and Moss says, "Whatchu talkin' bout Willis?!". Different Strokes hadn't even aired yet!
American Mythos... by TheRealMoriarty	Nov 23rd, 2007 02:56:43 PM
... look on the left hand column on the front page of the site. See the headline about "John Connor"? We broke the story in the first place.
nutnics by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 03:01:15 PM
Agreed. His acting in that monologue is incredible.
By the way by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 03:06:40 PM
I'm going out right now to get some of Cormac McCarthy's novels. Any suggestions as to which one I should read first?
Terry... by tailhook	Nov 23rd, 2007 04:06:47 PM
As a detractor... what would I suggest? I'd suggest things play out exactly as they did except the motel room showdown is actually filmed in its entirety. As it stands.. I was left with the impression that there was a Missing Reel Grindhouse style. Did they suddenly run out of money and have to do things on the cheap? Did they film it but save it for that super-special DVD Directors Cut? Its allready a 0 budget film for a couple of over-the-hill directors dreaming of grander days. Trying to get artsy fartsy to save money or pad the video numbers would not surprise me in the least. As it stands we're supposed to feel the tragedy second-hand through Tommy Lee Jones and there is no actor great enough to pull off that request. This is Cinema, Stupid. Show me.. don't tell me. Whats the point of getting invested in a character like Moss if you can't see his ultimate fate play out firsthand? Answer.. there is no point.
tailhook (spoilers) by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 04:38:26 PM
I don't think this is a budget issue. They wanted the audience to see the violence from the perspective of the Jones character. That's all the reason they really need. It doesn't really rob us of the "final showdown" because it wasn't even SPOILER Chigur that killed him.
tailhook by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 04:40:07 PM
and it probably wasn't very climactic anyway. He probably had no idea what was coming.
terry by tailhook	Nov 23rd, 2007 05:15:47 PM
'They wanted the audience to see the violence from the perspective of the Jones character'. Which is the fundamental flaw of these directors and what breaks the film into itty bitty pieces. It simply does not work. Even Tarantino isn't that stupid in the name of 'art'. If you setup for the big showdown.. you show the big showdown. Jones can react to the aftermath and w/e but leaving that scene on the cutting room floor or omitting it for 'art' sake.. whatever the excuse it simply destroys this film. People are giving this shit a pass because there were some great scenes earlier in the film and if thats all you want... some scattered great scenes then I feel sorry for you. Scattered great scenes do not a great movie make.. and one poorly filmed scene can destroy everything that came before it, especially if that scene involves the climax of the story. A film must be a cohesive whole.. if it isn't.. its shit. In this case.. the smell is god awful. Can't tell you how much I detest this film. I hate it more than a simple bad movie hack/slash job due to the fact this HAD enormous potential with its awesome setup. It was a colossal wasted opportunity and a clear example of how one atrocious decision can mean the difference between a great film and a godawful one.
Tailhook Im sorry but by IndustryKiller!	Nov 23rd, 2007 05:19:33 PM
that is the way the story had to end. There were two forces chasing Llewelyn Moss, the Mexicans and Chigurh, it made more sense narratively that the Mexicans got to him first, and rather than show an inti climactic gunfight that would pale in comparison to its predecessor, they chose to show the conclusion to keep the story moving at a rightful pace. It's not a fight we had to see, the Mexicans showed up, shots were exchanged, people killed, including Moss and the Mexicans take off before they can get to the money leaving Chigurh, who saw that Moss previously hid it in an air duct, to come and collect later on. Could the story have gone elsewhere? I suppose, but considering where it did end up heading they were totally justified in not showing a gunfight we've seen in a hundred other movies.
Hacktastic?!? by TheBladehelm	Nov 23rd, 2007 05:23:16 PM
You people who need neat little endings tied in a bow make me fucking sick. [SPOILERS COMING] I, for one, had the wind knocked out of me when they revealed Josh Brolin's lifeless body. It hit me in the way a real death should, unexpected and way before its time. The movie seems to do a 180 and shift to Ed Tom's perspective, but in reality, it was his perspective we were observing the entire time. Perhaps this ending is to clever for you, perhaps your brain is too fucked by formulaic bullshit we usually see in movies, but to call the Coen's "hacktastic" or anything of the sort is just admitting that you need movies to be safe and give you exactly what you expect. Simply put, movies are better when they defy expectations.
What I would like to get other peoples insight on by IndustryKiller!	Nov 23rd, 2007 05:24:09 PM
Is what they think the Car crash at the end was supposed to signify. i;ve heard things ranging from, its supposed to show just how unstoppable evil is, to that it ties in to what Chigurh says earlier about how your life, despite what happened previously, ends up coming down to a single moment. It's an interesting metaphor and one I;m not sure I can come to a conclusion on without see the film again. Also, does the fact that Chigurh checks his boots after coming out of Moss's wife's house suggest that he did in fact kill her since earlier we saw him avoiding getting his boots dirty when he killed people? I didn't even think about that until someone pointed it out to me.
Plus by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 05:25:10 PM
The real climax with Moss's character is the scene between his wife and Chighur. All of his decisions led to that scene. But I can see why you are pissed. The movie just worked for me.
IndustryKiller (spoilers) by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 05:35:19 PM
SPOILERS SPOILERS Even though he didn't die, to me the car crash actually showed how vulnerable Chigur is. That despite his almost unstoppable power, he is just human. He could die in a car wreck like any of us. And yes, I do think he killed Moss's wife.
Interesting Terry by IndustryKiller!	Nov 23rd, 2007 05:50:58 PM
And to further expand on that, he is not only vulnerable but vulnerable to the same fatalist bullshit that he likes to spout to everyone else but he clearly feels he is above, and maybe even fancies himself the human personification thereof. On the Moss's wife topic the only thing I don;t like about that scene is not that it didn't show if he killed her, but if she called the coin or not. I would have liked to have seen if Chigurh would then makes the decision on his own, which would then all but prove the point she makes to him.
Moss's wife by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 05:58:27 PM
Just based on what we were shown, I got the impression that she refused to call the coin and Chigur was forced to make his own decision. It's definitely ambiguous. Does anybody who read the book know what actually happened? Oh, and why do you think Chighur insisted on giving money to the kid with the shirt? It seems to be a linking to Brolin's character on the border crossing but I don't understand the connection.
no shit he killed her by troutpencil	Nov 23rd, 2007 06:04:56 PM
In the book it says he shot her, in the movie they don't show it, but it is completely fucking clear. I was worried when I saw him checking his boots that some people in the audience wouldn't pick up on it, even though it was utterly and absolutely obvious (and would have been even if I had not read the book). Why would he not have killed her? I think this talkback proves that the majority of this website's userbase is cinematically illiterate, despite all of their bullshit. That goes for Mirajeff or whatever other reviewers said the movie was "destroyed" by the ending too, as well as you people here. Jesus, any kind of quality must be utterly mysterious and illusive to you all if you suffer from such a terrible, stunted miosis. If you come away from No Country for Old Men with such a retarded misunderstanding of it, how do you cope with the majority of good movies? There is a little bit of mystery and vagueness to a lot of great movies, and if you're incapable of thinking about anything abstract or unclear or requiring an iota of actual depth, what the fuck are you doing when you watch them?
troutpencil by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 06:12:13 PM
Yeah, it was pretty clear to me. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "completely fucking clear" though. Doesn't make industrykiller or myself cinematically illiterate. And how is our understanding of the film retarded?
And he wouldn't have killed her by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 06:22:30 PM
if she called heads or tails correctly.
Open Letter to Moriarty: Please Post Spoiler Warnings, Dope by Behemoth	Nov 23rd, 2007 06:35:57 PM
Not just for "bad movies," but "movies at all." Thank God I just checked this out after seeing this awesome flick, or I would truly have been robbed of a great moment of filmmaking. Your review above (Paragraph 10) COMPLETELY spoils a key element of the film. I feel truly sorry for anyone who read that and had an amazing piece of art ruined for them to a large degree by that kind of thoughtlessness. In fact, at this point it's beyond just "thoughtlessness," as this link has been up for awhile now, and there is STILL no spoiler warning attached to it. That's just downright nastiness. In any case, thank God the Coens paid your "open letter" no heed. Besides, I thought Ladykillers was great. You need to be tazered with a large jolt of humility. From this point forward, anyone spoiling great filmmaking in their reviews with no warning wears his ass for a hat.
Ass for a hat by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 06:45:21 PM
There are many people who's ass I would not want to see as a hat. Can we think of a different punishment Behemoth?
Had to say it, TerryMalloy by Behemoth	Nov 23rd, 2007 07:01:55 PM
It was one of my favorite lines in "Raising Arizona," uttered by Goodman. In fact, the Coens are responsible for pretty much all of my top comedic lines in movie history, like "not unless round is funny," "they had Yodas and shit on 'em," and the simply incredible "why these boys desecrated a fiery cross." Their movies are a treasure trove of quotable lines, INCLUDING Ladykillers, which is far from their best, but FAR, FAR, FAAARRR from being a bad film, even by the Coen's high standards. And anyone who says differently....well, you know.
yeah i'm an asshole, terrymalloy by troutpencil	Nov 23rd, 2007 07:03:29 PM
I meant all the people bitching about the movie's ending were retardedly misunderstanding it, not industrykiller, and grouped them together. Seriously though, this is depressing.
I kind of understand though by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 07:23:19 PM
why people got angry at the ending. My sister went to the movie with me, and after it was over she was let down. I explained to her why I thought it ended the way it did. I was sort of longwinded about it and her response was "I didn't know I had to write a book report in order to understand it." Some people just don't expect or want to do a lot of thinking when they watch a film. She still really enjoyed it though.
Raising Arizona by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 07:26:20 PM
is so wackshit crazy I forgot that line behemoth. That's a good one.
movie opinions don't make one superior by jivatmax	Nov 23rd, 2007 07:53:43 PM
the script is bad , the directing is crap, and the lack of score ruins the mood. It isn't an intelligent movie, it isn't groundbreaking, or even entertaining. You people have no basis for acting elitist about any film, especially this one. My favorite Director is Malick, but I don't cry and get snobby when people hate his films.
Jivatmax by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 08:01:28 PM
You are so beneath me. And I will not stop crying.
Seriously though by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 08:06:45 PM
I'm interested in why you think the script is bad, the directing, score, etc. It's not like the best film I've ever seen but I thought it was good and definitely entertaining. People are allowed to disagree and get pissed off about the ending. I just want to know why.
there is a point at which people will believe anything... by tailhook	Nov 23rd, 2007 08:07:26 PM
Aliens.. crop circles... that the ending of this movie wasn't a botched piece of shit. It wasn't a question of thinking.. I wanted what I paid for.. a satisfying climax to the film. When it looks like a duck.. walks like a duck.. and goes to talk and says 'bark'... you know you didn't get what you paid for. Its just amazing how many apologists there are out there because the Coens have put out far superior work before this little turd. They want so badly for this to fit what they've seen before that they will make any excuse to give it a pass rather than criticizing it on its own merits. Sad little people.. I wonder how you get any enjoyment out of movies at all.
Instead of an apologist by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 08:15:49 PM
I would like to be thought of as a defender. A warrior for the cause if you will. And I haven't even seen all of the Coen Brothers canon. I'm "defending" the film on its own merits. I'll grant you that seeing another showdown between Chigur and Brolin would have been pretty cool. But it would have made him seem more heroic than he was. SPOILER He could have chosen to save his wife for god's sake. As is, the last thing we see him doing is semi-flirting with some pool girl. And that's exactly how they wanted us to see him go.
Oh please tailhook by IndustryKiller!	Nov 23rd, 2007 08:33:44 PM
We aren't apologists and you damn well know it. You're just pissy cause we disagree with you. We've given plenty of well thought out reasons why the ending works, because you don't like nay of them doesn't make them wrong. You better get used to it though, this movie is going to be remembered fondly and you'll be hearing about it from film enthusiasts for the rest of your life.
So far this and Into the Wild are the two films.... by IndustryKiller!	Nov 23rd, 2007 08:36:51 PM
that are most likely to get Oscar nods this year thus far. There Will be Blood will probably be added to that mix.
He's pissy because by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 08:40:26 PM
he didn't feel he got his money's worth. I felt like I got mine in spades. The cat-and-mouse sequence with Moss and Chigur alone was worth the price of admission.
And IndustrKiller by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 08:41:53 PM
They will probably end up being my favorite movies of 2007. Day-Lewis is the best living actor we have today.
High Stakes by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 09:22:03 PM
What the hell is wrong with using the term "high stakes"?
The ending fucking RUINED the movie!!! by El Scorcho	Nov 23rd, 2007 09:41:16 PM
Well, not ruined. It knocked it down from an A to like a B-. But the ending totally blew, and the audience I was with definitely hated it. There were people yelling about refunds, seriously. Actually, on second thought, there was no ending. The film just sort of meandered for the last 20 minutes and then... stopped.
Terry: Best Cormac McCarthy book is... by SkinJob69	Nov 23rd, 2007 09:44:38 PM
Blood Meridian. Period. I first heard about it years ago when a Roger Ebert review mentioned it, stating it had been called "the most violent book in American Literature". Quite a boast there, I thought, but after reading it I certainly understand the asessment. It has also been compared, seriously, to the Bible. Quite an epic, and it has a genius villian, the Preacher, who's kind of like a Hannibal Lectcter of the wild west. Amazing character. But it's not the violence that distinguishes the book (although some of the images described are unforgettable- if anyone here has read it, you'll no doubt remember the slaughter on the lakeshore, the dancing bear scene, the charge of the native americans dressed in the clothing of their victims, e.g. a brides gown, wiping out a bunch of army regulars sodomizing one of them as he bleeds to death. A hard-core wild west tale, but with tremendous scope and philosophical depth (and also a very shocking, and incredibly affecting ending). IMHO:)
SkinJob by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 09:53:38 PM
Thanks a lot. I'll dig into that soon. And why was it compared to the Bible, seriously? In what way? In the amount of violence or its importance? And El Scorcho, sorry the ending pretty much ruined it for you. You are apparently not alone.
Oops- by SkinJob69	Nov 23rd, 2007 09:59:36 PM
The character's name is The Judge, not the Preacher. His dialogue is fantastic, almost poetic at times- an intelligent, complex character who can be kind at times, and depending on the circumstances, completely cold and heartless. If this makes it to the screen the actor portraying the Judge will make or break the film-
Blood Meridian- Biblical in it's themes by SkinJob69	Nov 23rd, 2007 10:12:27 PM
I'd heard the comparisons of the book to the Bible only after I read it. The comparison hadn't occured to me personally. But the comparisons are not usually made in any specific, literal sense- more in relation to broad themes, philosophical concepts, etc. Wikipedia quote: "Blood Meridian is a dense, sometimes difficult novel that demands close attention. There are references on nearly every page to historical, religious or mystical concepts, events or persons. John Emil Sepich's Notes on Blood Meridian was the first examination of the novel's sources, their context and significance. Additional books and articles have also examined McCarthy's sources for the novel."
Don't follow Tailhook down the rabbit hole by :-o	Nov 23rd, 2007 10:22:36 PM
He's either being ironic or baiting you guys. No one is that big a buffoon.
NCFOM= "Little turd"??! by SkinJob69	Nov 23rd, 2007 10:31:59 PM
Wow, tailhook, were you born with your head in your ass or did you just push really hard? The ending of the movie matched that of the (best-selling) book. The movie has a 96% tomatometer rating, and many feel it will be a contender for best picture. Sorry it didn't work for you, but the movie deserves the praise it's getting. There is no vast movie-critic conspiracy here- it's just a great adaptation of an even better book-
Stupid Fucking Americans... by J.eugenewilson	Nov 23rd, 2007 11:01:43 PM
First of all, if every filmmaker followed Hollywood tradition, movies would being boring as fuck. Secondly, why is it American audiences need to be handed everything on a platter? I never questioned the ending for a second. It's art, not choose your own adventure. And finally, Intolerable Cruelty, although far from their best, IS A SATIRE OF THE KIND OF MOVIE YOU IDIOTS SEEM TO THINK IT IS! Clooney's slapstick makes the movie. There, I feel better now.
One of the best times for films since 1999 by Larry of Arabia	Nov 23rd, 2007 11:02:15 PM
There are some potentially great movies coming out now, some of them confirmed great. No Country, There Will Be Blood, Persepolis, I'm Not There, The Kite Runner, Enchanted (yes, it's a great kids movie), Juno, Sweeny Todd, and I'm holding out hope for The Bucket List (please make a good film Rob, you can do it!). Movie life is good.
Best Picture?!?! by tailhook	Nov 23rd, 2007 11:19:03 PM
Wow.. lay it on reaaaaaaal thick. Why not go whole hog and claim it should be on the top 10 AFI 100 movies list? Sheesh. The only shot at an academy award this movie has is for Javiar Bardem for best supporting. As per it 'matching' the ending of the (bestselling)book.. books are books, movies are movies. Something which may work in the written medium simply doesn't translate well at all in the visual. This is one of those times and any competant director would have known that and the Coens damn well should have. Lets do The Coen Idiocy with other movies shall we? Reservoir Dogs.. cut the ending and a couple beat cops show up and discover three guys dead.. add 5 minutes of reminisicing about how bad their life is and then cut to black. Unforgiven... no bar scene.. simply show the perspective of a townsfolk who looks over.. hears a shotgun blast, and sees Clint bailing out of the bar at the end screaming to give Ned a proper burial. We don't need to see none of that bar stuff... we can figure out what happened. Kill Bill... cut The House of the Blue Leaves scene.. have the last of the eighty-eight who had accidentally been in the bathroom at the time come out and discover the carnage. We don't need to show that... we can interpolate and figure out Bad Shit Happened. Oh.. and the guy took off his mask so can't you UNDERSTAND THE SCENE just by looking at his shocked face? OMG IS IT NOT ARTSY-FARTSY ENOUGH NOW? Liberal Pot Head Media Arts professors will assign this shit for unexpecting students to watch and 'analyze' every year! Doesn't that make it the bestest movie ever? ALL SETUP. NO CLIMAX. BLUE BALLS IS THE NEW ART. THE PURPLER THE BETTER. At least I have solace in the fact that it will only be about a month until There Will Be Blood comes out.
Btw Terry by tailhook	Nov 23rd, 2007 11:22:40 PM
I rest my case. Not an apologist. Check.. you're a warrior. I claim the people who give this a pass do so because they like isolated scenes. You say one scene was 'worth the price of admisson'. Check. So, like thanks for proving my talking points.
Tailhook by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 11:33:44 PM
We will see whether it will be nominated for best picture. I'd say it has a fair shot. And I actually liked the WHOLE movie. Maybe if I hated the ending too then one scene would not be worth the price of admission. But I can't say because I liked the ending. And again I don't think seeing the Mexican gang kill those people would have satisfied you anyways. It looked to me like Brolin got killed without much of a fight. The decision not to show something is a letitimate technique. I don't think it would have made the other films you mentioned any better. But I do think it made this film better. I'll give you one thing: the phrase "blue balls is the new art" is pretty funny.
And thanks by TerryMalloy	Nov 23rd, 2007 11:36:07 PM
for calling me a warrior.
lol ya... by tailhook	Nov 24th, 2007 12:07:56 AM
Any chance they would actually use it in the print ads? Probably not.. they wouldn't want to be accused of True Advertising(tm).
I would apply the slogan "Blue Balls Is The New Art" by TerryMalloy	Nov 24th, 2007 12:18:39 AM
to the movie "Cache". Which I thought was great, but damn if I didn't want a true Hitchcockian ending to that movie instead of going all political.
The Silence is Deafening by BenFerris	Nov 24th, 2007 02:17:00 AM
I think three or four people mentioned it already, but the one thing that stood out the most to me, was the absence of a score throughout the entire film except the ending credits. Which I thought was great. Hell, when I was walking out of the theater I felt like I was right back in the movie. I was expecting to be taken down by that silenced shotgun. This movie was the most original of the year, and for that I loved it.
That's my favorite part by TerryMalloy	Nov 24th, 2007 02:47:25 AM
of going to the movies. When you walk out of the theater and you are still in the world of the film.
Tailhook by JimBobCooter	Nov 24th, 2007 02:54:05 AM
SPOILER: Not to respond to your baiting -- you are indeed a master baiter -- but this needs to be said. Most of the sucker punch you feel at not having your grand climactic battle is ON PURPOSE. You are so sure he will be one step ahead, that you -- like Josh & Tommy Lee -- are completely shocked and saddened and, yes, disappointed that evil wins with little fanfare. So is it the movie's fault if it aims to make a statement and ACHIEVES this statement? You can not like the statement, but you can't say it wasn't successful or had a bad script or bad directing (which was just an ignorant statement anyway). I didn't like where "Adaptation" went at first, but I marveled that it took me in a direction no other movie has dared. Yes, you can not like where it went. But it is not a failure if it wanted to tell a story where evil has out-evolved good because evil is sociopathic but good is affected by its memory. It told a story in a new way. You were expecting Die Hard. And also, Josh could've saved his wife, but was arrogant and selfish. Some could argue he got what he deserved, which is satisfying. The end.
Not fucking Bell's movie, you douche. by ErrantNight	Nov 24th, 2007 03:00:14 AM
Really, because you were so disappointed about Intolerable Cruelty (which you clearly didn't get, which isn't to say that it isn't worth tearing them a new asshole over... just that you missed the point entirely, either that, or you've failed to ever acknowledge what that movie was really about in your review and your open letter) & The Ladykillers (alright, it was bad, but not even in the bottom 25% of movies released that year) they should stop making movies.... then, the Coens MAKE A NEW MOVIE... and YOU DON'T FUCKING GET IT. They've accomplished making this Moss's movie... are you high? How the fuck is this Moss's movie? He's the fucking narrator. He's a fringe character for most of the action. He's commenting on what has happened, on the character who's story this really is (at least you noticed it wasn't Moss's)... it's Anton fucking Chigurgh's story. He's the protagonist. He's the one who makes things happen. He starts acting and suddenly Moss is the antagonist, responding to Anton's actions. Anton is the force of nature sweeping through this film, the uncompromising character, and the only one with honor (perverted, fucked up honor, but honor), a code which he follows. Bell's character is essential, yes, and his observations at the end are critical, but that doesn't mean it's his story. It's a story he observed that he was essentially completely distant from that he's framing for you, and that's insanely important, but it's not his god damn story. Get a fucking clue.
ErrantNight by TerryMalloy	Nov 24th, 2007 03:29:53 AM
You can make the point that Chigur is the protagonist but it doesn't really change anything. Antagonists carry their own protagonist function. Both drive the story with their actions. They just have opposite goals. Hanz Gruber from Die Hard could have been the protagonist if we started the movie on him and not McClane. Personally, I think we are supposed to identify with Moss as the protagonist. We can't really identify or sympathize with Chighur until later. I don't think Mori was trying to identify Bell as the protagonist. Just that his framing of the story was the way we the audience are supposed to interpret the movie. It's Bell's movie in the sense that he is the only character in the movie that really undergoes a change. That learns anything from this whole ordeal.
In a typical movie (SPOILER) by TerryMalloy	Nov 24th, 2007 03:34:26 AM
Brolin's character would have realized at the end that what he needs to do is stop being selfish, make the sacrifice, and save his family. But he doesn't do that. He has learned nothing. He's still the same greedy, selfish bastard who got in way over his head.
Ego by TheBladehelm	Nov 24th, 2007 04:21:51 AM
Don't you think it's a little egotistical to take the attitude that a movie like this has no merit? To discount it entirely despite the fact that it has overwhelming praise? What you're doing is saying the rest of us aren't smart enough to realize this movie is crap. Well, congratfuckinglations for being so much smarter than the rest of us. You get to win, and be king of the assholes.
Tailhook I'll bet you money on a best pic nom by IndustryKiller!	Nov 24th, 2007 04:23:24 AM
Its just about the best reviewed film of the year and certainly the one with the most hype as far as momentum into awards season. That and the only complaint anyone has about it is the ending, which the vast majority of people liked. It's also by the Coen brothers who are widely regarded as geniuses and very well liked within the industry and considering they have been making some of the best movies ever for the last god knows how many years I would say Oscar is probably reading to give them a little recognition. At the very least I say the bros. get nominated for best directing.
Sorry AICN... by American Mythos	Nov 24th, 2007 06:13:59 AM
I have the attention span of a two-year-old. This website is designed so that the "LATEST NEWS" column immediately draws my gaze. I rarely ever look to the left. I should try sometime.
Tailhook acts like he speaks for the majority by Garbageman33	Nov 24th, 2007 08:30:22 AM
Like everyone hated the ending and wanted to see the typical "Collateral" type ending in which an ordinary man kills a previously unstoppable killing machine. Sorry, Tailhook, but look around. Virtually every critic has called this movie nothing short of a classic. In fact, it has something like a 96% rating at rottentomatoes, which is unheard of. So stop acting like you speak for the masses. You don't.
(SPOILER) My take on the car crash by Garbageman33	Nov 24th, 2007 08:33:39 AM
Was the completely random nature of things. In fact, Anton had just mentioned something like that to Carla Jean when she said a coin toss was totally random and he said "So is my being here". I think it was just the irony that he was this supposedly unstoppable force, but he wasn't immune to something as basic as a car accident.
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD FUCKING MEN!!!! by BringingSexyBack	Nov 24th, 2007 09:26:14 AM
Okay?
M-O-M - IN MORIARTY'S DEFENSE ... by BringingSexyBack	Nov 24th, 2007 09:38:32 AM
Drew is basically saying that the Coens are so great that he would rather have them quit making movies than trash their reputations and legacy. That's far different from Michael Bay, whose work no one thinks about as soon as the credits roll. To me, that's totally logical. It's like how, as much a genius as Stanley Kubrick was, his career ended with the horrendous Eyes Wide Shut. It ain't right.
OR TAKEN ANOTHER WAY ... by BringingSexyBack	Nov 24th, 2007 09:51:35 AM
Imagine you have a lovely daughter, whom you love with all your heart and soul, and you know she deserves only the best. Then she comes home with AnimalStructure. At that point you'd probably think she's better off dead. See? Logical.
M-O-M, I hate to always be by comedian_x	Nov 24th, 2007 10:00:13 AM
Moriarty's defender but the logic behind the whimsical idea of begging the Coen's to stop making films is based on the fact that Moriarty holds to them to high standards -- yes, higher than Michael Bay even. The Coen's he begs to stop aren't the creators of Barton Fink, Big Lebowski, Miller's Crossing, or Rising Arizona; but rather the damaged and soul-crushed Coen's of the post To The White Sea debacle. These are the Coen's he wants to stop and, yes, never return. Moriarty ends his capricious piece by pleading the new Coen's to find their Barton Finkian beach and recharge -- to be born anew. Thankfully for us their "beach" was the scorched desert of Texas Border Country; their midwife a Dutch-Boy hairstyled psychopath.
My thoughts - Spoilers by jones1899	Nov 24th, 2007 10:06:11 AM
Spoilers... First of all, to the few who think the scene where we discover Moss is dead should have been amped up by some piece of music...no. For me, when a movie's score does this it comes off as an obvious crutch to help along an otherwise limp reveal. When you build the characters and the story properly, just seeing a dead man that you've come to know works just fine. As for the car crash? Here's my take for what its worth. Ok so there are obvious links to Moss crossing the border (he even says he was in a car crash and gives a young man money for his shirt) Whats interesting, is that Anton gets hit because he was watching the boys on the bike. I took this as Anton looking back on the innocence of childhood that he probablt never knew. He lets his guard down for the first time in the film then BAM - gets nearly killed for it, patches himself up, and continues on his cold trail of murder. He's evil and can't be anything else. As for the ending - well part of me thinks that it takes a damn good writer and film maker to pull make a Hollywood ending Unhollywood and I would have loved to see that gunfight. But we all know Tommy Lee would have been killed. He said as much to his wife. He was going for a ride on his horse and we all know where he was going and that he would have met up with his dead father and grandfather when he got there. What else do we need to know? That ending left we thinking on it far more than a shootout would have.
Tailhook, you mentioned Reservoir Dogs... by Bobo_Vision	Nov 24th, 2007 10:22:42 AM
...as one of the movies that would be drastically different if they didn't include a climactic shootout integral to the story, BUT, they DIDN'T include the climactic shootout integral to the story. The entire movie is about the bank heist, and the shootout which takes place in the bank, but you never see it. They keep talking about how Michael Madsen's character was a complete madman in the bank, but you never see it. The key scene of the movie which they spend the entire movie building up to, and which leads to all the fallout afterwards...is never shown. Bad example, and proof that you're dead wrong on this issue.
TerryMalloy RE: Trouble with the End (SPOILERS) by lagomorph	Nov 24th, 2007 10:38:30 AM
SPOILERS from here on out. I think everyone here understands what I mean by "Hollywood glitz". I mean a showdown between the two characters we've followed up until that point that ends in one or both of them getting corpsed up or at the very least visually closes out their feud. I understand -oh do I ever- that the Coens wanted to make their points about unstoppable evil. But, it is they who created the suspense and anticipation of the showdown by the style they chose to film in and the scenes they chose to include. They made the audience believe that Lewellyn had it in him to at least stand toe-to-toe against Chigurgh. Why blame the audience for feeling deflated when suddenly the story becomes about the Sherriff's impotence? The filmmakers fail to commit to the path they themselves lead the audience down. Were there hints that the story could go this way? Yeah. But it's never as clear as it was in the novel that this is the Sheriff's story as so many "defenders" of the ending like to claim. major SPOILERS Again, it didn't have to end on a shootout. The ending still could have been Sheriff Bell finds Lewellyn's body and retires. Heck, they still could have had Lewellyn killed by the gangsters and not Chigurgh. I stand by the position that it just wasn't handled very well and any devastation or shock you felt was a natural result of being hornswaggled. I have to admit that it was a very bold choice and it may have ultimately served the story they wanted to tell, but that doesn't mean it was the right choice for the movie they gave us up until that point. --- on a side note-- the way Lewellyn's body is found does echo the beginning of the film where he stumbles upon the aftermath of the shootout and it makes sense to the Sheriff's story in that he always shows up after all the shooting is done and the dust has settled.
Bobo_Vision by comedian_x	Nov 24th, 2007 10:41:46 AM
The film isn't about a climatic shootout or even Moss' death. The film is about Sheriff Bell's contemplations of the Modern Age. The books does a better job of showing this, but it works in the film too. It may be unsatisfying, but it is that is what loyalty to the original text yields. Cormac is the ultimate badass.
EYES WIDE SHUT SUCKED!!!!!!!! by BringingSexyBack	Nov 24th, 2007 10:47:13 AM
It was horrendous! Brilliant? Are you on crack, sir?!?!
comedian_x by Bobo_Vision	Nov 24th, 2007 10:48:41 AM
You're preaching to the choir.
Candy Wrapper by lagomorph	Nov 24th, 2007 11:01:17 AM
I hate that I'm bringing all this negativity to a movie that I genuinely liked. A movie that I would rather people see than not see. As I tried to say earlier the end was, as one AICN-er put it, "blue balls" but it wasn't a deal breaker. Let me focus on something I did like. Only the Coens could make a candy wrapper look as menacing and foreboding as it does during the scene at the gas station. I could have watched that a thousand times.
I eat my words and enjoy every bite by Tripster2001	Nov 24th, 2007 11:08:07 AM
I predicted doom for this film as did not believe anybody, even the early Coens could make it work. After Intolerable and Ladykillers, I was more certain of disater all around. Oh was I wrong R-O-N-G wrong!!!! Go see it. Go love it.
Bobo_Vision, Oh by comedian_x	Nov 24th, 2007 11:08:52 AM
Sorry, then that last post is directed at all who disagree with great-thinker Bobo-Vision.
To those who hated the ending: by vmj19	Nov 24th, 2007 11:09:52 AM
Sorry this film did not cast Dolph Lundgren as Llewelyn and Steven Seagal as Anton. Then you would love the ending when Llewelyn is hanging on for dear life on the landing rail of a helicopter that's 4000 feet in the air and Anton tries to step on his hands only for Llewelyn to throw the money in his face then grab his leg and toss him off and Anton has the cliche "NOOOOOO!" fall to his death and Llewelyn climbs to safety and says "Hope you enjoyed your flight". Now that's kick ass right? This demand for witnessing bloodshed only confirms the message in the film that there are those who see the world full of people who make senseless violence an everyday facet of their lives. If you are really angry and feel conned because you did not get to see a "bad ass" shootout at the end, then you really need to ask yourself if you enjoy the art of cinema and storytelling or just need to rub one out for your bloodlust.
WOW. Writing is back... by MrFacety	Nov 24th, 2007 11:45:06 AM
This is what QT should be or is capable of but quit after pulp. The cohens got cute for a minute with the comedic themes, but they are back. Gotdamn, "call it..."
Basically lagomorph by TerryMalloy	Nov 24th, 2007 12:49:35 PM
It's a matter of opinion. I found the ending shocking, powerful, and right on. You wanted Chighur and Llewelyn to go at it one final time. I think it would have made the film worse. Nothing else to say really. AnimalStructure I will make sure not to ever use the term high stakes.
I'm still afraid I'm going to hate the ending... by BMacSmith	Nov 24th, 2007 12:54:17 PM
hope its not the case, but i think i will.
Yackbacker: [Spoilers] by Dr. Chim Richalds	Nov 24th, 2007 01:03:10 PM
Interesting interpretation, and maybe something about which the Coens should be praised for bringing to the story. In the book, it is made clear that the wife does eventually call the coin toss but loses, at which point she is shot. The car accident results not from Chigurh losing concentration, but from a couple of stoned teenagers plowing through a red light and hitting his car broadside. I do like the (intentional?) ambiguity in the film, though.
BMacSmith by TerryMalloy	Nov 24th, 2007 01:03:59 PM
Don't be afraid. Just enjoy the ride.
Dr. Chim Richalds (SPOILER) by TerryMalloy	Nov 24th, 2007 01:11:55 PM
SPOILER I think the only ambiguity is whether she called it or not. As previously mentioned, the boots look gives it away. But it's interesting that in the book she does eventually call it. That kind of leaves Chigur with less of a crisis. Here's what Javier Bardem says on the movie: "I think the movie speaks of a lack of meaning in violence. I embody violence, I am violence itself in the movie, and there is a man ... who is trying to understand the meaning of it and at the end there is no meaning."
How the characters turned out wasn't the problem. by El Scorcho	Nov 24th, 2007 03:12:58 PM
It was how it was told that totally sucked. Moss had to die, I get that. That wasn't the issue. I didn't even care as much that we didn't see it, but after that the movie goes nowhere for 20 minutes and just stops.
MOM/BRU, you dickhead. by DocPazuzu	Nov 24th, 2007 03:57:43 PM
Yet another instance of the thing you refuse to acknowledge, namely that you don't master English well enough to understand the subtleties involved in making hyperbolic, mock-serious statements in order to make a point. Tell us again about how you'll only recognize critique of your English if it comes from a Briton. Putz.
Mark my words by IndustryKiller!	Nov 24th, 2007 04:07:16 PM
It will get a best picture nom. If it doesn't I'll be the first to admit i'm wrong. But it's got universal acclaima nd all the publicity and momentum in the word going for it right now,a nd despite what one thinks of the ending it's an absolutely immaculately directed film. One can't tell these things just frm the reaction in their theater, I remember the ovation that my theater gave X3 and now we widely regard that movie as a cinematic joke. It's inarguably one of the best films of the year and the Academy is going to recognize the Coens for it.
How can you say the movie goes nowhere? by IndustryKiller!	Nov 24th, 2007 04:19:14 PM
That scene between Chigurh and Moss's wife was fucking incredible. The resolution as we needed it was when moss dies and Chigurh ends up with the money. The movie have ended there but then goes into a prologue. The movie didn't go nowhere, it went further than it even needed to.
Wow...a nice change of pace... by CConrad	Nov 24th, 2007 04:32:28 PM
Damn, ain't it refreshing that a lot of the discussion here is actually about the possible MEANINGS behind the film and not about how Michael Bay fucked up Optimus Prime's face or how fat Harry is. If anything, this proves how powerful and original OLD COUNTRY is if it can force what typically serves as a soapbox for geek douchebags to, you know, engage in somewhat intelligent converstation about a film. Congrats, Coen Bros., you've achieved something I thought I'd never see.
Numbers by TheBladehelm	Nov 24th, 2007 04:41:59 PM
Consider the following, this movie is showing on a total of 148 screens and is currently 7th overall box office. Number 6, "Dan in Real Life" has 1901 theaters. There's only one explanation, and that's people watching it and sending their friends back to see it. You may be better than the rest of us if you wanted a typical Hollywood movie that follows your rules, but I see Oscar noms all over this thing. Picture, Director, Supporting Actor, maybe even Best Actor.
By The Numbers by TheBladehelm	Nov 24th, 2007 04:47:27 PM
I keep thinking of Janet's (SLUT!) response to Frank when he asks, "Well what do you think?" She replies, "I don't like a man with too many muscles." To which Frank responds, "I didn't make him for YOU!" Consider the following, if you didn't like the ending because it didn't conform to your idea of how a movie SHOULD be made, then perhaps this movie isn't bad, it just isn't for you. But where the fuck do you get off sitting there in the dark demanding that every fucking movie made follows your notion of storytelling? I'd love one reasonable explanation of the fact that if a movie follows a formula, people bitch about that, and if it strays from the path, people bitch about it even more. The movies you would have us watch would blend so mindlessly into one another that in the end, there will be no more new stories, just the same stories over and over with different settings and people. Well fuck that!
Saw it yesterday. by Juggernaut125	Nov 24th, 2007 05:03:34 PM
SPOILERS And I've been mulling it over ever since. Never read the book. Read Mori's review and it was the final clincher to my seeing it. I was not disappointed. Everything I've heard was validated. Brolin, Javier even Jones whom I've felt lackluster to since his MIB days that seem to riff on his Fugitive performance. This all seemed so new and VERY compelling. I LIKED Llewelyn. The choices he made were intelligent and character driven from start to finish. I never disbelieved any of his motivations and (although I was somewhat spoiled by the review)I still hoped to see how it all came out. So the ending does trouble me. I'm not looking for the big knock down drag out shoot out between Llew and Anton. From his demise, I came to the conclusion that it was the Mexicans that took charge and Anton only showed up after it was over. (The scene with Jones in the motel room was edge-of-my-seat-riveting). But a couple of things do trouble me about the story. #1. Anton's confrontation with Root seemed disjointed. The sort of thing I'd expect AFTER everything was resolved. I had a hard time believing he would take the time to go see him when the job wasn't yet done. It's not like Root was going anywhere. #2 The chicken farmer. Personally, I kind of hoped he had some quality about him that Chigurgh might accept as worthy of letting him live. As part of his 'code'. (But that's just me. Maybe I'm not 'supposed' to understand Chigurgh #3. The ending that seems to divide everyone. It has left me undecided. If I look at the movie as Bell's story, then one could say that every incident is relayed threw Bell's eyes. And for the most part that makes sense. Every scene could be/would be dissected under the keen eye of the seasoned Sheriff. All of the evidence of the bodies, the bullets, the busted door locks and blood stained carpets tell him the story and he tells us. He would get eye witness reports eventually that fill in other blanks to be able to tell us, the audience how Moss's life led him to it's conclusion. But my problem with this is there are some scenes that he wouldn't know so intimately... no. Scratch that. It all makes sense now. Bell is the narrator. He tells us the story as all of the evidence is laid out to him. Things he wouldn't know for certain are embellished. But when it comes to the finale, it seems weak. But that is BECAUSE the narrator, Bell, just can't bring himself to follow the case to it's conclusion any further. It's senseless. It's stupid, and for Bell, it's a story no longer worth telling. So he quits. Quits being the Sheriff. Quits being the narrator. He just... retires. And finally, Anton, as part of his code, goes to see Mrs. Moss. And, for me, it was the only wrong choice he makes for his own path, and he pays for that error. That's how I saw it. Great movie. Hard to pin down but sooo engrossing.
Industry Killer by TerryMalloy	Nov 24th, 2007 05:06:47 PM
Well played. I can't stop thinking about this movie. That's a sign of greatness. It's permanently etched into my mind. And Chighur has entered the list of all time best movie villains.
I've recommended this film to everyone I know by IndustryKiller!	Nov 24th, 2007 06:16:15 PM
And everyone I know who I have recommended it to who has seen it have recommended it to all of their friends. I just got a call from a friend in Colorado (I live in LA) who said that everyone she knows is going to see it due to the excellent word of mouth. If you read this talkback you will see that this film has riveted, entertained, and constructively divided people, everything great art should do. It's amazing how many people came to so many different, yet completely valid conclusions about the film. I mean look at Juggernaut above who seems to be formulating his feelings constantly as he writes his post, so awesome. This is why I love film so much as a medium.
M-O-M, he did pray by comedian_x	Nov 24th, 2007 06:25:46 PM
they return to form; that's what the whole "go to your beach and recharge" line was about. Although I don't enjoy parsing every line of Moriarty 's review like he's fucking James Joyce -- it's all right there and he does end by saying he'll "be waiting" when the old Coens return. Thus concludes Moriarty 201.
i can't stop thinking about this movie either... by tailhook	Nov 24th, 2007 06:43:31 PM
with how bad it ended up. Anyone have a cordless drill I can lobotomize myself with offhand? As per this 'universal' acceptance of the ending which is a bunch of horseshit... its been seen by very few people and its numbers are allready going into freefall as it expands. With 148 screens it was pulling $20K a screen and on 860 its allready down to doing $3.6K a screen. That makes it #11 overall and #3 in per screen average(a fairer comparison). As people understand exactly what they are getting into... an ultra-violent movie with an artsy-fartsy non-climax, this movie will sputter... it certainly won't get anybody other than the most diehard Coen Brother Fanboi's(note: the people who have seen Ladykillers more than once) to watch it again. If it even manages to make it past $30 million it will be a shock. If it isn't gone and forgotten by the time There Will Be Blood comes out it would be even more surprising. As per what I wanted? I didn't need hollywood helicopters or whatever b/s... I simply wanted it shown when Moss got steamrolled. Its fine to not have a Chigurn showdown... its fine to have Moss die... but to not show anything at all? Jones just pulls up as it ends and then mopes over the body in the morgue? Fuck that. The reason people are saying the move 'just ends' is due to the fact they didn't have a satisfying climax. When people don't even realize that was the climax until the credits are rolling and they're walking out asking other people WTF? you know the Coen Brothers fucked up and bad. A climax should be self-explanatory, definitive, and finish the main action. This... wasn't. I'm dead serious when I was sitting there wondering if the projectionist had actually lost a reel Grindhouse style. Its piss-poor filmmaking on a monumental scale. And after liking the first 2/3'rds of the movie a whole lot it really pisses me off when something that was aiming to be great gets derailed by one atrocious decision. I suppose Da Vinci could have put a mustache on the Mona Lisa.. but thank god he didn't.
Tailhook, you proved our point!! by JimBobCooter	Nov 24th, 2007 06:56:56 PM
Showing the shootout would be the mustache on the Mona Lisa. And McCarthy and the Coens refrained from putting it on -- so we're left to wonder and discuss. This is a meditation on violence! Moss stumbled upon a crime scene, and in the end, became a crime scene someone else stumbled on. I'd understand not liking the prologue, but the climax you're wanting is withheld FOR A REASON. It's a reason that you don't like, but it's clearly NOT BAD FILMMAKING as you suggest because it WORKED FOR SOME OF US and not you. We can agree to disagree about its effect on you, but its execution is a work of art.
lol proved our point... nice try. by tailhook	Nov 24th, 2007 07:05:53 PM
The funniest part is during your rant where you tried unsuccessfully to subvert my analogy you actually did prove my point when you claimed the climax was 'withheld for a reason'. Good Job. Point. Set. Match. You are now the first to admit it was a movie with no climax.. you're just trying to claim there is some reasonable explanation for it and the only real answer is.. there was. It was because they made a piss-poor decision that ended up derailing the entire movie. This is a visual medium friend. The inability to adapt to it properly doesn't make it art. It just makes it a bad decision and in this case a bad movie.
And me.. Frank Darabont? by tailhook	Nov 24th, 2007 07:07:36 PM
No comment. I will neither confirm nor deny that rumor.
you people wanted Moss to win by troutpencil	Nov 24th, 2007 08:04:11 PM
It doesn't make any sense to me that you're all not satisfied with the ending; I am a little irritated by them not showing Chigurh get the money and kill the woman, but the absence of both of those things can be seen as a decision specifically made by the Coens to evoke certain interpretations of his actions, I can live with it. But the ending is fantastic. I went in knowing it would go that way. You went in probably expecting Moss not to die. But he did, and the way they did it in the movie makes perfect sense. Why would seeing him die add anything to the movie? You are just using the unusual style of presenting the information as a means to rail against something which upset you, and which was intended to. In the book, the way Moss died is described. A Mexican grabbed the girl he was with. They went to his door, where he put his gun down when he saw that the Mexican was pointing a weapon at her. After Moss put the gun down, the Mexican threw the girl and shot her, then shot Moss with a machine gun (probably an Uzi or whatever they were using in the movie). Moss was all shot up but managed to pick up his gun and shoot the Mexican. In the book the girl is dead on the crime scene, Moss and the Mexican are taken to a hospital. Moss dies in transit. The Mexican is airlifted somewhere for surgery. It's all from Ed Tom Bell's after-the-fact perspective. I recommend you assholes settle down, maybe rewatch the movie when you'll be less outraged by the storyline. Because the way Moss dies, there is better, more satisfying way to show it. There is just the sad suddenness, no graceful exit from the world. It's a shitty, sleezy motel drugdeal shootout. If Moss had lived, sure, there could've been a more satisfying climax. But he doesn't. Look at it from that perspective. And seriously, people, Tommy Lee Jones' monologue at the end, which is taken from the end of the book, is fantastic. It's McCarthy as all hell. Virtually all of the dialogue was taken from McCarthy's book. Maybe all of it. He is the greatest novelist living today, in the entire world. He may be the single greatest artist. Learn to appreciate it.
There is no better, more satisfying way... by troutpencil	Nov 24th, 2007 08:06:15 PM
To show it. That's what I meant.
The complainers are all descendants of... by Cameron1	Nov 24th, 2007 08:39:29 PM
Johnny fuckin Burns from Deadwood. The little bitch who wanted to be told something neat and pretty and not the ugly fucked up truth of things.
I beg to differ........ by mojoman69	Nov 24th, 2007 08:56:14 PM
Steven Root was in O Brother and I believe some other coen bros pics.
Tired by Series7	Nov 24th, 2007 09:20:50 PM
(1)Tired of reading all the TB for this. (2) Tired of hearing how people say that Javier Bardem is Oscar worthy (though they've never seen his previous and fair superior work). (3) Yuppies that are all of the sudden BIG into the Coen's work (though they've never heard of Blood Simple/Hudsucker/Millers Crossing/Barton Fink/Raising Arizona). (4) People talking about the bloody and greusomeness of this movie when its pretty bland for those of us that watch movies. (5) Realizing that this movie is getting so big because of old people. This movie was good but its nothing AMAZING? The only AMAZING aspect of it is James Brolin, he deserve an Oscar/Award for most unneeded comback of the year. And finally Kelly Macdonald why can't we just get American Actresses for these roles? P.S. Why was Mickey Knox in this movie???????
Yackbacker - by jones1899	Nov 24th, 2007 10:02:30 PM
I agree with your take, but feel as though looking at the boys on the bikes was what set off those thoughts of his. Maybe not his childhood exactly, but his path since.
Series7 by TerryMalloy	Nov 24th, 2007 10:09:21 PM
(1) Then stop reading. (2) How do you know we haven't seen his previous work? I have. (3) I haven't personally seen Blood Simple/Millers Crossing/Barton Fink yet. Just haven't gotten around to it. But actually, Fargo got me BIG into the Coen's work. And I'm sure everyone else has seen those movies already. (4) I don't recall any of us talking about the blood or gruesomness. Mainly the palpable tension and fear and utter evil that was Chighur. (5) I don't know what the hell you're talking about with the old people making it big. The theater I went to was packed with college kids like myself.
yackbacker by tailhook	Nov 24th, 2007 10:09:56 PM
All that is fine and dandy except for one huge difference. Show me rather than tell me. All that you said can stay the same.. as it is.. but show the climax don't give me some abortion of a scene where Tommy Lee Jones shows up after its all over. If Moss's chickens came home to roost so to say and we've been there through all the setup.. then show us the consequences. They did not. Jones shows up all dopey, everybody is dead, and he mopes over a body at the morgue while in the midst of an identity crisis. Thats not a climax.. its stupidity.
Yackbacker by TerryMalloy	Nov 24th, 2007 10:21:00 PM
I thought it was interesting how both Chighur and Moss were dependent on these total strangers. And how the only way they felt they could barter with them was with money. It seemed Chighur gave the kids money because he didn't want to accept their charity. It's like, "If I pay for it, I don't have to accept their kindness" Also, I felt the two scenes were a comment on how we change as we get older regarding money. In the face of such a tragedy, the younger boys wanted to help this man without a second thought or money. Only once Chighur offered the money did that second kid want any and a conflict began. But the college idiots however needed money first just to give this man a coat. And he'd just been shot! I thought that was pretty cool. Thoughts?
... by troutpencil	Nov 24th, 2007 11:25:02 PM
You realize you are getting way thick into the bullshit with this "why did he pay the kids?" stuff, right? Moss needed a jacket because he was cold and bloody and Chigurh paid the kids not to talk about him. So you take that and draw endless bullshit analysis out of it? Jesus, how many people were killed in this movie? 50? Tons. That warrants a little more thought than shirt buying. Oh, how about this, Moss buys a jacket, which is thicker than the shirt that Chigurh buys, so maybe Moss as he goes through the movie needs more and more insulation from the outside world, and you notice that Chigurh doesn't even wear the shirt?? Maybe that means he rejects doing things normal people do, but he still uses them in different forms when he needs to (the broken arm). Isn't this movie great now that we can say endless worthless shit about him buying a shirt? That sure was brilliant of Cormac to include two clothes buying scenes in the movie; in fact, I bet the whole plot and everything was put there just to include these two brilliant scenes.
You begged them to stop making films? by Brundlefly	Nov 24th, 2007 11:42:08 PM
...because you didn't happen to think 2 of them were that great? Considering that they've consistently pumped out bravura works for the last twenty years, that is the most retarded thing I've heard in a long time - Moriarty, I hate to say this, because I've trusted your filmic opinion for a a great while - but in this case - you are full of shit my friend.
Damn! by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 24th, 2007 11:44:46 PM
Glad to see such strong discussion going on over this outstanding film. Because much like McCarthy's other works, there is more going on under the surface. Regardin Anton Chigurh - one thing that I don't believe I've seen mentioned is his encounter with the front-desk woman who refused to give him information on Moss. I think his reaction to this (as opposed to all his other "encounters") is very telling.
YackBacker by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 25th, 2007 12:09:02 AM
Yo! You've got some interesting observations going on there, man. I've not been inclined to think of this movie in such biblical terms. However, I can certainly appreciate the applicability. Curious - have you read any Cormac McCarthy? If you're looking for a "Bible-esque fable", I strongly recommend BLOOD MERIDIAN. I think you'll find that the central protagonists, The Judge and John Glanton, will manage to overshadow Anton Chigurh. No easy feat.
Tailhook, you idiot by JimBobCooter	Nov 25th, 2007 01:02:54 AM
Nowhere did I say it didn't show a climax. It had a climax. And a resolution. And a denouement. Maybe too long of a denouement, some say. But if you refuse to accept this, then you, my friend, are beyond saving. Good night.
troutpencil by TerryMalloy	Nov 25th, 2007 01:14:55 AM
I forgot the reason he payed the kids was to keep them quiet. Thank you. I thought it was an interesting parallel. No need to be an asshole about it.
Cooter by tailhook	Nov 25th, 2007 01:59:27 AM
'I'd understand not liking the prologue, but the climax you're wanting is withheld FOR A REASON.' Exact quote. Now.. maybe in your particular backwoods of hillbilly land 'withheld' means something other than everywhere else... but i doubt it. Well.. maybe if you're from Arkansas and are trying to redefine what 'is' is :P. But in talkbacks there are no mulligans. You admitted it, and certainly proved my talking points, and I thank you for that.
When Llewelyn goes back with the water... by hamslime	Nov 25th, 2007 02:17:30 AM
... and he sees the truck next to his. That whole scene where it seems that he's hidden in the darkness, yet he is spotted anyway. Then when he runs, it's as if his legs turn to jello. If they had followed it up with a scene where he goes to school naked that would be a "best of" my worst nightmares caught on film.
tailhook by TerryMalloy	Nov 25th, 2007 02:23:10 AM
He said "the climax YOU'RE WANTING". Not the real climax. Just the one you want.
Two Things by hamslime	Nov 25th, 2007 02:29:33 AM
What was the last thing Chigurh said to Carla before it cut to him walking out the front door? I missed it. Asthma attacks are a bitch. Also, "Look at that fucking bone!" That kid need to be nominated for best supporting actor. He fucking nailed that line.
You see Troutpencil by IndustryKiller!	Nov 25th, 2007 02:34:23 AM
Occasionally, when someone makes a work of art, especially a great and complex work of art, people occasionally gather to analyze it. That's the great thing about art you see, it can mean whatever the viewer brings to it. If I want to draw a parallel between Moss and Chigurh paying people off, then that is my prerogative as the audience of that particular work of art. If I find meaning in it, then good for me. You don't have to agree, sometimes it's more fun when you don't, but don't be a prick about it. The Coens are meticulous enough as filmmakers that there could be a parallel. I'm not convinced there are personally, but when two characters, sitting bloody on the ground make the same action, it's well withing reason that in a work like no Country for Old men, that there could be some glue connecting the two.
Oh and tailhook the devil is in the details of... by IndustryKiller!	Nov 25th, 2007 02:38:12 AM
Cooter's words. He said "...the climax YOU"RE WANTING is withheld for a reason." He never said there isn't a climax, just not the one you are wanting.
Hamslime he said... by IndustryKiller!	Nov 25th, 2007 02:40:29 AM
She tells him , after he tells her to call the coin, that the coin has no power and that it is all his decision and he pauses for a second and says "The coin got here the same way I did." and then cut to him walking out the door. Some damn good acting in that scene.
Foreshadowing? by hamslime	Nov 25th, 2007 02:47:05 AM
He made a remark about the coin being just a coin earlier at the gas station. So does that imply that he didn't kill Carla?
An open letter to the writer of Pro-Life by gorydon	Nov 25th, 2007 02:48:28 AM
Stop, please stop. Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty are miles ahead of anything you put down on paper. Jackass.
Thanks IndustryKiller by TerryMalloy	Nov 25th, 2007 03:01:04 AM
At least we're all finally actually discussing a film like it's art. Thanks to McCarthy and the Coen Bros., we have a movie actually worthy analyzing. I may be reading too much into things, but so what? It's fun. And more intellectually stimulating than bitching about casting or movies we haven't even seen yet.
Actually Mori's eps of MOH by IndustryKiller!	Nov 25th, 2007 03:03:24 AM
from a story standpoint alone are pretty god damned good. It's not his fault the productions themselves are inherently flawed. Cigarette Burns especially would make an awesome full length with the right director. Jackass.
As far as the ending that some take issue with. by hamslime	Nov 25th, 2007 03:04:29 AM
The tag line IS "There are no clean getaways." It's the same thing with Zodiac "There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer." Yet some people were displeased that the movie focused on the characters going in a downward spiral and ruining their lives because of their obsessive nature as opposed to focusing on the killer and uncovering who he is.
My problem with Zodiac Ham by IndustryKiller!	Nov 25th, 2007 03:13:04 AM
Was that it seemed like they ran out of story to tell about halfway through but kept going anyway. Now keep in mind that I saw a test screening that was a half hour longer than the cut you saw, but after a while some of the leads they took you on were completely irrelevant and I really felt like they began manufacturing false suspense in a cheap attempt to keep you involved. Case in point when Jake Gyllenhaal goes into Charles Fleischers house, in a second Fleischers character goes from kindly man to bizarro creep and the rest of the scene seemed like a fake attempt to scare the audience. I feel it would have been a much better film if they had just concentrated on one of the three storylines (Downey Jr, Ruffalo, Gyllenhaal). As it stands i don't feel there was enough going on to make a good crime drama and that there was too much going on for it to be the character analysis the tag line would have you believe it is. With that said it's not without its merits, I just feel it's flawed, and sometime I'll have to see the theatrical cut.
I hate to turn this into a Zodiac talkback but. by hamslime	Nov 25th, 2007 03:58:37 AM
If M.O.M. can do it with Transformers then what the hell. The story as I saw it was about Greysmith, Toschi, and Avery's descent. The scene where Greysmith presents his case with Toschi however cicumstantial allowed them to gain closure and therefore end the movie. That, to me made it clear what the movie's focus was. As far as too much information, I felt that it served to allow you to empathise with the characters, be right there with them and get caught up in their obsessions, which if your in that situation can be quite tedious. Makes sense then that some filmgoers felt the same way when investing themselves in the characters and their exploits. I must have watched the movie at least ten times now and found the whole movie to be pretty tight (except for Roger Rabbit's cameo that you mentioned). It should also be mentioned that I enjoy alot of movies based on characters alone. I couldn't tell you what The Big Lebowski was about and I could care less. I just loved watching Walter and the Dude hang out and talk to each other much the same way that I enjoyed scenes where Toschi and Armstrong would work off each other or when Avery would give Greysmith shit. Sorry I'm just rambling now, but...yeah, No Country kicks ass.
Im right there with you Ham as far as character goes by IndustryKiller!	Nov 25th, 2007 04:08:05 AM
Character driven pieces, to me are the most affecting work. I guess for Zodiac it just didn't work for me. It may have actually been the Graysmith character himself, whom I felt was incredibly bland compared to the rich Avery and Toschi characters. But for some of my favorite movies this year like No Country for Old Men, Into the Wild, Control, and Lars and the Real Girl character is what shines most clearly.
Greysmith by hamslime	Nov 25th, 2007 04:30:35 AM
He seemed to be a blank slate of sorts. At the begining of the movie he was young and naive. The only maturing he did was what his obsessions would allow. It wasn't until the end when he decided to grow up and let it go (hint hint talkbackers) and it wasn't until then that he could move on with his life. That's what I liked about the character. Also the fact that Greysmith the author would paint himself in such a way that is, as you say, bland lends an honesty to the story I found interesting.
Speaking of moving on... by hamslime	Nov 25th, 2007 04:32:32 AM
I do realize I am quite the pot right about now. Sorry kettles.
There are so many good quotes in this movie by TerryMalloy	Nov 25th, 2007 11:18:23 AM
I thought the funniest was that line Tommy Lee Jones says to the deputy in Moss's trailer. It was something to the effect of "What are we going to say? 'Be on the lookout for a man who just drank some milk?'"
Agreed Yackbacker by TerryMalloy	Nov 25th, 2007 11:32:17 AM
SPOILERS That scene at the end where Bell walks into the motel and doesn't know Anton is in there was ridiculously tense. I was so glad that he had an encounter with Anton without having a stungun cylinder zapped in and out of his brain. Every time Chighur killed someone I felt the same way Moss's wife did: "You don't have to do this!"
YackBacker... by SkinJob69	Nov 25th, 2007 12:35:45 PM
I've read most of McCarthy's stuff, and I would definitely recommend starting with Blood Meridian (see my earlier post). It's a fantastic read and has themes and action which are pretty similar to NCFOM (just on a larger scale). Asy you may know, Ridley Scott is directing the film version (with a screenplay by William "The Departed" Monahan.
What? No Turturro in this?? by kafka07	Nov 25th, 2007 12:38:35 PM
oh yeah he went the way of Transformers. He's lost to us now.
Back to Moriarity's review... by SkinJob69	Nov 25th, 2007 12:43:09 PM
NCOFM "an ominous little slice of redneck apocalypse"?? Really? I realize it's a throw away line, but it's a bit off the mark, don't you think? Moss and his wife do live in a trailer park, I guess. But the characters are remarkable for their for their goal-drivien, fairly intelligent actions (not exactly typical redneck characteristics). Just sayin'
here is the litmus test by tailhook	Nov 25th, 2007 12:44:12 PM
If this movie was done by anyone other than the Coen Brothers would you think the same? Answer.. no. With Coen attached you label it 'craft'.. anybody else and you'd label it 'crap'. As per "The Mist"... never bothered going to see it. From the trailer I pegged it as most likely a torrent movie, a rental at best. Hell.. if I was going mainstream i'd have watched Enchanted. Fact is, though, I had to go way out of my way to see No Country For Old Men as it was only playing in one theater in town, and that theater ended up being about 1/3'rd full. Well.. as i've said.. at least it won't be that long until There Will Be Blood comes out.
i'm seeing it 2nite!!! by the_man_from_Rio	Nov 25th, 2007 04:48:49 PM
here in miami, back in The United States of America, i will presence the triumphal return of Coen Brothers...all haill Cinema!!!
YackBacker by IronyRidesAgain	Nov 25th, 2007 08:05:23 PM
Skin Job is correct, Blood Meridian will kick you in the balls and slap yo mamma. I bet you'd like OUTER DARK by CMcC also. It's like a negative-exposure biblical allegory (does that make any sense?) with some hot hot prose. Any fan of good horror should read it.
YackBacker by Series7	Nov 25th, 2007 08:21:49 PM
I didn't say that didn't like this movie, I did like it. I guess I just saw it with the wrong group of people. Like every one there was 40. And the theater usher was telling everyone that its not as greusome as they've heard, he said that if you've seen sopranos you can handle this. Also I like the Mist for what it was, the more I think about it the more I realize how mediocre it was, and the more I think about No Country the more I like it. That and everyone I've talk to had never heard of Javier before, and the only Coen's movies they knew where O'Brother (which is why OLD people like the Coens now) and The Dude movie. We all can't be movie nerds, but it pisses me off when people think that they are movie nerds and seeing this movie makes people act that way. Plus I just saw it right after Before the Devil Knows your dead.
BLOOD MERIDIAN etc by Mullah Omar	Nov 25th, 2007 09:15:20 PM
...is a great, brutal Western - fans of films like THE WILD BUNCH, UNFORGIVEN, HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER, THE PROPOSITION, or EL TOPO should start reading there if they want to get into Cormac McCarthy. I am hoping that the film captures the most apocalyptic images from the novel, but I am not sure it's even possible. Also, I have no idea who is scoring the film version of BLOOD MERIDIAN, but if all they did was cut and paste Nick Cave's work from THE PROPOSITION, then I think they'd achieve an appropriate mood. Finally, anyone who enjoyed NO COUNTRY should check out Sam Peckinpah's film BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA. I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it, but just give it a shot.
"woah differences..." by slappy jones	Nov 25th, 2007 09:53:47 PM
great line. can't wait to see this film again...."these fellas appear to be managerial"so many great lines.
Spot on Moriarty... by Animorganimate	Nov 25th, 2007 10:16:33 PM
The Coens will eat your first born and spit out twins!!! They're that good.
for the record tailhook by slappy jones	Nov 26th, 2007 04:16:46 AM
I think the coens in general are overrated. that is not to say i don't like their films...some of them I love but it doesn't matter to me who directed this film. brett ratner could have directed this film and if it was exactly the same as the film I saw the other night I would be saying the exact same thing. NCFOM is the best film I have seen this year. by a mile. I hate people who use arguments like yours to try and win what is ultimately an unwinnable argument...you see I am not going to try and say you are wrong in your opinion or give some bullshit litmus test example because you are entitled to your opinion but don't insult those of us who loved this film by claiming we are only doing so for superficial reasons. this is a great great film. I have not stopped thinking about it since i saw it and I cannot wait to see it again. You didn't like it and thats fine but you are not going to convince any of us who do love it that we are wrong ....so spare us your lame tests.
and don't worry tailhook by slappy jones	Nov 26th, 2007 04:25:39 AM
there is a 2 disc directors dvd coming out with the original uncut ending.....it is right up your alley....chigurh kidnaps brolins wife and tells him to meet on top of a giant skyscraper. from their it is a giant shootout and just whgen you think chigurh is going to win..TOMMY LEE JONES ARRIVES IN HELICOPTER!!! he shoots the cattle gun out of chigurhs hands and brolin says "get away from my wife you son oif a BITCH!" then with one punch he punches chigurh off the top of the building and he falls 70 stories crashing right on top of a car parked at the bottom. brolin and his wife are reunited and they kiss.....tommy lee lands the chopper "you crazy kids ready to get out of here?" brolin "thought you'd never ask" tommy lee laughs as do brolin and macdonald..they fly away in the chooper and live happily ever after.
Christ 3 of the big league arseholes in one TB by Lost Jarv	Nov 26th, 2007 05:10:40 AM
Batman, AS and MOM- Fucking hell. As part of my new policy of dealing with MOM I hereby post his AvP TB crap that proves once and for all what a dirty little hypocrite he is, and how he has no right WHATSOEVER to lecture, berate or otherwise lambast anyone for their taste/ intelligence. The relevant post is at Oct 3rd, 2007 07:15:01 AM and the link is http://tinyurl.com/38dpqq The dirty little hypocrite
And Eyes Wide Shut was terrible by Lost Jarv	Nov 26th, 2007 05:18:29 AM
So far below standards as to be offensive.
for the lack of a better word- by Lost Jarv	Nov 26th, 2007 06:38:30 AM
at leat you're starting to get a handle on your limitations. You're still a cunt though, for lack of a better word
How 'bout that 'Redacted' BO by SkinJob69	Nov 26th, 2007 08:25:12 AM
Piece of crap film. Period. Looks like Massa was the only one who saw this one... NY Post November 25, 2007 -- IT'S hard for Hollywood pacifists like Brian De Palma to capture the hearts and minds of America if Americans won't see their movies. While the public is staying away in droves from “Rendition," “Lions for Lambs" and “In the Valley of Elah," audiences are really avoiding “Redacted," De Palma's picture about US soldiers who rape a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, then kill her and her family. The message movie was produced by NBA Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who insisted on deleting grisly images of Iraqi war casualties from the montage at the film's end. Cuban offered to sell the film back to De Palma at cost, but the director was too smart to go for that deal. “Redacted" - which “could be the worst movie I've ever seen," said critic Michael Medved -took in just $25,628 in its opening weekend in 15 theaters, which means roughly 3,000 people saw it in the entire country. “This, despite an A-list director, a huge wave of publicity, high praise in the Times, The New Yorker, left-leaning sites like Salon, etc. A Joe Strummer documentary [of punk-rock band The Clash] playing in fewer theaters made more in its third week," e-mailed one cineaste. “Not even people who presumably agree with the movie's antiwar thesis made the effort to see it."
If it was directed by someone else.... by Juggernaut125	Nov 26th, 2007 09:44:56 AM
Like... if it was directed by a seven year old girl? Then I would think it was excellent and she must be a prodigy. I certainly wouldn't think it was crap then. If it was directed by a dog? Then it would be a MIRACLE. What a ridiculous argument. You can't claim to know what I/we would or would not like based upon what has not happened. That's like stating that 'if aliens showed up today we would ALL join a mariachi band'.
This movie was INCREDIBLE. by Lashlarue	Nov 26th, 2007 09:45:48 AM
Fargo, which I love, has a kinda happy ending. Margie gets the killer, and is going to have a baby. Miller's Crossing is brillant, and very dark. The man loses his soul, and he can never get it back. I remember cheering him on as he kills Bernie. How wrong I was. In No Country for Old Men, I was dying for Anton to get his just deserts. I so wanted him to die. If only Lewelyn or Bell had killed him, but you can never kill evil. Especially evil within yourself. The Coen Brothers are doing God's work.
moss by surfsup22	Nov 26th, 2007 10:00:32 AM
Anton did not kill Moss. The Mexicans did.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER by Juggernaut125	Nov 26th, 2007 10:26:27 AM
Now, as per the movie some SPOILERY observations, and some conclusions you might make based upon them. Deaths you witness vs. Deaths you don't vs. uncertainties. The only person you actually SEE kill someone else is Anton. We witness the crimes of him killing the deputy who pulled him over (VERY violent), the man he pulled over in the deputy's car, the 'managerials', the 3 Mexicans in the motel, the guy in the pickup Llewelyn jumps in, The man who hired the Mexicans, and Carson. We don't SEE the Mexican standoff that Llew happens upon, but we know they are all dead, and we don't see the shootout that ends Llewelyn either, but we see the bodies. Then, there's the store manager who 'calls it'. Most likely he is still alive. The motel clerk, I saw a dark doorway, but I don't remember if I saw any blood, I definitely didn't see a body. The accountant, uncertain. The chicken farmer, uncertain (maybe he just took his truck at gunpoint), and finally Mrs. Moss. Of all of these people in Anton's path, it seems to me that only the store clerk (barely) and the chicken farmer 'deserve' to live. Even the guy on the side of the road at the beginning, as he is a means to lose the cop car. So, why show him killing, both violently (the mexicans and Carson, etc.) and arbitrarily (the guy on the road), and not show others (the chicken farmer, and Carey Ann). If the Coens are making a statement on acts of killing that are worth viewing, then what is that statement? "These are the deaths you need to see to advance the story." or if you look at it from an artistic point of view, visualized acts of violence are the positive space (paint on the canvas, the solid marble statue), and violence unseen, (the mexicans at the beginning, Llewelyn, his wife... are the negative space (the empty canvas, the air around the statue). Both hold equal weight in the overall image bringing each other out more clearly. You can't look at one and not see the other. Or is there a more significant meaning? Thoughts?
So, my question is ... by Juggernaut125	Nov 26th, 2007 10:49:42 AM
...after reading my own convoluted remarks.SPOILERS*(but if you've read this far, you're probably spoiled already :P) Do the Coens set rules for themselves to follow? In regards to: what to show the audience. What do we need to see, and what do we not NEED to see? Why is it important for us to see Anton kill the man who hired the Mexicans, but not for us to see the Mexicans kill Llewelyn? Why does Anton give some people a choice? THIS is what bothers me most about the movie. The chicken farmer. Is he alive or dead? Anton has his truck so he MUST be dead. If so, why kill him and not show it? Did he give the guy a choice? If so, why not show that? Or allude to it at least. If Anton didn't give him a choice, why not, and once again, why not show that? I think it has more to do with who is telling the story. Bell (a non-omniscient narrator). And we'll make THAT the rule that the Coens have to follow. Only show what Bell can deduce from the facts, the evidence and eye witness reports. And, once again, the chicken farmer disproves that rule (for me).
I wouldn't think too hard on it juggernaut... by tailhook	Nov 26th, 2007 11:03:23 AM
you might break something. It just is what it is... unfortunately. The movie was about as deep as a Ritz cracker.
Worse than being a "Bayformers appologist"... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 26th, 2007 11:17:55 AM
...is to be MoM. What a dickface. Seriously dude. Go watch BLOODRAYNE and get back to us.
YackBacker by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 26th, 2007 11:25:18 AM
It has indeed been awhile. I suppose that BLOOD MERIDIAN is as good a place as any to start. But when it comes to Cormac McCarthy, that book (in terms of its literary style) is unlike anything else he has done. I should warn you that while BLOOD MERIDIAN is a western that takes place along the Texas/Mexico border during the 1840s, it reads more like a Gothic horror tale. In fact, I think the story is one of the most nightmarish things I've ever come across. Also, you may find it handy to have a dictionary and Spanish-to-English translator at your side. The book uses LOTS of archaic words and there are several lines of dialog delivered in Spanish. This tends to make for a very difficult read but the end result and effect is totally worth it. Cheers!
Question - SPOILER by RichieRich	Nov 26th, 2007 12:17:38 PM
*SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER* When the sheriff returns to the hotel where Moss is killed and sees Chigurh's reflection in the doorknob, did Chigurh leave out the back? It doesn't seem that action would be in his chracter. Or was he even there and Bell was imagining it?
The whole point about the motel thing by Garbageman33	Nov 26th, 2007 12:47:15 PM
Is that Bell is a bit of a pussy. This is more evident in the book, but even in the movie, you can see that his "investigation" is pretty cursory. It's like he doesn't want to find what's lurking behind that door.
M-O-M/BRU by DocPazuzu	Nov 26th, 2007 01:16:08 PM
What a cunt.
its called No Country for OLD MEN (spoiler) by bigbadbua	Nov 26th, 2007 05:52:35 PM
as much as I was looking foreward to the Moss/Chigurh showdown, I didn't miss it, and found it more interesting to have a curveball thrown and have Moss already dead. Also, the title gives away the end, which I realized afterwards. Sheriff Bell is the main character of this film, and its about and old-school guy who can't deal with the modern violence of society. Moss and Chigurh are the tools that make this possible. Thus, it is called No Country for Old Men, not No Country for Moss and Chigurh.
Reaffirmation by Cobbio	Nov 26th, 2007 06:27:58 PM
Good review, Mori. Well written. I loved "No Country for Old Men" for its memorable acting performances and stiff-jawed commentary on life. For me, it was quietly the most hard-hitting film of the year. My faith in the Coen Brothers is reaffirmed.
I must watch again for exact same reason by Buckys_Kick_Ass_Arm	Nov 26th, 2007 09:20:30 PM
So much I feel I missed. Absolutely no memory of a film score among other things. Chicurgh fucks you and fucks you hard. Seeing him on screen is scary enough. Seeing someone like that in real life would make me shit my dick.
M-O-M/BRU by DocPazuzu	Nov 27th, 2007 05:52:08 AM
Cunt.
the antidote... by DocPazuzu	Nov 27th, 2007 06:11:19 AM
...to reading M-O-M/BRU's posts is reading Jarv's exquisite beatdowns of said M-O-M/BRU.
M-O-M by Lost Jarv	Nov 27th, 2007 06:28:06 AM
seeing as you love to weasel out of the accusation of cunty-ness by making out that you like being compared to a vagina, then try this one: You are the blood spotted fecal matter pulled from the arse of Elvis during his post mortem.
MOM by Lost Jarv	Nov 27th, 2007 07:40:31 AM
that is, without exception, the most knuckleheaded post I have ever seen. To begin with, anyone posting here has decided to sacrifice cool on the altar of geekdom. However, that was a coherent post that marked itself out from your usual burblings as you didn't misuse colloquial phrases. So I must be making some kind of progress with you. You are still a malignant little twat though.
what's a remora? by Lost Jarv	Nov 27th, 2007 09:03:57 AM
You stupid little twat.
M-O-M/BRU by DocPazuzu	Nov 27th, 2007 09:38:01 AM
Wait, did you just chastise us for writing something that had nothing to do with No Country For Old Men? This, from the guy who cultivates a hate boner for Michael Bay which is so hard that a talkback can't go by without him mentioning him? Go fuck yourself, you hypocritical cock-mite.
And the only remora here... by DocPazuzu	Nov 27th, 2007 09:45:46 AM
...is you, with your flat, suction-cupped head which you attach , parasitically, to any talkback in order to dribble about Michael Bay and be generally condescending and oafish.
too many outlandish jump cuts by Rupee88	Nov 27th, 2007 01:50:36 PM
Ok, it was a damn good movie, relatively speaking, but had some major flaws that keep it from being a great movie. I agree that it was a damn good mood piece though.
M-O-M/BRU by DocPazuzu	Nov 27th, 2007 01:52:34 PM
EVERY talkback you participate in is a "Bayformers" talkback. You're nothing but a trollish dolt with delusions of adequacy.
Last part of film relied too much on dialogue by AntoniusBloc	Nov 28th, 2007 12:09:47 AM
OK for a book, sounds well written, but doesn't work for film...unless you're ok watching a film with no climax or conclusion, I wouldn't recommend this film, started out great, but all the build up led to nothing but heavy dialogue
I was being facetious, dickhead by Lost Jarv	Nov 28th, 2007 03:01:57 AM
As you know full well, with your posts it could just as easily have been some mangled English. You could have meant "trampoline", but simply fucked up. As it were. I do like the idea that you think of yourself as a TB shark- that is too funny for words.
great film by THE KNIGHT	Nov 29th, 2007 11:40:01 PM
seen it tonight. very very intense!
Is the sheriff the murderer? by lostlyra	Feb 3rd, 2008 10:33:08 PM
I know it's crazy, but I just get the feeling from all the similar dialogue, that the sheriff is in fact, the Javier Bardan... the sheriff's monologue at the end, and even the one in the beginning. the fact that he was in the motel, but never gets killed... the fact that the wife doesn't seem surprised to see him. .. the fact that he retired.. the fact that he was rambling about how the cows get killed...

Talkbacks

Moriarty Gets Cold-Blooded With The Coen Brothers And NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks