No Country for Old Men - spoilers probably

I also really enjoyed it. My other half, sadly didn't. She said it was "too slow". Each to their own. Deservedly so, i think, it's up for best picture. It seems as though TLJ was born to play his role. Anton was a proper psycho and James Brolin did a darn fine job too.

I also enjoyed A History of Violence and again it doesn't surprise me that Eastern Promises is up there for best actor in a leading role. Some people, i guess, just can't appreciate a film you have to take time over.
 
For the last twenty or so years TV dramas have improved beyond belief and have done the 'slow treatment' far better eg. Inspector Morse, The Wire. etc...

This meant that the film industry had to pull their socks up and deliver something different and better. So, yes. Years ago this film would be brilliant. But these days, we have a litany of pysho's, hit men/women, rugged warriors and quirky characters. TLJ's role? Heck, that's like the cop from 'Kill Bill' or QT's latest. It's been done before. The only things that changes are the gimmicks used.
 
Loved it to bits. Thoroughly and utterly absorbing, I was never bored, not for a single second.

Superb performances from all the main actors, fantastic story and script. Excellent cinematography.

Mesmerising. Thought provoking. Fantastic.

Very highly recommended.
 
I was really enjoying this film until the final third, thought the way the film just shifted perspective was poor and this really spoilt it for myself and my missus.
 
Went to another screening of this just to see if it improves on second showing... no, it didn't really. But, in its defence, well, I'll copy the post I made on imdb:

"It'a not a bad film at all, but it is 'over-rated' insofar as it's being made out to be one of the best examples of cinema ever and ever amen.

It's not a case of not 'getting' the film; I get it.
It's not a case of there being 'no action'; it's not an action film.
It's not even the case of the 'slow pacing'; I happen to think the way that that's done is very good.

It's just the small issue of the film not actually being as clever as it wants to be.

I can see the Coen Brothers rubbing their hanRAB with glee:
"Oh.. how will those film buRAB ever get their heaRAB around the fact that we're letting them use their imaginations to fill in the gaps.. witness our genius."

Well I'm afraid to say that it falls short, because all it does it promote a sense of -needing- to over-analyse, where in reality that's not needed.

Gorgeous cinematography, interesting characters and a very ethereal feel, but to be honest, if I want to see something like this done properly, I'll go and catch a David Lynch film.

6/10"

:p
 
I was disappointed.
It's good, just IMO not what it's hyped up to be.
Like many others I lvoed the first 2/3 but it was disappointing in the end.
The whole TLJ character and monologue, I got it, but it felt a bit clunky, it just didn't quite work the way it should have or could have done.
In saying that I loved the cinematography and suspense and acting was superb.
Javier Bardem rocked, so creepy!
 
Yes. From the book:

When I came into your life your life was over. It had a begining, a middle, and an end. This is the end. You can say that things could have turned out differently. That they could have been some other way. But what does that mean? They are not some other way. They are this way. You're asking that I second say the world. Do you see?

Yes, she said, sobbing. I do. I truly do.
Good, he said. That's good. Then he shot her.


It's a great book, by the way. And I loved the film- I'm a huge McCarthy fan, and I thought they nailed the "feel" of it perfectly.

...shame it's not the Coens doing Blood Meridian...
 
No, don't let yourself believe that, and don't let anyone else try & tell you that either.

I didn't enjoy it, but woebetide anyone who condescenRAB to suggest thats because I didn't "get" it. Sometimes there just isn't anything to "get", and in this case I'd suggest it's a triumph of concept and cinematography over subsstance.
 
I loved this movie.

I can understand how certain people are miffed at the way the film progresses and are disappointed by the outcome. The film is always about TLJ character, thus hence the name of the film. He is the main character, even although he isn't the typical central figure as such.

TLJ is struggling to grasp a changing world, where there is no honour amongst thieves and a country where criminals will do anything to succeed. He knows he has to get out before it's too late.

Can't wait to get this on Blu ray.

I will say this film and There will be blood were both very good, but I would say this was slightly better.
 
He was what made this movie for me. His part must be one of the most truly convincing psychopaths I've seen acted out for quite some time.

I'm so glad that he won the award for best supporting actor.

The film itself was unique and dark. I liked it and would watch it again to catch bits I didn't fully understand first time round.

Another Coen brothers masterpiece. :)
 
I said this splendid film would win "Best Picture" upon my very first viewing of it. Absolute deserved.

If that wasn't enough to please me....

Keira Knightley didn't win "Best Actress".

Excellent! She doesn't deserve to win an award for anything other then a Razzie.

Her acting is atrocious.

I myself am a big fan of Westerns. Spaghetti Westerns being my favourite, ever since I was a kid.

Once Upon A Time in the West is the greatest western ever made as far as I am concerned.

If you haven't seen it and are a fan of the genre "see it!".

I saw the remake of 3:10 to Yuma and was incredibly surprised. It was fantastic. Vastly superior to the good original as well... Did I just say that!?

This film? "Best Picture" are the worRAB that come to my mind. I am truly pleased the old hard gritty "cool" Western is fighting its way back to the top of the mountain again.

It's been far too long.
 
*SPOILERS*







Up until Josh Brolins characters death I thought the plot built terrifically well and I enjoyed it which is why I'm so bothered about the faults it has. Once Brolin died the film lost direction, it shifted from something to nothing. What the plot boiled down to in the end was: Man discovers money, so gets chased by a hitman and this makes a sheriff decide to retire. Not satifying to me.

The ending should have been Mr bowlcut (great performance) escaping the scene of the crash as IMO it would have made for a more satisfying ending. Tommys scene could have been before that but not as the climax to the film... The whole film was set up as a suspensful thriller which it did very well so I think one of the two involved should have been the focus for the ending. Unfortunately the film was far too faithful to the book and the Coen brothers forgot that they couldn't invest the amount of charactarisation etc into proceedings so they have to make up for it in good storytelling. The tag line on the posters was all about the get away so I feel mislead. 'No get away is clean' or whatever it is. So excuse me for thinking that would be the focus or the point of the film especially after most of it followed faithfully and successfully down this route! Tommy Lee was not involved in it. Basically he had his dialogue at the start and his explanation of his dreams at the end but by this time surely the viewer needed him involved in at least some other way than as a bystander to really give a crap about his realisation of uselessness and failure to do anything about it. Certainly not enough to care about his guilt at not living up to his father. I never wanted a Hollywood ending, I wanted a good one.

Arty people go on about it being about futility in the face of evil and all that stuff but it still neeRAB to function well as a whole and it would have made the same statement without confusing people. It could have very easily operated on two levels (arty and coherent)and then it would indeed have been worthy of the mantle of masterpiece.

It was a pity they went for the arty approach to aim at awarRAB, instead of considering adding soul to it for the sake of the viewer. It coulda been as good as the hype but it's only a classic for the critics not in the universal sense. Shame.
 
I just got back from seeing it, and I have to admit it was a big disappointment. I agree with the posts above that the film lost direction after Josh Brolin was killed off - and I felt a bit cheated at him having been killed off-screen. It didn't help that I could only understand about 1/4 of what was being said - there was a lot of incoherent mumbling in Texan accents, and it seemed very slow. The whole of Tommy Lee Jones' part could have been cut without much loss to the film - yes, I assume the point was about the ineffectuality of the law, but the lawmen were portrayed as being so uninterested in what was going on that it was difficult to empathise with them at all.
I think the era of classic Coen Brothers ended after O Brother Where Art Thou?
 
Back
Top