 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.71
...now that this is out in general release, I thought I would mention it again.
This is one of the best movies of the year and a real departure for the Coen Brothers - with little comic irony they play it mostly straight ahead.
Javier Bardem is scary and will most likely be nominated.
Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin put in excellent performances as well.
But the standouts to me were the shots of the bleak South Texas landscape and the people chosen for the small bit parts who exude the time - 1980 - and the place so well.
Highly recommended.
Follow Ups:
Not having read the book, I can only guess how much of this is Cormac McCarthy and how much is Coen Brothers. In any case, the character Anton Sugar (not pronounced "sugar") seems purely in their grand tradition of completely over-the-top fantasy creations. His particular psychotic approach to life if that, if you see him, you must die. Except once in a while, he offers you a coin flip, "the best I can do." We counted 2 people who saw him and lived, one who won the flip, the other just lucky enough that he got distracted by a toilet flush.
I thought he was a wonderful cinematic creation, from his moptop haircut to his cannon-size guns and handy compressed air tank.
There were a few other tough talking hombres, but like Woody Harrelson, as soon as Anton caught up with them, they were revealed as tough-talking wimps.
The idea that Tommy Lee Jones is shocked at the current violence, and that his lawmen ancestors did not even carry guns, seems less than completely convincing. Of course, running across Anton's handiwork might convince anyone that violence is at a high point these days.
I love the dialogue, whether McCarthy or Coen Brothers, this is some of the best movie dialogue all year. This is not exactly film noir, although it is in the grand tradition of smart aleck tough guys and of a man caught up in forces that spiral way out of control. It's pretty noir.
When introduced in the narrative, I had high hopes for Harrelson's character. What a disappointment. Little talk and even less substance.
I know it can be argued that Harrelson's character was indeed a badass, but that Bardem was badass to the "nth degree," etc. But Bardem just walked up behind Harrelson, took him to the room, and killed him without so much of a whimper.
Harrelson had a reputation and was able to track down Brolin. You figure he had to have some street smarts. But he didn't demonstrate any in his dealings with Bardem. A clueless idiot . . all mouth. I know, I know, that's the way his character was written.
s
..
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
why was Woody Harrelson cast in the this movie? He always comes across, at least to me, in his roles as a bit of a goof. I don't remember the character in the book being such ( albeit he didn't fare too smartly vs. the bad guy). Everyone else I thought was superb.
...Coen Brothers film.
Steve Buscemi in Fargo
John Turturro in Millers Crossing + Barton Fink
Jeff Bridges in the Big Lebowski
Almost everyone in Raising Arizona
Grins
My opinion is decidedly mixed, because I really wanted to like this movie (I hold virtually all Coen Brother films in high regard). While "No Country for Old Men" is brilliant in many ways, with several bravura, perhaps Oscar worthy performances, from a subjective standpoint the film's conclusion was ultimately unsatisfying as entertainment. It was not striving to be a "fun" film, it was striving for greatness; symbolism notwithstanding, as entertainment it left me with mixed impressions.Most folks in the packed theater where my wife and I caught the movie apparently felt the same way. At the film's conclusion there was dead silence from the built-up intensity followed by a collective "huh?" reaction as the credits started rolling at the end. In fact, it wrapped up so abruptly that it was almost like the film stopped because the projectionist couldn't find the missing last reel!
Of course, other's mileage will most assuredly vary, and I still recommend this film for the film's edginess and cast performances, but with caveats in regard to resolved story expectations. Repeated viewing value? The jury is still out.
Film ***1/2 - ***** (3 1/2 on a 5 star scale); realistic and intensely ironic, but burdened by an overabundance of pretentious symbolism & home-spun existential philosophizing that places greater value on it's ironic elements than it does story resolution.
And I understand why. The average film-goer will leave the theater saying "this fim don't make sense" based on that last scene.
We all know the film should have ended with Bardem walking away BUT the Coens decided to throw in some seemingly incoherent down homeliness. They make movies and know what works SO the final scene obviously really means something to them that the majority of folks don't get. This is emphasized by the lack of score when the credit begin to roll.
This must have been a tough decision as that last scene can definitely effect its word-of-mouth maketability.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
...about the ending.
But while I like to see everything neatly tied up and the bad guy get his just dessert, a more nebulous ending like this one tends to resonate more and give you something to think about.
Given Tommy Lee's conversation with the guy in the wheelchair and where he ends up at the film's conclusion, I thought it was fitting.
I too felt this was very, very well done on all fronts, perhaps most of all in atmosphere, but it was ultimately, for me, less than fully satisying. It wasn't because of the ending (which I liked and thought had real power) but because of a kind of distance from it all... a lack of full emotional resonance if you will.
One thing that pulled me out of the film a little was the anticlimax of Luellens (sp?) demise. After being with him for basically all of the cat and mouse with Bardem it was strange to be so far from him when they had their final showdown. Suddenly the movie was all about Tommy Lee Jones.
It was an interesting and kind of bold choice but for me at least it had a slightly negative impact.
And it was a little strange when TLJ went back to the motel room and we saw the shot of Bardem hiding with his gun just before Jones enetered the room and then, nothing. It didn't seem like he was actually in there and if that was a big moment of Bardem deciding not to kill Jones and/or it was Jones imagining him being in there (and Bardem's ghostlike presence was the reason Jones went to the wheelchair guy with the feeling of being haunted and hunted) then it was underplayed to the point of losing some of the power/impact it might have had.
These things too might be true to the book but they helped leave a void in my overall impression of the film.
All that said, I'll probably see it again. Oh, and what a great performance by Luellen's wife.
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
The two did not jibe well. Perhaps Bergman could have pulled it off?
Otherwise I and my companions were tightly gripped.
The evil in Chigurh, and the path it follows, far outstrips that of any orc or Grendel in any FX extravaganza; the more human its incarnation, the scarier evil be. Take that as a rule, directors!
Here's a passage from the L.A. Times I stumbled across:
An intense, nihilistic thriller as well as a model of implacable storytelling, this is a film you can't stop watching even though you might very much wish you could. That's because "No Country" escorts you through a world so pitilessly bleak, "you put your soul at hazard," as one character says, to be part of it.
Sez it for me.
clark
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
