 
|
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 |
64.12.116.195
...And the "moodiness" (and nihlism) of the film. I really don't hear anyone praising it as a cohesive film however.
I was incredibly dissappointed in it. I thought it rambled, lacked any coherent theme (other than "watch out for what you wish for" which has been done to death elsewhere) and had characters whose "development" (yes, I use the term loosely) was about as effectively done as Ford did the Pinto.
Here, let me summarize this turd of a film. Drug deal gone bad, everyone dead. White trash guy finds bag full-o-money. Add psychotic, amoral killer and lots of blood and everyone dies.
End of turd.
And yes, the dialogue was great if you feel like you need to spend more time in a W. Texas trailer park. I don't.
And yes, the cinematography was decent.
And the ending sucked beyond words.
What passes for art these days is truly amazing and pathetic.
*** The Truth Hurts, Lies Kill ***
Follow Ups:
With a qualifier the dialog was "great" and the cinmatography "decent". I can understand that you didn't like the film but I don't see how you can call it a "turd". Twice. I think it it is one of the best films this year and right up there with "Fargo"
At the end of the movie, Sheriff Bell pretty much sums it up. Put the ending together with the title of the movie, and it should satisfy any cognitive viewer.
If it will help you...
Chigurh got the loot.
Turns out he was a Terminator sent from the future to obtain money in the present.
Sheriff Bell sat in the motel room for a few minutes, and Chigurh watched him leave. As Sheriff Bell climbed back into his vehicle, you could see Chigurh's hand relax on his weapon. The little diode behind his left eye went from red to yellow.
Sheriff Bell realized he was not up to whatever it takes nowadays to do the job he felt he should be doing.
Come on, Draz.
Every bit of plot development in the movie kind of went toward demonstrating to Sheriff Bell that the world had changed beyond his skill set. Criminals killing criminals, relentless sociopaths, lives worth less than the cost of a bullet...
Sheriff Bell lost his gumption. Even in the last scene, you could tell he hadn't regained it by retiring.
Sheriff Bell really did learn that where he was was "no country for old men."
heroes to go out on their shield or... they're just like any run-of-the-mill person.
They already made High Noon, 3:10 to Yuma, Spartacus, 300, and The Shootist.
Does it always have to end in a shoot-out?
NCfOM rewards on so many levels. The main theme is retained in almost every interaction that Sheriff Bell has, even down to his conversations while sharing cofee with other law enforcement officers. If you edited the flick down to just those scenes, you'd still get a cohesive thematic story line that would make sense and ties in perfectly to the final scene.
His comments at the end of the movie relate directly to every scene in the whole film. I was absolutely amazed at how well constructed the movie was.
We could make a list of all the ways we were shown Sheriff Bell's world disappearing...I can't hink of any fat to trim. Really a solidly built film.
I don't think the violence or plotline in the film was a "set up" for a showdown, so that may be where we part ways in our reaction to the movie.
us up for a showdown.
The story he told about the sheriff, porch, and horses.
That's one.
The movie had some pretty lame elements, precious coincidences and while you may like it, NCfOM was poorly put together from a cinematic standpoint. That said it was still a pretty good film overall, but not great, IMHO. Just look to the earlier thread for more detailed discussion and reviews. For all intent and purpose that thread climaxed this discussion, but like the movie, it obviously refused to end in the right place. ;0)Cheers,
AuPh
I, for one, think if this didn't have the cats that made 'Fargo' or 'Barton Fink' or 'Miller's Crossing' listed on the 'Directed By' title card, it wouldn't have been nearly as well-received.
If any one of those ended like this did, they'd start to attain (de-attain?) M. Night Shyamalan-like status.
There's something that just doesn't work about art (endings being a part of the 'big picture') that ends up calling attention to itself, despite itself.
That being said, I thought, there were plenty of redeeming qualities found within the phhotography and performances to keep one's attention. Roger Deakins seems to do his best work with these guys and Bardem's 'Anton Chigurh' has got to be one of the scariest on-screen villains in a long time.
The BOOK had the same ending.
z
...why MGM took the film away from Erich Von Stroheim when he wanted to release his page for page filmed interpretation of Frank Norris's novel McTeague. A four hour version personally edited by Von Stroheim was also removed from his control and handed to fellow Director Rex Ingram who re-edited Greed into a 2 1/2 hour version which was cut again by a less talented editor at the request of the studio to bring the running time closer to it's current 1 hour 40 minute length. Unfortunately, many of the subplots and intimate details of the character's lives were lost, but in spite of that the movie doesn't bog down, get sidetracked or lose it's central theme and with it the audience's attention.My point is that Literary Naturalism can be a tedious exercise in communicating ideas regardless of a film's length; that's why adapting a novel to the screen, especially a literary novel that is imbued with strong allegorical content, is rarely the most suitable candidate for conveyance to the screen in a literal fashion, exactly as written.
An author's vision may communicate perfectly from the pages of his/her book, where the absorbing of ideas is completely under the control of the contemplative reader, but literary cinema requires a specific investment of time and an immediate emotional connection. Films, especially films based on literary works, demand one's full and undivided attention which is complicated by extraneous distractions on screen and off.
Literary fiction which ends on a poignant allegorical message can communicate a strong sense of satisfaction, but that same scene in a filmed interpretation of the author's work might convey an unresolved solution to a central theme that leaves the audience frustrated or confused and trivializes the irony that jumped forth from the pages of the novel so successfully.
Finally, to make a long story even longer, does any of this suggest that we should blame the author of the novel for the film interpretation? I've seen nothing to suggest that, but the criticisms I've read and share do point to the fact that literary and film conventions are entirely different animals. IMHO, film should be approached differently, not literally, if success is to be achieved from the source material. Also, for all intent and purpose, film seems to be the tougher beast to tame because so many variables are involved, but that's a topic for another thread.
G'night all! :O)
Cheers,
AuPh
The full length "Greed" would make a terrific mini series. It's too bad that the Turner four hour "restoration" is not available yet on DVD. "Greed" is one of my all time favorites and I watch it or parts of it frequently (I have the laserdisc with a wonderful score by Andrew davis). How powerful this film still is.
...it seems to me that readers will allow themselves a far greater variety of literary experience (including endings) than moviegoers, who tend to like a nicely-wrapped package.
In that regard, I thought the last two lines of The Lives of Others were among the best ever. "Shall I gift-wrap that?" "No, it's for me."
clark
PS Topped only by "We can't all be perfect."
So it seems the book has much more in common with the film then just the same ending.
| 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 ]
