Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: Half Soldier on September 15, 2007, 05:11:30 PM



Title: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Half Soldier on September 15, 2007, 05:11:30 PM
http://www.nocountryforoldmen.com/redband/trailer_large.html


Looks good - this is the 'adults only' trailer.

A few Leone stylings, but the Coens are masters in their own right.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 15, 2007, 08:22:04 PM
Where the hell do these "red band" trailers play? Porn theatres?
Lord knows I've been to the theatre to see plenty of "R-rated" movies but the trailers ALWAYS have the same green band (rated G) trailers all the time no matter what ya see.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 15, 2007, 08:25:08 PM
Where the hell do these "red band" trailers play? Porn theatres?

No, but they dont play "red band" trailers because they know that the same trailer couldn't be shown in a PG-13 rated movie so the demographic for seeing the trailer goes down a lot so studios dont make them.Well at least my theory O0


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 15, 2007, 08:26:38 PM
No, but they dont play "red band" trailers because they know that the same trailer couldn't be shown in a PG-13 rated movie so the demographic for seeing the trailer goes down a lot so studios dont make them.


I'm aware, my question was why don't they play them before R-rated movies?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on September 15, 2007, 08:27:56 PM
oh.probably because of punk kids sneeking in.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on September 15, 2007, 08:29:37 PM
oh.probably because of punk kids sneeking in.


I doubt that's a reason, otherwise they wouldn't play R-rated movies period.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: lovelyrita on September 16, 2007, 12:40:24 PM

I'm aware, my question was why don't they play them before R-rated movie


I am wondering the same thing, truly!! I just watched the trailer. those crazy Coen Brothers. Looks like a great cast..


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on September 16, 2007, 12:44:57 PM
If it's one thing I hate, it's modern westerns. The second I see a dude with a Colt.45 and a ten gallon hat driving a Corvette I say to myself "this is so stupid."

I'm sorry but if you're going to make a western do it right.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Jill on September 16, 2007, 02:20:57 PM
Peacemaker, if you want to see a good modern western, watch Melquiades Estrada...  O0


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 19, 2007, 04:19:08 PM
After watching the trailer, then reading the review over at IMDB (see below), I'm pretty psyched about this film. The Coens getting back to Blood Simple country (which is not country for old men, natch) sounds like a good move.

Quote
Coen's display confidence in crafting yet another masterpiece, 18 May 2007
10/10
Author: ClintsUnforgiven (twood1@emich.edu) from United States

I saw this film at a private preview screening in Pittsburg on 5/16/07. I went with five other friends. The entire group was male, 20 yrs old, and mostly college athletes. I explain the demographic of myself and my companions to reason why I was the only one that came away from the film completely satisfied. The story was fresh and different and I don't think my friends had the capacity to fully enjoy what was going on on-screen. I did. And I am still trying to fully understand what an accomplishment it is. Let me try to explain.

The Coens begin the movie with a voice-over against a barren Texas landscape, much the way Blood Simple began. In fact, there are several similarities between the two films, like the auspicious lack of music. A reviewer whose name escapes me once said that all Coen Bro. films look great and sound better. I'll get to sound later but to talk about the look... Other than some CGI animals, which really shocked me in such an otherwise perfect film, each frame is filled with such interesting material that the tone is set perfectly so that as you view a scene, you know whether to wait on a laugh or brace for...

A large part of what fills those frames is great performances. Perfectly cast is Tommy Lee Jones. He nails it, the crowd goes wild etc... That's expected though. Josh Brolin, on a very recent hot streak, has given us two tremendous performances this year and both would have been a Cannes if the superbly talented Tarantino was loyal to his material and friend and kept the masterpiece that was Grindhouse untouched. Brolin's performance in that film was spot on with the perfect amount of ham and cheese to set the tone for the whole movie. In this one, he shows he can do just as well playing strait and absorbing into character as he does at crowd-pleasing cheesballing it. Kelly Macdonald will have to do something else to prove to me she really isn't the Clara Jean character she portrayed even though I know she is a Scot. Woody Harrelson, who I think gets too much praise sometimes, is at his best here and actually manages not to get blown off the screen (well sorta) by Javier Bordem. Mr. Bordem's performance is a force, much like the character he portrays. His Chigurh is a representation of the lunacy of violence that exists in society. There is no negotiations with it, it has always been here and it will always be here. It/he leaves us in shock and terror and all we can do is... ??? The first thing that needs to be said about the sound is that if another film wins an award all year for sound or sound editing, investigations should be held and the judges' bank accounts monitored. The sound in this movie is so shockingly good. There is no music (save some comically placed source music)and the movie is all the better for it. People talk about the way the music in Jaws enhanced the tension of what was happening on screen. People should, from here on say that the lack of music and the placement of source sound in No Country for Old Men thrilled more.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on September 19, 2007, 06:48:42 PM
sounds very interesting. 8)


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: lovelyrita on September 20, 2007, 08:32:30 PM
I saw the trailer it does look good. Look forward to seeing it also...


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Noodles_SlowStir on November 19, 2007, 09:41:56 PM
Came across a small write up on this film in the Daily Northwestern.  This film does sound quite good.  Seems Javier Bardem turns in another solid performance as the hitman.   Cinematography sounds interesting as well.  Writer even references Sergio in closing.



'No Country for Old Men'
Artsy thriller modernizes Westerns


Daily Northwestern

by: Christian Blauvelt
      11/15/07

You don't have to do this!" pleads a young woman, begging for her life from an unstoppable killer. "You know, everyone always says that," replies her tormenter. "Every time."

The killer is the unspeakably evil hit man Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) in The Coen Brothers' new thriller No Country for Old Men, based on the 2005 novel by Cormac McCarthy. With his severely-parted, baroque hairstyle acting almost as a helmet, his austere attire, granite physique and unblinking countenance, Chigurh is nearly a personified vision of death for the 21st century, a Grim Reaper with a cattle gun instead of a scythe.

In 1980, a Dallas businessman hires Chigurh to recover $2 million he invested in a drug deal gone bad near the solitary emptiness of a Texas border town. The buyers and sellers killed each other off at the scene of the deal in a "part Wild West, part execution-style" gunfight. After the massacre, a hapless hunter, Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) comes upon the grisly scene and takes the money for himself. Two million means that Moss can start fresh and build a better life for his wife (Kelly MacDonald). He quickly becomes hunted, as Chigurh chases him across the American Southwest trying to recover the money for his boss, yes, but more importantly trying to restore balance to the natural order that Moss has upset.

Cinematographer Roger Deakins imbues every shot with rich, warm earth tones to ground the sensational story in a more tactile reality. How refreshing it is to see a film with hues of brown, yellow, and amber and not the repetitive blue, black, and grey fluorescence of techno-obsessed studio films.

The organic sense of each shot directly addresses the taming of the Old West. Did the settlers turn the desert into a garden? Deakins' cinematography suggests in every shot that little of anything new has come to the West; if anything, what has been there has only gotten older. The emptiness of his compositions suggests the void of the characters' souls who think that money or power can be their redemption.

Sergio Leone's description of the West still rings true for No Country for Old Men. "Where life had no value, death sometimes had its price."   


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 19, 2007, 09:55:51 PM
I cannot wait to see this film! I am going Wedneday.  :) :) :)


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on November 20, 2007, 08:11:59 AM
I cannot wait to see this film! I am going Wedneday.  :) :) :)
Me neither! Let us know how you liked it asap. It won't be here before March :-\


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 20, 2007, 11:09:54 AM
Me neither! Let us know how you liked it asap. It won't be here before March :-\

I will give you my review as soon as I see it bro.  O0


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Franks Harmonica on November 21, 2007, 09:58:24 PM
This is the best film that ive seen this year ....with Eastern Promises at a close second! My only complaint was in the CG blood on a couple of scenes, but otherwise IMO .... it is the BEST Coen Bros. film!

Anyone ever read the novel? Im just wondering how much of the dialogue was McCarthy's or Coen's.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 23, 2007, 03:26:00 AM
It was great up until the final contrived few minutes.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: PowerRR on November 23, 2007, 09:59:50 AM
It was meh...

7/10.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Franks Harmonica on November 23, 2007, 04:06:51 PM
You guys are too hard to please! I loved the last few minutes .... especially Tess Harpers scene with Shiguh!


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Noodles_SlowStir on November 28, 2007, 06:53:23 PM
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/11/16/1/a-discussion-about-the-film-no-country-for-old-men

Link for recent round table interview by Charlie Rose with Coens, Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin.  They discuss the film, casting, novel and adaptation, and Cormac McCarthy.  Runs 33:37.  I like most of his interviews.  His entertainment interviews are always more satisfying than the late night talk shows.  This site has a nice selection of archived interviews through the years with guests of varying fields and topics along with recent shows.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 28, 2007, 09:23:35 PM
His entertainment interviews are always more satisfying than the late night talk shows.  



Of course, the celebrities that go on Jay Leno (and his contemporaries) only have time to say a few jokes then explain the clip of the film their in.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on November 28, 2007, 10:59:13 PM
I read an intereview that some newspaper had with Javier Bardem and how the crew would make fun of him having to wear a hair net to get that hairstyle. ;D


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on November 30, 2007, 09:26:00 PM

I just returned from seeing it. It's definitely the best film of the year, by far!!! Brilliant story telling. I seen a lot of Sergio Leone and Sam Peckinpah in this film. The reason it will stand the test of time is because every little aspect of the film is not explained, and it's left to be interpeted by us. We will be talking about this film for years. It's destined to be a masterpiece and is an instant classic in my opinion.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on November 30, 2007, 10:15:38 PM
It's getting 8.9/10 on IMBD! Yeah I know - it's IMBD, but still, 8.9 is impressive. I'd better go watch it.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on December 01, 2007, 01:56:59 AM
It's getting 8.9/10 on IMBD! Yeah I know - it's IMBD, but still, 8.9 is impressive. I'd better go watch it.

Definitely watch it Tuco! I even think this film is heavily influenced by Stanley Kubrick's work. It's a great film.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on December 01, 2007, 10:09:10 AM
Many thanks for this link, Noodles_SlowStir.  There's some interesting stuff in this interview and the site's archives and a patient viewer can learn a lot. I must get to see this film when it opens locally.

I loved that interview Noodles! Thanks for posting.  O0


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on December 01, 2007, 09:09:22 PM
I'm dying to see this but it's not playing anywhere near me.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on December 01, 2007, 09:50:08 PM
I'm dying to see this but it's not playing anywhere near me.

That's to bad Peace. I'm almost positive you'll love this film!


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on December 01, 2007, 11:38:33 PM
That's to bad Peace. I'm almost positive you'll love this film!

I'm almost positive I will too.   ;)


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 02, 2007, 10:13:14 PM
Saw it in Woodstock tonight, just getting a fix on the wide open Texas landscapes was a rush, that in itself was a big part of what 3:10 to Yuma was missing. Great job, see it when you can.  O0


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 03, 2007, 05:39:27 PM
Might as well start an official thread on this film. One thing sould be noted right up front this film is similar in a way to the non linear story line style of Leone, and definitely would benefit from multiple viewings. That said and knowing the writting style of Cormac McCarty I definitely would get the book and see what was condenced into the screen play.


to be continued.....



Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on December 04, 2007, 12:02:00 AM
Not official: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=6539.0 ????


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 04, 2007, 12:32:19 AM
What's weird is that Joe posted in the original thread shortly before starting this new one. Uh, CJ, is time for you to go to the home? :D


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 04, 2007, 05:14:53 AM
Well, this one is in the Other Film Topic, the other was in Off Topic and started discussing the trailer, I believe its a modern Western, should "officially" be in Other Films with all the other films, no?  8)

By the way the ending of this has become quite controversial on imdb boards, lots of spoilers on there though.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on December 04, 2007, 09:48:24 AM
Well, this one is in the Other Film Topic, the other was in Off Topic and started discussing the trailer, I believe its a modern Western, should "officially" be in Other Films with all the other films, no?  8)
Doesn't exactly look like Western to me but lets not start splitting hair  ;)


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on December 04, 2007, 09:08:01 PM
By the way the ending of this has become quite controversial on imdb boards, lots of spoilers on there though.

Yeah. A guy at my work overheard me telling someone to go and see it and said, "What did you think about the ending?". I told him how I personally loved it, and he told me how he personally hated it. Weird.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 04, 2007, 11:05:56 PM
Yeah. A guy at my work overheard me telling someone to go and see it and said, "What did you think about the ending?". I told him how I personally loved it, and he told me how he personally hated it. Weird.

If you loved it could you explain it?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on December 04, 2007, 11:20:27 PM
If you loved it could you explain it?

What do you need explained? ???


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 05, 2007, 07:57:44 AM
It took me a few days of contemplation to figure this out,  its like a modern Spaghetti Western in fact its very similar to a GBU gone seriously wrong.

spoilers:












Bell is " the good" but he doesn't get his man nor does he solve the case, Chigur, "the bad" methodical killer like Angel Eyes, in fact he always "finishes" the job (he kills Moss's wife), Moss "the ugly", he makes seriously wrong decisions, and sort of sells out his wife. Only this time there is grand no settling of accounts, and possibly nobody gets the loot (though Chigur may have).


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 05, 2007, 12:55:10 PM
What do you need explained? ???

The ending itself.

Was it supposed to be poetic or just a total let-down?

They succeeded in the latter.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on December 05, 2007, 03:13:21 PM
The ending itself.

Was it supposed to be poetic or just a total let-down?

They succeeded in the latter.

Well, I know it's straight from the book for one, and it's obviously supposed to be left up to viewer interpretation. To me, the constant passing on of greed and/or evil from generation to generation seemed to be a big theme (or at least to me). Bell couldn't stop Anton Chigurh (evil incarnate) from killing Moss or from getting away, which then allowed him to pass on greed to the next generation i.e. the boys who he bought a shirt from. In a sense, I think Bell felt that he failed, but in some ways he still had hope (in what or for what reason I'm not sure), but he knew his father would be waiting for him.

I don't know, FC. I need to see it again. I just thought the ending left the movie really open to personal interpretation and I liked that.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 05, 2007, 04:12:51 PM
Even the motel shootout at the end that we don't see is somewhat like the Morton-Cheyenne train shootout that we don't see in OUTITW.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 05, 2007, 06:57:37 PM
Well, I know it's straight from the book for one

Ah Ha! That's why it didn't work.

I'll have to read the novel sometime soon.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 06, 2007, 06:59:42 AM
NCFOM is a winner: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id3ba7d7be3800dce8988e7caf525a965


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Ringo on December 15, 2007, 08:05:40 PM
Just saw it.

Starts off excellent, turns pretentious towards the end. Haven't read the novel, but this seems to be a case of trying to be too faithful to the source. Sheriff Bell simply wasn't developed enough for the last psychological half hour to work. Chigurh was effective when he was a silent killing machine, but the whole coin thing and discussions of fate was pretty ridiculous. Maybe it's the best movie of the year (not much of a year) but it's hardly the flawless masterpiece most people are calling it.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 16, 2007, 02:59:54 AM
The 309 page novel has a lot more of Bell, Moss gets killed around pg. 236


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Peacemaker on December 22, 2007, 02:05:17 PM
Well, I saw this last night and...


...I don't know whether I like it or not.


I loved every second of the film right up until the ending which I have mixed feelings about.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 22, 2007, 04:50:39 PM
Possible Spoilers if your are going to read the book.





This is the way it goes down in the novel, which is quite different. Moss is heading to El Paso he picks up a young girl hitching along the road she's sixteen thereabouts a runaway heading to California, running away from home. He lets her drive while he catnaps, buys her a dinner at a diner. He gives her a 1,000 dollars when they get to the motel he gets two seperate rooms one for her one for him, He gets a six pack of beer at a convenience store takes two out of the pack starts to drink one and brings the other to the girl, they sit on the step of her room drinking the beers.

Thats the last we read about Moss alive. The next time we read about him he is in the morgue being identified by Bell, and Moss's wife basically thinks he was involved with the teen.

Different from the film.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 28, 2007, 03:00:42 PM
Was the teen killed to Joe?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on December 28, 2007, 03:43:26 PM
yes they are both dead at the motel out side the room (there was no girl in the pool), and Moss's wife is left with the question of wether or not there was something between them.

The other difference is when Bell goes back to the motel later Chigur is sitting in his car in the parking lot not in the motel room.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on January 02, 2008, 10:09:43 PM
I still can't understand whether this movie belongs in this board. Is this a western?  ::)


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 02, 2008, 10:38:09 PM
Its a modern (circa 1980) Western Noir kind of like "Bad Day At Black Rock" , not a traditional Western.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 03, 2008, 12:33:53 AM
To me that means it's not a Western. I'd rather term it a noir or a neo-noir.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on January 03, 2008, 04:26:17 AM
Don't tell me please that the only thing western is a Stetson on somebody's head! ::)


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 03, 2008, 05:47:48 AM
Quote
Don't tell me please that the only thing western is a Stetson on somebody's head!

No its not a traditional Western just a noir with a Western setting I can agree with that .8)

But it's acts like a drug addicts fix, just the opening Texas landscape sequence alone gives you a good shot of what we are missing with a lack of true Westerns.

Just watch it when it gets to Rome, and see what you think.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 03, 2008, 12:32:44 PM
Is this a western?  ::)



Not at all.
I wouldn't even categorize it as a noir or even neo-noir.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 03, 2008, 12:34:32 PM
its got some noirish parts i think


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on January 04, 2008, 08:57:03 AM
I'd say it's what they call a "Modern Western" as in its set in more modern times, but it has enough western elements in terms of landscape and characterization.  If people use this term for "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia" then I'd say you could use it for this film as well.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on January 04, 2008, 03:12:57 PM
Quote
If people use this term for "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia"

Never used it.

 
Quote
then I'd say you could use it for this film as well.

Ok, definitely not a western then.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on January 04, 2008, 07:25:31 PM
If people use this term for "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia" then I'd say you could use it for this film as well.



I wouldn't call that a western either. Modern or otherwise.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 05, 2008, 10:45:51 PM
Alfredo Garcia: Definitely not a Western.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on January 05, 2008, 10:56:00 PM
Hey I never said it was a western, I said a lot of people describe it as a Modern Western, and if Alfredo Garcia is one, then No Country is one.  Personally I don't care.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 05, 2008, 11:07:18 PM
Hey I never said it was a western . . .
Yet you begin your post on the previous page with "I'd say it's what they call a "Modern Western'". Surely you understand what the phrase "I'd say" means?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on January 05, 2008, 11:46:54 PM
Indeed. I would say it's what they would call a modern western.  And by they I mean casual film-going folk.  Take my English teacher for instance.  He has good taste, though he's certainly no film scholar.  He calls this a modern western, same for Alfredo Garcia.  And to my knowledge so do the good people at places like IMDb.  I know their word isn't law.  But nobody's is.

Is it really worth splitting hairs over?  Genres are for studios and video stores to organize their shit in groups.  Other than that it doesn't make a lick o' difference to me.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 06, 2008, 12:50:16 AM
Makes none to me either. I'm just pointing out that your use of "I'd say" is an endorsement of what "they say." If that isn't what you meant, fine. But that's what you said.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 06, 2008, 04:28:01 AM
So what should we agree on to describe a film that uses some conventions of the Western set in the modern era of the West to distinguish it other films?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 06, 2008, 10:04:48 AM
Is it even necessary to do so? Call it a crime film and let it go at that.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 06, 2008, 04:29:20 PM
Quote
Is it even necessary to do so? Call it a crime film and let it go at that.

I don't know dave, but I tell you when you see those wide open spaces, mountians and deserts a little switch goes off in my soul (the same thing happened the other night watching "Bad Day At Black Rock") and its difficult to just call them or consider them simply crime films.  8)


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 06, 2008, 07:04:49 PM
Todays NY Times

Sound, Exploring Silence
 

By DENNIS LIM
Published: January 6, 2008
FOR all the raves and awards that have so far greeted Joel and Ethan Coen’s “No Country for Old Men,” there is one term of praise that does not apply: It is not a popcorn movie. Which is to say, it is especially ill-suited to the crunching of snacks or the crinkling of wrappers or any of the usual forms of movie-theater noise pollution. There is virtually no music on the soundtrack of this tense, methodical thriller. Long passages are entirely wordless. In some of the most gripping sequences what you hear mostly is a suffocating silence.  
By compelling audiences to listen more closely, this unnervingly quiet movie has had the effect of calling attention to an underappreciated aspect of filmmaking: the use of sound. (Several critics, including A. O. Scott of The New York Times, have singled out the sound design for commendation.) “Even in a movie like this where people think the sound is minimal,” Ethan Coen said in a recent interview, “it’s actually maximal in terms of the effects and how they’re handled.”
What is unusual about “No Country for Old Men” is not simply the level of audio detail but that it is a critical part of the storytelling. Skip Lievsay, the sound editor who has worked with the Coen brothers since their first feature, “Blood Simple” (1984), called “No Country” “quite a remarkable experiment” from a sonic standpoint. “Suspense thrillers in Hollywood are traditionally done almost entirely with music,” he said. “The idea here was to remove the safety net that lets the audience feel like they know what’s going to happen. I think it makes the movie much more suspenseful. You’re not guided by the score and so you lose that comfort zone.”
Joel Coen credits his brother with the idea of minimizing the score. “I was skeptical at first,” he said, but when they watched their first rough cut, “It pretty much told us that we didn’t need any.”
That decision was made with the help of Carter Burwell, the Coens’ regular composer, who has also been part of their stable since “Blood Simple.” (Mr. Lievsay introduced him to the Coens.) “My first suggestion was that if there’s music, it should somehow emanate from the landscape,” Mr. Burwell said. He tried a few “abstract musical sounds, just the harmonics of a violin or some percussive sounds,” but found that even these small touches “destroyed the tension that came from the quiet.”
Like film editing, film sound remains a somewhat misunderstood craft, partly because at its best it tends to be imperceptible. “The better we do our job, the less people realize what’s going on,” Mr. Lievsay said. “I think a lot of people think the sound just comes out of the camera.”
What actually happens is a labor-intensive process of editing and mixing that combines dialogue and sound recorded on location with effects that are added during post-production. The on-set sound is handled by the production sound mixer, in this case, another Coen veteran, Peter Kurland, who started out as a boom operator on “Blood Simple.”
The sound effects are created by the sound designer. On “No Country” the Coens worked with Craig Berkey, new to the fold but a frequent collaborator of Mr. Lievsay’s. In addition, there is the so-called foley process during which foley artists add sound effects that synchronize with the on-screen action, like footsteps or rustling clothes. In the final stage, known as the re-recording mix, all the aural components — dialogue, effects, music — are combined and adjusted to produce a seamless soundtrack.
There are two Oscar categories for sound: best sound editing, for which Mr. Lievsay would be eligible, and best sound mixing, for which Mr. Lievsay, Mr. Berkey, Mr. Kurland and Greg Orloff, who did the foley mixing, would be.
As on most films, the sound effects in “No Country” can be divided roughly into emphatic (gunshots, the beeps of a tracking device that connects hunter and hunted), and ambient noise (engine hums, the whistling prairie wind).
Mr. Berkey had to create a range of sounds for the array of weapons used in the film, which observes a cat-and-mouse triangle among an average guy who has found a bag of money (Josh Brolin), the hired killer on his trail (Javier Bardem) and a world-weary sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones). For the air-tank cattle gun favored by Mr. Bardem’s psychotic Chigurh, Mr. Berkey used a pneumatic nail gun. “I wasn’t looking for authenticity, so I didn’t even research cattle guns,” he said. “I just knew it had to be impactful, with that two-part sound, like a ch-chung.”
The silencer-equipped shotgun, which features prominently in the bloodiest scenes, was more complicated. To get an effect that was at once muffled and explosive — it is described in the original Cormac McCarthy novel as sounding “like someone coughing into a barrel” — Mr. Berkey layered several disparate sounds together. “There’s no actual gunshot that’s part of that sound,” he said. Instead he paired “high-end spitting-type sounds, like pitched-up female screams” with an accidental, bass-heavy thump that Mr. Lievsay had detected on an on-set recording.
 
 


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 06, 2008, 07:05:32 PM
part 2

“The essence of sound design is you can’t record the sound,” Mr. Lievsay said. “You have to take a lot of sounds and put them together. You can’t just go somewhere with a shotgun and a silencer. It wouldn’t be the sound that Joel and Ethan wanted anyway.”
The other big challenge for Mr. Lievsay and Mr. Berkey was getting the right roar for the vehicle engines, reflecting the film’s roughly 1980 period. “We needed big-sounding, high-horse-powered trucks,” Mr. Lievsay said. “The more gas mileage and the newer the vehicle, the less distinctive the sound.”
The nocturnal driving scenes are occasions for the composer Mr. Burwell’s near-subliminal drone to creep into the sound mix. “The idea was to use the music to deepen the tension in some of these transitional scenes, when there’s not much going on,” he said. “The sounds are snuck in underneath the wind or the sound of a car. When the wind or car goes away, the sound is left behind, but you never hear it appear.”
Mr. Burwell found that most musical instruments didn’t fit with the minimalist sound sculpture he had in mind, so he used singing bowls, standing metal bells traditionally employed in Buddhist meditation practice that produce a sustained tone when rubbed. For one of the few interior scenes with score — Chigurh menacing a service-station owner with a fateful coin flip — he tuned the music’s swelling hum to the 60-hertz frequency of a refrigerator.
The sonic precision and cohesion of the Coens’ films have much to do with the close collaboration between Mr. Lievsay and Mr. Burwell. Extensive discussions between a film’s sound editor and composer are rare, given typical post-production schedules. It’s customary, Mr. Burwell said, for the two parties to meet only “at the final mix where everyone will be arguing about what should be the loudest.” But Mr. Burwell and Mr. Lievsay, having worked on all 12 Coen films, have figured out a cooperative approach. “We try to be complementary, or we stay out of each other’s way,” Mr. Lievsay said. On some films, like “Barton Fink,” they have gone so far as to divide up the sonic spectrum for individual scenes, so that one of them tackles the high end and the other the low end.
Mr. Burwell said he was pleased that his sound-department colleagues are getting the bulk of the attention this time. “If you ask film composers — and I have — whether they feel there’s too much or too little music in the average film, they will all say too much,” he said. “I’m very happy this time to be on the other side of that balance.”
His work on “No Country for Old Men” is by some measure the most self-effacing of his career. (“My self couldn’t be any more effaced,” he said, laughing.) Including end credits, there are a mere 16 minutes of music in the film. But after learning that it meets eligibility requirements (he initially assumed it didn’t), Mr. Burwell has submitted it for Oscar consideration, partly at the request of the distributor, Miramax, and partly, he joked, “to stand up for all the minimal scores in the world.” (Mr. Burwell also wrote the scores for two other 2007 releases, Sidney Lumet’s “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” and Lasse Hallstrom’s “Hoax.”)
Talking about minimal film scores, he recalled his initial preparations for “Blood Simple.” Because he had never written a score, he decided to tape the Hitchcock classic “The Birds” off television. “At the end of every intense scene I would slap myself and go, ‘Oh, I forgot to listen to the music,’ ” he said. Rewatching the film, he realized there was no music, just a blanket of electronic bird sounds. (Hitchcock’s composer, the great Bernard Herrmann, supervised the sound design.) “That was an interesting first score to pay attention to,” Mr. Burwell said.
There is at least one sequence in “No Country for Old Men” that could be termed Hitchcockian in its virtuosic deployment of sound. Holed up in a hotel room, Mr. Brolin’s character awaits the arrival of his pursuer, Chigurh. He hears a distant noise (meant to be the scrape of a chair, Mr. Berkey said). He calls the lobby. The rings are audible through the handset and, faintly, from downstairs. No one answers. Footsteps pad down the hall. The beeps of Chigurh’s tracking device increase in frequency. Then there is a series of soft squeaks — only when the sliver of light under the door vanishes is it clear that a light bulb has been carefully unscrewed.
“That was an experiment in what we called the edge of perception,” Mr. Lievsay said. “Ethan especially kept asking us to turn it lower and lower.”
Ethan Coen said, “Josh’s character is straining to hear, and you want to be in his point of view, likewise straining to hear.” The effect can be lost, he conceded, “if it’s a louder crowd and the room is lousy.”
Joel Coen interjected, “If it’s a loud crowd at that point, the film isn’t working anyway.”



Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Silenzio on January 06, 2008, 08:30:43 PM
Makes none to me either. I'm just pointing out that your use of "I'd say" is an endorsement of what "they say." If that isn't what you meant, fine. But that's what you said.

Fair enough.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 07, 2008, 12:24:12 AM
CJ, thanks for that. One of the most interesting articles on a film since I don't know when.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Eric on January 13, 2008, 12:51:46 AM
Just saw this for the first time, despite being a huge fan of the Coens and Cormac McCarthy.

Four things [spoilers ahead]:

1. Watching this movie is like having someone apply constant pressure to your chest for two and a half hours. The Coens carefully craft each scene so there's no real catharsis, and that's the problem I think many people have with the ending.

2. ...The biggest lack of catharsis is the way that Chigurh doesn't die in the end. There's a moment, a brilliant moment, where the Coens let us think that he's been killed in the chance (like the coin flip) car accident, which almost gives us the release that by that moment we crave. Doesn't get his just desserts. Just walks off into the sunset, the way we expect our hero to do. In a way, all of the Coen's serious movies (and some of their comedies -- Raising Arizona, for instance) deal with this unnameable evil that coexists with (or within) mankind. This is their most cynical representation -- there is no happy ending. There is no way to defeat evil. Reconsider the conversation that Bell has with his brother (?) -- the evil is bigger than Bell, as a person, and as a character. To think otherwise is vanity.

3. The underlying theme of the movie involves the fate that Chigurh talks about with that poor old gas station attendant, and the inevitability of his actions that he talks about with Carla Jean at the end ("People always say that: 'You don't have to do this.'"). Chigurh has taken the path of evil. Bell, the path of good. Moss diverges from his path to another when he follows the trail of dog blood to the "OK Corral." Though it seems as if a good deed -- bringing water to the dying man -- gets him fully involved, in reality, it's the moment that he takes the money home. I think he's conscious of the path he's walking at that point, or at least at the point he tells Carla Jean to get packed. Like the lead character in another movie I recently watched, Melville's Le Samourai, he's heading inevitably into death from that point on. Chigurh even tells him so, without argument.

4. I feel as though, though my wife disagrees, Chigurh becomes more human as the movie goes on. Our first clear view of him is his otherworldly, straining face, as he chokes the deputy with the handcuffs. Strangely, the more humanized his character becomes, the scarier he is. He moves from the realm of movie monster to someone you could conceivably imagine existing in our world. Does he kill Carla Jean at the end? He's not carrying a weapon as he exits the house....

5. (I'll throw in one for free) This is not, by any means, a date movie.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 13, 2008, 04:11:34 PM
nice post Eric


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Eric on January 13, 2008, 11:28:57 PM
Thanks Joe. I was a bit frustrated with this thread, because nobody seemed to want to talk about the movie.

No, it's not a western. It's not a neo-noir. It's not a horror movie. It exists somewhere in between. Can we get beyond the silly labels?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 14, 2008, 04:21:32 AM
Yea we got a bit off track, I think one of the problems here is that not many members have seen this yet, and I for one only saw it once which is not really enough, but it did get me to read the book. I would like to see it again though before I attempt to comment much more about it (especially after reading the novel).

Quote
2. ...The biggest lack of catharsis is the way that Chigurh doesn't die in the end. There's a moment, a brilliant moment, where the Coens let us think that he's been killed in the chance (like the coin flip) car accident, which almost gives us the release that by that moment we crave. Doesn't get his just desserts. Just walks off into the sunset, the way we expect our hero to do.

Actually, the book is even more ironic, the car in the book is driven by doped up kids who speed through the red light. So its almost like what goes around comes around illegal drugs almost kill Chigurh.  8)


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on January 22, 2008, 07:53:55 AM
up for best picture oscar


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 26, 2008, 12:36:30 AM
DVD on March 11: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=66868


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Sonny on January 29, 2008, 08:20:40 PM

$29.99 !!! That DVD better have amazing special features (perhaps including an alternate ending??  ;))


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on January 30, 2008, 04:57:40 PM
$29.99 !!! That DVD better have amazing special features (perhaps including an alternate ending??  ;))

According to our friends at TheDigitalBits.com, the only extra material will be 3 making of documentaries (Working with the Coens: Reflections of Cast and Crew, The Making of No Country for Old Men, and Diary of a Country Sheriff). A Blu-ray release will also be available for $34.99 with identical features. Artwork is attached.-Taken from DVDActive

Sounds like the high price is probably from people downloading movies and reaping all the benefits. I know i got a $3 copy from some dude at my school  O0


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Groggy on February 01, 2008, 12:28:30 PM
Watched this last night. I will slightly expand on my comments in the Rate the Last Movie... thread.

I enjoyed it. But there were many problems with it. The plot wasn't very clear and it took me a long time to figure out what was going on and how Llewelyn and Anton were tied together. Also, Tommy Lee Jones. His character seems to be tacked on to the story. He flits in and out of the film at seemingly random intervals and then has a big speech about his life at the end. It's a glorified cameo really, and what's the point of the end if he doesn't factor into the story itself? I didn't mind the ending, I thought it was well-done actually, but why the sudden shift in focus to the Sheriff after he's played almost no part in the film?

On the plus side, Javier Bardem was an excellent villain. Tommy Lee and Josh Brolin were okay but neither truly impressed me. The action scenes and use of suspense were very well-done, and the cinematography was gorgeous. I also liked the lack of music, which along with the meticulous attention to deal, put me in mind of The Day of the Jackal. I fail to see any real connections, stylistically or otherwise, to Leone however.

So, 7/10. It's definitely the best of the three Best Picture nominees I've seen thus far.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Atlas2112 on February 01, 2008, 03:11:19 PM
I fail to see any real connections, stylistically or otherwise, to Leone however.

personally, the scene where Moss is waiting in his motel room as you hear anton's foots steps just outside kind of reminded me of a similair scene in GBU where blondie's relaoding as Tuco and Freinds are just out side his hotel room.

but thats just me.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Groggy on February 01, 2008, 03:17:17 PM
personally, the scene where Moss is waiting in his motel room as you hear anton's foots steps just outside kind of reminded me of a similair scene in GBU where blondie's relaoding as Tuco and Freinds are just out side his hotel room.

but thats just me.

I can see a connection. Not sure if it was intentional or not though.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Sonny on February 09, 2008, 12:18:55 PM
According to our friends at TheDigitalBits.com, the only extra material will be 3 making of documentaries (Working with the Coens: Reflections of Cast and Crew, The Making of No Country for Old Men, and Diary of a Country Sheriff). A Blu-ray release will also be available for $34.99 with identical features. Artwork is attached.-Taken from DVDActive

Sounds like the high price is probably from people downloading movies and reaping all the benefits. I know i got a $3 copy from some dude at my school  O0

Those bastards! it's cos of them that our economy has inflated drastically, down with free art!!! on with slightly over priced but affordable merchandise!!







Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Sonny on February 09, 2008, 12:34:51 PM

I loved how this movie didn't have a soundtrack. I love how it bothered people because they "didn't know what to feel without the music", which goes to show many many things about their character and usefulness.  The film was like reading the book (i don't if mentioned this earlier?) I didn't find it particularly difficult to follow, it just had a different kind of pace, which can't even be described as slow, just very original.

I don't know why people consider this a western.  It's reminiscent of a western because of it's setting, because of the plot theme and because a couple of the men wear hats, but it's clearly a drama.  I'm sure the director liked westerns and so we see the little references that are likely to be intentional. But that still doesn't make it a western. As far as the "flaws" everyone complains about, like the imbd user comments "A hauntingly flawed unconventional masterpiece.." well it's a matter of style in my opinion.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Groggy on February 09, 2008, 03:23:10 PM
Quote
I loved how this movie didn't have a soundtrack. I love how it bothered people because they "didn't know what to feel without the music", which goes to show many many things about their character and usefulness.

Agreed. Come on, the movie didn't NEED a soundtrack!


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 09, 2008, 07:59:25 PM
Where have these people been?  Bresson dispensed with soundtracks 50 years ago!


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on February 26, 2008, 10:41:03 AM
If this is the best (hollywood) movie of the year I'll have to wait for 2009 to get there again, unless I'll choose italian movies (which I will). This is a blatant remake of Charley Varrick.  And of course the Matthau-Siegel movie was better: Siegel no frills approach blended perfectly with Matthau Mitchum-like attitude. That was not enough, though, for today's fake movie production. A genre movie must be traded for something deep.  So  they upped the ante on the killer, making Bardem a kind of Patrick (is this the character who never dies?)-Terminator character, as credible as a George Bush speech. Add to this the (already noted here) Tommy Lee Jones philosophizing and really no use character (but of course you have to have this if you pretend you're not making an action movie but a movie and you have a bloated movie on the skeleton of a thriller (and the thriller parts are the best). I much prefer Cloverfield to this: there you have cheap thrills delivered which is the only reason you go to watch hollywood moviest. And Joe Don Baker should have earned an Oscar, if Bardem did.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on February 26, 2008, 12:32:12 PM
I much prefer Cloverfield to this

Are you serious?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 26, 2008, 01:30:31 PM
Are you serious?
Hey, it's titoli, he never jokes.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on February 26, 2008, 07:14:25 PM
And this has nothing to do with western, exactly as Charley Varrick. This is just a thriller, IMO. It is what it does best: give you 4-5 thrills. Let's make it over with wanting to see western where there isn't.
If you don't like me defining Cloverfield simply better than this, let's just say  that it is more honest: it is just what it says it is: a hollywood movie.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on February 26, 2008, 07:23:21 PM
I just read that Matthau won a BAFTA for CV.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 28, 2008, 07:47:35 PM
This reviewer almost has me convinced...

Despicable Snuff Film with Pseudo-Intellectual Pretensions, 16 December 2007

Author: Danusha_Goska


*** This comment may contain spoilers ***


"No Country for Old Men" is for the kind of film fan who remarks, "Gee, wasn't that murder a clever mise-en-scene?" and who asks, "What kind of lens do you think they used in that strangulation shot?" The skeleton of "No Country for Old Men" is a cheap, 78-minute, gun-monster-chase B movie. Javier Bardem plays Anton Chigurh, the monster. He is Frankenstein; he is Max Cady from "Cape Fear;" he is from your childhood nightmares. He may be death personified.

One of many completely implausible scenes: an arresting officer, defying any logic, turns his back on Chigurh. Chigurh, displaying the supple sinuosity of a Cirque du Soleil contortionist, or an orangutan, slips out of his handcuffs. This is done out of camera view, because for Bardem it would be impossible; thus the scene's implausibility. Chigurh then, in real time, strangles the young police officer to death on camera. This is an extended sequence. This is the payoff for "No Country for Old Men": watching one human being kill other human beings, in scene after scene after scene, using various weapons, including a captive bolt pistol usually used on livestock. Guess Chigurh couldn't get hold of a Texas chainsaw. This is a slasher flick for the pretentious.

Early on, there are well-done, if standard, chase scenes. A man outruns a car: not believable, but fun to watch. A pit bull chases this fleeing man down a whitewater river. The man reloads his gun at the very last moment (of course) and shoots the pit bull dead just as it is about to sink its teeth into the man. Later, in a hotel, a beeping transponder informs the killer where his prey hides. Your pulse may race and you may think that this is all leading up to something interesting. You will be disappointed.

Tommy Lee Jones, whose ear lobes appear to be metastasizing as he ages, wanders aimlessly through the film as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, delivering cornpone, homespun, cowboy poet ruminations that are more or less opaque in meaning. No doubt the film's fans are even now feverishly compiling a companion volume that decodes Bell's dreams and conveys their depth.

Woody Harrelson, late the bartender of the TV sitcom "Cheers," shows up for a completely pointless half-hour role that yanks the viewer right out of the movie. "What is Woody Harrelson doing here?" Some years back, some bored English majors decided that conventional narrative structure was not intellectual enuf, and decided to play games with narrative. "No Country for Old Men" plays these sorts of games. The viewer is invited to invest time getting to know characters who are eliminated from the plot in ways that convey no meaning and are not moving. The narrative flow is truncated and yet the movie keeps going; viewers ask themselves why the movie is continuing -- sometimes out loud, even in a movie theater -- this is supposed to be a deep, intellectual experience. It is not. It is merely annoying.

Other than bratty English major head games, pretty much the entire substance of "No Country for Old Men" is a series of murders and tortures committed by Chigurh, who may symbolize your high school's worst bully – a bully so terrifying exactly because he targeted English majors. His victims are often courteous; their likability makes watching them be humiliated and then murdered an uncomfortable, and, given the film's structure, ultimately pointless exercise. Not only are the Coen Brothers torturing their characters, they also torment their ticket-buying audiences.

Chigurh's nice victims are often poor, rural, Southern, whites, the kind of people often not featured as positive, lead characters in Hollywood entertainments. They are often villains – witness films like "Deliverance." Here they are murder victims. Chigurh is associated with Mexicans, part of a rising "dismal tide," as one Anglo character puts it. No matter how you feel about immigration, you may find this association of Mexicans with a rising tide of evil to be offensive.

The film's boosters insist that the movie offers three deep and shocking lessons: life doesn't always follow a neat narrative structure; evil often triumphs; and the old days were more peaceful and, nowadays, things are getting really bad. In truth, everyone walking in to the theater already knows the first two "lessons." No one needs the Coen brothers to inform him that life doesn't always follow a neat narrative structure, or that evil often triumphs. We expect filmmakers, and all artists, to offer us a more substantial thesis. As for the third "lesson," that the old days were more peaceful and things are getting really bad today -- have the Coens, or Cormac McCarthy, heard of Attila the Hun, or any number of other less-than-peaceful and courteous personages from our common human past? One might well be dubious about "No Country"'s "lessons." Visit internet discussion boards devoted to this movie, and you will find fans asking, not "What is fate?" or "What is the role of a good man in a bad world?" but questions like, "If Hannibal Lector and Anton Chigurh were locked in a room, who would come out alive?" Given such reflections, one is safe in concluding that the appeal of this film is its emphasis on graphic violence, rather than on any more advanced intellectual or artistic merit.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on February 28, 2008, 10:04:19 PM
Quote
This reviewer almost has me convinced...

Didn't I?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 28, 2008, 10:25:26 PM
Didn't I?


As a matter of fact your short review inspired me to seek out the other side of the spectrum.
I agree with the both of you but overall I cannot see myself disliking the movie as a whole.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on February 29, 2008, 04:38:45 AM
Me I just have an affinity for thrillers set in the West, rather than in urban areas.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on February 29, 2008, 04:52:21 AM
Quote
but overall I cannot see myself disliking the movie as a whole.

Me neither. I just remarked the movie's limits: it is pure entertainment and as such should be treated.  It has no profoundity but it strives to give that impression by inserting the TLJ character. Which is a pity: it slows down a good thriller. Though of course then it wouldn't have earned 4 Oscars.


Me I just have an affinity for thrillers set in the West, rather than in urban areas.

CJ, not now, but 30 years ago did you get out of the theatre thinking Charley Varrick was a western? And may I ask you which of the two movies you like best?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 29, 2008, 07:05:34 AM
I have to agree that the movie was more of entertainment than art. Now, I can't decide whether the reach for more depth was pretentious or just short...

Just saw this for the first time, despite being a huge fan of the Coens and Cormac McCarthy.

Four things [spoilers ahead]:

1. Watching this movie is like having someone apply constant pressure to your chest for two and a half hours. The Coens carefully craft each scene so there's no real catharsis, and that's the problem I think many people have with the ending.

2. ...The biggest lack of catharsis is the way that Chigurh doesn't die in the end. There's a moment, a brilliant moment, where the Coens let us think that he's been killed in the chance (like the coin flip) car accident, which almost gives us the release that by that moment we crave. Doesn't get his just desserts. Just walks off into the sunset, the way we expect our hero to do. In a way, all of the Coen's serious movies (and some of their comedies -- Raising Arizona, for instance) deal with this unnameable evil that coexists with (or within) mankind. This is their most cynical representation -- there is no happy ending. There is no way to defeat evil. Reconsider the conversation that Bell has with his brother (?) -- the evil is bigger than Bell, as a person, and as a character. To think otherwise is vanity.

3. The underlying theme of the movie involves the fate that Chigurh talks about with that poor old gas station attendant, and the inevitability of his actions that he talks about with Carla Jean at the end ("People always say that: 'You don't have to do this.'"). Chigurh has taken the path of evil. Bell, the path of good. Moss diverges from his path to another when he follows the trail of dog blood to the "OK Corral." Though it seems as if a good deed -- bringing water to the dying man -- gets him fully involved, in reality, it's the moment that he takes the money home. I think he's conscious of the path he's walking at that point, or at least at the point he tells Carla Jean to get packed. Like the lead character in another movie I recently watched, Melville's Le Samourai, he's heading inevitably into death from that point on. Chigurh even tells him so, without argument.

4. I feel as though, though my wife disagrees, Chigurh becomes more human as the movie goes on. Our first clear view of him is his otherworldly, straining face, as he chokes the deputy with the handcuffs. Strangely, the more humanized his character becomes, the scarier he is. He moves from the realm of movie monster to someone you could conceivably imagine existing in our world. Does he kill Carla Jean at the end? He's not carrying a weapon as he exits the house....

5. (I'll throw in one for free) This is not, by any means, a date movie.
2. I thought the car crash was more or less stupid. I mean the actual crash, not necessarily Chigur buying the shirt and walking away. I saw it coming and I didn't like it because it's something we've seen a thousand times.

4. Yeah, I think he becomes more human towards the end. Was there pitty or sadness in his eyes before he killed Carla jean, or is it just me? Anyway, I think it's pretty clear he killed her. When he comes out of the house he checks if there is any blood on his sole.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on February 29, 2008, 04:49:41 PM
Quote
2. I thought the car crash was more or less stupid. I mean the actual crash, not necessarily Chigur buying the shirt and walking away. I saw it coming and I didn't like it because it's something we've seen a thousand times.


Well in the book it was a "what goes around comes around moment" In the novel the kids in the car are high on the dope from the beginning of the film when they drive through the red light.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on March 01, 2008, 02:29:22 AM


Well in the book it was a "what goes around comes around moment" In the novel the kids in the car are high on the dope from the beginning of the film when they drive through the red light.
I can't understand why they dropped that out of the movie. It would have worked better.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Sonny on March 01, 2008, 06:27:24 PM
Me I just have an affinity for thrillers set in the West, rather than in urban areas.

I can't think of many thrillers taking place in the west or the outback.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on March 01, 2008, 07:20:22 PM
This is one. I never saw it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087268/



Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on March 01, 2008, 07:31:39 PM
Quote
http://I can't think of many thrillers taking place in the west or the outback.

Well off the top of my head

Fargo, Blood Simple for the Cohens
Wild At Heart, David Lynch
The Hitch-Hiker
Touch of Evil


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on March 01, 2008, 07:38:06 PM
Well, You are right titoli, it sure is similar to Charley Varick, and no I wouldn't say Charley Varick was a Western.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Sonny on March 03, 2008, 07:40:03 PM
Well off the top of my head

Fargo, Blood Simple for the Cohens
Wild At Heart, David Lynch
The Hitch-Hiker
Touch of Evil

I don't know about the others, but Wild at Heart seems more like a drama.. i've never seen the whole thing, though. I pictured a "western thriller" being something taking place at the beginning of the century, since the "west" we know of now is just referred to as the "country". I wasn't sure what you meant.

So, would you consider Thelma and Louise a thriller taking place in the west? (i suppose you could, since it literally takes place in the west)




Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on March 04, 2008, 06:21:03 AM
Its really fuzzy on this subject with me, and I think it all has to do with the importance of the Landscape in the Western being an Uber Character always being sort of 900 lbs gorilla in the room when it comes to other genre films set in West.

Thelma & Louise more of a road picture
Electra Glide in Blue more of a drama


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on March 04, 2008, 08:17:33 AM
CJ, you haven't said which of the 2 you prefer: CV or NCFOM?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on March 04, 2008, 03:30:31 PM
They are both different yet similar, CV didn't have as much scenery as NCFOM. I'd have to watch them back to back to decide,


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Groggy on March 10, 2008, 06:56:44 PM
For some reason, I feel the need to say:

Enough with comparing this film to Leone! Please. And Peckinpah too. It doesn't really come close to either director's style except for brief flashes or individual scenes.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 11, 2008, 01:43:12 AM
DVDTimes (w/ spoilers): http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67204
Beaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews35/no_country_for_old_men.htm


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 11, 2008, 03:19:40 AM
Me neither. I just remarked the movie's limits: it is pure entertainment and as such should be treated.  It has no profoundity but it strives to give that impression by inserting the TLJ character. Which is a pity: it slows down a good thriller.


Wrong :)

IMO (***spoilers***):

Youre right when you pintpoint THE weakness of the movie, which is the character of TLJ. But he shouldn't be erazed of the movie, on the contrary: whatever you can say, the profoundity of the movie lies really on this character. He should be better inserted, play a bigger role.
He is the judge, the only human beeing, whereas the two other are only animals, without consciousness. The only two times Josh Brolin shows himself as a human and not an animal, i mean when his feelings are not only fear or "i want money" (when he goes back to the cars to bring water, and when he tries to contact and protect his wife), bad things happen to him. No, this (hard) country is not for men, old or young. The country could have been great, it is only very good, because this aspect of the movie, which is its subject, is not very well done.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 12, 2008, 01:39:22 PM
Wrong :)

IMO (***spoilers***):

Youre right when you pintpoint THE weakness of the movie, which is the character of TLJ. But he shouldn't be erazed of the movie, on the contrary: whatever you can say, the profoundity of the movie lies really on this character. He should be better inserted, play a bigger role.
He is the judge . . .
But to adjudicate well, a judge must stay above the fray. He observes, weighs evidence, renders a verdict (To wit: This is No Country For Old Men). By your own logic, the TLJ character perfectly fulfills his role. The movie sets this up from the get-go with the voice-over Sherriff Bell recites. Everything that follows is mediated through his perceptions.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 12, 2008, 02:44:22 PM
You're making good points. I stil lthink the movie needs a couple more scenes of Tommy Lee Jones before the last part (of course, he HAS to stay very passive and arrive AFTER the action everytime).


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 13, 2008, 02:28:51 AM
Glenn Erickson on the new DVD: http://www.dvdsavant.com/s2524old.html

Some good points, but also some speculation that seems a bit off the mark:
Quote
Chigurh's most original moment is perhaps his run-in with the older lady (Kathy Lamkin, also in The Valley of Elah) who refuses to tell him where Llewelyn Moss works. [Chigurh] has no power over this woman, who simply fires back, "Did you not hear me?" with an unmovable determination she probably brings to NRA meetings. Chigurh sees no fear in her eyes and simply backs off, like an animal that knows it hasn't intimidated its prey. It's an important insight: Chigurh can only kill people who invite themselves to be killed, according to his screwy personal code.
Isn't Erickson missing something here? Doesn't Chigurh decide not to kill the woman (at least in part) because he hears the toilet being flushed and realizes she's not alone? He's canny enough to know when to avoid an unnecessary risk.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: titoli on March 13, 2008, 02:59:04 AM
And the woman is evidently intimitated.
But to call this an "original moment" has little bearing on the value of the movie. A movie may have many original moments and not being a masterpiece. I'm currently watching many SW with 2 or 3 original moments, though they are fundamentally crap.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on March 13, 2008, 06:04:23 AM
"I'm currently watching many SW with 2 or 3 original moments, though they are fundamentally crap."

You should be acquiring by now a rich storehouse of original moments, you can be a virtual font of suggestions, a unique resource for Western scriptwriters, actually titoli, you should seriously consider becoming a Western "Script Doctor"  O0 O0 O0


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Groggy on March 13, 2008, 06:57:34 AM
Glenn Erickson on the new DVD: http://www.dvdsavant.com/s2524old.html

Some good points, but also some speculation that seems a bit off the mark:Isn't Erickson missing something here? Doesn't Chigurh decide not to kill the woman (at least in part) because he hears the toilet being flushed and realizes she's not alone? He's canny enough to know when to avoid an unnecessary risk.

Good call Jenkins. If that's the case, then why did he kill the blonde at the hotel? What threat did she pose?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 13, 2008, 08:15:40 AM
Good call Jenkins. If that's the case, then why did he kill the blonde at the hotel? What threat did she pose?
None that I know of. I think he likes killing and does it whenever he can; my point is he'll forgo the pleasure when he thinks the risk is too great (note that he prefers to be one-on-one with his victims, with no witnesses around).


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Groggy on March 13, 2008, 04:28:30 PM
None that I know of. I think he likes killing and does it whenever he can; my point is he'll forgo the pleasure when he thinks the risk is too great (note that he prefers to be one-on-one with his victims, with no witnesses around).

Maybe you should e-mail Glenn about that. He'll probably reply if you articulate your point well-enough. O0


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Ben Tyreen on March 16, 2008, 03:06:27 PM
Quote
Maybe you should e-mail Glenn about that. He'll probably reply if you articulate your point well-enough.

 Did you see you're mentioned at the end of his review, groggy?  Very cool. :)

 SPOILERS

Read the book earlier this week and watched the movie last night.  I'm still thinking about it, but right now I say I enjoyed the movie moreso than the novel.  Surprise, surprise but excellent performances all around, but I thought Josh Brolin is getting lost in the shuffle of the movie.  Moss was a great character, but maybe against Bardem's Chigurh it just didn't seem that way. 

 As for the ending, I didn't care for it.  I did not feel robbed in not seeing Moss' death because the scene before and after were handled so well, especially Bell pulling up to the hotel as the gun battle ensues.  I like the idea that Evil cannot be stopped, but I wanted some sort of resolution and not just Bell talking about his dreams.  Not quite sure how else it could have ended without being too Hollywood.  Maybe fade to black right after Anton walks away?

  And a question for everyone.  The Mexicans who kill Moss, are they hired by the same men who hired Anton and Wells or on the other side, the drug runners?  I couldn't decide.

 All in all, a very good movie although I don't know about Best Picture.  I do have to take a point away for the ending, but I'll say 8/10. O0 


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Groggy on March 16, 2008, 08:01:47 PM
Of course I saw. Me and Glenn are buddies.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: T.H. on March 17, 2008, 10:28:17 PM
Where have these people been?  Bresson dispensed with soundtracks 50 years ago!

Good thing I read this entire thread before posting, I would have chimed in with "A Man Escaped" reference.

now to the random thoughts...

I just saw this movie and I think I love it. I understand the problems that some have with the TLJ character but his fate was sealed from the very beginning when his wife tells him, to paraphrase, "don't get hurt and don't harm anyone". TLJ's facial expression foreshadows his role in this mess. He knew what he was dealing with and wanted no part of it, otherwise I don't think he would have been as diplomatic.

I also don't see the problem with the sudden appearance of Woody Harrelson's character, as it's natural for a rich, powerful man to bring in outside help, especially in this particular situation.

Chigurh is the best villian that I have seen in some time. He's wonderful. I don't have an issue with the humanizing of the 'de-human' character, we do enjoy that Frank fellow around here, don't we?

My biggest issue with this film is that the Brolin character brings a dying man water hours after their meeting. He's completely free, escapes, and then suddenly decides to return to the scene of a bloodbath to give a presumably dead man some water? I kept asking myself this question throughout the movie, and it was really bothersome. This doesn't add up, it feels like a thin plot point to bring him back to the scene so he can be chased. This should have occured the first time at the scene, or he should have rushed somewhere near to fetch water for a dying man. Brolin's character does more to care for a dying stranger than his wife, and this stranger isn't Bill Carson or anyone beneficiary.

The sound and cinematography were excellent. The use of the non-score is no new practice but a tough task to manage, the coens excelled thoroughly. Deakins cinematography was brilliant. Every moment of this film seemed meticulously crafted, which doesn't give the viewer a chance to take a breather.

I don't have an issue with the ending, as Chigurh was at his most human at the site of the car accident, albeit somewhat predictable. Overall, I loved this movie, though I chalk it up as a great suspense/thriller though I am not sold on its intellectual merits. If anything, situation and chance are equivalent to desire, and how a situation parlays into these elements is just luck I guess.

Edit: I fogot to add the significance of the setting, 1980. Reagan's first year in office. I think Chigurh will be compared to the corporate monster in America, and I believe that when TLJ says in the movie's final moments, paraphrazing again, "and what will come" can be interpretted as the complete corporate takeover of this country. Think about it the prey, poor Texas country folk. Also, the only sign of big business in this movie is the office, comparable to Morton's train, everything else in NCFOM's environment is small business. West is a sign of change, the beginning of Industrial America, as NCFOM may be viewed as the birth of corporate America.

Just throwing this idea out there, though I'm sure it's been explored and written about already. I do see plot connections to GBU and West, just in terms of theme and particular sequences/situations, but not so much in the manner it was filmed. I haven't seen the Siegel film Titoli referenced, so I can't comment on that. No matter what your political ideals may be, you can't deny that 1980 is a pivotal year in American history. Don't murder me on this, I am not trying to impose my politics on this board, I just thought it was interesting and worth discussing.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 17, 2008, 11:22:17 PM
My biggest issue with this film is that the Brolin character brings a dying man water hours after their meeting. He's completely free, escapes, and then suddenly decides to return to the scene of a bloodbath to give a presumably dead man some water? I kept asking myself this question throughout the movie, and it was really bothersome. This doesn't add up, it feels like a thin plot point to bring him back to the scene so he can be chased. This should have occured the first time at the scene, or he should have rushed somewhere near to fetch water for a dying man. Brolin's character does more to care for a dying stranger than his wife, and this stranger isn't Bill Carson or anyone beneficiary.
It's his conscience acting on him after a considerable delay. There are some things it takes Moss a while to process. He's not a multi-tasker, so he has to let things go until he's dealt with the matter at hand. But eventually his brain catches up with the circumstances and he finally acts. Another example of this is when he finally figures out there's a tracking device in the money bag. Duh, Einstein. In fact, if Moss had taken the time to think through the implications of his initial actions before committing himself, he never would have taken the money to begin with. The cruelest aspect of this is that he doesn't see how vulnerable his wife will be once he's dead. He has a management-by-crisis style, he can't really look at things long term. That's, as they say, his tragedy.

I agree about Chigurh, and it's great his name sounds like "Sugar." He's the luckiest bad-ass alive. He hits Moss's trailer a day or two after the monthly phone bill has come . . . how lucky is that? The guy's a hoodoo.

There's lots to like in the film, the performances, the photography . . . but mostly I like the way the characters talk. You don't get many films these days that are this well written (yeah, it obviously helps a lot to have Cormac McCarthy on board).


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: T.H. on March 17, 2008, 11:42:19 PM
It's his conscience acting on him after a considerable delay. There are some things it takes Moss a while to process. He's not a multi-tasker, so he has to let things go until he's dealt with the matter at hand. But eventually his brain catches up with the circumstances and he finally acts. Another example of this is when he finally figures out there's a tracking device in the money bag. Duh, Einstein. In fact, if Moss had taken the time to think through the implications of his initial actions before committing himself, he never would have taken the money to begin with. The cruelest aspect of this is that he doesn't see how vulnerable his wife will be once he's dead. He has a management-by-crisis style, he can't really look at things long term. That's, as they say, his tragedy.

I agree about Chigurh, and it's great his name sounds like "Sugar." He's the luckiest bad-ass alive. He hits Moss's trailer a day or two after the monthly phone bill has come . . . how lucky is that? The guy's a hoodoo.

There's lots to like in the film, the performances, the photography . . . but mostly I like the way the characters talk. You don't get many films these days that are this well written (yeah, it obviously helps a lot to have Cormac McCarthy on board).

Yeah, your management-by-crisis assessment is spot on. With that said, I still have an issue with his actions in this sequence. I didn't particularly enjoy the line he utters, something like "I think this might get me into a lot of trouble", almost a cover up by the writers. It's arguable that him saying this line, means he is fully aware of the consequences and the man in the pickup truck looked to only have a few precious minutes left anyways. Once the money is his, he will jeopardize any and everyone around him in order to keep it, but I don't think he would willingly throw himself into the fire, so to speak.

I admit that my big city cynical nature may prevent me from accepting this plot development.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 18, 2008, 12:04:08 AM
I think Moss is supposed to be a decent guy who yields to temptation. And this being a tragedy, the penalty is wildly out of proportion to the severity of the transgression. But I think he's basically a moral man, he's not used to thinking like a criminal.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on March 18, 2008, 08:44:05 AM
I think Moss is supposed to be a decent guy who yields to temptation. And this being a tragedy, the penalty is wildly out of proportion to the severity of the transgression. But I think he's basically a moral man, he's not used to thinking like a criminal.
Yes. If he thought like a criminal, nobody would have any idea who took the money and he'd stay alive. But it ain't no country for men like him...


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Kurug3n on March 18, 2008, 11:20:24 AM
totally irrevelant to whats be talked about but anyone else laugh when that one guy said "thats a dead dog" and Chigurh said "Yes it is"?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on March 18, 2008, 11:54:47 AM
totally irrevelant to whats be talked about but anyone else laugh when that one guy said "thats a dead dog" and Chigurh said "Yes it is"?
I seem to recall that line (and laughing).


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on April 30, 2008, 07:25:42 PM
This is great. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCviU0oelIc


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on April 30, 2008, 07:31:12 PM
Chigurh*

Bitch.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: tucumcari bound on April 30, 2008, 07:34:26 PM
Chigurh*

Bitch.

That's how it's titled, b*tch. I write what the title of the video says my friend.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Whalestoe on April 30, 2008, 07:47:13 PM
Now we're just friends? What about all the lonely nights?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 14, 2008, 01:02:23 AM
You're posting in the wrong thread, friend-o. This thread isn't about the Coen brothers' movie, it's about a clip from that movie that is set to the music from Fistful of Dollars. This is what we're talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCviU0oelIc


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: uncknown on May 23, 2009, 06:08:06 PM
Finally saw this.
My first impression (which may change as it often does with Coen bros. films):
- a brilliant piece of filmmaking
- incredibly suspenseful and scary
- avoids all the cliches of the genre and constantly surprises

Question: was Josh Brolin's character killed as everyone says?
I thought he got away with the money; we see the Sherriff notice the unscrewed air duct which is where he stashed it at an earlier motel stop.

And yes, it's a western


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on May 23, 2009, 06:32:16 PM
Finally saw this.
My first impression (which may change as it often does with Coen bros. films):
- a brilliant piece of filmmaking

Yep.

- incredibly suspenseful and scary

You got that right.

- avoids all the cliches of the genre and constantly surprises

Yup.


Question: was Josh Brolin's character killed as everyone says?

I'd say so.

I thought he got away with the money; we see the Sherriff notice the unscrewed air duct which is where he stashed it at an earlier motel stop.

? I didn't see that... To me, we especially see the sheriff notice the dead body of Brolin...


And yes, it's a western

Fuckin' A.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: uncknown on May 23, 2009, 09:19:28 PM
One thing I loved that may have been overlooked....
both Brolin and badem's characters are incredibly resourceful
they may not be MBA's but they can hunt, self-medicate, do detective work, and lotsa other clever things that a computer wont help you with!
and, a dog that chases you thru water.. where have you seen that before?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: uncknown on May 23, 2009, 09:21:17 PM
was Brolin's wife killed?
most say no, i say yes.
why? 'cause we see bardem wipe his shoes when he comes out of the house - to get the blood off one presumes.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: noodles_leone on May 23, 2009, 09:22:39 PM
was Brolin's wife killed?
most say no, i say yes.
why? 'cause we see bardem wipe his shoes when he comes out of the house - to get the blood off one presumes.

I say YES and double YES.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: uncknown on May 23, 2009, 09:25:10 PM
I say YES and double YES.

back to Brolin
his wife only identifies her mother at the morgue, not him
right?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: uncknown on May 23, 2009, 09:36:56 PM
Tuco,

your comments regarding the corporate takeover of America theme have merit
BUT
Reagan took office in Jan 1981
just sayin'


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: uncknown on May 26, 2009, 02:35:10 PM
just rewatched the motel scene...
yes, brolin was killed but i was right about the cash being taken out of the air vent
from the last scene where Bardem gives the kid a $100 bill we can deduce that he got away with murder and the money.
(unless he dies from his wounds, a possibility)


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 27, 2009, 05:31:38 AM
Chigurh can't die, he's death personified. Which provokes the obvious question: if Harmonica met Chigurh in a showdown, who'd win?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: moviesceleton on May 28, 2009, 10:24:03 AM
Chigurh can't die, he's death personified. Which provokes the obvious question: if Harmonica met Chigurh in a showdown, who'd win?
We had that poll, didn't we?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 28, 2009, 01:45:19 PM
Did we? But was it with the understanding that the showdown was between Death and himself?


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Dust Devil on October 06, 2009, 07:34:03 PM
To tell you the truth I'm completely indifferent to NCFOM. I watched it when it came out and didn't much like it, but then I decided to give it some time thinking I'll maybe be more objective and like it better when the hype and fanboys calm down. This was obviously wrong thinking, as the problem wasn't in me but in the movie.

What's bothering me is that I can't point towards something that I see as wrong in the movie, so far I haven't been able to analyze the movie and just point it out, what I didn't like, the mistakes, the weak points, the nonsense, the plot holes, whatever. I just can't find something big and explicit. I've read the whole topic and of many things that have been written (lame ending, superficial and unnecessary characters, etc.), there was one thing that really rang the bell - someone wrote that the Coens (as movie addicts-fanatics) plan and re-plan each scene so carefully until they eventually sterilize it. That could be the case here; I can't say this is just plain bad, badly written or directed, cause there are plenty interesting parts, character angles and other little stuff, but as a whole it just doesn't touch me. I'm watching it and... Just nothing, nothing at all. And it should, as it was supposed to be some kind of morality tale.


6.5/10


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Dust Devil on October 06, 2009, 07:38:53 PM
And sorry, but no, this movie doesn't have anything to do with Ws.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Desperado on December 28, 2012, 03:17:05 PM
amazing movie! 9/10


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 29, 2012, 08:12:49 PM
I saw this once about 4 years ago, and I loved it all the way up until the ending. It just falls off the table and goes nowhere, I couldn't stand the ending, it left me with a very unsatisfied feeling


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: Senza on February 24, 2013, 07:26:28 PM
I really have to watch this movie again, the first time I saw it, it didn't really appeal that much to me, and after I saw all the reviews about how good it was I think I missed something on the first viewing.


Title: Re: No Country for Old Men (2007)
Post by: cigar joe on June 02, 2017, 03:35:27 AM
fix