Am I the only person who HATED No Country?

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:20am

I saw all five Best Picture nominees this year. And I really don't understand how No Country won. In my opinion, it was the worst of them.

I would rank No Country for Old Men as being in the top 5 least pleasurable movie-watching experiences of my life (up there with "The Dukes of Hazzard").

I didn't think anything about that movie was redeemable. I was completely bored. The second hour of the movie, I was continually taking my cell phone out of my pocket to see how much longer the boredom was going to last.

HOW did that movie beat "Atonement" and "There Will Be Blood"?

Am I alone here? And if I am, can anyone explain what it is that I missed that was so great about it?

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:22am

I hated it too, and I LOVED Fargo.

[cubanpab]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:24am

yes. you're the only one.

kidding. :)

no i can see how its a movie that wouldnt appeal to everyone. i thought it was brilliant and it was my favorite film of the year. i've seen it three times and it gets better with each viewing.

i'd still agree though that Fargo is an even superior film.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:27am

All art is subjective. You're clearly in the minority with No Country, but each to his own!

For instance, I couldn't even watch more than half of There Will be Blood, and I'm in the minority there.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:30am

I didn't hate the film, but the wildly extravagant praise the film has gotten continues to confuse me: what was the big deal? As good as it was and I think it is the Coens' best film in about twenty years (no I'm not forgetting the even more surrealistically over-rated FARGO), NO COUNTRY ultimately just felt like the latest piece of Bleak Chic. They seem to want me to be shocked, shocked! at the existence of Evil in the world.

Now in THERE WILL BE BLOOD and SWEENEY TODD, I was shocked and horrified and moved and thrilled and astonished and pretty well devastated. But THERE WILL BE BLOOD and SWEENEY TODD are fascinating, rich works of art, which NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is (to me) very definitely not.

Updated On: 2/25/08 at 11:30 AM

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:30am

"Atonement" was my favorite. Truly an achievement in film-making in many respects. There's in incredible 5.5 minute tracking shot through a beach at Dunkirk that blew my mind. They use sound in that movie in ways that I've never heard before. The acting was phenomenal. Everything about it rocked my world.

Maybe it's a gender thing. The females I know who saw No Country didn't like it, but the men did. *shrugs*

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:33am

chicks don't get movies.

[cubanpab]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:33am

it just depends what you're taste is like i guess... i was a BIG BIG fan of "pride and prejucide" so i was really looking forward to "atonement" and i was extremely dissapointed and let down. i didnt even think it deserved a best picture nomination. i much rather had seen "zodiac" or even "ratatouille" steal the spot... and of course we cant forget the sadly overlooked "sweeney todd".

its different strokes for different folks.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:48am

I didn't hate it at all, it was a mildly interesting chase/Western kinda movie with a great villain (and quite a moving performance by Kelly Macdonald). However, at NO point did I feel I was watching an award-winning film of any kind. Easily the most overrated film of the year.

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:51am

I enjoyed No Country but wasn't overly impressed by it. The film I enjoyed the most this year wasn't even nominated for Best Picture. Did anyone else enjoy Lars and the Real Girl? It's the only movie this year I felt worked well enough to actually make me feel something. The rest of the films only worked for me on an intellectual level.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:55am

"Now in THERE WILL BE BLOOD and SWEENEY TODD, I was shocked and horrified and moved and thrilled and astonished and pretty well devastated. But THERE WILL BE BLOOD and SWEENEY TODD are fascinating, rich works of art, which NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is (to me) very definitely not."

You see,you've answered the question. You were able to feel all those things in BLood and Sweeney-other people didn't. I kept thinking about how dreary Blood was and what I could be doing at home instead of sitting through that, so I left.

My criterion for a good film is whether I'm swept away into it. I was immediately swept into No Country's atmosphere by the cinematography and art direction. I felt like I was right there. I felt the fear that each character felt when confronted with the Bardem creature. I was spellbound to the screen and didn't want to miss a second of it.

It's all a matter of each person's sensitivities and aesthetics.

Updated On: 2/25/08 at 11:55 AM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:56am

FF, weren't you going to the marathon of best films at AMC. I wonder what was the viewing order? Did you see Old Country AFTER sitting through the other films?
This MIGHT have something to do with it.
Not that you HAVE to like Old Country, a lot of people did not care for it, but I think it would be hard to like ANY film if I had just seen 4 others right before.

[lovelyspotlight]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 11:56am

I LOVED No Country, and I was incredibly pleased with its win. I was watching it with somebody who really wanted There Will Be Blood to win over it. Most people in my dorm (the Communications Residential College, with LOTS of RTVF - radio, television, and film - majors) really loved No Country, but often mostly for the cinematography. I've come across very few who hated it.

And those I have come across say it's because they hate blood and gore. Pfft.
Updated On: 2/25/08 at 11:56 AM

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 12:03pm

To Sueleen - You're right, I went to the marathon, and "No Country for Old Men" was last. BUT -- and this is important -- I didn't watch movie number 4 (Juno), as I had already seen it. I took a dinner break instead. I was fresh and ready to go for No Country. I'd heard both good and bad things about it, but I went in with a relatively open mind.

I just didn't get it. I felt no emotional attachment to any of the characters. The most interesting person for me was Josh Brolin, and he absent a good chunk of the movie. The ending dragged, and the final scene was bland and unsatisfying to me. I was waiting for some big reveal (a la Shawshank Redemption) to pull things together and pay off. And it just never came.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 12:06pm

To lovelyspotlight - The blood and gore didn't bother me (I did, after all, like There Will Be Blood and Atonement -- both of which I thought had better cinematography as well). I didn't like it because I felt that it was slow and pointless.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 12:20pm

FF, I love this line:

I would rank No Country for Old Men as being in the top 5 least pleasurable movie-watching experiences of my life (up there with "The Dukes of Hazzard").

LOL!

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 12:31pm

Of course not.

One guy watching the telecast with me went on a rant about how much NO COUNTRY sucked after the Coens won Best Director(s). The other guys he was with agreed with him.

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 12:32pm

"They seem to want me to be shocked, shocked! at the existence of Evil in the world. "

I'm not sure how you got that roscoe, I thought they were presenting it in a more nihilistic sense, as is their wont. Even Tommy Lee at then end doesn't seem as shocked as he does powerless--he cannot comprehend unmitigated evil, just like Marge doesn't understand the actions of Grimsrud in FARGO, The Dude of The Nihilists in LEBOWSKI or the McDunnoughs/Arizonas of Smalls in ARIZONA.

And I can't believe you didn't like FARGO, one of the best films of the 90s-if not THE best.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 12:44pm

I would have preferred to see TWBB win. But NCFOM was just as worthy. Both are impressive films.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 12:57pm

That's me, disliking all the movies that the rest of the world adores.

Yeah, it was presented in their nihilistic way, and it just felt like a really tired and uninteresting way to present it. Terribly Hip. Right yeah, fine, okay, there's evil out there in the world, thanks, guys, I kind of knew that. Just pick up the paper every day and you'll see evil that makes little Anton Chigurh look like Mr. Rogers.

I really loathed FARGO when it came out, just a completely useless film, entirely adequate in every way, I just couldn't have cared less about anyone or anything in it. That's pretty much how I felt about NO COUNTRY. As much as I liked Bardem's performance, and mostly enjoyed untangling the plot, and all that, it is a pretty empty movie experience, I think.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 12:59pm

Part of that emptiness is the point.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 1:00pm

Yeah, right, it is clearly the point, and it is a tired and boring and easy point.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 1:04pm

Well, to each his own. Part of the reason I loved TWBB and NCFOM so much is the extreme relevance to today's world. I thought both films examined very real, very disturbing aspects of life and society that continue to build up in this world, and this country, of ours.

They are both very of our times, which I think is what made them so powerful.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 1:17pm

StickToPriest - I see where you're going with TWBB, but not NCFOM. I didn't think there WAS a point to that movie. I don't know what I was supposed to feel.

I guess I react to the movie how Chigurh reacted to murder; I felt nothing, and I just didn't care.

Updated On: 2/25/08 at 01:17 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/25/08 at 1:27pm

I did think TWBB was a better film overall. In fact, I found TWBB to be flawless.

You know, sometimes the best art polarizes people. Some people love it, some loathe it. I'm getting that that is the case with NCFOM. Variety is the spice of life. Even variety of opinions.