#26
Posted: 2/25/08 at 1:41pm
I've hated the majority of the 80 Best Picture winners. No Country for Old Men isn't one of them, though.
Am I the only person who HATED No Country? — Page 2
#27
Posted: 2/25/08 at 1:43pm
"I guess I react to the movie how Chigurh reacted to murder; I felt nothing, and I just didn't care."
The point.
The point.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#28
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:02pm
Am I the only one who thinks his name is also a play on "chigger?" For those of you who don't know, a chigger is a little mite that gets under your skin and is VERY difficult to get rid of--and they're not contagious.
I was wondering if it isn't a small joke from both Cormac and the Coens...
I was wondering if it isn't a small joke from both Cormac and the Coens...
#29
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:07pm
I find it interesting that so many of this year's nominated films are polarizing.
I think NCFOM is a deserving winner. I didn't love it; I didn't hate it. But I do recognize how well it was done. However, I would have voted for "Atonement" among these five. I do think "Sweeney" would have been as deserving a nominee as any of the five, and more so than a couple of them: "Juno," "Michael Clayton" and ...
"There Will Be Blood," which is as boring a film as I have ever seen.
I think NCFOM is a deserving winner. I didn't love it; I didn't hate it. But I do recognize how well it was done. However, I would have voted for "Atonement" among these five. I do think "Sweeney" would have been as deserving a nominee as any of the five, and more so than a couple of them: "Juno," "Michael Clayton" and ...
"There Will Be Blood," which is as boring a film as I have ever seen.
"I am open, and I am willing,
For to be hopeless would seem so strange.
It dishonors those who go before us,
So lift me up to the light of change."
Holly Near
#30
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:14pm
I understand that different people like different things, but I still don't get how someone could find TWBB even remotely boring.
"One no longer loves one's insight enough once one communicates it."
The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.
The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.
#31
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:22pm
That's what makes the world go round! I was bored during that movie. the only saving grace was Paul Dano. I think he's an actor to watch. I became interested in him from Little Miss Sunshine-very interesting actor.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#32
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:25pm
Another case of different strokes: I cringed every time Paul Dano was on screen screeching!
LOL!
LOL!
"I am open, and I am willing,
For to be hopeless would seem so strange.
It dishonors those who go before us,
So lift me up to the light of change."
Holly Near
#33
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:28pm
HAHA! I love it! But did you see him in Little Miss Sunshine, DBilly?
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#34
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:30pm
I loved No Country For Old Men. It was my pick for Best Picture immediately after I saw the film and it was the first of the nominees I saw before any of them were announced. I just walked out feeling I had watched the best picture of the year in the same way I felt when I walked out of Magnolia (which didn't even get nominated). I just found No Country absorbing, tense, unique and thought-provoking. It had some signature trademarks of a Coen bros. film, yet it stood out as different from their previous films (probably their most similar previous work would be Blood Simple). I never searched for a point nor wondered how I was supposed to feel. I just got caught up in the story and the characters and let everything unfold until it was finished. The film makes some demands on the audience that none of the other films made and perhaps that is where people have a problem with it. The story is not neatly tied up and wrapped with a bow. The ending is ambiguous, the characters are not fully explained, and the audience is given very little information beyond the knowledge of its central characters. Suddenly, we're not omniscient as we are with most films and we're asked to think almost as much as the characters themselves. To me, that was one of the most favorable aspects of the film. That, and the relentless tension they were able to sustain without the support of a film score to spoon-feed emotions to the audience. I thought it was brilliant filmmaking.
I also enjoyed Atonement, There Will Be Blood and Juno. I would have been happy if any of them had won as well. I just happen to agree with the Academy's choice this year, which is rare. I do not understand how Michael Clayton got a Best Picture nom, however. It was ok, but there were better films out there.
I also enjoyed Atonement, There Will Be Blood and Juno. I would have been happy if any of them had won as well. I just happen to agree with the Academy's choice this year, which is rare. I do not understand how Michael Clayton got a Best Picture nom, however. It was ok, but there were better films out there.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#35
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:32pm
I did Jane, and I liked Dano in it. I had heard really good things about him in TWBB, so I was disappointed not to enjoy his performance.
"I am open, and I am willing,
For to be hopeless would seem so strange.
It dishonors those who go before us,
So lift me up to the light of change."
Holly Near
#36
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:32pm
"Suddenly, we're not omniscient as we are with most films and we're asked to think almost as much as the characters themselves."
Well put. It's a purposefully frustrating film in that regard.
Well put. It's a purposefully frustrating film in that regard.
"One no longer loves one's insight enough once one communicates it."
The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.
The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.
#37
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:37pm
I wasn't crazy about Paul Dano--though in all fairness, most of the oxygen had been sucked out of the room by Daniel. I don't know that any age-appropriate actor could hang with that.
#38
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:40pm
Paul was recently in a stage production here in NY. I forget whether it was on or off b'way. I wonder if anyone here saw it and could comment on it.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#39
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:45pm
Ah-he was in Things We Want, 2007, off broadway.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#40
Posted: 2/25/08 at 2:46pm
Paul Dano appeared in Things We Want Off-Broadway, directed by Ethan Hawke. I didn't see it, but there you go.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#41
Posted: 2/25/08 at 3:16pm
I, too, found There Will Be Blood irredeemably dull, despite the lead performance. I understand that it's a "good" film, but it was tremendously unappealing to me.
This is one of the first years I've seen all five Best Picture nominees before the Oscars. Of those, No Country for Old Men would definitely have been my pick for the winner. And in my opinion, Michael Clayton isn't even in the same league as the other nominated films.
This is one of the first years I've seen all five Best Picture nominees before the Oscars. Of those, No Country for Old Men would definitely have been my pick for the winner. And in my opinion, Michael Clayton isn't even in the same league as the other nominated films.
#42
Posted: 2/25/08 at 3:36pm
I found the lead performance in There Will Be Blood, jaw-droppingly hammy.
#43
Posted: 2/25/08 at 3:49pm
Jane2, I'm fairly certain that you misunderstood my comment about feeling nothing and not caring.
I starred in a short film called Magnetic Personality. Check it out!
#44
Posted: 2/25/08 at 5:01pm
I inferred that you felt nothing from watching No Country for Old Men nor did you care that you felt nothing. In what way did I misunderstand?
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#45
Posted: 2/25/08 at 5:17pm
I posted these comments in previous threads about the movie. They're in reverse order, since that's they way I copy/pasted. I never wrote a "review" of sorts, but piecing this together, you can see just how I felt:
* * * * * *
No Country For Old whatever...
The movie doesn't make sense. None of Llewelyn's (Josh Brolin's) actions make any sense. The title doesn't make any sense. AND the ending doesn't make any sense.
A sure winner!
* * * * * *
I just can't believe that nobody looks at NCFOM, and laughs at the implausibility of Josh Brolin's (Llewellyn's) actions and their consequences.
We watch him do the weirdest incidental things and make the stupidest decisions in that movie, none of which make sense logistically, and none of which have realistic outcomes (that whole trip down to Mexico and back)... and yet it all works out the way it does. Ambiguously.
Okay.
The more I think about it, the more I think it's a really weak piece of writing, with some terrific performances, excellent cinematography, terrible story-telling, and a lot of prefabricated gritty style.
EDIT: And yet I think it's going to win... largely because of all the Starbucks film critics out there, and their "edgy" trendy bandwagon, who have helped spin this ambiguous straw into gold.
* * * * * *
I watched the latter last night... MANY jaw-dropping leaps of logic. An incidental throw-away ending. A fantastic supporting performance by Javier Bardem. Terrific cinematography. Ultimately compelling, well-done, but also mildly irritating, puzzling and empty (save for Bardem, the cinematic imagery, and a few other isolated moments mostly from Jones).
* * * * * *
It's compelling enough to see. I don't think you'd be bored... or too bored.
Bardem will keep you on the edge of your seat. And so will the cinematography. Incredible, indelible shots throughout.
But if there's ever a movie when the end credits come up an you say, "That's IT?!?!"
This is it.
* * * * * *
*****MILD SPOILERS********
I asked myself that after the film had ended. The best I can answer is this: I was very distracted during Tommy Lee Jones' final (LONG) speech. And I blame it on the shot. It's a medium shot that MOSTLY shows us the window outside. It was oddly-framed, as if to make you look behind him and through it. And, honest to God, I kept expecting to see Javier Bardem's creepy face pop up in the yard outside and scare the crap out of us. It was a poor directorial choice to have Jones sitting in front of the window with so much "wide open space" behind him. (It's a basic "Composition 101" mistake that they made!) So, what happened? My mind and my focus wandered greatly during his last speech. I didn't know it was the end, especially after such a dramatic previous scene with Bardem in the car. I kept thinking "what's next?" If they wanted us to focus on Tommy Lee and his final speech, the camera (and the directors) should have helped us out a LOT more than they did.
* * * * * *
No Country For Old whatever...
The movie doesn't make sense. None of Llewelyn's (Josh Brolin's) actions make any sense. The title doesn't make any sense. AND the ending doesn't make any sense.
A sure winner!
* * * * * *
I just can't believe that nobody looks at NCFOM, and laughs at the implausibility of Josh Brolin's (Llewellyn's) actions and their consequences.
We watch him do the weirdest incidental things and make the stupidest decisions in that movie, none of which make sense logistically, and none of which have realistic outcomes (that whole trip down to Mexico and back)... and yet it all works out the way it does. Ambiguously.
Okay.
The more I think about it, the more I think it's a really weak piece of writing, with some terrific performances, excellent cinematography, terrible story-telling, and a lot of prefabricated gritty style.
EDIT: And yet I think it's going to win... largely because of all the Starbucks film critics out there, and their "edgy" trendy bandwagon, who have helped spin this ambiguous straw into gold.
* * * * * *
I watched the latter last night... MANY jaw-dropping leaps of logic. An incidental throw-away ending. A fantastic supporting performance by Javier Bardem. Terrific cinematography. Ultimately compelling, well-done, but also mildly irritating, puzzling and empty (save for Bardem, the cinematic imagery, and a few other isolated moments mostly from Jones).
* * * * * *
It's compelling enough to see. I don't think you'd be bored... or too bored.
Bardem will keep you on the edge of your seat. And so will the cinematography. Incredible, indelible shots throughout.
But if there's ever a movie when the end credits come up an you say, "That's IT?!?!"
This is it.
* * * * * *
*****MILD SPOILERS********
I asked myself that after the film had ended. The best I can answer is this: I was very distracted during Tommy Lee Jones' final (LONG) speech. And I blame it on the shot. It's a medium shot that MOSTLY shows us the window outside. It was oddly-framed, as if to make you look behind him and through it. And, honest to God, I kept expecting to see Javier Bardem's creepy face pop up in the yard outside and scare the crap out of us. It was a poor directorial choice to have Jones sitting in front of the window with so much "wide open space" behind him. (It's a basic "Composition 101" mistake that they made!) So, what happened? My mind and my focus wandered greatly during his last speech. I didn't know it was the end, especially after such a dramatic previous scene with Bardem in the car. I kept thinking "what's next?" If they wanted us to focus on Tommy Lee and his final speech, the camera (and the directors) should have helped us out a LOT more than they did.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#46
Posted: 2/25/08 at 5:22pm
"The title doesn't make any sense."
Do you really not get the title?
Do you really not get the title?
"One no longer loves one's insight enough once one communicates it."
The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.
The opposite of creation isn't war, it's stagnation.
#47
Posted: 2/25/08 at 5:29pm
largely because of all the Starbucks film critics out there, and their "edgy" trendy bandwagon, who have helped spin this ambiguous straw into gold
Substitute the word "Starbucks" with "twentysomething" and that is exactly how I felt about Once and that boring song, Singing Slowly.
But it is nice to see so many people who hated No Country as much as I hated The Departed last year. I feel somewhat vindicated.
Substitute the word "Starbucks" with "twentysomething" and that is exactly how I felt about Once and that boring song, Singing Slowly.
But it is nice to see so many people who hated No Country as much as I hated The Departed last year. I feel somewhat vindicated.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#48
Posted: 2/25/08 at 5:36pm
largely because of all the Starbucks film critics out there, and their "edgy" trendy bandwagon, who have helped spin this ambiguous straw into gold.
Besty-do you think the majority of voters on the academy are Starbucks film critics? If they are, why wasn't I'm Not There the winner? talk about ambiguous straw into gold.
Besty-do you think the majority of voters on the academy are Starbucks film critics? If they are, why wasn't I'm Not There the winner? talk about ambiguous straw into gold.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#49
Posted: 2/25/08 at 5:58pm
Mrs R & I split on this one. I liked it but she did not . I was not thrilled with the ending & a few other points & I liked Blood better.
I would liked to have seen Sweeney instead of Juno . maybe the results would have been different.
I would liked to have seen Sweeney instead of Juno . maybe the results would have been different.
Poster Emeritus
Tickets From $73
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $65