2008 Academy Awards

[Chaos Bringer]

no country for old men !

 

[Super_Ludacris]

What flaw did No Country have?

The ending, the whole third act. There were a lotta people who didnt like the ending, they didnt get it. But that's not there fault, it was just different and when you have such a good setup and swerve it a lot of people look at it as people almost stupid. Im not saying I agree with it but its pretty hard for audiences to buy into that notion that evil regins all.

I mean I was cool with the movie, but I heard a lot of people were put off by the weird ending and you cant really blame them for that. I dont agree but I say fair enough.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

something is really wrong with my friend...

He called me and asked me if i wanted to go see a movie, and i said lets go see No country for old men.. and he was like, nah that looks crappy

so i aked him what film would you want to see? he said Jumper...i then told him i had homework.

last week he went to see The eye, and meet the spartans and loved them...

we went to see sweeney todd and cloverfield last month and he hated them.

Some people just wanna watch movies to be entertained even if its to the lowest common denomentator. Its all good, its all preferences and opinion.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

That's because they didn't have a speech by Warren Beatty this year to drag it out.

It really was a good show. Last night was the first time I can remember watching the Oscars and really enjoying them. I think a lot of that had to do with Jon Stewart.

This show proved that even with the strike over, shows still get affected. Clearly they didnt have time to put together the more bigger dance and show presentation set ups and montage skits. and at some of the presentors dying on there ass out there (smh@ Cameron Diaz...)

 

[Rac]

When I saw her last night, I immediately thought "Bond Girl."

She's better than that.

Btw, they forgot Brad Renfro from the dead montage.

 

[nocomics]

This show proved that even with the strike over, shows still get affected. Clearly they didnt have time to put together the more bigger dance and show presentation set ups and montage skits. and at some of the presentors dying on there ass out there (smh@ Cameron Diaz...)

Save the skits and montage's for MtV,not everyshow needs that. I wish I could of watched the awards lastnight..I'm glad movies like No Country for Old Men get recognized,usually its some sappy drama that most ppl never heard of...and Grats to Daniell Day-Lewis glad to see him get this award,such a great actor..

 

[Secret_Riddle]

Great show, really great. I actually don't have any gripes for an Academy awards show..wierd.

 

[StorminNorman]

The ending, the whole third act. There were a lotta people who didnt like the ending, they didnt get it. But that's not there fault, it was just different and when you have such a good setup and swerve it a lot of people look at it as people almost stupid. Im not saying I agree with it but its pretty hard for audiences to buy into that notion that evil regins all.

I mean I was cool with the movie, but I heard a lot of people were put off by the weird ending and you cant really blame them for that. I dont agree but I say fair enough.

The ending was brilliant.

And I can blame people for being stupid. I do it daily actually.

I can understand WHY some could dislike the film because of it - but its similar to the way I understand why some people like Hannah Montana, or why a dog finds his tail amusing.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The ending, the whole third act. There were a lotta people who didnt like the ending, they didnt get it. But that's not there fault, it was just different and when you have such a good setup and swerve it a lot of people look at it as people almost stupid. Im not saying I agree with it but its pretty hard for audiences to buy into that notion that evil regins all.

I mean I was cool with the movie, but I heard a lot of people were put off by the weird ending and you cant really blame them for that. I dont agree but I say fair enough.

I thought it was a lot like Jarhead, another movie I didn't care for. In Jarhead you essentially have a big build up to nothing, which makes the point that the war (in the Gulf) was pointless and we sent our boys over there for nothing, and got them killed (if they were killed) for nothing. So all that tension in the movie never pays off. A pointless film, yet that's the point.

As for No Country for Old Men, I found it interesting yet ultimately forgetable, much like Jarhead. Well acted, sure, but the unsatisfactory nature of the film just left me saying "okay, I saw it once, and I really don't need to see it again". That's the kiss of death for me with a film to; having no desire to see it twice.

The other problem, for me was it was predictable. I thought it was pretty hollow, and I really didn't care about any of the characters. So when the assassin kills one, I didn't care. I knew the fates of the characters were set from the beginning: most, if not all, would die...and Tommy Lee Jones wouldn't be able to stop it. This contrasts with The Departed which to me totally blindsided me when both the commish and Leo died in the film.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

The ending was brilliant.

And I can blame people for being stupid. I do it daily actually.

I can understand WHY some could dislike the film because of it - but its similar to the way I understand why some people like Hannah Montana, or why a dog finds his tail amusing.

That's a silly argument Norm and you know it. I thought NCFOM was a brilliant film but the ending was so left of centre (which btw should have been expected because it was a Cohen film even though you wouldnt neccessairly expect that) and it was off putting in a kinda Sopranos finale kinda way. I understand what they were trying to do with it (the morale was that evil reigns all) but they had such a great setup and plot for the movie that taking that swerving it to that direction is kinda off putting.
To put it in hyperbole and think that there is connection to people who didnt like the ending with 12 year old girls who like Hannah Montana is a little pretentious no?

 

[StorminNorman]

That's a silly argument Norm and you know it. I thought NCFOM was a brilliant film but the ending was so left of centre (which btw should have been expected because it was a Cohen film even though you wouldnt neccessairly expect that) and it was off putting in a kinda Sopranos finale kinda way. I understand what they were trying to do with it (the morale was that evil reigns all) but they had such a great setup and plot for the movie that taking that swerving it to that direction is kinda off putting.
To put it in hyperbole and think that there is connection to people who didnt like the ending with 12 year old girls who like Hannah Montana is a little pretentious no?

The morale was not that evil reigns all. The overall morale was that nothing matters. Nothing at all matters. Nothing we do has a greater effect on anything. You can live a great, heroic life and yet still die tomorrow randomly. To simplize it as "evil reigns all" is incorrect.

Also - yes, my response was incredibly conceded. But I custom tailored it to you for an equally pretentious comment you made towards a poster basically saying that "since you enjoy the Sarah Conner show, your opinion doesn't matter".

That being said, I still stand by my statement. The only real complain you can have about this movie is that it goes over your head.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

I thought it was a lot like Jarhead, another movie I didn't care for. In Jarhead you essentially have a big build up to nothing, which makes the point that the war (in the Gulf) was pointless and we sent our boys over there for nothing, and got them killed (if they were killed) for nothing. So all that tension in the movie never pays off. A pointless film, yet that's the point.

As for No Country for Old Men, I found it interesting yet ultimately forgetable, much like Jarhead. Well acted, sure, but the unsatisfactory nature of the film just left me saying "okay, I saw it once, and I really don't need to see it again". That's the kiss of death for me with a film to; having no desire to see it twice.

The other problem, for me was it was predictable. I thought it was pretty hollow, and I really didn't care about any of the characters. So when the assassin kills one, I didn't care. I knew the fates of the characters were set from the beginning: most, if not all, would die...and Tommy Lee Jones wouldn't be able to stop it. This contrasts with The Departed which to me totally blindsided me when both the commish and Leo died in the film.

Well I guess Irony of all 3 movies is that there adaptations of some sorts, so I guess some might have seen it coming. I had a hunch cause I saw Infernal Affairs (and as much as I LOVED that trilogy I thought Marty actually made a better version of what essentially was a far eastern movie inspired by his work but I digress) but I never thought Marty would take it there by killing more people all the rest of the characters (not just Leo, Matt and Martin).

With Jarhead, I never read the Swofford's book but I guess the whole point of the film was to show that even without conflict, being on tour is still a challenge (understatement). I liked it cause it was really personal and Jake did his thing (and I liked the Soundtrack)


Its intresting cause I actually love all 3 movies but I can always see why people wouldnt like them.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

The morale was not that evil reigns all. The overall morale was that nothing matters. Nothing at all matters. Nothing we do has a greater effect on anything. You can live a great, heroic life and yet still die tomorrow randomly. To simplize it as "evil reigns all" is incorrect.

Also - yes, my response was incredibly conceded. But I custom tailored it to you for an equally pretentious comment you made towards a poster basically saying that "since you enjoy the Sarah Conner show, your opinion doesn't matter".

That being said, I still stand by my statement.

That's cute that stick up for your man but stop taking every little jab here so seriously, especially when it dont concern you my dude. For the record I threw the dude under the bus cause he thought they were Eskimos from British Columbia . I thought I was light on the dude

And getting back to your theory on the movie. I disagree slightly but I would offer that your theory is merely an extension of my theory ("Bad people in the end will always prevail so no matter what we do its pointless"). Doesnt that theory that nothing else matter seem almost pointless then? I think thats what people didnt like the film said. And I say fair enough.

To me, it was the Cohens trying to be progressive and reinvent a narrative but I cant blame people for not buying into it if they didnt cause its a hard sell. I mean shoot who knows, if it didnt have "A Cohen Brothers Film" anchoring, Im not sure the movie would be as critically loved. It was like people were almost more concerned for the brothers to get away from the goofiness of there last few flicks.

 

[cerealkiller182]

The morale was not that evil reigns all. The overall morale was that nothing matters. Nothing at all matters. Nothing we do has a greater effect on anything. You can live a great, heroic life and yet still die tomorrow randomly. To simplize it as "evil reigns all" is incorrect.

I disagree, i think it is everything matters. All actions have consequences,some of which you never realize

 

[cerealkiller182]

And getting back to your theory on the movie. I disagree slightly but I would offer that your theory is merely an extension of my theory ("Bad people in the end will always prevail so no matter what we do its pointless"). Doesnt that theory that nothing else matter seem almost pointless then? I think thats what people didnt like the film said. And I say fair enough.

You're looking at it superficially. You are seeing the story elements but not the reasoning. If the good guys all win you wouldnt say "Good people always prevail,and everything is pointless."

 

[StorminNorman]

I disagree, i think it is everything matters. All actions have consequences,some of which you never realize

Since I don't feel like typing out a long drawn out essay - I will just copy and paste this which, while not my writing, says what I want to say - and is probably briefer than I would be:

"Maybe nothing matters is too strong, maybe it's not. I dunno. I'm still kinda turnng this flick over in my head. But nihilism is a theme present in a lot of the Coens work. Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn't There...even stuff like The Hudsucker Proxy. It's just presented more glaringly in this picture.

I guess the key to the film for me is Tommy Lee Jones. He makes the big deal about his dad, and how they were both sheriffs at the same time, and how proud that made them both. But his father was gunned down not long after, and as Ed Tom got older, he started to ask, "What was I so proud of? Did it really matter? Here I sit, 35 or so years later, and what do I have to show for it?"

He never solved his case. He never was able to protect Llewelyn. He failed. On top of that, he couldn't even protect the wife.

Speaking to other pessimisms in the film, I want to bring up the buying of clothes from strangers too. Llewelyn buys the coat off the guy at the border. He offers 500 bucks, and the guy is still a dick to him. There is this bloody guy, obviously hurt in front of you, and you don't even give him the coat before making him give you his blood stained money?

And then there is the two boys. The boy is willing to give his shirt to Anton, but Anton insists on paying for it. Once again, blood stained money is thrust at someone. And the boy accepts it, promising not to rat out Anton. As Anton limps away, the two boys begin to argue about whose money it is, or at least, who gets a cut. This to me represents a loss of innocence and the moral ambiguity (or complete lack of morals, some may argue) of all of this returns us once again to nihilism as a theme. "

 

[cerealkiller182]

Since I don't feel like typing out a long drawn out essay - I will just copy and paste this which, while not my writing, says what I want to say - and is probably briefer than I would be:

"Maybe nothing matters is too strong, maybe it's not. I dunno. I'm still kinda turnng this flick over in my head. But nihilism is a theme present in a lot of the Coens work. Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn't There...even stuff like The Hudsucker Proxy. It's just presented more glaringly in this picture.

I guess the key to the film for me is Tommy Lee Jones. He makes the big deal about his dad, and how they were both sheriffs at the same time, and how proud that made them both. But his father was gunned down not long after, and as Ed Tom got older, he started to ask, "What was I so proud of? Did it really matter? Here I sit, 35 or so years later, and what do I have to show for it?"

He never solved his case. He never was able to protect Llewelyn. He failed. On top of that, he couldn't even protect the wife.

Speaking to other pessimisms in the film, I want to bring up the buying of clothes from strangers too. Llewelyn buys the coat off the guy at the border. He offers 500 bucks, and the guy is still a dick to him. There is this bloody guy, obviously hurt in front of you, and you don't even give him the coat before making him give you his blood stained money?

And then there is the two boys. The boy is willing to give his shirt to Anton, but Anton insists on paying for it. Once again, blood stained money is thrust at someone. And the boy accepts it, promising not to rat out Anton. As Anton limps away, the two boys begin to argue about whose money it is, or at least, who gets a cut. This to me represents a loss of innocence and the moral ambiguity (or complete lack of morals, some may argue) of all of this returns us once again to nihilism as a theme. "

This is very well-written analysis and I agree with it. But i'd liek to add that the characters are nihilistic(good catch) but the third person POV sees that everyones connected and that their are consequences for all actions (good or bad)

 

[Erik]

Since I don't feel like typing out a long drawn out essay - I will just copy and paste this which, while not my writing, says what I want to say - and is probably briefer than I would be:

"Maybe nothing matters is too strong, maybe it's not. I dunno. I'm still kinda turnng this flick over in my head. But nihilism is a theme present in a lot of the Coens work. Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn't There...even stuff like The Hudsucker Proxy. It's just presented more glaringly in this picture.

I guess the key to the film for me is Tommy Lee Jones. He makes the big deal about his dad, and how they were both sheriffs at the same time, and how proud that made them both. But his father was gunned down not long after, and as Ed Tom got older, he started to ask, "What was I so proud of? Did it really matter? Here I sit, 35 or so years later, and what do I have to show for it?"

He never solved his case. He never was able to protect Llewelyn. He failed. On top of that, he couldn't even protect the wife.

Speaking to other pessimisms in the film, I want to bring up the buying of clothes from strangers too. Llewelyn buys the coat off the guy at the border. He offers 500 bucks, and the guy is still a dick to him. There is this bloody guy, obviously hurt in front of you, and you don't even give him the coat before making him give you his blood stained money?

And then there is the two boys. The boy is willing to give his shirt to Anton, but Anton insists on paying for it. Once again, blood stained money is thrust at someone. And the boy accepts it, promising not to rat out Anton. As Anton limps away, the two boys begin to argue about whose money it is, or at least, who gets a cut. This to me represents a loss of innocence and the moral ambiguity (or complete lack of morals, some may argue) of all of this returns us once again to nihilism as a theme. "

One of the most concise and accurate summations of the main point of the movie I've read.

 

[StorminNorman]

I have to praise Tukiluka of Le Soft Parade for writing that, btw.

I don't want to make it seem as if I am passing that off as my own words.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

You're looking at it superficially. You are seeing the story elements but not the reasoning. If the good guys all win you wouldnt say "Good people always prevail,and everything is pointless."

No, No, No. You didnt read my whole post.

I said that it is One theory that could play. Its not what I think

 

[cerealkiller182]

No, No, No. You didnt read my whole post.

I said that it is One theory that could play. Its not what I think

You said "extension of my theory"

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Since I don't feel like typing out a long drawn out essay - I will just copy and paste this which, while not my writing, says what I want to say - and is probably briefer than I would be:

"Maybe nothing matters is too strong, maybe it's not. I dunno. I'm still kinda turnng this flick over in my head. But nihilism is a theme present in a lot of the Coens work. Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn't There...even stuff like The Hudsucker Proxy. It's just presented more glaringly in this picture.

I guess the key to the film for me is Tommy Lee Jones. He makes the big deal about his dad, and how they were both sheriffs at the same time, and how proud that made them both. But his father was gunned down not long after, and as Ed Tom got older, he started to ask, "What was I so proud of? Did it really matter? Here I sit, 35 or so years later, and what do I have to show for it?"

He never solved his case. He never was able to protect Llewelyn. He failed. On top of that, he couldn't even protect the wife.

Speaking to other pessimisms in the film, I want to bring up the buying of clothes from strangers too. Llewelyn buys the coat off the guy at the border. He offers 500 bucks, and the guy is still a dick to him. There is this bloody guy, obviously hurt in front of you, and you don't even give him the coat before making him give you his blood stained money?

And then there is the two boys. The boy is willing to give his shirt to Anton, but Anton insists on paying for it. Once again, blood stained money is thrust at someone. And the boy accepts it, promising not to rat out Anton. As Anton limps away, the two boys begin to argue about whose money it is, or at least, who gets a cut. This to me represents a loss of innocence and the moral ambiguity (or complete lack of morals, some may argue) of all of this returns us once again to nihilism as a theme. "

That's all fine and I agree that set up is what makes the film great. But do you also see how people think the ending is off putting even with this ideology?

Again, not that I agree but do you at least see.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

You said "extension of my theory"

I offered it as an extension, meaning its possible to look at it that way, but thats not how I looked at it. Come on dude....

 

[cerealkiller182]

That's all fine and I agree that set up is what makes the film great. But do you also see how people think the ending is off putting even with this ideology?

Again, not that I agree but do you at least see.

No, I dont. The ending was great

 

[StorminNorman]

That's all fine and I agree that set up is what makes the film great. But do you also see how people think the ending is off putting even with this ideology?

Again, not that I agree but do you at least see.

You can disagree with the message and still respect the film as an amazing film.

The people that say "this movie is teh stupid" are the people I am putting down here.