Why No Country for Old Men?

It didn't need to be more clear at all. I'm sure we can decide for ourselves without them spelling it out for us. I mean in the context of that sequence alone, what needed to be said exactly and how would they say it? The subtle checking the boots was fine and also humorous in a dark way. By the way, the film does carry some good low key dark humor.
 
that was quite possibly the most condenscending post I have ever read. Just because someone doesn't get or apreciate a single film that everon else raves about doesn't mean you can write them off as idiots. come down off yourself.

Thats what I was going for. I honestly could care less if a person doesn't like a film. I own it. I love it.

I just love how people that don't enjoy a film feel the need to harp on it. Then attempt to have people who like it explain themselves. I don't to explain why I liked the film. Just like you don't have to explain to me why you didn't like it. I don't care.
 
Condescending AND Arrogant! Well, thank God for the ignore button!
 
Why do you NEED to know why people like a movie more than you. Everybody has films they find overrated. Its not like you hated it, you gave it a 7.5/10.
 
Condescending AND Arrogant! Well, thank God for the ignore button!

Why? Because I don't feel the need to fall for bait on an arguement? The only reason why a person would create a thread like this would be to start some sh**.

I am not arrogant, I just don't want to play this game anymore.

Why do you NEED to know why people like a movie more than you. Everybody has films they find overrated. Its not like you hated it, you gave it a 7.5/10.


:up:
 
The film uses a seemingly simple crime thriller plot to address themes of chance, choice, faith, fate, man's increasing inhumanity to man, and it does it with a flawless or nearly flawless (I'm not a cineaste) filmic presentation. To quote Walter Chaw at Film Freak Central: "Not a thriller despite resembling a particularly well-constructed one, No Country for Old Men is a reverie for the loss of the dream of security, for the death of a benevolent, active Christian God scant weeks before The Golden Compass' Christmas bow."

Plus, Anton Chigurh is a total badass.
 
I love this movie to death.
 
I'm sorry, it was a mistake. I call 'em as I see 'em.


First of all, you could even have some subtle bits of music. Even the music in the credits could've been used.

Secondly, just because the tension is there and the acting is good and the directing is good, that doesn't mean you can't have music to make it that much better. Sure the emotion is conveyed, but through the use of music, it wouldn't make it worse - it would only make it better (if done effectively).



And Ghostvirus, you wanna play in "the big boy camp"? GTFO the band wagon. Sure the camera was great, sure the acting was brilliant and the suspense was there and the story was great but that doesn't mean it's the best film of the year. I'm sick and tired of artsy-fartsy, anti-blockbuster critics and film viewers which won't consider their options thoroughly. Ever heard of Persepolis? That was a 2007, "artsy" book adaptation too -much better than NCFOM- but it didn't win the Oscar. American Gangster was also a brilliant film in terms of challenging society's outlook on right/wrong, the corrupt and the incorruptible - it was the Neo-Godfather but it also failed to receive proper recognition. Eastern Promises had flawless acting and incredible writing and directing too, this as well did not receive enough recognition.

To be completely honest, 2007 was not the best year in terms of films, but No Country for Old Men is overrated and overhyped. Was it good? Yes. Was it groundbreaking? Hmm... The mere fact that you need to stop and think about whether or not things (like the lack of music or when Chigurh kills Moss, or how they CHANGED the ending from Chigurh killing Moss to a bunch of Mexican gangsters killing Moss) should be reconsidered or not, this will all give you the answer that it wasn't as ground breaking or amazing as it was shown to be.

Again, it was GOOD, but it had the potential to be MUCH better.

I loved the book, but the movie sure did disappoint me.


Moss was killed by the Mexicans. The main difference was that he had a runaway with him at the time instead of the random woman, and he was killed by them when he put down his gun after they took her hostage. As for being over-hyped, it wasn't really hyped at all. I saw very little attention given to it prior to it's awards run. As for being overrated, I don't see anything you've said that even begins to quantify that opinion. You don't like it, that's fine. But it has all of the ingredients of an excellent movie. Give it it's just due.
 
In the book Chigurh killed Mossed. The Mexicans were just decoys or so to speak. Chigurh made it look like a gang raid, but it's implied that Chigurh did it.

And I meant "hyped" in terms of its "Excellence". It wasn't an Excellent film, it was a good film, in my opinion. There were some mistakes here and there, it lacked music, and the ending didn't fit.
 
And I meant "hyped" in terms of its "Excellence". It wasn't an Excellent film, it was a good film, in my opinion. There were some mistakes here and there, it lacked music, and the ending didn't fit.
How was the lack of music a mistake? Would be film really have been better if it had a more predominant score?
 
How was the lack of music a mistake? Would be film really have been better if it had a more predominant score?

No.

And actually this is the best example of a film that uses no music as its best asset. The silence draws the tension and suspense up to 11 and keeps it going throughout its running time because you have no idea what will happen next.
 
Thats what I was going for. I honestly could care less if a person doesn't like a film. I own it. I love it.

I just love how people that don't enjoy a film feel the need to harp on it. Then attempt to have people who like it explain themselves. I don't to explain why I liked the film. Just like you don't have to explain to me why you didn't like it. I don't care.

Hey man, if you wanna act pretentious... at least do it right.

It's couldn't care less. Not could care less. ;)
 
Having no music help with the tension a lot. It added more grit and gravitas to the whole affair. Plus, having no score worked for Dog Day Afternoon too.
 
It didn't need to be more clear at all. I'm sure we can decide for ourselves without them spelling it out for us. I mean in the context of that sequence alone, what needed to be said exactly and how would they say it? The subtle checking the boots was fine and also humorous in a dark way. By the way, the film does carry some good low key dark humor.
The gas station scene is the best. It's simultaneously chilling and hilarious. The guy who plays the cashier is perfect.

"What time do you go to bed?"
"9:30...usually around 9:30."
"Maybe I should come back then."
"Why would you come back then, we'll be closed?"
 
In the book Chigurh killed Mossed. The Mexicans were just decoys or so to speak. Chigurh made it look like a gang raid, but it's implied that Chigurh did it.

And I meant "hyped" in terms of its "Excellence". It wasn't an Excellent film, it was a good film, in my opinion. There were some mistakes here and there, it lacked music, and the ending didn't fit.

No, he did not. I have the book right in front of me. A Mexican killed Moss after he got the girl. He shot her and Moss, and Moss shot him before he died. I can relay the relevant page numbers and paragraphs if you like. There is no such implication at all. There was a witness, and the information is relayed to Bell through the State Cop on the scene.
 
That WAS Chigurh. I have the book to, I'm staring right at it right now.
 
The gas station scene is the best. It's simultaneously chilling and hilarious. The guy who plays the cashier is perfect.

"What time do you go to bed?"
"9:30...usually around 9:30."
"Maybe I should come back then."
"Why would you come back then, we'll be closed?"
It's such a quintessential Coen Bros. scene, equally full of real menace and oddball humor.
 
i watched this movie years ago, so i dont remember much, but i did like it, for what it was, Eastern Promises was good, a lot of other movies from then were good
 
That WAS Chigurh. I have the book to, I'm staring right at it right now.

You should really check again. The Mexican who shot Moss was also shot and flew out of there by helicopter. Chigurh shows up that night to get the money from the adjoining room when Ed Tom Bell comes back from looking at the bodies. The Mexican was earlier in the story in the back of a trailer with the guy listening to the wire-taps. They got Moss' location and then he grabbed a machine gun and spare clips, got into the Barracuda and drove off.
 
Last edited:
Well I guess that the question of this thread has pretty much been adequately answered. Please allow me to gush on this masterpiece...

Beat by beat, just a phenomenal movie. Tough as nails, really extraordinarily well shot each shot is a marvel. Perfect directing, cameramovement, harsh sunbaked colours. This just might be Deakins' best work and the best movie the Coens have ever made. (My favourite is still The Big Lebowski though). Not a false note in any performance, Bardem pulls something off that is really nothing short of amazing, in fact it's baffling. I'm not sure if there is a word suited to describe what he does.
 
i watched this movie years ago, so i dont remember much, but i did like it, for what it was, Eastern Promises was good, a lot of other movies from then were good

The Coens didn't make Eastern Promises. :huh:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,269
Messages
22,077,547
Members
45,877
Latest member
dude9876
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"