No Country For Old Men
 

Best movie of the year.

Off the top of my head I go
1.NCFOM
2.Zodiac
3.Gone Baby Gone
4.Michael Clayton
5. Bourne Ultimatum

Never read the book...vaguely knew what it was about from the trailer.

Brolin and Bardem give [censored] amazing performances. Bardem villain is up there will Hans Gruber, Hannibal, etc.
The directing, locations, set design, cine..everything is just flat out perfect. Tommy Lee Jones is solid playing his typical role.

Very violent obv., the fight scenes and shootouts are so damn intense its sick. Even Bardem having a conversation with a gas attendant makes yr heart pound.

There is very little exterior music added to the film...everythig you hear is sound coming from within the scene itself...kind of like Dead Calm.

Lots of humor too...I was surprised how often people were laughing at jokes etc.

One of the Coen Brothers best.
Go see it.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...ry.hmedium.jpg

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

Thanks. It got a rave review in the L.A. Times today. New Yorker didn't like it much.

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

The book was kind of a period piece set in the late '70s. Is the movie as well?

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

It looks pretty good. Has anyone read the book? It won a Pulitzer right?

The movie got like 94% on RT. I'll probably check it out some time next week.

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

god i really want to see it but its not released here. damn. ty for review.

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

i thought cormac mccarthy's "The Road" was outstanding. i might have to read this one now. Of course by reading the book i will likely ruin the movie experience. OTOH if I watch the movie I will ruin the book [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

edit: I know "The Road" won a pulitzer... don't know about this one

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

this isn't playing in Vegas yet...can't wait

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

[ QUOTE ]
The book was kind of a period piece set in the late '70s. Is the movie as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes..takes place in 70s.

Yeah, saw it at a screening monday...Brolin and Bardem did a Q&A afterwards which was cool.

I think it comes out this weekend in limited release then goes wide next week.

I'll def see it again next week. Def go see it in a good theater with really good sound.

Bardem really should be nominated for an Oscar for his performance. Brolin is amazing as well.

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

[ QUOTE ]
i might have to read this one now. Of course by reading the book i will likely ruin the movie experience. OTOH if I watch the movie I will ruin the book [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

edit: I know "The Road" won a pulitzer... don't know about this one

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome movie. Sticks very close to the book (which didn't win a Pulitzer, fwiw). Almost all of the dialogue is straight from the book. I found that I enjoyed the book and movie about equally, but there were some parts I liked better in the book and vice versa.

Bardem was sensational, of course, and I'm a big Tommy Lee Jones fan. I don't usually like Josh Brolin, but he was great too. I also really enjoyed Garret Dillahunt in a small role as Jones's deputy.

It was weird watching a Coen brothers movie without the usual Coen cast of characters, though (save Stephen Root). Maybe we could've had Billy Bob instead of Woody, or at least Jon Polito playing the Tommy Lee role...

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

Cannot wait.

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

Dom did you ever do anything with that script you wrote?

Tuco.

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

[ QUOTE ]

Dom did you ever do anything with that script you wrote?

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was just optioned by an independent producer in L.A. So the writer's strike happened at the right time, obviously. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] At least I got paid first!

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was just optioned by an independent producer in L.A. So the writer's strike happened at the right time, obviously. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] At least I got paid first!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell him you insist I play the lead. I promise to be at least as good as Steven Seagal would be.

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

You don't understand. The lead role calls for someone with a really GOOD ponytail.

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

[ QUOTE ]
You don't understand. The lead role calls for someone with a really GOOD ponytail.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, it does.

A Big Disappointment
 

Saw it this afternoon. It was Fargo redone in Texas without the novelty. Same story. I liked Fargo a lot. This was boring. Bardem was like watching a robot. Brolin was good, following up on another good performance in American Gangster. The last hour was just slow and dull. The only time there was any interest on screen, for me, was when Tommy Lee Jones was there. And I didn't understand the last scene, nor the next to last scene.

Maybe I just don't get it. And, I have to admit, I don't understand what the movie was about, what purpose there was for making it. Woody Harrelson was just plain awful, and I didn't understand why he was even in the movie.

What am I missing, guys?

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

[ QUOTE ]
Saw it this afternoon. It was Fargo redone in Texas without the novelty. Same story. I liked Fargo a lot. This was boring. Bardem was like watching a robot. Brolin was good, following up on another good performance in American Gangster. The last hour was just slow and dull. The only time there was any interest on screen, for me, was when Tommy Lee Jones was there. And I didn't understand the last scene, nor the next to last scene.

Maybe I just don't get it. And, I have to admit, I don't understand what the movie was about, what purpose there was for making it. Woody Harrelson was just plain awful, and I didn't understand why he was even in the movie.

What am I missing, guys?

[/ QUOTE ]

given u thought 3:10 to Yuma was an all time great western...this review was totally expected lol.

But I'm sure some people won't like the pacing of the film regardless if they like the film itself.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

I agree that the similarities to Fargo are there: the vicious psychopath, vast empty landscapes, a cop who can't fathom the depth of the ongoing depravity. I think the main difference is this is kind of a continuation of the theme; the crimes in Fargo were an anomaly, the type of things that just don't happen in those kinds of places. In NCFOM, however, the senseless crimes are more a harbinger of what's to come, of an area that's going to be riddled with violence because of the drug menace. The events of Fargo happened because of one man's greed, and they ended when the few agents responsible were stopped; the events of this movie will continue to happen because of the greed of many, most of whom will never be stopped, or even known.

I think Bardem was supposed to be robotic. He was a man who was so committed to his twisted principles that he couldn't allow any deviation from them. He was like Hannibal Lecter in that Hannibal had a very strange sense of etiquette that he followed religiously, and expected others to do the same. Anton Chigurh had his code, and he followed it even when there was no gain in it for him (example/spoiler: <font color="white">the scene where he went out of his way to murder the wife, for instance </font>).

And I agree that Woody was the weak link of the film, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to call him awful. He had more of a purpose in the book, as he revealed a little about Chigurh's character and placed the events of the story in a bigger picture.

When you say you didn't understand the last two scenes, are you speaking of the ones at Tommy Lee Jones's house and that of his uncle or whomever that was?

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

I haven't seen the flick yet, but your comments about it were really interesting, jester, and made me want to see it more.

Re: No Country For Old Men
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Dom did you ever do anything with that script you wrote?

Tuco.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was just optioned by an independent producer in L.A. So the writer's strike happened at the right time, obviously. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] At least I got paid first!

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome. I want an invite to the premier and the wrap party so I can meet Jenna obv. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

For any that haven't read Dom's screenplay, beg him to link to it. Great story in the genre of some of the movies talked about in this thread.

Tuco.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

the scenes at the end of the movie were a bit out of place because they are taken from larger scenes and narration that is used for a different purpose in the book. i'm not going to get into it because there are a lot of spoilers, but the end of the book is a bit different than the movie. this isn't a knock on the movie, the book actually drags a bit at the end and the movie avoids this. i think the book does a much better job of getting deeper into the characters, their moral fiber, and why they do what they do. it also draws parallels between the sheriff and moss' characters that are left out in the movie.

the book, at its core, is comparing the two characters (mainly what they are willing to risk to follow their "morals") chigurh represents someone without morals who therefore can follow his code without a problem. chigurh never has any decisions of his own, there is always a clear choice for him, and the closest he ever comes to choice is flipping a coin. he can do this because he is a sociopath, but "normal" people cannot. the book compares how the sheriff and moss make different choices, and examines the consequences.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

"When you say you didn't understand the last two scenes, are you speaking of the ones at Tommy Lee Jones's house and that of his uncle or whomever that was?"

Yes. Was the uncle's talk supposed to show that violence was always a part of the local environment? I had trouble discerning exactly what Jones said about his dream, he sort of mumbled it a bit. What I did get I couldn't relate to the rest of the movie.

Woody always seems to me to be playing his character from Cheers.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

I can't recall off the top of my head what exactly Jones said about the dream.

As for the other scene (warning: may be spoilers ahead), its significance is easier to understand in the book. Jones's uncle, like his father, was a sheriff; the uncle was wounded in the line of duty whereas the father was killed. Jones's character, like many people, tends to paint a rosier picture of the past than is accurate, and compares himself unfavorably to his heroes of that time. So yes, the uncle is saying that violent killers like Chigurh have always existed, and that Jones is not an inferior man for not catching him or dying trying. Jones's character spends the whole movie bemoaning the sorry state the world has come to be in, but the uncle basically tells him that people tend to compare the present unfavorably to the past, when in reality things are how they always have been, and people are people.

Also, there's a subplot in the book that's significant to this scene, and the sheriff's character as a whole, involving a commendation the sheriff won in Vietnam. I won't spoil it in case anyone intends to read the book, but it makes that scene much more significant.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

Also, out of curiosity, how do you think you would've liked this movie if you'd never seen Fargo?

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

That's a good question. Probably better than I did, because the conversations between the "sophisticated" and the local yokels would have been novel.

Why was the automobile accident towards the end of the movie there? To show that, in the end, Bardem was really no different than Brolin?

BTW, thanks for all your help in this thread.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's a good question. Probably better than I did, because the conversations between the "sophisticated" and the local yokels would have been novel.

Why was the automobile accident towards the end of the movie there? To show that, in the end, Bardem was really no different than Brolin?

BTW, thanks for all your help in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, the car accident makes more sense in the book. the sheriff actually investigates the accident and figures out that it was probably chigurh that the boys saw. the book does a much better job of tying everything together, but the movie does a better job of not dragging at the end.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

also, i never really thought of this movie as similar to Fargo. Mainly, I think of Fargo as a movie full of losers (except for the female cop and her husband). No Country is full of smart, capable people. No country is more tragic while Fargo is a dark comedy. When everyone gets caught or killed in Fargo you don't feel bad, not so in No Country.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

Boy, I didn't see any of the people in No Country as smart or capable. Anton is simply a robotic killer who gets no pleasure out of life. Brolin's character is not smart, he is only motivated by trying to keep the money. He ends up as he would have been expected to end up. Woody Harrelson's character is an idiot--he sees the briefcase but doesn't get it and ends up with Anton walking up the stairs right behind him. The guy in the office building ends up the same way. Tommy Lee Jones is a small-town lawman, similar to Macdormand's character in Fargo, but without the intelligence or drive of the heroine in Fargo; he fails to get his man. Brolin's wife is unable or unwilling to help him and her mother is a bigotted loudmouth.

I do agree that Fargo was done more as a black comedy than No Country. Buscemi, MacDormand, and Macy are good comic actors and played their roles accordingly in Fargo. There was nothing like that in No Country, just a few funny lines.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

Anton is very smart...he may be cold and ruthless but he is not a idiot like the villains in Fargo.

For what he initially appears to be(a dumb hick), Brolin's character shows a lot of smarts. Blowing the chamber before attempting to shoot the dog. Waiting to make sure the guy by the tree is dead.
Hiding the bag. Using the tent poles to get the bag back. Asking for the layout of the hotel. Realizing there is no way Anton could have simply found him. Buying the clothes from the kids and taking their beer bottle. etc etc
But Brolin also does a lot of dumb things...in part because he is way in over his head.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

I think what GTL is saying is that Fargo is full of screwups. The characters are mostly screwups (save Frances McDormand), the kidnapping is botched, Jerry's plan falls apart, etc. There really aren't any such screwups in NCFOM. And maybe you don't think the characters are smart, but they're certainly resourceful. Brolin survives a lot longer than anyone else Chigurh wants dead because of his resourcefulness, Chigurh never really makes any mistakes, and even Woody showed that he was able to figure out what Brolin was doing pretty easily.

As for Jones, I think his character was very smart, he just wasn't really up for the job anymore (and for the record, he did get his man....at the very beginning). McDormand caught the bad guys due to their own incompetence as much as anything else, whereas Jones had no such luck. Jones was at least smart enough to do what little he could do, but maybe I'm just defending him because he reminds me a lot of my dad.

And about the car accident...I don't really know why that happened. In the book it says that the guy driving the car that hit Chigurh was high, so maybe it was a statement about how drugs will get everybody in one way or another. In the movie, though, it just came across as something that happened for no apparent reason.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

Also, as far as the various character's capabilities, the book says that Harrelson's character was a special forces colonel in Vietnam and hints that Chigurh was too. Brolin was also a Vietnam veteran, and Jones was a WWII hero (I think I said Vietnam in an earlier post). So these people aren't necessarily just dumb hicks.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

[ QUOTE ]
Boy, I didn't see any of the people in No Country as smart or capable. Anton is simply a robotic killer who gets no pleasure out of life. Brolin's character is not smart, he is only motivated by trying to keep the money. He ends up as he would have been expected to end up. Woody Harrelson's character is an idiot--he sees the briefcase but doesn't get it and ends up with Anton walking up the stairs right behind him. The guy in the office building ends up the same way. Tommy Lee Jones is a small-town lawman, similar to Macdormand's character in Fargo, but without the intelligence or drive of the heroine in Fargo; he fails to get his man. Brolin's wife is unable or unwilling to help him and her mother is a bigotted loudmouth.

I do agree that Fargo was done more as a black comedy than No Country. Buscemi, MacDormand, and Macy are good comic actors and played their roles accordingly in Fargo. There was nothing like that in No Country, just a few funny lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with your opinion that the characters in No Country were not smart or capable. I'll give a few examples that were in the movie (the book spends a lot more time highlighting what the individual characters are good at and different areas of expertise)

Chigurh is injured by moss when they have a firefight in the hotel across the mexican border. Afterwards Chigurh is badly injured and is incredibly resourceful. He creates a diversion (blows up a car) and then steals the medical supplies he needs to patch up his bullet wound. He patches himself up, on his own, in a hotel room. This is a clear sign of intelligence. He understands medicine. This also proves that he is capable. Being able to clean a bullet wound and then suture the wound is not an easy task and takes expertise.

Moss has a very deep skill set as well when it comes to survival, weaponry, and street smarts. He manages to stay a step ahead of Chigurh the whole movie. Chigurh does not kill Moss. Many people may not realize this. In my opinion, Moss' mother in law is responsible for getting him killed. You can take this how you want. He is very good with guns, and the only person who survives a gunfight with chigurh. etc... etc...

The Sheriff is very smart. I have no idea why you see him as unintelligent. From the very beginning he realizes that Chigurh is a sociopath. He understands the trouble Moss is in and he does everything he can to help him. This is why he doesn't focus on the crime scenes and instead focuses on Moss' wife. He knows that the only way to find Moss will be through his wife. In the end, he does get the info from the wife. He is a good cop. There is no way to catch or stop Chigurh. In my opinion, Chigurh is a god like being, unstoppable.

Maybe I'll post more, but if you still disagree with me we're probably at an impasse and arguing further won't get us anywhere.

You are not supposed to necessarily like any of the characters in No Country. It's a tragedy, and each character who dies is responsible for their own death in some way. The story is about why people make choices that lead to tragedy. If you think about the movie, none of the choices that lead to tragedy for Moss or his Wife had to do with the money.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

Good stuff, thanks.

You're right, the characters are certainly not sloppy and dimwitted, like the Fargo characters. They showed resourcefulness. Moss was thoughtful, but in the end not thoughtful enough. None of the characters were smart enough to succeed.

The only thing with which I definitely disagree is your last sentence. Surely his desire for the money was what did Moss and his wife in. Please explain why you think otherwise.

Thanks again.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

Funny, I suspected there might have been some Vietnam stuff in the novel that was left out of the movie when the border guard asks Moss if he was in 'nam.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

how is American Gangster not on your top 5?

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good stuff, thanks.

You're right, the characters are certainly not sloppy and dimwitted, like the Fargo characters. They showed resourcefulness. Moss was thoughtful, but in the end not thoughtful enough. None of the characters were smart enough to succeed.

The only thing with which I definitely disagree is your last sentence. Surely his desire for the money was what did Moss and his wife in. Please explain why you think otherwise.

Thanks again.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people will miss this and I missed it the first time I read the book. This is a mild spoiler, so don't read this if you are planning on seeing the movie guys. <font color="white">When Moss takes the money and goes back to his wife no one knows about it. Neither the drug sellers, buyers, nor Chigurh have any idea that Moss took the money. The transponder only works at close range, and he might have been found later, but that is a big maybe. Moss goes back to the scene and has to abandon his truck to escape. His truck gives away his identity and seals his fate. Moss goes back the second time to bring water to the wounded Mexican. He tells his wife, "I'm fixin to do something dumber than hell, but I'm going to do it anyway." He can't leave the man to die. He just can't do it. This is what gets him into the mess. This is also how he is different than the sheriff. The book ends with the sheriff telling a story of leaving his men behind to die in the heat of battle. There is more to it than this, of course. But in my mind, the money isn't what gets Moss killed, it's the moral code that he follows that won't allow him to leave a man to die. </font>

I know you were expecting me to wax philosophical on why it's not about the money. But there is actually tangible evidence that it wasn't the money that got him into the mess. Of course it's just my opinion. I like talking about movies and books I enjoy, so keep asking away.

To your point about none of the characters being smart enough to survive. This is a hallmark of all tragedies. I'm an intelligent person myself and I enjoy tragedies because they are full of brilliant people, good and bad, who will never reach a happy ending. Just makes for great art.

Re: A Big Disappointment
 

[ QUOTE ]
Funny, I suspected there might have been some Vietnam stuff in the novel that was left out of the movie when the border guard asks Moss if he was in 'nam.

[/ QUOTE ]

The book opens the same way as the movie, with Moss hunting. The book goes into incredible detail about Moss' rifle and the way he is using it. It becomes immediately clear that Moss was a sniper and this is a thread throughout the book. I believe all the major male players are vets.

Great film
 

I agree with the other posters about the intelligence of these characters. Not necessarily book smart, but very very resourceful.

I loved the dialogue, and the suspense didn't let up for the majority of the film.

The ending left me wanting me more (perhaps I should read the book based of this thread), but I think the point I got out of it was what everything is changing, all the time.

There are no happy resolutions because 10, 20 years from now, some other horrific crimes will happen that people will shake heads on and wonder how it got so bad.



Question: what was happening when the sheriff was looking at the keyhole in the last motel, and anton was in the shadows inside, waiting for the door to open? I realize that it was most likely a flashback, so does this mean that anton killed moss?

Re: Great film
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the other posters about the intelligence of these characters. Not necessarily book smart, but very very resourceful.

I loved the dialogue, and the suspense didn't let up for the majority of the film.

The ending left me wanting me more (perhaps I should read the book based of this thread), but I think the point I got out of it was what everything is changing, all the time.

There are no happy resolutions because 10, 20 years from now, some other horrific crimes will happen that people will shake heads on and wonder how it got so bad.



Question: what was happening when the sheriff was looking at the keyhole in the last motel, and anton was in the shadows inside, waiting for the door to open? I realize that it was most likely a flashback, so does this mean that anton killed moss?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya I got a little confused with this in terms of did he leave once the sheriff went into the bathroom. Did he go out the window in the bathroom cuz they seemed to focus on the open latch.

Re: Great film
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ya I got a little confused with this in terms of did he leave once the sheriff went into the bathroom. Did he go out the window in the bathroom cuz they seemed to focus on the open latch.

[/ QUOTE ]

This scene was not a flashback, at least not in the book. Jones goes back to the motel on a hunch, because of the conversation he has with the El Paso sheriff about how brazen Chigurh is in returning to crime scenes. In the book, he enters the room and Chigurh is out in the parking lot in his pickup. The significance of the grate and screws were that they confirmed to Jones that Chigurh had been there. In the book, Jones spends several minutes getting up the courage to just walk outside so he can drive off and radio for backup. In the movie, I don't know if Chigurh leaves while Jones has his back turned or just waits behind the door.

And no, Anton didn't not kill Moss. The Mexicans who found out where Moss was going killed him in a big shootout and stole the money. In the book, though, Chigurh ends up with the money, so it's safe to assume he caught up with the Mexicans.