No Country For Old Men (2 Viewers)

[icecreamdisco]

For all the "If you claim to love this movie you must be just saying it to be hip" dudes - get over your fucking selves. That you then follow up any arguments to the contrary with "How can you say I don't know good cinema" shows just how precious you turds are. Dislike this film all you like, it's no skin off my nose, but to then go and hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with you (the vast majority of those who've seen it) is utterly ridiculous. People who attempt to be hip by being counter-counter-culture aren't any less pathetic than those they attack.

yeah, this is what i was sorta getting at earlier. i always find it depressing when - in the face of an increasingly dumbed-down film culture - people try and take a stand against the non-existent problem of a majority of people taking their movies far too seriously, or even appreciating film as art on it's own. some of the more idiotic reviews for inland empire and i'm not there had an air of that, and even though i don't wholeheartedly love either film, it's still worrying.

In the best/worst of 2007 thread elsewhere, I see a number of you have put this as your worst film of 2007. If you sincerely believe that, in the year that brought you Daddy Day Camp and Epic Movie, then you don't know good cinema. You'll say art's subjective, and that's fine, but anyone who argues Police Academy 7 is better than The Godfather is going to be thought of as an idiot.

this, however, i don't entirely agree with. sure, epic movie is obviously incompetent and the fact that there's similar parodies-without-comedy coming out is depressing, but i think it's more useful to draw attention to films that may be perfectly competent on a cinematic level, but are objectionable on moral/whatever grounds. babel might be a 'better' film than transformers, but the former made me angrier from it's sheer self-importance, so i consider it more ripe for trashing. similarly, forrest gump might be perfectly watchable and have great directing, acting and ingeniously innovative special effects, but it's achingly conservative message is so repulsive that i hate it more than lots of flat-out bad films. sometimes, i think it's worth considering (what you perceive to be) the desired effect that the filmmaker wants to have on the audience, rather than what you're actually watching.

 

[icecreamdisco]

Um... See, I can see why we're going to have completely different views... because I just can't imagine being particularly on edge because of that scene (unless I was some extremely timid person). A guy shoots through the door... jumps out the window... they have a fire fight in the streets... I honestly just can't see what made it any better than any other similar scene in a different movie.

on paper (or in this case, post) it doesn't seem like anything outstanding, but the execution is fantastic. the fact that we're confined to that one hotel room, the way we're given such a clear idea of the things that are happening offscreen via offhand sounds, the way the scene's prolonged nearly past the breaking point (but just not quite)... i was actually physically leaning to my side by the time it's clear that chigurh is on the other side of the door. i can't explain why the subsequent pusuit on the streets was so effective other than that it was shot and edited in a way that put me right in the action unlike any similar scene. granted, i tend to dodge 'bullets' when playing arcade shooter games, lol.

 

[Enteebee]

the fact that we're confined to that one hotel room

How many horror movies have done this with scenes where they just show people in a small room and you hear the creeking footsteps, followed by the shadow under the door, maybe the sound of an axe as its being pulled along up the stairs/along the hallway? I just can't separate what I saw from that typical scene.

 

[spiny norman]

this, however, i don't entirely agree with. sure, epic movie is obviously incompetent and the fact that there's similar parodies-without-comedy coming out is depressing, but i think it's more useful to draw attention to films that may be perfectly competent on a cinematic level, but are objectionable on moral/whatever grounds. babel might be a 'better' film than transformers, but the former made me angrier from it's sheer self-importance, so i consider it more ripe for trashing. similarly, forrest gump might be perfectly watchable and have great directing, acting and ingeniously innovative special effects, but it's achingly conservative message is so repulsive that i hate it more than lots of flat-out bad films. sometimes, i think it's worth considering (what you perceive to be) the desired effect that the filmmaker wants to have on the audience, rather than what you're actually watching.

Point taken. I finally saw Babel recently, and certainly found its humourless self-importance greatly bogged down what I would've liked about the film (as can be said for all Inarritu films, best I can tell). However, I agree with something Roger Ebert (last time I quote him, I promise) said in his negative review of Ryan's Daughter (which I actually quite like) - "I have a friend who says a new David Lean movie is like a new Picasso. It may not be a great Picasso, he says, but by God it's a Picasso and worth seeing for that reason if for no other. I suppose that's true of Lean and all great directors: Their work is interesting just because they've signed it, and the failures help to illuminate the successes".

On the topic of Forrest Gump, I've heard many complain about its right-wingedness, but I don't see it. From what I gather Tom Hanks is a fairly liberal fellow, and the screenwriter Eric Roth also wrote the screenplays for The Insider and Munich, which don't seem conservative to me. The director Zemeckis seems to have been apolitical in his films (aside Contact, I seem to recall was political, but I saw it so long ago I can be damned to remember what it was). Regardless, I've found I'm not too bothered by dissenting politics in films - it's kind of like a lot of rap out there, I can be bothered by the misogyny in the lyrics, but if the beat's good enough and the wordplay clever enough I put up with it. Are you bothered by the films of John Ford and Sergei Eisenstein, due to their politics?

 

[icecreamdisco]

Regardless, I've found I'm not too bothered by dissenting politics in films - it's kind of like a lot of rap out there, I can be bothered by the misogyny in the lyrics, but if the beat's good enough and the wordplay clever enough I put up with it. Are you bothered by the films of John Ford and Sergei Eisenstein, due to their politics?

that's a good point, although i guess my problem with gump is that the filmmaking is merely 'good' as in competent and workmanlike, which isn't enough to salvage it's message of the benefits of not questioning authority or being averse to risk, and the film has nothing else to offer aside from hanks' performance and the music selections. the fact that i'm a cold, emotionless robot has something to do with it as well.

as for john ford and eisenstein, i have to confess to seeing only potemkin of the latter, and it's the power of the montage that's the main point of focus in that one (at least when looking back on it), and ford's politics were usually tangentially related to his films - or at least the ones i'm a fan of (stagecoach and liberty valance... been too long since i've seen my darling clementine, the searchers and the grapes of wrath).

 

[walrusbear]

what about someone like peckinpah

 

[icecreamdisco]

well, i hate women, so peckinpah's cool.

but seriously, he's the same deal as norm's rap analogy; as long as the beat/music/flow/whatever's good, i can ignore the worldview, or at least aspects of it.

 

[oscarjunk25]

I actually liked the movie. I just thought the ending was lame.

oj25
umg

 

[ballin]

surely the best film of 2007.. i dont see what could come close. all actors gave superb performances, the storyline was engrossing and unlike some of you have argued, the ending was superb, albeit a tad unforseen. if you actually listened to what tommy lee had said you would have realised the entire film revolves around him. he's the "old man" the film refers to and his final monologue reflects the universal good vs. evil theme which the film manages to present brilliantly. also, credit where credit is due: did anyone else notice the awesome SOUND? im pretty sure there was no score, but every was so audible; really controlled the mood. also, javier bardem has cool hair.

 

[Lija]

The Coen Brothers are so talented.
They definitely deserved best film at the Oscars.
No Country For Old Men is one of my favourite films - AMAZING.
Javier Bardem is exceptional