No Country for Old Men

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • JayBee74
    Hall Of Fame
    • Jul 2002
    • 22989

    #16
    Re: No Country for Old Men

    Originally posted by Money99
    My wife and I watched this movie last night. And for about 1 hour and 45 minutes it was an A+ movie.
    The last 20 minutes brought the movie down to a C+.

    But I have to say, the guy that plays the pyscho does an excellent job. The guy was very, very creepy.
    The only slow parts to this movie was mostly Tommy Lee Jone's(Sheriff Bell) little bits of "Down Home Country Wisdom And Philosophy". Thankfully they were oh so brief. I don't share your opinion of the last 20 minutes or how they "degraded" the movie from an A+ to a C+. This was one of the most suspenseful movies I have ever seen, and featured one of the great villains(Anton Chigurh) in screen history.

    Comment

    • JayBee74
      Hall Of Fame
      • Jul 2002
      • 22989

      #17
      Re: No Country for Old Men

      Did anyone else realize this movie took place in 1980, before the obvious clue of a date on a fresh headstone?

      Comment

      • TheLetterZ
        All Star
        • Jul 2002
        • 6752

        #18
        Re: No Country for Old Men

        Just got back from seeing it. So much suspense. Great movie.

        Comment

        • DrJones
          All Star
          • Mar 2003
          • 9108

          #19
          Re: No Country for Old Men

          Originally posted by JayBee74
          Did anyone else realize this movie took place in 1980, before the obvious clue of a date on a fresh headstone?
          The coin Chigurh used to determine the gas station clerk's fate is from 1958. Chigurh says something to the effect of it waiting 22 years for that moment.
          Originally posted by Thrash13
          Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.
          Originally posted by slickdtc
          DrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.
          Originally posted by Kipnis22
          yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your post

          Comment

          • Money99
            Hall Of Fame
            • Sep 2002
            • 12695

            #20
            Re: No Country for Old Men

            Originally posted by JayBee74
            The only slow parts to this movie was mostly Tommy Lee Jone's(Sheriff Bell) little bits of "Down Home Country Wisdom And Philosophy". Thankfully they were oh so brief. I don't share your opinion of the last 20 minutes or how they "degraded" the movie from an A+ to a C+. This was one of the most suspenseful movies I have ever seen, and featured one of the great villains(Anton Chigurh) in screen history.
            I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

            What happens to one of the main characters and how it's shown was highly unsuspensful and I don't think it did justice to his character considering how he was portrayed through the first 1:45 of the movie.

            Spoiler

            Comment

            • JayBee74
              Hall Of Fame
              • Jul 2002
              • 22989

              #21
              Re: No Country for Old Men

              Originally posted by Money99
              I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

              What happens to one of the main characters and how it's shown was highly unsuspensful and I don't think it did justice to his character considering how he was portrayed through the first 1:45 of the movie.
              The whole movie was laced with suspense, but the event that you describe I actually saw coming, although not in the way it was depicted.
              Spoiler

              Originally posted by DrJones
              The coin Chigurh used to determine the gas station clerk's fate is from 1958. Chigurh says something to the effect of it waiting 22 years for that moment.
              And I remembered the coin date and the 22 years, but was so caught up in the pure drama of the moment I didn't put it together. The other more vague clue was when Moss (Brolin) told the US border guard that he was in Vietnam in 66 (right??). Assuming Moss was in his early 20's in 1966 that brings a late 30's Moss to about 1980.

              Comment

              • marque1d
                SM*G*XX*R
                • Jul 2002
                • 345

                #22
                Re: No Country for Old Men

                Think of photography; you saw a slice of time. You don't know what happen before nor after. Re-read the title of the movie. Think about the conversation between Sheriff Ed Tom Bell and the Sheriff from El Paso or with Bell's Uncle with all the cats.

                The movie doesn't need to be predictable with Bell avenging the death of Llewelyn. You KNOW what happened to the girl.

                I still think Michael Clayton was the best film I've seen all year but No Country is a close second. (for now)

                I really find it interesting that some weren't for sure if the movie took place in the present was was set 20+ years ago. I guess West Texas is a part of the country which can seem to be stuck in time and that's a huge compliment to the film makers for capturing what it's like to be in that part of Texas. When I talk to people about that film that always point out how well they portrayed West Texas. That comes back around to the whole seeing a slice of time notion.

                Comment

                • Jimplication
                  MVP
                  • Aug 2004
                  • 3591

                  #23
                  Re: No Country for Old Men

                  I read the book first, and after watching the movie today, and then checking the book again afterwards, I thought the movie was well done overall, but as soon as the characters headed to El Paso, things got a little too obscure for my liking.

                  Spoiler


                  Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I thought it was very raw and genuine. For the most part, the movie followed the book, even down to the dialogue and ending, but there were omissions that I do consider to ultimately lessen the overall experience; and due to them being very easy to include, I can't help but suspect it was a directorial decision; especially given the extent to which the movie runs parallel to the novel minus the exceptions mentioned in my spoiler.
                  Last edited by Jimplication; 11-25-2007, 10:54 PM.
                  Enjoy football? Enjoy Goal Line Blitz!

                  Comment

                  • TheLetterZ
                    All Star
                    • Jul 2002
                    • 6752

                    #24
                    Re: No Country for Old Men

                    Spoiler

                    Comment

                    • Jimplication
                      MVP
                      • Aug 2004
                      • 3591

                      #25
                      Re: No Country for Old Men

                      Originally posted by TheLetterZ
                      Spoiler
                      It fits, I just think it could have been much clearer. In my experience, viewers can be beaten over the head with explanations and still not get it, and in this case it just felt far too obscure, especially given its importance to the storyline throughout the length of the movie.
                      Enjoy football? Enjoy Goal Line Blitz!

                      Comment

                      • TheLetterZ
                        All Star
                        • Jul 2002
                        • 6752

                        #26
                        Re: No Country for Old Men

                        I can agree with that, but the way I see it, it was a fairly subtle movie overall so it kind of fit. There were a bunch of high school kids leaving the theater behind me who were bitching about they had no idea what was going on.

                        Comment

                        • Money99
                          Hall Of Fame
                          • Sep 2002
                          • 12695

                          #27
                          Re: No Country for Old Men

                          Originally posted by Jimplication
                          I read the book first, and after watching the movie today, and then checking the book again afterwards, I thought the movie was well done overall, but as soon as the characters headed to El Paso, things got a little too obscure for my liking.

                          Spoiler


                          Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I thought it was very raw and genuine. For the most part, the movie followed the book, even down to the dialogue and ending, but there were omissions that I do consider to ultimately lessen the overall experience; and due to them being very easy to include, I can't help but suspect it was a directorial decision; especially given the extent to which the movie runs parallel to the novel minus the exceptions mentioned in my spoiler.
                          Thank you, thank you, thank you!
                          You actually provided a much clearer picture of the ending than the movie did. And after reading how the book concluded things, I can say unequivocally that the Coens butchered it.
                          I was still scratching my head as to what purpose the 'pool girl' had to the story line. Thank you very much for sorting that out for me.

                          After reading your post I would have MUCH preferred the books ending as it gave some of the characters a very fitting conclusion. As well as the story line.

                          I still really, REALLY enjoyed 75% of the movie. It's just the last 25% that left a very bad taste in my mouth.

                          Spoiler


                          Originally posted by Jimplication
                          It fits, I just think it could have been much clearer. In my experience, viewers can be beaten over the head with explanations and still not get it, and in this case it just felt far too obscure, especially given its importance to the storyline throughout the length of the movie.
                          Or the fact that Llewyn is given so much time and energy (rightfully so) and then his storyline is thrown out the window like a used tissue.

                          Comment

                          • Money99
                            Hall Of Fame
                            • Sep 2002
                            • 12695

                            #28
                            Re: No Country for Old Men

                            Jimplication, one question about the book:

                            Spoiler


                            Thanks!

                            Comment

                            • JayBee74
                              Hall Of Fame
                              • Jul 2002
                              • 22989

                              #29
                              Re: No Country for Old Men

                              Originally posted by Money99
                              Thank you, thank you, thank you!
                              You actually provided a much clearer picture of the ending than the movie did. And after reading how the book concluded things, I can say unequivocally that the Coens butchered it.
                              I was still scratching my head as to what purpose the 'pool girl' had to the story line. Thank you very much for sorting that out for me.
                              I don't see how you can use the word "butchered" in this instance, because let's not ignore the 800 pound elephant in the room......
                              Spoiler

                              Comment

                              • Money99
                                Hall Of Fame
                                • Sep 2002
                                • 12695

                                #30
                                Re: No Country for Old Men

                                Originally posted by JayBee74
                                I don't see how you can use the word "butchered" in this instance, because let's not ignore the 800 pound elephant in the room......
                                Spoiler
                                I whole-heartedly disagree. First what happens to Lleweylnn isn't what upset me, it was how it was shown.
                                And the Coens did butcher it. In my opinion, the whole movie was a long setup to an inevitable showdown. But then the Coens don't bother to show it. Imagine watching Rocky IV without the fight with the Russian - only the aftermath. In my mind, that's a very good depiction of how this movie wrapped itself up.

                                Spoiler
                                Last edited by Money99; 11-26-2007, 11:39 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...