As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

No Country for Old Men

Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
edited December 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
no_country_for_old_men_coen.jpg

The new Coen brothers movie, No Country for Old Men, is getting some heavy critical praise, standing at 95% on RottenTomatoes.com at the time of this post.

I saw it on Friday. It is exquisite.

I am not going to give you a plot synopsis, nor am I going to even suggest the event that sets things in motion. I went into the movie not even knowing it was based on a McCarthy novel of the same same, and having no idea of the storyline whatsoever, and it was an incredible experience. I recommend you do the same. Those who have read the book will find that it is almost a note-perfect adaptation, pulling dialogue straight from the pages, but also adding a distinct Coen flair.

Best movie of 2007 in my mind, no question. Anton Chigurh, not as the personification of evil, but as the inevitability and irrationality of destruction and death, as the crushing fist of an absurd universe, is perhaps the most memorably terrifying character to cast a shadow on a screen in years.

Anyone else seen it?

Evil Multifarious on
«1345

Posts

  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited November 2007
    Haven't seen it yet, but I can't wait. The last few Coen flicks have been underwhelming (The Man Who Wasn't There was okay, but felt like an inside joke the rest of us weren't quite let in on, Intolerable Cruelty was ehhh, and Ladykillers was just plain suck) so I'm really eager to see their return to form. Also, while I haven't read this book of his yet, McCarthy is a ball-tighteningly fantastic writer.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Want to see it.

    So hard.

    The girlfriend wants to see The Mist or whatever the latest Stephen King adaptation is. It's criminal that I'm going to miss this because of that.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'm not sure whether to suggest you read the book or see the movie first. If you read the book after seeing the movie you will definitely have difficulty picturing any of the characters, especially Anton, as anyone except the actors who played them, because they do such a damn fine job.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited November 2007
    I don't mind that. There're a lot worse things for my head to be filled with than Tommy Lee Jones.

    Also, my to-read stack stretches from floor to ceiling.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I really want to go see this movie. I let my friends make the call on the last movie we went to (I wanted to see 3:10 to Yuma, they wanted Shoot 'Em Up) and I fucking regretted it. Not this time. Hoho, not this time.

    I wish I knew someone who actually had good taste in movies.

    KrunkMcGrunk on
    mrsatansig.png
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Man, Shoot Em Up was fucking fantastic, I don't know what you're talking about.

    Not as good as this one, but hilarious parody of an already parodic genre is :^: nonetheless

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited November 2007
    I am available for movie companionship for the cost of a plane ticket and maybe some sex.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Man, Shoot Em Up was fucking fantastic, I don't know what you're talking about.

    Not as good as this one, but hilarious parody of an already parodic genre is :^: nonetheless

    At times it seemed like it took itself seriously. Anyhow, I think 3:10 to Yuma would have been better.
    I am available for movie companionship for the cost of a plane ticket and maybe some sex.

    Pack your bags.

    KrunkMcGrunk on
    mrsatansig.png
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    At times it seemed like it took itself seriously. Anyhow, I think 3:10 to Yuma would have been better.

    There was not a single point in that movie where it took itself seriously. That was the beauty of it. It was a wonderfully, wholly self-aware action movie, which took things just past the level of absurdity for comedic effect.

    That said, you're probably right, 3:10 to Yuma would have been better (although I haven't seen it). Parody for the sake of parody, although hilarious, cannot contest fine filmmaking on its own merits.

    Make your friends see this movie. It is by turns grimly guffaw-inducing and unsettlingly penetrating, which is really the perfect combination.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Oh, I totally am going to make them watch it. They have to watch a good movie every now and again.

    KrunkMcGrunk on
    mrsatansig.png
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Want to see it.

    So hard.

    The girlfriend wants to see The Mist or whatever the latest Stephen King adaptation is. It's criminal that I'm going to miss this because of that.
    Kill your girlfriend and see this instead. Bitch is retarded.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Saw it opening night.
    Depressing, disappointing movie. It's "well done" by some definition, but at least for me that does not make it a good movie. I'm going to rent Death Proof to get this junk out of my system.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Options
    RaneadosRaneados police apologist you shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Saw it opening night.
    Depressing, disappointing movie. It's "well done" by some definition, but at least for me that does not make it a good movie. I'm going to rent Death Proof to get this junk out of my system.

    this is the most horriffic thing I've ever heard

    Raneados on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited November 2007
    Raneados wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Saw it opening night.
    Depressing, disappointing movie. It's "well done" by some definition, but at least for me that does not make it a good movie. I'm going to rent Death Proof to get this junk out of my system.

    this is the most horriffic thing I've ever heard

    But it's not feel-good, Rane.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Deathproof is awesome, but in no way shape or form can I imagine that this will be a bad movie. I love Javier Bardem, and really dig the concept.

    Septus on
    PSN: Kurahoshi1
  • Options
    tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    The book was fantastic, I can't wait to see the movie.

    tofu on
  • Options
    VeegeezeeVeegeezee Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Haven't seen it yet, but I can't wait. The last few Coen flicks have been underwhelming (The Man Who Wasn't There was okay, but felt like an inside joke the rest of us weren't quite let in on, Intolerable Cruelty was ehhh, and Ladykillers was just plain suck) so I'm really eager to see their return to form. Also, while I haven't read this book of his yet, McCarthy is a ball-tighteningly fantastic writer.

    Ladykillers was fucking great

    although it's among a very small number of Tom Hanks movies where Tom Hanks is tolerable

    mostly because he isn't acting like Tom Hanks the whole time

    Veegeezee on
  • Options
    GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I liked the movie, but I really felt the ending was lacking.

    Maybe I don't "get it."

    Garthor on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2007
    Garthor wrote: »
    I liked the movie, but I really felt the ending was lacking.

    Maybe I don't "get it."
    I hate it when that happens. I feel like such a pleb for liking like, ten other movies more than that one Bill Murray flick where he goes looking for some son he thinks he has but didn't know he had...

    but yeah, i'm looking forward to this, because i am both a sucker for anything vaguely Western-esque and a hater of Russell Crowe.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited November 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    I hate it when that happens. I feel like such a pleb for liking like, ten other movies more than that one Bill Murray flick where he goes looking for some son he thinks he has but didn't know he had...

    but yeah, i'm looking forward to this, because i am both a sucker for anything vaguely Western-esque and a hater of Russell Crowe.

    What, Broken Flowers? Don't beat yourself up over that one, Murray was totally coasting. His angsty old guy shtick was great in Rushmore, pretty cool in Lost in Translation, okay in Royal Tenenbaums, and totally played out afterwards.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I liked American Gangster and Michael Clayton just a bit more than No Country. It was a fucking awesome movie though.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    A lot of people who don't like it seem to actually find the depressing bleakness of the film really affecting, leading to accusations of nihilism etc. I think that is a case, yes, of not "getting it."

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    skippydumptruckskippydumptruck begin again Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I thought it was fantastic. I have a minor question though, for those of you who've seen it:
    When Tommy Lee Jones goes back to the motel where Lou Ellen (?) was killed, and finds that the door lock has been punched out, there is a tense minute while he waits outside and decides if he is going to go in or not. During that time, there is a cut where it shows Anton waiting inside, in shadows, but when Tommy Lee goes into the room, no one is there.

    Was that scene Tommy imagining and fearing that the killer is waiting inside, or was Anton in a different room, or what?

    Also, the ending was a little abrupt in that it took me by surprise, and I don't know that I entirely "get it," but I don't think that makes it bad in any way.

    I loved the bleakness of the film, the huge wide-open Texas sky, and how that hard world made for hard characters.

    skippydumptruck on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Mixed opinions.
    Loved the movie, but hated the ending. I'm not down with the entire "we'll end how / when / where we want with as much or little closure and focus as we want, conventional focus and closure BE DAMNED!" thing.The ending felt rushed and haphazard, and much like Halo 2 had me angry at an otherwise great experience. Still probably worth seeing, especially if you have a high tolerance for..... "artistic" or "post-modern" endings. Amazing characters, smart dialogue, fantastic action sequences, suspenseful, all that other good stuff.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'm not sure about that scene, actually. There were no other "imagined" scenes in the movie so it would seem out of place if that were one of them.

    My interpretation of the movie as a whole:
    It's about the inevitability of destruction and chaos and loss, represented by Anton, who cannot be reasoned with even though his actions can be explained with a sort of twisted logic. You can't stop Anton; you can't even really figure him out. This inevitability leads to an exploding of the Western genre, in a way, where the one-man-against-the-world not only fails, but dies ignominously, without even a dramatic confrontation to give the audience appropriate heroic closure. He's killed by a bunch of drug running mexicans while he's chatting up a woman who's not his wife, and we don't see any big showdown. This showdown expectation may be shifted to Jones's character, but the sheriff, though smart and experienced, is ultimately weak and ineffective. The sheriff doesn't duel the villain and win; he doesn't do anything at all.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    jotjot Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Dear God, this isn't coming to Germany until fucking April.
    I loved Oh Brother Were are thou but I didn't understand The Man Who Wasn't There at all.

    jot on
  • Options
    skippydumptruckskippydumptruck begin again Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'm not sure about that scene, actually. There were no other "imagined" scenes in the movie so it would seem out of place if that were one of them.

    My interpretation of the movie as a whole:
    It's about the inevitability of destruction and chaos and loss, represented by Anton, who cannot be reasoned with even though his actions can be explained with a sort of twisted logic. You can't stop Anton; you can't even really figure him out. This inevitability leads to an exploding of the Western genre, in a way, where the one-man-against-the-world not only fails, but dies ignominously, without even a dramatic confrontation to give the audience appropriate heroic closure. He's killed by a bunch of drug running mexicans while he's chatting up a woman who's not his wife, and we don't see any big showdown. This showdown expectation may be shifted to Jones's character, but the sheriff, though smart and experienced, is ultimately weak and ineffective. The sheriff doesn't duel the villain and win; he doesn't do anything at all.

    I like your interpretation.

    But,
    I don't think the sheriff is ineffectual. I think it's more a comment on how times change, and how evil Anton is. At the beginning, they talk about how some of the old time sheriffs didn't even wear guns, and how that goes away in the face of a 14 year old who kills just because he wants to, and doesn't care that he's going to Hell.

    The sheriff is principled and smart, and brave (like when he does go into the room where Lou Ellen died). And although I agree that he doesn't duel him and win, I think that's more a fatalistic and even wise cast to Tommy Lee Jones's character, considering how elementally evil Anton is, than a comment on how he is weak. Arguably, we are all weak in the face of something like that -- certainly no characters in the movie prevail, including Lou Ellen and the tough retired 'Nam colonel.

    skippydumptruck on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I thought the import of the retired Colonel's story about the death of the Sherrif's grandfather really hammered home a universality to the themes- things haven't changed, humans are and always have been frail, fragile beings easily destroyed. The random car accident suffered by Anton further reinforces this point- even he is at the mercy of the wider universe.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I thought the import of the retired Colonel's story about the death of the Sherrif's grandfather really hammered home a universality to the themes- things haven't changed, humans are and always have been frail, fragile beings easily destroyed. The random car accident suffered by Anton further reinforces this point- even he is at the mercy of the wider universe.

    That is exactly what I was going to say.
    That part of the movie is extremely important, because the idea of the sheriffs not wearing guns in the "good ol' days" - the idea of the good old days itself - is simply nostalgia at play on a large scale. Atrocity and destruction are always occurring, and humanity is always frail and helpless to really stop it. The sheriff can't stop Anton, can't even come into contact with him, because atrocity is not something you can track down and defeat like the cowboy in the black hat. Anton is Vietnam and Iraq and the sheriff's uncle bleeding out on his porch trying to reach for his shotgun. The sheriff is not incompetent - he's very smart and tough and resourceful - but so is Moss, and it isn't enough for either of them. Even Anton, as an agent of that inevitability, is still a human agent and thus vulnerable to an uncaring universe, although simultaneously he is still unstoppable since he does walk away. Like Phobos said, it is very important to note that times haven't changed - it just feels like things are always getting worse as you get older, because with age comes the capability to truly perceive and comprehend that inevitability and frailty.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    ClevingerClevinger Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I thought the import of the retired Colonel's story about the death of the Sherrif's grandfather really hammered home a universality to the themes- things haven't changed, humans are and always have been frail, fragile beings easily destroyed. The random car accident suffered by Anton further reinforces this point- even he is at the mercy of the wider universe.

    That is exactly what I was going to say.
    That part of the movie is extremely important, because the idea of the sheriffs not wearing guns in the "good ol' days" - the idea of the good old days itself - is simply nostalgia at play on a large scale. Atrocity and destruction are always occurring, and humanity is always frail and helpless to really stop it. The sheriff can't stop Anton, can't even come into contact with him, because atrocity is not something you can track down and defeat like the cowboy in the black hat. Anton is Vietnam and Iraq and the sheriff's uncle bleeding out on his porch trying to reach for his shotgun. The sheriff is not incompetent - he's very smart and tough and resourceful - but so is Moss, and it isn't enough for either of them. Even Anton, as an agent of that inevitability, is still a human agent and thus vulnerable to an uncaring universe, although simultaneously he is still unstoppable since he does walk away. Like Phobos said, it is very important to note that times haven't changed - it just feels like things are always getting worse as you get older, because with age comes the capability to truly perceive and comprehend that inevitability and frailty.

    Very well put. I've heard a lot of people saying it's a weak McCarthy book, but with themes like the text above I can't imagine why. I loved it about as much as everything else I've read by him.

    Read the book a while back and I'm quite desperate to see this soon.
    The Cat wrote: »
    Garthor wrote: »
    I liked the movie, but I really felt the ending was lacking.

    Maybe I don't "get it."

    but yeah, i'm looking forward to this, because i am both a sucker for anything vaguely Western-esque and a hater of Russell Crowe.

    While the Crowe hate baffles me, you should check out The Proposition if you haven't. It's a 2005 Australian western, and coincidentally it's directed by John Hillcoat who's going to now adapt The Road, another McCarthy novel. It stars Guy Pearce, who also coincidentally might star in The Road.

    Clevinger on
  • Options
    flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Just out of curiosity, does the book or the movie actually reference Sailing to Byzantium by W.B. Yeats at any point? Because that poem is awesome.

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • Options
    syrionsyrion Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I want to point out...
    ...that both of the "legendary" sheriffs died young. Ed Tom Bell says that he's twenty years older than his father ever was, and the other sherrif (as Ellis tells it) was killed on his own porch. It's "No Country for Old Men"--I think this theme is important. Life gets harder, not easier, as you come to know more of it.

    Look at Carson Wells. Here is a man who knows a lot about Chigurh (relatively), a hard man, a killer. He can't look him in the eye and say "just kill me, then," and end with dignity... and yet Carla Jean, who is wholly innocent and knows almost nothing about the situation, can and does. The weight of understanding what has happened, and understanding that it didn't happen for any particular reason, bears down on us and reduces us.

    Also, I think people who go into this movie expecting a generic-but-well-done Hollywood action movie are going to always come out unimpressed or bored. There were several people at my theater complaining about how "boring" the movie is. Thing is, though the Coens are getting the majority of the press--and their direction was fantastic--the writing was primarily Cormac McCarthy, and Mr. McCarthy...
    ...does not do heroic. He is violent not for the purpose of thrilling us but for the purpose of showing characters who are at the utmost ends of humanity. Look at Blood Meridian, which to my mind is his masterpiece. It's absolutely without heroes. (My bet is that Ridley Scott is going to royally fuck it up.)

    Of course, that doesn't mean the movie is without excitement; it's just not going to give the same kind of feeling that people have come to expect.
    One of the people I went with, a woman, said she was thinking throughout the movie, "Are they going to die? Are they going to die?" but was disappointed when they actually did die. This is silly. Hollywood generally asks us to accept that its heroes are in danger--but they are never destroyed. A movie which actually destroys its "heroes" is anathema to most moviegoers.

    syrion on
  • Options
    KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    So, without spoilering, is there an over-arching theme to this movie? A la The Godfather, or other things such as that?

    To clarify, is there some kind of message or statement being made? I think I am going to go see this movie this weekend.

    KrunkMcGrunk on
    mrsatansig.png
  • Options
    syrionsyrion Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    So, without spoilering, is there an over-arching theme to this movie? A la The Godfather, or other things such as that?

    To clarify, is there some kind of message or statement being made? I think I am going to go see this movie this weekend.

    Oh yes, absolutely. It's not a cheerful one, but there is a "statement." McCarthy always has a meaning behind his novels.

    syrion on
  • Options
    KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    syrion wrote: »
    So, without spoilering, is there an over-arching theme to this movie? A la The Godfather, or other things such as that?

    To clarify, is there some kind of message or statement being made? I think I am going to go see this movie this weekend.

    Oh yes, absolutely. It's not a cheerful one, but there is a "statement." McCarthy always has a meaning behind his novels.

    Excellent! Pretty much everything that you just said is what I assumed.

    KrunkMcGrunk on
    mrsatansig.png
  • Options
    DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Brilliant movie.I loved how they purposely added a period of comedy near the end where the tension is so thick that you could cut it with a knife. I think the only other movie that had me so on the edge was Sexy Beast.
    as for the sheriff near the end, I think the scene was fairly clear that he stopped inspecting the room at the bed. He saw that someone's come in and opened the air duct, he sat down on the bed thought about it and left. If he'd investigated he'd have run in to Sugar and met his demise.

    In the end however it's made clear that he would have wanted to meet his end in that hotel in a heroic battle against evil, but he was too scared and now he's useless and will just wither away and die.

    DanHibiki on
  • Options
    syrionsyrion Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Brilliant movie.I loved how they purposely added a period of comedy near the end where the tension is so thick that you could cut it with a knife. I think the only other movie that had me so on the edge was Sexy Beast.
    as for the sheriff near the end, I think the scene was fairly clear that he stopped inspecting the room at the bed. He saw that someone's come in and opened the air duct, he sat down on the bed thought about it and left. If he'd investigated he'd have run in to Sugar and met his demise.

    In the end however it's made clear that he would have wanted to meet his end in that hotel in a heroic battle against evil, but he was too scared and now he's useless and will just wither away and die.
    I think he knew someone was there after seeing the reflection in the lock cylinder. He was trying to make himself a hero--and failed.

    syrion on
  • Options
    DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    syrion wrote: »
    I think he knew someone was there after seeing the reflection in the lock cylinder. He was trying to make himself a hero--and failed.
    if that were true he would have gotten his gun out and investigated the entire motel and would have gotten shot, but he didn't, he got scared and decided not to continue.

    DanHibiki on
  • Options
    syrionsyrion Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    syrion wrote: »
    I think he knew someone was there after seeing the reflection in the lock cylinder. He was trying to make himself a hero--and failed.
    if that were true he would have gotten his gun out and investigated the entire motel and would have gotten shot, but he didn't, he got scared and decided not to continue.
    He did get his gun out, and go in... and then conspicuously failed to check the whole room. He sits down on the bed, and then walks into the bathroom and looks around (at what?) in order to give Chigurh time to leave. He comes back out, puts his gun away, and then retires.

    I think his feeling of failure is why he goes and talks to Ellis, who tells him how one of the "old-time greats" failed.

    syrion on
  • Options
    KatholicKatholic Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    no_country_for_old_men_coen.jpg

    The new Coen brothers movie, No Country for Old Men, is getting some heavy critical praise, standing at 95% on RottenTomatoes.com at the time of this post.

    I saw it on Friday. It is exquisite.

    I am not going to give you a plot synopsis, nor am I going to even suggest the event that sets things in motion. I went into the movie not even knowing it was based on a McCarthy novel of the same same, and having no idea of the storyline whatsoever, and it was an incredible experience. I recommend you do the same. Those who have read the book will find that it is almost a note-perfect adaptation, pulling dialogue straight from the pages, but also adding a distinct Coen flair.

    Best movie of 2007 in my mind, no question. Anton Chigurh, not as the personification of evil, but as the inevitability and irrationality of destruction and death, as the crushing fist of an absurd universe, is perhaps the most memorably terrifying character to cast a shadow on a screen in years.

    Anyone else seen it?

    So I have some guesses on the significance of the title. And your spoilers so far have helped clear up most of the meaning, but could someone lay out the exact meaning of the title (
    Specifically the No Country part. Does is mean that there is no room for the Old in the world because the world becomes too relentless as one gets older?

    Katholic on
Sign In or Register to comment.