No Country for Old Men

Jack B. Badd

spiritcrusher wrote: »

I did find the abrubt shift in perspective a little odd at first, but then became fascinated as it became obvious that Bell was indeed the main character in the plot and that all the violence and chasing that we follow for the most part is essentially just to wrap up Bell's disillusionment with the world, expressed at the beginning.

I don't know if I consider Bell to be the main character or some sort of integrated narrator, but he certainly seems to be the most constant character in the film. And I thought his interaction with his somewhat dozy deputy was very well written from the point of view of dialogue

As for comparisons with the likes of Crank or other action films of a similar vein, I wouldn't consider NCFOM to be comparable because, despite some action scenes, it's not an action film imo so I can see that it could cause some disappointment if someone was expecting full-on action.

DeepBlue

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

I wouldn't consider NCFOM to be comparable because, despite some action scenes, it's not an action film imo so I can see that it could cause some disappointment if someone was expecting full-on action.

Anyone looking at the trailers would think they were going to get an action film. Indeed they wouldn't be disabused of the idea after watching the first three quarters of the film. Then the film changes into something quite different.

The marketing for the film builds up the action aspects of the film and thus a lot of the "it was boring/shit" comments are a result of frustrated expectations from a somewhat misled audience.

Jack B. Badd

DeepBlue wrote: »

Anyone looking at the trailers would think they were going to get an action film. Indeed they wouldn't be disabused of the idea after watching the first three quarters of the film. Then the film changes into something quite different.

The marketing for the film builds up the action aspects of the film and thus a lot of the "it was boring/shit" comments are a result of frustrated expectations from a somewhat misled audience.

The majority of trailers mislead the potential audience. If I went by the trailers for 90% of what comes out of Hollywood I'd be disappointed on a weekly basis because all the remotely good parts of these mediocre films get lumped into the trailers. Nonetheless, if people ask me why I thought a particular film was sh*te or boring I can still string a coherent argument together...

Nonetheless, I will agree with you that the marketing is possibly a cause for some frustration though most of the people I've been talking to gained some idea of what to expect by doing some minimal research on the background of the film and book. Also, it being a Coen brothers' production was a bit of a giveaway.

Otis Driftwood

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

Also, it being a Coen brothers' production was a bit of a giveaway.

^^^^^
+1

Jay P

Nice film, odd in a good sort of way i suppose. Such a strange ending though, almost seems unfinished, though you know it is over, if you catch my drift. Effective, and it didn't even use music

save for the part in Mexico when Lewelyn wakes up on the street

el dude

Having watched it again i now think that Tommy Lee Jones character is only imagining that Chirgurh is waiting for him.

Mr. Presentable

I watched 20 minutes of it and gave up. A movie should grab your attention early, and this didn't for me. I don't care about the guys dead in the desert, I don't care about the case of money, I don't care about the airhose guy.

OK, hands up here, I don't watch that many films, mostly because there are other things I'd rather do for two hours than just not be bored. So a film has to catch my attention by being interesting from the start. Otherwise I won't invest in it.

This one I will probably never see, even if it is good or great, because it is poorly set up from the start.

adonis

nipplenuts wrote: »

I watched 20 minutes of it and gave up. A movie should grab your attention early, and this didn't for me. I don't care about the guys dead in the desert, I don't care about the case of money, I don't care about the airhose guy.

OK, hands up here, I don't watch that many films, mostly because there are other things I'd rather do for two hours than just not be bored. So a film has to catch my attention by being interesting from the start. Otherwise I won't invest in it.

This one I will probably never see, even if it is good or great, because it is poorly set up from the start.

well thats a shame considering most of the great films take a while to get going..

L31mr0d

spiritcrusher wrote: »

...became fascinated as it became obvious that Bell was indeed the main character in the plot and that all the violence and chasing that we follow for the most part is essentially just to wrap up Bell's disillusionment with the world, expressed at the beginning.

This, to me, is the crux of the matter. When reasoning with people on this movie I find the best way to gauge their understanding on it is to simply ask them this:

Explain the meaning of the title of this movie.

If they have no idea why its called "No country for old men" then they don't understand it and their dislike for it stems from this confusion. I usually find if they understand the title they actually liked the movie

nipplenuts wrote: »

I watched 20 minutes of it and gave up. A movie should grab your attention early, and this didn't for me. I don't care about the guys dead in the desert, I don't care about the case of money, I don't care about the airhose guy.

Which is a pity as you're going to miss out on a lot of great movies in your life. Most of the movies that I love are the ones that got me in the last act or the crescendo.

Jack B. Badd

nipplenuts wrote: »

This one I will probably never see, even if it is good or great, because it is poorly set up from the start.

I disagree that it's poorly set up from the start. Just because something doesn't dive right into action and takes some time to set the tone doesn't mean the beginning is poor. That's like saying that a three course meal in a Michelin star restaurant is poorly made in comparison to McDonalds because you have to wait longer before you can start eating...

Victor

L31mr0d wrote: »

Which is a pity as you're going to miss out on a lot of great movies in your life. Most of the movies that I love are the ones that got me in the last act or the crescendo.

Indeed, Rendition is a relatively modest film until the end.

yayamark

Just after watching the movie i loved it except for the ending, the producers probably meant the ending to be vague but for me it was just too blunt. Hes talking about his dreams and i actually drifted off thinking about something else and the it was over. If it had a decent ending it would have been a brilliant film, thats just me i like a good film overall not just a good start and middle but good overall.

Fulton Crown

Saw the film thought it was good especially the first 100 minutes - am I alone or did anybody find some of the scenes stretchin the credulity a little - take the shootout at the motel - loads of noise / bullets everywhere - yet no one - not even one person - not to mention the local polis - come to investigate !!

Fcukers in Limerick must be green with envy !!

s8n

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Fcukers in Limerick must be green with envy !!

Brilliant !!!!!

:D:D

K4t

I searched and didn't find a thread on it so don't bit my head off
Oooh it's snowing outside, might get the day off tomorrow!!!!

Anyway, I don't go to the cinema often but I read a few reviews and it is the Coens so I went to this one with my dad.

I was glued from start to finish.

The main characters were great, the contrats of characters etc was a delight but what I most liked was Woody Harrelson and his seen with the main psycho fella. Very tense.

10/10

I also loved the ending, the contrast between Tommy Jone's character and the psycho fella. Masterclass in film-making.

If only we could study that for the Leaving :rolleyes:

mikemac

K4t wrote: »

I searched and didn't find a thread on it so don't bit my head off

You didn't search very hard, you deserve a ban for that! :mad:

Monster thread here

K4t

micmclo wrote: »

You didn't search very hard, you deserve a ban for that! :mad:

Monster thread here

In fairness, the search features are useless on these forums. They bring up the complete opposite of what you're looking for.

9 pages = Monster thread, hmmm :rolleyes:

Well, the film deserves another thread anyway!!!!

Karl Hungus

Threads merged.