Going against the grain but I've seen No Country and although it was a good film, I hardly consider it award material. What exactly is so extraordinary about this film? The villain is entertaining - but not amazing. The rest seemed pretty standard to me, and there wasn't an overall atmosphere that makes films (Fargo, for example) cross the line from entertaining to captivating. Props for the good-guy-not-winning ending, but I still felt a bit disappointed. Do I just need convincing?

yeah i think you might

dont forget tommy lee jones in this movie.

the bag of money is not the focus of the film but rather the item that sets everything into motion. watching this old man trying to keep up with this horrific killer and in the end running away from it. him describing that dream at the end was excellent

and chighur was like fuckin terminator! a psychopathic machine is most definitely awesome. "call it"
and when have you ever seen a guy use a silenced shotgun and a thing to slaughter cows with? the movie stayed tense with the whole cat and mouse thing.... think about the eagle hotel when llewelyn is sitting on the bed and you hear the slow footsteps and the air hiss
the man was horrifying because he was so calm and never stopped

These are all things I thought were positives...I didn't think it was bad by any means, it just didn't floor me the first time around. I'll have to give it another viewing. Seen so many great flicks lately so maybe this one might need more time to sink in.

i liked it better the second time i saw it actually

i saw there will be blood twice also and i still like no country better

So Pickle, having seen it twice, where do you come out on the late scene in the motel room in NCFOM? Was Chigurh actually behind that door and slipped out, or were we only seeing what was happening in Bell's overactive imagination? The IMDb boards have been afire over that one.

i think chighur was behind the door and slipped out when bell went into the bathroom and turned the light on

he could have killed him, but he didnt have a reason to really...

everyone he killed he had some reason for... be it his principles or he needed their car

bell was never in his way at any time




in the script, it is definitely implied that he is in the room. both men look at the empty doorlock and see colors reflecting from the other side of the door from them

Real Psychopaths use sledge hammers, the old fashioned way is much better.

too messy!

plus using a sledge to open a door draws way too much attention

1:03!!

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... &plindex=3

I finally saw this movie last night and thought it was totally awesome. The one flaw I felt was there was so minor that it's probably not worth mentioning, since no film is perfect, but for me that flaw was that the actor who played the "false prophet" wasn't quite up to the challenge of doing intense scenes with Lewis, most especially in the climactic scene. Just picking nits though ... that's a tiny complaint, and there were other scenes such as the baptism in which the two actors worked together well.

To my mind, this, like many of the Kubrick films that it clearly emulates, isn't something that has only one meaning, and can't be digested immediately. I can see how two different-minded people might read that final sequence in an entirely different way for example.

It's interesting that everyone refers to it as an epic film, which it certainly is in style and historical scope, but unlike so many epics, it focussed on very few characters.

I didn't sense a gay theme at all, not even homoerotic but again, the eye of the beholder. It obviously deals with father/brother/son relationships both literal and figurative, and there are male dominance issues for sure, but again for me that wasn't homoeroticism. Next time I'll see it I'll try to keep an open mind about that angle.

I loved the use of music and sound in the film. The Ligeti-like (or maybe it was Ligeti?) music at the beginning was brilliant. The use of the Kremer/Jarrett version of Part's "Fratres" was as well. The irony of that piece's title wasn't lost on this viewer.

Maybe this is stating the obvious, but the film was as much about the strangleholds of power related to oil and religion in today's world as it was about the past. Lewis' final line drove that home IMO.



I saw it as being about how they've used each other, specifically oil-related power and industry cynically manipulating the religious mindset for its own ends. Without intending to start an argument here, it's my view that politicized Christianity has degraded religious life in the USA, as has the GOP's use of the "religious right" ... the GOP of today is not that of my grandfather, who by the way was a Union Oil man and a staunch Republican, but not religious.

There are so many layers to this movie. It's rare that a director shoots for the stars in such an obvious way and actually reaches them. I can't wait to see it again, and will probably read Sinclair Lewis' "Oil!" as well.

I didn't want to quote your whole response simply for the fact of it taking up so much space but you put into words what I have trouble with.

Oddly enough, despite having some Kubrick feel e [PTA] dedicates the film to Robert Altman whom I think could obviously be a direct influence for Anderson's Magnolia and maybe slightly Boogie Nights (though I see BN as more Scorsese-like for lack of a better way of putting it).

I haven't read everyones post on this thread but my feeling is that PTA deserved a Best Director or Best Picture nod....he didn't get it...this seems typical of the academy though....they denied Martin for so many years...which is basically a reason why I have never given them [oscar academy awards] much respect.

Positive note: I am really eager to read Oil! and also The Jungle.

_Ethan

I thought the movie was actually pretty good.

Thread derailment. Did anyone see the SNL milkshake?
The guy does a pretty good impression and there is Anton Chirugh as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAWyVhVFGTE

Ah..Nevermind they just took down the link

Yeah, there's no question that Magnolia was his "Altman" film, as Altman himself recognized and loved. Anderson assisted him on his final film "A Prarie Home Companion." I mention Kubrick in relation to "Blood" because that's the dominant prior "great director" influence that I saw, although in the opening sequence, I was strongly reminded of Matthey Barney's "Cremaster 3," which in turn owes its style to Jodorowsky, especially "The Holy Mountain." Interestingly in a recent interview David Lynch said that Anderson was the living director he admired the most. Other people have seen Altman in "Blood" as well. Also hard not to think about "Once Upon a Time in the West," but ultimately it's all influences that are fun to recognize, but the main thing is that this is Anderson's film and vision, not a mere stylistic tribute to past greats.

Darn those people and their copyrights.

Their attorney is a neighbor and former workmate of mine. I think she's just dying to handle THE big DMCA test case lawsuit against YouTube, but now that the site seems to be self-managing pretty well combined with Google's cash behind it, the media giants may be compelled to work with them more than against them.

Saw There Will Be Blood on the weekend. Can't get it outta my head. Really liked it. Dragged on a bit long. Incredible performance by Lewis. They come in three's. Eastern Promises, No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood.

The only question now for me is when are these both coming out on DVD?- because I loved both films and they're both going straight into my collection!

Chris

I think PTA's Altman dedication was due more to RA's (not-so-recent) passing, and the fact that Anderson was pretty close friends with him, than any admission of a stylistic influence on this film (though of course both Magnolia and Boogie Nights would not have been possible without Altman's prior work).

Personally, I think this stands a much better chance of being regarded as a classic in years to come than No Country; though I really liked that (and am happy that the Coens finally got some recognition), this just seems like something you could watch in 20 years without it seeming dated - a rarity, nowadays.

The suggestion of a Matthew Barney influence is intriguing - I'll have to watch for that next time I see the film. The Cremaster films are some of the most amazing things I've ever seen.