No Country For Old Men

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yay or nay?

I personally liked it quite a bit. I even liked the ending, of which I heard mixed opinions.

Javier Bardem was great as the cold, relentless killer.

[Dystisis]

I disliked it. Somehow I feel I didn't get that much from it. I agree the acting was good by all accounts, though.

I suppose I should see it again.

[Dros]

great film

[Lector Malibu]

Easily the best film I have seen in decades. The entire movie is not only well done in every aspect but the story itself is actually plausible. The ending was fantastic and I highly recommend a second viewing if you have doubts about the film.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i usually dont like big hollywood produced films, but i have to say this one got it right. the whole tank of compressed air is ingenious! i have to get one of those.....

[EricTheRed]

I thought it was great. It makes me want to read the book.

The concept of the character that Javier played is fucking scary; unstoppable evil.

[chimx]

No Country for Grumpy Old Men.

[Os Cangaceiros]

No Country for Grumpy Old Men.

Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau trying to kill each other over drug money? Sounds like a great concept.

[Vanguard1917]

I didn't really like it. Fargo was a lot better in my opinion.

[Random Precision]

The Coen brothers are true masters of film. Both the technical and dramatic aspects of this grisly, desolate movie were nearly perfect.

That said, I had a few problems with it. At the beginning it starts off with Tommy Lee Jones' character talking about the "old times" and how they were so much better than now. Near the end, after Llewelyn is killed he starts ranting about something like "once you stop hearing "sir" and "ma'am" it's all downhill". He also complains about "kids with green hair and bones in their noses". I also can't help but feeling that the character of Chigurh is the embodiment of what the "modern era" is supposed to mean. The title, "No Country for Old Men", despite being chosen from a Yeats poem is clearly nostalgic and the whole film looks back to some "better time" of virtue and stability in America that never really existed. I understand it's a near-perfect adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel, which makes sense because from what I remember of his works they are full of similar themes.

I also had problems with the film's portrayal of Mexicans, who would seem to be no more than willing participants in the drug trade, which is supposedly what's destroying society on "our side of the border". This also casts Mexico as the source of the corruption, a theme which, toned a bit down you might expect to hear from someone like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. The scene in which the sheriff's uncle describes how "Indians" killed a sheriff on his front porch also makes me uneasy. So as we can see, savage violence of the Chigurh variety has always been on the outskirts of white society- and clad in brown skin. :rolleyes:

Overall: great craftsmanship, awful message.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Coen brothers are true masters of film. Both the technical and dramatic aspects of this grisly, desolate movie were nearly perfect.

That said, I had a few problems with it. At the beginning it starts off with Tommy Lee Jones' character talking about the "old times" and how they were so much better than now. Near the end, after Llewelyn is killed he starts ranting about something like "once you stop hearing "sir" and "ma'am" it's all downhill". He also complains about "kids with green hair and bones in their noses". I also can't help but feeling that the character of Chigurh is the embodiment of what the "modern era" is supposed to mean mean. The title, "No Country for Old Men", is clearly nostalgic and the whole film looks back to some "better time" of virtue and stability in America that never really existed. I understand it's a near-perfect adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel, which makes sense because from what I remember of his works they are full of similar themes.

I also had problems with the film's portrayal of Mexicans, who would seem to be no more than willing participants in the drug trade, which is supposedly what's destroying society on "our side of the border". This also casts Mexico as the source of the corruption, a theme which, toned a bit down you might expect to hear from someone like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. The scene in which the sheriff's uncle describes how "Indians" killed a sheriff on his front porch also makes me uneasy. So as we can see, savage violence of the Chigurh variety has always been on the outskirts of white society- and clad in brown skin. :rolleyes:

Overall: great craftsmanship, awful message.

It was a little difficult to interprete the message of the film, I thought. It didn't beat the audience over the head with its message, such as "V For Vendetta" did. The most obvious theme I got out of the movie was how completely senseless violence can be. The Chigurh character was strange; it didn't really seem like he wanted the money. He didn't seem motivated by greed, to me. I've never read the book, though.

I have read "The Road", which I enjoyed. But it's not a book for everyone. It took me a bit to get used to the writing style.

[Random Precision]

It was a little difficult to interprete the message of the film, I thought. It didn't beat the audience over the head with its message, such as "V For Vendetta" did. The most obvious theme I got out of the movie was how completely senseless violence can be. The Chigurh character was strange; it didn't really seem like he wanted the money. He didn't seem motivated by greed, to me. I've never read the book, though.

Well, I suppose so. What I was talking about was very much an undertone.

The character of Chigurh was definitely not motivated by greed- as Carson says, Llewelyn could have given him back the money and he still would have killed him for the inconvenience. Chigurh was more connected with the theme of fate versus free choice. He killed Llewelyn because, in his view it was his fate to die- he could have walked away from the suitcase of money and nothing would have ever happened to him. He killed the man by the roadside because it was his fate to die- he could have kept driving when he saw the police lights and nothing would have happened. I think that philosophically, the most interesting part of the film is his conversation with Carla Jean, in which she defies him when he asks her to call the coin toss. She tells him that it is him who decides whether she dies, not the coin, which is a challenge to his entire worldview. He sees himself as merely the executor of fate, that his victims decided for themselves.

[chimx]

No Country for Grumpy Old Men.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Redstar2000avatar.gif

:laugh: