Genres

Visitors Review

jake-179 2012-05-25 01:28:55

Good action movie with a terrible ending

I will skip the plot synopsis, since I figure you already know whatthis movie is about if you are reading my review. I want to speakdirectly about the ending. So if you haven't seen the movie, don't readon because there will be spoilers. *****SPOILER ALERT******I was really enjoying this movie right up until the ending. The moviecentered on the conflict between two great characters: a seriouslyruthless, relentless bad guy and a very likable "everyman", who was aclever underdog played by Josh Brolin. It was really great watchingBrolin's underdog clashing with the terrifying hit-man, and the wholetime you are rooting for Brolin to win because you like him so much andyou hate the villain so bad. Then, a little more than half way through the movie, the two charactersbecome set to face off against each other. I was thinking, "Wow, thisis going to be awesome. We are going to see one hell of a showdown."The two characters who have been chasing each other through the wholemovie finally have a voice to voice phone conversation and they promiseto kill each other. But what you expect to happen is actually the opposite of what happensin the movie. The good guy does not win and ride off into the sunsetwith the girl. Instead, the bad guy wins and kills EVERYBODY! And hegets away with it! At the very end, Tommy Lee Jones gives some kind oframbling monologue about a dream he had regarding his father. I am sureit was meant to have some kind of a summary importance to the movie,but it seemed pretty vague to me. If anything, I got the feeling thatthe movie was trying to send a message, and I believe that "moviemessages" should be implied, not imposed. Bottom line, I don't like bad guys winning! I hate having a good guycharacter that I identify with get killed by a bad guy that I hate.That is a flaw that I cannot forgive in this movie. I rated this movie a 4. I would have rated it lower but I really likedthe action and the characters in the first part. They had a lot oftense moments and a lot of good gun fights. That was definitely worthseeing. But the ending absolutely ruined it for me. I know other IMDbusers are going to say that the Coen brothers were trying to beunconventional, artistic, and they were trying to stay true to the bookof the same name, etc. But I don't care about that. I care about GOODMOVIES! And I am disappointed that this movie took such dumb turn atthe end. It could have been and SHOULD have been much better.

Roland E. Zwick 2012-05-24 03:51:21

a near-masterpiece

In the stylish new Coen Brothers' movie, "No Country for Old Men," theviolence is both graphic and coy, both in-your-face and strangely demurin the way it is portrayed. Bit players are frequently blown away infull view of the audience, while key characters often meet their endsoff screen, away from the spotlight of the prying camera. For this isthe theme of the movie, that violence is arbitrary, capricious andunpredictable, and that things are only going to get worse in a culturethat has grown increasingly coarse and indifferent to human sufferingover the years.The "old man" of the title is Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), a smalltown Texas sheriff who, as he nears retirement, has seen a depressingspike in violent crime in his jurisdiction, thanks, primarily, to therecent proliferation of drug-running from Mexico (the movie takes placein 1980). For this is a "new time" in America, one in which an all-outcriminal "war" is being fought, as much on the open plains as in thecrowded cities. It is the "old men" like Bell, the last in a long lineof old style Texas lawmen, who can no longer recognize their countryand who are left to recede into the background bewildered andfrustrated by their inability to do anything to stop it.As the story opens, a group of men lie dead in a windswept field,victims of a drug deal gone terribly awry. The perpetrator is apsychopath by the name of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) who is nowwandering the countryside on a random killing spree, dispatching humanvictims as casually as the rest of us would a mosquito or fly.Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is a "retired" welder who stumbles uponnot only the carnage-strewn scene but a suitcase filled with millionsof dollars in unmarked bills. When Moss makes the fatal mistake oftaking the loot, he becomes the prime target of Chigurh, who will stopat nothing to get what is rightfully his.Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy, "No Country For Old Men" is lessnotable for its story and characters than for its cinematic naturalismand impressionistic style. Despite having made some truly exceptionalfilms in the past, Joel and Ethan Coen have never been as thoroughly incontrol of their medium or as supremely confident in their film-makingas they are here. The first hour, in particular, is such a flawlessmasterpiece of composition and tone that it will probably be studied asa model in film school courses for years to come. Not since the filmsof Terrance Malick has landscape been used to more brilliant effectthan in the opening section of this work. The setting - so brilliantlycaptured in Roger Deakins' incisive cinematography and Craig Berkey'sstunning sound design - becomes a palpable presence in its own rightand a key player in the drama. The Coens have done their own editing onthe film, which explains why the pacing feels like an exquisitely honedpiece of music, built on finely calibrated beats and rests, meter andrhythm. The hypnotic, dreamlike quality of the film-making carries thestory into the realm of archetype and myth which matches perfectly thesurrealistic nature of the piece.Bardem provides a bone-chilling portrait of a human killing-machinewhose sole purpose in life is to destroy that which gets in his way(not that he doesn't enjoy killing just for the sheer pleasure of it aswell). In Bardem's hands, Chigurh becomes the true incarnation of evilin its darkest form. Jones brings a world-weary gravity to the role ofthe sheriff, while Brolin, who gets the majority of the screen time inthe film, does some of the best work of his career as the man desperateto keep one step ahead of his pursuer.Perhaps predictably, the movie is not able to sustain the same level ofgreatness all the way through its running time and there are momentswhen the filmmakers seem to lose their way somewhat (particularly whenWoody Harrelson shows up as a comic-relief bounty hunter). Theunresolved ending may frustrate those who don't like any loose endshanging around at the end of a story, but the inconclusiveness of theconclusion actually adds to the verisimilitude of the movie quite abit.Still, even if the movie falters a bit towards the end, there's nodenying that "No Country For Old Men" is one of the outstanding filmsof recent times. In fact, that first hour or so is about as close toperfection as film-making is ever likely to get.

don85 2012-05-21 09:39:13

- Hunter Becomes Bait – A Story About Keeping Promises & Consequences -

-Hunter Becomes Bait – A Story About Keeping Promises & Consequences.-After a long wait, the Oscar-rumoured No Country for Old Men, came intoEuropean cinemas and immediately I went to see if this film was worthall the prizes it won and the attention it got. Asking this questionis, of course, answering it.Let me first say that I'm not a die-hard Coen bros. fan. I love(d) TheBig Lebowski, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Fargo and the unforgettableMiller's Crossing. However some of their early movies, like RaisingArizona and Barton Fink, weren't really my thing. Matter of taste, Iguess. With their latest, No Country for Old Men, they delivered aperfect blend of different genres while keeping the style and tonethat's so typical Coen. The plot is pretty (blood)simple actually. 'Man finds money from a drugdeal gone wrong, which leads to other men coming after him to get backtheir money.' The way this violence-packed, western-crime-drama storyis told, and shot (cinematographically) comes to life on the big screenin a way that is without a doubt beyond the words that will follow.'Set somewhere in a country next to the Mexican-American border wherethe wonderful south-western accents sounded so incomprehensible that Iam glad there were subtitles.'"Josh Brolin plays a man who, while shooting deer in the desert, findssome dead Mexicans, guns, a truckload full of drugs and a bag of money.Naturally he keeps the 2 million crispy dollars and when the storyunfolds the questions rise: 'What's the money really worth?' or 'What'sthe price of money?' From that moment on his life changes. He's beingchased after where ever he goes and has to watch every step he takes.And the bait seems to be inventive enough to do so quite well."All the (other) actors also do a great job but Gran Canarian JavierBardem (Spain) really stands out playing a man who's hired to returnthe dollars to its 'rightful' owners. People will see him as a ruthlesskiller which, of course, he is. But this 'bad guy' certainly keeps hispromises and lives up to the few words he speaks. Tommy Lee Jones doesa terrific job, playing a cop with a history what lead him to developan indifferent look at the world. Once he gets involved Jones, like theaudience, is destined to find out what is happening and herebyquestioning (criticizing/commenting) his (our) way of life. And not toforget about the small, yet great part of Woody Harrelson:unforgettable.Most of the Coen's movies could be seen as crime movies and/or classiccomedy. This movie however throws all different kinds of genres in themix. They easily switch from western to crime and from drama to thedarkest of dark humour. Joel and Ethan manage to do this without andmaybe because of a total lack of a music score which I didn't even getonto until the credits began to role.. And, mostly at a very slow pace, the movie glides so perfectly wellfrom one genre to the other, so you never get the idea you are reallywatching more movies than just the one you paid for.A couple of words to describe this movie-experience: magnificent &mesmerizing, incomprehensible & unforgettable, beautiful &breathtaking.(Today, No Country for Old Men earned 4 Academy Awards in thecategories: Best Film, Best Director, Best Script and Best Actor(Bardem) in a Supporting Role)

bluegreenbluegreen 2012-05-20 16:00:49

another 10 on the crapmeter

Something strange is happening in the town of Marfa. This movie is justas bad as There Will Be Blood. What is going on? The above line has more story, more interest, more movement, thaneither of these two movies.To be fair to No Country For Old Men, the ghost-like assassin characteris well drawn, well clothed, and well played. This actor has amonumental face that is a delight to the camera. His voicing isdead-perfect. There are some good shots of bare, open, sun-shothighway, too, that just hit the right note. Also, 70's cars are cool.What's wrong: Well... No story. After a nice tease of a set up. Itstarted like a story, but nobody really did anything that made sense.You have a man on the run; good stuff so far. He's got a girl, that'sgood too. You see their home, you believe his character, great. I'm onhis side. Then comes a remorseless, unstoppable, killer, not of thisworld, who seeps over everything like a black cloud of death. Cool.Then you realize you're following the wrong character- this movie isn'tabout the prey, or the predator either.. it's about the superfluoussheriff, remorselessly pursued by his own black cloud of getting tooold and not giving a damn. He struggles weakly against the approachingcloud and then philosophically gives in to it.In the mean-time we watch other people offer themselves up to the blackcloud of the assassin. Eventually, at no particular point, the silentblack credits slam in.The above makes this movie sound like it might be entertaining, or atleast about something. It isn't.The sheriff has exactly one great, topical, line. While dismounting hishorse at a scene of great carnage - the desolate big-time drug andmoney exchange gone bad - he adds a fillip to his deputy'shalf-successful attempt at manly-lawman-understatement of the grislyscene: In response to the deputy's comment the sheriff says "well theredoes appear to have been something of a glitch.." - or something likethat. It's so good, that it is almost enough to save the sheriff, but ,sadly, it is not enough.Also, while the movie looks like Texas, many of the characters seem aTexan parody of the flatest, thinest sort.I thought the woman motel clerk was wonderful. And have no quarrel withthe Scottish girl's accent or portrayal as the young texan wife. Thehusband played well enough, too. But for what.This movie has a very bad spirit, and nothing to justify it. May it'sown black cloud hasten to catch up to it soon.

M. J Arocena 2012-05-20 04:46:20

Tangible Fear As Art

I don't remember being so scared in a movie theater since "Don't LookNow" Here the Coen Brothers take everything a step further withexhilarating ease. The terror was genuine and not because we wererooting for Josh Brolin or anybody in particular. The terror waspersonal, Joel and Ethan Coen made that terror visceral and tangible.It has to do with our own nightmares. Josh Brolin was a perfect pieceof casting because in a way he doesn't have many personal colors. He'sone of the bunch, one of us and we could put ourselves in his shoes.That is the art of film narrative expressed in a way that we've neverexperienced before. I heard people old enough to have seen Hitchcock's"Psycho" in the theaters and what glued them to the screen was theirown fear. Well, that's what I've experienced here. Javier Bardem issuperb, considering that he's the reason for the fear. He carries ahuman/inhuman kind of strength and we know he'll get us, sooner orlater and if we consider the ending of the film, he might still do.Worthy Oscar winners, all of it and all of them.

fluffyrona 2012-05-19 19:16:40

Simply spectacular

If you like films that literally take your breath away, then this goesto the top of the list.As stated elsewhere, Javier Bardem is so spectacularly evil andmenacing that, if I were Mrs Bardem, I'd be worried about him cominghome at night. The man exuded controlled evil, and I found myself notbreathing when he came onto screen, yet couldn't take my eyes from him- a truly mesmerising presence.Tommy Lee Jones turns in a belter of a performance, and mention shouldalso be made of Kelly MacDonald who nails a faultless Texan accentalongside a multi-layered performance (despite the paucity of herscreen time).Beautifully shot, as you would expect, and with some (welcome) momentsof humour amongst the gore, this is a very very fine film. Miss it atyour peril, because when those little golden men are being handed outnext year in LA, I predict a lot of them will be going to this film. Abelter.

2012-05-17 00:37:52

The ending blows.

Plot summary: Cowboy looking guy finds 2 million dollars and runs off with it. Psychokiller with helmet hair and a bulky cattle killing device hunts cowboy looking guy down like a dog. Too bad the ending blows, because the first 90 minutes are fantastic! Through the bulk of "No Country," I thought--"This movie is one of the best movies I've seen." When I wasn't covering my eyes in horror, I was on the edge of my seat with my knuckles in my mouth. But, like a sugar high it must unfortunately and inevitably come to an end--a crashing, disappointing, tiresome end. It's obvious to me the directors and writers had no idea how to end what could have been a masterpiece and just sort of bumbled something up. And this "something"--this "trying so hard to be symbolic and meaningful" ending was in actuality shallow, pretentious and disappointing.I still recommend it though--the first 90 minutes are pretty damn good.

theLateHarvest 2012-05-16 11:10:26

three heads make a better film than one

There is something honorable about a healthy respect for inevitability.Chigurh (Javier Bardem) has that, as does sheriff, Ed Tom Bell (TommyLee Jones), however the latter still struggles with it. Chigurh withsteady violent logic has embraced the course of inevitability byremoving himself from the nature of his affairs outside of theirnecessity. "What good is the rule you set for yourself if it hasbrought you here?" he asks Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) beforeexecuting him so to turn and answer the phone. The rules that Chigurhhas set for himself are a practical response to the land he inhabitsand as proof of their effectiveness he moves easily through the violentborder zone. The Sheriff knows these lands well and comes to respectChigurh as he would a Gila monster. "I wouldn't say he's insane… but hehas a thick bark on him". Chigurh's silenced shotgun could not havebeen more appropriate as his rule to leave no witness of his passagerequires a certain degree of reserve, and when the necessity to kill isin question the best he humanly do is to defer judgment to a coin toss.Of course fairness has nothing to do with it, but at least heads ortails is a fighting chance. All credit for the story and the characters is with McCarthy, and canbe found in his novel. That cannot be understated. When a series ofbrutal events handed over a case of money to Moss (Josh Brolin) he wasas good as dead. Dead because of what we consider honorable and humanin him- his mercy towards a dying man and the love of his wife. In thisstory those strengths are a hindrance, and are rolled under by thatwhich the sheriff reluctantly observes and Chigurh obeys. That isMcCarthy's work. But that it was delivered to you flawlessly on a moviescreen, that was all Cowan.And what a masterstroke of cinema. Everything was done with surgicalprecision. Lean acting made defined characters set in cinematographythat is both beautiful and deliberate with a simple narrative thatfenced in a fierce story with its barb wire dialogue. All make for anincredible film that moves across the screen like molten lead. That said, the strength of No Country as a cinematic work is to befound in the adaptation. The Cowans know the devices of cinema thatfunction apart from the novel and the manner in which they were used toadapt the story is what made this film a success. Without going intodetail I'll name a few examples, the absence of music, the adjustedchase scenes, and the remarkable casting are the most obvious, but thestylistic details are numerous and no less effective, and I suggestthat to appreciate the brothers talent in this regard you read the bookand watch the film again.

aurotaro 2012-05-11 03:54:05

Not Worth it

I've watched Fargo.When i put in the blu-ray disc of No country for old men I was unawarethat it was Coen brothers making.Okay, it is a well made movie considering it has all the brutal actionscenes and the mind of a psychopath killer.But after the movie ends, you ask yourself a question.... what wasreally the purpose of the movie? Which i guess ponders in every personsmind after they watch it.some may give a stupid excuse oh it enhances the storyline approach ofa brutal killer with a person who is interested in a booty at any costand a Texas cop who basically doesn't do much in the movie other thanponder at his retirement.Well, clearly not worth the Oscar... watch if you would prefer to takeyour mind out.

janetsusan-1 2012-05-10 16:59:09

No Music- None Needed; Remarkable Coen Brothers Work of Art

This movie is based on a book written by Cormac McCarthy, one oftoday's most talented writers. The Coen Brothers took a big chancemaking a movie from the book of a great author, but the risk paid off.They aced the story to a tee. Every detail was picture-perfect, fromthe dry, dusty Texas country, to the grizzled sheriff, to themethodical and superstitious killer, to the suddenly rich buthopelessly outmatched regular guy. Every nuance of darkness and light,blood and dust and heat, flies and sweat, was meticulously delivered tothe viewer in its raw form. There was plenty of violence, gore, andsuspense. There was also the age-old story of good versus evil. Whichone do you think won the battle? Many interesting actors had parts in this movie. All in all, it waswell worth the price of admission, since it most definitely needs to beseen on the BIG screen, nice and loud.

Launchd-II 2012-05-03 08:51:41

Hardly a Great film, but possibly the best serious Coen

Admittedly I am spoiled when it comes to the Coen Brothers films. Theyreek of professional lensing, production values, etc. The set their ownbar for comedy with "Raising Arizona". And ditto for serious, violentfilms in "Blood Simple". Am I a fan of No Country...? The jury's stillout. However those things opined, it was the most captivating of alltheir films I've viewed (R. Arizona is at least on bar). And it was themost pointed story they've told yet. But, and I should state here Ineither read the book upon which it is based, nor have I ever believedreading the original printed matter a film is based on should be doneto enjoy or at least digest a movie- but, it just tapers off, with nosatisfying resolution. And maybe that's OK. Carpenter did it with hisfilm of the complete "The Thing from another World" movie "The Thing".That story like this could conceivably just go on and on. And interminating No Country when they did I suppose they showed more of howthe real world of violence and crime is then almost any film one couldname. Nasty events do go unsolved and unresolved. But as I said I amspoiled- most of their films that are described as "comedies" leave menot laughing. Raising Arizona could never be that way I was convincednew masters of comedy had been unleashed. Nope. After waiting some timeto see No Country I was excited- the ads, the talk, the Oscars- I wasready. I went, I saw, I laughed at times and was similarly urged to berepulsed. But. But- No Country as it turns out IS a good tale, withfine performances and the usual fine camera work. I'm just a tadprogramed to see a film not hang, but conclude. Hey! Maybe in thesequel, huh?

bpmovies 2012-05-02 13:59:02

Bad Slasher Film 2007 Award

2007 must have been a very bad year for movies if this one was theOscar winner for "Best Picture 2007." I really tried to frame out anargument for why this film even deserves the time to watch it.Personally, I'd rent David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" if you want a betterfilm on violence. Or better yet, if you want violence AND drugs, see"Good Fellows."But what about the breath taking scenery? Well sure, but few shotsaren't better than any IMAX nature clip.OK. How about the cool chase scenes near the beginning of movie?Alright, for 5 minutes is it interesting. However, the chase scenesaren't anything special we haven't seen before or Oscar worthy for thatmatter.Wait! What about the philosophical message on violence? Sorry, lostmeanderings postulated by an old Sheriff and a few symbolic references,don't pass this off as intellectual or thought provoking.Bottom line is this movie is empty without the slasher style murdersthat tic toc throughout the film to keep you watching, and the actingis sub par on top of it. This is not "Fargo." In fact, if you've seenthe well made "Fargo," you don't need to waste your time or money onthis one (sorry "Oscar" winner).

2012-05-01 19:46:42

For the Oscar

I can't believe Javier Bardem wasn't the first on the credits, 'cause his character is the most important in the story.-- SPOILERS --Also is the only character on screen with real presence. There are moments that you feel the stress just to be waiting for Bardem to appear and kill.This is a stunning Bardem performance. Forget Tommy Lee Jones, his character is useless in this movies, I didn't understand the nature of his character.Let's not talk about Brolin, OMG, talking about a bad actor.

2012-04-30 22:31:23

No Country for Old Men

In order to appreciate this particular movie you must have a healthy appetite for straight-up gratuitous violence, because this is a one-course meal. The plot was weak, the premise was depressingly dark; after the initial killings suspense pretty much disappeared, because there was no surprise in anything that followed. Gorey? Yes. Dark to the point of hopeless? Yes. If the theme was intended to be the age-old "Good vs Evil", well, the point was driven home ad nauseum, and, well, let's just say Good looks pretty outmatched. All the way through to the end. I felt I was watching a documentary on execution-type murders. Ho-hum. Academy Award winner... they must have been watching a different movie.

Derek Linfield 2012-04-30 13:37:56

Why?

What did I miss? I went to this with great expectations (maybe toohigh?). I loved Fargo. But this film let me down on all fronts. It goesnowhere. Straight ahead without a nuance in sight. Just violence. Manytimes it seemed there was violence just because there "needed to be"more violence. At 122 min, this movie was way too long by at least 40 minutes. Guys,just because you are hot shot Hollywood produces now in no reason tosubject us to repetition when you run out of ideas. I go bored beforeit was half way over. A little variety would have helped.And what's the hype about Javier Bardem? Since when does one expressionget you an Oscar? Tommy Lee Jones, yes, but not Javier Bardem. This one left me colder than dead coyote on Texas winter night.

2012-04-30 04:44:32

And you will know them by the trail of dead

The bodies pile up faster than you can say "Blood Simple" in Joel and Ethan Coen's neo-noir, "No Country For Old Men", a true return to classic form and one of the most confidently assured pieces of pure filmmaking that I have seen in quite some time.The Coen's screenplay (adapted quite faithfully from the Cormac McCarthy novel) is rich in characterization and thankfully devoid of the self-consciously "quirky" tics that have left some of their efforts from the past several years teetering on the verge of self-parody. The story is set circa 1980, amongst the sagebrush and desert heat of the Tex-Mex border, where the deer and the antelope play. One day, a pickup-drivin' good ol' boy named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is out shootin' at some food (the playful antelope) when he suddenly encounters a fleeing, grievously wounded pit bull. The trail of blood leads him to discover the grisly aftermath of a major shootout. The one lone survivor is too dehydrated to talk, but a pickup truck loaded with heroin and a satchel stuffed with 2 million in cash speak volumes about what went down. Llewelyn skedaddles back to the trailer to tell sweet young wife Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) to pack a bag and start thinking about early retirement."Someone" is always going to miss 2 million dollars, naturally, and the antelope hunter quickly becomes the hunted. Enter one of the most unique movie heavies in recent memory-Anton Chigurh (a supremely focused Javier Bardem) who has been hired to track down the money, with extreme prejudice. Chigurh is a textbook sociopath (he literally slaughters people like cattle, with a pneumatic prod); but he does appear to live by a code (of sorts). It's not unlike the same kind of twisted code that drives Lee Van Cleef's heartless "Angel Eyes" character in "The Good, the Bad & the Ugly" to see his contracts through to the end, regardless of any "collateral damage" that may ensue.In fact, the Coens do seem to be channeling Sergio Leone all throughout "No Country For Old Men". If Chigurh is the "bad" (the "Angel Eyes" of the story) and Llewelyn is the "ugly" (like "Tuco", he's a smarter-than-he-looks oaf who has a native talent for crafty opportunism) then world-weary Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is the "good", and the conscience of the story (he's the only player in the tale who doesn't have a self-serving agenda and actually shows compassion toward the suffering of others). He's an old-school "lawman" who (you guessed it) comes from a long line of "lawmen". Complicating the chase even more is the addition of one of Chigurh's professional rivals, Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson, in a nicely droll performance) an ex-green beret who has also been hired to chase down the loot (by a competing employer).The actors are uniformly excellent. Bardem's portrayal of Chigurh is very understated, but still quite menacing, made all the more uber-creepy by his benign Peter Tork haircut. His character is a man of few words; in the few scenes where he does "engage" conversation, it is with the detached, feigned interest of a clinical psychiatrist who is watching the clock and wishing the session would end so he could get to the golf course.With all of its tailor-made twists and turns, this tale is a slam-dunk for the Coens, and they gleefully take the ball and run with it. Everything about the film is pitch-perfect-the script, the casting, the editing, you name it. The cinematography is expertly handled by Roger Deakins, who has been the brothers' DP of choice since "Barton Fink". While there are a few signature Coen camera shots (the "front bumper cam" eating up the asphalt, the obsession with characters whizzing past "now entering..."/"now leaving..." highway signs), they are used judiciously and serve the narrative well. As per usual, it's the masterful implementation of little details (use of ambient sound, subtle POV perspectives and a Hitchcockian ability to milk suspense from focusing on the most mundane objects) that make this very much a "Coen brothers film".

randomgenericcodename 2012-04-24 01:23:49

Said he knew he was going to hell. "Be there in about fifteen minutes".

This movie was amazing. It definitely deserves the Oscar for bestpicture. I'm going to give you a few reasons why this movie is soamazing. The reason why they killed off the lead was to show that knowone, not even the lead character in a movie, is invincible. The reasonwhy the bad guy lived was to show how good at killing people he reallywas. If he was killed by a hillbilly with a shotgun then he must not bevery good at his job. I love how at the end you don't actually know ifhe killed the wife, it just shows him walking out the door. On a sidenote, the main reason why this movie won best picture was because ofthe performance by Javier Bardem. He is EPIC in this movie.

tabuno 2012-04-23 20:55:17

Pretends to be a Great Movie

Splash something different on the screen, an antisocial personalitydisorder man, throw in some dialogue that purports to sound important,include some manipulated twists and turns and it appears many peopleclassify this movie as great. Unfortunately underneath its dazzlingpresentation lurks predictability, unbelievable coincidences,outstanding idiotic behavior from characters who should know better.This movie really is like the emperor without any clothes on. The movieappears to be good, but really it more flash than substance. Even thevery first scene was predictable and rather dumb where a supposedlyignorant law enforcement officer ends up on the wrong end of thehandcuffs. We have a antisocial personality disorder killer who wedon't get to see really what he eventually does half the time (it'sleft up to the imagination of the audience). Does he or doesn't he? Heescapes incredulously without killing in one scene just likeincredulously this box of money seemingly escapes without a sound.There's supposedly this professional who can protect people who can'tprotect himself. There's even a out-of-date tracking device that lookslike something from the forties (wrong movie, I guess). There's toomuch taken from granted in this movie. There isn't enough realcharacter development, tense face-offs, resolutions. Very disappointingmovie from beginning to end based on the expectations going in. Six outof Ten Stars.

davester67 2012-04-17 21:23:20

too many questions Rog - reading too much into it

To: Rogermex Like I said already Dude, the answers are all there sothere's no need to spell everything out for you... I will answer yourfirst question though, you asked why Bell didn't take on Anton,because...he knew he was out manned and out gunned, he knew Anton wasthere because he knew he usually returned to the crime scene and he sawthe clues you pointed out at the motel room and (he sensed hispresence), that's why he went back in the first place...but Bell wasjust "not up to" challenging him...he was setting on the bed and hethought..signs of him are all around me, he's here, but do I want to dothis???...NO WAY! too close to retirement! That's all for now dude, ifthe rest of the guysters on the site want to tell you everything, theymay do so....adiós

theycallmemrglass 2012-04-17 13:07:49

Criminally unsatisfying

The thing is, I get what this film is saying. I get the message. I canread the expressions on Tommy Lee Jones increasingly craggy face. I getthat he looks lost. I get that a Josh Brolin who finds a million poundswhich belongs to gangsters is playing with fire as he tries to run withit which most of the film dwells on. I get that the contractor pursuinghim is a psycho with twisted principles. The film has brilliantlyexecuted moments of tension. The acting is delightfully subtle andpassive except for, justifiably, Javier, who plays the psychoticpursuer with such frightening menace that whenever he appears onscreen, you will shiver with dread at what he will do next. So why am Igiving this 4/10? Simple. The ending was unsatisfying. I get themessage of the film. Fine. I value a good ending to a story. If anending does not satisfy me, morally, I take away a couple of marks. Ifan ending is too pretentious, I take away even more marks. If you arenot fussed with endings, then you will enjoy the film. However, I donot understand why this is rated as Oscar worthy (regardless of what Ithink of the ending). Its technically accomplished but ultimatelyshallow save for some great moments of tension. But for a Coen Brothersfilm this is a major disappointment.