No Country for Old Men

[peggyfromwastate]

Yuk. Not my thing. It's an assassin movie- lots of blood, inventive weapons, stupid people getting themselves killed for no good reason. DH chose it. He did not like it, but all the anesthesiologists told him it was "really good." And then the ending--- was so stupid. I didn't get it, maybe it's the flu and my head is in a fog, but honestly. What is up with the academy people? There MUST have been better movies last year than this one. I just don't see the "genius".

[Ladybug122]

Re: No Country for Old Men

Oh, I agree Peggy! It was a DH pick - and he went so far as to BUY the movie! Yuck! It was just one violent scene after another with very little storyline. As odd as this may sound, it was a slow-moving violent film. DH said he liked it...I'm not sure if he was sincere or trying to defend his purchase...
No closure.
I would have rather watched sitcom re-runs.

[Vishenka69]

Re: No Country for Old Men

Yuk. Not my thing. It's an assassin movie- lots of blood, inventive weapons, stupid people getting themselves killed for no good reason. DH chose it. He did not like it, but all the anesthesiologists told him it was "really good." And then the ending--- was so stupid. I didn't get it, maybe it's the flu and my head is in a fog, but honestly. What is up with the academy people? There MUST have been better movies last year than this one. I just don't see the "genius".

DH LOVED this. I came out extremely confused. I wasn't bothered by the violence but couldn't figure out what the movie was about. I have to share with him that apparently all anesthesiologist around the country are into the same freaky movies.

[Flynn]

Re: No Country for Old Men

I'll have to respectfully disagree with the above.

The story starts with Tommy Lee Jones' character talking about how a small town country sherrif didn't need to carry a gun when he started his career and when his dad (also a sherrif) was a sherrif.

Through this beginning, the audience learns that things have changed in East Texas and across the USA in general. It's 1980 and the drug business is at it's busiest over the border and has become extremely dangerous.

Add to this the landscape of the geographic area -- pretty but extremely unforgiving, a flawed but likable protagonist (Brolin who was nominated for Best Supporting actor -- didn't win) and an intelligent, insane, and ruthless killer in hot pursuit of Brolin while Tommy Lee tries to make sense of it all....and the plot begins.

The story is based on Cormac McCarthy's novel and takes shape on the screen in the capable hands of the Coen brothers (Fargo).

The acting is amazing. The story is unique. The violence IS hard to watch but the characters are so compelling I couldn't turn away. Instead of the story being "slow," I found it intense and similar to a pyschological thriller. It was unsettling.

While I wasn't a fan of the ending, I can see why this film got so much attention and Javier Bardem won for best actor.

[migirl]

Re: No Country for Old Men

We finally watched this last night. We both liked it, I didn't think the violence was as gratuitous as I'd expected ... that is, it seemed to be in line with the plot of the movie. The acting was amazing (how CREEPY is Javier Bardem in that role??!!) and the cinematography was awesome (love those desert shots!). I can see how people might think it's a bit slow, but I was so tense during the entire movie ... I loved that it was so suspenseful and intense. My only complaint is with the ending, it seemed too abrupt and I have no idea how it connected with the rest of the movie. :huh: Maybe it's the way the book was written too, though ... haven't read the book. Overall, though, we both liked it.