| Posted by: really real at March 1, 2008, 11:54 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | Quote:I had a discussion with a friend, comparing "Fargo" and NCFOM. Yeah, they're both almost nihilistically violent, but "Fargo" had something NCFOM was completely lacking: a protagonist the audience could care about. Maybe it's because I'm a woman but I need to feel some sort of connection, empathy, sympathy, what-have-you, for at least ONE character in a movie in order to regard it as a "good" movie. I loved Frances McDormand's character in "Fargo," with her stolid, dogged pursuit of the bad guys. Nine months pregnant and she still "gets her man." While I liked Tommy Lee Jones' character (Tom?) in NCFOM he turned out to be totally ineffectual. Yeah, shit happens and then you retire. Big fuckin' deal. The cops showed up too late in every instance, made a few pithy comments and then moved on. I liked Llewellen, too, but look what happened to him. My feelings exactly. Frances McDormand's character was a joy to watch. Tommy Lee Jones was so negative, I couldn't even be bothered to listen to his dreams Quote: ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: really real at March 1, 2008, 11:52 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | Quote: Well Germany and Japan had it much worse in WWII but would you argue it wasn't worth it? By the way we *still* have troops in Germany. You're comparing the American invasion of Iraq to WWII? That's pretty funny. Yes. WWII was a war worth fighting, to defend ourselves against the invading Germans and Japanese. Those two countries were out to take over the world. By the time America belatedly joined the battle, Germany and Japan had conquered many countries. And after the war, Germany and Japan were not devastated by tribal and religious conflicts. Iraq was a country held together by a dictator who had been supported by the west. There was no pretext for invading Iraq except for some misguided revenge for 9-11. Not only did the invasion tear Iraq apart, the incompetence of the occupation made things even worse. Now we have a broken Iraq that can't be put back together, an emboldened Iran, a war America can't leave, and the potential for a much wider conflict in the Middle East. A better analogy is Americ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: tomcervo at February 29, 2008, 2:42 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Feb 29, 2:38�pm, Auntie Lib wrote: Quote:I had a discussion with a friend, comparing "Fargo" and NCFOM. �Yeah, they're both almost nihilistically violent, but "Fargo" had something NCFOM was completely lacking: �a protagonist the audience could care about. Please don't mistake McCarthy's deeply moral view for nihilism--he's only showing what happens when you cross the line. The "hero" steals drug money. All he has to do to save himself and the family he's made is to get rid of it, but he equates money with success and happiness. The story is as nihilistic as the Pardoner's Tale. Quote:While I liked Tommy Lee Jones' character (Tom?) in NCFOM he turned out to be totally ineffectual. �Yeah, shit happens and then you retire.. Big fuckin' deal. �The cops showed up too late in every instance, made a few pithy comments and then moved on. �I liked Llewellen, too, but look what happened to him. Maybe it was the Cohen's way of saying that there really isn't anything we can do about anything. That's prett... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Auntie Lib at February 29, 2008, 9:38 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | really real wrote: Quote: For me, it was about the mood and tone of No Country. I found the movie to be far too negative, unlike Fargo. I had a discussion with a friend, comparing "Fargo" and NCFOM. Yeah, they're both almost nihilistically violent, but "Fargo" had something NCFOM was completely lacking: a protagonist the audience could care about. Maybe it's because I'm a woman but I need to feel some sort of connection, empathy, sympathy, what-have-you, for at least ONE character in a movie in order to regard it as a "good" movie. I loved Frances McDormand's character in "Fargo," with her stolid, dogged pursuit of the bad guys. Nine months pregnant and she still "gets her man." While I liked Tommy Lee Jones' character (Tom?) in NCFOM he turned out to be totally ineffectual. Yeah, shit happens and then you retire. Big fuckin' deal. The cops showed up too late in every instance, made a few pithy comments and then moved on. I liked Llewellen, too, but look what happened to him. Maybe it was the Cohen's way of s... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: tomcervo at February 29, 2008, 9:18 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Feb 28, 12:35�am, rcp wrote: Quote:They had it worse because they invaded all their neighbors and attacked the United States. Iraq, on the other hand .. . ... attacked Kuwait After our ambassador told them we wouldn't kick. Quote:and the Kurds Just like the Turks are doing now, with equal indifferance from Washington. Quote:and their own people Wasn't that while Rumsfeld was gladhanding Saddam? Quote:but the point is their self-declared *threat* of doing so. They promised to fight back if invaded. What country would not? Quote:By the way we *still* have troops in Germany. Patroling against German insurgents? For a couple of years. Seehttp://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/01/13/insurgents.php Ledeen is full of shit. The threat was non-existant. Americans stationed in Germany faced far greater risks from alcohol fueled road accidents than the mythical German "werewulf" movement. Ditto occupation Japan Quote: �For that matter, we have troops in Missouri--are they fighting bushwhackers? Ha Ha | | Static Link |
| Posted by: rcp at February 28, 2008, 1:35 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:44:37 -0800, tomcervo wrote: Quote:On Feb 27, 9:40 pm, rcp wrote: Well Germany and Japan had it much worse in WWII but would you argue it wasn't worth it? They had it worse because they invaded all their neighbors and attacked the United States. Iraq, on the other hand .. . .... attacked Kuwait and the Kurds and their own people but the point is their self-declared *threat* of doing so. Quote: By the way we *still* have troops in Germany. Patroling against German insurgents? For a couple of years. See http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/01/13/insurgents.php Quote:For that matter, we have troops in Missouri--are they fighting bushwhackers? Ha Ha | | Static Link |
| Posted by: rcp at February 27, 2008, 10:40 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:28:28 +0000, really real wrote: Quote: Seems that Iraq is quite civilized. Don't be so condescending. See http://www.alsabaah.com/ (click on English) I'm sure that there are all kinds of positive things going on in Iraq that I'm unaware of, but I'm thinking of the tens of thousands of civilian fatalities and the millions of displaced citizens. The latest reports I read about Basra, which now has no foreign troops in it, is that the city is controlled by death squads. Well Germany and Japan had it much worse in WWII but would you argue it wasn't worth it? By the way we *still* have troops in Germany. rcp | | Static Link |
| Posted by: tomcervo at February 27, 2008, 5:44 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Feb 27, 9:40�pm, rcp wrote: Quote:Well Germany and Japan had it much worse in WWII but would you argue it wasn't worth it? They had it worse because they invaded all their neighbors and attacked the United States. Iraq, on the other hand .. . Quote:By the way we *still* have troops in Germany. Patroling against German insurgents? For that matter, we have troops in Missouri--are they fighting bushwhackers? | | Static Link |
| Posted by: really real at February 26, 2008, 9:28 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | Quote: Seems that Iraq is quite civilized. Don't be so condescending. See http://www.alsabaah.com/ (click on English) I'm sure that there are all kinds of positive things going on in Iraq that I'm unaware of, but I'm thinking of the tens of thousands of civilian fatalities and the millions of displaced citizens. The latest reports I read about Basra, which now has no foreign troops in it, is that the city is controlled by death squads. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: rcp at February 26, 2008, 2:50 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:22:28 +0000, really real wrote: Quote: I didn't mean the war itself but the compulsion to relate everything to it. See Walter Sobchak in another Coen Brothers movie -- The Big Lebowski. Considering the complete breakdown in civilization going on in Iraq, how could the breakdown in civlization in No Country For Old Men not be related to it. The Coens are not blind. Seems that Iraq is quite civilized. Don't be so condescending. See http://www.alsabaah.com/ (click on English) | | Static Link |
| Posted by: really real at February 26, 2008, 11:22 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | Quote: I didn't mean the war itself but the compulsion to relate everything to it. See Walter Sobchak in another Coen Brothers movie -- The Big Lebowski. Considering the complete breakdown in civilization going on in Iraq, how could the breakdown in civlization in No Country For Old Men not be related to it. The Coens are not blind. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: trotsky at February 26, 2008, 10:10 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | Red Cloud wrote: Quote:On Feb 24, 10:09 pm, PaulB wrote: I'm gonna have to see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN again. I just don't get what was so great about that movie, other than being stylish. What's the point ? Hardly any dialogue, don't care for characters, random violent world metaphor gets old at 30 minute mark ? All their 80s movies, plus FARGO, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, etc... were all better movies Please explain, despite subjective tastes The Movie is bad. Bloody killing. What you are confused about is not the movie but other audiences reaction. See today many audiences can't see the apparently bloody detailed killing because they became addicted. They can't express how bad it is. They addicted to the graphical violence. to the detailed bloodbath killing that It's nice to see RC's posts getting more coherent. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Ian Galbraith at February 26, 2008, 1:37 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:29:34 GMT, DK wrote: Quote:In article wrote: I'm gonna have to see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN again. I just don't get what was so great about that movie, other than being stylish. What's the point ? Hardly any dialogue, don't care for characters, random violent world metaphor gets old at 30 minute mark ? All their 80s movies, plus FARGO, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, etc... were all better movies Yes, they were all better movies. Millers Crossing remains my favourite but No Country is just behind it. Quote:Coeh brothers have finally made it manstream - not in the least on the strenght of their earlier movies. And since Oscars are all about mainstream, they were rewarded accordingly. NCFOM was just good enough for that. I don't think No Country can be called mainstream not with how its ending pans out. -- "We just don't recognise the most significant moments of our lives while they're happening. At the time I thought there'd be other days. I didn't realise that that was the... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Ian Galbraith at February 26, 2008, 1:37 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:09:49 -0800 (PST), PaulB wrote: Quote:I'm gonna have to see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN again. I just don't get what was so great about that movie, other than being stylish. What's the point ? Hardly any dialogue, don't care for characters, random violent world metaphor gets old at 30 minute mark ? All their 80s movies, plus FARGO, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, etc... were all better movies Please explain, despite subjective tastes Read this, in particular the comments: http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2008/02/no-country-for-ideology.html No Country may just about be the film of theirs with the most depth. -- "She made me feel like a human being. That's not the kind of thing you just forgive." - Angel, Buffy The Vampire Slayer | | Static Link |
| Posted by: rcp at February 25, 2008, 8:46 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:24:10 +0000, really real wrote: Quote: I find the subtext of No Country to be all about the neverending despair of the Iraq war. Your life must be a living hell. One cannot escape the horrors of the world, but I have to confess, my life is pretty good in my own country. I just feel for all the victims of the war over there. I didn't mean the war itself but the compulsion to relate everything to it. See Walter Sobchak in another Coen Brothers movie -- The Big Lebowski. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Red Cloud at February 25, 2008, 8:46 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Feb 24, 10:09 pm, PaulB wrote: Quote:I'm gonna have to see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN again. I just don't get what was so great about that movie, other than being stylish. What's the point ? Hardly any dialogue, don't care for characters, random violent world metaphor gets old at 30 minute mark ? All their 80s movies, plus FARGO, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, etc... were all better movies Please explain, despite subjective tastes The Movie is bad. Bloody killing. What you are confused about is not the movie but other audiences reaction. See today many audiences can't see the apparently bloody detailed killing because they became addicted. They can't express how bad it is. They addicted to the graphical violence. to the detailed bloodbath killing that | | Static Link |
| Posted by: really real at February 25, 2008, 8:24 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | Quote: I find the subtext of No Country to be all about the neverending despair of the Iraq war. Your life must be a living hell. One cannot escape the horrors of the world, but I have to confess, my life is pretty good in my own country. I just feel for all the victims of the war over there. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Me at February 25, 2008, 8:11 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | "moviePig" wrote: Quote:I'm gonna have to see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN again. I just don't get what was so great about that movie, other than being stylish. What's the point ? Hardly any dialogue, don't care for characters, random violent world metaphor gets old at 30 minute mark ? All their 80s movies, plus FARGO, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, etc... were all better movies Please explain, despite subjective tastes I thought it was a wonderfully made movie ...and assume that's at least partly what Academy voters responded to. But I recall clearly when I watched NO COUNTRY, how, after the ending, the audience, including me, sat there palpably nonplussed. That's an error the Coens made in rendering McCarthy's book (I gather), and an impossible one to forgive, especially in a Best Picture... -- - - - - - - - - YOUR taste at work... http://www.moviepig.com It sounds like you mean nonplussed "by" and 'about" the ending and not about the whole film. I never read the book, but as Jones started talkin... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: rcp at February 25, 2008, 5:50 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:33:49 +0000, really real wrote: Quote: I find the subtext of No Country to be all about the neverending despair of the Iraq war. Your life must be a living hell. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: tomcervo at February 25, 2008, 4:11 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Feb 25, 7:11�pm, "Me" wrote: Quote:It sounds like you mean nonplussed "by" and 'about" the ending and not about the whole film. �I never read the book, but as Jones started talking at the end I said to myself, "It's over." And then it was. � I said, "That's it?", but I wasn't at all disappointed. �That might sound like a contradiction. My question was more of an "attaboy" for the movie. I thought the ending was great. It fit the chaos, the inexplicable nature of things that are happening these days. I don't know where these people are coming from, these people who have never heard of Cormac McCarthy, these people who seem to expect a tab of visually based Xtasy every moment they sit in a theatre. Do they expect the sheriff to jump in his pickup and dispatch the bad guy with just one shot from the gun of the Man of Pure Heart? I had a look at Mitch Albom's cry of despair that all these new movies made him sad, not like the happy movies of old. Like "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", Mitch? Maybe so... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: moviePig at February 25, 2008, 2:37 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Feb 25, 7:11 pm, "Me" wrote: Quote:"moviePig" wrote: I'm gonna have to see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN again. I just don't get what was so great about that movie, other than being stylish. What's the point ? Hardly any dialogue, don't care for characters, random violent world metaphor gets old at 30 minute mark ? All their 80s movies, plus FARGO, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, etc... were all better movies Please explain, despite subjective tastes I thought it was a wonderfully made movie ...and assume that's at least partly what Academy voters responded to. But I recall clearly when I watched NO COUNTRY, how, after the ending, the audience, including me, sat there palpably nonplussed. That's an error the Coens made in rendering McCarthy's book (I gather), and an impossible one to forgive, especially in a Best Picture... It sounds like you mean nonplussed "by" and 'about" the ending and not about the whole film. I never read the book, but as Jones started talking at the end I said to myself,... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: really real at February 25, 2008, 11:33 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | Quote: I thought it was a wonderfully made movie ...and assume that's at least partly what Academy voters responded to. But I recall clearly when I watched NO COUNTRY, how, after the ending, the audience, including me, sat there palpably nonplussed. That's an error the Coens made in rendering McCarthy's book (I gather), and an impossible one to forgive, especially in a Best Picture... For me, it was about the mood and tone of No Country. I found the movie to be far too negative, unlike Fargo. But I think this is what people like about the movie, its bleak negativity. I find the subtext of No Country to be all about the neverending despair of the Iraq war. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: DK at February 25, 2008, 10:29 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | In article wrote: Quote:I'm gonna have to see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN again. I just don't get what was so great about that movie, other than being stylish. What's the point ? Hardly any dialogue, don't care for characters, random violent world metaphor gets old at 30 minute mark ? All their 80s movies, plus FARGO, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, etc... were all better movies Yes, they were all better movies. Coeh brothers have finally made it manstream - not in the least on the strenght of their earlier movies. And since Oscars are all about mainstream, they were rewarded accordingly. NCFOM was just good enough for that. DK | | Static Link |
| Posted by: moviePig at February 25, 2008, 5:11 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Feb 25, 1:09 am, PaulB wrote: Quote:I'm gonna have to see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN again. I just don't get what was so great about that movie, other than being stylish. What's the point ? Hardly any dialogue, don't care for characters, random violent world metaphor gets old at 30 minute mark ? All their 80s movies, plus FARGO, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, etc... were all better movies Please explain, despite subjective tastes I thought it was a wonderfully made movie ...and assume that's at least partly what Academy voters responded to. But I recall clearly when I watched NO COUNTRY, how, after the ending, the audience, including me, sat there palpably nonplussed. That's an error the Coens made in rendering McCarthy's book (I gather), and an impossible one to forgive, especially in a Best Picture... -- - - - - - - - - YOUR taste at work... http://www.moviepig.com | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Dennis M at February 25, 2008, 3:44 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | You're probably not as confused as Joel Coen. I thought he might have just been nervous in front of the big audience but at the post-show press conference he again made George Bush look articulate. Ethan seems reasonably lucid. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Primordial Ooze at February 25, 2008, 3:23 am | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | On Feb 25, 1:09 am, PaulB wrote: Quote:I'm gonna have to see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN again. I just don't get what was so great about that movie, other than being stylish. What's the point ? Hardly any dialogue, don't care for characters, random violent world metaphor gets old at 30 minute mark ? All their 80s movies, plus FARGO, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, etc... were all better movies Please explain, despite subjective tastes I completely agree. I am a big Coen Brothers fan. I love O brother, Barton Fink, Raising Arizona. Im one of the few people who think the Hudsucker Proxy was great. I just dont get what is so great about NCFOM. Its good, but best picture? | | Static Link |
| Posted by: PaulB at February 24, 2008, 8:09 pm | | Topic: A confused Coen brothers fan Forum: groupsrv | | I'm gonna have to see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN again. I just don't get what was so great about that movie, other than being stylish. What's the point ? Hardly any dialogue, don't care for characters, random violent world metaphor gets old at 30 minute mark ? All their 80s movies, plus FARGO, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, etc... were all better movies Please explain, despite subjective tastes | | Static Link |
|