Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:05 am**

Damien wrote:No Country is back in the same milieu as Blood Simple and has some of the same themes. All I can say is that its acclaim mystifies me.

Ah, we finally disagree!

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:42 pm**

This film deserves ***stars. I found it overrated by american critics.

Posted: **Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:35 am**

Withholding star rating until a second viewing. Either ***1/2 or ****. Either way, one of the best choices for Best Picture in some time. 'The Departed' may be more entertaining but 'No Country' is uncompromising to a fault almost.

Posted: **Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:25 am**

I really need to see 'No Country for Old Men' a second time. The abrupt shift doesn't seem as glaring in memory but I remember it being quite the cold finger up the ass at the time. Josh Brolin gave the best performance in 'No Country' and I prefer him to all the Best Actor nominees this year save for possibly Tommy Lee Jones. I'm inclined to agree with Sonic that it may have worked better on page but in terms of film it feels wrong. It may work better to think about it than to actually watch it. It's clearly what the Coen brothers wanted to do, and it's one of the sharpest genre subversions in some time, making us think we're in for something satisfying and then our suspicions that Llewelyn Moss will never get away are proven understatement at best. But this is all rationalization. I think 'No Country' is an incredibly strong film and a deserving Best Picture-winner but one I need to re-watch.

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:28 pm**

Javier Bardem is a wonderful actor -- and should have won the Oscar in 2000 for "Before Night Falls" -- but add me among those who thinks his performance in No Country was the LEAST impressive of the bunch. It's fun but it's completely one note, and the kind of "easy" performance that typically wins awards. Much more interesting and nuanced work was done by Brolin, Jones, MacDonald and yes even Harrelson.

Edited By Akash on 1203137341

Posted: **Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:16 pm**

dws1982 wrote:So Damien and I seem to have less and less to agree on this year than before; He's strongly disliked two of my favorites of the year (Bug and now this) and while I didn't strongly dislike them, I didn't much care for some of his favorites--Redacted, Away From Her, and 2 Days in Paris. I think my Damienite status is in jeopardy.

Sonic-
But although I felt that much of the final fifteen minutes was very much of a piece with what came before, there was one aspect that left me frustrated, and while this is may be fealty to the novel, it still smacks of disloyalty to the viewer.

I had noticed this awhile back, but I just read the novel a few days ago, and now I'm wondering what this aspect was?

It was the abrupt disposal (there really is no other word for it) of Josh Brolin's Llewelyn towards the end. Not only does it cheat us out of a final confrontation, but more importantly it minimizes the importance of his character. At the very least, Llewelyn deserves a satisfying "exit scene", so to speak. But after the story places so much weight on his storyline, he's then arbitrarily disposed of. Maybe this works in the book, and maybe it works beautifully thematically and metaphysically. But it throws an otherwise very deliberately made film off-kilter, as well as the parallel narratives between him and Chigurh, which the Coen's otherwise take great pains to establish. (It also probably robbed Brolin of a deserving Oscar nod.)

And since it diminishes the importance of Llewelyn, it also robs the film of a true central character. Sheriff Bell ain't it, because he's viewing everything from the periphery. And Chigurh isn't a character at all but a symbol. Bardem's performance is the only point of agreement I have with Damien. I have no problem with his performance per se, but there's nothing substantial to Chigurh. He's the Terminator.

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:57 pm**

Akash wrote:
Damien wrote:I will say this for it, Aakash. It's not as bad as Ratatouille. :p

Well I mean, it's no ALVIN but...

Truer words were never said, my friend.

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:41 pm**

I'm intrigued though Damien to see what you'll think of "There Will Be Blood." PTA vs. The Coens, two director-writers (well...three) you despise. And now you're gonna have to choose one film over the other. Oh the humanity!

Of course you could always just support Michael Clayton or Juno for Best Picture. But you wouldn't be that crazy, would you?

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:38 pm**

Damien wrote:I will say this for it, Aakash. It's not as bad as Ratatouille. :p

Well I mean, it's no ALVIN but...

Edited By Akash on 1203010724

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:29 am**

Damien wrote:(But then again, I don't think we're EVER agreed about a movie, unless it's maybe Casablanca.

Make Way for Tomorrow -- I'm sure we agree on that.

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:55 am**

This could be a really bad year for ya, Damien, if wonderful Julie Christie gets upset, cause you now dislike this, despise PTA, clearly didn't enjoy Cotillard.

I guess I'm not sure if you've caught There Will Be Blood yet, but I don't think you're gonna buy it.

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:18 am**

dws1982 wrote:So Damien and I seem to have less and less to agree on this year than before; He's strongly disliked two of my favorites of the year (Bug and now this) and while I didn't strongly dislike them, I didn't much care for some of his favorites--Redacted, Away From Her, and 2 Days in Paris. I think my Damienite status is in jeopardy.

Et tu, Daniel?

Posted: **Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:22 pm**

So Damien and I seem to have less and less to agree on this year than before; He's strongly disliked two of my favorites of the year (Bug and now this) and while I didn't strongly dislike them, I didn't much care for some of his favorites--Redacted, Away From Her, and 2 Days in Paris. I think my Damienite status is in jeopardy.

Sonic-

But although I felt that much of the final fifteen minutes was very much of a piece with what came before, there was one aspect that left me frustrated, and while this is may be fealty to the novel, it still smacks of disloyalty to the viewer.

I had noticed this awhile back, but I just read the novel a few days ago, and now I'm wondering what this aspect was?

Edited By dws1982 on 1202999316

Posted: **Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:00 pm**

I spent about 45 minutes reading this thread because I had avoided reading much about No Country til I got to see it. (I always like knowing next to nothing about a picture before I see it, unless it's adapted froma book I read.)

Lots of interesting input. Tee ,your analysis was particularly fascinating, even if I disagree with your critique, (But then again, I don't think we're EVER agreed about a movie, unless it's maybe Casablanca.

I think you gibe the Coens more credit for intellectualism than they deserve -- I think basically their development seems to have stopped when they were college sophomores.

Slant's Nick Schager, who seems to have a pathological need to prove his "hipness," is silly, but rolomatasi is very smart.

Edited By Damien on 1202970062

Posted: **Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:26 pm**

Sonic Youth wrote:
Damien wrote:I’m surprised there’s not a separate No Country thread here other than the poll.

Five pages worth.

It's that damn "last 30 days" option again.

Thanks Sonic. I keep forgetting about that.

Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

No Country for Old Men: The Poll