I've never seen the original version honestly. I do agree with GED the end of No country for old men was weird but it was a good movie.
Yep, me too. Yep, you are right.
Here is a good analysis of "No Country" that may shed some light on some themes of the film that are often missed. The author left out a few things, but overall a good commentary.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/no_country_for_old_men_out_in.html
And... GLEN CAMPBELL as LaBeouf?? I've seen better actin' in tough actin tinactin.
edit: spelling
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/11/no_country_for_old_men_out_in.html
And... GLEN CAMPBELL as LaBeouf?? I've seen better actin' in tough actin tinactin.
edit: spelling
That was a fantastic synopsis of the film. I felt the movie was incredibly moving, especially from a law enforcement spectrum. Each and every one of us has felt the futility of it all, and had to ask if it was worth it. For Sheriff Bell, it wasn't anymore, and he had the clarity and presence of mind to realize it.
^yep. And there is more meaning in the hats and boots used in that movie than in the entirety of most movies. Seriously.
The part I think that article left out was about the ending. I think the dream meant something about the perpetual and timeless nature of the challenge he'd been facing. It wasn't that the "country" was changing or becoming more brutal. This savage nature of the "country" (ie life, violence, crime) was permanent and intrinsic. But the Sheriff had aged beyond the ability to sustain the fight. Thus, it was no "country" for old men.
The relative he visited before the end also alluded to this theme as he described the brutal circumstances of how the Sheriff's grandfather died. Of his tendency to think his situation was unique, he told the Sheriff "that's vanity."
Anyway, I can't wait to see True Grit. And Matt Damon ... well, he bought his balls back in The Departed (so did Leonardo) so I'll give him a chance.
edit: poor vocabulary
The part I think that article left out was about the ending. I think the dream meant something about the perpetual and timeless nature of the challenge he'd been facing. It wasn't that the "country" was changing or becoming more brutal. This savage nature of the "country" (ie life, violence, crime) was permanent and intrinsic. But the Sheriff had aged beyond the ability to sustain the fight. Thus, it was no "country" for old men.
The relative he visited before the end also alluded to this theme as he described the brutal circumstances of how the Sheriff's grandfather died. Of his tendency to think his situation was unique, he told the Sheriff "that's vanity."
Anyway, I can't wait to see True Grit. And Matt Damon ... well, he bought his balls back in The Departed (so did Leonardo) so I'll give him a chance.
edit: poor vocabulary
Ok guys and gals. I've sat and thought about this new version of True Grit. Hell, I even popped in the 1969 classic today and watched it closely. There was plenty of violence but nothing like the Coen brothers are gonna put in their version.
There have been a few posts about how this new version is a darker tale of the story and a more true portrayal of the characters in the novel. First of all, let me say that the novel itself (yes, I have a copy) isn't really what I would call a "dark" story. Sure, it's about a young girl avenging her father's murder, but as for it being a "dark" tale? I just don't see it.
I suppose one could say that the very act of murder is dark enough in and of itself.
And while we're on the subject of "dark" tales, why do most of you enjoy seeing such a display? I deal with misery day in/day out. I don't need to see a bunch of blood and guts when watching a motion picture to be entertained. I mean, in the '69 version, when you saw a guy get shot, you didn't see his chest explode and a gallon of blood pour out of the GSW. Hell, the only really "gross" part of the entire movie is when Quincy chopped off Moon's fingers in the dugout, sending them flying. And even with that scene, if you blinked, you missed it.
John Wayne didn't think we needed to glamorize the act of killing and he damn sure didn't see the need to display such gory, macabre images that today's film makers and stars rely on to boost ticket sales. I mean, back in the day, when a guy got killed, you knew it! You didn't need to see his head explode...Jesus!
All I'm saying is why should this tale be retold with a more "dark" portrayal? Is it because we Americans have become so evil and so bloodthirsty that we can't enjoy a good quality film without it containing a bunch of bloody scenes? That seems to be the norm nowadays. I for one have seen enough carnage in my life that I don't care to see any more.
Ok...I'll shut the hell up now.
There have been a few posts about how this new version is a darker tale of the story and a more true portrayal of the characters in the novel. First of all, let me say that the novel itself (yes, I have a copy) isn't really what I would call a "dark" story. Sure, it's about a young girl avenging her father's murder, but as for it being a "dark" tale? I just don't see it.
I suppose one could say that the very act of murder is dark enough in and of itself.And while we're on the subject of "dark" tales, why do most of you enjoy seeing such a display? I deal with misery day in/day out. I don't need to see a bunch of blood and guts when watching a motion picture to be entertained. I mean, in the '69 version, when you saw a guy get shot, you didn't see his chest explode and a gallon of blood pour out of the GSW. Hell, the only really "gross" part of the entire movie is when Quincy chopped off Moon's fingers in the dugout, sending them flying. And even with that scene, if you blinked, you missed it.
John Wayne didn't think we needed to glamorize the act of killing and he damn sure didn't see the need to display such gory, macabre images that today's film makers and stars rely on to boost ticket sales. I mean, back in the day, when a guy got killed, you knew it! You didn't need to see his head explode...Jesus!
All I'm saying is why should this tale be retold with a more "dark" portrayal? Is it because we Americans have become so evil and so bloodthirsty that we can't enjoy a good quality film without it containing a bunch of bloody scenes? That seems to be the norm nowadays. I for one have seen enough carnage in my life that I don't care to see any more.
Ok...I'll shut the hell up now.
^hey man, I couldn't agree more that we shouldn't find a need to entertain ourselves with violence. There is way too much of that in reality already.
However, I don't appreciate watered down depictions of violence in movies. I don't like the effect it has. I think it accustoms the viewer to the idea that violence is nice and clean and quick, easy. Not everyone is exposed to the reality. I think if we're going to entertain ourselves with a story about violence, we should be faced starkly with what we are enjoying.
This is what I feel the Coens do well when they do "violence" in their movies. They usually shock the viewer and face them coldly with it, or don't show it at all. What I'm looking forward to in the new True Grit is not more gore or darkness, but more character depth, and better integration of characters with the plot--ultimately casting some interesting light on the human experience. They're great at that.
Incidentally, I pulled out my copy of the old True Grit too... cheers
However, I don't appreciate watered down depictions of violence in movies. I don't like the effect it has. I think it accustoms the viewer to the idea that violence is nice and clean and quick, easy. Not everyone is exposed to the reality. I think if we're going to entertain ourselves with a story about violence, we should be faced starkly with what we are enjoying.
This is what I feel the Coens do well when they do "violence" in their movies. They usually shock the viewer and face them coldly with it, or don't show it at all. What I'm looking forward to in the new True Grit is not more gore or darkness, but more character depth, and better integration of characters with the plot--ultimately casting some interesting light on the human experience. They're great at that.
Incidentally, I pulled out my copy of the old True Grit too... cheers
I don't think it's a need for more violence, but more realism. The old westerns had plenty of blood...it was just really really red paint and you can't help but chuckle a little when you see it (Big Jake, Cahill US Marshal, etc all had plenty of "blood"). Think of it as Hitch's shotgun work in Appaloosa vs. the shotgun scenes in Big Jake.
I'm looking forward to perhaps a more serious story arch/acting, better cinematography and more realism. Oh, and it a WESTERN. Those are rare these days, you have to enjoy them when you get the chance.
I'm looking forward to perhaps a more serious story arch/acting, better cinematography and more realism. Oh, and it a WESTERN. Those are rare these days, you have to enjoy them when you get the chance.
Similar threads
Oklahoma City
- For Sale
- For Trade
