Originally posted by EricG75: Without taking the book into consideration, I had a lot of problems with the last 30 minutes or so of the film. As I mentioned before, I didn't like the way it went from being a tight noir thriller to Tommy Lee Jones' plaintive, meandering reflection on society.
Exactly. I can completely understand how someone w/o knowledge of the source text could feel this.
Il n'y a pas de hors-texte.
Posts: 3139 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
That’s interesting because I haven’t yet read the book but I loved the film. I have heard the argument that the Coen bros. were too faithful to the book, to the point that most of the lines in the film are exactly from the book. For those of you that have read the book, is this true? And also, it will most surely win Best Adapted Screenplay, if the first question is a yes, does it really deserve the Screenplay Oscar?
----- Never say you miss her, never say a word. And do everything she'd never do.
Posts: 6630 | Location: Texas | Registered: 27 December 2005
Sometimes being too lazy not to read a lot really does have its disadvantages especially when it comes to communication or relating. But at least I don't have to get all twisted up inside in comparing the movie and book. I get enough of that from those that do read. That's what I get for flunking out of Evelyn Wood's Reading Dynamics (speed reading) course when I was eight or nine years old.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Originally posted by tabuno: But at least I don't have to get all twisted up inside in comparing the movie and book. I get enough of that from those that do read.
Glad to be of service! I usually don't get too bent comparing books to movies. Unless of course we're talking about Contact.
Il n'y a pas de hors-texte.
Posts: 3139 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
I know we have a Book vs Movie thread, and I think I've mentioned there that I usually hate to read the book and see the movie. The adaptations I've seen that equal the book are usually few and far between. Often times, I'll be infuriated.
I know Kendo's seen The Ninth Gate, which was possibly the worst adaptation possible of Arturo Perez-Reverte's The Club Dumas.
----- Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste.
Posts: 5923 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
I was kind of disappointed that Zodiac didn't get any nominations but it was expected I guess since most of the movies that usually get nominated are released during fall and winter. And I agree that the main competition for best picture will be between No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. I haven't seen Atonement yet, so I can't really say much about it, but I've heard many positive responses towards movie. I will need to see it sometime before the oscars. I also think that Sweeney Todd should have gotten the last nomination over Micheal Clayton, although I do think George Clooney deserves his nomination.
"It's become so obvious, you are so oblivious to yourself"
Termina* Upwardly Mobile Participant Posted 24 January 2008 05:16 PM Hide Post I was kind of disappointed that Zodiac didn't get any nominations but it was expected I guess since most of the movies that usually get nominated are released during fall and winter. And I agree that the main competition for best picture will be between No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. I haven't seen Atonement yet, so I can't really say much about it, but I've heard many positive responses towards movie. I will need to see it sometime before the oscars. I also think that Sweeney Todd should have gotten the last nomination over Micheal Clayton, although I do think George Clooney deserves his nomination.
MICHAEL CLAYTON as opposed to SWEENEY TODD seemed to be more of the same, safe and we've seen this before in THE FIRM and ERIN BROKOVICH, so I don't think MICHAEL CLAYTON broke any new ground. Sort of like NETWORK. Yes Sweeney Todd was a bold movie in regards to the subject matter and was decently done, though I wouldn't put it in the same cinematic category as MOULIN ROUGE or CHICAGO. But I wouldn't have minded if SWEENEY TODD had taken the last Best Picture nomination over MICHAEL CLAYTON.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Hey tabuno, I didn't give a long detailed rebuttal to your criticisms of No Country cause, frankly, I'm a very slow typist and it just takes too long to write down what I really, really think! But here ya go: the Sheriff fades away you say? of course. Chigurh's actions are ambiguous? of course. Luck plays a big part? of course.
All these points are integral to a story that works an an elegy for a time past, and an entry into a far more fractured, confusing and unreadable present.
My take on the film was like Paddy; it was too faithful to the book. The Coens suffer from a stiffness at times in their own screenplays, so to adapt...well, it tightened the stiffness for me.
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
Posts: 2759 | Location: The ever silent spaces of the East | Registered: 12 February 2007
Ishmaels Coffin Jedi Posted 25 January 2008 01:09 AM Hide Post Hey tabuno, I didn't give a long detailed rebuttal to your criticisms of No Country cause, frankly, I'm a very slow typist and it just takes too long to write down what I really, really think! But here ya go: the Sheriff fades away you say? of course. Chigurh's actions are ambiguous? of course. Luck plays a big part? of course.
All these points are integral to a story that works an an elegy for a time past, and an entry into a far more fractured, confusing and unreadable present.
Nice approach to the movie - "a fractured, confusing, and unreadable present." I guess that when at one point in the beginning of the movie the Coen brothers have Josh Brolin's character talking to himself to explain what's he's doing in searching out the money, it seems to lend credence to a movie that will explain itself and then doesn't. I don't know if it's possible in the space of one movie to consistently have different characters operating from different overall perspectives as to luck, fracturing, and unreadableness unless a lot more focus is spent on this descrepancy on each character. There's not enough time. It's asking a lot of a movie.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Ishmaels Coffin Jedi Posted 25 January 2008 01:09 AM Hide Post Hey tabuno, I didn't give a long detailed rebuttal to your criticisms of No Country cause, frankly, I'm a very slow typist and it just takes too long to write down what I really, really think! But here ya go: the Sheriff fades away you say? of course. Chigurh's actions are ambiguous? of course. Luck plays a big part? of course.
All these points are integral to a story that works an an elegy for a time past, and an entry into a far more fractured, confusing and unreadable present.
Nice approach to the movie - "a fractured, confusing, and unreadable present." I guess that when at one point in the beginning of the movie the Coen brothers have Josh Brolin's character talking to himself to explain what's he's doing in searching out the money, it seems to lend credence to a movie that will explain itself and then doesn't. I don't know if it's possible in the space of one movie to consistently have different characters operating from different overall perspectives as to luck, fracturing, and unreadableness unless a lot more focus is spent on this descrepancy on each character. There's not enough time. It's asking a lot of a movie.
Or it may be asking a lot of the viewer. Is the viewer up to the challenge?
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12945 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
After seeing Michael Clayton this afternoon, I think Tom Wilkinson is very deserving of that Best Supporting Actor Oscar. A great turn as a manic depressive lead attorney on a billion dollar class action lawsuit who loses it and threatens to bring down the very people he's supposed to be representing.
"I am Shiva, the God of Death."
----- Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste.
Posts: 5923 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by EricG75: After seeing Michael Clayton this afternoon, I think Tom Wilkinson is very deserving of that Best Supporting Actor Oscar. A great turn as a manic depressive lead attorney on a billion dollar class action lawsuit who loses it and threatens to bring down the very people he's supposed to be representing.
"I am Shiva, the God of Death."
Haha, yeah, that was gold. I especially loved it when Clooney says it at the end. I wouldn't mind if Wilkinson won the Oscar but there is just no way he is going to beat Javier Bardem.
----- Never say you miss her, never say a word. And do everything she'd never do.
Posts: 6630 | Location: Texas | Registered: 27 December 2005
Because I have a great fondness for the movie The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and that Casey Affleck had the more difficult role performance, script, and dialogue than either Javier Bardem or Tom Wilkinson and therefore deserves the best supporting actor award. Javier Bardem's was more a of zombie figure placed into a technically flawed movie that required no real acting as such while Tom Wilkinson's character reminds me of the more mainstream popular but overly dramatic performance of Peter Finch as the eventually crazed network star on Network (1976). Casey Affleck's role on the otherhand required under-playing a role that evolves several times over the duration of the movie so that instead of one dimensional performance of Javier Bardem or the caricature performance of Peter Finch, Casey provides us with a much more sensitive and conflicted character that makes the audience have to dig much more deeply as to what their relationship with the character is to be. Casey's screen role was much more complex, much more textured, as well as quietly tortured at the same time.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Regarding the end of No Country, I think I "get it" (very subjective I know) and therefore don't understand the criticisms I see here.
It reminded me of the ending of Chinatown in a way. After everything that goes down, John Huston being horrifying, people getting shot, etc., it's just--over. Jack Nicholson acts as a reflection of the audience; he's dumbfounded, in shock, just blank in the face. And his partner shrugs it off, saying, "Come on, you know, it's Chinatown." It doesn't seem fair that the crowd would just disperse and life would go on, but it does, as in real life.
That's how I see No Country. Without any real warning, suddenly, the action grinds to a halt. But life goes on. The suddenly meditative tone of the film, especially Tommy Lee Jones' monologue at the end, is a reflection of this, the bleakness of violence and its aftermath.
I think Javier Bardem was excellent, and yes, his role involved acting. Especially if you've seen him in other films, his transformation is chilling. I think he adds some very subtle complexities to the character, which I didn't notice until the second viewing.
So far javier bardem has won the golden globe, screen actors guild, BFC, BSFC, COFCA, CFCA (there's several more acronyms for various critics organizations) award for best supporting actor in a motion picture.
I've seen No Country For Old Men and Javier gave one of the best performances that I've seen in my life. Tom Wilkinson did a great job in Micheal Clayton, but Javier was perfection.
Its possible he won't win the Oscar, but he gave the best performance out of all of the actors in the category.
Liberalkid Slacker First Class Posted 28 January 2008 03:46 PM Hide Post So far javier bardem has won the golden globe, screen actors guild, BFC, BSFC, COFCA, CFCA (there's several more acronyms for various critics organizations) award for best supporting actor in a motion picture.
I've seen No Country For Old Men and Javier gave one of the best performances that I've seen in my life. Tom Wilkinson did a great job in Micheal Clayton, but Javier was perfection.
Its possible he won't win the Oscar, but he gave the best performance out of all of the actors in the category.
I still don't get it - Javier Bardem's supposedly perfect performance. I still didn't see much in the way that his performance required much acting. In comparison to Casey Affleck in Assassination of Jesse Jackson by the Coward Robert Ford Bardem's performance wasn't much to talk about with the exception that it was odd, different, and unusual - but that was the character not the acting talking and that acting itself was consistent, that's all that was required. Casey on the otherhand had a much more difficult character, script and dialogue to handle and one that he did in superb fashion, especially considering the interplay between his character and Brad Pitt and then the aftermath of the assassination. Nobody has really talked about or commented on what it was about Bardem's performance that was so brilliant and perfect. At a complete loss.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Bardem played the Angel of Death. He played him as an entity with a sense of humor and a sense of honor. He was scarier than hell. I really don't understand how someone can watch a single second of any scene with Javier Bardem in it and not be on the edge of their seat. He was a scary MoFo, and he didn't always do the same thing. Personally, I thought Josh Brolin gave just as good a performance, but I don't want to talk about him "talking to himself". That sounds like somebody on some major drugs who's never even watched the film.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12945 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Bardem played the Angel of Death. He played him as an entity with a sense of humor and a sense of honor. He was scarier than hell. I really don't understand how someone can watch a single second of any scene with Javier Bardem in it and not be on the edge of their seat. He was a scary MoFo, and he didn't always do the same thing. Personally, I thought Josh Brolin gave just as good a performance, but I don't want to talk about him "talking to himself". That sounds like somebody on some major drugs who's never even watched the film.
A much more brilliant performance of the "Angel of Death" is Brad Pitt's starring role in the under-rated film - Meet Joe Black (1998). Here Brad Pitt's characterization is even more spectacular because he's having to take on a role that supposedly doesn't exist in reality - being a supernatural being. Javier Bardem has the advantage re-enacting a person with an antisocial personality disorder. Brad's performance was both subtle with humor and a stark creepiness. Javier Bardem wasn't really responsible for the supposedly fearful scenes as much as it was about fate, the life and death randomly selected on a coin toss. What was much more frightening to me than Javier Bardem's performance was driving on the freeway in the snowstorm.
For a film such as No Country for Old Men to be considered as Best Picture it should be consistently realistic and believable. But when Josh Brolin and the scriptwriters have to stoop to an artificial and unnatural technique of talking to himself so as to explain how he is searching for this cash bounty it's so low-budget, amateurish that Josh Brolin spoils the movie. Josh Brolin no where else talks to himself like he does in his search for missing money. It's apparent that only in this scene, breaking character, that he talks to himself not because that's his character but he is talking for the audience's benefit, to explain why and what he's doing. A more cinematically superior film would have the audience experience Josh Brolin's character without his speech and it would be from his behavior that the audience would come to understand how and why he is doing what he's doing. It's the easy, lazy way out to resort to a character's dialogue to understand what the character is thinking..this only distances the viewer from the authenticity of the scene. This is only one of the glaring weaknesses in this flawed movie that others appear to conveniently overlook.
Posts: 1481 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tabuno: For a film such as No Country for Old Men to be considered as Best Picture it should be consistently realistic and believable. But when Josh Brolin and the scriptwriters have to stoop to an artificial and unnatural technique of talking to himself so as to explain how he is searching for this cash bounty it's so low-budget, amateurish that Josh Brolin spoils the movie.
If you consider Josh Brolin saying about three lines of dialogue to himself in one scene of the film a "glaring weakness" I don't know what to tell you. I happened to recently look at the script for the film and I believe his only lines in the scene were: 1. "I reckon I'd go out the way I came in". 2. "If you stopped to watch your backtrack you're gonna shoot my dumb ass". 3. "But if you stopped, you stopped in the shade".
I don't feel like any of the lines break his character or distract from the film. I think most people occassionally talk to themselves when they are in a isolated location or are working out a problem in their head. Even if you consider this a problem in the film it seems rather miniscule to me.
A much more brilliant performance of the "Angel of Death" is Brad Pitt's starring role in the under-rated film - Meet Joe Black (1998). Here Brad Pitt's characterization is even more spectacular because he's having to take on a role that supposedly doesn't exist in reality - being a supernatural being. Javier Bardem has the advantage re-enacting a person with an antisocial personality disorder. Brad's performance was both subtle with humor and a stark creepiness. Javier Bardem wasn't really responsible for the supposedly fearful scenes as much as it was about fate, the life and death randomly selected on a coin toss. What was much more frightening to me than Javier Bardem's performance was driving on the freeway in the snowstorm.
For a film such as No Country for Old Men to be considered as Best Picture it should be consistently realistic and believable. But when Josh Brolin and the scriptwriters have to stoop to an artificial and unnatural technique of talking to himself so as to explain how he is searching for this cash bounty it's so low-budget, amateurish that Josh Brolin spoils the movie. Josh Brolin no where else talks to himself like he does in his search for missing money. It's apparent that only in this scene, breaking character, that he talks to himself not because that's his character but he is talking for the audience's benefit, to explain why and what he's doing. A more cinematically superior film would have the audience experience Josh Brolin's character without his speech and it would be from his behavior that the audience would come to understand how and why he is doing what he's doing. It's the easy, lazy way out to resort to a character's dialogue to understand what the character is thinking..this only distances the viewer from the authenticity of the scene. This is only one of the glaring weaknesses in this flawed movie that others appear to conveniently overlook.
It's so peculiar that you point out these so-called flaws yet you hail Atonement as being the best of the year. I saw Atonement last weekend and was laughing with my girlfriend of it the entire way home. The distinct lack of subtlety was embarrassing, as was the amateurish acting (aside from Redgrave and the young girl). And the plot holes - oh my the plot holes!
And most alarmingly, you demand consistency, and yet you allow for such a ludicrous scene as the final meet up of the 3 main characters (I won't reveal details to those who haven't seen it). No Country wasn't my favorite movie of the year, but it was at least a serious movie (squid reference!).
Posts: 30 | Location: Northern California | Registered: 06 January 2006
I usually don't get too bent comparing books to movies. Unless of course we're talking about Contact. 
Especially if you've seen him in other films, his transformation is chilling. I think he adds some very subtle complexities to the character, which I didn't notice until the second viewing.
