The full badger? This must be an excellent film. One to take the Mrs to?
Submitted by brainwipe on Tue, 2008-10-28 08:57
Indeed. its a very good one. I think Kate would enjoy it...
I wouldn't mind seeing it again ;)
Submitted by byrn on Tue, 2008-10-28 09:02
I'm afraid I'd disagree. Whilst the acting was as good as you'd expect from the A list cast, there was very little there to make me feel any interest in the fate of any of the characters, barring possibly Cox.
I really was fairly apathetic as to whether things worked out for anyone or not. I didn't even dislike anyone strongly enough to hope things went badly for them. Without that connection to any of the characters, the plotline unfolding just seemed to be a tenuous excuse to have these characters interact with each other. Even the plot wasn't fantastic. It made an attempt to be complicated and layered as the characters become connected to each other, until it's all one big knot at the climax. But then so did Lock Stock and I think it did it better.
Don't get me wrong I didn't hate the film. "There were parts of it I liked". I just found it unbalanced. There was only really a study of character. Characters I didn't particularly care about one way or the other. In that way a bit like Big Brother.
IMO the reason I kept watching was because of the actors playing the roles. Without their presense, I'm not sure film would have been much good at all.
Sorry but not very many triplanes awarded for this one from me...
Submitted by baron on Tue, 2008-10-28 10:14
A strafing from the Red Baron!
Hmm, fair enough mate. Maybe its one of those that either works for people or doesn't. Wile not everyone may find it excellent, can we agree that its worth a watch?
Submitted by byrn on Tue, 2008-10-28 10:17
Oh yes. It's worth a watch. The cast are top class actors that are great to watch. Pitt did something completely different to his norm. And a neurotic Clooney was great. Malkovich is always fantastic.
Submitted by baron on Tue, 2008-10-28 10:21
the plotline unfolding just seemed to be a tenuous excuse to have these characters interact with each other.
This sounds just like my Icar campaign! Thanks for the input, Baron.
Submitted by brainwipe on Tue, 2008-10-28 10:22
Maybe its one of those that either works for people or doesn't
This isn't the first review of it I've seen that gave that conclusion, and it is a trait common to Coen brothers movies...
Submitted by AggroBoy on Tue, 2008-10-28 10:58
Their films are something of an acquired taste, I've seen people say their films are so awful they make uwe boll look like Kubrick and others that say they are the best thing since sliced Jesus.
But then their films are always something different in a sea of hollywood mediocrity and different is not always a good thing.
No country for old men was, in a word, painful. I didn't really take to barton fink either.
most of their other films that I've seen I've enjoyed to some degree or other, the hudsucker proxy is a personal favourite, things like the big lebowski and o brother where art thou are also good. Fargo was excellent.
Remaking the lady killers was sacrilege you can't really top the old Ealing original though it had its moment Tom Hanks is no Alec Guinness.
I like going to see Coen Brothers films because although they can miss the mark I know it's going to be something a bit different from the norm. They also seem to excell at getting good performances out of people, so even if I don't enjoy the overall feel of the film, the people in it are good. No country for old men was a lot like that although the film just didn't work as a whole for me the perfomances in it were all very good.
Sometimes you pay a price for the difference the Coen brothers bring and it doesn't gel with your tastes but sometimes it's refreshingly different.
Comments
The full badger? This must be an excellent film. One to take the Mrs to?
Indeed. its a very good one. I think Kate would enjoy it...
I wouldn't mind seeing it again ;)
I'm afraid I'd disagree. Whilst the acting was as good as you'd expect from the A list cast, there was very little there to make me feel any interest in the fate of any of the characters, barring possibly Cox.
I really was fairly apathetic as to whether things worked out for anyone or not. I didn't even dislike anyone strongly enough to hope things went badly for them. Without that connection to any of the characters, the plotline unfolding just seemed to be a tenuous excuse to have these characters interact with each other. Even the plot wasn't fantastic. It made an attempt to be complicated and layered as the characters become connected to each other, until it's all one big knot at the climax. But then so did Lock Stock and I think it did it better.
Don't get me wrong I didn't hate the film. "There were parts of it I liked". I just found it unbalanced. There was only really a study of character. Characters I didn't particularly care about one way or the other. In that way a bit like Big Brother.
IMO the reason I kept watching was because of the actors playing the roles. Without their presense, I'm not sure film would have been much good at all.
Sorry but not very many triplanes awarded for this one from me...
A strafing from the Red Baron!
Hmm, fair enough mate. Maybe its one of those that either works for people or doesn't. Wile not everyone may find it excellent, can we agree that its worth a watch?
Oh yes. It's worth a watch. The cast are top class actors that are great to watch. Pitt did something completely different to his norm. And a neurotic Clooney was great. Malkovich is always fantastic.
the plotline unfolding just seemed to be a tenuous excuse to have these characters interact with each other.
This sounds just like my Icar campaign! Thanks for the input, Baron.
Maybe its one of those that either works for people or doesn't
This isn't the first review of it I've seen that gave that conclusion, and it is a trait common to Coen brothers movies...
Their films are something of an acquired taste, I've seen people say their films are so awful they make uwe boll look like Kubrick and others that say they are the best thing since sliced Jesus.
But then their films are always something different in a sea of hollywood mediocrity and different is not always a good thing.
No country for old men was, in a word, painful. I didn't really take to barton fink either.
most of their other films that I've seen I've enjoyed to some degree or other, the hudsucker proxy is a personal favourite, things like the big lebowski and o brother where art thou are also good. Fargo was excellent.
Remaking the lady killers was sacrilege you can't really top the old Ealing original though it had its moment Tom Hanks is no Alec Guinness.
I like going to see Coen Brothers films because although they can miss the mark I know it's going to be something a bit different from the norm. They also seem to excell at getting good performances out of people, so even if I don't enjoy the overall feel of the film, the people in it are good. No country for old men was a lot like that although the film just didn't work as a whole for me the perfomances in it were all very good.
Sometimes you pay a price for the difference the Coen brothers bring and it doesn't gel with your tastes but sometimes it's refreshingly different.