No Country for Old Men (movie)
- Thread starter Nuttkase
- Start date
You mean when people don’t like it they say how it was anti-climatic and not thought provoking – due in large part, if not entirely, to an editing, directing, writing choice made by the Coens? The same choice that cut down the Tommy Lee Jones role to focus on the tangle over the lost & found money, but then let down the audience by not providing a fulfilling resolution to the plot line they chose to focus on and then switch back to the over looked character (tommy lee jones’
to attempt to carry the movie into resolution, yet only disappoint further?
And that pretty much shows they don’t understand it?
to attempt to carry the movie into resolution, yet only disappoint further?And that pretty much shows they don’t understand it?
It had a climax, just not the one you expected. If it wasn't thought provoking for you than I understand why you don't like it.
This is not what happened. As part of an intricate storyline, McCarthy used the "tangle over the lost & found money" as the drama for Jones' character to react to. Ed Tom's character development relies on the events that follow his reaction to each clash of the movie. Pay attention to his monologues and his conversation with other deputies and you will understand that he is not overshadowed by the action but develops from it.
The Coen's took all of this directly from the book and they stayed true to McCarthy's literary allusions and undertones so much so that as a movie, No Country does not develop and resolve like a movie.
I don't think the Coen's made this movie for it to be understood any
differently than the book. If it isn't understood in this way, it will play out something like this--
This is not what happened. As part of an intricate storyline, McCarthy used the "tangle over the lost & found money" as the drama for Jones' character to react to. Ed Tom's character development relies on the events that follow his reaction to each clash of the movie. Pay attention to his monologues and his conversation with other deputies and you will understand that he is not overshadowed by the action but develops from it.
The Coen's took all of this directly from the book and they stayed true to McCarthy's literary allusions and undertones so much so that as a movie, No Country does not develop and resolve like a movie.
I don't think the Coen's made this movie for it to be understood any
differently than the book. If it isn't understood in this way, it will play out something like this--
I'm just giving my opinion on the movie like you and everyone else....
the movie translated very well to the people who
understood its aim, obviously, the flick wasn't for you.
Let it goooooooooooo
It is what it is, though...right?
:ermm:
anticlimax - an event, period, or outcome that is strikingly less important or dramatic than expected
anticlimaxes can be entertaining and serve as a strong tool for the film makers in challenging an audience. but, this one fell flat.
Couldn't disagree more. His character is totally marginalized and is a peripheral character at best until they leave you hanging with a disappointing resolution to the Louellen Chigur story arch and try to resurrect the film by relying on a character that received little attention throughout to all of a sudden become the focus and carry the meaning for the film.
Because of the de-emphasis on Tommy Lee Jones' character viewers do not get the same connection to the events in the movie. Integrating his character more would have helped alleviate the problem where viewers are left hanging at the end of the movie.
Though this still wouldn't have been enough for me to like the movie much more. Maybe I would have cared more about what Tommy Lee Jones was babbling about at the end rather than reaching for the remote and fast forwarding through the boring ass end to a disappointing movie.
anticlimaxes can be entertaining and serve as a strong tool for the film makers in challenging an audience. but, this one fell flat.
Couldn't disagree more. His character is totally marginalized and is a peripheral character at best until they leave you hanging with a disappointing resolution to the Louellen Chigur story arch and try to resurrect the film by relying on a character that received little attention throughout to all of a sudden become the focus and carry the meaning for the film.
Because of the de-emphasis on Tommy Lee Jones' character viewers do not get the same connection to the events in the movie. Integrating his character more would have helped alleviate the problem where viewers are left hanging at the end of the movie.
Though this still wouldn't have been enough for me to like the movie much more. Maybe I would have cared more about what Tommy Lee Jones was babbling about at the end rather than reaching for the remote and fast forwarding through the boring ass end to a disappointing movie.
