Originally posted by babypook: He was caught. He did escape.
Huh? His last scene was the car crash. He left her home and then his car was smashed. He looked like he was beaten to a pulp, paid the kid for his shirt to use as a sling and then walked/left.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: bottomchef,
Originally posted by babypook: He was caught. He did escape.
Huh? His last scene was the car crash. He left her home and then his car was smashed. He looked like he was beaten to a pulp, paid the kid for his shirt to use as a sling and then walked/left.
Well, I pity any character in No Country who even had him in his momentary 'custody'.
I will say though, that I dont see Anton Chigeur as a metaphor for worsening societal violence. To me he is more like, the antagonist of the eternal champion. His energy is always there, and has been since, forever. You might catch him, but he's elusive and slips through your fingers. The TLJ's character wasnt that surprised, and had seen it all before. He was tired.
Posts: 13901 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
Unfortunately, my sense that unconsciously or consciously the Coens played on non-Latino American's fear of the brutal Mexican thug to explain the lack of any depth of his character. It was border-line racist to me.
There would of course be nothing wrong with a Mexican killer as a villain; but one with it seeming like shorthand for irrational inhuman bad guy, that is a problem for me.
I do have a problem with the Coens' use of racist stereotypical stock characters as fallbacks in their films but I don't think that label necessarily applies here.
"Notorious was nice, but it’s not in the color purple range" "Angels and Demons may get nominated for cinematography the imagery was profound" "District Nine will definitely win for best foreign film it made money and everyone loved it" ~ 8movies
Posts: 2714 | Location: nz | Registered: January 12, 2009
Dark City Directors Cut (15 extra minutes of footage)
I can't compare this with the studio release since I don't plan on watching the studio release. Of all the perfs, I liked William Hurt's subtlety the most. Richard O'Brien is creepy, pale skinned baddie, and seems to be playing a less flambouyant, more mellow and menacing version of "himself" in The Crystal Maze, this game show he used to host. Jennifer Conneley seemed to be phoning it in. Rufus Sewell (good in Tristan and Isolde) has a buttocks revealing scene to open the film. His buttocks is great, but sadly, the film goes downhill from there.
Spring Breakdown - Amy Poehler, Parker Posey, and Rachel Dratch star in a grown up version of a teen spring break comedy. They are 3 women whose lives turned out being less than they hoped. When Posey's character has to go to South Padre Island, TX to spy on her boss' daughter, the other 2 tag along and Poehler & Dratch get to live those carefree days over. Yes, it's dumb and I wouldn't suggest paying to rent it (if you use Netflix frequently enough you should be fine), but it's dumb fun. The actresses do all they can to make it work, but it never gels. Jane Lynch and Missi Pyle (especially) steal all the scenes they are in.
Charlie Bartlett - I'd wanted to see this movie for a while, ever since the trailers came out for its first release date. It was worth the wait. It's a fun little diversion, part Ferris Bueller, part Morgan Stewart's Coming Home. It had a definite 80s vibe. Anton Yelchin plays the title character, a charismatic troublemaker forced to go to public school after getting kicked out of many private schools. All he wants is to be popular with his classmates. He does this by becoming their de facto psychiatrist, even dispensing medicine. He falls for a girl (the always winning Kat Dennings) who, unbeknown to him, is the principal's daughter. Bartlett's actions run him afoul of that principal, and his pharmacy almost causes disaster. Yelchin does a good job in the title role. He doesn't have the smarmy edge of Broderick, but he's effective. Robert Downey, Jr seems a bit too low key in the role of the tormented principal with issues of his own. Hope Davis has a fun little turn as Charlie's mother.
****************************** LORELAI: You ruined my joke. RORY: Um, no, the punchline ruined your joke. (from Eight O'Clock at the Oasis) ******************************
Posts: 2448 | Location: Baltimore, MD (but originally from Alabama, southern at heart) | Registered: March 19, 2002
The Departed - I finally had time to devote to sitting down and watching this movie. I'm glad I did. The script is very good. I never saw the original Infernal Affairs, so it was a new story to me. I like how history and identity played roles in this. I loved the interplay between the cops, between the criminals, but most of all between Sullivan and Costello. The performances were great. Nicholson was pure evil, Wahlberg was a great hot head, Martin Sheen was quiet, calm, & cool. Ray Winstone lent great support, Alec Baldwin did his thing. Vera Farmiga was effective in a difficult role. DiCaprio was good, but to me, he was outshined by Damon. Damon did great at balancing his own ambitions against the needs of Costello and Madolyn. Scorsese brought a great sense of place, people, culture, and relationships to the film. He never let the intricacies of the plot overtake the film.
****************************** LORELAI: You ruined my joke. RORY: Um, no, the punchline ruined your joke. (from Eight O'Clock at the Oasis) ******************************
Posts: 2448 | Location: Baltimore, MD (but originally from Alabama, southern at heart) | Registered: March 19, 2002
Originally posted by seanflynn: Unfortunately, my sense that unconsciously or consciously the Coens played on non-Latino American's fear of the brutal Mexican thug to explain the lack of any depth of his character. It was border-line racist to me.
There would of course be nothing wrong with a Mexican killer as a villain; but one with it seeming like shorthand for irrational inhuman bad guy, that is a problem for me.
Anything by the Coen's is a "problem" for you. In this case, I'm not sure I even understand, what you are getting at. But, the "nevermind" from mysteriousrent definitely applies here.
Posts: 13901 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
That misrepresents my far more complex view on the Coens.
Not to bore people with a discussion on their work, but to correct the record, some basic points:
1) I have written on a number of occasions that I have varying feelings on their films. 2) I think Barton Fink is terrific. 3) I liked (with some reservations) Burn After Reading 4) I acknowledge that they are quite talented writers and directors 5) My problem is with the tone of their films. My favorite filmmakers for the most part are those who celebrate the complex humanity of their characters - Jean Renoir, Yasujiro Ozu, Robert Bresson, Frank Borzage to cite a small number of favorites. Those who go to the other extreme, which I what I see in the Coens, do not impress me as much.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
Originally posted by seanflynn: Unfortunately, my sense that unconsciously or consciously the Coens played on non-Latino American's fear of the brutal Mexican thug to explain the lack of any depth of his character. It was border-line racist to me.
There would of course be nothing wrong with a Mexican killer as a villain; but one with it seeming like shorthand for irrational inhuman bad guy, that is a problem for me.
"No Country for Old Men" is about as close an adaptation of a book to film as I have ever seen. In fact most of the dialogue and almost all of the scenes are taken straight from the book. It is the rare book, perhaps the only book, that though I thought it terrific if you saw the movie I see no strong reason for you to read the book. Anton Chighur is almost exactly as he appears on the page. You can blame the Coens for their choice in material but I do not think Javier Bardem's performance can be viewed as racist as he is an almost perfect recreation of the character from the book.
Posts: 27155 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Originally posted by pacinofan: [QUOTE]Originally posted by seanflynn: Unfortunately, my sense that unconsciously or consciously the Coens played on non-Latino American's fear of the brutal Mexican thug to explain the lack of any depth of his character. It was border-line racist to me.
There would of course be nothing wrong with a Mexican killer as a villain; but one with it seeming like shorthand for irrational inhuman bad guy, that is a problem for me.
"No Country for Old Men" is about as close an adaptation of a book to film as I have ever seen. In fact most of the dialogue and almost all of the scenes are taken straight from the book. It is the rare book, perhaps the only book, that though I thought it terrific if you saw the movie I see no strong reason for you to read the book. If you saw the film first you will likely just be recreating scenes from the film in your head as you read. I would not even be surprised if you read the book at triple speed or skipped sections. It is that close.
Anton Chighur is almost exactly as he appears on the page. You can blame the Coens for their choice in material but I do not think Javier Bardem's performance can be viewed as racist as he is an almost perfect recreation of the character from the book.
Posts: 27155 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
I haven't read the book, but I respectfully don't think that has anything to do with the movie. The Coens have a history of using stereotypical shorthand to make the audience make easy decisions on what attitude to take about them. You have me at an advantage on how the novel portrays him, but again, the film stands on its own, with its own devices, shorthand, attitude and implications.
I certainly don't think No Country is racist. But I do think in this case, as they often do, they play on stereotypes to avoid more complex (and human) characters.
If the novel does the same thing, then I'd react the same way to it.
(One exception to the normal characterizations in their films for me was Tommy Lee Jones' performance in NC, which I thought had great depth and ambiguity - even more impressive after the string of lawmen he has played of later. Clearly the Coens should be given some credit for that, and I've mentioned this explaining my more ambivalent feeling toward this film than much of their work).
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
I also agree that the Coen Bros.' film isn't racist. I suspect Javier Bardem was chosen to play Anton Chigurh on the basis of his talent and not on his ability to pass as a Mexican. At any rate, if I recall correctly, Chigurh's nationality is not identified in the book or the movie. Chigurh's name is symbolic, evoking the blood-sucking parasite, and not readily identifiable with any nationality or race.
Originally posted by Pucifer: I also agree that the Coen Bros.' film isn't racist. I suspect Javier Bardem was chosen to play Anton Chigurh on the basis of his talent and not on his ability to pass as a Mexican. At any rate, if I recall correctly, Chigurh's nationality is not identified in the book or the movie. Chigurh's name is symbolic, evoking the blood-sucking parasite, and not readily identifiable with any nationality or race.
I also do not recall that ever being mentioned in the book or the film... though the book may mention him being dark skinned. Because Chigur is no kind of Mexican name this Mexican has ever heard I actually thought he was meant to be Native American in the film if any kind of ethnicity was being established at all.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,
Posts: 27155 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
I was not expecting this film to be as great as it is. Funny, smart, great performances from Krasinski, Rudolph, and Janney. The film took a bit of a somber tone during the last 1/3, but I really hope the movie is remembered during awards season (especially the screenplay).
Posts: 3790 | Location: Earth | Registered: April 11, 2005
I'm an agnostic on this film (not having seen it), but aimed as it is at younger (way younger than Academy member) audiences and its mixed to negative reviews (particularly scathing from the small number of critics the members follow), I doubt they will even watch the screener, let alone vote for it.
Commercially it is doing surprising well, and clearly has started to catch on with younger educated audiences. But that will have no impact on older voters.
L'iceberg 2005, Dominique Abel & Fiona Gordon Grade: C+
"Notorious was nice, but it’s not in the color purple range" "Angels and Demons may get nominated for cinematography the imagery was profound" "District Nine will definitely win for best foreign film it made money and everyone loved it" ~ 8movies
Posts: 2714 | Location: nz | Registered: January 12, 2009
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Not a successful film by any means but one that really deserves to be seen, discussed and appreciated for its themes and directorial credit.
"Notorious was nice, but it’s not in the color purple range" "Angels and Demons may get nominated for cinematography the imagery was profound" "District Nine will definitely win for best foreign film it made money and everyone loved it" ~ 8movies
Posts: 2714 | Location: nz | Registered: January 12, 2009
Oh the things you will watch for free on Netflix. Not a complete waste of 90 minutes, but pretty close. The first act is interesting, but completely overwhelmed by Branagh's fetishization of the house and it's surveillance equipment and other remote controls. Bizarre. The second act sinks because of Jude Law's laughable acting and "disguise."
The worst is the third act, that disintegrates into a pretty nasty homophobic exercise. Despite Caine still being one of the best in the business, all involved should be embarrassed by their involvement with this film.
