• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

So.. Confused Matthew takes on No Country Old Men

The guy who did the 2001 thing, right? Not even worth the time to click the link. In the time he dragged out the one segment of the 2001 review I watched, I could have read several imformed criticisms by people who know what they are talking about. I could pick people at random and get insights at at least the level he's working on.

--Justin
 
The guy should get a proper microphone. And his reviews would be better if he weren't so confused. I'd rather read Witty Matthew's review.
 
Never saw the movie, but even if I did, I wouldn't want to listen to CM's take on it.

I could get a better review of any movie by going to a mental hospital and asking the inmates to ramble on about it.
 
I got to 4:53, but I wanted to kill the reviewer at 0:35. To borrow his own terminology: what a douche bag.
 
Yeah, I lost it with him at the beginning of his Golden Compass review, when he called Philip Pullman a hypocrite for denouncing the Narnia series as Christian propaganda, and then writing atheistic (really pantheistic) propaganda of his own. Yet anyone who'd read any of his interviews would know that Pullman doesn't oppose moralizing stories tout court, he opposes moralizing stories he considers immoral. Ergo, call him wrong if you like, but Confused Matthew's charge of hypocrisy is laughable.

And I'm to spend time on this numbnut's interpretation of No Country? Please. Confused Matthew couldn't even hold down the job of mowing Mr. Plinkett's lawn. :rommie:
 
well I'm not Matthew. Nor do I care for his style or approach. and I disagreed with him on 2001. Whatever. I do think he brings up some interesting points about this film, despite his approach. Why is No Country for Old Men so praised? If Spielberg delivered exactly the same film, save for the fact that it was his name attached to credits and not the Coens, I'm sure it would have been panned. I think that's curious.

A,d yes, Plinkett is my favorite online reviewer.
 
Why is No Country for Old Men so praised? If Spielberg delivered exactly the same film, save for the fact that it was his name attached to credits and not the Coens, I'm sure it would have been panned. I think that's curious.

I don't think much of that premise. Spielberg would not deliver exactly the same film; comparing his body of work to the Coens' I think it's safe to say that the tone and atmosphere would be quite different. A slightly eccentric outlook, dark sense of humor and low-key, matter-of-fact suspense-building are things the Coens do well and a lot of people seem to like for certain types of movies. "No Country" was, apparently, a story where their approach worked well for many viewers.

If the Coens had made E.T. it probably would have been panned. I don't see the point of the comparisons.

--Justin
 
Mick Lasalle, San Francisco Chronicle:
Other movies remain on the outside, even good ones. "No Country for Old Men" burrows underneath and makes a home in the pit of your stomach. What it is and what it says elude easy definition. The movie is a meditation on American violence and the nature of evil, but it's bigger than that. Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy and written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, "No Country" feels positively Greek in its magnitude, a lament about fate, age, time and life.

...

That the movie is set in 1980 is perfect. A feeling of pessimism pervaded, of living in a culture in decline, in which everything, including money, was rapidly losing value and crime was rampant. It seems as if things would never get better and would certainly get worse...

...

The movie suggests something frightening: not that the sheriff is off balance because he's getting old but that his age is causing him to see things as they are. In "No Country," the dark revelation of old age is that of the existence of absolute evil and of the essential pointlessness and tragedy of life on earth.


Ebert:
It involves elements of the thriller and the chase but is essentially a character study, an examination of how its people meet and deal with a man so bad, cruel and unfeeling that there is simply no comprehending him. Chigurh is so evil, he is almost funny sometimes. "He has his principles," says the bounty hunter, who has knowledge of him.

Consider another scene in which the dialogue is as good as any you will hear this year. Chigurh enters a rundown gas station in the middle of wilderness and begins to play a word game with the old man (Gene Jones) behind the cash register, who becomes very nervous. It is clear they are talking about whether Chigurh will kill him. Chigurh has by no means made up his mind. Without explaining why, he asks the man to call the flip of a coin. Listen to what they say, how they say it, how they imply the stakes. Listen to their timing. You want to applaud the writing, which comes from the Coen brothers, out of McCarthy.


This movie is a masterful evocation of time, place, character, moral choices, immoral certainties, human nature and fate. It is also, in the photography by Roger Deakins, the editing by the Coens and the music by Carter Burwell, startlingly beautiful, stark and lonely.
One doesn't need to have the same nihilistic take on life to love this movie - I certainly don't, but I do. One simply needs to be willing to appreciate virtuoso storytelling, filmmaking and intellectual poetry on its own terms.

Answer your question? :p
 
By the way, Chase, the youtube guy who responded to Confused Matthew's 2001 A Space Odyssey review, to whom Matthew was responding ton his video response with a new series of videos, has apparently passed away. Very humbling
 
Why is No Country for Old Men so praised? If Spielberg delivered exactly the same film, save for the fact that it was his name attached to credits and not the Coens, I'm sure it would have been panned. I think that's curious.

I don't think much of that premise. Spielberg would not deliver exactly the same film; comparing his body of work to the Coens' I think it's safe to say that the tone and atmosphere would be quite different. A slightly eccentric outlook, dark sense of humor and low-key, matter-of-fact suspense-building are things the Coens do well and a lot of people seem to like for certain types of movies. "No Country" was, apparently, a story where their approach worked well for many viewers.

If the Coens had made E.T. it probably would have been panned. I don't see the point of the comparisons.

--Justin

First it's not a bad movie. I just don't think it deserves the praise it gets. My point was that if Spielberg (or any other director working today) did deliver the same film (I wasn't talking about whether they would) it would be panned.
 
First it's not a bad movie. I just don't think it deserves the praise it gets. My point was that if Spielberg (or any other director working today) did deliver the same film (I wasn't talking about whether they would) it would be panned.
I think I'm getting the point you're trying to make, even though I disagree, but that's just a terrible example. No matter what you think about No Country For Old Men, if Steven Spielberg were able to make a movie so wildly out of his comfort zone and usual sensibilities than No Country For Old Men, so completely different from anything he's done before, he would be showered with praise.
 
CM's angry ranting in the reviews, which I guess is supposed to be funny, gets really annoying when he does the yelling thing.

Plus, he lost a lot of credibility with me with his stances that Star Wars Episode III wasn't an improvement over the previous prequels, AND that NEMESIS, was better than Trek movies like First Contact or Star Trek XI.

Uhhhh... right.


However, I think he was spot on with 2001. He was just basically saying that it's abstract art masquerading as a movie, and that it is often just slow and tedious.


If someone with no idea of the reputation 2001 had watched that movie randomly, I think the odds are pretty good they'd turn it off before the end of the first sequence.
 
Stopped shortly after he started talking about Tommy Lee's voiceover. A couple of minutes of inane and vulgar ranting bereft of actual criticism does not augur well for the rest of the review.
I'm not a huge fan of the Coens. However, I consider No Country For Old Men to be a bona fide classic, a study in economy of storytelling.
 
If someone with no idea of the reputation 2001 had watched that movie randomly, I think the odds are pretty good they'd turn it off before the end of the first sequence.
Absolutely right. Most people watch movies to be entertained, and they would probably miss the point of 2001 quite spectacularly.
 
a study in economy of storytelling.

I'm not disagreeing with you (the verdict from me about this film is still out) but is it economical to have long scenes where Chirgurh is wandering Llewellean's empty house, then proceeding to ask the trailer lady where he is, and then following that with a scene where Tommy Lee Jones also goes to the house, all the while w\there is no new information being learned.
 
If someone with no idea of the reputation 2001 had watched that movie randomly, I think the odds are pretty good they'd turn it off before the end of the first sequence.
Absolutely right. Most people watch movies to be entertained, and they would probably miss the point of 2001 quite spectacularly.


OK, that's great! I love that you wrote that with no trace of irony.

"most people watch films to be entertained, but 2001 is above that kind of nonsense!"


this is the stuff folks resort to when defending 2001. "sure it's boring, slow, and tedious, but it's supposed to make you think!"


here's a thought experiment:

a famous chef spends a long period of time making a very elaborate dish, that's visually appealing and daring in its innovative use of ingredients.


One problem: the food is LOUSY. Would the chef then say "yes, the dish turned out to suck, but if you dwell on that, you miss the point! It's the artistry of the dish that's important!"
 
this is the stuff folks resort to when defending 2001. "sure it's boring, slow, and tedious, but it's supposed to make you think!"
It's not supposed to make you think. It's art, it's not supposed to do anything.

If you're in the right frame of mind, though, it can show you things that you've never seen before, evoke deep and powerful emotions, resonate with you long after you've seen it and make your life a little brighter and more interesting. But no, 2001 is not a very entertaining movie, there are no thrills, no belly laughs and no instant gratification for the audience.

Surely there is a place for all kinds of films, though, right? And I'm sure you'd agree that there are movies that can't be adequately apprehended by simply using the boring/cool axis. Sometimes things are a little more complicated than that, and a little more rewarding.

a famous chef spends a long period of time making a very elaborate dish, that's visually appealing and daring in its innovative use of ingredients.

One problem: the food is LOUSY. Would the chef then say "yes, the dish turned out to suck, but if you dwell on that, you miss the point! It's the artistry of the dish that's important!"
That's a poor analogy. Cuisine is not art, it has nothing to say about the human condition and cannot help us to see life and our place in the universe a little more clearly. If it doesn't taste good it doesn't taste good.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top