Posted on November 26, 2007, in Movies, Reviews and tagged By Greg Call. Bookmark the permalink. 26 Comments.
A BCC Blog
Further Reading-
Kulturbloggers
Posted on November 26, 2007, in Movies, Reviews and tagged By Greg Call. Bookmark the permalink. 26 Comments.
Further Reading
Steve Evans
RJH
Scott B.
John C.
Susan M
Aaron Brown
ninemoons
John Harrison
kulturblogadmin
Kyle M
Brad
KulturBlogGuest
MCQ
Wm
Rebecca
Ivan
Geoff J
btdgreg
Clark Goble
Aaron R.
Tim J
Ben
Marcus
Brad Williams
gibsonbn
Yes, for the first two thirds. The final third, well, it was very unfulfilling. I don’t know the novel, but the movie lost its way.
Now it’s killing me not to have seen it.
D., given the respect I have for your taste in film, I’m happy that you even 2/3 agree with me. But for me, the final third is exactly where it went from great movie to “better than Fargo” territory. Unfulfilling? Well, yes, I suppose.
LOL, Greg. The first thing that came to my mind after seeing it was, “Pretty good. Not as good as Fargo, but not bad.”
I agree with Greg and am even mad that he beat me to the punch in writing a review.
OLD MEN makes FARGO look like a cartoon.
And although the ending pisses people off, it is truly what makes the film brilliant and elevates it from a simple thriller to a film that has something to say.
What does it say, Brian? That the world is gone to hell?
My, my…
Fargo was too violent for me, by a lot. I mean, the violence ruined the humor of it. I was uncomfortable the entire movie (which is perhaps the point).
This movie (just saw it this week) is meatier, and the violence, while no less gruesome, is richer and more pointed.
But ultimately, once again, I found myself wondering the “point” of the entire exercise.
If the point is seriously good storytelling without dialogue, then I think the movie is very good.
If the point is … even the very skilled can’t control their destiny, then I think I’ve seen this pointed out in better movies (The Searchers comes to mind).
They need to work on their dialogue (but apparently, this is their first literary adaptation, so perhaps some of it comes from the book).
All I remember about Fargo is I liked it and a pregnant woman was the smart cop. This sort of memory problem gets me into trouble when I suggest movies or books to people.
The ending is sublime. But does it justify what is essentially just another cat-and-mouse tale for the bulk of the film?
I do give the film props for killing two of its main characters entirely off-screen.
This review doesn’t tell me much because I think “Fargo” was overrated. How does it compare to “Miller’s Crossing”?
I agree, better than Fargo. I loved this movie from beginning to end, and a fantastic ending it was. Sorry D.
BTD Greg, it does tell you that for someone who thought Fargo is the Coen’s best, this is better. Ergo, I thought it was better than Miller’s Crossing. Will you? You’ll have to let us know.
I think it is as good as MILLER’S CROSSING, which in my mind is tied with RAISING ARIZONA for the Coens’ best.
Like BTD Greg, I’ve always felt FARGO was overrated.
Yes, it does say the world has gone to hell, but a lot more than that if you ask me. I think the meaning of the film lies in asking why it has gone to hell.
NCFOM actually becomes progressively less violent as it goes on, which is part of its brilliance, it slowly leaves behind the violence one might expect from its genre trappings and builds on its themes.
It’s a great example of how great films must entertain first and enlighten later.
And I totally disagree that the Coens need to work on their dialogue. That’s blasphemy to their fans. Their dialogue is amazing and always has been. They capture regional dialects better than anybody.
Blasphemy? Can a movie watcher be blasphemous?
I’ve enjoyed all the Coen brothers’ movies, to a degree. I do like Raising Arizona, and I like Blood Simple.
Miller’s Crossing — too weird. Fargo — too violent (I shudder just thinking of the people in that overturned car).
They are great technicians. They need better writers.
I don’t know if this one is better than Fargo. But I think it’s better than Cronenberg’s “History of Violence,” from last year, which made a similar point but without wit.
D, it sounded like you just said that the Coens need better writers. Am I reading that correctly? Because if that’s what you said then I’d have to say that you couldn’t be more wrong. Their writing is genius.
Actually, I don’t think NCFOM is another movie about the world going to hell. The key is in Bell’s conversation with his uncle in the wheelchair – a conversation, like Marge’s with Mike Yanagita in Fargo, that seems out of place with the rest of the movie.
However, both conversations are pivotal in understanding the world these characters live in. We learn from the uncle that the world has always been hell. The difference is in Bell himself.
I think Barton Fink’s the best.
“BTD Greg, it does tell you that for someone who thought Fargo is the Coen’s best, this is better. Ergo, I thought it was better than Miller’s Crossing.”
That’s what I figured you were getting at. I just thought I’d be obtuse.
I think Matt B is starting to get at it. The scene is key exactly for why he states–it suggests what bothers Bell has always been around, or in other words, the world has always been going to hell.
What is also profound about it, in my book anyway, is that Bell goes to visit a paralyzed man immediately after being paralyzed himself, after a moment of great inaction–which ultimately is what defines Bell.
Inaction versus action is a key theme throughout the story. Nothing pisses Bardem’s character off more than inaction, or un-choice, refusal to “call it” is deadly. Although Chigurh is as paralyzed as Bell in the scene where they nearly meet, he seems to learn a lesson re: swift action–the case in point is his behavior after he gets in the car accident. Does Bell learn a similar lesson?
It’s been years since I last saw the Searchers, but wasn’t one of the bigger themes that the girl didn’t want to be rescued (she had become part of the tribe) and John Wayne didn’t particularly care? (A theme that Scorsese played up in Taxi Driver) Now my memory is pretty foggy – but doesn’t Wayne learn a bit of tolerance by the end out of what was pretty extreme xenophobia? (A kind of daring theme given the 1950′s – and modern audiences will find the racism in the film disturbing even though it was mainstream in the 50′s)
I can’t speak to No Country since I haven’t seen it yet although am excited to. Anything to get The LadyKillers out of my mind. (The end to Tom Hank’s box office winning streak and a surprising turkey by the Coens)
As for best Coen movies, didn’t we have a thread on that?
My favorite is Barton Fink. And I really love Oh Brother Where Art Thou. Fargo is great though, but then so are many of their films.
Miller’s Crossing too weird? It seems the most mainstream and “normal” of any of their movies.
“Miller’s Crossing too weird? It seems the most mainstream and “normal†of any of their movies.”
Yeah, I thought this comment was strange too. It’s pretty much a straight noir. I guess if you think noir is weird, then maybe it’s weird.
Two of my favorite movies are Buffy, The Vampire Slayer (not the TV show) and uh, the other one, with Wayne.
I personally think the Coens write some of the best dialogue ever to appear in movies, so the thought of them “getting” better writers strikes me as comic.
Having said that, this is an adaptation, and as such the story and dialogue pretty much come straight from the book. I saw a Charlie Rose interview and they said that aside from one minor addition, their role in adapting the book consisted pretty much of compressing what’s in the book in order to make it movie-length. In other words, if you don’t like the writing here, take it up with Cormac McCarthy, not the Coens.
I loved this movie, by the way. The ending really upset the audience who saw it with me. There were audible gasps and exclamations of “Huh?” “What?” As I was walking out, I heard someone say “I guess that was an art film” to his buddy in a sarcastic voice.
Since it follows genre conventions, I guess I can understand people being upset that you don’t ever really find out what happens to the money. However, if you were paying attention to the movie after what would’ve been the “climax” if this were a traditional heist movie (I don’t want to say too plainly in case folks haven’t seen the movie, but it should be obvious if you have seen it) and you still think the fate of the money is important to the story they’re telling, I’m not sure what to say.
This book was made to be made into a movie by the Coen’s. Of course its their best work to date. Cormac McCarthy’s most accessible and some may say simplest, book to date with the Coen’s? Impossible to fail.
I read the book, in anticipation of the movie. As a result, I now have no desire to see the movie, because it is so much like the book. This shouldn’t be taken to mean that I didn’t like the book. Like doesn’t really apply. It was powerful, moving, chilling, and deeply, deeply frightening. I left the book as ashamed, confused, and distanced from the “modern” world as Sheriff Bell himself. I just don’t have a great desire to relive what I went through at the end of the novel.
Fargo made evil banal. Old Men makes it inevitable. While both may be true, Fargo’s message is a lot easier to swallow.
For any sports fans, I’ll quote Bill Simmons from ESPN.
I totally agree. Still very much enjoyed the movie though. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead beats it out for the best movie I’ve seen this year though.
I just have to say again that Miller’s Crossing is the absolute best. Not just the best Cohen Bros, the best movie period. If you don’t like it, either you don’t like film noir (which is possible, but should never be admitted), or you just have not seen it enough times. The story and the dialogue are so brilliant and so dense that you can’t get it the first time.
Combine that with the music, the symbolism of the hat, the costumes, the cinematography and the acting (principally by Gabriel Byrne, Albert Finney and John Turturro, but everyone in this movie is great, right down to the guy who breaks legs for the bookie–watch for him, he’s amazing) and you just have an absolute freaking masterpiece.
Watch it again when you have some time and no distractions (get a babysitter and turn off the phone). And don’t watch it on a widescreen tv unless you have the widescreen version, it ruins everything.
BTW, there’s a newer movie that reminds me of Miller’s Crossing that I also loved: Brick. It’s very cool too.
This movie is the best that I watched recently. The plot is very original and intriguing. I was surprised by the fact that Tommy Lee Jones did nothing during whole movie, he was just appearing here and there, but he didn’t affected development of story at all.