Ebert said it was perfect. I kinda figured that the consensus on that wouldn't be unanimous. :)

But man did he give that movie high praise. I wonder why? Maybe because of what you said, it was well put together.

i saw it for the second time last night. still love it. i didn't like twbb. my take on twbb is similar to yours on no country: well made and well acted, but i didn't like it.

I've seen it three times and it has gotten better each time. I got a lot out of what I think they were trying to say, but I also read the book, so that probably enhanced the meaning a bit for me. I won't go into what I think it means here, unless somebody wants me too.

I loved There Will Be Blood. I thought it was even better than No Country, but I also liked them for a lot of the same reasons. Hope you enjoy it.

I liked 'No Country' very much though the sudden ending did leave me pondering some things. It was a very good film. I couldn't possibly say it was the best or perfect.

I'm open to enlightenment here. Somebody tell me what I'm missing about the meaning.

I mean, I gather it's about the nature of evil, about how he didn't need a "motive" (the "you don't have to do this" thing), and about the ending indicating good intentions won't stop evil or whatever.
Is that it?

It's kind of nihilistic, isn't it?
Or am I missing it?

I guess I thought it was a technically superb film, but I found the message depressing. And I don't say that as one who thinks all meditations on evil are bad or that a work of art can't or shouldn't convey some sense of total depravity. I think Fargo kind of did that.

But Fargo did it in a more meaningful context. It actually asked the question "Why?" as a way of tempering the hopelessness. And it didn't hurt that one villain got killed and the other two got arrested. I felt like No Country whispered "It's hopeless" into an empty tunnel, and the echo came back, "Yep."

Open to differing takes . . .

I definitely thought that "There Will Be Blood" was the better film in terms of the "huh-factor" at the end.

No...I think it was the better film all around.

I loved No Country and disliked TWBB, overall.

[skip the following paragraph until after seeing TWBB]

Not to focus too much on TWBB, but I thought that the sum of the film's parts fell short. I suppose I'm echoing your thoughts on No Country and Stroke's thoughts verbatim. TWBB had incredible acting, cinematography, directing, and the script had some very well-written segments. The overall story, I believe, was lame and left me in a place of indifference - not a place I want to be in after watching 2.5 hours of movie. Also, while the score was nominated, I found it putrid and contrived (unlike the very deserving score from Atonement).


No Country's meaning was very much along the lines of your comments in 5, although I wouldn't call it nihilistic.

[Spoilers for No Country alert]

Personally, I saw much meaning derived out of TLJ's character - personally, I identified with him. The last main battle of his career against Bardem was a microcosm of every retired cop's life. TLJ fought an evil he never could identify or define. An evil that was ever-present and was unable to be destroyed. He knew it well and warned Brolin's character of its power, but despite his thorough knowledge of evil, he was unable to bring it down, personally.

Despite this seemed hopelessness, I was very much rooting for TLJ's character and found satisfaction at the end of the film not in that the singular battle had not been won, but that TLJ did what he was called to do as well as he was able to do it. To that end, TLJ's character was a success. While in retirement, he pondered his life and lost battles, I don't think he considered himself a failure, overall.

From a spiritual standpoint, I think there is much to be gained, here. I can't define evil, but I know where it's been and that it's powerful. I choose to fight it and while I won't win every battle, if I "fight the good fight," I will have been a success and will hear the words "well done." Of course, for me there is additional meaning in knowing that evil will eventually be dead one day.

All this to say that I feel that the film found meaning in potraying a very real, ongoing struggle that will end only upon the return of Christ. While this ultimate meaning might be lost on someone, this film displays a struggle that all can relate to, regardless of their understanding of God.

Is the film perfect? Maybe not - but I have yet to find fault with it.

Heh - well, I put a patch out last night to help prevent the recent, um, difficulties and I think I got a bit too aggressive with comment content. Thanks for the info, Quaid. Will fix tonight. d'oh . . .

Two points of light for me in this film that helped turn it from nihilism:

1. Carla Jean's refusal to call the coin toss--she's basically saying, no, chance doesn't determine this, you do, mister. She's making Chigurrh take responsibility for his actions. He never does, but we all know at that point that, yeah, he may be a mechanical, but he's still a murderous freak and needs to be held accountable. Maybe not by the film, but by God, and by us the audience.

2. Ed Tom's (TLJ's character) dream about his dad going up ahead and lighting the fire: "I knew that he was goin' on ahead and he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold..." Light in darkness. That's what just and righteous people do: Shine like stars in a crooked and depraved generation.

Manders,

What a great analysis.

Hee, well, I can't take all the credit for it; Focus on the Family said the thing about the coin, too. :)

Oh, also, re: Javier Bardem--I defy you to imagine anyone else in that role (especially with that haircut, ha). I don't know if I can. You kind of need his physicality, his facial expressions (like the one he has while he's strangling the guard--freaky), his overall bearing to give that role the weight it needs. He's a big guy but not too big; he leaves a little flicker of humanity in there somewhere. I dunno. I think he deserved the Oscar.

I could have totally pictured Vince Vaughn in that role. He's got the size, and if you've seen him in the "Psycho" remake, he can do the "calm freaky" thing quite well. I actually thought -- and this is gonna be critical blasphemy, I know -- his Norman Bates was scarier than Anthony Perkins's. (But of course the movie over all was not the jewel Hitchcock's original is.)

Could also see Vincent D'Onofrio or Liev Schreiber or even Craig Bierko.

I didn't think Bardem did a bad job, by any stretch. He was quite good. I was just surprised at how underwhelmed I was, and I didn't think it would have struck me as worthy of an Oscar nomination.
Brolin and Jones, yes, though.

Oh, also: The actress who played Carla Jean was awesome. Where was her best supporting actress nomination?

well, i DO agree that brolin deserved a nod. during my second viewing, i don't know how he got snubbed. i'm still angry about... but the goonies really are doing pretty well for themselves. astin and brolin, at least.

BUT, i thought vaughn's norman bates was horrible. he was too giggly. perkins was nervous, but a controlling, angry paranoid. i thought vince was fidgety and laughy. didn't go for it at all.

Yeah, I wish Josh Brolin and TLJ and the actress who played Carla Jean had gotten some nods, too. I was rather bummed about that.

I can maybe see some of those guys playing Chigurh--not Vince Vaughn, I don't know if he has the right kind of gravity for it--but it would've changed it in ways I can't really put my finger on. Maybe it's the accent? I dunno.

Did some research: Carla Jean is played by Kelly MacDonald, who is a Scot (further testament to the greatness of her acting, if she can do that good of a Texas accent), and also played the actress who played Peter Pan in Finding Neverland. I knew she looked familiar, so there you have it.

Ah! She was in Gosford Park too, and she was amazing in that movie also.
---

In other news, Rendition and Michael Clayton arrived today.

Vince Vaughn in Psycho:

Well, I thought he was creepy.