Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Oscar wrap-up; Coen brothers drink Paul Thomas Anderson's milkshake. They DRINK IT UP   (foxnews.com) divider line 148
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2911 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Feb 2008 at 6:41 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-25 06:48:57 AM  
Drainage! Drainage, PTA you boy!!
 
2008-02-25 06:49:15 AM  
That was a slow, plodding movie. And I loved Fargo.

/sigh
 
2008-02-25 07:04:41 AM  
The_Time_Master: That was a slow, plodding movie. And I loved Fargo.

/sigh


There Will Be Blood is the definition of a slow, plodding movie... except incredibly pretentious.

/am watching it right now, in the last ten minutes. Kubrick would have loved the amount of stuff ripped off his best - and unpretentious - movies.
 
2008-02-25 07:25:49 AM  
Props to Diablo Cody. The first non-actress Oscar winner that I would bang silly.
 
2008-02-25 07:31:43 AM  
Didn't see any of the Best Picture nominees, but honestly, Juno was the only one I actually wanted to see. All the others came across as "Oh shiat, I need another Oscar!"-type films.
 
2008-02-25 07:32:50 AM  
There Will Be Blood is the definition of a slow, plodding movie... except incredibly pretentious.

I believe that pretentious is PTA's trademark.
 
2008-02-25 07:32:58 AM  
img513.imageshack.us

/made it last night
 
2008-02-25 07:34:10 AM  
TakinThePiss: There Will Be Blood is the definition of a slow, plodding movie... except incredibly pretentious.

I believe that pretentious is PTA's trademark.


Boogie Nights was a little too slow and plodding for ya, eh?
 
2008-02-25 07:34:59 AM  
elvindeath
Props to Diablo Cody. The first non-actress Oscar winner that I would bang silly.

You have a chance, I think she just split from her husband.
 
2008-02-25 07:36:22 AM  
peachpicker: Boogie Nights was a little too slow and plodding for ya, eh?

I'm mostly referring to that megaturd Magnolia. Boogie Nights was genius, actually.
 
2008-02-25 07:45:55 AM  
TakinThePiss: peachpicker: Boogie Nights was a little too slow and plodding for ya, eh?

I'm mostly referring to that megaturd Magnolia. Boogie Nights was genius, actually.


I liked them both. In fact, I've loved everything he's done up until TWBB.

That, I hated.

/giant disappointment for me
 
2008-02-25 07:48:44 AM  
I've yet to see Boogie Nights, but if Punch Drunk Love* and Magnolia are any indication, I have absolutely no desire to see There Will Be Blood.


*seriously, how does this manage to be the worst Adam Sandler film ever? The bar is already set pretty low...
 
2008-02-25 07:54:13 AM  
FeedTheCollapse: I've yet to see Boogie Nights...

Thats the only film of his worth merit, IMO...
 
2008-02-25 07:59:30 AM  
Personally I preferred There Will Be Blood over No Country for Old Men. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both, but I actually thought No Country was the slower of the two.
 
2008-02-25 08:06:23 AM  
FeedTheCollapse: I've yet to see Boogie Nights, but if Punch Drunk Love* and Magnolia are any indication, I have absolutely no desire to see There Will Be Blood.


*seriously, how does this manage to be the worst Adam Sandler film ever? The bar is already set pretty low...



Happy Gilmore - pretty much the only film I couldn't watch all the way through because I wanted so much to kick that farking coont's face in every time he appeared. So farking annoying. Special skills: acting like a 'tard? Even Jackass can be funny at times.

Will never watch another Adam Sandler movie again. Ever. Fact.

And I'm a fan of PTA too, but fark Punch Drunk Love and whatever films Sandler is in.
 
2008-02-25 08:14:58 AM  
That milkshake thing is repetitive and obnoxious even for a fark cliche.
 
2008-02-25 08:22:48 AM  
I'm surprised there were that many people that didn't like 'There will Be Blood." It was slow and kind of somber, but who needs action when you have Daniel Day Lewis playing such a hauntingly ruthless character for 2 hours?

Still haven't seen "No Country for Old Men", or Juno...looking forward to it. I did see that one about the singer chick (best actress) and I can say it didn't surprise me.

/I am a false profit...God is a superstition.
 
2008-02-25 08:22:57 AM  
Keep complaining about it Mugato. That will get people to stop for sure.
Drainage!
 
2008-02-25 08:24:31 AM  
for good or for awesome: Keep complaining about it Mugato. That will get people to stop for sure.
Drainage!


I have no illusions of it stopping, I was just making an observation.
 
2008-02-25 08:26:46 AM  
/I am a false profitprophet...God is a superstition.


FTFY
 
2008-02-25 08:31:27 AM  
JubeiKibagami: /I am a false profitprophet...God is a superstition.


FTFY



You stand me corrected. Spelle'n wuz never mi theng.
 
2008-02-25 08:32:50 AM  
Mugato: That milkshake thing is repetitive and obnoxious even for a fark cliche.

img529.imageshack.us
 
2008-02-25 08:37:57 AM  
All the others came across as "Oh shiat, I need another Oscar!"-type films.

This, you fail. Juno was the one movie that shouldn't have been nominated. But don't worry there lot's more shiat like 40 yr virgin, etc coming out this year too.

NCFOM is better film than TWBB. Loved them both, but shot for shot NCFOM tells it's story perfectly, no wasted dialogue or images, everything adds to the experience...
 
2008-02-25 08:39:48 AM  
Mugato: for good or for awesome: Keep complaining about it Mugato. That will get people to stop for sure.
Drainage!

I have no illusions of it stopping, I was just making an observation.


Your just upset because your milkshake doesn't bring all the boys to the yard.
 
2008-02-25 08:49:04 AM  
elvindeath: Props to Diablo Cody. The first non-actress Oscar winner that I would bang silly.

Sofia Coppola won an oscar for Lost in Translation.
She's very, very hot.
 
2008-02-25 08:49:20 AM  
nuronic: Juno was the one movie that shouldn't have been nominated. But don't worry there lot's more shiat like 40 yr virgin, etc coming out this year too.

Wow. I can only guess that you haven't seen Juno if you are comparing it to "shiat like 40 yr virgin".
 
2008-02-25 09:06:36 AM  
A PT Anderson film pretentious? That's unpossible!

/All thru Boogie nights I kept imagining Dr Hibbert watching it, saying "Pornographers are human too - how delightfully tolerant - I wonder if anyone else can tolerate that..."
//Hated Boogie Nights' faux-Goodfellas schtick so much that I have avoided subsequent films by Anderson
///Coens are geniuses. Duh.
 
2008-02-25 09:15:15 AM  
actually Pt Andersons other movies are pretty annoying and bad. His camera work is all over the place and the subject matter is tedious and overdone.

There will be blood though is unique and interesting and a great way to mythologize America in very different terms, as well as tell a dark harrowing horror tale. The camera isnt intrusive and the film works.

No country for old men is just about perfect filmmaking. Everything from cain and able in the film to god as a murderer. Or maybe just a ghost or just man. Lots in that movie beyond just a "crime epic" as Foxnews calls it. Ok friendo?
 
2008-02-25 09:20:35 AM  
I didn't see Atonement or Michael Clayton.

But No Country for Old Men is the only one of the other three that I want to see again and again and again, just to admire it and be impressed with what it accomplished as a film. I think that's the definition of a great movie.
 
2008-02-25 09:26:31 AM  
The Oscars is great at rewarding the right people for the wrong movies.
 
2008-02-25 09:29:05 AM  
Why all the TWBB hate?

I thought it was incredible.
 
2008-02-25 09:31:56 AM  
smurfco: Why all the TWBB hate?

I thought it was incredible.


most great films are thought little of till 30-40 years later.
 
2008-02-25 09:35:11 AM  
I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD! I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD! I'VE ABANDONED MY BOY!

Waaaay over the top, but you couldn't look away from Daniel Day Lewis, dude was chewing scenery like a berserk combine.

Haven't seen No Country, yet, loved the book.
 
2008-02-25 09:37:08 AM  
Clonod: I didn't see Atonement or Michael Clayton.

But No Country for Old Men is the only one of the other three that I want to see again and again and again, just to admire it and be impressed with what it accomplished as a film.


Saw No Country on the weekend. Now, I'm a fairly intellgent guy in some areas (more left brain stuff like math and science), but, I could find next to no redeeming qualites in this movie with the exception of the performance of the crazy killer dude.

Maybe I'm missing something...
 
2008-02-25 09:43:15 AM  
smurfco: Why all the TWBB hate?

I thought it was incredible.


It failed the watch test for me. I enjoyed it, but it was tad slow. Daniel Day Lewis carried the movie, but boy, did he carry it. One of the best screen performances I've ever seen.
 
2008-02-25 09:43:40 AM  
If you haven't seen No Country For Old Men, I'll save you the ticket/rental price.

A guy shooting at food finds drugs, dead guys, and a shiatload of money. The guys who provided the drugs and/or money come back for it and shoot at the first guy. Intermittently, we see scenes of another guy asking retarded people retarded questions and killing them with an air gun. The rest of the movie consists of the Sheriff deliberately not investigating (but for no good reason, apparently, as there was none given.) and the other two guys alternately sitting in hotel rooms not saying anything or walking through the desert not saying anything. The killer walks away from a car accident, the first guy gets killed (off screen) and the Sheriff tells his wife about a dream he had. End of movie.

I really felt like this was a case of "The Emperors New Clothes" i.e.: "It didn't make sense... it must be genius!" When in reality, it doen't make sense because it's no a coherent plot. Movies have a beginning, a middle, and an end. They don't have to happen in that order, but they do have to happen. Otherwise, you can't call it a movie. At best, it's a collage. Great acting, great cinemetography, great dialogue... but taken as a whole... it doesn't work.
 
2008-02-25 09:52:50 AM  
I understand that movies need a certain suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience, and I'm willing to give the Coen brothers more than their fair share. But the idea of a psychopathic killer with a unusual haircut, heavy accent, and bad-ass attitude limping around killing people (including cops) with odd methods and blowing stuff up with complete impunity just boggles my mind. Wouldn't he want to be a little more inconspicuous? Isn't someone more dangerous when they don't have a huge flashing neon sign around their neck advertising their dangerousness?

And Juno. I haven't seen it, so stop me if I get it wrong: Smart-alecky teenage girl who furiously spits out lines of painfully contrived satire (obviously pounded-out on some twenty-something's ibook) lives in a world of ineffectual neurotic adults. Despite her youth she always manages to be the most grounded person in the room. Then finally, near the end of the third reel, she has a deep emotional awakening that makes her re-evaluate the world (this scene will probably be easy to spot, look for the tears). Am I close?
 
2008-02-25 09:57:59 AM  
herratik: I really felt like this was a case of "The Emperors New Clothes" i.e.: "It didn't make sense... it must be genius!" When in reality, it doen't make sense because it's no a coherent plot. Movies have a beginning, a middle, and an end. They don't have to happen in that order, but they do have to happen. Otherwise, you can't call it a movie. At best, it's a collage. Great acting, great cinemetography, great dialogue... but taken as a whole... it doesn't work.

The film made perfect sense, and the sheriff's speech at the end explains perfectly why. Yes, most movies have a conventional three-act structure, and No Country certainly follows that, but it's the third act that gives people the most problems because it does not follow conventional Hollywood film structure. The film (and the book) is a rumination on good and evil, and the pervasiveness of evil in society. I'm not sure why you couldn't find a coherent plot, as the plot was extremely straightforward.
 
2008-02-25 10:07:48 AM  
Yay for Falling Slowly. The performance was great, and was a nice contrast to the big, typical production numbers from the other songs. I love it when the winners are truly thrilled to win, as Glen and Marketa were. If you haven't seen this movie, check it out.
 
2008-02-25 10:08:41 AM  
Nabb1: herratik: I really felt like this was a case of "The Emperors New Clothes" i.e.: "It didn't make sense... it must be genius!" When in reality, it doen't make sense because it's no a coherent plot. Movies have a beginning, a middle, and an end. They don't have to happen in that order, but they do have to happen. Otherwise, you can't call it a movie. At best, it's a collage. Great acting, great cinemetography, great dialogue... but taken as a whole... it doesn't work.

The film made perfect sense, and the sheriff's speech at the end explains perfectly why. Yes, most movies have a conventional three-act structure, and No Country certainly follows that, but it's the third act that gives people the most problems because it does not follow conventional Hollywood film structure. The film (and the book) is a rumination on good and evil, and the pervasiveness of evil in society. I'm not sure why you couldn't find a coherent plot, as the plot was extremely straightforward.


Yes exactly. There were deeper things going on in the movie besides the story. And it wasnt confusing.
 
2008-02-25 10:10:43 AM  
And Juno. I haven't seen it, so stop me if I get it wrong: Smart-alecky teenage girl who furiously spits out lines of painfully contrived satire (obviously pounded-out on some twenty-something's ibook) lives in a world of ineffectual neurotic adults. Despite her youth she always manages to be the most grounded person in the room. Then finally, near the end of the third reel, she has a deep emotional awakening that makes her re-evaluate the world (this scene will probably be easy to spot, look for the tears). Am I close?

Both of her parents were well grounded, effective people with no obvious mental illnesses. One of the possible adoptive parents was a perfectionist but otherwise fine and the other was going through a mid-life crisis and turned out to be a bit of a prick. 3 out of 4 ain't bad, probably represents the average mix of people pretty well.

She did have the "re-evaluate the world" moment, but, hey, the movie would have been a bit pointless without a little introspection. There were tears.
 
2008-02-25 10:13:11 AM  
Big Jimmy Oswald: I understand that movies need a certain suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience, and I'm willing to give the Coen brothers more than their fair share. But the idea of a psychopathic killer with a unusual haircut, heavy accent, and bad-ass attitude limping around killing people (including cops) with odd methods and blowing stuff up with complete impunity just boggles my mind. Wouldn't he want to be a little more inconspicuous? Isn't someone more dangerous when they don't have a huge flashing neon sign around their neck advertising their dangerousness?


A certain suspension of disbelief? Its a movie. Hes like a ghost. I mean why have that in the script. What is that saying? What are they getting across in that sense?
 
2008-02-25 10:17:51 AM  
Nabb1: herratik: I really felt like this was a case of "The Emperors New Clothes" i.e.: "It didn't make sense... it must be genius!" When in reality, it doen't make sense because it's no a coherent plot. Movies have a beginning, a middle, and an end. They don't have to happen in that order, but they do have to happen. Otherwise, you can't call it a movie. At best, it's a collage. Great acting, great cinemetography, great dialogue... but taken as a whole... it doesn't work.

The film made perfect sense, and the sheriff's speech at the end explains perfectly why. Yes, most movies have a conventional three-act structure, and No Country certainly follows that, but it's the third act that gives people the most problems because it does not follow conventional Hollywood film structure. The film (and the book) is a rumination on good and evil, and the pervasiveness of evil in society. I'm not sure why you couldn't find a coherent plot, as the plot was extremely straightforward.


Please sum up this straightforward plot for me, as you seem to have "gotten it". I stand by my statement. What was the plot? Was the main character the hunter? The Sheriff? The killer? How did the cop getting killed at the beginning never come up in the rest of the movie? Maybe what I should have said was the plot was full of holes. As for it being a "rumination on good and evil" was it really? Anymore than say, Star Wars? No. That speech at the end? I got it, I caught the "good and evil" theme quite early on as a matter of fact. I get it. It's just not a good movie. As I said in my previous post, acting, dialogue, cinemetography; great. Drugs, guns, a crazy guy with a unique weapon? Hell yes. I should have liked this movie, given my tastes and I didn't. Ergo, I call it a bad movie. Now how about that plot?
 
2008-02-25 10:22:55 AM  
herratik: Please sum up this straightforward plot for me, as you seem to have "gotten it". I stand by my statement. What was the plot? Was the main character the hunter? The Sheriff? The killer? How did the cop getting killed at the beginning never come up in the rest of the movie? Maybe what I should have said was the plot was full of holes. As for it being a "rumination on good and evil" was it really? Anymore than say, Star Wars? No. That speech at the end? I got it, I caught the "good and evil" theme quite early on as a matter of fact. I get it. It's just not a good movie. As I said in my previous post, acting, dialogue, cinemetography; great. Drugs, guns, a crazy guy with a unique weapon? Hell yes. I should have liked this movie, given my tastes and I didn't. Ergo, I call it a bad movie. Now how about that plot?

Plot? Are you serious? It's very straightforward: Man finds drug money, killer comes looking. Won't give up. Sheriff goes on the trail to find him (and, yes, there was certainly dialogue later in the film regarding the murder of the deputy in the opening scene). Would you care to point out one of these "plot holes"? I found the film rather easy to follow as far as the plot was concerned.
 
2008-02-25 10:23:07 AM  
graggor:

Yes exactly. There were deeper things going on in the movie besides the story. And it wasnt confusing.


Not as confusing as apostrophes and commas, right?

Please enlighten me as to why you think that story is the least important part of TELLING A STORY? Really, I'd like to know.
 
2008-02-25 10:26:38 AM  
Nabb1: herratik: Please sum up this straightforward plot for me, as you seem to have "gotten it". I stand by my statement. What was the plot? Was the main character the hunter? The Sheriff? The killer? How did the cop getting killed at the beginning never come up in the rest of the movie? Maybe what I should have said was the plot was full of holes. As for it being a "rumination on good and evil" was it really? Anymore than say, Star Wars? No. That speech at the end? I got it, I caught the "good and evil" theme quite early on as a matter of fact. I get it. It's just not a good movie. As I said in my previous post, acting, dialogue, cinemetography; great. Drugs, guns, a crazy guy with a unique weapon? Hell yes. I should have liked this movie, given my tastes and I didn't. Ergo, I call it a bad movie. Now how about that plot?

Plot? Are you serious? It's very straightforward: Man finds drug money, killer comes looking. Won't give up. Sheriff goes on the trail to find him (and, yes, there was certainly dialogue later in the film regarding the murder of the deputy in the opening scene). Would you care to point out one of these "plot holes"? I found the film rather easy to follow as far as the plot was concerned.



The sheriff spent his time avoiding the investigation as I recall. (The multiple scenes of him drinking coffee and refusing to meet with the DEA agent) I really don't want to spend all day defending an opinion, so I'll leave it at that. Go read Atlas Shrugged and masturbate over how great it is to be an elitest; I'll be at work.
 
2008-02-25 10:30:54 AM  
herratik: The sheriff spent his time avoiding the investigation as I recall. (The multiple scenes of him drinking coffee and refusing to meet with the DEA agent) I really don't want to spend all day defending an opinion, so I'll leave it at that. Go read Atlas Shrugged and masturbate over how great it is to be an elitest; I'll be at work.

A character's behavior is not really a plot hole in and of itself. So, I'm an elitist for not finding plot holes in that?
 
2008-02-25 10:31:19 AM  
choice and consequence

Thanks for the info. I should give the movie a chance. But I can't help but get the feeling that the writer just won the "Hollywood bestows accolades upon young talent of seedy background - Look how open-minded we are award". Like JT Leroy. And I'm feeling like a snarky prick today.


graggor

I understand, and let me make it clear I did enjoy the movie. The Coen brothers have a history of taking a genre and turning it on its head with their own brand of humor/surrealness and for that I am willing to suspend disbelief for them more that I do other directors. I just find that characters that remain coiled, and release their violence periodically (sort of a building of tension/release dynamic) more frightening than pure monsters.
 
2008-02-25 10:35:00 AM  
Nabb1: herratik: I really felt like this was a case of "The Emperors New Clothes" i.e.: "It didn't make sense... it must be genius!" When in reality, it doen't make sense because it's no a coherent plot. Movies have a beginning, a middle, and an end. They don't have to happen in that order, but they do have to happen. Otherwise, you can't call it a movie. At best, it's a collage. Great acting, great cinemetography, great dialogue... but taken as a whole... it doesn't work.

The film made perfect sense, and the sheriff's speech at the end explains perfectly why. Yes, most movies have a conventional three-act structure, and No Country certainly follows that, but it's the third act that gives people the most problems because it does not follow conventional Hollywood film structure. The film (and the book) is a rumination on good and evil, and the pervasiveness of evil in society. I'm not sure why you couldn't find a coherent plot, as the plot was extremely straightforward.


Pretty solid take, Nabb.

I feel that most people who reject the storyline of No Country are only comfortable with bullshiat cop storylines like the Die Hard and Lethal Weapon franchises possess. You know, big explosions while they shoot the bad guy, while saying something witty that they hope becomes the catchphrase of the summer.

They find the story of a sheriff who just folded up his tent and went home too honest.

(And that's just the beginning of the subtext).
 
2008-02-25 10:35:52 AM  
Some spoilers ahead.

Well Im sorry there are three main characters. That might be tough to handle. One (TLjones) starts the narration as a god like figure. At the end he is merely a man and his appeal for god to appear. Well it never happened. Also he is aware of the busted drug deal,Llewelyns involvement and his ghost of a killer.
The second(Llewelyn Moss) comes upon a drug deal gone bad. Once he takes the money his path is laid out. We follow the chase and hunt for the money.
The third is a man hired by a businessman to recover said money. We follow him tracking his man. Just like the police officer.

Also if you listen you can hear a conversation (only one side of it) concerning the dead police officer with the sheriff. The movie is tautly made and deals with all kinds of moral issues and references many idealogies.

I mean if you think critically about what is being presented to you in the film. There is a story about a busted drug deal and the chase to figure it out. And on other levels there are questions about death. Good and evil. God and man. Fate and chance.

I have a friend who thought the two boys with the "funny accents" were a cheap joke at the end of the movie. Lets laugh at the two boys after chigur had killed the woman after she stood up to his game that he plays. (That moment is supposed to trigger some neurons) But really you could also see some other characteristics to the two boys. If you think about some of it they are a lot like cain and able. One gives his shirt and sacrifices it. He is given a reward. Cain gets jealous and begins to desire after the money.
I think the movie poses a lot of good questions and frames them within a tight story.
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report