Monday, March 31, 2008
Really?
I don't know. Maybe I need to watch it a few more times over the years before I pass judgement. I mean, it took awhile for Hudsucker Proxy to really work for me. But seriously? No Country for Old Men was the best picture this year? There had to be one better than that. I guess the speech at the end about the dream where the Sheriff's father goes on ahead and lights a fire in the cold and the dark, it was probably supposed to be meaningful and tie it all together. It seemed like a lot of pointless deaths to me. Did they decide the story would be for Llewelyn to strike Anton down and escape with the money, with the Sheriff maybe catching up with him and letting him go, letting the good guy get away with one to balance out all the times the bad guys get away? So they decided instead to make the anti-story? Or something? I don't get it. Somebody, please, make like Lucy and do some 'splainin'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
re the sheriff's dream: yeah, no. that part didn't work for me either.
but the rest of it?
dang.
how into the classic american western are you? that's how it works for me -- as kind of a mash up of the western and film noir.
agree the deaths were pointless, but thought that they were staged so that you felt them -- you regretted the loss of life -- which is uncommon anymore in american movies where countless nameless bodies stack up like cord wood by movie's end.
but I don't think you can talk anyone into liking a movie -- it's like chemistry between people -- you've either got it or you don't.
so that's cool: more for those of us who love it to horn dog. ;)
OK, I'll buy that. I guess I'm just a conservative guy who wants the hero to prevail. Otherwise, I wonder, "What the hell was the point of that?"
read. the. book.
Post a Comment