New topic
PrintableStymie said: The only suprise, well two suprises, are Ruby Dee for American Gangster and Juno for best picture.
Juno should definitely not be up there for best picture. I think There Will Be Blood will win and I haven't even seen it yet but Daniel Day Lewis is so good. He was amazing in Gangs Of New York. In fact I think Gangs Of New York should have won Martin his Oscar. GONY was totally better, way better, than The Departed. That movie was contrived, cliche crap. [Edited 1/24/08 19:55pm] America's political system used to be about the "pursuit of happiness." Now more and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered.
"Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."- | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
greenpixies said: Stymie said: The only suprise, well two suprises, are Ruby Dee for American Gangster and Juno for best picture.
Juno should definitely not be up there for best picture. I think There Will Be Blood will win and I haven't even seen it yet but Daniel Day Lewis is so good. He was amazing in Gangs Of New York. In fact I think Gangs Of New York should have won Martin his Oscar. GONY was totally better, way better, than The Departed. That movie was contrived, cliche crap. [Edited 1/24/08 19:55pm] Well, I hated Gangs Of New York and loved The Departed. He should have won the oscar for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or Goodfellas though. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I thought the cast of The Great Debaters was Oscar-worthy. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustinTimberlake said: Yo, how many nominations did "Alpha Dog" get because it SWEPT the Canadian Oscars!
Ayo, I thought you were a shoe-in, son. Least you got to rock that body with Christina Ricci last year. She deserves an Oscar for pretending to enjoy it! Just kidding, son. You got my love. Don't give away (my love). [Edited 1/25/08 5:56am]  I'm afraid of Americans. I'm afraid of the world. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: DiminutiveRocker said:  See, I disagree. I think that the movie was brilliant. I thought Day-Lewis gave an excellent performance - a tour de force. As for the points the movie was getting across - I thought is fairly obvious. Plainview was capitalism personified. The film is based on "OIL" by Upton Sinclair, but the main character was also modeled after Calif oil tycoon, Doheny. It reminded me of John Huston's portrayal of Mulray (who was based on Mulholland - the grandfather of the California metropolitan water system) The progression in which this character evolves into a total misanthrop and the way he interacts with both Eli and his son builds the arc of the story - that alone is interesting on a human level. But the film communicates symbolism in terms of capitalism and this country's fascination with "afluenza" is also poignantly portrayed. It's complex subject matter on both a human and a broader social level. In the end in all narrowed down to Plainview's psycho world instead of expanding outward, which I guess could be off-putitng to some. For me, the classical score was effective, but bothersome and humorless at times.
Overall I thought it was very well done.  IMHO.on just about every level of technical craft and skill, i thought it was a masterful movie. as a piece of storytelling, well...on just about every level of technical craft and skill, i thought it was a masterful movie.  I have to see this movie. I've always liked Daniel Day-Lewis. Have you seen No Country for Old Men yet? Wow.. it was a great, too. It just won the SAG award last night, but Atonement won the Golden Globe. So the Oscars are going to be a race to the finish! For some reason, I'm not very interested in seeing Atonement. The truth is that I'm not a huge Keira Knightly(??) fan. I can't even remember her name. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Isel said: I have to see this movie. I've always liked Daniel Day-Lewis. Have you seen No Country for Old Men yet? Wow.. it was a great, too. It just won the SAG award last night, but Atonement won the Golden Globe. So the Oscars are going to be a race to the finish! For some reason, I'm not very interested in seeing Atonement. The truth is that I'm not a huge Keira Knightly(??) fan. I can't even remember her name. "No Country For Old Men" is fantastic! So is "There Will Be Blood" Daniel Day Lewis carries that whole movie on his back with his hands tied and blindfolded He's great!
I liked "Atonement" - it was a nicely directed epic romantic tragedy. Keira doesn't dominate the movie, so you might like it VOTE....EARLY | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
greenpixies said: Stymie said: The only suprise, well two suprises, are Ruby Dee for American Gangster and Juno for best picture.
Juno should definitely not be up there for best picture. I think There Will Be Blood will win and I haven't even seen it yet but Daniel Day Lewis is so good. He was amazing in Gangs Of New York. In fact I think Gangs Of New York should have won Martin his Oscar. GONY was totally better, way better, than The Departed. That movie was contrived, cliche crap. [Edited 1/24/08 19:55pm] All right. I take it back. I just saw There Will Be Blood and nope it won't win. Daniel Day Lewis should win best actor but the movie was a giant pointless yawn. I loved the music though. America's political system used to be about the "pursuit of happiness." Now more and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered.
"Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I actually had a dream last night that Madonna got nominated for an Oscar.
What's scary about that is not even the Oscar part, but the fact that Madonna was even IN a dream of mine.  Oh the horror."I saw a woman with major Hammer pants on the subway a few weeks ago and totally thought of you." - sextonseven | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Can someone please tell me the ending to No Country For Old Men? I saw it last night, but the theater abruptly stopped the film after what was clearly a transitional scene where the retired sheriff tells his wife about a pair of dreams he had. That's the last time I see a movie at that place. You don't even get to see the whole thing.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sextonseven said: Can someone please tell me the ending to No Country For Old Men? I saw it last night, but the theater abruptly stopped the film after what was clearly a transitional scene where the retired sheriff tells his wife about a pair of dreams he had. That's the last time I see a movie at that place. You don't even get to see the whole thing.
Did you get your money back at least? And I haven't seen it though, so I can't help you out. "I saw a woman with major Hammer pants on the subway a few weeks ago and totally thought of you." - sextonseven | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sextonseven said: Can someone please tell me the ending to No Country For Old Men? I saw it last night, but the theater abruptly stopped the film after what was clearly a transitional scene where the retired sheriff tells his wife about a pair of dreams he had. That's the last time I see a movie at that place. You don't even get to see the whole thing.
Haven't seen it, but here's my friend's assessment of it: http://dahlhaus.blogspot....d-men.html SPOILER ALERT (for those of you who did not read sextonseven's post)... edit---hmm, seems like that might have been the end of the movie. [Edited 2/5/08 19:15pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DevotedPuppy said: sextonseven said: Can someone please tell me the ending to No Country For Old Men? I saw it last night, but the theater abruptly stopped the film after what was clearly a transitional scene where the retired sheriff tells his wife about a pair of dreams he had. That's the last time I see a movie at that place. You don't even get to see the whole thing.
Haven't seen it, but here's my friend's assessment of it: http://dahlhaus.blogspot....d-men.html SPOILER ALERT (for those of you who did not read sextonseven's post)... edit---hmm, seems like that might have been the end of the movie.
[Edited 2/5/08 19:15pm] Thanks. I actually thought the first half of the film was excellent. It's a shame the Coen brothers forgot to film an ending though. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: i was hoping against hope that kimya dawson would get a best song nomination for "juno".
 I would have hoped for a best song nomination for the Moldy Peaches for Juno. With a very special thank you to Tina: Is hammer already absolute, how much some people verändern...ICH hope is never so I will be! And if, then I hope that I would then have wen in my environment who joins me in the A.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yea, like Kurt Russell in Grindhouse. All you others say Hell Yea!!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Imma picket cos Cborgman isn't here to make this thread.   | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I saw The Savages over the weekend. Very sad. For some reason I imagined it to be funnier. Maybe it was the cartoonish-looking print ad for the movie. And then the weekend before I rented Away From Her. These nursing home films are depressing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Stymie said: The only suprise, well two suprises, are Ruby Dee for American Gangster and Juno for best picture.
I agree...Juno for best picture?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sextonseven said: Can someone please tell me the ending to No Country For Old Men? I saw it last night, but the theater abruptly stopped the film after what was clearly a transitional scene where the retired sheriff tells his wife about a pair of dreams he had. That's the last time I see a movie at that place. You don't even get to see the whole thing.
WRONG!  That was one of the best endings I have ever seen on a movie. It sweeps the rug out from under you. The Sheriff is really the main character and the whole film is about his coming to grips with his own death. I had a long discussion with a screenwriter friend of mine about this, and it led to a fascinating interpretation. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DevotedPuppy said: Spare me. I love how when a film does not satisfy a person's mainstream expectations about how a film should be, (by satisfying a carthartic need for escapist PLEASURE), then the film is deemed a horrific film. This armchair film critic didn't even bother to listen to what the film is actually saying, which is much deeper than a typical shoot-em-up Western with good guy vs. bad guy. God forbid, a film with violence actually speaks ABOUT violence, that is the perpetuity of violence and the ultimate human confrontation with death. But I guess she wants everything to be neat and tidy at the end, where the good guy ends up alive and the bad guy ends up dead -- because then she could feel good. There's more to movie watching than feeling good, but I realize a lot of people don't see it that way.[Edited 2/14/08 20:15pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No Country For Old Men gets my vote, of all the nominees I've seen.
Still about why Juno is up there. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heartbeatocean said: sextonseven said: Can someone please tell me the ending to No Country For Old Men? I saw it last night, but the theater abruptly stopped the film after what was clearly a transitional scene where the retired sheriff tells his wife about a pair of dreams he had. That's the last time I see a movie at that place. You don't even get to see the whole thing.
WRONG! That was one of the best endings I have ever seen on a movie. It sweeps the rug out from under you. The Sheriff is really the main character and the whole film is about his coming to grips with his own death. I had a long discussion with a screenwriter friend of mine about this, and it led to a fascinating interpretation.I'm all for throwing a curve ball to the audience, but that one was so limp. I'm complaning more about the screenplay than anything else. The direction, acting and cinematography were all excellent. And is the whole film really about the Sherriff accepting his death? The entire first half was a buildup to the final showdown between Llewelyn and the hitman and it happened off camera. What a letdown. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heartbeatocean said: No Country For Old Men gets my vote, of all the nominees I've seen.
Still about why Juno is up there.I haven't seen Juno and Michael Clayton yet. Of the other three, I thought There Will Be Blood was the best. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sextonseven said: heartbeatocean said: WRONG! That was one of the best endings I have ever seen on a movie. It sweeps the rug out from under you. The Sheriff is really the main character and the whole film is about his coming to grips with his own death. I had a long discussion with a screenwriter friend of mine about this, and it led to a fascinating interpretation.I'm all for throwing a curve ball to the audience, but that one was so limp. I'm complaning more about the screenplay than anything else. The direction, acting and cinematography were all excellent. And is the whole film really about the Sherriff accepting his death? The entire first half was a buildup to the final showdown between Llewelyn and the hitman and it happened off camera. What a letdown. I like movies that have major events happen off-camera. I see your point, but that's why I think the film is ultimately about the sheriff and the perpetual cycle of violence. The sheriff is the real counterpoint to the psycho. He's contemplative, ineffective, retiring. My friend and I discussed at length the scene where the sheriff goes back to the motel and looks around the room in the dark. The psycho is supposedly behind the door, but doesn't kill him. The scene is very mysterious. Llewellyn is a less complex character than the sheriff. He keeps chasing money when it obviously leads to his own doom and everyone else's around him. Though seemingly benign, he is heavily caught up in the violence, almost to the point of abetting the psycho. Look at how many people get killed because of him dragging that suitcase of money around. He's a foil that helps play out the extreme violence of the psycho, but the film is not about him. An apt comparison is one of the greatest films ever made, Psycho, by Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock kills off the main character, played by Janet Leigh, in the first act. She is the only point of identification for the audience and no one had ever done this before in a film. It broke all the rules and is supposed to be frustrating. From that point on, the only point of identification we have is with Norman Bates. We have to identify with him from that moment on and the film ends on him alone in an insane asylum. It's a pretty queasy feeling when that's all we're left with. The whole thing is chilling, and killing off the character we liked most was a great way to achieve that affect. Also, by ending on a description of the Sheriff's dream, I find the film suddenly launches into a spiritual realm. By ending that way, it leaves us there, teetering between life and death. He is telling a dream about his father, and it has an ancestral, timeless, primordial feel to it. The movie itself feels like death, because it suddenly turns its back on its own story, a string of torrid events, which are part and parcel of the earth's existence. As the world writhes perpetually in its endless chase and emptiness, the sheriff is approaching a state of transcendence...which will only come about by his own death. That's one interpretation anyway. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No Denzel!?..  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heartbeatocean said: sextonseven said: I'm all for throwing a curve ball to the audience, but that one was so limp. I'm complaning more about the screenplay than anything else. The direction, acting and cinematography were all excellent. And is the whole film really about the Sherriff accepting his death? The entire first half was a buildup to the final showdown between Llewelyn and the hitman and it happened off camera. What a letdown. I like movies that have major events happen off-camera. I see your point, but that's why I think the film is ultimately about the sheriff and the perpetual cycle of violence. The sheriff is the real counterpoint to the psycho. He's contemplative, ineffective, retiring. My friend and I discussed at length the scene where the sheriff goes back to the motel and looks around the room in the dark. The psycho is supposedly behind the door, but doesn't kill him. The scene is very mysterious. Llewellyn is a less complex character than the sheriff. He keeps chasing money when it obviously leads to his own doom and everyone else's around him. Though seemingly benign, he is heavily caught up in the violence, almost to the point of abetting the psycho. Look at how many people get killed because of him dragging that suitcase of money around. He's a foil that helps play out the extreme violence of the psycho, but the film is not about him. An apt comparison is one of the greatest films ever made, Psycho, by Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock kills off the main character, played by Janet Leigh, in the first act. She is the only point of identification for the audience and no one had ever done this before in a film. It broke all the rules and is supposed to be frustrating. From that point on, the only point of identification we have is with Norman Bates. We have to identify with him from that moment on and the film ends on him alone in an insane asylum. It's a pretty queasy feeling when that's all we're left with. The whole thing is chilling, and killing off the character we liked most was a great way to achieve that affect. Also, by ending on a description of the Sheriff's dream, I find the film suddenly launches into a spiritual realm. By ending that way, it leaves us there, teetering between life and death. He is telling a dream about his father, and it has an ancestral, timeless, primordial feel to it. The movie itself feels like death, because it suddenly turns its back on its own story, a string of torrid events, which are part and parcel of the earth's existence. As the world writhes perpetually in its endless chase and emptiness, the sheriff is approaching a state of transcendence...which will only come about by his own death. That's one interpretation anyway. Nice interpretation. It is extremely important to realize that this movie's main character is the sheriff. When you look at it in this context it makes much more sense. Hence, the fate that befalls Llewellyn is explainable. The sheriff coming up against the pure calculating menace of Anton and feeling completely ineffectual, to the point that he retires and awaits his own death. There is no country for old men. The title says it all. Javier Bardem is a dead set certainty to win Best Supporting Actor. The film should win Best Film but probably wont (although I admit I have not yet seen There Will Be Blood) When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bkw said: heartbeatocean said: I like movies that have major events happen off-camera. I see your point, but that's why I think the film is ultimately about the sheriff and the perpetual cycle of violence. The sheriff is the real counterpoint to the psycho. He's contemplative, ineffective, retiring. My friend and I discussed at length the scene where the sheriff goes back to the motel and looks around the room in the dark. The psycho is supposedly behind the door, but doesn't kill him. The scene is very mysterious. Llewellyn is a less complex character than the sheriff. He keeps chasing money when it obviously leads to his own doom and everyone else's around him. Though seemingly benign, he is heavily caught up in the violence, almost to the point of abetting the psycho. Look at how many people get killed because of him dragging that suitcase of money around. He's a foil that helps play out the extreme violence of the psycho, but the film is not about him. An apt comparison is one of the greatest films ever made, Psycho, by Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock kills off the main character, played by Janet Leigh, in the first act. She is the only point of identification for the audience and no one had ever done this before in a film. It broke all the rules and is supposed to be frustrating. From that point on, the only point of identification we have is with Norman Bates. We have to identify with him from that moment on and the film ends on him alone in an insane asylum. It's a pretty queasy feeling when that's all we're left with. The whole thing is chilling, and killing off the character we liked most was a great way to achieve that affect. Also, by ending on a description of the Sheriff's dream, I find the film suddenly launches into a spiritual realm. By ending that way, it leaves us there, teetering between life and death. He is telling a dream about his father, and it has an ancestral, timeless, primordial feel to it. The movie itself feels like death, because it suddenly turns its back on its own story, a string of torrid events, which are part and parcel of the earth's existence. As the world writhes perpetually in its endless chase and emptiness, the sheriff is approaching a state of transcendence...which will only come about by his own death. That's one interpretation anyway. Nice interpretation. It is extremely important to realize that this movie's main character is the sheriff. When you look at it in this context it makes much more sense. Hence, the fate that befalls Llewellyn is explainable. The sheriff coming up against the pure calculating menace of Anton and feeling completely ineffectual, to the point that he retires and awaits his own death. There is no country for old men. The title says it all. I need to see the movie again. I think I watched it wrong. 
formatting [Edited 2/18/08 11:32am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sextonseven said: bkw said: Nice interpretation. It is extremely important to realize that this movie's main character is the sheriff. When you look at it in this context it makes much more sense. Hence, the fate that befalls Llewellyn is explainable. The sheriff coming up against the pure calculating menace of Anton and feeling completely ineffectual, to the point that he retires and awaits his own death. There is no country for old men. The title says it all. I need to see the movie again. I think I watched it wrong.
formatting [Edited 2/18/08 11:32am] I know what you mean. I had figured some of this out, but when I talked to my screenwriter friend (who had seen the movie twice) -- I felt like I really needed to see it again to grasp everything. I had actually interpreted it that the modern world was too violent for old men. But my friend argued that the film was really about the eternal cycle of violence -- because of the story told to the sheriff when he goes to his relative's house (very odd scene)...you know, that old man in a wheelchair... So now I'm not convinced that it's about old men vs. young men, but about life vs. transcendence. Remember his father in his dream is a young man. His father died as a man half his age... Kind of reminds me of that Bob Dylan song where he sings Crimson flames tied through my ears Rollin' high and mighty traps Pounced with fire on flaming roads Using ideas as my maps "We'll meet on edges, soon," said I Proud 'neath heated brow. Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heartbeatocean said: DevotedPuppy said: Spare me. I love how when a film does not satisfy a person's mainstream expectations about how a film should be, (by satisfying a carthartic need for escapist PLEASURE), then the film is deemed a horrific film. This armchair film critic didn't even bother to listen to what the film is actually saying, which is much deeper than a typical shoot-em-up Western with good guy vs. bad guy. God forbid, a film with violence actually speaks ABOUT violence, that is the perpetuity of violence and the ultimate human confrontation with death. But I guess she wants everything to be neat and tidy at the end, where the good guy ends up alive and the bad guy ends up dead -- because then she could feel good. There's more to movie watching than feeling good, but I realize a lot of people don't see it that way.
 You have no idea how wrong you are about my friend wanting films that make her feel good. She is possibly the only person I know who is more cynical than me. That's probably one reason we're friends (and I *hate* when films have happy endings.) Anyway, I haven't seen the film, don't intend to, couldn't care less about the ending---I was just trying to help sextonseven out and I knew she had written about it on her blog.
I can't speak as to whether her assessment of the film was good or not (and you seem to think it's off base), but I will stick up for her and say she is absolutely NOT the type of person who needs a happy ending, nor is she into "feel good" movies, or mainstream expectations. You are way off base with your interpretation of her. And I don't think she intends her blog to be any ground breaking film criticism...she likes to write, so I think it's almost a form of practice for her... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heartbeatocean said: That was one of the best endings I have ever seen on a movie. It sweeps the rug out from under you. The Sheriff is really the main character and the whole film is about his coming to grips with his own death.
 That is EXACTLY how I interpreted it! It was excellent!
As for JUNO -I liked it a lot. It's nice to see a comedy nominated now and then - they rarely win. Let There Be Blood - was also abstract but in an entrirely different way. Daniel Day Lewsi was amazing... the move was long, though. Michael Clayton - totally enjoyed this - reminded me of 70s films like The Conversation or All The President's Men. Atonement was nicely directed and acted and written... this may win because te Academy loves this kind stuff. VOTE....EARLY | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DiminutiveRocker said: heartbeatocean said: That was one of the best endings I have ever seen on a movie. It sweeps the rug out from under you. The Sheriff is really the main character and the whole film is about his coming to grips with his own death.
That is EXACTLY how I interpreted it! It was excellent!
As for JUNO -I liked it a lot. It's nice to see a comedy nominated now and then - they rarely win. Let There Be Blood - was also abstract but in an entrirely different way. Daniel Day Lewsi was amazing... the move was long, though. Michael Clayton - totally enjoyed this - reminded me of 70s films like The Conversation or All The President's Men. Atonement was nicely directed and acted and written... this may win because te Academy loves this kind stuff. The key word for Atonement is "nice". It's a very good film that colors inside the lines like an Oscar film is supposed to. No Country and There Will Be Blood would be much more radical choices for best picture. I love how "I drink your milkshake!" is the new hot catch phrase.
I'm seeing Juno and Michael Clayton this week so I can't comment on those yet. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |