No Country for Old Men

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ToMacco
How did the Mexicans find the first hotel?

Mark Question
Better question, why were 2 of them in the bathroom at the same time: coke, sex, water conservation?

Dusty
Originally posted by ToMacco
How did the Mexicans find the first hotel?

You don't think they had a tracker as well?

Originally posted by Mark Question
Better question, why were 2 of them in the bathroom at the same time: coke, sex, water conservation?

They were hiding from Anton.

chillmeistergen
I love this, it happens all the time. See, people like you who ask these questions are idiots, one of the reasons that the book and film is good, is that it leaves unanswered questions in the readers and viewers mind. For some reason the questions that you don't know the answers to, are the most fundementally simple ones.

Stick to Michael Bay films.

Rogue Jedi
nap time.

exanda kane
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I love this, it happens all the time. See, people like you who ask these questions are idiots, one of the reasons that the book and film is good, is that it leaves unanswered questions in the readers and viewers mind. For some reason the questions that you don't know the answers to, are the most fundementally simple ones.

Stick to Michael Bay films.

laughing

Robtard
I watched this when I was dead tired, but didn't his mother-in-law give it away, or at least we're lead to believe that she inadvertently had something to do with it?

Robtard
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
nap time.

Chilly has a valid point, people that need every single facet of a story spoon-feed to them, often don't like or get movies that expect the viewer to think for him/herself.

A recent perfect example was Cloverfield, did you see the clownery that went on in that thread? The complaints about the film were asinine.

Rogue Jedi
well, isnt that what these threads are for?

Dusty
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I love this, it happens all the time. See, people like you who ask these questions are idiots, one of the reasons that the book and film is good, is that it leaves unanswered questions in the readers and viewers mind. For some reason the questions that you don't know the answers to, are the most fundementally simple ones.

Stick to Michael Bay films.

That's not a very swell attitude. How will they ever attain general knowledge of cinematics if they just stick to the basic blockbuster? You should be encouraging them to look deeper into films, not to dumb down their experiences by watching films constructed by the likes of Mr. Bay.

Robtard
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
well, isnt that what these threads are for?

I guess they could be, still doesn't make Chilly's point any less valid.

Rogue Jedi
his point is just crying over someone commenting on the movie, questioning why certain events happened. valid? hardly.

Robtard
No, that wasn't his point, not even a ballpark assessment. Did he come off a bit harsh in the manner he presented his point? Yes. The point stands though.

Rogue Jedi
thats the thing, why so harsh? why the insults? Oh, thats right, he's British.

exanda kane
Originally posted by Dusty
That's not a very swell attitude. How will they ever attain general knowledge of cinematics if they just stick to the basic blockbuster? You should be encouraging them to look deeper into films, not to dumb down their experiences by watching films constructed by the likes of Mr. Bay.

But doesn't the fact that they watched No Country For Old Men and got caught up on the logistical details, in a fallible way (yes, it isn't the best example), prove that they don't appreciate anything more? I'm all for the more intelligent films produced getting the publicity they deserve, but Chillmeistergen seems to have a point, as well as being pretty funny about it at the same time.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
thats the thing, why so harsh? why the insults? Oh, thats right, he's British.

I shall respond with dignity and say that you simply do not understand the great British sense of humour. smile

Röland
Originally posted by ToMacco
How did the Mexicans find the first hotel?
There was a tracker in the satchel.
Originally posted by Robtard
I watched this when I was dead tired, but didn't his mother-in-law give it away, or at least we're lead to believe that she inadvertently had something to do with it?
I'm pretty sure she does. In the book she tells the Mexicans what hotel that her and Carla Jean are headed to.

Röland
Originally posted by Robtard
A recent perfect example was Cloverfield, did you see the clownery that went on in that thread? The complaints about the film were asinine.
That thread at least made me laugh.

Mark Question
Originally posted by Dusty

They were hiding from Anton.

Not a very good plan.

jgiant
Anton: "He gave the mexicans a reciever."

Accountant: "He thinks...he thought...the more people looking..."

Anton: "Thats foolish. You pick the one right tool."

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Dusty
That's not a very swell attitude. How will they ever attain general knowledge of cinematics if they just stick to the basic blockbuster? You should be encouraging them to look deeper into films, not to dumb down their experiences by watching films constructed by the likes of Mr. Bay.

It's not up to me to encourage them, they should re watch it, or maybe even pick up the book, that'll give them more insight than I can. If they don't have enough interest in cinema to do that, then I'd rather they stick to watching shit films which they can understand, rather than practically insult a film, by asking questions which suggest that this is some kind of flaw on the film maker's part.

It's not dumbing down their experiences, it's giving them films that are more their level.

Dusty
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It's not up to me to encourage them


Then do not encourage them to watch Bay films.

chillmeistergen
Those are the films I'd rather they watch, so I'll encourage them to watch them. Get it?

Blax_Hydralisk
Why not just say "it was a joke" and be done with it?

chillmeistergen
I shouldn't have to.

Dusty
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Those are the films I'd rather they watch, so I'll encourage them to watch them. Get it? You fail to prove a point.

chillmeistergen
Do you mean that you still don't understand?

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Dusty
You fail to prove a point. He is simply saying that if someone does not have the mental capacity to "get" a movie, they have no right watching it.

Robtard
WTF man, you're not that dense.

Rogue Jedi
I know. shifty I thought thats what we were doing, misinterpreting others posts.

Robtard
What?

WrathfulDwarf
I really REALLY need to go see this movie.

Rogue Jedi
me too.

Syren
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
thats the thing, why so harsh? why the insults? Oh, thats right, he's British.

Hey, you cheeky swine. I dropped by to check out the reviews as I'd like to see this movie and I find my nationality being smashed. Not enough that the entire GDF hates Brits, now the Movie forum's getting in on the action?

Watch it, Mister nahuh

SnakeEyes
Regardless of nationality, there are some pretentious bastards that hang around here; just happens to be that some of them are British.

=Tired Hiker=
OMG, have you been watching Celebrity Apprentice this season? Zoinks! eek!

Syren
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Regardless of nationality, there are some pretentious bastards that hang around here; just happens to be that some of them are British.

No excuses, you. Or I might have to British on your arse mhm

celestialdemon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It's not up to me to encourage them, they should re watch it, or maybe even pick up the book, that'll give them more insight than I can. If they don't have enough interest in cinema to do that, then I'd rather they stick to watching shit films which they can understand, rather than practically insult a film, by asking questions which suggest that this is some kind of flaw on the film maker's part.

It's not dumbing down their experiences, it's giving them films that are more their level.

He didn't insult the damn movie just by asking an honest question. And don't think that this movie is perfect by any means. While it is good, it has plenty of flaws.

The point of a movie is to portray the story of the book. If the movie requires you to read the book in order to understand the story better, then the movie didn't do it's job.

No one should be forced to watch Michael Bay movies.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Regardless of nationality, there are some pretentious bastards that hang around here; just happens to be that some of them are British.

The majority of members that frequent this board, are absolute idiots who probably surprise even themselves by getting dressed in the morning; it just happens that most of them are American.

Originally posted by celestialdemon
He didn't insult the damn movie just by asking an honest question. And don't think that this movie is perfect by any means. While it is good, it has plenty of flaws.

The point of a movie is to portray the story of the book. If the movie requires you to read the book in order to understand the story better, then the movie didn't do it's job.

No one should be forced to watch Michael Bay movies.

I never said that the movie was perfect, I don't know where you got that impression from, the book wasn't perfect either. Though this film was remarkably true to the book, an easy feat as McCarthy did originally write it as a screenplay. The story was presented very well, what a lot of people fail to grasp, is that there's some things that you're not meant to understand in pieces of cinema like this, it adds to the quality.

I never said they should be forced to watch Michael Bay films, I was just using Michael Bay films as an example of the simple films which leave no unanswered questions, apart from 'how much did that explosion cost?'

celestialdemon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen

I never said that the movie was perfect, I don't know where you got that impression from,

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If they don't have enough interest in cinema to do that, then I'd rather they stick to watching shit films which they can understand, rather than practically insult a film, by asking questions which suggest that this is some kind of flaw on the film maker's part.


This statement implies that anyone who questions anything about the film is suggesting it is a flaw on the filmmaker's part. If someone has an honest question about the film, they shouldn't be attacked for it. That's why this forum even exists...to discuss the film and ask questions if need be.

chillmeistergen
Did you even read the rest of my post, or are you selectively blind?

Blax_Hydralisk
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I shouldn't have to.

True. But it certainly makes things easier, doesn't it?

exanda kane
Originally posted by celestialdemon
The point of a movie is to portray the story of the book. If the movie requires you to read the book in order to understand the story better, then the movie didn't do it's job.

You have lost any credibility by saying the point of a movie is to portray the story of the book. That's a patheticly ridiculous thing to say.

Syren
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The majority of members that frequent this board, are absolute idiots who probably surprise even themselves by getting dressed in the morning; it just happens that most of them are American.

thumb up

Excellent.

celestialdemon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Did you even read the rest of my post, or are you selectively blind?

Again with the insults. I read your post. I'm letting you know that that's how this particular comment of yours could be interpreted, especially since you got all pissy just because of a simple question that was asked.

celestialdemon
Originally posted by exanda kane
You have lost any credibility by saying the point of a movie is to portray the story of the book. That's a patheticly ridiculous thing to say.

Then what, oh great one, is the point of a movie when it is translated from a book?

Eon Blue
This movie sucked (and I think I'm the only one in the world that has this view).

exanda kane
Originally posted by celestialdemon
Then what, oh great one, is the point of a movie when it is translated from a book?

Now you've changed your point to 'what is the point of a movie when it is translated from a book?' Jesus, you were already on a roll and now you have hit the flippin' jackpot; the point of any movie is to make money, that's your commercial aesthetic right there. The point of a literary adaptation is to make more money. Best get those out of the way at first. But somewhere along in this process you get to the point where the film, the adaptation of the book, becomes a work in its own right and should be judged on its own merits. Films adapted from books are adaptations, dramatisations, and therefore allowed to go where the books don't. Think Blade Runner, think Apocalypse Now, think 2001: SO, Jaws, E.T and Brazil. They go in places the novels they were inspired by, adapted from and straight out copied by (in Brazil's case) don't go.

The point is, your opinion neglects to realise that cinema takes source material (such as literature) and takes it places where it didn't go before, where it couldn't. So what if you the Coen Brothers didn't pull out a straight cover-to-cover copy of the book; they instead managed to get to the soul of Comarc McCarthy's writing and award it with a gold flippin sticker.

People failing to understand the difference in different mediums get on my ****. (And I apoligise if I offended anybody with my viral pathetically, it was early in the morning then.)

=Tired Hiker=
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The story was presented very well, what a lot of people fail to grasp, is that there's some things that you're not meant to understand in pieces of cinema like this, it adds to the quality.

What are these things you keeps speaking of that you're not meant to understand? From what I remember, I think I understood pretty much everything about the film.

celestialdemon
Originally posted by exanda kane
Now you've changed your point to 'what is the point of a movie when it is translated from a book?' Jesus, you were already on a roll and now you have hit the flippin' jackpot; the point of any movie is to make money, that's your commercial aesthetic right there. The point of a literary adaptation is to make more money. Best get those out of the way at first. But somewhere along in this process you get to the point where the film, the adaptation of the book, becomes a work in its own right and should be judged on its own merits. Films adapted from books are adaptations, dramatisations, and therefore allowed to go where the books don't. Think Blade Runner, think Apocalypse Now, think 2001: SO, Jaws, E.T and Brazil. They go in places the novels they were inspired by, adapted from and straight out copied by (in Brazil's case) don't go.

The point is, your opinion neglects to realise that cinema takes source material (such as literature) and takes it places where it didn't go before, where it couldn't. So what if you the Coen Brothers didn't pull out a straight cover-to-cover copy of the book; they instead managed to get to the soul of Comarc McCarthy's writing and award it with a gold flippin sticker.

People failing to understand the difference in different mediums get on my ****. (And I apoligise if I offended anybody with my viral pathetically, it was early in the morning then.)

I didn't change my point. We were talking about a movie that was adapted from a book. That's what I was referring to in my original statement.

Besides the blatantly obvious desire to make money (that wasn't even worth anyone's time for you to point out), the point still stands that the point of a movie that is adapted from a book is to portray the story that is in the book. My point doesn't neglect anything. I know that things have to be changed during a translation such as this. That's fine. As long as the story stays true and, like you said, the soul is captured, then it's a successful movie. The point I was making was in reference to chill's statement about having people pick up the book and read it to get more insight on what happened in the movie. If a movie puts something in it that requires you to read the book in order to help you understand what happened, then the movie didn't do it's job. That was my point. I am not in any way accusing this movie of doing that. I'm just talking about any movie in general.

exanda kane
Originally posted by celestialdemon


Besides the blatantly obvious desire to make money (that wasn't even worth anyone's time for you to point out), the point still stands that the point of a movie that is adapted from a book is to portray the story that is in the book. My point doesn't neglect anything. I know that things have to be changed during a translation such as this. That's fine. As long as the story stays true and, like you said, the soul is captured, then it's a successful movie. The point I was making was in reference to chill's statement about having people pick up the book and read it to get more insight on what happened in the movie. If a movie puts something in it that requires you to read the book in order to help you understand what happened, then the movie didn't do it's job. That was my point. I am not in any way accusing this movie of doing that. I'm just talking about any movie in general.

It was worth pointing out, very much so, because it is, despite its wordly obviousness forgotten quite a lot. Another reason why I mentioned it was that entirely negates your statement. Your silly little comment about book-to-film adaptions does not stand, I cited various book-to-film adaptations that rebuke it, and you simply can't address the overwhelming support against your point. You also confuse yourself with the use of 'story,' as while you interchangeably switch story with 'soul,' you earlier use story in a completely different context and meaning. The 'story' as the C-man references can be found in the book, the small moments in the narrative course of events he missed, and you him retort for suggesting reading the book for more insight. The book, or re-watching the film as he also suggested, will give him what he missed.

Film adaptations do their job in less obvious ways than a simple cover-to-cover translation from text to celluloid, so much so that it is often the soul that survives the journey to the screen, rather than the simple story. It is the difference of the mediums and your point fails to grasp that.

celestialdemon
Originally posted by exanda kane
It was worth pointing out, very much so, because it is, despite its wordly obviousness forgotten quite a lot. Another reason why I mentioned it was that entirely negates your statement. Your silly little comment about book-to-film adaptions does not stand, I cited various book-to-film adaptations that rebuke it, and you simply can't address the overwhelming support against your point. You also confuse yourself with the use of 'story,' as while you interchangeably switch story with 'soul,' you earlier use story in a completely different context and meaning. The 'story' as the C-man references can be found in the book, the small moments in the narrative course of events he missed, and you him retort for suggesting reading the book for more insight. The book, or re-watching the film as he also suggested, will give him what he missed.

Film adaptations do their job in less obvious ways than a simple cover-to-cover translation from text to celluloid, so much so that it is often the soul that survives the journey to the screen, rather than the simple story. It is the difference of the mediums and your point fails to grasp that.

It was not worth pointing out because that's the point of every movie. However, why did the Coen brothers choose to adapt this book instead of something more popular that they knew they could make more money off of? Because they enjoyed this story and wanted to translate it into a film. The fact that the movies you mentioned go places the books don't means nothing. They were still inspired by the book and story as a whole is derived from it.

If both movie and book should be judged independently as you say, then there is no point in referring to the book for more insight on the story. Should the original poster rewatch it? Of course. He will definitely understand better that way. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree that he should have to pick up the book.

My point doesn't fail to grasp anything. When a movie is adapted from a book, the overall goal is to stay true to the overall story. Whether things are added to or taken away from the adaptation are irrelevent. It is still an attempt to get the overall story across in movie format. Now, does that mean they shouldn't be judged independently? Of course not. They are different mediums, so they absolutely should be. But since they are different, the movie shouldn't look to the book to clear up any blurry parts. That's the problem I had with "C-man's" statement.

Röland
I had read the book and I really wanted to see this in theaters but wasn't able to get around to seeing it.

Just finished watching it and I think it is a superb piece of filmmaking. It definitely deserved the awards it received.

SkinWalker
Originally posted by Eon Blue
This movie sucked (and I think I'm the only one in the world that has this view).

I hated the film at first too, but it eventually grew on me. It's one of the best of the year.

exanda kane
Originally posted by celestialdemon
It was not worth pointing out because that's the point of every movie.
However, why did the Coen brothers choose to adapt this book instead of something more popular that they knew they could make more money off of?

What the Coen Brothers chose and decided with Cormac McCarthy's work is irrelevant compared to the weight the distribution companies can put behind the Coen Brothers name in financial resources. The Coen Brothers have relative artistic freedom to adapt from any literary source they want, but without the financial concerns of the companies producing their film, they couldn't make that film. Ergo it is a financial process that must be recalled because it is the concern, the point, the goal of any Distribution company.



While they have to be judged independently and not comparatively, that is not to say that they aren't inextricably linked and intertwined. Obviously, it's a great help to have multiple sources when trying to understand a text. That's normal procedure. Many people read a book and watch the film or vice versa, and there is nothing wrong with that; it means there is no fault on the part of either creative process. But they should not be judged comparatively for obvious reasons.

Blatantly, the thing you are not keying into is the role of the audience and the fact that some members of that audience aren't always watching the screen or are interrupted. Nearly everyone but the original poster understood what was being said, done and acted upon in No Country For Old Men, which would lead to the conclusion that it was the original poster's poor luck to miss out. As ChillMeistergen said, you have to rewatch the film or read the book, because while the book is an independant creative product and should never be judged comparatively with the film, it still holds insight into the scene.



But again there are numerous examples of how that does not work considering the many, many adaptations that not only dwindle away from the source material but completely change what you clumsily put as the "overall story." And that is not even mentioning the fact that you presume that the point of a movie is an attempt to "get the story across" in cinematic scope, of which you have no evidence for and no cohesive explaination for. Take the thematic dislocation occuring when Steven Spielberg adapts the short story "Super Toys Last All Summer Long" into A.I for example. A.I, despite its flaws, does not fail because it does away with the narrative concerns and thematic inspiration behind its source material, of which little is left in the film. Yes, they should be judged differently, that's an obvious point which I have long "gone on about," but that is not to dislodge the fact that the source material is similar. Insight can be gained by enjoying both texts, as well as examples from other mediums like radio.

Ergo, a film does not fail if it does not transplant a literary source with a 100% success rate or if the material is treated differently on celluloid than the page. They are different mediums and should never be judged comparatively. But enjoying the "same" work across different mediums is a useful process anf for that C-Man's statement holds weight. The point of a movie being made is for money, usually profit unless you are Terry Gilliam's production company, yet inherent in that desire is a creative process in which any adaptation should be judged on its own merits and not be hindered by its page of birth. Of course, the original poster (on the evidence of other people posting this thread) was the only black cat in the building but can find out what he didn't get in No Country by either enjoying the book or the film.

Robtard
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
What are these things you keeps speaking of that you're not meant to understand? From what I remember, I think I understood pretty much everything about the film.

There are allusions to Chigurh being Death. Did you pick up on that?

jason maddox
I absolutley loved this movie, the story was incredible and the cast was top-notch. I see why this won movie of the year and Tommy Lee Jones stole the movie in my eyes as the aging cop who still has trouble believing the way the world has changed

Rogue Jedi
I liked it, kept ahold of me from start to finish.

FistOfThe North

Robtard
It's called a Captive Bolt Pistol (aka Cattle Bun, aka Stunner), they're used to stun cattle before they're slaughtered.

Silencers for shotguns exist, you can even find specs online on how to make a homemade version.

Rogue Jedi

SnakeEyes
You might want to put spoilers on that buddy for people who haven't seen the film ^.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yeah, that dog scene, MAN....fecking pit bull chased him through the WATER.

my only complaint on this movie was that we didnt get to see Josh Brolin die. other than that, it was awesome. SHIT.....good lookin out, BF. embarrasment

=Tired Hiker=
Originally posted by Robtard
There are allusions to Chigurh being Death. Did you pick up on that? No, there really wasn't anything about his character that would imply that.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
No, there really wasn't anything about his character that would imply that. the more I think about that, the more I see it MAYBE being a possibility.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
No, there really wasn't anything about his character that would imply that.

Yes there was.

=Tired Hiker=
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yes there was.

Isn't it a bit obvious that there was? I think that was what Robtard was going for.

chillmeistergen
Ah, you were being sarcastic. Sorry, I've grown accustomed to you saying stupid things.

Rogue Jedi
he had a funny haircut.

Robtard
The 40 year old guy who still spikes his hair like a 20 year old shouldn't throw stones, Mr. Glasshouse. Oh burn, *****... burn.

=Tired Hiker=
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Ah, you were being sarcastic. Sorry, I've grown accustomed to you saying stupid things.

Robtard was actually answering a question I asked you about three weeks ago. Way to be involved in a movie discussion, snob.

Robtard
Come on now, Chill may be rude, arrogant and belittleing, but he isn't a snob. Besides, he's intelligent enough and rarely post idiocy; I'll take an intelligent and rude poster over the hordes on morons we see posting each and every day.

Rogue Jedi
I disagree, he is very much a snob. Its not a bad thing, its just a thing thing.

Robtard
Like anyone cares what you think.

=Tired Hiker=
Originally posted by Robtard
Come on now, Chill may be rude, arrogant and belittleing, but he isn't a snob.

That is gold. laughing

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Robtard
Like anyone cares what you think.

Originally posted by Robtard
Like anyone cares what you think.

Robtard
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi


You hang on everything I say, so you know that's a lie, Jimmy 'Two Times".

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Robtard
You hang on everything I say, so you know that's a lie, Jimmy 'Two Times". you love me, you just dont wanna admit it.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Robtard was actually answering a question I asked you about three weeks ago. Way to be involved in a movie discussion, snob.

Oh right, sorry I didn't check back until recently and have only looked at the last page.

Snob? Nah.

MildPossession
Another of his books, The Road, is coming out in a few months time as a film. Yet to read any of the man's work. The Road make a good film? It's directed by the guy who made The Proposition, and that was rather good.

exanda kane
The Road will make a great film.

chillmeistergen
Blood Meridian would be an interesting one.

exanda kane
Yeah, they've got a good bunch of people working on Blood Meridian. William Monohan or whatsisname has wrote some great screenplays.

Röland
Originally posted by MildPossession
Another of his books, The Road, is coming out in a few months time as a film. Yet to read any of the man's work. The Road make a good film? It's directed by the guy who made The Proposition, and that was rather good.
I'm pretty sure Viggo Mortenson has been cast as the father, and yes The Road will make a great film.

MildPossession
Yep, Charlize Theron is also in it, and Guy Pearce.

TeenMovies1
I loved this movie. I thought that it was so smart how there was not soundtrack at all. It made it more intense and realistic.

Heat_Vision
Ah yes, this movie pleased me very much. I would like to see a sequal if possible...

chillmeistergen
Not possible.

Heat_Vision
Why not?

chillmeistergen
As far as I'm aware, McCarthy isn't planning on writing a sequel. I really hope he doesn't, there's such a thing as going into a story too much, a sequel would ruin the power Chigurh has of being unpredictable and mysterious.

Heat_Vision
I don't see why a sequal means the character would have to be explained any further than in the first. I would however like to see him in another situation where he murders a lot of poeple and is the only one still standing more or less in the end. That's all the explination I need. evil face

BackFire
Originally posted by MildPossession
Another of his books, The Road, is coming out in a few months time as a film. Yet to read any of the man's work. The Road make a good film? It's directed by the guy who made The Proposition, and that was rather good.

The Road is an absolutely STUNNING novel. Probably the best I've ever read. It's going to be hard to make it into a movie, but it's doable.

It's an incredibly bleak story, with some very very disturbing imagery. Really, if they were really accurate to the book, the film would not be able to get an R rating, it would get an NC 17 or go unrated, some really harsh stuff.

But the story is very simple. It's a Man and his son traversing a post apocalyptic wasteland of America, trying to get to the west coast, in order to avoid freezing to death. And that's all it is, just following them. The simplistic nature of the book may not transfer well to screen, but we'll see.

Read the book ASAP. It's a stunning work.

Heat_Vision
Originally posted by BackFire
The Road is an absolutely STUNNING novel. Probably the best I've ever read. It's going to be hard to make it into a movie, but it's doable.

It's an incredibly bleak story, with some very very disturbing imagery. Really, if they were really accurate to the book, the film would not be able to get an R rating, it would get an NC 17 or go unrated, some really harsh stuff.

But the story is very simple. It's a Man and his son traversing a post apocalyptic wasteland of America, trying to get to the west coast, in order to avoid freezing to death. And that's all it is, just following them. The simplistic nature of the book may not transfer well to screen, but we'll see.

Read the book ASAP. It's a stunning work.


Noted. smile

SnakeEyes
Originally posted by Heat_Vision
Why not?

A sequel would suck.

Röland
Originally posted by Heat_Vision
I don't see why a sequal means the character would have to be explained any further than in the first. I would however like to see him in another situation where he murders a lot of poeple and is the only one still standing more or less in the end. That's all the explination I need. evil face
That pretty much ruins the whole point of the story and plot for the first movie.

Heat_Vision

Röland
Originally posted by Heat_Vision
That would be pretty much the same thing as the first one except a different reason to kill poeple.
Not really.

Bicnarok
Just watched this movie on DVD. And although it was brilliant, and I could hardly understand anything it seems like some bits were missing, or is this the way the movie was supposed to be.

Like when that dude who found the money was killed, suddenly there was gunfire then he lay there dead, it seemed very sudden was there something missing on the DVD or what?

And what was Tommy Lee Jones doing all the time, his character seemed to have a total useless role especially the last scene.

As for the Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh, ohh WOW a new entry to my all time favourite movie bad asses.

Menetnashté
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Just watched this movie on DVD. And although it was brilliant, and I could hardly understand anything it seems like some bits were missing, or is this the way the movie was supposed to be.

Like when that dude who found the money was killed, suddenly there was gunfire then he lay there dead, it seemed very sudden was there something missing on the DVD or what?

And what was Tommy Lee Jones doing all the time, his character seemed to have a total useless role especially the last scene.

As for the Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh, ohh WOW a new entry to my all time favourite movie bad asses.
Nah it was supposed to be that way. I'm not sure why they killed off the main guy other than just to kill him off. As for Tommy Lee Jones being useless, yeah he was. But he explains at the beginning of the movie that times have changed and he can't cope with it. Hence the title No Country for Old Men. He wasn't really supposed to kill "Sugar" it was kind of inferred that he would never be able to use his arm again since his ending was relating to the story Tommy Lee tells about the guy who shoots cattle. It's one of those movies where if you don't pay attention you don't get it. Only thing I didn't care for was how quick they killed off Woody.

Bicnarok

Discos
I kind of didnt like this film, I hate films that win all these awards and turn out to be shit.

Good performances but it was so dull and didnt have a great story to it.

Menetnashté
Originally posted by Discos
I kind of didnt like this film, I hate films that win all these awards and turn out to be shit.

Good performances but it was so dull and didnt have a great story to it.
It wasn't dull it was realistic...And symbolic.

Discos
just wasn't my cup of tea, guess I aint into Drama movies.

Laura Palmer
It's a good film, just a bit overrated.



Damn those understatements of mine... very overrated.

Toku King
The ending completely screwed it up for me.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.