Originally posted by celestialdemon
I didn't understand his dream, either. I wasn't too crazy about the ending, but I don't think it really undervalued the movie as a whole. All in all, a great movie. Best Picture worthy? I don't know about that.
I personally felt Michael Clayton should of recieved Best Picture.
Originally posted by starlock
Well to me a great movie has to have an ending i like...it goes into the good category 😛It just seemed like an attempt to be artsy and unique=Failed, watching it once is enough
Now cloverfield? i watched it three times allready...and no i did not throw up 😘
Well, if I honestly had to pick my personal favorite movie of 2007, it would be a tough call between 300 and Transformers. 😄
Originally posted by invisiblewomanI'm not sure how that fits into the picture, but "No Country..." definitely kept consistent to its message, even in the ending no one seemed to like. Thoughts to follow.
hello hello everybody . . .i saw no country for old men and it was great but i agree the ending sucked!
and i didnt quite understand what tommy lee jones whole dream was about . . . .
any thoughts?
THAR BE SPOILERS HERE!!!
Spoiler:
The central point of the film spun around the idea that men (particularly the current generation) are chaotic creatures. The justice of the past, upheld by men of integrity (Tommy Lee Jones) has no place in the present with incorrigible, chaotic killers (Javier Bardem). And there is no cosmic justice (Bardem walking away from the car accident, instead of being killed), only chaotic turns of chance. The film does, however seem to give us hope in the form of the next generation (the innocent kid that offers his shirt to Bardem's character). Perhaps that generation can produce more good than the current one. As you can see, the story pretty much fits with the title. The central point of the film spun around the idea that men (particularly the current generation) are chaotic creatures. The justice of the past, upheld by men of integrity (Tommy Lee Jones) has no place in the present with incorrigible, chaotic killers (Javier Bardem). And there is no cosmic justice (Bardem walking away from the car accident, instead of being killed), only chaotic turns of chance. The film does, however seem to give us hope in the form of the next generation (the innocent kid that offers his shirt to Bardem's character). Perhaps that generation can produce more good than the current one. The story pretty much fits with the title.
Originally posted by starlock
Well to me a great movie has to have an ending i like...it goes into the good category 😛It just seemed like an attempt to be artsy and unique=Failed, watching it once is enough
Now cloverfield? i watched it three times allready...and no i did not throw up 😘
yeah cloverfield would have been better to me if i could have seen the whole movie! it was all over the place (made me sea sick) i had to stop watching it like half way through the movie!
i never get sick like that (well sometimes in the car but not often)
Originally posted by starlock
Well to me a great movie has to have an ending i like...it goes into the good category 😛It just seemed like an attempt to be artsy and unique=Failed, watching it once is enough
Now cloverfield? i watched it three times allready...and no i did not throw up 😘
That's true. I don't like it when films use artsy gimicks just for the same of being gimicky (is that a word). One movie that's like that, and I know I'm probably gonna get flamed for it, is Pulp Fiction. Loved the movie, but the jumping around back and forth in time served no purpose at all other than to be cool. Doesn't work for me.