Peter Travers of Rolling Stone - “Oscar, don’t be stupid.”

uglybabo

A video rant from the film critic of Rolling Stone, telling Oscar voters that ignoring 'Guaranteed' would be stupid...

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/01/04/peter-travers-video-plea-oscar-dont-be-stupid/

PureandEasy

I can't get it to play, but I get the gist

Kilgore_Trout

i didnt realize the guitarist from radiohead did the score for "there will be blood"... i really wanna see that... daniel day lewis is pretty kickass... looks like hes basically playing the same character as "gangs of new york"... i agreed with everything he said accept about the ending of "no country for old men"... i dont care how much you think about it, that movie was BAD... no offense to eddies friend javier... it had alot of potential and it just got real weird and too long...

mdgsolo

sgossard3 wrote:

i didnt realize the guitarist from radiohead did the score for "there will be blood"... i really wanna see that... daniel day lewis is pretty kickass... looks like hes basically playing the same character as "gangs of new york"... i agreed with everything he said accept about the ending of "no country for old men"... i dont care how much you think about it, that movie was BAD... no offense to eddies friend javier... it had alot of potential and it just got real weird and too long...

On 'No Country': Amen brotha.

jwillmo

I'm sure this will get this thread moved, but...

Are you freaking kidding me?!! NCFOM was by far the best movie of the year. I don't think I've ever been in a movie where the audience was so quiet and attentive during the tense scenes. I've seen it twice already and it's even better and more nuanced the second time. The ending is a little jarring at first (trying to avoid spoilers here) but it makes a lot of sense the second time around. It seems most people unhappy with the ending wanted a more conventional, typical Hollywood ending.

Kilgore_Trout

ill admit it made you think... but not in a good way... i was thinking... damn that was a waste of my time... me and my friend agreed the part where they drink milk was the best part... drinking milk shouldnt be the highlight of a movie... for a movie with so much killing i was surprised it could be so boring... i guess im just not into these art noir style movies that rely too heavily on artsy camera angles and editing and whatnot... i feel like i can be honest about it too because despite what peter travers says i think its getting more than enough attention with these awards shows... my problems not so much with the ending as much as it is it COULD have ended 6 times before the actual ending... and in a better way...

jwillmo

I guess I'll have to say SPOILERS now...



Ending aside, what about the scene where he's trying to get the money out of the AC vent while Bardem is in his old motel room? Jesus Christ, that was the most tense scene I've seen since the drug deal in Boogie Nights. Even people I've talked to that didn't care for the ending usually agree that the other hour and half was pretty awesome. You're making this sound way more "artsy" than it actually is. A good chunk of the middle is a pretty standard (though really really well done) chase picture.

Kilgore_Trout

jwillmo wrote:

I guess I'll have to say SPOILERS now...



Ending aside, what about the scene where he's trying to get the money out of the AC vent while Bardem is in his old motel room? Jesus Christ, that was the most tense scene I've seen since the drug deal in Boogie Nights. Even people I've talked to that didn't care for the ending usually agree that the other hour and half was pretty awesome. You're making this sound way more "artsy" than it actually is. A good chunk of the middle is a pretty standard (though really really well done) chase picture.

im not denying there were some good scenes... but there was also alot of downtime between those scenes... and i prefer to take the movie as a whole into consideration... another SPOILER:

tommy lee jones dream that he shares with his wife at the end was fuckin stupid...

i actually really liked the scene with the quarter flip in that old convenient store... it went on too long and was pointless... but i dunno... and the whole movie sortof had the same vibe but didnt work for me the same... its a confusing movie... i guess the fact that it hurts my brain is a good thing tho

gozzo5058

...a good rant

Pegasus

I haven't seen either film (since they haven't been released here yet :rolleyes: ), but all the vibes I get for the Oscars in the usual places are a deadlock between No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood.

Not at all sure that ITW will even get nominated in Best Film, though Sean Penn might as he is in the DGA nominations.

still..I think Ed has good chances for a nomination..winning, it's another matter..but who cares? he'll play anyway

now is there a jammer with Sky Premiere and no or understanding flatmates (since it's in the middle of the night) to host an Oscar Party in London??

mdgsolo

jwillmo wrote:

I guess I'll have to say SPOILERS now...



Ending aside, what about the scene where he's trying to get the money out of the AC vent while Bardem is in his old motel room? Jesus Christ, that was the most tense scene I've seen since the drug deal in Boogie Nights. Even people I've talked to that didn't care for the ending usually agree that the other hour and half was pretty awesome. You're making this sound way more "artsy" than it actually is. A good chunk of the middle is a pretty standard (though really really well done) chase picture.

A bunch of tense scenes strung together doesn't necessarily make a good story. How can I get behind a movie where the only thing even close to a protagonist is knocked off halfway through the film. To much killing without much story- that's my feeling. What's the point? The world is a fucked up and violent place and its getting worse not better? No thanks- I've got the front page of the local paper for that...

jwillmo

mdgsolo wrote:

A bunch of tense scenes strung together doesn't necessarily make a good story. How can I get behind a movie where the only thing even close to a protagonist is knocked off halfway through the film. To much killing without much story- that's my feeling. What's the point? The world is a fucked up and violent place and its getting worse not better? No thanks- I've got the front page of the local paper for that...

I was responding to the comment that the best scene was the milk-drinking scene. And no, the false protagonist is killed off, the protagonist is still alive in the last scene of the movie.

If the overall pessimistic theme of the picture doesn't sit well, I can understand that. But I really feel this is much, much more than a "bunch of tense scenes strung together," I think it's a brilliant story of a guy trying to make sense of a world he doesn't understand anymore, nestled away in a great chase thriller. Although I do think there's actually a bit of optimism in the last scene where he recounts the dream.

And even if you do consider Josh Brolin the protagonist (though I clearly don't), that's kind of an arbitrary reason to dislike a film anyway. Ever heard of a little movie called Psycho? Anyway, plenty of movies/stories are centered around an antagonist and are pretty universally regarded as well.

But if you just say you don't like it because of its pessimism, I really can't argue with that. The last line of the movie is one of the more "downer" last lines of recent memory.

CantKeepmedown

I suppose you would have liked a nice rooftop shoot-out between Chigurh and the Sheriff, with Carla Jean being held hostage?

I think people hated the ending (or the movie) because the story wasn't totally wrapped up for them. Sheriff Bell's retelling of his dream at the end fit in perfectly to the movie.

Here was a man, completely torn apart from what he's seen. It's broken him down so badly, he's trying to contemplate between "going out riding" or staying home and doing household chores.

It was the best movie I've seen in some time.

But, I also respect others' opinions.

mdgsolo

jwillmo wrote:

I was responding to the comment that the best scene was the milk-drinking scene. And no, the false protagonist is killed off, the protagonist is still alive in the last scene of the movie.

If the overall pessimistic theme of the picture doesn't sit well, I can understand that. But I really feel this is much, much more than a "bunch of tense scenes strung together," I think it's a brilliant story of a guy trying to make sense of a world he doesn't understand anymore, nestled away in a great chase thriller. Although I do think there's actually a bit of optimism in the last scene where he recounts the dream.

And even if you do consider Josh Brolin the protagonist (though I clearly don't), that's kind of an arbitrary reason to dislike a film anyway. Ever heard of a little movie called Psycho? Anyway, plenty of movies/stories are centered around an antagonist and are pretty universally regarded as well.

But if you just say you don't like it because of its pessimism, I really can't argue with that. The last line of the movie is one of the more "downer" last lines of recent memory.

So, are you suggesting that there is no protagonist or only an antagonist? I don't really think you can call TLJ a protagonist in this movie as he plays such a small role in the overall story. And you have to have a protagonist to have an antagonist. Anyways, just because something is universally regarded, doesn't mean its good or I have to like it. Anyway, as it comes to art as enrichment it has no value to me. If, as you say, it is about an old man trying to make sense of a world he doesn't understand anymore- a theme I think almost anyone not pathological can relate to- then watching a ruthless heartless killer brutalize and kill people for two and half hours brings me no closer to enlightenment.

Kilgore_Trout

mdgsolo wrote:

So, are you suggesting that there is no protagonist or only an antagonist? I don't really think you can call TLJ a protagonist in this movie as he plays such a small role in the overall story. And you have to have a protagonist to have an antagonist. Anyways, just because something is universally regarded, doesn't mean its good or I have to like it. Anyway, as it comes to art as enrichment it has no value to me. If, as you say, it is about an old man trying to make sense of a world he doesn't understand anymore- a theme I think almost anyone not pathological can relate to- then watching a ruthless heartless killer brutalize and kill people for two and half hours brings me no closer to enlightenment.

agreed... leave something on the cutting room floor for christs sake! i can deal with a bad movie up until it hits the 2 hr mark tops... but after that i start wondering what possessed them to leave in scenes like the car crash and taking the kids shirt and the quarter flip scene and the whole thing with him sneaking into mexico and about 10 other scenes... its like a good album with filler songs (vitalogy)... it just distracts

PJ20

mdgsolo wrote:

So, are you suggesting that there is no protagonist or only an antagonist? I don't really think you can call TLJ a protagonist in this movie as he plays such a small role in the overall story. And you have to have a protagonist to have an antagonist. Anyways, just because something is universally regarded, doesn't mean its good or I have to like it. Anyway, as it comes to art as enrichment it has no value to me. If, as you say, it is about an old man trying to make sense of a world he doesn't understand anymore- a theme I think almost anyone not pathological can relate to- then watching a ruthless heartless killer brutalize and kill people for two and half hours brings me no closer to enlightenment.

jwillmo is right. this movie is awesome.

the whole movie is about fate. the fact that the "good guy" (if you mean someone who steals millions of dollars is the "good guy") doesn't win is the point: the complete unpredictability of things.

in the book Chigurh actually gets caught by the cops in order to see if he is supposed to escape. cue first scene.

PJ20

sgossard3 wrote:

agreed... leave something on the cutting room floor for christs sake! i can deal with a bad movie up until it hits the 2 hr mark tops... but after that i start wondering what possessed them to leave in scenes like the car crash and taking the kids shirt and the quarter flip scene and the whole thing with him sneaking into mexico and about 10 other scenes... its like a good album with filler songs (vitalogy)... it just distracts

you are kidding right? there couldn't be a movie without these central tenets, especially the coin toss and the car accident!!!

they are the entire POINT of the movie.

CantKeepmedown

sgossard3 wrote:

agreed... leave something on the cutting room floor for christs sake! i can deal with a bad movie up until it hits the 2 hr mark tops... but after that i start wondering what possessed them to leave in scenes like the car crash and taking the kids shirt and the quarter flip scene and the whole thing with him sneaking into mexico and about 10 other scenes... its like a good album with filler songs (vitalogy)... it just distracts

The movie was 122 minutes long.

The car crash scene with Chigurh was again showing how fate can intervene on just about anybody. IMO, Chigurh was very perplexed (if that's the right word) at how his meeting with Carla Jean went. The fact that she refused to participate in his coin flip game set him off, and I believe certainly distracted him. His continuing to stare at the boys on the bike, which lead to the accident showed this. I think it showed that even this evil man is susceptible to fate.

The scene with the old man in the gas station was fantastic, if not unnerving. I think it showed the audience what we were dealing with in Chigurh, and how his mind works. He had probably made up his mind that he was going to kill this man, but decided to give him a chance instead. Again, fate. He let a coin flip decide. If the man chooses tails, he's done.

jwillmo

mdgsolo wrote:

So, are you suggesting that there is no protagonist or only an antagonist? I don't really think you can call TLJ a protagonist in this movie as he plays such a small role in the overall story. And you have to have a protagonist to have an antagonist. Anyways, just because something is universally regarded, doesn't mean its good or I have to like it. Anyway, as it comes to art as enrichment it has no value to me. If, as you say, it is about an old man trying to make sense of a world he doesn't understand anymore- a theme I think almost anyone not pathological can relate to- then watching a ruthless heartless killer brutalize and kill people for two and half hours brings me no closer to enlightenment.

Um, no I made it pretty clear I thought Ed Tom Bell was the protagonist. No shit you have to have the pro- to have the an-. Chigurh is the catalyst for Ed Tom Bell's character change throughout the film. It's not so much that is role is "small," it's that it's "helpless". If his story isn't the central one, why have his character at all? He's a policeman who never catches anyone throughout the whole film. Since he's not integral to the PLOT, it's pretty clear then he must be integral to the THEME.
Anyway, I'm sorry you had to sit a 2 1/2 hour cut of this film, maybe that soured your view. The version I saw was only a couple of minutes over two hours.

jwillmo

CantKeepmedown wrote:

The movie was 122 minutes long.

The car crash scene with Chigurh was again showing how fate can intervene on just about anybody. IMO, Chigurh was very perplexed (if that's the right word) at how his meeting with Carla Jean went. The fact that she refused to participate in his coin flip game set him off, and I believe certainly distracted him. His continuing to stare at the boys on the bike, which lead to the accident showed this. I think it showed that even this evil man is susceptible to fate.

The scene with the old man in the gas station was fantastic, if not unnerving. I think it showed the audience what we were dealing with in Chigurh, and how his mind works. He had probably made up his mind that he was going to kill this man, but decided to give him a chance instead. Again, fate. He let a coin flip decide. If the man chooses tails, he's done.

Good points. I also thought the scene with the kids was a counterpoint to the scene where Josh Brolin asks for the frat kids' jacket. He has to pay for the jacket (and they even try to extort money from him for one lousy beer) whereas the kid offers Chigur the shirt off his back and tries to give back his money. When he finally does accept the money, it causes an argument between the kids on whether or not the other kid should get a cut ("You still have YOUR shirt!"), which also touches on the corrupting affects of money, another theme throughout the movie.

This movie is just so rich with little things like this, I guess that's why I feel the need to defend it so.

EquallyWorthless

jwillmo wrote:

I'm sure this will get this thread moved, but...

Are you freaking kidding me?!! NCFOM was by far the best movie of the year. I don't think I've ever been in a movie where the audience was so quiet and attentive during the tense scenes. I've seen it twice already and it's even better and more nuanced the second time. The ending is a little jarring at first (trying to avoid spoilers here) but it makes a lot of sense the second time around. It seems most people unhappy with the ending wanted a more conventional, typical Hollywood ending.

agreed, if you dont leave that film feeling absolutely disgusted you have no soul. period.

as for guaranteed winning best song i would love it but i think it would destroy eddies street cred and im kinda torn because id really like to see one of the songs from once win....