View Full Version : No Country for Old Men - 1911
Paladin_139
12-17-08, 06:15
For those of you who have seen the movie. There's a part near the beginning where the main character, I think his name is LouEllen (sp?), is trying to get away from a dog. He jumps in ariver and swims to the other shore. He has a 1911 on him and obviousely it gets wet and submerged in water. Anyway the dog is still swimming to get him and he gets out of the water, drops the mag, ejects the round out of the chamber and starts blowing the chamber and barrell out with his mouth. He then puts the mag back in, racks it and shoots the dog right as it gets out of the river and jumps at him. It's all very dramatic.
Anyway my question is about the inability of the 1911 to fire while wet. Yes? No? Hollywood drama or is there a basis to it? Your guys' thoughts.
Business_Casual
12-17-08, 06:35
Water in the barrel could cause a kaboom.
I think that was a 38 Super Mexican special, wasn't it?
M_P
Littlelebowski
12-17-08, 07:02
All he had to was shake it out and not even that. 1911s will fire underwater. They overdramatized that scene to emphasize his gun handling know-how.
Water in the barrel could cause a kaboom.
No chance. 1911s can fire under water. A hollow point type bullet might not work so hot though. Never saw the movie, but the gun could have easily been fired immediately upon exiting the water.
(maybe hollyweird blanks prefer a dry barrel! :D)
Business_Casual
12-17-08, 07:53
No chance. 1911s can fire under water. A hollow point type bullet might not work so hot though. Never saw the movie, but the gun could have easily been fired immediately upon exiting the water.
(maybe hollyweird blanks prefer a dry barrel! :D)
If you had seen the dog, you would have exercised a bit of caution as well. :p
M_P
Robb Jensen
12-17-08, 07:59
Typical Hollyweird.....http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/smilies/smiley_abused.gif
Littlelebowski
12-17-08, 08:04
If you had seen the dog, you would have exercised a bit of caution as well. :p
M_P
Yeah, I would exercised about 2-3rounds of caution. That was silly how just one shot made the dog fall down instantly dead.
Yeah, I would exercised about 2-3rounds of caution. That was silly how just one shot made the dog fall down instantly dead.
They were over-emphasizing his gun-handling knowledge, not his understanding of terminal ballistics ;)
ETA: Which the exception of some dialogue gems, what a boring, disappointing movie.
I saw a Guns and Ammo TV test where they placed a Milspec SA1911 in a Ransom rest at the bottom of a pool. The gun was fired remotely via a string. It fired, feed and extracted, but the barrel slightly bulged.
dwhitehorne
12-17-08, 14:54
Here is someone abusing 1911's in a Gun magazine. Page 5 and 6 mention shooting the test pistols under water. David
http://www.advancedtactical.com/sweeneyarticle.pdf
I got it at the gettin' place.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Movie%20guns/no-country-for-old-men-josh-brolin-.jpg
I assumed it was a shiny .38 Super Mexicali Special too, but that sure looks like a .45 ACP.
decodeddiesel
12-17-08, 17:50
Obviously a couple seconds after emerging from the creek the weapon would have been ready to fire, we all know this, but one thing to remember is that the movie takes place in the early 1980s. Llewelyn is a Vietnam Vet, and Vietnam era TTPs were still the norm. Perhaps removing the round from the chamber and clearing the weapon of water before firing was the advocated technique back then? I mean you see him firing from the hip numerous times and as much as we all cringe now a days it was the accepted technique back then. I can remember talking to one of my buddies fathers growing up who was also a Vietnam Vet and he was explaining to me what type of targets you were supposed to fire the M16 from the hip at and which ones you fired from the shoulder at. It was very different than what I was taught in the Army. Obviously things now a days have progressed to where we have a better understanding of what happens when one fires a submerged or partially submerged weapon and our current TTPs have evolved as a result.
Side note: I think this movie may have been one of the greatest movies released in the past 20 years. But it seems people either love it or hate it.
Obviously a couple seconds after emerging from the creek the weapon would have been ready to fire, we all know this, but one thing to remember is that the movie takes place in the early 1980s. Llewelyn is a Vietnam Vet, and Vietnam era TTPs were still the norm. Perhaps removing the round from the chamber and clearing the weapon of water before firing was the advocated technique back then? I mean you see him firing from the hip numerous times and as much as we all cringe now a days it was the accepted technique back then. I can remember talking to one of my buddies fathers growing up who was also a Vietnam Vet and he was explaining to me what type of targets you were supposed to fire the M16 from the hip at and which ones you fired from the shoulder at. It was very different than what I was taught in the Army. Obviously things now a days have progressed to where we have a better understanding of what happens when one fires a submerged or partially submerged weapon and our current TTPs have evolved as a result.
Side note: I think this movie may have been one of the greatest movies released in the past 20 years. But it seems people either love it or hate it.
I thought exactly the same thing. I realize it's a movie, but my father and one of my uncles are Army vets, my uncle was 10th Group. Another uncle was Coast Guard, all from the early to mid 60's.
Taking them shooting is an experience. You try to break the bad techniques they were taught, but there's still plenty of chicken-winging and one hand bulls-eye stance stuff going on.
decodeddiesel
12-17-08, 19:00
I thought exactly the same thing. I realize it's a movie, but my father and one of my uncles are Army vets, my uncle was 5th Group. Another uncle was Coast Guard, all from the early to mid 60's.
Taking them shooting is an experience. You try to break the bad techniques they were taught, but there's still plenty of chicken-winging and one hand bulls-eye stance stuff going on.
Seriously. I think my buddies dad called it the "John Wayne course". It was a series of training which advocated firing the M16 form the hip (on full auto no less) at targets less than 10 meters and shouldering the weapon for targets further away. Regardless Camp Perry blades, chicken wings, and one handed pistol was the order of the day. So in that regard perhaps they were spot on in the weapons handling presented in this movie.
I have a hard time swallowing the suppressed 12g but whatever, it's entertaining at least.
sixboysdad
12-17-08, 23:55
[With] the exception of some dialogue gems, what a boring, disappointing movie.
This was my take on it exactly. I was expecting much more from the cast, especially Tommy Lee Jones. I was extremely disappointed at the ending. I mean, he just left. WTF?
I have a hard time swallowing the suppressed 12g but whatever, it's entertaining at least.
Works just fine. (http://www.tacticaloperations.com/swatsep2000/) ;)
You need to read the book. It expands on some of the dialogue, especially the "friendo" exchange in the gas station, and the exchange between Chigurh and Llewellyn's wife before he kills her. The book gets alot more into the philosophy of Chigurh, and it covers what happens with him before and after the car accident toward the end. Its a difficult read though, due to Cormac McCarthy not using quotation marks at all. It was one of the best books I've ever read, and I was a little disappointed in the movie, but I still loved it. I thought Tommy Lee Jones' delivery of his lines was great, and most of the lines were taken word-for-word from the book. I especially liked his delivery of the line at the beginning about the guy on death row: "Said he knew he was going to hell. Be there in about 15 minutes." One line they left out that surprised me though, was after Chigurh kills the guy at the beginning with the cattlegun. After he pulls him over and gets him out of the car, the guy asks why, he kills him, then looks down at the body and says: "I just didn't want to get any blood in the car." Another book by Cormac McCarthy, about to come out as a movie with Viggo Mortensen, is "The Road", about a father and son travelling across a post-apocalyptic America. Another great book that won the Pulitzer.
decodeddiesel
12-18-08, 08:13
Works just fine. (http://www.tacticaloperations.com/swatsep2000/) ;)
That is pretty impressive. The only other 12g suppressors I had heard about were made in England for controlling noise pollution while bird hunting. They are about 3 feet long, and had a 100 round limit before the shot killed the baffles and required a complete overhaul.
Obviously a couple seconds after emerging from the creek the weapon would have been ready to fire, we all know this, but one thing to remember is that the movie takes place in the early 1980s. Llewelyn is a Vietnam Vet, and Vietnam era TTPs were still the norm. Perhaps removing the round from the chamber and clearing the weapon of water before firing was the advocated technique back then? I mean you see him firing from the hip numerous times and as much as we all cringe now a days it was the accepted technique back then. I can remember talking to one of my buddies fathers growing up who was also a Vietnam Vet and he was explaining to me what type of targets you were supposed to fire the M16 from the hip at and which ones you fired from the shoulder at. It was very different than what I was taught in the Army. Obviously things now a days have progressed to where we have a better understanding of what happens when one fires a submerged or partially submerged weapon and our current TTPs have evolved as a result.
Side note: I think this movie may have been one of the greatest movies released in the past 20 years. But it seems people either love it or hate it.
Totally agree, best movie in a LONG time. The thing is, most people who really like this movie are people who appreciate fine movies and don't need to have everything spelled out for them in True Hollywood dumb me down fashion. Some of the best movies I have ever seen provoke thought and this is surely one of them. I advise anyone who did not like it, to buy it and watch it several times. This one gets better and better each time it is viewed. And also get Cormac's books as they are outstanding. I am currently reading, "Blood Meridian."
But as far as the OP's question, I think it added to the veracity of the Character's knowledge and careful thought of firearms. I especially liked how he waited, while sitting down, and looking at his watch, until he approached the still Mexican under the tree.
Such a good movie.
Business_Casual
12-18-08, 21:06
I assumed it was a shiny .38 Super Mexicali Special too, but that sure looks like a .45 ACP.
You know, maybe I do need a .38 Super pistola - just in case I happen to become a third-world land baron when I'm not paying attention.
What would be a good base gun? A Colt? Or should I go full-house with a Caspian slide/frame and wait a few years?
Any closet Ivory grip owners here?
Hmm...
M_P
You know, maybe I do need a .38 Super pistola - just in case I happen to become a third-world land baron when I'm not paying attention.
What would be a good base gun? A Colt? Or should I go full-house with a Caspian slide/frame and wait a few years?
Any closet Ivory grip owners here?
Hmm...
M_P
You could go for a Llama or a nice Star Model B Super........:cool:
Or, if you're serious, yeah, I'd go Colt.
If you watch The Untouchables, Frank Nitty carried a nickled Colt Gov't in .38 Super.
Business_Casual
12-18-08, 21:30
Aye chinga! That's a lot of pesos for a bit of bling bling!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/glock23carry/pix331445203.jpg
M_P
...Llewelyn is a Vietnam Vet,...
He was a sniper.
...one thing to remember is that the movie takes place in the early 1980s...
1980. I think you can see the date on Carla Jean's Mom's grave stone also.
Anton Chigurh: What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss.
Gas Station Proprietor: Sir?
Anton Chigurh: The most. You ever lost. On a coin toss.
Gas Station Proprietor: I don't know. I couldn't say.
[Chigurh flips a quarter from the change on the counter and covers it with his hand]
Anton Chigurh: Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Call it?
Anton Chigurh: Yes.
Gas Station Proprietor: For what?
Anton Chigurh: Just call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Well, we need to know what we're calling it for here.
Anton Chigurh: You need to call it. I can't call it for you. It wouldn't be fair.
Gas Station Proprietor: I didn't put nothin' up.
Anton Chigurh: Yes, you did. You've been putting it up your whole life you just didn't know it. You know what date is on this coin?
Gas Station Proprietor: No.
Anton Chigurh: 1958. It's been traveling twenty-two years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails. And you have to say. Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Look, I need to know what I stand to win.
Anton Chigurh: Everything.
Gas Station Proprietor: How's that?
Anton Chigurh: You stand to win everything. Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Alright. Heads then.
[Chigurh removes his hand, revealing the coin is indeed heads]
Anton Chigurh: Well done.
[the gas station proprietor nervously takes the quarter with the small pile of change he's apparently won while Chigurh starts out]
Anton Chigurh: Don't put it in your pocket, sir. Don't put it in your pocket. It's your lucky quarter.
Gas Station Proprietor: Where do you want me to put it?
Anton Chigurh: Anywhere not in your pocket. Where it'll get mixed in with the others and become just a coin. Which it is.
[Chigurh leaves and the gas station proprietor stares at him as he walks out]
Don't remember him being a sniper. I do remember he did multiple tours. I gotta get that book.
http://tiny.cc/6ivon
I love that movie.
"look at that ****in' bone....."
Bad Voodoo
12-21-08, 18:36
This was my take on it exactly. I was expecting much more from the cast, especially Tommy Lee Jones. I was extremely disappointed at the ending. I mean, he just left. WTF?
:eek:
Wow, just how did you guys interpret this film? The book was awesome and the screenplay was as faithful to that original as I've ever seen.
I thought that was a great film. It's one of those that I re-watch every time it's on. So many little nuances that are easy to miss with only a single run-through.
Watch it a couple times. I'm sure it will grow on you.
Don't remember him being a sniper. I do remember he did multiple tours. I gotta get that book.
http://tiny.cc/6ivon
Yes, in the book Sheriff Bell states that Llewellyn was a sniper in Vietnam. And yes, you do need to get the book, you will look at the movie in a whole new light.
Most people I talk to hated the movie because "it just ends". That's the reason I think it's a great movie. It Just Ends. Like real life. Not Hollyweird where it's packaged, sold, test marketed, brokered, percentaged, diced, sliced and jammed down the public's throat, all in 97 minutes, complete with a happy ending. The movie couldn't have ended any differently. The good die, the old retire and evil walks the earth with a broken arm and a bad haircut.
Internet movie firearm database.
http://www.imfdb.org/index.php?title=No_Country_for_Old_Men
There is a internet movie vehicle database as well.
Most people I talk to hated the movie because "it just ends". That's the reason I think it's a great movie. It Just Ends. Like real life. Not Hollyweird where it's packaged, sold, test marketed, brokered, percentaged, diced, sliced and jammed down the public's throat, all in 97 minutes, complete with a happy ending. The movie couldn't have ended any differently. The good die, the old retire and evil walks the earth with a broken arm and a bad haircut.
The movie does not follow the book ending. Carla Jean's final meeting with Chigurh goes down differently - re: coin toss. There is a follow up with Ed Tom and those two boys on the bike at the accident - re: gun. The almost meet between Chighurh and Ed Tom where Moss met his end happens differently - re: Ed Tom follows him for a bit.
Just put the book on order from Amazon, so I'll get a chance to check out the differences between book and movie. Like I said, I think the movie is great. You don't get the ending just handed to you. You've got to work a bit for it. Use what's left of your imagination to fill in the details. Almost all the movies I've seen that are based on a book somewhere, never completely follow the text. All The Pretty Horses, another one of his books, is the same way. Excellent movie by itself. Stunning cinematography. Different from the book.
Most people I talk to hated the movie because "it just ends".
From reading Bell's speech about his dreams of his father, and his father readying a fire, I took it as meaning that he knows his death is coming, and its coming soon.
K.L. Davis
12-21-08, 20:38
Most people I talk to hated the movie because "it just ends".
Well that helps a lot... to be honest, I have tried a few times and can not get to the end of the movie; once I fell asleep and the other two times I just kept thinking that there were much better ways to spend that time.
From reading Bell's speech about his dreams of his father, and his father readying a fire, as meaning that he knows his death is coming, and its coming soon.
Exactly what I was talking about using your mind to fill in the movie.
After reading McCarthy's "The Road", I can't wait to see how they make into the movie coming out with Viggo Mortenson.
decodeddiesel
12-21-08, 21:48
He was a sniper.
1980. I think you can see the date on Carla Jean's Mom's grave stone also.
Anton Chigurh: What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss.
Gas Station Proprietor: Sir?
Anton Chigurh: The most. You ever lost. On a coin toss.
Gas Station Proprietor: I don't know. I couldn't say.
[Chigurh flips a quarter from the change on the counter and covers it with his hand]
Anton Chigurh: Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Call it?
Anton Chigurh: Yes.
Gas Station Proprietor: For what?
Anton Chigurh: Just call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Well, we need to know what we're calling it for here.
Anton Chigurh: You need to call it. I can't call it for you. It wouldn't be fair.
Gas Station Proprietor: I didn't put nothin' up.
Anton Chigurh: Yes, you did. You've been putting it up your whole life you just didn't know it. You know what date is on this coin?
Gas Station Proprietor: No.
Anton Chigurh: 1958. It's been traveling twenty-two years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails. And you have to say. Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Look, I need to know what I stand to win.
Anton Chigurh: Everything.
Gas Station Proprietor: How's that?
Anton Chigurh: You stand to win everything. Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Alright. Heads then.
[Chigurh removes his hand, revealing the coin is indeed heads]
Anton Chigurh: Well done.
[the gas station proprietor nervously takes the quarter with the small pile of change he's apparently won while Chigurh starts out]
Anton Chigurh: Don't put it in your pocket, sir. Don't put it in your pocket. It's your lucky quarter.
Gas Station Proprietor: Where do you want me to put it?
Anton Chigurh: Anywhere not in your pocket. Where it'll get mixed in with the others and become just a coin. Which it is.
[Chigurh leaves and the gas station proprietor stares at him as he walks out]
Um...ok...1980 then.
Um...ok...1980 then.
Great scene, I had to pull it up on my iTunes, just to watch it again.
Dan Goodwin
12-21-08, 22:03
This is not a movie for people not willing to think it through, ie the folks who went "Ohhh!" when he smoked the Mexican pitbull with the water sensitive .45.
I feel this was the role Tommy Lee was born to play and am surprised he wasn't nominated for it. I read the book in '05 and felt the movie was very close to the original work.
My nits to pick:
They wussed out and had Llewelyn shooting at computer generated antelope, they could have found real footage of an antelope getting wounded with all the hunting shows out there.
And there was no reason for him to not fire a followup shot to anchor the wounded buck...though that would have ended the movie right there.
I can't recall Llewelyn's reason in the book for going back to give the cartel gunman the agua, but it seems the opposite of his other actions up to that point. Again, it was necessary to move the movie forward.
Need to buy a copy of the movie, come to think of it, hopefully there's a director's cut out.
Also need to read "The Road."
Speaking of good movies, Viggo Mortenson and Ed Harris did a slapping good job in the film adaptation of Robert B. Parker's "Appaloosa". A whole lot better than "3:10 to Yuma".
...
I feel this was the role Tommy Lee was born to play and am surprised he wasn't nominated for it.
....
Absofrickenlutly. He was and sure should have been.
Absofrickenlutly. He was and sure should have been.
"Said he knew he was going to hell. Be there in about 15 minutes."
I can't recall Llewelyn's reason in the book for going back to give the cartel gunman the agua, but it seems the opposite of his other actions up to that point. Again, it was necessary to move the movie forward.
Same as in the movie. He wakes after 1 and counts the money. He thinks - But it wasn't money you woke up about. Are you dead out there? Hell no, you ain't dead.
Then decides to go back. Tells Carla Jean Something I forgot to do. I'll be back. And like the movie he fills and empty jug with water.
Also need to read "The Road."
Outstanding book. Never put that one down.
Cormac McCarthy will go down in history as one of The great American fiction writers such a Flannery O'Conner.
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-22-08, 19:42
Blood Meridian is the best American novel ever written.
Well that helps a lot... to be honest, I have tried a few times and can not get to the end of the movie; once I fell asleep and the other two times I just kept thinking that there were much better ways to spend that time.
Yeah, chalk me up among the movie-going illiterate. My brother and I almost sat and waited through the credits figuring there had to be more. Like, an ending?
.... Like, an ending?
There's no end to the struggle between good and evil. Evil lives on. It's the good that grows old, retires and wishes they could have done more.
decodeddiesel
12-22-08, 22:16
There's no end to the struggle between good and evil. Evil lives on. It's the good that grows old, retires and wishes they could have done more.
Wow! That is by far the best summation of the ending which I have ever read. Well said!
There's no end to the struggle between good and evil.
But there should be an end to a good movie. :cool:
I'm not busting on you, and I'm glad you enjoyed the movie and could appreciate it far more than I did.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-22-08, 23:27
I saw it once in the theater and I walked out a little disapointed and confused. A bit like I did to the movie "Heathers" which I think highly of now.
I took the last scene with Tommy Lee in the hotel room a bit different. Lee has all these great instincts but he doesn't find Sugere. I took it to mean that he actually sensed that he was there, but realized that he was facing pure evil, and decided to back away. Does that fit with the book?
I thought I was going to see a shoot'em up western, but I got "Zen and the Art of Pneumatic killing devices".
I thought the wife was going to cap him somehow.
But there should be an end to a good movie. :cool:
I'm not busting on you, and I'm glad you enjoyed the movie and could appreciate it far more than I did.
Didn't take it as busting.
We're all different. We all have strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes. Some movies "speak" to us, draw us in and we "live" them. Others are just mindless drivel. A lot of the Coen Brothers movies operate on several levels. Miller's Crossing for instance. Most movie that are "blockbusters", I don't care for at all. Star Wars left me grossly underwhelmed. Blade Runner on the other hand....
It's all in our expectations, and how much we are willing to put into the experience. Just like training.
Didn't take it as busting.
We're all different. We all have strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes. Some movies "speak" to us, draw us in and we "live" them. Others are just mindless drivel. A lot of the Coen Brothers movies operate on several levels. Miller's Crossing for instance. Most movie that are "blockbusters", I don't care for at all. Star Wars left me grossly underwhelmed. Blade Runner on the other hand....
It's all in our expectations, and how much we are willing to put into the experience. Just like training.
SAY WHAT!!!?!??!?!? Someone check this mans citizenship status. I was under the impression a respect, understanding, and love for all things Star Wars was compulsory for citizenship?!!??!?!?!? :confused: :p
Actually, I'm a space alien and was under the impression it was a documentary....
decodeddiesel
12-23-08, 09:33
Didn't take it as busting.
We're all different. We all have strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes. Some movies "speak" to us, draw us in and we "live" them. Others are just mindless drivel. A lot of the Coen Brothers movies operate on several levels. Miller's Crossing for instance. Most movie that are "blockbusters", I don't care for at all. Star Wars left me grossly underwhelmed. Blade Runner on the other hand....
It's all in our expectations, and how much we are willing to put into the experience. Just like training.
Star Wars is great junk food for the brain. It is an entertaining "space western" flick much like Star Trek. Blade Runner on the other hand is a literary masterpiece. I didn't realize it the first time I saw it, but my literature professor in college (whom I respected greatly and truly knew his stuff) had us watch it and write an essay on it. From that point on I loved that movie.
I also agree on the your view of Cohen Brothers movies. I also hold Michael Mann and Martin Scorsese in a similar light.
I can also say everyone at my work hated No Country and recommended "Into the Wild"...no thanks.
Star Wars is great junk food for the brain. It is an entertaining "space western" flick much like Star Trek. Blade Runner on the other hand is a literary masterpiece. I didn't realize it the first time I saw it, but my literature professor in college (whom I respected greatly and truly knew his stuff) had us watch it and write an essay on it. From that point on I loved that movie.
I also agree on the your view of Cohen Brothers movies. I also hold Michael Mann and Martin Scorsese in a similar light.
I can also say everyone at my work hated No Country and recommended "Into the Wild"...no thanks.
Oh, don't even dig into Michael Mann and his visual master pieces. Heat is a movie that was and still is WAY underrated. He is another who's movies get better with each viewing.
I urge all the good people here who have disliked No Country, to sit down and watch it again and to watch and listen to the beginning dialogue very carefully and a few times to let it sink in and don't hesitate to rewind certain scenes to make sure you understand what is going on.
Again, the great thing about the ending is it lets YOU decide how it ends, to YOUR pleasure. Sometimes the most powerful things in life, fears and pleasures, are the ones created in your mind, not others.
I urge all the good people here who have disliked No Country, to sit down and watch it again and to watch and listen to the beginning dialogue very carefully and a few times to let it sink in and don't hesitate to rewind certain scenes to make sure you understand what is going on.
Again, the great thing about the ending is it lets YOU decide how it ends, to YOUR pleasure. Sometimes the most powerful things in life, fears and pleasures, are the ones created in your mind, not others.
Keeping in mind this is all just friendly discussion and I'm not trying to say anyone is "wrong" about his choice in movies ...
(1) If I have to watch a movie multiple times to "get" it, or read a book first to "get" it, it is not a very well done movie imho. I watch movies for entertainment, not as mental exercises.
(2) If I need to stop & rewind the movie in certain places to "get" it, the movie is really poorly done because, at least around here, the theaters don't let you do that.
(3) As for the "you decide the ending" thing, if I want to use my imagination for the end of the movie, I can save $9.25 and just imagine a whole movie.
But I'm the first to admit, I am not a sophisticated movie-goer. As an example, we've had a Blu-Ray player for about a week and our current collection of BDs is Hancock, Harry Potter V, Hellboy II, and Tropic Thunder. :cool:
Keeping in mind this is all just friendly discussion and I'm not trying to say anyone is "wrong" about his choice in movies ...
(1) If I have to watch a movie multiple times to "get" it, or read a book first to "get" it, it is not a very well done movie imho. I watch movies for entertainment, not as mental exercises.
(2) If I need to stop & rewind the movie in certain places to "get" it, the movie is really poorly done because, at least around here, the theaters don't let you do that.
(3) As for the "you decide the ending" thing, if I want to use my imagination for the end of the movie, I can save $9.25 and just imagine a whole movie.
But I'm the first to admit, I am not a sophisticated movie-goer. As an example, we've had a Blu-Ray player for about a week and our current collection of BDs is Hancock, Harry Potter V, Hellboy II, and Tropic Thunder. :cool:
I believe that last bit says it all for you Todd!
I see your point and feel this is totally a situation of to each his own, but you need to understand that when I say rewind, I mean to enjoy the subtleties of the dialogue that can be missed if not paying attention. I understand the need to be entertained easily and am also a fan of mindless stuff like, "Tropic Thunder" and the like, but it is refreshing to see good stuff come out of Hollywood like NCFOM. I can usually tell if a movie is good and that is if it does not do so well in the THEATERS.
I am, however, surprised at home many guys here dislike the movie. It is just so organic and fresh, just like a big box of ammo with some guns and bros on a nice day.
Edit to add: About the whole imagining the movie thing, hell, I do that all the time, I just look at what Hollywood is releasing and imagine how terrible it is and I save a ton of money! But when a movie is laid out as well as NCFOM, it is wonderful to have it end the way it did.
HAVE to remember that this movie is WAY more than a action flick with cool guns and scenery. There is a lot to it and to be able to retread many times and still enjoy, is what makes it so great.
It's supposed to either leave you pondering or leave the way open for a sequel. I had three film classes in College so I'm an expert! ;-)
But there should be an end to a good movie. :cool:
I'm not busting on you, and I'm glad you enjoyed the movie and could appreciate it far more than I did.
Blade Runner...my favorite movie of all time...
You can't go wrong with Mann, Scorsese or Cohen brothers. I collect movies and there are many that I have watched maybe 20 times. My favorite though is Kurosawa and as his movies have inspired many others including Star Wars (the Hidden Forest) , The Magnificent Seven (The Seven Samurai) , Fistful of Dollars (Yojimbo) to name a few. Loved Old Country.
Star Wars is great junk food for the brain. It is an entertaining "space western" flick much like Star Trek. Blade Runner on the other hand is a literary masterpiece. I didn't realize it the first time I saw it, but my literature professor in college (whom I respected greatly and truly knew his stuff) had us watch it and write an essay on it. From that point on I loved that movie.
I also agree on the your view of Cohen Brothers movies. I also hold Michael Mann and Martin Scorsese in a similar light.
I can also say everyone at my work hated No Country and recommended "Into the Wild"...no thanks.
Fringe, if you like Mann, check out Collateral. Personally I don't care much for Tom Cruise, but he was actually fairly good in this one. Only a very brief glimpse of TC as TC, the rest of the time he wasn't too bad. Kinda improbable plot, predictable ending, but not too bad for mind fluff. Definitely not on par with NCFOM. And if you enjoy the Coen brothers, Miller's Crossing is excellent.
decodeddiesel
12-23-08, 17:52
Fringe, if you like Mann, check out Collateral. Personally I don't care much for Tom Cruise, but he was actually fairly good in this one. Only a very brief glimpse of TC as TC, the rest of the time he wasn't too bad. Kinda improbable plot, predictable ending, but not too bad for mind fluff. Definitely not on par with NCFOM. And if you enjoy the Coen brothers, Miller's Crossing is excellent.
+1 on Collateral. If anything the "gun play" is well done and fairly accurate, still though it's no Heat.
I will have to check out Miller's Crossing. I just rediscovered The Big Lebowski, what a great movie that is...
Albert Finney is great as Leo in Miller's Crossing. Again, there's a lot more going on in the movie than what's on the surface. Especially concerning Tom's hat. Lot of symbolism around that hat.
I went and saw No County the day it came out with my best friend. We both walked out feeling a little let down.
The more I thought about, the more I understood it.
I saw it a second time with my girlfriend a month or two later. This time I got it. It is now one of my favorite movies.
+1 on Collateral. If anything the "gun play" is well done and fairly accurate, still though it's no Heat.
I will have to check out Miller's Crossing. I just rediscovered The Big Lebowski, what a great movie that is...
I still go with "Way of the Gun" for some of the most believable "gun play" in a movie.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-24-08, 23:33
Heat is good. Didn't that come out before the LA bank shooting (North Hollywood)?
The movie I wish they would make a sequal to is "Ronin". "Did you ever kill anyone? No, but I hurt somebody's feelings once." And "What is the color of the boat house at Hereford?" Great gun and especially driving scenes, almost as good as "To Live and Die in LA".
Wife hasn't seen NCFOM, but with its compexity, I might totally lose movie picking priviliges especially after the "Hot Fuzz" debacle. Nothing like picking a movie the wife hates, and then falling asleep during it.
Collateral is good. The scene in the alley is great. I heard he did a lot of firearms training to get it right.
I actually liked "The Kingdom" directed by Berg with Jamie Fox again.
Dan Goodwin
12-25-08, 09:25
This thread is taking off and might orta get a sticky; along with books of a similar vein.
It is interesting to see positions on "No Country" as they reveal two different kinds of shootists at this site.
There are the left-brain shooters who view films as entertainment and don't want a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo stuff like English teachers and later professors spouted: what is the author trying to relate to us? My answer, for most of my life, has been "he's telling us about this old Cuban trying to catch a monster fish, for Christ's sake!"
Left brain shooters are technically oriented and very orderly and logical, e.g. shooting a S&W M&P until mechanical failure and documenting the process.
Then there are the right-brain shooters, who drank the Kool-Aid of art long ago and dissect every aspect of literature and life like a fine, tasty onion; peeling through the layers and inspecting each for signs of meaning ...before gulping it down.
Right brain shooters are less mechanically and technically oriented, but strive for the zen of proper shot placement (use of The Force?) and may worry a bit more about the proper camo coating on their "stick" rather than just whupping out some Krylon and going apeshit.
Is either superior to the other? Nope. There are warriors and poet-warriors; always have been.
That said, I'm reading The Road and it is so bleak in the first 160 pages I'm taking a break to try to cheer up. Maybe watch Scrooged or Christmas Vacation again! Bill Murray's handling of a Colt snub-nose in the former looks like a lot of guys' I know BUG practice!
As far as gun guy movies, I recommend our new officers watch Way of the Gun as a tutorial on gun-handling and especially one-hand reloads...except for the use of the Galil ARM in the bordello.
On another forum I was told Scott Reitz instructed Benicio Del Torres and Ryan Phillipe on shooting, but the director called in someone with a different gun ethos to choreograph that final shootout.
I may go and get myself some stocking stuffers in the old DVD section after reading y'all's other reminders.
Merry Christmas!
Hmmm, interesting observation regarding the dichotomy of the shooters on this forum. But where do you place those who are both technically minded and zen minded?
That said, I'm reading The Road and it is so bleak in the first 160 pages I'm taking a break to try to cheer up.
Not to ruin it, but its going to stay bleak. The Road was a difficult read for me, NCFOM moved much faster for me and was an easier read. The subject of The Road, combined with McCarthy's writing style, made it difficult to read straight through. I put it down a couple times and went to other stuff. After I see the movie, I'm sure I'll pick it up and read it again.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-25-08, 16:37
NCFOM moved much faster for me and was an easier read.
Holly crap that would move like molasas. Off to take my Ritalin.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.