Old school movie, built on dialogue and plot instead of effects and cheap hype.[/QUOTE]



>>>>>EXACTLY

Won't, not can't.

Like I said, I don't cast pearls before swine. I have my interpretation, the critics have theirs, the filmmakers have theirs. That's the thing about a film built from an original premise, it can be deconstructed and analysed in more than one way. If you're truly interested in what the film meant beyond a retarded recounting of the plot then go read some reviews. But you're not. You didn't like it because you didn't understand it. Fine. You probably don't understand much beyond the superficiality of films like Hannah Montana and the Fast and the Furious. But just because you didn't get anything out of it doesn't mean that others didn't.

You're right, everyone interprets the movie in their own way. I have my interpretation of the movie's subtext too. It just happens that from what I gathered, I didn't find it all that profound. People applaud it as though it's a breakthrough in cinema and storytelling. It's not in my opinion. I think a great deal of it's popularity lies in the fact that the subtext IS easy to follow. Just about anyone with a pulse can read into it, therefore every feels important having "figured it out". You like to cast stones with your "You didn't like it because you didn't understand it." All I can strike back with is that I feel my understanding was pretty clear and that "You liked it because you felt important understanding it." Which I don't really feel is a huge accomplishment. Your spectacular intellectual understanding is as superficial as the special effects in Fast & the Furious. It was meant to be understood. You tell me I'm getting angry for you calling me stupid uneducated redneck swine, I'm essentially calling you the same thing here.

Either side of the argument can talk big. If you liked the movie and it made you happy somehow, great. That's what movies are for. It didn't do the trick for me. All I had to say afterwards was "whatever." :2 cents:

Well I guess the Oscar for Javier Bardem was well, well deserved.

I saw him in some Spanish movie long time ago, excellent actor, would never expect him being such a great villain though, the appearance (as I read on IMDB they chose the haircut according to a picture of some brothel patron from the wild west..), the voice, the intensity, the air pistol - excellent.

Definitely one of the most intense villain characters in the movie history, time will confirm.

Maybe the bad guy image will stick with him in his future Hollywood career, as it did with guys like Gary Oldman, Dennis Hopper or Michael Wincott.

I'll give him that, he played the roll great.

I must have missed that. What kind of roll did he play?

it's like 4:00 in the morning, give me a break officer grammar. i was just in a rush, i swear it won't happen again, promise...

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

i liked that movie too. actually it is an almost perfect piece.

A jelly roll. Stupid.

:1orglaugh

It is the journey that is important and not the destination when it comes to this movie.

No Country For Old Men is brilliant beyond words from start to finish. One of the few flawless films I have ever seen. What a masterpeice. I am honestly surprised there is much debate on this as the movie is such a tour de force you would have to be clinically brain dead to suggest otherwise.