My opinion that Taxi Driver is overrated in no way means I don't love good films. Taxi Driver is a great film - a psychological rollar coaster, even. I simply wasn't as impressed as others (and I'm assuming yourself) were when I saw it. That's unfortunately probably because of the hype machine.

And I would bet anything I own I could find a great director who thinks Taxi Driver, or Citizen Kane, or (insert random film some think of as a masterpiece) is overrated, and then show how they make great movies.

As for No Country, I think it's brilliance comes in two facets - the perfectly controlled tone and level of tension the Coen brothers produce (in large part due to Javier Bardem), and the level of complexity hidden under what appears to be a very straightforward - and entertaining - story.

And on to other subjects - what about La Vie En Rose? I REALLY want to see this film now. Has anyone here seen it?

quote:

Originally posted by Roy Hatts:
Maybe you should both stop watching movies, because apparently you hate film. The third act sucked? What are you 5 years old? This film was perfection.

I'm all for breaking the rules as much as the next guy, but some conventions exist for a reason, especially storytelling conventions. When you begin a story, you lay out the universe that the story is taking place in. You tell the audience where they are and how things work in the world you've created. For the first two acts, No Country for Old Men is structured like a thriller (and a very good one, at that). However, when it made such a dramatic change in tone at the end of the second act (and in doing so, killed off the guy who the audience was meant to be rooting for), the filmmakers cheated and alienated the audience.

But to answer your two questions specifically: Yes, the third act sucked, and no, I am not 5 years old.

I actually haven't even really heard anything about La Mome. I just saw that it was up for Oscars, and glanced by, lol. I just watched the trailer, but idk I'm not really into biopics so it didn't really strike a cord.

Ill post the results to facilitate discussion

Best Motion Picture: No Country For Old Men

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role:
Daniel Day Lewis ("There Will Be Blood")

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role:
Marion Cotillard ("La Mome")

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role:
Javier Bardem ("No Country For Old Men")

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role:
Tilda Swinton ("Michael Clayton")

Best Achievement in Directing:
Coen Brothers ("No Country for Old Men")

Best Screenplaying Written Directly for Screen
Diablo Cody ("Juno")

Best Writing, Screenplay, Based on Previously Written Material:
No Country For Old Men

Cinematography:
There Will Be Blood

I agree - I really want to watch La Vie En Rose now. It looks fantastic and the makeup design was excellent.

I'm a little confused as to how the thread got so hostile so fast, but I guess ignorance is king on the internet.

This isn't only a No Country thread though...lots of other good movies won tonight. It makes me want to watch the ones I haven't watched (although some didn't interest me that much).

I agree with Josh about the structure of No Country for Old Men. Not ALL rules are meant to be broken.

-Kegan

EDIT: Thanks Brain - there was a post very similar to that on the DVXuser board and I was just going to copy/past/reference the OP.

I was fairly dissapointed that Sweeney Todd didn't even get nominated for Best Picture. Tim Burton seriously hasn't won an Oscar by now?...

"I'm all for breaking the rules as much as the next guy, but some conventions exist for a reason, especially storytelling conventions. When you begin a story, you lay out the universe that the story is taking place in. You tell the audience where they are and how things work in the world you've created. For the first two acts, No Country for Old Men is structured like a thriller (and a very good one, at that). However, when it made such a dramatic change in tone at the end of the second act (and in doing so, killed off the guy who the audience was meant to be rooting for), the filmmakers cheated and alienated the audience. "

EDIT: SPOLIERS AHEAD!!!!!!******************
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

The point of the film has completely zoomed past you. In killing the main character, it reinforces everything Bardem's character represents. The fact that he gets away, and that Sheriff Bell cannot handle it is the entire essence of the film. To pin the film down as a straight thriller is insulting it. I think you think the filmmakers have broken the rules for the sake of doing so, when in fact, they're closely following what's in the novel (which is also a great read).

Bardem is unstoppable evil, Brolin is just another man. He gets killed, Bardem gets the money, justice is not served, the world is in a constant hell, and Bell cannot live up to his father and his father. He feels like a failure, and does not understand the evil in this world that goes unpunished. A car crash could not stop Chigurh. He is fear, enivitability- death. Everything most humans refuse to face.

Do you understand? This is not just a thriller. This is an important film. As is Taxi Driver.
You can say you simply were not into these films. Fine. But to subtract any sort of greatness from them is ludicrous. There are some classic films I cannot get into. But I have the objectivity to judge if they are important enough, and I have the judgement to respect something for its greatness even if I cannot enjoy it as much as someone else.

Taxi Driver and Citizen Kane are not overrated. I'd learn some respect and stop taking cues from Star Wars and the Sixth Sense.

EDIT: And maybe try thinking a little bit more freely man. Some rules are not meant to be broken? Why? You're severly limiting yourself if you don't experiment.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Heliotrope,

Now that was a well constructed post and a solid argument. Looking forward to lots of posts like that. Thanks for taking the time to justify your initial thoughts.

In regards to my saying that some rules were not meant to be broken, I guess that was a little rash. I've broken many rules before in filmmaking and it's worked out to my benefit in some cases and not in others. Maybe a better way to phrase it is to say that there are very few exceptions to the rules and there has to be sound reasoning behind each bent/broken rule.

-Kegan

First things first - we must lable all spoilers as such! Hatts, please, edit your post and insert a spoiler warning, or else some readers may not get to experience the pleasure of watching and being stunned by the film.

Hatts is actually very near the money with why I - and the vast majority of critics - think the third act is actually what made the movie. You have to take into account that Brolin really isn't the main character; the film is about Jones' and Bardem's characters, while Brolin is the facilitation between them.

As for importance...yes, Taxi Driver and Citizen Kane are important, but you could very much so argue that Star Wars and The Sixth Sense were far more influentional (and therefore important). Films are "important" for different reasons. And generally, everyone here will recognize that a film is important, but may argue as to the level of said importance, as has been done with Taxi Driver ad nauseum.

But even a failure is important- we're students of film, always. To try something and fail is not shameful. To follow the rules and question nothing leads to nothing. Even filmmakers who seem to follow rigid structures- Orson Welles, Spielberg, Hithcock- tried wildly new things that didn't always work.

The third act of No Country did not feed into your expectations for a very good reason. To question it and analyze what happened is what's important.

And yet again, I cannot stop raving about Bardem's performance. I agree with the countless other critics that cite him as one of the greatest movie villians ever (I'd put him with Darth Vader and Hannibal Lector).

Javier Bardem deserved the Best Supporting Actor award. And the Best Screenplay award, and the best score award, and the best make-up award. In other words, Javier Bardem deserved the Academy Awards (with some sharing with Day-Lewis).

No arguement over Rocky, but The Sixth Sense was highly influential. Think about how many films since it's release have attempted to emulate the style and mood of the film, or attempted to craft similar twists and turns. TSS was a pivotal film for the thriller genre, and really demonstrates why everyone started calling Shamylan "the next Spielburg" (which has, of course, yet to come to fruition).

And I think all the argument about Taxi Driver comes from the fact that it does tend to be a devisive film, not necessarily because it is great. Many LOVE the film, and so evangelize in it's name, but many react in a negative fashion to that fanatisism and see a merely good film. There are many other similar films.

I loved No Country more than any other film this year. Bardem deserved best supporting (though Casey Affleck deserves it perhaps as much, or at least nearly). However, Daniel Day Lewis was devastating. He was a powerhouse, and even Bardem's bone chilling performance could not hold a candle to his earth shattering performance.

If you enjoyed the film, read the book (if you haven't). You will not be disappointed.

There really aren't "similar" films to Taxi Driver. I'm not asking you to love it as much as me, but please don't pass it off. It's a key film, a singular vision divided between 3 men (Scorsese, Schraeder, and De Niro).

Where's Kyle Johnson when you need him?

I absolutely agree that you can not like a film and admit it's importance - a while back there was a huge discussion about this very topic in relation to such films as Star Wars, LOTR, Taxi Driver, Mulholland Drive, etc., with members falling on all sides. I don't think anyone will not admit a film's importance, but you can (again) contend the level of a film's cinematic and artistic value because those qualities are not wholly objective.

By similar I meant films that are devisive because people can get so zealous over them.

Anyone think the Cinematography Oscar should be up for debate? (the other nominees were The Assassination of Jesse James, Atonement, No Country, and Le Scaphandre et le papillon)

I personally think Roger Deakins should have won for No Country. The landscapes of the parched Texas plains were barrenly beautiful.