HollywoodH17 said:
Squilookle said:
Numb1lp said:
I think No Country for Old Men had a horrible ending. They need some kind of conclusion, but decided to be cool like the Sopranos.
This. Great movie, gripping all round, until it decided to be clever and break genre. Then it just went out like a wet fart. Also, Pixar's UP. Oh yes, I went there.
I can't disagree with "No Country" more. The idea that "you need some kind of conclusion" is cliche and defunct; the reason the movie is so brilliant, from start to finish, is that it tells you in the title that, basically, the old men will not succeed, and then follows through, yet still managing to be startling and unsettling in the end. The "bad guy" gets away, one "hero" is killed, the other is in a late-life crisis, and though you THINK it was all about the money, it never really was. It's right there in the title... "No Country for Old Men." Tommy Lee Jones need not apply.
Also, would like clarification on why Up's ending was bad... and how No Country "broke genre."
Well if what you say is true, and Jones need not apply, could you tell me what the point was of him showing up in the film in the first place? Or any of the main characters, for that matter? Come to think of it, the money was a giant dead end as well, perhaps they should have dumped that as well?
I agree that needing a conclusion is cliche. But this film reminds us why cliches (or more appropriately 'movie formulas') stay in use today. They build up their characters, present conflict, goals, challenges etc, and resolve them by the end in a way that is satisfying for the audience. I refuse to believe the point of the film was something as basic as 'if you are here, and you are old, you will fail. End of story'. The fact remains that whether the Coens intended it or not, the audience empathises with the main character and his struggle to escape with the money. The film can have him succeed, or fail, but it still has to be compelling. I cannot think of a worse way to slash the tyres of the story by having this happen off screen. for the audience to discover later in an 'oh, ok, guess he didn't make it then' way. What a letdown. I had so much invested in whether he would succeed or not, and the film can't even be bothered to present the final moments of his doomed endeavor. Instead we get to see Tommy Lee ruminate for 5 mins on some dream he had or something like that. Roll credits.
Like I said. Total wet fart ending. And UP's ending was bad because Muntz was murdered, yet I never saw him as a villain. So he wanted to capture the bird (alive) and display it (alive) to reverse the RUIN of his life by sceptics. How evil- sentenced to death by plummet. I actually thought it was building up to Muntz's 'biggest fan' Carl helping his idol to overcome the obsession he has let weigh him down for decades, thus creating a bond with his idol and through that having a 'helluva adventure'. Instead, he fights him, kills him, and skyjacks his airship. Is this really a Pixar film?
Also why the HELL couldn't they just have had Muntz take the bird AND the chicks with him, display them together, clear his name, and then return them to their nest? Would that have been so hard?
chewbacca1010 said:
Most of The Departed was pretty brutal to sit though (as in, bad, not brutally violent) but the ending had me laughing, it was so absurd.
Worst film to win "Best Picture" in ages.
You mean the rat on the railing? I must admit that made me burst out laughing too in an otherwise serious movie. Didn't make me love it any less though. Figured Scorsese just wanted to cram his film with just one more 'rat'...
[/sub]
