Well I mean I expected that once they showed that type of angle as well, but the brilliance of doing the car coming from the same viewpoint of the audience was awesome.

Jim Emerson wrote an amazing piece on No Country for his blog; http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007 ... ut_in.html

He makes it a point to call out the folks saying No Country is "technically perfect", but not much more. A great read.

A

Second best film of the year, although if you count Lives of Others as 2006, it's the best.

Actually, it might be better than that anyways.

Actually, it might be the best movie of the last decade.

But it might not be. I need some time to think....and then see it again.

Indeed.

That's one of the reasons I want to see it again, with as little people present as possible. This is a film that requires a theatrical viewing, yes, but not one on a Friday night with the 'usual' crowd. I feel like I missed a lot.

that Jim Emerson article was fantastic. He might have even taken the analysis of the film a step further than the Coens did, that's how insightful he was. It really sheds a new light on the film for me; I'm really glad I read it and urge others to give it a shot [it's a bit long].

Tooootally. That said I think the problem will lessen upon repeat viewings.

By the way in regards to the makeshift vs. bradley duel, I think it's very interesting considering they have such different ways of viewing films, yet are both very well versed in film lore. It very often results in them having polar opposite opinions. Case in point The Mist and Sunshine. Where bradley, who I think is a bit more accepting of movies having sly camp and pulp, loved The Mist but found Sunshine to be a pretensious drag, makeshift thought The Mist was cheeseburger trash and Sunshine was a brilliant view on humanity's connection to the sun or something. I really enjoy both of their reviews immensely since they're some of the few who have radically different opinions than the status quo AND have interesting things to say about movies that not every other reviewer covers. That said, I hope they keep feuding to keep things interesting, albeit maybe on slightly nicer terms.

You lust on Bradley to a scary degree

Does this "duel" or whatever extend beyond this thread? Because lets face it, there's no "duel" in this thread, and only one half of the "duelers" have any "interesting things to say about movies that not every other reviewer covers". :down:O

Personally, I think they're both insane

Makeshift is very in depth, Bradley is flowery. Neither are insane.

TCF mate. Anyone who knows what I'm talking about gets ten points. I rarely agree with the guy much, but I can very much respect such a strong showing of individuality in the review section, which often times feels like I'm reading the same post a dozen times over.

I googled TCF and came up with Totally Chlorine Free....................which is clearly what you were aiming at, so yes I refrain from drinking the contains of pool water when I can.

Totally cracking funnys?

I'm not sure how Bradford views movies. Any insight into this would be appreciated.

Oh, and insinuating I can't appreciate camp and pulp is just plain wrong. De Palma is one of my favorite directors, for cryin' out loud, and I'd still stack my horror movie knowledge against anyone.

Thank you both.

I'm not saying you can't appreciate cheese at all, I'm just saying I think bradley has a strong taste for it. He does afterall proclaim himself to be a lover of "low" comedies like The Brothers Solomon and Hot Rod, and was one of the few defenders of Fantastic Four 2, Aeon Flux, The Last Legion, and the movie TCF pertains to (hint: When TCF was created bradley went by a different name). I think he appreciates movies that don't take themselves too seriously, and on the other side of the equation doesn't like movies that think they're very important or stoic, thus his dislike of Lord of the Rings, Clint Eastwood movies, and No Country for Old Men. Of course this is a vast generalization of bradley's mind and taste and by no means any sort of guarantee, just what I've picked up on over the years.

Ok let me go more honest.....

I love reading Makeshift reviews because they are honestly the view of an intelligent wise fella who grabs aspects of film I never do, even if I don't agree with them.

Bradford is a swell guy but I just threat him as a comedy piece and nothing more.

I think Moviedude is full is shite in regards to this specific subject, no offense man.

No offense, man, but you're full of shit.

lolftw

Blow Me padpad. : ) :0 :/ :o

padpad? More like radrad.





.,.

I, like Gulli, read bradley's reviews mostly for comedy value. I can't really take him seriously.

makeshift, on the other hand, is probably my favourite poster to read. I don't always agree with him but reading his reviews is a real treat.

And TCF refers to The Core Fans, which I vaguely remember from BOM. I only remember because I was also a fan of that underrated disaster flick, which I haven't seen in some time.

Oh yeah I think I was an Honorary The Core Fan member, that was around the time Moviedude changed his Blade avatar to an Aaron Eckhart one.

None taken.

In retrospect I feel like I came off as finding bradley to be far superior to makeshift, which isn't so. The biggest qualm I could make with the guy is that we haven't found time to check a movie out at the Fox Tower, and even that I don't take personally. He makes observations and uses terms that no one else on here does, and though I think sometimes he can kinda oversell a movie's quality or lack thereof, it's something we all do in our own way. I meant to say that they may have polar opposite views on film but are two of my favorite reviewers, nothing malicious. So my bad makeshift if I came off as insulting, I blame my hasty words on a strong caffiene buzz and having little time to type on my coworker's computer before my boss got back from his break.

I agree with you about the "impotently" part...

Okay, I didn't read this thread for a while because I wasn't in the mood for drama, especially about a movie as slight as No Country For Old Men. But now that I'm caught up, I'd like to thank those who have said kind words about me (and, of course, curse the unbelievers!). Also, the whole +*J troll debacle had gotten on my nerves at just about the exact same time...

But, I suppose last and foremost, I would like to apologize to makeshift for taunting his review here. It's just something about that film theory language that sends me berserk. As has been pointed out, I like to take my own reviews a lot less seriously, and had enough of the fancypants lingo back in the day. But that doesn't mean that the big words don't still have value to some, and I will attempt to keep my gag reflex to myself in future. So, sorry about that shifty.

Now, back to our regularily scheduled reviews...

It's no problem, Bradford. I was taken aback a bit because, although we've jested in good nature in the past, this one seemed to get a bit testy for awhile. But much to the dismay of our blood hungry crowd, I'd much rather bury the hatchet. I'm sure there will be another movie, probably sooner rather than later, that will get us locking horns again anyway.

And yes, I think there have been enough kind words from all parties involved to boost both of our egos for awhile. I've been under the impression (and still am, actually) that no one reads anything I have to say, so it's nice to hear that some people actually do. It might be better for everyone if they don't, though.