When Oscar Went to Crap
And the winner is … oh crap. “No Country for Old Men”
How could a movie, without a story, without even a hint of plot construction, regular run of the mill acting and sans directorial insight be a winner, except from may be bottoms up. Yet, here is your winner; not just for Best Picture but also for Best Direction and … here is the irony … Best Writing for Original Screenplay.
I went through the first half of the movie expecting something to happen, a prologue to a climax. There might have been, at occasions, a hint of a prologue, but there definitely was no climax. An absolute disappointment. Blind justice? We should rephrase it to Blind Oscars now.
On the flip side, there is Michael Clayton. Well written, well acted, well directed. I wouldn’t go that far as to call it a classic, but this one was worth the money. George Clooney, as always, shows off, in an ever so subtle manner, his strong presence on screen.
Clooney plays the role of a ‘cleaner’ in a giant legal firm; his job is simple, clean up the mess that no one can take care of. As it turns out, he has to fix the mess left by his own friend. The movie starts off on a slower end but finally builds up to its climax. Those who watched and liked The Firm, will definitely love this.
If you are looking for a well crafted drama/thriller, Michael Clayton is for you. But if you are insistent on wasting your money bucks, go ahead and watch No Country for Old Men.
Category: Reviews
The name is so alluring…I want to see ‘No Country for Old Men’! And you haven’t even given a hint what’s it about, Amir…tell us a little bit about the story like you’ve done for ‘Michael Clayton’.
Well, the title of the movie was the only reason I was looking forward to watch this movie long before it was released.
And I would have definiteiyl penned down a storyline, if there was any. But let me try.
Here it goes … A drug deal goes bad and all the drug dealers kill one another, a hunter runs across the booty and runs away with a couple of million dollars. A pychopathic murdrer is hired to bring the money back at all costs. The result is a boring spree of absolute nonsense.
I have a feeling you are still going to watch it
Gee…sure sounds ‘too good to be true’!!! A MUST watch.
I knew it. I should have flipped the movies in my review.
Michael Clayton, people!!!! Michael Clayton.
Amir…I hereby solemnly agree to trust your judgement in future.
Two words for the film: Absolute Trash. No storyline, no impressive acting performances, too much blood and violence for my taste…in short, not worth the time – or dime!
Now where’s that ‘Michael Clayton’?!
People just dont listen the first time … They have to play with fire first
…
Do watch Michael Clayton … I will be writing another review shortly … Watch out people
Having watched it a couple of days ago have to say I disagree with your assessment of ‘No country…’. For one thing it follows pretty closely the Cormac McCarthy book from which it was adapted, and catches the sense of disconnectedness that McCarthy almost has as a leitmotif. The script sparkled with one-line gems, it was untidy and un-linear in the same way that Pulp Fiction was (having a denouement 45 mins before the end of the film) and was immaculately shot. The acting was good all-round with few weaknesses and the feeling of unease that was at the end, of a lack of resolution, was a coup-de-theatre rarely attempted in film. (Rashomon?) I found it riveting rather than boring, and in purely cinematic terms it is one of the best films I have seen this year. Up there with ‘There will be blood’ and ‘The valley of Elah.’ (The latter starring once again Tommy lee Jones.)
Hey Chris … well … I wouldnt go that far as to compare No Country with Pulp Fiction … that movie was, and still is, a genre in itself.
For me, the bottom line for any movie is the plot, which this movie had none; it had a pathetically crafted story with hardly anything to look forward to. In purely cinemtic terms, this is by far the worst film I have seen this year. Yet again, we all have our preferences.
And dont get me started on Tommy Lee Jones
The point I am trying to make is that there are films that are objectively good and films that are objectively bad, irrespective of whatever personal taste may be. I personally loathe the film ‘The Sound of Music’…but in terms of what it is, its genre, the way it is composed and presented, edited and its score – it is as good as it gets as a musical film. A film that I would have to be physically dragged into the cinema to watch. A far less worthy – cinematically – film is ‘The Rocky horror show’ which is in appalling taste and has transferred poorly to film from the stage – but which I have seen several times in the cinema and will do so again.
Returning to violence…Reservoir Dogs is one of the more violent of mainstream films in recent years, and is a cult classic. Rightly so. So is Crash (the adaptation of the Ballard novella of the same name). Both have impeccable cinematic pedigrees. Yet turn to Texas Chainsaw Massacre and you have a film which is badly made in every sense and yet is still a cult classic. Likewise the recent truly dreadful ‘Rise of the footsoldier’ which cost about $10 to make, has no redeeming features whatsoever and has made millions – simply because it appeals to those who like violence.
Whether a film is bad or good can be weighed objectively. There are criteria by which film may be judged. Taste has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a film is objectively good or bad.
Plots? Essential in a conventional sense?
En Chien Andalou.
The Seventh seal.
The red balloon.
I rest my case.
( I also refer you again to the plot of Pulp fiction, which actually has the NATURAL end about 45 mins before the actual end.)
Well … you do have a point there. I agree with the element of objectivity involved while reviewing a film.
As far as the plot goes … there is no conventional plot as such … its all power of imagination on the part of the screenwriter and partly the director. Take for example SNOW CAKE, run of the mill storyline but built upon great constructive plot. The reason why a plot is fundamental (at least in my opinion) is that it lets you live through the whole story. I personally enjoy watching a movie where I flow along with the story and the characters. MOONLIGHT MILE is another example.
Pulp Fiction (one of my all time favourites) is an example of that power of imagination; it did have a plot, just that Tarantino and Avary played around with the options of constructing that plot.
My review of No Country (which is pretty subjective of course) only outlines the fact that for a regular viewer there wasnt much of work behind the script.