@Dif0jo I remember watching blade runner and have absoloutley hating it. I've never quite understood why it was so highly acclaimed; it just seemed like a mess of wannabe action seens and nonsensical plotlines. I'll have to watch it again sometime.
Inconsistent. I'm curious how then could you possibly like an 'idea' movie like Blade Runner?
Consider the same flaws: we know nothing about Deckard or Rachael either, and certainly have no reason to care about them. Minor characters are introduced late into the movie, no background, only to die off. The pace is deliberately slow, and heavy on atmosphere. It would be both easy and naive to take a given scene in Blade Runner and say "Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens."
This reviewed sucked...not from anything said but because the fact that Matthews uses quiet scenes, then SCREAMS into the mic so that I can even listen to the review without having my finger on the volume. Hey Confused Matthew, can you keep these reviews in a reasonable volume range? If your gonna yell, your gonna need to increase the volume of the movie clips.
I loved this movie, and you know what? I didn't think of any particular symbolism, whether it was there or not. I liked it because it reminded me of an old Sergio Leone western film. It reminds me a lot of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
I don't get why people are hating this review. Hell, I watched the damn movie, and GAVE UP HALF WAY IN. I freaking HATED this movie and for the same reasons Matthew does; therefore, I really liked his review.
I've now read the book No Country For Old Men and I can tell you that the description of Anton searching the trailers that it gives is nothing like the one that CM gives.
Well, let's disband the idea that this is, in fact, a movie 'about nothing', because what it's about is fairly evident.
The story is about an old Sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) having a difficult time dealing with how cruel and violent he thinks the world has become. As established in the opening dialogue, he talks about his career in law enforcement, and how he thinks times have become harder. As an example, he says that "many of the old-time Sheriffs never even wore a gun".
In that opening monologue, he also mentions how he can't comprehend the cruelty of a man who murdered a little girl and showed zero remorse for it ("Said he knew he was going to hell...be there in about fifteen minutes...I don't know what to make of that...").
From there, it jumps into the Bardem vs. Brolin storyline, where Llewellyn stumbles upon the drug deal gone wrong, and subsequently the money, then unwittinly runs off with it, etc., which sets that plot into motion.
Then it comes around to Anton Chiguhr, a personification of the evil Bell is afraid of. He could be described as incomprehensible evil, but there is something comprehensible about him in that Chiguhr has a strange set of rules, such as the coin toss ("You could say he has principles that transcend money or drugs"). The scene in the gas station demonstrates that, as well as the scene with the large woman in the trailer park. I know that I'm veering off track here, so I'll digress.
Back around to what I was originally saying, the "point' of "No Country For Old Men", or what it's 'about', is Sheriff Bell coming to terms with the ways of the world, and the Bardem vs Brolin storyline is a catalyst for it, especially the seemingly random way that it ends. That next part where he goes to visit an older Sheriff sums up the entire 'point'. That's the juciest part for explanation. Again, I only want to get into all this to dispatch the idea that it's about 'nothing'.
After the death of [spoiler], Sheriff Bell ends up feeling even more hopeless and ends up quitting his job, and then goes to visit an older Sheriff. After they talk about why he quit, the older Sheriff recalls a story about the death of one his ancestors in violent times. That's when Bell has to cope with the fact that the world isn't *really* getting worse, what he's facing "ain't nothing new". The last scene with him talking about his dreams drives this home: "And then I woke up".
This is all a bit long-winded, but what I'm saying with all this is that this is the "point" of NCFOM, what it's "about", and I'm giving examples. I don't have to fish, or over-analyze for it, so I'm not seeing anything that isn't there. It's all there, incorporated into the narrative.
Of course this film isn't for everyone.
But when we start saying there is actually nothing to 'get', then it becomes just as snobby and elitist as the 'you just don't get it' crowd.
After watching this, I have officially given up on Matthew. He really doesn't know how to get his point across in an review effectively. Just annoying yelling of "THIS MOVIE HAS NO PLOT!!!".... We heard you the first time Matthew. I could take 2001 and Lion King, but this is just ridiculous.
Doesn't that fall under 'trolling'? Don't get me wrong, I loves me some trolling and/or provacateurism, but.....there's also just plain making an ass of yourself.
first he gets offended by how some people react angrily to some of his reviews,
and the he reacts like a maniac to a movie.
and if all of his theories about what makes a performance, character, plot good then why the hell did I my brother and a whole lot of people love this movie , and the performance javier bardem did etc.
probably because we are all ignorant fools right, and your not.
I don't know about this one Matt. It was quite obvious to me that when the Sheriff says "He's seen the same things I've seen" that he is referring to the drug deal shoot-out in the desert that they both saw.
@Gangularis the thumbs never seem to work for me, if I vote thumb down is disappears but when I come back that vote number is the same, if I vote thumb up, nothing seems to happen.
For the last time....anyone who feels this film was lacking character depth....tell me specifically what you would like to know about Moss, his wife, Bell and Chagur that would enhance the film.
I don't want "well if we knew a little more about his motivations etc" - I want to know a specific trait/piece of background that would have made you care more.
Try doing it and not sounding stupid and cliche, and then we can talk.
@4everSupportive You wouldn't know credibility if it raped you. "Can you do better?" is not an argument. Unless you're a retard in which case you may use it. Oh wait...you already did.
@4everSupportive I'm curious too. Come one people, spit it out! Let's see what defines real character for those who think there are none. Lets see how many clichés they will come up with. A character is defined by what he does, not what he says or his back story. No Country For Old Men is purely focused on little subtelties that tells us everithing we need to know about the characters. You have to look at the movie, not just watch it. Look at it actively, and not just passively.
@Fapsamup True... The scene that Matthew played with the Chigger guy told me everything I need to know about him. He's a bad dude because he's all creepy and stuff! That's exactly how serial killers and professional hitmen act: totally creepy and conspicous.
You guys complain about characterization being cliche, but I honestly almost burst out laughing when I watched that scene. Is the whole movie just Chigger walking around slowly, being a cliche?
@Fapsamup "You have to look at it actively, not just passively"
Translation: "You have to write the movie yourself, because there's nothing in it." We've heard this before and time doesn't make this "argument" any more credible. Not when it comes to 2001, not when it comes to NCFOM, not when it comes to anything.
@ErnilEnNaur Well, like Syd Field or even Robert McKee (The two respected Hollywoodian founders of learning how to write screenplays with their respective books "Screenplay" and "Story" in case you didn't knew them...) would say: "Screenwriting is a craft, that ocasionally rises to the level of an art." What we see in Hollywood is craftsmanship like "Moulin Rouge" or "Terminator 2", and occasionally movies rising to the level of an art like "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "No Country For Old Men".
@ErnilEnNaur "You have to write the movie [yourself], because there's nothing in it."
It means the director trusts that the audience has an attention span greater than a fruit-fly and is able watch more than 30 seconds of a movie without tits or an explosion without getting bored, and will think about what they're seeing. This is not "writing the movie," it's "paying attention."
A scene lacking exposition isn't inherently meaningless, no matter how many times CM insinuates that it is.
@Gammu "It means the director trusts that the audience has an attention span greater than a fruit-fly"
This statement pre-supposes that there is something in the film to pay attention to, which there isn't as CM demonstrates. The problem with NCFOM is not that there aren't enough explosions, the problem is that when there are explosions, we have no reason to care, because there are no characters to be harmed by these explosions, because this film is about nothing.
@ErnilEnNaur: "This statement pre-supposes that there is something in the film to pay attention to, which there isn't as CM demonstrates."
How does he demonstrate this? By shouting "nothing is happening, waaaah!" every time a movie goes a minute without exposition? He certainly didn't demonstrate it in 2001. Saying Kubrick put up random, meaningless images is objectively, provably wrong. Being boring or vague about your meaning and being meaningless are two completely different things.
You might want to save your breath....I've had this same discussion with him already, and all he can sputter is that the film is about nothing (whatever that means as No country has a clear plot).
Being utterly baffled by his claims that the film has no character developement or plot, I have asked him what he would like to know about these characters to improve...and he has no answers. He's a delusional sheep of the king fool named confused matthew
@rrrevan Well, I like CM, and he used to show some insight. But the more he reviews, the more it's apparent he's a kid living on Jolt and Twinkies being served steak, who protests loudly it's not food.
What's sad is so many chime in with some variation of "not a movie / no characters, plot", lacking the basic ability to recognize what the art (and beauty) of film actual IS (hint: A film is NOT a novel); REFUSING to consider what a film SHOWS them, and demanding to be explicitly TOLD.
@rrrevan The film is lacking ANY characterization. I am not going to tell you what I want the characters to be like, because that part of your request is just an elaborate "can you do better?" argument. Besides, I don't want MY characters in the film, I just want characters.
@ErnilEnNaur You don't need to tell us what characters you want. Just tell us what would make the movie better for you. You have arguments about why you like a movie, give us some arguments why you dislike the movie and elaborate your answere. Just saying there are no characters and no plot is a little bit too easy, don't you think? Give us arguments!
@Fapsamup Fair enough. What would make the movie better for me would be if Tommy Lee Jones' character actually reacted like a human being that's surrounded by chaos that he doesn't understand. In the film he is so boring, expressionless, sedated, useless and non-existent that it almost feels like he's not in the film. It feels like he is sitting next to me, watching the film and not giving a damn. He doesn't react to anything like a human being, like a character with some personality. Clear?
@ErnilEnNaur Coudn't we say that his lack of personality just defines his personality? He is just a man lacking any personality, those people do exist. The way he is defines to me his true nature.
@Fapsamup Yes, we could say that. But how is anybody supposed to care about some deader than a doorknob character with zero personality? There are a lot of boring people and boring things in the real world that one can put into a film, but just because something exists in reality doesn't mean that it will work well in a film, or work at all. An empty shell of a character is just an empty shell of a character, whether realistic or not. I cannot care about him and he's a waste of screentime.
So you're calling his monologue at the opening of the movie, his reaction to finding Moss' corpse and the crawling, guts-bleeding Mexican, and his relating of the dream he had about his father at the end...boring and expressionless?
I understand the crux of your objection may be to his relative separation from the rest of the plot, but one thing at a time....I just can't fathom how anyone could find those deliveries flat or unmoving
The "pointless scene" with the manager at the trailer park I think was to establish that she wasn't going to give the information out willingly. And that in the next scene when Anton is at the guy's work it's because he killed the manager and got the information.
The sheriff showing up at the trailer park and mentioning the things he's seen is implying the dead manager along with the other victims they had thus far. Course I think the vague nature of most scenes is part of it's problem.
You lost some credibility with this review I think by claim it wasn't a film with no plot, story, or characters the same way you did with 2001. It was true with 2001 but not for this movie.
That said I think this movie was a bad movie with shallow characters. It was more like a short film made by film students that got padded out to a full feature length film. And many of your other points about the flaws in the film I do agree with.
I've never seen the movie. I just like listening to his oppinions. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that what's good about reviews? Hearing someone elses oppinions? If you want your own, why would you watch a review made by someone else? Just a thought.
i just watched the movie on YouTube, and I gotta say...it wasn't great. It wasn't OMG WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME, but it was a movie trying to hard to be thought provoking when it really wasn't. It DID make me really root for the main protagonist and I really felt for the guy. What would you do if you found $2 million and you spent your life in a trailer. But the story goes south and ruin it. It ends to abruptly and Tommy Lee Jones really was a useless character in all this.
I've always said that a good story can be told in any format, and a bad story is bad in any format. a live action film is no better or worse then a animated
i know CM hasn't ever said anything like this
also:a 1.5 hour movie with a great plot has more interest with me then a 5 hour movie with nothing. time does not make the movie. do not be afraid to take as much time as you need to tell it, just know when you've reached that point.
What movie was he watching? Anton NEVER killed anyone because he was bored. He killed everyone he killed because they were either in his way or they had something he needed (like a car).
So, a common complaint I'm seeing is "you didn't try to analyze the film".
Guys, do you think this is the first time Matthew has watched the film? He's obviously watched this multiple times, as he does with all films he's reviewed, and come to the conclusion that there is noting to interpret.
As opposed to Confused Matthew going nuts, it seems the comment section on his videos is becoming an echo-chamber of stupidity. When CM asks a film for character definition, 4everSupportive here responds with: "Why would we need BAD and CLICHE character definition?" Yeah, because there's no such thing as good, non-cliche characterization. People who subscribe to Confused Matthew only to argue his points = masters of strawman bullshit.
4eversupportive and myself are both sick of traditional story arcs. Moss is just a man who loves his wife, served in vietnam and proves by his actions that he's both cunning and capable. His wife works at walmart...that's it. Period
Again, it's very easy to be a critic. As 4ever suggested, come up with better characterization without being cliche. This film was very different, and frankly, very refreashing. It focused on the chase, not the average joe running.
@rrrevan No. What 4ever suggested was that CM and people who agree with him would prefer stupid Vietnam flashbacks and cliche characters, which is a classic strawman from angry little fanboys who don't know why they like the film in the first place. The guy's an idiot.
"Don't know why they like the film in the first place". Wonderful. And people accuse this film of being pretentious...
Here comes Erni telling ME that I don't understand why I like this film. Not you...but ME!?! When I want someone speaking for me, you'll be the last person to know.
Just watched pt1 will no doubt have to wait a month for pt2 so in the mean time question, dose Matthew like any Coen bros films? Because everything you've said in part one could be said about almost all their other films which raises another question, why did you watch this in the first place was it just so you could get pissed off and make a video with shouting?
Now I see why you wanted to save this one for last. You did give warning, if I'm not mistaken. This first part sounds an awful lot like your review of 2001: A something-something. For the record, yes. I do think you're doing me a favor by telling me what's going on. I didn't see this movie and formed no desire to see it, either. It only took the trailer for me to think, "This looks stupid." So, thanks for the free review.
@BrokenFWD yeah that's pretty much right. chigurh's long and drawn out scenes succeed more in making him look like a total weirdo.
i think the coen brothers just elongate their scenes to span like 2 hours because they're famous film makers and that's what they're expected to do or some shit. they could have made this movie like an hour long, it would have been just as good.
How can you begin by saying the movie has no plot, before you then go right on to describe the plot? I agree, it was a pointless plot, but it was still a plot. Maybe you should have calmed down before you attempted this review. You're confusing pointless with boring. Certainly not at your best here.
@VerwirrterTurnschuh actually, CM said Moulin Rouge was and I quote, "the best film 'I' have ever seen in my life." As for NCFOM, he is not just saying its "the worst", he is demonstrating it. Don't read into things that are not there, and don't twist his words. Or else people will not take you seriously. If you think he is wrong, demonstrate it, make a video, or just keep talking.
@Christtnot He's not "demonstranting", he is yelling "NOTHING'S HAPPENING WITH NO CHARACTERS!!" (basically) - while the movie clips showing interesting characters doing things with high presence and concentration.
It's not my seriousness/reputation at stake here. It's Matthew's. I really think he needs a break and think things over.
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Lately??? He's had these reviews planned for a while, which means he has felt this way for a long time. If your going to criticize him for his views now, then you have to criticize his views up to now.
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Matthew gave his reasons (both objective and personal reasons) for why he thinks Moulin Rouige is the best film HE'S EVER SEEN. You've given no reasons why you insult Matthew other than that he disagrees with your taste. Go evolve for a few million years and then come join us, the intelligent humans.
@ErnilEnNaur Hello intelligent humans out there! It seems you take every fucking word of an spontenous, ultra short YouTube "IMHO" comment deadly serious.
I just wouldn't do that, unevolved monkey that I am.
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Pffft... either respect your own opinions enough to back them up or don't bitch when someone calls them stupid. I like to call things the way I see them.
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Although I don't agree with what most Matthew is saying about No Country for Old Men and thinks recently, his review for 'bad movies' are getting a bit too angry (and less sarcastic-funny) for my taste... I do feel like I should point out that in no way he is saying these are the best/worst films of all time. It's just his personal preferences. I must've watched Revenge of the Sith more than 10 times, but i still like his review of it =D. This one not so much...
@FaithfulCharity On this occassion: Isn't it just ridiculous nitpicking over the fact that I didn't wrote "HIS best movie of all time" (or something like that) but "best movie of all time"? CM himself seems far less accurate with his describtions. & I see no problem in THAT.
@VerwirrterTurnschuh There is no such thing as being "an objective analyst" when it comes to movies. The quality of a movie is always subjective because film is art. Art is not a science and therefore it is not a fact that a movie is "good" or "bad" as a fact.
@DaRunningMan There are of course "objective merits" by which you can analyze a movie. Moviemaking is an art, it is a craft, it is no witchcraft or something (and even that seems to follow certain rules). CM built his credibility on exactly that approach (but fails miserably more and more often).
Btw: You may love or dislike a movie apart from its "objetive values".
@VerwirrterTurnschuh I don't care what CM has said. I'm not replying to you in his defense.
There are no "objective merits" by which a movie can be analyzed since there is no "right" and "wrong" way to make a movie. There are movies that break so called rules of supposed genres, film making, screen writing, etc...
Art is interpretation. Its very foundation is subjectivity. This is why art is not a science because science is based on observation and facts.
@DaRunningMan Please, discuss your "art has no rules or principles and is just subjective" attitude with your nearest art teacher and leave me alone. And please never ever play piano in my presence, for I think music is an artform and art is based on principles (which you are too stubborn to even recognize).
@VerwirrterTurnschuh If you actually think that art has "objective merits" then explain to me why every award for cinema is based on votes? Compare that to athletics. Do people vote if one baseball team got more runs than the other? Do people give their opinions if one runner got to the finish line first before another?
Art is subjective since it is comes out of expression. If you don't understand that then you don't understand art.
@DaRunningMan Not every award for cinema (or music etc.) is based on votes, some are based on ticket sales. But every award in science is based on votes. What athletics got to do with it is even more beyond my mind.
Listen, to express yourself you need to know the rules and principles of the language in which you want to express yourself. - You've tried to express yourself with your comments, I don't understand you, so maybe you're a true artist and I'm a philstine. Good night.
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Don't know of any awards that are based on ticket sales, but I would imagine they are not claiming to be awards honoring the quality of the movie and even still that is a type of voting since it would be about how many people went to see a movie.
About my athletic analogy it is quite clear that it's about my point of why there is no "objective merit" in cinema. If the Yankees win a game, it is because they scored more runs. It is not because people voted that they won.
@HellHawkProductions Someone once explained it to me in terms like this: there are movies that are about things, and there are movies that are only about the things that happen in the movie. The latter might have its place as escapism, but it doesn't shed any insight on life, the universe, or anything. In this context, No Country is just empty escapism... You see things happening (slowly) on a screen, and that is it.
@1701EarlGrey You know what else is overrated, the word overrated.
I've always felt that people only use that word because they think it makes it look like they have a clue what they are talking about, when it fact they don't.
Yawn, more aspy internet "critics" with scant film knowledge sharing their terrible opinions. I imagine CM would pop a vein watching films from Tarkovsky, Jarmusch, and Malick.
Please, Matthew, could you lower your voice a bit? I have to put the volume up to hear the movie clips, and when you start shouting, you threaten to bust my eardrums. I don't want to be on red-alert when I watch your reviews, I want to enjoy them.
@trekkerhappy Overrated is a meaningless word, using it is basically saying that you think you alone can evaluate a film objectively. That's stupid. People have the right to like NCFOM as much as they want, that doesn't make their opinion non-objective by default. Also, The Coens are actually great directors, they just sucked at writing (I should say not writing) this film.
If you could call these characters then they'd have to be 2-D characters. They have form and they do things. We're given some information as to Llewellyn & his wife's jobs and that he was in 'Nam. And we are told the Sherriff had a daddy who was a sherriff too and that he spends time contimplating the nature of the changing world or at least talking a lot about it. But that's all. No insight as to what they're thinking ABOUT things. That's why they're not 3-D and thus not real characters.
@SavageVandar Why do you find essential to be able to look into the characters' mind and past in order to understand their certain roles in a story? CM really acted like a lazy-ass trailer-trash slob demanding his powerchair in front of a mall during his review - which is understandable, he is clearly a campbellian reviewer - but what's your excuse? Crying for "character-crutches" in a shitty ass musical is one thing, but in a thriller from the creators of Fargo? Come on people...
@Ghavin86 I never said their past was necessary, but it can help. But I do need to know how they think and feel about things in order to connect with them as characters. That's what fully fleshed out characters do. These are just moving vessels to use CM's lingo. And what the fuck difference does it make if it from the guys who made Fargo or Debbie Does Dallas for all I care. Reputation does not make one invulnerable to criticism. That's just a cheap debating ploy and I'm not buying it.
@SavageVandar You just proved my point, you need crutches AKA cardboad-cut out clichés in order to feel attached. You are basically saying that without flashbacks and inner monologues you can't figure out a role. Plus, I didn't mention Fargo because of it's reputation - I was just saying that don't expect spoon-feed storytelling methods from the the Coen brothers because they proved that in the past that they don't need shit like that to create great movies.
@Ghavin86 Not crutches but I need SOMETHING from the movie. A movie IS SUPPOSED TO TELL YOU WHAT IT IS ABOUT. Not leave it up to you to guess. That's making the audience write the film and it's bullshit.
@SavageVandar In case of NCFO you really get everything you need to know about the characters and their roles in the story, if you can't figure it out you must have ADD or something. But I doubt that you had a hard time figuring it all out - you just found a convoluted way to justify your personal taste, I'm pretty sure that there are some movies from your personal favorites which can be labeled as flicks with poor/no characters; poor/no plot.
@Ghavin86 There you go with that spoonfeeding bullshit again. So you're saying what? That a movie is better when it DOESN'T tell you what it is about? When you have to make up shit to fill in the gaps on your own and essentially do the writer's job for them? Ok.
@SavageVandar Some movies need spoonfeeding exposition some movies don't. As I said, if you had a hard time figuring out the roles in this one you have some sort of mental incapability (not my problem). Taking certain scenes out of context proving that "nothing happens" just proves that CM has a short attention span and clearly doesn't appreciate suspense. If you had the same problem with the shown scenes, join his ADD club or something.
@SavageVandar Furthermore, do I really need to give you a fucking lecture about the show don't tell principle? If not, just tell me, what are you really demanding here: some sort of crappy, overused method to introduce the characters in the first third of the movie in order to avoid retards getting confused who is the good or/and the bad guy? Seriously, was that really that hard for you to figure out anything here? Or as I hinted, you just didn't enjoy the movie for whole other reasons?
@Ghavin86 When you feel the need to devolve in ad hominem attacks(retard, suffers from ADD, etc.) IMO you're no longer worth responing to. Go join Chase in celebrating how much of a bunch of avant-garde appreciating geniuses you are. You have ceased making rational arguments at this point.
@SavageVandar I weren't using ad hominem, I'm just saying that if you had a hard time following the plot, understanding the roles, etc., it's your fault then, because NCFOM is really simple on these departments (you don't have to be a genius of any sort, just you know, functioning). You tell me which scenes were confusing to you and why, and maybe we can figure out what your problem really was. Hey maybe we can theoretically improve those scenes in order to make them more accessible for CM :)
What are you talking about? The novel (if you'd bothered to read it) was just as minimalist with character back story, and it was still a hell of a read.
What more about Moss do you need to know to make you care about him?
@SavageVandar Personally I feel sorry for you and CM if you are really cannot appreciate a movie like this. That being said, I'm pretty sure this is just a crappy act from CM to maintain his persona after the 2001 controversy.
@Ghavin86 BTW, he was dead on about that non-movie of an excuse for a film (2001) as well. And no amount of bullshit condescending, ad hominem attacks from people like Chase can change that fact.
@Ghavin86 For some reason this made me think of one of my favorite movies, "The Adventures of Mark Twain". IT is a beautiful film that, by use of Twain's own written words, makes him a fully realized character full of highs and lows, longings and aspirations, good and evil, mystery and profound insight... and he's only a Claymation puppet. It sounds, from this review, like this puppet is more of a character (and a better actor) than any of the living people in No Country.
So Kill bill and The Departed are coming up next!?!
Let me guess...we really dont get to find out much about Bill or the bride (especially at the beginning of volume 1)...so fuck that movie right?
And the same goes for The Departed (cough...seriously?). How can we like Leo's character when we know so little about him. Guess when he dies...we don't care...right?
@rrrevan OMFG! If one of his criticisms of Kill Bill Volume 1 is the one you mentioned I'm going to flip. I absolutely love Kill Bill. I'm open to Confused Matthew's negative review but if he doesn't make any good points against the movie I might as well not bother.
After getting over the initial...displeasure of watching this review.... I can admit I see why people wouldnt like it. Its an art film and it doesnt have a lot of action, it uses a lot of deliberately slow camera techniques with lots of detailed shots and less dialogue.
Now, to blanketly say that this is a meaningless film and a waste of time is unfair. Realize your own bias before making a review, I think.
I watched the film when it first came out. I found it boring and forgettable . I have no problem with slow paced films but the characters in this movie had nothing memorable about them.
Did you see the Coens' True Grit? It has a weird little scene with a crazy guy in a bear skin, but I think it works as a bit of comic relief, plus the characters are just as confused about it as we are.
You seem to refuse to look into what the movie's visuals are saying. Instead of clunky exposition explaining these characters, we get to just see them being.
@Dif0jo I remember watching blade runner and have absoloutley hating it. I've never quite understood why it was so highly acclaimed; it just seemed like a mess of wannabe action seens and nonsensical plotlines. I'll have to watch it again sometime.
Jmarley912 2 months ago
Inconsistent. I'm curious how then could you possibly like an 'idea' movie like Blade Runner?
Consider the same flaws: we know nothing about Deckard or Rachael either, and certainly have no reason to care about them. Minor characters are introduced late into the movie, no background, only to die off. The pace is deliberately slow, and heavy on atmosphere. It would be both easy and naive to take a given scene in Blade Runner and say "Nothing happens. Nothing happens. Nothing happens."
scullion01 3 months ago
idiot.
RedMist772 3 months ago
This reviewed sucked...not from anything said but because the fact that Matthews uses quiet scenes, then SCREAMS into the mic so that I can even listen to the review without having my finger on the volume. Hey Confused Matthew, can you keep these reviews in a reasonable volume range? If your gonna yell, your gonna need to increase the volume of the movie clips.
ltflak 4 months ago 3
Click here if you think Confused Matthew is pathologically bellicose in this review.
charlesvan13 5 months ago 5
I loved this movie, and you know what? I didn't think of any particular symbolism, whether it was there or not. I liked it because it reminded me of an old Sergio Leone western film. It reminds me a lot of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
LastStand2010 5 months ago
Anybody who hates this movie obviously doesnt get it.
xFIRERUSHx 5 months ago in playlist More videos from confusedmatthew
I don't get why people are hating this review. Hell, I watched the damn movie, and GAVE UP HALF WAY IN. I freaking HATED this movie and for the same reasons Matthew does; therefore, I really liked his review.
There. You may be pissed off with me now.
Crazy56U 8 months ago
@Crazy56U I think it's only fair to watch a film all the way before passing judgement.
buc555 6 months ago
@buc555 And I think it's fair for a movie to TRY and convince me to do so. Your point?
Crazy56U 6 months ago
@Crazy56U Wait till you've seen the whole film till you decide if you think it's any good.
buc555 6 months ago
52 Likes? Matthew's not the only one that's confused ._.
MyKrimsonUrchin 8 months ago
Matthew says "the film has no plot" then numerous scenes explaining the films plot are played and he's like "huh? what was that all about?".
He's like someone trying to get through a door who says "never mind what that handle thing does, just tell how to open the door".
snoopyisback 9 months ago
Matthew you are the definition of overanalysization. If one were to look up over-analyation in a dictionary there would be a picture of you.
Tulljfette 9 months ago
Face it Matthew, you're just not a fan of Film Noir.
garamonde 9 months ago
I've now read the book No Country For Old Men and I can tell you that the description of Anton searching the trailers that it gives is nothing like the one that CM gives.
buc555 10 months ago
So he kinda wanders around the house and Lou-Ellans not there
RYANL22 10 months ago
Mmm. There's nothing quite like a Kelly Macdonald.
TheConciseStatement 10 months ago
Well, let's disband the idea that this is, in fact, a movie 'about nothing', because what it's about is fairly evident.
The story is about an old Sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) having a difficult time dealing with how cruel and violent he thinks the world has become. As established in the opening dialogue, he talks about his career in law enforcement, and how he thinks times have become harder. As an example, he says that "many of the old-time Sheriffs never even wore a gun".
MrJimmyNapoleon 10 months ago
[Contin.]
In that opening monologue, he also mentions how he can't comprehend the cruelty of a man who murdered a little girl and showed zero remorse for it ("Said he knew he was going to hell...be there in about fifteen minutes...I don't know what to make of that...").
From there, it jumps into the Bardem vs. Brolin storyline, where Llewellyn stumbles upon the drug deal gone wrong, and subsequently the money, then unwittinly runs off with it, etc., which sets that plot into motion.
MrJimmyNapoleon 10 months ago
[Contin.]
Then it comes around to Anton Chiguhr, a personification of the evil Bell is afraid of. He could be described as incomprehensible evil, but there is something comprehensible about him in that Chiguhr has a strange set of rules, such as the coin toss ("You could say he has principles that transcend money or drugs"). The scene in the gas station demonstrates that, as well as the scene with the large woman in the trailer park. I know that I'm veering off track here, so I'll digress.
MrJimmyNapoleon 10 months ago
[Contin.]
Back around to what I was originally saying, the "point' of "No Country For Old Men", or what it's 'about', is Sheriff Bell coming to terms with the ways of the world, and the Bardem vs Brolin storyline is a catalyst for it, especially the seemingly random way that it ends. That next part where he goes to visit an older Sheriff sums up the entire 'point'. That's the juciest part for explanation. Again, I only want to get into all this to dispatch the idea that it's about 'nothing'.
MrJimmyNapoleon 10 months ago
[Contin.,]
After the death of [spoiler], Sheriff Bell ends up feeling even more hopeless and ends up quitting his job, and then goes to visit an older Sheriff. After they talk about why he quit, the older Sheriff recalls a story about the death of one his ancestors in violent times. That's when Bell has to cope with the fact that the world isn't *really* getting worse, what he's facing "ain't nothing new". The last scene with him talking about his dreams drives this home: "And then I woke up".
MrJimmyNapoleon 10 months ago
[Contin.]
This is all a bit long-winded, but what I'm saying with all this is that this is the "point" of NCFOM, what it's "about", and I'm giving examples. I don't have to fish, or over-analyze for it, so I'm not seeing anything that isn't there. It's all there, incorporated into the narrative.
Of course this film isn't for everyone.
But when we start saying there is actually nothing to 'get', then it becomes just as snobby and elitist as the 'you just don't get it' crowd.
MrJimmyNapoleon 10 months ago
@MrJimmyNapoleon I would say there is nothing to "get" about the film because it seems fairly self explanatory to me.
snoopyisback 9 months ago
After watching this, I have officially given up on Matthew. He really doesn't know how to get his point across in an review effectively. Just annoying yelling of "THIS MOVIE HAS NO PLOT!!!".... We heard you the first time Matthew. I could take 2001 and Lion King, but this is just ridiculous.
DoggieBark 10 months ago 7
48 people don't understand that the great thing about this review is the we disagree with it!
buc555 11 months ago
@buc555
Doesn't that fall under 'trolling'? Don't get me wrong, I loves me some trolling and/or provacateurism, but.....there's also just plain making an ass of yourself.
Eldeecue 10 months ago
@Eldeecue trolling is normally directed at a person.
buc555 10 months ago
Anyone willing to bet that he will say in part 2 something about the bird on the bridge scene being pointless?
buc555 11 months ago
This review is clusterfuck of retardiness and cuss words.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS FILM, NOT PLOT.
Is that so Einstein?
Mr11MUSICMAN 11 months ago 12
@Mr11MUSICMAN
first he gets offended by how some people react angrily to some of his reviews,
and the he reacts like a maniac to a movie.
and if all of his theories about what makes a performance, character, plot good then why the hell did I my brother and a whole lot of people love this movie , and the performance javier bardem did etc.
probably because we are all ignorant fools right, and your not.
cawabunga360 5 months ago
@cawabunga360 If this was a typed review, it would obviously be in caps lololo
Mr11MUSICMAN 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I couldnt watch all of this movie, i found it boring
yaseuk 11 months ago
I don't know about this one Matt. It was quite obvious to me that when the Sheriff says "He's seen the same things I've seen" that he is referring to the drug deal shoot-out in the desert that they both saw.
featheon 11 months ago
Weird.. my previous comment was voted up 19 times, but no longer shows up under the "Top Comments" section.
Gangularis 11 months ago
@Gangularis quite frankly, the comments section of YouTube is one big bug ...
VerwirrterTurnschuh 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Ain't that a fact. You'd think google would have the brains to stop breaking what ain't broke.
Gangularis 11 months ago
@Gangularis the thumbs never seem to work for me, if I vote thumb down is disappears but when I come back that vote number is the same, if I vote thumb up, nothing seems to happen.
buc555 11 months ago
For the last time....anyone who feels this film was lacking character depth....tell me specifically what you would like to know about Moss, his wife, Bell and Chagur that would enhance the film.
I don't want "well if we knew a little more about his motivations etc" - I want to know a specific trait/piece of background that would have made you care more.
Try doing it and not sounding stupid and cliche, and then we can talk.
4everSupportive 11 months ago
@4everSupportive This is just an elaborate "can you do better?" argument. Which is an argument for retards and pussies.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ErnilEnNaur
"an argument for retards and pussies" - you just lost any credibility with that one. Shouldn't you be playing final fantasy right now?
4everSupportive 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ErnilEnNaur
"an argument for retards and pussies" - you just lost all credibility with that one. Shouldn't you be playing final fantasy?
4everSupportive 11 months ago
@4everSupportive You wouldn't know credibility if it raped you. "Can you do better?" is not an argument. Unless you're a retard in which case you may use it. Oh wait...you already did.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@4everSupportive I'm curious too. Come one people, spit it out! Let's see what defines real character for those who think there are none. Lets see how many clichés they will come up with. A character is defined by what he does, not what he says or his back story. No Country For Old Men is purely focused on little subtelties that tells us everithing we need to know about the characters. You have to look at the movie, not just watch it. Look at it actively, and not just passively.
Fapsamup 11 months ago 5
@Fapsamup True... The scene that Matthew played with the Chigger guy told me everything I need to know about him. He's a bad dude because he's all creepy and stuff! That's exactly how serial killers and professional hitmen act: totally creepy and conspicous.
You guys complain about characterization being cliche, but I honestly almost burst out laughing when I watched that scene. Is the whole movie just Chigger walking around slowly, being a cliche?
CoryTheRaven 11 months ago
@Fapsamup "You have to look at it actively, not just passively"
Translation: "You have to write the movie yourself, because there's nothing in it." We've heard this before and time doesn't make this "argument" any more credible. Not when it comes to 2001, not when it comes to NCFOM, not when it comes to anything.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur Well, like Syd Field or even Robert McKee (The two respected Hollywoodian founders of learning how to write screenplays with their respective books "Screenplay" and "Story" in case you didn't knew them...) would say: "Screenwriting is a craft, that ocasionally rises to the level of an art." What we see in Hollywood is craftsmanship like "Moulin Rouge" or "Terminator 2", and occasionally movies rising to the level of an art like "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "No Country For Old Men".
Fapsamup 11 months ago
@Fapsamup The first two being masterpieces of that art, the other two being...
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur "You have to write the movie [yourself], because there's nothing in it."
It means the director trusts that the audience has an attention span greater than a fruit-fly and is able watch more than 30 seconds of a movie without tits or an explosion without getting bored, and will think about what they're seeing. This is not "writing the movie," it's "paying attention."
A scene lacking exposition isn't inherently meaningless, no matter how many times CM insinuates that it is.
Gammu 11 months ago
@Gammu "It means the director trusts that the audience has an attention span greater than a fruit-fly"
This statement pre-supposes that there is something in the film to pay attention to, which there isn't as CM demonstrates. The problem with NCFOM is not that there aren't enough explosions, the problem is that when there are explosions, we have no reason to care, because there are no characters to be harmed by these explosions, because this film is about nothing.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur: "This statement pre-supposes that there is something in the film to pay attention to, which there isn't as CM demonstrates."
How does he demonstrate this? By shouting "nothing is happening, waaaah!" every time a movie goes a minute without exposition? He certainly didn't demonstrate it in 2001. Saying Kubrick put up random, meaningless images is objectively, provably wrong. Being boring or vague about your meaning and being meaningless are two completely different things.
Gammu 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gammu "Being boring or vague about your meaning and being meaningless are two completely different things."
Yes indeed. For example: the ending of Donnie Darko is vague, the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey is meaningless.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@Gammu
You might want to save your breath....I've had this same discussion with him already, and all he can sputter is that the film is about nothing (whatever that means as No country has a clear plot).
Being utterly baffled by his claims that the film has no character developement or plot, I have asked him what he would like to know about these characters to improve...and he has no answers. He's a delusional sheep of the king fool named confused matthew
rrrevan 11 months ago
@rrrevan Just to clear this up, I didn't say that the film had no plot, I said that it had a nothing plot.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@rrrevan Well, I like CM, and he used to show some insight. But the more he reviews, the more it's apparent he's a kid living on Jolt and Twinkies being served steak, who protests loudly it's not food.
What's sad is so many chime in with some variation of "not a movie / no characters, plot", lacking the basic ability to recognize what the art (and beauty) of film actual IS (hint: A film is NOT a novel); REFUSING to consider what a film SHOWS them, and demanding to be explicitly TOLD.
Gammu 11 months ago 4
@Gammu You're my hero! Well said!
Fapsamup 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur
How is this film about nothing........?
What is something in your opinion? You never answered my question about what characterization the film is lacking.
rrrevan 11 months ago
@rrrevan The film is lacking ANY characterization. I am not going to tell you what I want the characters to be like, because that part of your request is just an elaborate "can you do better?" argument. Besides, I don't want MY characters in the film, I just want characters.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur You don't need to tell us what characters you want. Just tell us what would make the movie better for you. You have arguments about why you like a movie, give us some arguments why you dislike the movie and elaborate your answere. Just saying there are no characters and no plot is a little bit too easy, don't you think? Give us arguments!
Fapsamup 11 months ago
@Fapsamup Fair enough. What would make the movie better for me would be if Tommy Lee Jones' character actually reacted like a human being that's surrounded by chaos that he doesn't understand. In the film he is so boring, expressionless, sedated, useless and non-existent that it almost feels like he's not in the film. It feels like he is sitting next to me, watching the film and not giving a damn. He doesn't react to anything like a human being, like a character with some personality. Clear?
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur Coudn't we say that his lack of personality just defines his personality? He is just a man lacking any personality, those people do exist. The way he is defines to me his true nature.
Fapsamup 11 months ago
@Fapsamup Yes, we could say that. But how is anybody supposed to care about some deader than a doorknob character with zero personality? There are a lot of boring people and boring things in the real world that one can put into a film, but just because something exists in reality doesn't mean that it will work well in a film, or work at all. An empty shell of a character is just an empty shell of a character, whether realistic or not. I cannot care about him and he's a waste of screentime.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur
So you're calling his monologue at the opening of the movie, his reaction to finding Moss' corpse and the crawling, guts-bleeding Mexican, and his relating of the dream he had about his father at the end...boring and expressionless?
I understand the crux of your objection may be to his relative separation from the rest of the plot, but one thing at a time....I just can't fathom how anyone could find those deliveries flat or unmoving
Eldeecue 10 months ago
The "pointless scene" with the manager at the trailer park I think was to establish that she wasn't going to give the information out willingly. And that in the next scene when Anton is at the guy's work it's because he killed the manager and got the information.
The sheriff showing up at the trailer park and mentioning the things he's seen is implying the dead manager along with the other victims they had thus far. Course I think the vague nature of most scenes is part of it's problem.
PyroMancer2k 11 months ago
You lost some credibility with this review I think by claim it wasn't a film with no plot, story, or characters the same way you did with 2001. It was true with 2001 but not for this movie.
That said I think this movie was a bad movie with shallow characters. It was more like a short film made by film students that got padded out to a full feature length film. And many of your other points about the flaws in the film I do agree with.
PyroMancer2k 11 months ago
This movie would be so much better if Chigurh would just burst into song from time to time.
Gammu 11 months ago
I've never seen the movie. I just like listening to his oppinions. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that what's good about reviews? Hearing someone elses oppinions? If you want your own, why would you watch a review made by someone else? Just a thought.
Billfan222 11 months ago 5
@Billfan222 exactly! Why is everybody saying to matthew ''shut up you're wrong''?
AwesomeCoasters 11 months ago
@Billfan222 They could be playing Devil's advocate.
buc555 11 months ago
i just watched the movie on YouTube, and I gotta say...it wasn't great. It wasn't OMG WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME, but it was a movie trying to hard to be thought provoking when it really wasn't. It DID make me really root for the main protagonist and I really felt for the guy. What would you do if you found $2 million and you spent your life in a trailer. But the story goes south and ruin it. It ends to abruptly and Tommy Lee Jones really was a useless character in all this.
daftrok 11 months ago
Comment removed
daftrok 11 months ago
I've always said that a good story can be told in any format, and a bad story is bad in any format. a live action film is no better or worse then a animated
i know CM hasn't ever said anything like this
also:a 1.5 hour movie with a great plot has more interest with me then a 5 hour movie with nothing. time does not make the movie. do not be afraid to take as much time as you need to tell it, just know when you've reached that point.
Bluea88 11 months ago
What movie was he watching? Anton NEVER killed anyone because he was bored. He killed everyone he killed because they were either in his way or they had something he needed (like a car).
word2yourmogwai 11 months ago
I can't help feel like you're yelling at me every time I watch your reviews. X-D
IIIChokapikIII 11 months ago
This is like the 2001 review all over again...
Asher8328 11 months ago
So, a common complaint I'm seeing is "you didn't try to analyze the film".
Guys, do you think this is the first time Matthew has watched the film? He's obviously watched this multiple times, as he does with all films he's reviewed, and come to the conclusion that there is noting to interpret.
americandragon72 11 months ago
god dammit can't he just get the review in one part or just finish it all and upload it in seperate parts
LevvyVision 11 months ago
As opposed to Confused Matthew going nuts, it seems the comment section on his videos is becoming an echo-chamber of stupidity. When CM asks a film for character definition, 4everSupportive here responds with: "Why would we need BAD and CLICHE character definition?" Yeah, because there's no such thing as good, non-cliche characterization. People who subscribe to Confused Matthew only to argue his points = masters of strawman bullshit.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur
4eversupportive and myself are both sick of traditional story arcs. Moss is just a man who loves his wife, served in vietnam and proves by his actions that he's both cunning and capable. His wife works at walmart...that's it. Period
Again, it's very easy to be a critic. As 4ever suggested, come up with better characterization without being cliche. This film was very different, and frankly, very refreashing. It focused on the chase, not the average joe running.
rrrevan 11 months ago
@rrrevan I'm not sick of "traditional" story arcs, by which I assume you mean A story arc.
CoryTheRaven 11 months ago
@rrrevan No. What 4ever suggested was that CM and people who agree with him would prefer stupid Vietnam flashbacks and cliche characters, which is a classic strawman from angry little fanboys who don't know why they like the film in the first place. The guy's an idiot.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur
"Don't know why they like the film in the first place". Wonderful. And people accuse this film of being pretentious...
Here comes Erni telling ME that I don't understand why I like this film. Not you...but ME!?! When I want someone speaking for me, you'll be the last person to know.
rrrevan 11 months ago
@rrrevan I was talking about 4ever, not about rrrevan. Also, don't you mean: the last person to _do that_?
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur
You replied to me and I agree with 4ever, hence we are the people who don't understand why we like this film.
rrrevan 11 months ago
Just watched pt1 will no doubt have to wait a month for pt2 so in the mean time question, dose Matthew like any Coen bros films? Because everything you've said in part one could be said about almost all their other films which raises another question, why did you watch this in the first place was it just so you could get pissed off and make a video with shouting?
tribetng 11 months ago 4
Now I see why you wanted to save this one for last. You did give warning, if I'm not mistaken. This first part sounds an awful lot like your review of 2001: A something-something. For the record, yes. I do think you're doing me a favor by telling me what's going on. I didn't see this movie and formed no desire to see it, either. It only took the trailer for me to think, "This looks stupid." So, thanks for the free review.
danieldb631 11 months ago
so fuckin high daawg
LouDawg808 11 months ago
@BrokenFWD yeah that's pretty much right. chigurh's long and drawn out scenes succeed more in making him look like a total weirdo.
i think the coen brothers just elongate their scenes to span like 2 hours because they're famous film makers and that's what they're expected to do or some shit. they could have made this movie like an hour long, it would have been just as good.
grandangodang 11 months ago
@grandangodang not just as good...better
grandangodang 11 months ago
How can you begin by saying the movie has no plot, before you then go right on to describe the plot? I agree, it was a pointless plot, but it was still a plot. Maybe you should have calmed down before you attempted this review. You're confusing pointless with boring. Certainly not at your best here.
rofyle 11 months ago 3
Comment removed
rofyle 11 months ago
Moulin Rouge! - the best movie of all time.
No Country for Old Men - the worst.
It's not exactly world upside down, but CM is defintely loosing his sense for proportions lately.
He's not an objetiv analyst any more. He's just a nerd going nuts.
VerwirrterTurnschuh 11 months ago 5
@VerwirrterTurnschuh yes
MarMotorbiker 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh actually, CM said Moulin Rouge was and I quote, "the best film 'I' have ever seen in my life." As for NCFOM, he is not just saying its "the worst", he is demonstrating it. Don't read into things that are not there, and don't twist his words. Or else people will not take you seriously. If you think he is wrong, demonstrate it, make a video, or just keep talking.
Christtnot 11 months ago
@Christtnot He's not "demonstranting", he is yelling "NOTHING'S HAPPENING WITH NO CHARACTERS!!" (basically) - while the movie clips showing interesting characters doing things with high presence and concentration.
It's not my seriousness/reputation at stake here. It's Matthew's. I really think he needs a break and think things over.
VerwirrterTurnschuh 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Lately??? He's had these reviews planned for a while, which means he has felt this way for a long time. If your going to criticize him for his views now, then you have to criticize his views up to now.
americandragon72 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Matthew gave his reasons (both objective and personal reasons) for why he thinks Moulin Rouige is the best film HE'S EVER SEEN. You've given no reasons why you insult Matthew other than that he disagrees with your taste. Go evolve for a few million years and then come join us, the intelligent humans.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur Hello intelligent humans out there! It seems you take every fucking word of an spontenous, ultra short YouTube "IMHO" comment deadly serious.
I just wouldn't do that, unevolved monkey that I am.
VerwirrterTurnschuh 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Pffft... either respect your own opinions enough to back them up or don't bitch when someone calls them stupid. I like to call things the way I see them.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Although I don't agree with what most Matthew is saying about No Country for Old Men and thinks recently, his review for 'bad movies' are getting a bit too angry (and less sarcastic-funny) for my taste... I do feel like I should point out that in no way he is saying these are the best/worst films of all time. It's just his personal preferences. I must've watched Revenge of the Sith more than 10 times, but i still like his review of it =D. This one not so much...
FaithfulCharity 11 months ago
@FaithfulCharity On this occassion: Isn't it just ridiculous nitpicking over the fact that I didn't wrote "HIS best movie of all time" (or something like that) but "best movie of all time"? CM himself seems far less accurate with his describtions. & I see no problem in THAT.
VerwirrterTurnschuh 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh that one word makes a big difference i'm sorry to inform. Especially when Matthew stresses this in his reviews.
FaithfulCharity 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh There is no such thing as being "an objective analyst" when it comes to movies. The quality of a movie is always subjective because film is art. Art is not a science and therefore it is not a fact that a movie is "good" or "bad" as a fact.
DaRunningMan 11 months ago
@DaRunningMan There are of course "objective merits" by which you can analyze a movie. Moviemaking is an art, it is a craft, it is no witchcraft or something (and even that seems to follow certain rules). CM built his credibility on exactly that approach (but fails miserably more and more often).
Btw: You may love or dislike a movie apart from its "objetive values".
VerwirrterTurnschuh 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh I don't care what CM has said. I'm not replying to you in his defense.
There are no "objective merits" by which a movie can be analyzed since there is no "right" and "wrong" way to make a movie. There are movies that break so called rules of supposed genres, film making, screen writing, etc...
Art is interpretation. Its very foundation is subjectivity. This is why art is not a science because science is based on observation and facts.
DaRunningMan 11 months ago
@DaRunningMan Please, discuss your "art has no rules or principles and is just subjective" attitude with your nearest art teacher and leave me alone. And please never ever play piano in my presence, for I think music is an artform and art is based on principles (which you are too stubborn to even recognize).
VerwirrterTurnschuh 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh If you actually think that art has "objective merits" then explain to me why every award for cinema is based on votes? Compare that to athletics. Do people vote if one baseball team got more runs than the other? Do people give their opinions if one runner got to the finish line first before another?
Art is subjective since it is comes out of expression. If you don't understand that then you don't understand art.
DaRunningMan 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaRunningMan 10 thumbs up for your comment!
Fapsamup 11 months ago
@DaRunningMan Not every award for cinema (or music etc.) is based on votes, some are based on ticket sales. But every award in science is based on votes. What athletics got to do with it is even more beyond my mind.
Listen, to express yourself you need to know the rules and principles of the language in which you want to express yourself. - You've tried to express yourself with your comments, I don't understand you, so maybe you're a true artist and I'm a philstine. Good night.
VerwirrterTurnschuh 11 months ago
@VerwirrterTurnschuh Don't know of any awards that are based on ticket sales, but I would imagine they are not claiming to be awards honoring the quality of the movie and even still that is a type of voting since it would be about how many people went to see a movie.
About my athletic analogy it is quite clear that it's about my point of why there is no "objective merit" in cinema. If the Yankees win a game, it is because they scored more runs. It is not because people voted that they won.
DaRunningMan 11 months ago
Anton Chiwhatever looks like young Charlie Watts
HyperCorruption 11 months ago
(Homer Simpson voice) AaAaUuUuGg...bOriNg!! Unsubscribed...
XXXICKYXXX 11 months ago
Comment removed
XXXICKYXXX 11 months ago
Comment removed
XXXICKYXXX 11 months ago
Do you like The Big Lebowski, Matthew?
kamdan2011 11 months ago
Coen Brothers are overrated "True Grid" is even worse, than this movie.
1701EarlGrey 11 months ago
@1701EarlGrey I heard True Grid was bad, but True Grit is very good
HellHawkProductions 11 months ago 7
@HellHawkProductions I actually liked the new Tron movie ;)
HamGreenandEggs 11 months ago
@HamGreenandEggs I hated Tron, loved True Grit
HellHawkProductions 11 months ago
@HellHawkProductions Boring movie about nothing...
1701EarlGrey 11 months ago
@1701EarlGrey how is it about nothin. its about three people one girl, one sherrif and one drunk going to catch a murderer
HellHawkProductions 11 months ago
@HellHawkProductions Someone once explained it to me in terms like this: there are movies that are about things, and there are movies that are only about the things that happen in the movie. The latter might have its place as escapism, but it doesn't shed any insight on life, the universe, or anything. In this context, No Country is just empty escapism... You see things happening (slowly) on a screen, and that is it.
CoryTheRaven 11 months ago
@1701EarlGrey if the coen brothers are overrated, who do you consider a good director?
TheGleeps 11 months ago
@TheGleeps Spielberg, Nolan, Fincher, Aronofsky...
1701EarlGrey 11 months ago
@1701EarlGrey You know what else is overrated, the word overrated.
I've always felt that people only use that word because they think it makes it look like they have a clue what they are talking about, when it fact they don't.
buc555 11 months ago
@buc555 I no what I talking about - I talking about two guys who make boring movies about nothing... :)
1701EarlGrey 11 months ago
@1701EarlGrey don't use the word overrated, it doesn't help.
buc555 11 months ago
Yawn, more aspy internet "critics" with scant film knowledge sharing their terrible opinions. I imagine CM would pop a vein watching films from Tarkovsky, Jarmusch, and Malick.
HeroinMilkshake 11 months ago
Comment removed
HeroinMilkshake 11 months ago
Please, Matthew, could you lower your voice a bit? I have to put the volume up to hear the movie clips, and when you start shouting, you threaten to bust my eardrums. I don't want to be on red-alert when I watch your reviews, I want to enjoy them.
songofgrayshadows 11 months ago
@trekkerhappy Overrated is a meaningless word, using it is basically saying that you think you alone can evaluate a film objectively. That's stupid. People have the right to like NCFOM as much as they want, that doesn't make their opinion non-objective by default. Also, The Coens are actually great directors, they just sucked at writing (I should say not writing) this film.
ErnilEnNaur 11 months ago
Comment removed
HamGreenandEggs 11 months ago
Comment removed
buc555 11 months ago
It was entertaining. It Was a story. It Did have characters.
The ending sucked. The message was totally lost on me. The plot was suspenseful, but ultimately, meaningless. Still...I was entertained.
Nothing great, but good enough.
bull068 11 months ago
If you could call these characters then they'd have to be 2-D characters. They have form and they do things. We're given some information as to Llewellyn & his wife's jobs and that he was in 'Nam. And we are told the Sherriff had a daddy who was a sherriff too and that he spends time contimplating the nature of the changing world or at least talking a lot about it. But that's all. No insight as to what they're thinking ABOUT things. That's why they're not 3-D and thus not real characters.
SavageVandar 11 months ago
@SavageVandar Why do you find essential to be able to look into the characters' mind and past in order to understand their certain roles in a story? CM really acted like a lazy-ass trailer-trash slob demanding his powerchair in front of a mall during his review - which is understandable, he is clearly a campbellian reviewer - but what's your excuse? Crying for "character-crutches" in a shitty ass musical is one thing, but in a thriller from the creators of Fargo? Come on people...
Ghavin86 11 months ago
@Ghavin86 I never said their past was necessary, but it can help. But I do need to know how they think and feel about things in order to connect with them as characters. That's what fully fleshed out characters do. These are just moving vessels to use CM's lingo. And what the fuck difference does it make if it from the guys who made Fargo or Debbie Does Dallas for all I care. Reputation does not make one invulnerable to criticism. That's just a cheap debating ploy and I'm not buying it.
SavageVandar 11 months ago
@SavageVandar You just proved my point, you need crutches AKA cardboad-cut out clichés in order to feel attached. You are basically saying that without flashbacks and inner monologues you can't figure out a role. Plus, I didn't mention Fargo because of it's reputation - I was just saying that don't expect spoon-feed storytelling methods from the the Coen brothers because they proved that in the past that they don't need shit like that to create great movies.
Ghavin86 11 months ago
@Ghavin86 Not crutches but I need SOMETHING from the movie. A movie IS SUPPOSED TO TELL YOU WHAT IT IS ABOUT. Not leave it up to you to guess. That's making the audience write the film and it's bullshit.
SavageVandar 11 months ago
@SavageVandar In case of NCFO you really get everything you need to know about the characters and their roles in the story, if you can't figure it out you must have ADD or something. But I doubt that you had a hard time figuring it all out - you just found a convoluted way to justify your personal taste, I'm pretty sure that there are some movies from your personal favorites which can be labeled as flicks with poor/no characters; poor/no plot.
Ghavin86 11 months ago
@Ghavin86 Sure there are. Comedies, who's main function is to make me laugh. Nothing beyond that is absolutely required for me to like them.
SavageVandar 11 months ago
@SavageVandar But if you seriously want movies to be spoonfeeding novels translated onto the screen that's okay too - your loss.
Ghavin86 11 months ago
@Ghavin86 There you go with that spoonfeeding bullshit again. So you're saying what? That a movie is better when it DOESN'T tell you what it is about? When you have to make up shit to fill in the gaps on your own and essentially do the writer's job for them? Ok.
SavageVandar 11 months ago
@SavageVandar Some movies need spoonfeeding exposition some movies don't. As I said, if you had a hard time figuring out the roles in this one you have some sort of mental incapability (not my problem). Taking certain scenes out of context proving that "nothing happens" just proves that CM has a short attention span and clearly doesn't appreciate suspense. If you had the same problem with the shown scenes, join his ADD club or something.
Ghavin86 11 months ago
@SavageVandar Furthermore, do I really need to give you a fucking lecture about the show don't tell principle? If not, just tell me, what are you really demanding here: some sort of crappy, overused method to introduce the characters in the first third of the movie in order to avoid retards getting confused who is the good or/and the bad guy? Seriously, was that really that hard for you to figure out anything here? Or as I hinted, you just didn't enjoy the movie for whole other reasons?
Ghavin86 11 months ago
@Ghavin86 When you feel the need to devolve in ad hominem attacks(retard, suffers from ADD, etc.) IMO you're no longer worth responing to. Go join Chase in celebrating how much of a bunch of avant-garde appreciating geniuses you are. You have ceased making rational arguments at this point.
SavageVandar 11 months ago
@SavageVandar I weren't using ad hominem, I'm just saying that if you had a hard time following the plot, understanding the roles, etc., it's your fault then, because NCFOM is really simple on these departments (you don't have to be a genius of any sort, just you know, functioning). You tell me which scenes were confusing to you and why, and maybe we can figure out what your problem really was. Hey maybe we can theoretically improve those scenes in order to make them more accessible for CM :)
Ghavin86 11 months ago
@SavageVandar
What are you talking about? The novel (if you'd bothered to read it) was just as minimalist with character back story, and it was still a hell of a read.
What more about Moss do you need to know to make you care about him?
4everSupportive 11 months ago
@SavageVandar The movie is about existentialism. It makes this very clear while using a western-noir thriller plot as a back drop
HamGreenandEggs 11 months ago
@SavageVandar Personally I feel sorry for you and CM if you are really cannot appreciate a movie like this. That being said, I'm pretty sure this is just a crappy act from CM to maintain his persona after the 2001 controversy.
Ghavin86 11 months ago
@Ghavin86 BTW, he was dead on about that non-movie of an excuse for a film (2001) as well. And no amount of bullshit condescending, ad hominem attacks from people like Chase can change that fact.
SavageVandar 11 months ago
@Ghavin86 For some reason this made me think of one of my favorite movies, "The Adventures of Mark Twain". IT is a beautiful film that, by use of Twain's own written words, makes him a fully realized character full of highs and lows, longings and aspirations, good and evil, mystery and profound insight... and he's only a Claymation puppet. It sounds, from this review, like this puppet is more of a character (and a better actor) than any of the living people in No Country.
CoryTheRaven 11 months ago
@carlosmontros534535 LOL i didn't even attempt to figure out the spelling
kranktank 11 months ago
So Kill bill and The Departed are coming up next!?!
Let me guess...we really dont get to find out much about Bill or the bride (especially at the beginning of volume 1)...so fuck that movie right?
And the same goes for The Departed (cough...seriously?). How can we like Leo's character when we know so little about him. Guess when he dies...we don't care...right?
rrrevan 11 months ago 3
@rrrevan OMFG! If one of his criticisms of Kill Bill Volume 1 is the one you mentioned I'm going to flip. I absolutely love Kill Bill. I'm open to Confused Matthew's negative review but if he doesn't make any good points against the movie I might as well not bother.
o2theh 11 months ago
This film spared us all that crap and I for one love that they did.
4everSupportive 11 months ago
For those who keep bitching that they would rather have more characterization...may I ask what scene you would like?
How about the obligatory "War Flashback" - llewelyn saves a soldier so we GET he's a good guy
A stupid scene with Chagurs parents being killed infront of him - so we understand WHY he's evil.
Is this what you guys want? How about Bell giving his wife oral sex....would that be a good way to SHOW they love each other.
Jesus Christ...dont just parrot CM -- give examples
4everSupportive 11 months ago 11
After getting over the initial...displeasure of watching this review.... I can admit I see why people wouldnt like it. Its an art film and it doesnt have a lot of action, it uses a lot of deliberately slow camera techniques with lots of detailed shots and less dialogue.
Now, to blanketly say that this is a meaningless film and a waste of time is unfair. Realize your own bias before making a review, I think.
LordXehenniar 11 months ago 4
I watched the film when it first came out. I found it boring and forgettable . I have no problem with slow paced films but the characters in this movie had nothing memorable about them.
Blizzard78 11 months ago
Did you see the Coens' True Grit? It has a weird little scene with a crazy guy in a bear skin, but I think it works as a bit of comic relief, plus the characters are just as confused about it as we are.
Rmlohner 11 months ago
is this your last ever review ???
jc851 11 months ago
Anton:I'm looking for the video you made where you finally showed your face on Youtube.
Matt: ... It ain't here.
Anton: ........OK.
TriAngle1614 11 months ago
You seem to refuse to look into what the movie's visuals are saying. Instead of clunky exposition explaining these characters, we get to just see them being.
dduval59 11 months ago