In reply to Sandeep, No country is about how fate and violence makes an impact on lives of some people in Texas.I think the whole coin tossing episode lays testimony to this fact.In the end Tommy Lee's character comes to terms with this fact when he has a discussion with his Uncle and later with his wife and understands things are getting way out of hand for an aging sheriff like him. Its all an euphemism for how fate and destiny at some level,but to be honest,I didnt care.I was much intrigued by the subtext and intelligence in a movie like There will be blood
RE:No country
by Sandeep on Feb 26, 2008 08:58 PM
hey thanks for the response pal! your language clearly suggests that you are a film student - perhaps what i need to be to understand such cinema a little better...i am, merely, a film buff! cheers mate...
RE:RE:No country
by Anup on Feb 26, 2008 09:23 PM
:) lol,not a film student Sandeep,just another film buff like you.For me,cinema is a very powerful medium for story telling and I like how people interpret it in different ways.I think my penchant for cinema stems from my liking for stories and comic books as a kid.I think thats something we all have in common
RE:No country
by rajeev nair on Feb 27, 2008 10:17 AM
Anup,I noticed your message about the "Diving bells and Butterflies" sometime back and i got that movie ...Thanks for that message and the movie is awesome.....
RE:No country
by Anup on Feb 27, 2008 03:11 PM
Hi Rajeev,Its one of the most imaginative movies Ive seen recently! If you liked this one I would recommend you to watch Micheal Gondry's 'Eternal Sunshine of a spotless mind',its simply brilliant,one of my all time favourites.The French filmmakers are so innovative,wish we had such good filmmakers in India!
...sentences like "so what if it isn't really the best film". This is a personal opinion, and should sound like that instead of trying to sound like it represents the entire world. The Academy is comprised of 6,000 people highly worthy of being in it, being professionals in *actual* movie-making. They know what it takes to make both great and watchable movies, since they are constantly trying to do that, and are mostly highly successful at it.
RE:I don't like...
by Anup on Feb 26, 2008 07:29 PM
No so long time ago,the same group of 6000 people voted 'Traffic' as the best film over 'Brokeback Mountain'. Lets face it,there is politics and favoritism behind all this.But as you said,it is a personal opinion,for me,'There will be blood' was a better movie.
RE:I don't like...
by ramen das on Feb 26, 2008 09:26 PM
hey traffic & brokeback were nominated in diffrent years...why r u comparing...?... traffic lost out 2 gladiator in 2001 & crash was the best movie not brokeback in 2006
RE:I don't like...
by Raja Sen on Feb 26, 2008 07:36 PM
absolutely, secret secret. which is why the next few lines say 'at least that's what I think.' :)
RE:I don't like...
by secret secret on Feb 27, 2008 10:25 AM
placement problem - at least for me :). i thought that line referred to the words said just before that, rather than something in the previous paragraph...
well worded article raja! i haven't seen there will be blood, but i have seen no country for old men & i must say its merely a decent film. its fairly gripping while in progress, but the ending makes the entire film seem redundant in retrospect. there didn't seem to be any point. guess i need to take some film appreciation classes to fully comprehend this kind of cinema!
Great article Raja! Suddenly I dont feel all that angry about Blood losing out to No country .Ive been spewing venom on certain other discussion forums on the web on this topic,well,not any more :)
why we have to nominate sharuk khan for every other crap movies he does OSO was an horrible movie it was worst then any other david dhavan movie. which is been nominated for the best movie and also for best actor...god helps Indian Cinema.
This year's oscars literally had a great job going for them. Be it the simply brilliant no country for old men or the pondering micheal clayton or the profound there will be blood. Even sweeny Todd was dark and delicious and i think if it wouldn't have been for Daniel Day Lewis then Jonny Deep would have taken the oscar though the film itself isn't strictly oscar material.By honouring no country, oscars have proved that they are there for excellence in cinema and not for box office collections or big stars. I wish the same could be said bout our desi awards.Giving awards to Oso and SK for best film and best actor is the worst it could have done and it did.We simply don't have the creativity to make a simple dark film like no country nor we have the audiance to appreciate a film like micheal clayton and to make things worst we don't have an award system to make people realise this fact.So who is to blame when the idea for a great movie is huge sets,boy meets girl and falls in love and about 7 songs in swiss locations with the couple dancing and looking like a couple of snakes on steroids.
RE:The Oscars and the indian film awards
by atanu sarkar on Feb 27, 2008 10:43 AM
I don't know y so many of u are after OSO and SRK. They were merely nominated..and some of the nominations are also based on popularity. Also, OSO was a different kind of masala fare, not really like the david dhawan-priyan fare. In any case , it was not the best of the year and thus hasn't won also. Infact i felt the filmfare this was much better than the past few years. The best film went to "Taare Zameen Par" (not OSO) while the best actor was SRK for Chak De India (not OSO again)...and srk 's performance in Chak De was definitely award-worthy. I would say any of Darsheel or Srk (Chak De) were fine. Also best director went to Aamir Khan. Only best actress was Kareena , which also wasn't all that bad a choice given that there wasn't much competition from others, maybe Tabu or madz. But all in all , i thought most awards given this year were performance based, rather than popularity based only , like hrithik for Dhoom 2 , etc last year. Its definitely a step forward for filmfare..
RE:The Oscars and the indian film awards
by ABHISHEK GANGULY on Feb 27, 2008 04:19 PM
Thanx for the thought. By filmfare i meant the countless award ceremomies held in india for indian films. It might have been some other business house financing the awards or some channel but i definitely witnessed Mr.SRK being awarded for best actor. And also if awards are given for popularity,then i think,much of their purpose is lost.I mean if the jury who selects indian movies and personnel for awards were to give away the nobel prize for literature, then MR.Dan Brown and J.K.Rowling get to take away the coveted awards.
RE:Oscars
by pavan prasad on Feb 26, 2008 04:12 PM
ha ha ha..man the author doesn't want to quote the original name of the movie..he's tweaked it (consciously) to reflect the crux of the article and to add that 'pun' effect..take lite dude!!
RE:Oscars
by Debo Mcnair on Feb 27, 2008 06:25 AM
I think you need some treatment. I'd recommend watching Seinfeld with somebody by your side explaining the jokes. That'll make your brain understand sarcasm when you see it.
RE:Oscars
by abhisek ray on Feb 26, 2008 04:20 PM
You did not get the joke,or did you? Poor guy,I don't blame you,cause we have been fed the hindi movie-slapstick humour-song dance-underworld-boy meets girl-reincernation routine for so long that we have forgotten wit and sarcasm.
