Movies you've recently watched

[CountDeMoney]

It seemed to be the bad guy to me- he was the one tracking him and the lock was blown off- though checking wiki it says the Mexicans did it. Odd.

Wrong.  Tommy Lee Jones sees the Mexicans hauling ass after the shootout.  They killed him.
We see that the lock is blown off later when Tommy Lee Jones goes back to the crime scene, because the Bad Guy showed up at the room looking for the loot that night.  That's why we see the dime, the screws, the vent.  Oh, and the Bad Guy hiding in the room.

Duh.

[The Larch]

God you're so dumb sometimes.

Where is it shown to be so obviously 1980 apart from the Vietnam talk?

It's irrelevant for the story.

It seems like common sense to me.
Keeping it in the same bag even is pretty silly.

Yeah, sure, of course. 

It's not an action movie.

Had me fooled.
Its obviously not a 1980s action movie but it really seemed to be in that style of part of the fun of the action being the slow build up to it.

Then you're very easily fooled.

[Eddie Teach]

[There will be blood, with Daniel Day-Lewis.

Which doesn't actually have anything in common with NCFOM, but they were in the same Oscar race.

[Josquius]

It's irrelevant for the story.

And?
I'm really not seeing you reasoning here.

Then you're very easily fooled.

What kind of film is it then?
It really does seem to belong in the same genre as the likes of Day of the Jackal, Once Upon a time in the West and that sort of thing.

[Habbaku]

Where is it shown to be so obviously 1980 apart from the Vietnam talk?

The border crossing.

[The Larch]

It's irrelevant for the story.

And?
I'm really not seeing you reasoning here.

My point is that you missed the point of the movie by a really wide margin.  The two things you devote more analysis time is the period of the setting and that you think that the plot is stupid because Brolin's character didn't take out the tracking device from the money bag. Those two things are absolutely pointless in the bigger picture.

Then you're very easily fooled.

What kind of film is it then?
It really does seem to belong in the same genre as the likes of Day of the Jackal, Once Upon a time in the West and that sort of thing.
[/quote]

It's a drama about characters chasing each other, with crime thriller elements here and there as decoration. The money is just a McGuffin to kickstart the chase. Ultimately, it's a film about fate and determinism.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

tried to watch "Shoot First & Pray you live". a new "western" on the shelves today.

new scale rating of the first 15 minutes or so before I turned it off in favor of John Stewart -

don't bother unless you are a fan of acting that's worse than a Jim Belushi sitcom.

[Josquius]

My point is that you missed the point of the movie by a really wide margin.  The two things you devote more analysis time is the period of the setting and that you think that the plot is stupid because Brolin's character didn't take out the tracking device from the money bag. Those two things are absolutely pointless in the bigger picture.

Just because I didn't get a minor point doesn't mean I missed the point of the film.
s you say the money was just an excuse to get things rolling, which is fair enough, many films have such excuses. But the way its handled didn't seem entirely well.
It being 1980 (which I wasn't aware of until later) would explain his not thinking there could be a tracker but still, that he wouldn't check this money obtained under suspicious circumstances at all...I just don't believe that. There could have been a bomb at the bottom of the bag for all he knew.

[CountDeMoney]

I would like to see Anton Chigurh shoot Tyr with a suppressed shotgun.  And then take off his wet socks.

[The Larch]

Just because I didn't get a minor point doesn't mean I missed the point of the film.

All your posts contradict that. You keep going around irrelevant details and forgetting or omitting the main theme of the movie.

[Sophie Scholl]

Or he could have posited the questions he had following the movie, regardless of how important he felt they were.  It's like asking of a bit part character is in another movie, or what some minor reference meant.  Maybe.  I guess I'm more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.

[The Larch]

Or he could have posited the questions he had following the movie, regardless of how important he felt they were.  It's like asking of a bit part character is in another movie, or what some minor reference meant.  Maybe.  I guess I'm more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He lost the benefit of the doubt when he said that he expected a massive shootout at the end of the film, as if it was a Steven Seagal movie. 

[Scipio]

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.

A fine little film.

[Josquius]

He lost the benefit of the doubt when he said that he expected a massive shootout at the end of the film, as if it was a Steven Seagal movie. 

No. Just. No.
Most films of its type end with a final bout of action. Often its small and dissapointing but there's usually something. There undoubtedly are action scenes in the film, rather good ones at that, and its dissapointing that they would have what would have the best one take place off camera- even if it was just a case of him opening the hotel door and being shot this would have been a really critical and shocking moment and it would have been best to show it.

Rather weird to have someone so defensive over a film they've nothing to do with.