comment #1

mutinyco says ...

So, are you campaigning for a new nickname: Il Duce?

comment #2

PerfectTommy says ...

As long as "No Country" makes the list and "Enchanted" doesn't then I'm okay with it.

comment #3

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Jeff, I dunno how you can talk Best Picture and mention Juno and Great Debaters but not Diving Bell and the Butterfly. As far as I'm concerned, that's the best film I've seen all year, followed by Elah and Zodiac... Show the French some love

comment #4

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Mutinyco: Art is best appreciated under a kind of wise and benevolent dictatorship. Art galleries and museums have operated under a kind of elite dictatorship since the 1920s. The public has never been invited to participate in the fine art selection process, and never will be invited to participate because of their philistine tastes. Nothing defeats or undermines great art like the will of the Average Joe majority. Ask Vincent van Gogh about that. They are, in a very real sense, enemies of the recognition of true artistic achievement. I trust you understand that this view has been expressed by the best art & film critics the world over for decades. Yes, movies are a popular art form, and films live and die according to the whims of the public, and the ones that win awards are subject to the same kind of popular attitudes. But history has shown time and again that popular favorites and films of true and lasting quality are often cut from different sheets of cloth.

comment #5

Joe Leydon says ...

You do know, Jeff, that a guy in Germany during the early '30s had pretty much the same attitude about imposing artistic standards on the masses, right? And about rounding up dissenters to re-educate them, right?

You know, there are times when I think this elitist shtick of Jeff's is a funny act, aimed at getting more hits on this site. But there are other times when I remember Maggie Smith as Miss Jean Brodie, and I recall everything I've ever read about how even avowed lefties can fall under the spell of the romance of fascism...

comment #6

Chicago48 says ...

I just bought the vid "Talk to me" and wondered what the heck happened to THAT movie. Don Cheadle and Tariji are nom'd for Golden Sat awards and I expect they may get Golden Globe and/or Oscar noms for acting. Two terrific performances for acting...Focus Features released a lot of "good" movies that ended up being duds at the boxo....they are also releasing Atonement. I hope the small studio is able to compete against the big studios. We need the "small" movie.

comment #7

Crimzon says ...

You dont think Atonement isn't an art-type film? May not be hard-nut, but its definately an art film of the classical type.

With a complex character like Briony, how can you say its a comfort-blanket type-film?

comment #8

Noah says ...

Wells, Sweeney Todd is an arthouse movie? Please. I'm actually looking forward to that one, but I think audiences will be able to see that one at a few multiplexes. And musicals are always comforting to the Academy, no matter how much 'gore' is in them.

And Michael Clayton is a challenging film, far more so than anything Sydney Pollack has done in recent years, and I doubt Academy members will be falling all over themselves to give awards to a legal thriller (minus the thrills). Hopefully Wilkinson and Swinton will get recognized, though.

comment #9

Hash says ...

"You know, there are times when I think this elitist shtick of Jeff's is a funny act, aimed at getting more hits on this site. But there are other times when I remember Maggie Smith as Miss Jean Brodie, and I recall everything I've ever read about how even avowed lefties can fall under the spell of the romance of fascism..."

I would prefer to simply label it as "ignorantly arrogant."

Either that or "arrogantly ignorant." The end result is pretty much the same.

comment #10

Jack Price says ...

MiraJeff, just checking in, but is the Richard Kelly interview going to pop up on AICN anytime this week?

comment #11

EOTW says ...

So, Wells, is this the beginng of your anti-"Michael Clyaton" backlash? I recall you dug it. To call it Grishamesque in ANY way is an insult of the highest order and smacks of hatred. MC is indded the most challenging hollywood film of the year BECAUSE of its refusal to be tied down to typical Hollywood currents, hence all the talk that (rightly so) it was a thrwoback to those great paranoid thrillers of the 70s. In my opnion, it is worthy of noms in several categories, including Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Supporting Actor (Wilkinison) and Supporting Actress (Swinton) and possibly lead actor as well. I'd also love to see an editing nom. the film deserves it. Though, I would not be surprised if it gets just one nom for the script, which I think it has a good shot at winning. It is a delicious, amazing script.

comment #12

Scott Feinberg says ...

Jeff, The following is no reflection on the merits of the film... but nobody in their wildest dreams believes Control has a chance in hell of being nominated... how can you mention it in that company and give an impression you know to be false? To me, this is just another example in a growing trend this year by the Oscar blogs to campaign rather than report... it's fine to like a film, but it's not fine to twist reality to try to create a self-fulfilling prophecy..

comment #13

jjgittes says ...

I wasn't a real big fan of "American Gangster" - thought it was good and solid but not great......and i'm starting to think we'll be talking on nomination day how it's left out of just about everything.

I don't even think Washington is a lock for a nomination - McAvoy, Day-Lewis, Depp, Langella - only one slot to go. Denzel? Clooney? TL Jones?).

No Country For Old Men is getting in I'm quite sure. Just too much acclaim (deserved), and too many passionate defenders (justified).

comment #14

MiraJeffAICN says ...

I'm with Wells on Clayton. It was a first-rate thriller all the way. Well written, well directed and solid performances all-around, especially Wilkinson, but it's not a film I'm particularly passionate about. The best part is the shot at the end in the cab, where Clooney does his best acting without ever saying a word. But overall, I thought the story was a little slow, a little boring. It wasn't as entertaining as some Grisham adaptations, and while I know it's not exactly the same thing, I still prefer films like The Client and A Time to Kill. The film is old school and certainly something to admire and Gilroy is a filmmaker to watch, but Clayton doesn't really have any business being seriously considered for Oscars. Everyone did a good job but no one really stood out. It's a hard film to cheerlead for. I walked out of the screening with a couple friends and we all acknowledged we'd just seen a really good movie, but not necessarily a GREAT movie or an award-winner. I wish Warners would push Elah harder (Warner Independent, that is), as I feel like TLJ's performance is being unfairly forgotten about. He's the only real competish Daniel Day-Lewis has, since we all know Sam Riley and Emile Hirsch are great, but too young.

comment #15

Jay T. says ...

I thought Michael Clayton had a lot more depth and subtext than most Grisham-esque movies...

comment #16

The Winchester says ...

Is Into The Wild completely dead in the water for Best Pic contention? Just curious. (Although Halobrook deserves all acclaim, he was the best thing in the flick).

And for as much as I loved Juno, if it gets nominated for best picture over Once, there is seriously a lot wrong with the world.

Michael Clayton was damn fine, and is almost like LA Confidential, where it will receive minor awards recognition, but be viewed as a solidly crafted flick.

Of course, I think the best movie this year was Hot Rod, so what do I know?

comment #17

arch451 says ...

Normally I would be raising hell about the injustice of There Will Be Blood and The Assassination of Jesse James not getting nominated; however, No Country for Old Men is going to deservedly win best picure. That's all that matters.

comment #18

The Winchester says ...

Oh, JGittes, what would Langella be up for?

comment #19

BNick says ...

If Jeff is right then I think we can expect things to boil down to No Country for Old Men versus Atonement with Sweeney Todd possibly playing spoiler. And all the people who are wringing their hands over the snubs of Jesse James, There Will Be Blood, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, etc. will back the Coens' film as a proxy.

comment #20

Kristopher Tapley says ...

I'm just glad someone finally said it, re: Clayton.

comment #21

EDouglas says ...

Is Jeffrey still in denial thinking that In the Valley of Elah and Before the Devil knows You're Dead stand a chance? I was an early supporter of the latter and it's still in my Top 10 but there's absolutely no campaign though THINKFilm will be sending out screeners next week. There's a very scientific way to figure out the Best Picture contenders and movies like Enchanted don't stand a chance because they don't fulfill even half those needs.

Juno stands a chance because everyone who sees it loves it, much like LIttle Miss Sunshine last year; Michael Clayton doesn't stand a chance because it doesn't have that overwhelming groundswell of support.

comment #22

AJW says ...

Me: Someone just said he liked The Client and A Time to Kill more than Michael Clayton.
My Friend: Wow. That is not a very intelligent person.

Calling "Michael Clayton" 'Grisham-esque' is like calling "The Verdict" Grisham-esque or "The Insider" Grisham-esque. It's the height (or nadir) of laziness, representing a refusal to dig any deeper than the genre supplying the plot. Is any movie that involves a legal team automatically a Grisham clone?

I found Demme's adaptation of "Silence of the Lambs" downright Patterson-esque!

"Dr. Strangelove" recalls the oeuvre of Tom Clancy, L.H.D.

comment #23

rocco says ...

Wells can do a 180, or maybe a 110, on 'Clayton' because he already got what he wanted from Tony Gilroy. I actually listened the interview with Gilroy that Jeff posted a few months back--food chewing and swallowing and all--and Wells did everything to profess his awe for the film but excuse himself to go masturbate.

To your museum analogy, Jeff, I hate to break it to you, but once the lights start to flicker that curator who's been nodding agreeingly about your thoughts on the exhibit would ask you to leave with the rest of the barbarians.

comment #24

bradb says ...

Why is Before The Devil Knows You're Dead even in consideration? That was a terrible movie told in a disjointed fashion that lent nothing to the film outside of boredom and unnecessary redundancy.

Also, I liked Juno, but I don't think it is worthy of a Best Picture nod, and I would love to see Michael Clayton slide in there. Then again, I would also like to see Zodiac slide in there but that seems unlikely.

comment #25

ben151 says ...

Oh lawd. This post has me really worried about "Atonement," which I've been looking forward to forever. If that bracing, wicked-twist novel has been buttered into something comforting, I'm gonna cry.

comment #26

EDouglas says ...

ben, don't worry... it hasn't. it's still wicked and twisted.

comment #27

Craig Kennedy says ...

MiraJeff, I was agreeing with you for once until you got to this part: "I still prefer films like The Client and A Time to Kill"

Over what??? Getting kicked in the balls?

Michael Clayton was Grishamesque except for the part where it didn't suck and wasn't stupid and didn't make me want to hang myself.

As for the Oscars, the problem I'm having is seperating the movies I really loved from the movies that the Academy will agree with me on.

I haven't seen Atonement yet, but otherwise I can't think of a single movie that screams Oscar. Clayton seems to have the least going for it, but the fewest strikes against it. American Gangster kind of fits that category as well.

comment #28

erniesouchak says ...

My definition of a comfort-blanket film is one in which the good guys win and/or the bad guys get their comeuppance. By that definition, "Atonement" isn't one and "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is (in that the REAL bad guy gets it). "American Gangster" was totally forgettable, and "I'm Not There" was just awful. Neither deserves the attention.

comment #29

romeoisbleeding says ...

Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, Once, Atonement and Michael Clayton. My list of the best.

comment #30

jjgittes says ...

I am convinced Langella is getting in for "Starting Out in the Evening".

Caught this a couple days ago and it's a brilliant performance. I know there's no buzz yet - but I think the older Academy members are going to love this performance.

comment #31

Aguirre says ...

erniesouchak, this may be a bit hyperbolic of me but that was one of the most lucid comments i've ever read on these silly boards.

comment #32

drbob says ...

I saw Michael Clayton. I liked Michael Clayton. I even respected Michael Clay. But, please, it was just as stupid as most Grisham movies. Think about it. Just as he is beginning to suspect his law firm's big client may have had his friend killed, Michael Clayton (1) decides he should play a few hands of poker (I know there is a sub-plot about the failed restaurant and Michael's gambling problems, but this was just a "duex ex machina" to allow the corporate goons an opportunity to plant the bomb in his car), and then (2) he drives all the way out to Westchester to tell the perpetrator of a hit and run, I'll get you another lawyer (really, that's all he tells him; any dumbass could have come up with that plan). The whole business with the corporate goons killing Wilkinson's lawyer and then trying to kill Clooney was pure Hollywood claptrap. If the plot stuck to the legal and corporate chicanery, it would have played more true to life.

comment #33

K. Bowen says ...

I don't think supporters of Michael Clayton are blind to its Hollywood contraptions. I think they rightly see it as a genre picture that accurately portrays the way that corporate "values" are supplanting traditionally humanistic values. It's a classic genre film that sums up an important conflict of its time.

comment #34

HohoOfDoom says ...

Ummmmm... I think we need to refresh our memory on the definition of "deus ex machina".

comment #35

T. Holly says ...

Fuck it, three winners in each category, 15 nominations. And the winners are: "Lust, Caution," the very touching and well-made fathers-and-sons drama "Elah", and the movie where liars get it in the end "Sweeney Todd."

comment #36

crsryan says ...

Right now, for me best picture is a toss-up between Atonement and Black Book, which everyone else seems to have forgotten about.

comment #37

jeffmcm says ...

It's nice to see Wells finally admitting he's a fascist and basically saying that, under different circumstances, he'd be lining people up against the wall. Good for future reference.

Meanwhile, I would like to firmly reject the notion that all movies have to be considered as fitting into one of his two oppositional categories. The great movies - the truly great movies - are the ones that straddle the boundary, that can satisfy the masses and the elites at the same time. That's the example of Shakespeare and Dickens in their times and that's the lesson of Chaplin, Ford, Hitchcock, and Spielberg in our modern time. That's The Wizard of Oz and The Godfather and E.T. and why film is the greatest art form right now - because the fine arts like painting and sculpture are irrelevant to the lives of 99% of the world but film and TV can appeal to everyone.

So stick that in your totalitarian pipe and smoke it.

comment #38

Mr. Muckle says ...

So much for the Rudolf Giuliani school of art appreciation. Obama who, you say?

And then again, what inbred Manhattanite or SoCal surferdude thinks the Academy Awards have anything remotely to do with art? Or that great art is "a profoundly serene drug?"

What a lot of hoo ha. Is it an art to draw readers to a blog? I may have to leave this one because the only thing it's offering me today is a chance to spout off. Avast ye! Many whales I'm spotting on yonder sea.

comment #39

Gaydos says ...

Colleague, amigo, Mr. Joe Leydon, you're right again. I mentioned it here a few days ago as well. Jeffrey Wells needs counseling from John McCain, to explain why waterboarding people who disagree with him is just fundamentally wrong, the kind of thing Hugo Chavez and George Bush would do, but not our dear friend Jeff.

By the way, Jeff, there are some fairly terrible movies on your hard nut list, some gems on the softie list. So send me to gitmo now and be done with it.

And since I'm the only rat lover in this crowd, I'll say my piece of cheese and then shut my crepe-hole about the one clear classic this year that will stand the test of time.

I think there are some other pretty damn fine movies as well, some of them hard nut, some of them soft, but Brad Bird soars the highest and he's not even getting even a pigeon of attention here.

To paraphrase the head of the Rat Pack: "Rat's life..."

comment #40

buckzollo says ...

Thankfully I do not have to be the first person to remind ya'll 'bout INTO THE WILD. if not best picture, plenty of nominations forthcoming.

comment #41

Rosebudsthesled says ...

Best Picture is tougher to call this year than I can remember it being in a LONG time. There are a bunch of contenders, but some are much stronger than others. As far as I'm concerned, the only sure nominee is NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, which I'm predicting will win.
I also think at this stage in the game JUNO is sure for a nomination because so many of the movies this fall are male dominated.

Am I crazy in wanting SUPERBAD and RATATOUILLE to get nominations for Best Picture? I personally think they're a lot better than some of the fall movies I've seen.

comment #42

MiraJeffAICN says ...

AJW, nice bit, but to dismiss The Client and A Time to Kill just because you've got something against Grisham is irresponsible. The Client features a great child performance by Renfro, two solid performances by the Elah team of Sarandon and Jones, a creepy as hell turn from LaPaglia, and the opening scene with Renfro and 'Romey' in the car is absolutely riveting. Meanwhile, A Time to Kill gets me everytime and it made a star out of McConaughey. Samuel L. is awesome, and the whole cast is great, Bullock, Spacey, BOTH Sutherlands, Dutton, Judd, Blethyn, even the extras are perfectly cast. You and your friend can go blow Michael Clayton for all I care, but it won't make it as entertaining a movie as those two. It was an impeccably crafted snooze. All the best lines were in the trailer. The structure is a bit off-putting. It's just very cold and mechanical and calculated, there's no emotion there, just business as usual. And CJ, I don't know how those two Grisham movies a) suck b) are stupid and c) make you wanna hang yourself. You want mediocre Grisham, rent The Firm, The Rainmaker, Runaway Jury or Pelican Brief. You want Grisham that makes you want to hang yourself, rent The Chamber or The Gingerbread Man. But DO NOT diss ATTK or The Client because those delivered the Grisham goods. And sure Clayton was much more subtle than any of Grisham's films but who says that's a good thing. It seems like subtlety is the New Cool Thing to do. Oooh let's be all understated and shit. Well if that's what you're into, good for you, but I'll take decidedly less subtle movies like In the Valley of Elah any day of the week over Clayton. Clooney's one of the biggest, bestest and brightest MOVIE STARS on the planet, but a capital-T Thespian he's not. His best performance is still Three Kings and he NEVER should have won the Oscar for Syriana over Giamatti, Gyllenhaal and Matt Dillon. What a joke! But that's what you get when you're named to People's Most Beautiful People list for like ten years in a row. People want to see you win because you're a great guy (he is) and you 'deserve it' (maybe one day), but c'mon, Syriana... really? And Swinton's better in The Deep End and Wilkinson's better in In the Bedroom. They all give solid performances in Clayton but if you think any of those three should win anything this awards season you just haven't seen enough movies, man.

comment #43

calvados says ...

Jeff, many of the films you mentioned as the "blistering tough-nut contenders" aren't really - they're just more violent. I honestly don't understand how anyone could even compare a film like "Before The Devil Knows You're Dead" to the genius that was displayed in "Atonement".

"Atonement" is not a safe film. It challenges all moral preconceptions, as well as the constraints given to a film of its genre. Technically, it's one of the most beautiful films ever made. It features first rate acting from everyone involved. It's emotional punch is stronger than any other film made this year. It never resorts to cheap tricks eg. "Before The Devil Knows You're Dead", "In The Valley Of Elah", "Into The Wild" etc... and it manages to stay away from one of the main issues with serious films of recent - overuse of violence/gore/blood.

comment #44

Jack Lint says ...

There Will Be Blood is simply too good to win Best Picture. No Country can have it. But There Will Be Blood will the one people still talk about in 5 years.

comment #45

Joe Leydon says ...

"[F]ine arts like painting and sculpture are irrelevant to the lives of 99% of the world..."

Oh. My. God.

You know, JeffMCM, very much against my better judgment, I have actually given your statement some thought. And I can't help thinking there's only one way to explain how you could even begin to consider making such a willfully ignorant, easily disprovable -- Christ, just by noting attendance figures at art museums -- and laughably hyperbolic claim: You are one colossally stupid asshole. Do you understand how firmly you have just established yourself as one of the uneducated rubes Wells is always railing against? Do you still wonder why I never want to waste my time responding your juvenile crap? It would be like trying to conduct a rational discussion with some blithering, drooling, ranting and raving wacko on a street corner who always says (or writes) the first damn-fool thing that pops into his head. Do yourself a favor -- next time you're tempted to post something so idiotic, pause a few minutes and call or e-mail some older, wiser and/or more emotionally mature friends (assuming you have any), and run it past them. Better still, hit delete before you embarrass yourself. Again.

comment #46

Webster says ...

I think the Best Picture race will come down to a group like this: Atonement, No Country for Old Men, Once, Sweeney Todd, and either Michael Clayton or Into the Wild. Something for everyone.

comment #47

T. Holly says ...

I interpret. By the times Wells dies, a re-educated camp will be in charge at The Academy. We can help them write the new rules. Facts: "movie stars" don't exist anymore, great movies can come from outside the U.S., walls between types are overshadowing their purpose.

comment #48

Rosebudsthesled says ...

MiraJeffAICN, the reasons George Clooney won the Oscar for SYRIANA are twofold. 1) He was not going to win the directing or writing Oscar, and 2) He had the lead in that movie. If you look through history, oftentimes the person who wins in the supporting category has a leading role in their film. Tim Robbins could just have easily been pushed for Best Actor in MYSTIC RIVER, as could have Benecio Del Toro in TRAFFIC. Sometimes, people are put in that category just because they'd have no shot at Best Actor.

I thought of the five nominated, Clooney's win was deserved but for me, the best performance in that category got shut out of the nominations, and that was Frank Langella in GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK. That was a TRUE supporting performance, and I thought that he would get his due for it. Ah, well. He'll get his nomination when the movie of FROST/NIXON comes out.

comment #49

Craptastic says ...

Jesus, MiraJeff, this isn't AICN. Type in paragraphs please.

comment #50

AJW says ...

Wow. What a rambling, mildly cohesive, overlong post. Reminds me very much of A Time to Kill.

Also, I have absolutely no idea where the last 40% came from. Three Kings, Donnie Darko, Paul Haggis, beautiful people. Seriously. Please guide me through your thinking there. I've posted drunk on this site before...is that what you're doing?

I love, love, LOVE, the attack on subtlety. Are you actually saying, "I don't like to think"? Does it hurt your head when films require you to rub together a couple brain cells? When they reward multiple viewings? When they show without telling? And since when is subtlety the new cool thing to do? It's ALWAYS been the thing to do for good (i.e. non-Schumacher) film-makers. To paraphrase Bill Hicks (which is the new cool thing to do): When did thinking stop being entertaining?

And, Jesus, somebody pays you to write down your thoughts on movies? That's like when 8-year-olds auction their drawings off on eBay.

comment #51

Craig Kennedy says ...

You clearly feel strongly about it MiraJeff, so I'm going to let it slide. We'll just have to forget our differences and agree that the final wordless scene of Michael Clayton was the best part of the movie.

Back to Oscar. If the blue hairs can stomach the stylized fountains of blood, Sweeney is a lock for a nomination and a possible win. Depp will probably get in either way and even though he isn't anywhere close to Daniel Day-Lewis in TWBB, I'm forced to admit he might win it all.

Jesus Joe, did JeffMcM crap on your birthday cake over at MCN or something?

T, can you imagine the Oscar statue remade in Jeff's image? Perhaps astride a motorcycle?

comment #52

James Rocchi says ...

The two movies everyone went mad for at Toronto have finally crossed my eyes (Someone else from the team reviewed each of them) and having seen Juno and Atonement, I'm kind of unimpressed, and puzzled by the fuss. Juno is cute -- if you've never seen an indie film before. It's going to age about as well as a Belgian waffle. ("Swear to Blog?" "For shizz, I am up the spout." That's not up-to-the-minute; that's instantly dated.) Saying that the press wouldn't be going mad for Ms. Cody if she weren't a striking young lady with a compelling back story isn't sexist; it's pointing out the lame sexism of most mainstream press who cover entertainment. And Juno's fantasy of friction-free-feminism -- Hey, ladies, everything works out okay just super, because you're awesome -- looks like the wish-fulfillment dreams of a privileged child compared to the harsh adult realism of 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, or even Knocked Up. And finally, if Juno's so smart -- self-aware, perceptive, clever -- then why's she having unprotected sex? And I know -- pills fail, condoms break, nothing's infallible -- but the fact Juno's script NEVER MENTIONS the title character's contraceptive responsibilities or choices in relation to sex is a cop-out. Or, put another way, when Knocked Up is more sincere about sexual responsibility than your plucky little celebration of quirk, you're in trouble. Fact is, I'm more tempted to dismiss Juno the more it's praised



Atonement is a very well-made, nicely-shot Thoroughly Modern (or, rather, Post-Modern) Melodrama. It's pretty as all get-out, but -- really -- what's it about? Lying is wrong? War is bad? The truth is slippery? Again, pretty old news -- and I mean 'pretty' in at least two sense of the word. But it's going to be, as Patton Oswalt said of the Cirque Du Solei, "Catnip for Old People," who can watch Atonement and enjoy a clever-but-not-too-clever weepie and look back wistfully on the last good war. It's also going to be catnip for some of the youthful, all-I-know-is-movies crowd, who will confuse Wright's artful compositions and heavy brown set designs with actual meaning and moral weight.



And I think No Country is going to get dismissed as 'Just' a crime film, when it's quietly, subtly and deeply provocative. To re-iterate a wild -- and yet, I don't think entirely incorrect -- theory I shared over at In the Company of Glenn (too) late last night:



"I doubt it's intentional -- or as simplistic a set of ideas as I'm about to clumsily attempt to outline -- but my third viewing of No Country last night led me to a very different reading of the film than the one I had at first, and increased my already-substantial admiration for the film.



Of course, as I say above, none of this may be intended on the part of the Coens or Mr. McCarthy; at the same time, I think that this film offers as many -- and as rewarding -- readings as it does means there's plenty going on in this film.



Jones's Ed Tom is a Sheriff, the classic Western hero - which is to say the classic American hero -- but his time-honored ways and methods can't cope with the seemingly-irrational Chigurgh.



Moss isn't motivated by tradition or law; just capital and expediency. But he's not prepared for Chigurgh, a man who can't be bribed or threatened or worn down into giving up.



Chigurgh is inventive, bold and resolute; he has a value system, even if we can't understand it. He will kill on principle, and does not care if we find those principles hard to understand and accept. He also doesn't have much respect for the principles and codes of the West; as he asks Carlson at gunpoint, "If the rule you followed brought you here, then what good was the rule?"



Ed Tom is the past -- law and honor. Moss is the present -- greed and self-protection. And neither of them can face what's coming, or are willing to.



Ed Tom talks a mean game, and he's folksy as hell, but he doesn't really do anything to stop Chigurgh from finding and killing Moss -- and he doesn't go to Odessa to find Carla Jean and keep her safe afterwards, either.



Moss can run, and Moss can hide, but after a lifetime of thinking he's pretty damn tough, he finds out -- the hard way -- that he's wrong.



Chigurgh isn't some spirit -- he's shot by Moss, hit by the car; he's flesh and blood, just a man. Ed Tom or Moss could have killed him -- if they had been willing to 'push all their chips in," risk their lives in the struggle. Ed Tom realizes he's out of fight and retreats from the field; Moss can't let go of unearned riches and dies.



In his essay The Lion and the Unicorn, written during World War II, Orwell states, essentially, that England must win the war against Germany, and England can. But the essay's not a pep talk, but rather a serious critique of English society -- and a blueprint of how that necessary victory will also take a wholehearted revision of the entire fabric of English life -- eliminating class divisions so that fighting men can serve with honor as equals, regulating industry so that national defense and collective interest can't be put aside in the name of shareholder profit, changing England's relationship with its colonies so that England doesn't seem to be the same kind of exploitative overlord as Germany and Italy are to their colonies, and so on. Some of these things happened, some of them didn't, but Orwell's argument -- that new dangers and new enemies require new ways of thinking and new levels of total commitment -- was fascinating and thought-provoking then, and now. And it's possible to see No Country in a similar light -- not as a revision of the Western or an endorsement of it but rather as a serious critique of the West.



Sheriff Ed Tom can't change who he is as a man or a lawman -- can't "put his soul at hazard" -- to stop Chigurgh, and so he doesn't.



Llwellyn Moss can't let go of his new riches to stop Chigurgh, and so he dies.



Sheriff Ed Tom and Llwellen Moss (and, to some extent Carson) relied on historical reflexes and prior understanding to try and deal with a new type of present threat, and their inability to adapt -- their failure of the imagination and resolve -- led to their failure. And Chigurgh may be wounded at the finale, but even grievously wounded, there's no reason to think he's going to die, or stop; he'll keep killing anyone who crosses him, keep making murder in the name of his philosophy and principles. But sheriff Ed Tom gets to retire, do a little riding, Mission Accomplished. And he might as well dream of the past, because the lack of imagination and determination and sacrifice means a nightmare still haunts the present. His father rides ahead with the fire. Will Ed Tom -- will we -- be able to follow and do what we must to keep the darkness at bay?"

comment #53

Jack Price says ...

"But sheriff Ed Tom gets to retire, do a little riding, Mission Accomplished. And he might as well dream of the past, because the lack of imagination and determination and sacrifice means a nightmare still haunts the present. His father rides ahead with the fire. Will Ed Tom -- will we -- be able to follow and do what we must to keep the darkness at bay?"

That's the best reading I've seen yet of the final scene. Outstanding.

comment #54

Noah says ...

I think the difference between the Grisham films that MiraJeff mentions and Michael Clayon is one that really strikes to the core of who you are as a filmgoer. For me, I prefer not to be spoonfed what to feel in any given scene, allowing for there to be grey areas when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. Michael Clayton is a man who has so compromised everything about himself that when it comes to that final scene, it would still be satisfying if (SPOILER) he didn't have the wire on him because it would make sense. For A Time to Kill and the Client, there is only one satisfying ending to those films; the good guy wins, the bad guy loses. For Michael Clayton, the genius of it, is that we don't know if Clayton is the good guy or one of the bad guys.

Again though, it all comes down to what you like to experience when you go to the movies. Some people poo-poo subtlety, but I love nothing more than having to work a little bit to find the answers (moral and otherwise) when watching a film. I see enough films that tell me what I'm supposed to feel with music, editing, over-emoting. It's rarer to find a movie that is comfortable moving along quietly, allowing the viewer to be sucked into a richer and more rewarding (in my eyes) experience where the answers are not always so plain to see.

I would also argue that of the Grisham films, I think The Rainmaker is the best. It's the only one that doesn't take itself so damn seriously and really attacks health insurance way before Michael Moore ever made Sicko.

comment #55

Craig Kennedy says ...

James, that's a fairer dismantling of Juno than I've yet managed to summon up. Everything you say is true, but I find myself thinking "If it had been funnier, none of that would've mattered." The problem utlimately for me was that it as only mildly amusing. Had it made me laugh more, I gladly would've overlooked the fact that the emotional punch it was going for at the end was never actually earned.

That's another excellent reading of No Country as well. I have to say to a number of you thoughtful people that I've enjoyed reading and absorbing all your ideas, whether I agree with them or not.

I still don't have a definitive answer for this movie yet, and right now that's ok. It's made me think more than any movie in a long time. I'm already itching to see it again for the 4th time.

I'm still trying to decide which movie was my favorite TWBB or NCfOM...it might be a tie. They're a pretty heavy one-two punch. The last lines of both will resonate well into next year.

comment #56

T. Holly says ...

I don't like stories told in reverse any more. I don't care about cathartic endings, but a story has to turn in the middle, a really cranking turn. Nice first impressions cj, but you'll have to see it again, for structure sake. Me too.

comment #57

Craig Kennedy says ...

You'd best skip Before the Devil then T, if you haven't already seen it. Not only is it told kind of backwards, the middle turn happens at the beginning.

I think it works, but many disagree.

comment #58

T. Holly says ...

That's ok, I'm just saying it seems like the breakthrough thing is the big middle turn with a ratchet or shift. "I'm Not There" is an exception. Bon soir.

comment #59

Joe Leydon says ...

If we're going to talk about movies we wish would get some Oscar love -- as opposed to those that almost certainly will get Oscar love -- I think Reign Over Me would be pretty damn close to the top of my list.

comment #60

jeffmcm says ...

Joe, if I had a nickel for every time you promised to 'never respond to me' I'd have at least a dollar. But more importantly I'd be a much happier person.

I'm speaking in hyperbolic terms, if that's acceptable to you. Do me a favor, remove that one clause from my post, and tell me if you can disagree with anything else in it. You're the one who said Hitler up front yourself which is the same point. I'm _agreeing_ with you.

Meanwhile, here's an article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E3D61438F932A35751C0A96F958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/M/Metropolitan%20Museum%20of%20Art
In it, they say that art museum attendance is up, which is certainly a good thing. It also says that the most popular museum exhibition in the United States last year was seen by about as many people as saw The Last Legion. Remember that movie?

Paintings and sculptures are great things. But populist art forms they are not.

It especially pains me that you had to jump into some kind of righteous outrage over what I posted instead of merely politely informing me that I was mistaken or pointing out an error that I had made. Instead, you decided, based on the spat that we had six months ago, that I'm an asshole. I'm sorry that that fight apparently destroyed whatever mutual respect we might have had, but you know: ask and you shall receive.

comment #61

Terry McCarty says ...

James Rocchi wrote:
Atonement is a very well-made, nicely-shot Thoroughly Modern (or, rather, Post-Modern) Melodrama. It's pretty as all get-out, but -- really -- what's it about? Lying is wrong? War is bad? The truth is slippery? Again, pretty old news -- and I mean 'pretty' in at least two sense of the word. But it's going to be, as Patton Oswalt said of the Cirque Du Solei, "Catnip for Old People," who can watch Atonement and enjoy a clever-but-not-too-clever weepie and look back wistfully on the last good war. It's also going to be catnip for some of the youthful, all-I-know-is-movies crowd, who will confuse Wright's artful compositions and heavy brown set designs with actual meaning and moral weight.

What it's about for me: the truth, and how someone can arrange his/her version of it at the expense of other people's lives.

comment #62

PerfectTommy says ...

Haven't seen the movie, but if it captures the book, it is indeed about "Atonement" and how someone deals with real guilt if one does not believe in God or a life beyond this one. The question of whether there is any chance to make right the world's many wrongs. If the ending is well captured it could be the most debated ending since... um... No Country for Old Men.

comment #63

Dan Revill says ...

holy shit on a stick, Atonement is not a "comforting" movie. it's emotionally engaging and satisfying, but i don't think it leaves you comforted. it's one of the year's best. it deserves a spot in the final five.
out of the films i've seen, i'm sure it'll be there, as will No Country For Old Men (i'd love to see Assassination of Jesse James there too, but unless pigs fly, it won't happen).

comment #64

romeoisbleeding says ...

to James Rocchi...thanks for the thoughts on No Country for Old Men. I have been talking about this movie since I saw it with my co workers. Now I may be borrowing some of your thoughts. Very well stated.

comment #65

Crimzon says ...

"Atonement is a very well-made, nicely-shot Thoroughly Modern (or, rather, Post-Modern) Melodrama. It's pretty as all get-out, but -- really -- what's it about? Lying is wrong? War is bad? The truth is slippery?"

Not understanding what Atonement is about is not something i'd be quick to admit to. The book is a University literature text, listed by Times as one of the best 100 novels ever written. The film follows the book really, really closely. I know people with PhD's in literature who came out raving the film.

As McEwan himself said, its essentially about a young writer and her overactive imagination. Twisting or misunderstanding events (whichever way you want to take it) so that it conforms to her limited understanding. Brilliant stuff.

No way is it comforting. Scary to know that sometimes people wont look beyond their own perception, and become blind to the actual reality of the situation.

Jeff, take note!

comment #66

James Rocchi says ...

Crimzon, I wasn't saying that I failed to understand Atonement; I was suggesting rather that I was somewhat underwhelmed by it. Atonement is a ripping piece of post-modern fiction ... if you've never read any before. Atonement isn't bad, it's just ... bland and pretty and inert. And Atonement's in the 'comforting' category for me because all of its sharp provocations are blunted and numbed and wrapped in a thick, swaddling blanket of Greatest Generation nostalgia, high style and elegant art direction.

comment #67

Crimzon says ...

James, although i disagree, i can see why you'd think that. Alot of the narrative rests on whats left unsaid. Its a completely different and innovative narrative style that other filmmakers are doing today. It will work for some and not others.

I thought the style evoked the metaphysical, fictional elements of the book and i thought it worked brilliantly. The cinematography, sound effects, tone and nuances of the actors was where the main "prose" was. Ian McEwan, himself thought it was a brilliant way to get around it.

comment #68

Hopscotch says ...

I think'd it be helpful in these comment sections if the poster mentioned which films he/she has seen, and give us some perspective.

Wells has seen these movies. I haven't because I'm like most of the country burdened until the film actually comes out in theaters to see it.

Zodiac was sort of a chore to sit through (took me three sittings to get through) and I don't think it'll be qualified as "misunderstood classic".

No Country for Old Men is an example of why I love movies so much. And frankly while the ending is off-putting to some, I don't think anyone will care. If it makes the top of the critics list expect it to become the front-runner fast.

comment #69

Hopscotch says ...

This could be one of the toughest calls for "Best Supporting Actor" in decades.

Bardem vs. Tom Wilkinson. Totally different types of performances. Both amazing. I can't call it.

you call it, Friendos!

comment #70

ben151 says ...

Tom Wilkinson's performance struck me as perhaps the most unconvincing, hamhock-y, laugh-out-loud nonsensical of the year. I rarely like the guy -- shoot me -- but this was as terrible as his entirely unpersuasive performance opposite Jessica Lange in "Normal." For me, he was the one real weak link in "Michael Clayton."

comment #71

Gaydos says ...

bardem had better have his stun gun with him cos he'll need it to take out hal holbrook.

comment #72

jeffmcm says ...

Or, from the sound of it, Max Von Sydow.