5 ms·

Hopefully not near your home-- when the cartel comes to the GPS coordinates ;p

adolph 3y ago
Pretty close to the plot of No Country for Old Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men
- yard2010 3y ago
  That's a tough and important movie
  - dingnuts 3y ago
    lol you mean a pointless movie that intentionally tortures the audience and is unpleasant to watch because that's "subverting expectations" trite critic-pandering trash imho, it's only "tough" in that the director hates you, the audience, and thinks you're stupid, and it has a nihilistic message that is the opposite of important, it's stupid and disastrous, and most of the people who I have encountered who like this film seem to be in a pissing contest with one another over who can enjoy the most unpleasant film
    - wilkystyle 3y ago
      ...? For such a strong opinion, you didn't include any examples of why you and your circle of friends feel this way about the movie.
    - InSteady 3y ago
      Wow, what a take. Of course you are fully entitled to it! This is perhaps favorite movie, written by my favorite author and adapted/directed by my favorite filmmakers. I was absolutely on the edge of my seat basically from start to finish on the first watch, and am still fully captivated every time I revisit it. I find it a fascinating character study of three different people -- the cowboy, the sheriff, and the assassin. Each of them feels so incredibly authentic despite inhabiting roles from tired old tropes. I also believe the movie was superbly acted, which I guess is no surprise given that it was a critical success with some big names. The point of the plot isn't to subvert expectations so much as to tell a story that is true to life: the societal decay which began in the 70's and 80's that can be embodied by, if not directly attributed, to the war on drugs. More than anything else, the plot is a massive indictment of the war on drugs, as well as an (unpleasant) meditation on the role of violence in the American West that has existed for generations. Of course, that latter point applies to basically all of McCarthy's work. While some of the characters are certainly nihilistic (or just bewildered and filled with existential dread, in the case of the sheriff), the story itself is not. In fact, the novel was criticized by some for being too moralizing compared to McCarthy's other work. The hero (and just about everyone else in the story) loses in the end to the implacable evil: an honor-bound psychopath who is motivated by more than just greed (but plenty of that too), who is perfectly suited to navigating his desires and achieving his grisly ends with absolutely no regard for the society that enables his success. By the end of the film, he almost feels like a force of nature moreso than a man (and I think this is intentional, for instance in the way he is polite and almost apologetic as he murders the hero's widow at the end simply because he gave the hero an ultimatum that was refused). The point wasn't to subvert our expectations, although that may have happened along the way. The point was to show a very brutal reality that we still face today by retelling a story old as time through unique characters and a (semi) modern setting. Haha ok I'll stop adding to this now. As you can tell, I have a lot of love for this story. You don't have to love it, but maybe don't be so quick to shit on people who do :)
      - autoexec 3y ago
        As someone who has seen the film but was somewhat ambivalent towards it, I appreciate your take, but for the sake of others who haven't seen it, it might be good to put a spoiler warning at the top of that...
      - golergka 3y ago
        > the cowboy, the sheriff, and the assassin I think the movie makes it pretty obvious that the cowboy and the assassin are the same exact man. Its the sheriff who invents them as separate people because he refuses to see the obvious.
        adolph 3y ago
        Huh, McCarthy meets Palahniuk?
  - InSteady 3y ago
    It is also a great book. The Cohen brothers adapted it masterfully, as they tend to do (see also: True Grit and Oh Brother Where Art Thou). Overall it's extremely similar to the movie, but it's a short read so well worth it if you enjoyed the movie and enjoy reading for fun. Interestingly, Cormac McCarthy originally wrote No Country as a screenplay in the 1980's and went all over Hollywood trying to pitch it, only to be told things like "that will never work as a movie." Eventually he gave up, and later he adapted the screenplay into a novel (published in 2005). Then Cohen brothers take interest, and then they readapt it back into the screenplay for their film.

Pretty close to the plot of No Country for Old Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men

yard2010 3y ago
That's a tough and important movie
- dingnuts 3y ago
  lol you mean a pointless movie that intentionally tortures the audience and is unpleasant to watch because that's "subverting expectations" trite critic-pandering trash imho, it's only "tough" in that the director hates you, the audience, and thinks you're stupid, and it has a nihilistic message that is the opposite of important, it's stupid and disastrous, and most of the people who I have encountered who like this film seem to be in a pissing contest with one another over who can enjoy the most unpleasant film
  - wilkystyle 3y ago
    ...? For such a strong opinion, you didn't include any examples of why you and your circle of friends feel this way about the movie.
  - InSteady 3y ago
    Wow, what a take. Of course you are fully entitled to it! This is perhaps favorite movie, written by my favorite author and adapted/directed by my favorite filmmakers. I was absolutely on the edge of my seat basically from start to finish on the first watch, and am still fully captivated every time I revisit it. I find it a fascinating character study of three different people -- the cowboy, the sheriff, and the assassin. Each of them feels so incredibly authentic despite inhabiting roles from tired old tropes. I also believe the movie was superbly acted, which I guess is no surprise given that it was a critical success with some big names. The point of the plot isn't to subvert expectations so much as to tell a story that is true to life: the societal decay which began in the 70's and 80's that can be embodied by, if not directly attributed, to the war on drugs. More than anything else, the plot is a massive indictment of the war on drugs, as well as an (unpleasant) meditation on the role of violence in the American West that has existed for generations. Of course, that latter point applies to basically all of McCarthy's work. While some of the characters are certainly nihilistic (or just bewildered and filled with existential dread, in the case of the sheriff), the story itself is not. In fact, the novel was criticized by some for being too moralizing compared to McCarthy's other work. The hero (and just about everyone else in the story) loses in the end to the implacable evil: an honor-bound psychopath who is motivated by more than just greed (but plenty of that too), who is perfectly suited to navigating his desires and achieving his grisly ends with absolutely no regard for the society that enables his success. By the end of the film, he almost feels like a force of nature moreso than a man (and I think this is intentional, for instance in the way he is polite and almost apologetic as he murders the hero's widow at the end simply because he gave the hero an ultimatum that was refused). The point wasn't to subvert our expectations, although that may have happened along the way. The point was to show a very brutal reality that we still face today by retelling a story old as time through unique characters and a (semi) modern setting. Haha ok I'll stop adding to this now. As you can tell, I have a lot of love for this story. You don't have to love it, but maybe don't be so quick to shit on people who do :)
    - autoexec 3y ago
      As someone who has seen the film but was somewhat ambivalent towards it, I appreciate your take, but for the sake of others who haven't seen it, it might be good to put a spoiler warning at the top of that...
    - golergka 3y ago
      > the cowboy, the sheriff, and the assassin I think the movie makes it pretty obvious that the cowboy and the assassin are the same exact man. Its the sheriff who invents them as separate people because he refuses to see the obvious.
      - adolph 3y ago
        Huh, McCarthy meets Palahniuk?
- InSteady 3y ago
  It is also a great book. The Cohen brothers adapted it masterfully, as they tend to do (see also: True Grit and Oh Brother Where Art Thou). Overall it's extremely similar to the movie, but it's a short read so well worth it if you enjoyed the movie and enjoy reading for fun. Interestingly, Cormac McCarthy originally wrote No Country as a screenplay in the 1980's and went all over Hollywood trying to pitch it, only to be told things like "that will never work as a movie." Eventually he gave up, and later he adapted the screenplay into a novel (published in 2005). Then Cohen brothers take interest, and then they readapt it back into the screenplay for their film.