Movies that were good until you saw the ending

[silverblk mystix]

How the is that lazy writing? That makes no ing sense.

I swear to god NCFOM is the least understood movie talked about on Spurstalk on a regular basis and its so damn obvious.

I don't know who pulled your in string or why the you are even taking jabs at me...but go ahead...enjoy yourself...

I felt it was lazy writing because I felt let down at the ending...and it felt like a disappointing ending.

If the book ends exactly the same way but somehow feels right--then it is up to the screenwriter to write and adapt it to the screen so that it translates well and gives the viewer the same or similar feeling.
(I did not read the book-so maybe that is why I didn't feel it--but a good screenwriter---or a great screenwriter, will make it work)

In other words, if the book's ending satisfies-but the movie's ending does not...something was lost and it usually comes down to the screenwriter dropping the ball.

I also don't think the movie is as misunderstood as it is just overrated. It is a good movie and the first 75-85% of the movie may even be great-but the ending , I believe, is why you may hear people--not as enchanted with it as you apparently seem to be.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know who pulled your in string or why the you are even taking jabs at me...but go ahead...enjoy yourself...

I felt it was lazy writing because I felt let down at the ending...and it felt like a disappointing ending.

If the book ends exactly the same way but somehow feels right--then it is up to the screenwriter to write and adapt it to the screen so that it translates well and gives the viewer the same or similar feeling.
(I did not read the book-so maybe that is why I didn't feel it--but a good screenwriter---or a great screenwriter, will make it work)

In other words, if the book's ending satisfies-but the movie's ending does not...something was lost and it usually comes down to the screenwriter dropping the ball.

I also don't think the movie is as misunderstood as it is just overrated. It is a good movie and the first 75-85% of the movie may even be great-but the ending , I believe, is why you may hear people--not as enchanted with it as you apparently seem to be.

You're just a lazy ass movie watcher, IMO. A movie simply doesn't have the climax at the very end and its lazy to you because its not the standard formula? That makes PERFECT sense.

I honestly don't give a if a movie is overrated or is well received. There are plenty of movies I own that most people think are horrible or were critically panned but thats not the point. The point is that your criticisms make little to no sense. You want someone to follow a damn formula that is used time and time and time and time and time again and when someone deviates from that they're considered lazy?

I've never read the book, but I understood the point of the final scene that takes place after the climax and I felt it was very well done and completely inline with the story that was being told. There was nothing lazy about it.

And no, people just don't get that movie. You're not the first on here or the last, but when people can't even name the proper protagonist then I know they didn't understand the point. It has nothing to do with it being overrated.

[CuckingFunt]

Frailty is another one.

Didn't even think about this one, but good ing call. I had absolutely no desire to see this movie until a friend rented it and was quite surprised at how effective it turned out to be. As soon as they revealed that he actually was killing demons, though, it absolutely ruined the movie. The idea of whackjob dad teaching his kids to be serial killers was far more compelling without the God quest tacked on.

[CuckingFunt]

I felt it was lazy writing because I felt let down at the ending...and it felt like a disappointing ending.

You have thus far been unable to articulate why you felt let down, why it was disappointing, or why it was lazy writing. To say it's lazy because you don't like it really doesn't amount to anything.

[CuckingFunt]

shut your sucker

Assuming you mean my mouth, I don't typically need to open it when responding, in writing, on a message board.

[silverblk mystix]

You have thus far been unable to articulate why you felt let down, why it was disappointing, or why it was lazy writing. To say it's lazy because you don't like it really doesn't amount to anything.

Somehow you and a couple of others here feel very strongly about this and I just don't get it. I also didn't get why the critics were gushing so much praise at this movie--and maybe that is it;

when i finally got to seeing this movie it was way after it had been out and its time had passed.

Sometimes when you see a movie that was so universally praised-you are expecting greatness...and if it doesn't deliver greatness then you end up feeling kinda let down. That is pretty much MY experience of this movie---I felt it was good but I had expected great not just good.

The ending to me just left me feeling disappointed--the main word there is FEELING...it was a feeling...it is hard to articulate because it wasn't some technical detail or something wrong with the acting or anything like that.
It was a feeling that I had been left unsatisfied. I want to see a movie that leaves you satisfied-like you have been taken on an adventure and at the end you want to feel satisfied-otherwise it feels like a failure to me. Not a failure as in the movie sucked-but a failure as in it could have been one of the great ones. Lazy because I am hard on screenwriters and want screenwriters to amaze me-as a movie watcher/movie lover.

That is all I got--this movie wasn't that great to take this much time to try to defend why it left ME unsatisfied. Kudos to you guys because you thought it was so great. Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with being underwhelmed either.

[redzero]

silverblk mystix wanted to see a final showdown between Anton Chigurh and Llewelyn Moss.

[CuckingFunt]

silverblk mystix wanted to see a final showdown between Anton Chigurh and Llewelyn Moss.

Which brings us back to "didn't get it."

[silverblk mystix]

You're just a lazy ass movie watcher, IMO. A movie simply doesn't have the climax at the very end and its lazy to you because its not the standard formula? That makes PERFECT sense.

I honestly don't give a if a movie is overrated or is well received. There are plenty of movies I own that most people think are horrible or were critically panned but thats not the point. The point is that your criticisms make little to no sense. You want someone to follow a damn formula that is used time and time and time and time and time again and when someone deviates from that they're considered lazy?

I've never read the book, but I understood the point of the final scene that takes place after the climax and I felt it was very well done and completely inline with the story that was being told. There was nothing lazy about it.

And no, people just don't get that movie. You're not the first on here or the last, but when people can't even name the proper protagonist then I know they didn't understand the point. It has nothing to do with it being overrated.

Well, you seem to have come out of the blue and decided to insult me. Who the are you? What is a lazy ass movie watcher? Someone who feels differently about a movie than you do?
When this movie came out-there had already been a cycle of unconventional movie endings and endings with crazy twists and double twists and surprise and super-surprise endings ad-nauseum...
So you would never know where I was in that stupid cycle...I may have already been sick of unconventional endings and was hoping for a good-old fashioned standard ending...

And maybe you were in your I am holier-than-you movie watching phase because I just got my SAG card and now I know about cinema phase...

who ing knows



The point is that there is no ing standard for what movie will satisfy all watchers at all times.

The fact that it left me feeling unsatisfied-especially the ending- has nothing to do with understanding the movie or lack of sophistication of movies and screenplays. It has everything to do with whether the movie was powerful enough to seduce a moviegoer from start to finish and timely enough to seduce a moviegoer at the time that the moviegoer is most receptive to be enthralled and enchanted. Somehow-I did not fall under the same spell you did for my own particular reasons.

[MannyIsGod]

None of your drivel explains how it was lazy writing but it sure points to you not understanding the point. You're right that I probably shouldn't have insulted you and to be fair most of my frustration is due to you simply being the latest in the line of people on this site who just didn't get the movie and have disliked it because of it simply going over their head even if they didn't realize it.

Now, the point still stands that your description of why you didn't like it has completely changed with each post you make. Lazy screenwriting to lazy adapting to I just can't explain why I didn't like it. Well, if you can't explain it then its because you didn't get it. When I don't like something I know why.

[silverblk mystix]

Which brings us back to "didn't get it."

I guess you are one of the proud artsy people who can't stand anything conventional.

Just because you CAN end a movie without a resolution doesn't mean it will be better than resolving it.

The lazy screenwriter can say, ``well everyone will be expecting good to triumph over evil--so I will do the opposite...better yet...I will just leave it -UN-resolved and that will with everyone's mind!''

The brilliant screenwriter will say, ``everyone will be expecting good to triumph over evil....the lazy hack will try to be clever and do the opposite...but I am going to do the work and write the ending that the movie deserves--WITHOUT resorting to the conventional hollywood ending.''

And then he will get his hands dirty and come up with something brilliant and inspired-especially since it has already been done a million times---it will be a million times harder--but that is WHY he is a brilliant screenwriter.

Just like a poet or a lyricist who has to come up with a NEW way to say I love you. It seems impossible-because it has been done a million times-but if you are great--you can do it.

So, just because the Coen brothers said you to convention and tried to impress the snobs and wanna-be contrarians sucking up to them--

they still weren't brilliant enough to make a movie that satisfied til the very end--

they wrote something and at the very end--instead of having the balls and brilliance---

TO SHOW YOU THE ENDING


Decided to instead;


Have an actor-----TELL you about it!!!!



LAZY ....LAZY...LAZY!!!!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

So you think there was no resolution in NCFOM?

[redzero]

What's with this talk about the screenwriter? Again, the ending in the movie was similar to the ending in the book. That has nothing to do with being lazy.

[ginobili's bald spot]

You might as well tell the world you support rapists and criminals with that photo of those hoodlums in the sig.

Those movies were highly overrated and those endings were from some smarmy punk screenwriters who watched one too many movies with unconventional endings and thought they were clever. The critics and dumb s like you bought it, though.

I have forgotten more in my life than you will ever learn in your entire lifetime.

I doubt it. You come across as extremely simple minded and uneducated in most of your posts. The reason you didn't like No Country for Old Men is probably because it was over your head.

[MannyIsGod]

Dude thinks that because Chigurh got away there was no resolution and then wants to act like he got the point of the movie.

Classic.

[Fabbs]

Mul roll trying to pawn off "anyone who doesn't like the ending of NCFOM must have had it go over their head".

[silverblk mystix]

So you think there was no resolution in NCFOM?

OK ...disclosure;

I understand that the point to Anton not getting caught, evil continuing,etc..
is how real life is---i get it

I understand that giving it a formulaic hollywood neat bow-tied ending--would be boring and lame---i get it

I understand the movie stayed faithful to the book---I get it.

So---again---this is MY opinion...MY experience of the movie;

The movie was well done from the start to just before the last two scenes.
It had a beginning-middle...and then they just didn't finish it...it never resolved.

You can say a million things;
the ending forces you to think about it, life is not neat and evil exists everywhere...etc..
all this is true but the movie never finished...

one of the cardinal sins of moviemaking is don't tell the audience what you can do - just SHOW them...

well the Coen brothers commit this sin---in the climactic scene of the entire movie...instead of showing you how it ends...they tell you..

it is UNsatisfying.............TO ME.

It is unresolved.

I would have hoped that a brilliant screenwriter would have written something unexpected---but still with a resolution to leave you SOMEWHERE after taking you on a tense, taut, spooky and uneasy thrill ride.

I wanted to like this movie--Javier Bardem has always been solid since I started watching him in Spanish cinema (The Sea Inside,Before Night
Falls,Jamon Jamon,etc)
Tommy Lee Jones...always solid.

Most everything the Coen Brothers have done has been superb.


But give me a satisfying ending--conventional or not.

Maybe I am in the minority here-but I am not impressed when someone tries to be clever, avant-garde, unconventional---and does NOT pull it off. In my opinion-it was a nice try but they did not pull it off.
Hate to say it but this was JUST AS BAD...

as if they had pulled a tired hollywood convention bow-tied neat ending.

[CuckingFunt]

I guess you are one of the proud artsy people who can't stand anything conventional.

Just because you CAN end a movie without a resolution doesn't mean it will be better than resolving it.

What ending would have satisfied your desire for resolution? A big shootout in which Chigurh is brought to justice?

The lazy screenwriter can say, ``well everyone will be expecting good to triumph over evil--so I will do the opposite...better yet...I will just leave it -UN-resolved and that will with everyone's mind!''

The brilliant screenwriter will say, ``everyone will be expecting good to triumph over evil....the lazy hack will try to be clever and do the opposite...but I am going to do the work and write the ending that the movie deserves--WITHOUT resorting to the conventional hollywood ending.''

And then he will get his hands dirty and come up with something brilliant and inspired-especially since it has already been done a million times---it will be a million times harder--but that is WHY he is a brilliant screenwriter.

So, then, avoiding convention is lazy, but brilliance is shown by an ability to avoid convention? Gotcha.

So, just because the Coen brothers said you to convention and tried to impress the snobs and wanna-be contrarians sucking up to them--

they still weren't brilliant enough to make a movie that satisfied til the very end--

No. They still weren't brilliant enough to make a movie that satisfied YOU till the very end. Important distinction.

[silverblk mystix]

I doubt it. You come across as extremely simple minded and uneducated in most of your posts. The reason you didn't like No Country for Old Men is probably because it was over your head.

Well, that is because I am simple minded-who needs to be complicated.

As far as education..I actually have a pretty damn good one;


it has taken me years to get over it.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Yeah, the screenwriter should have abandoned the entire concept of the book and just told Cormac to suck on it.

I would have loved to see the movie A Country for Old Men.

[redzero]

I don't know how you can like other Coen Brothers movies when several of them don't neatly resolve everything.

[MannyIsGod]

Wait, so now it does have a resolution?

Can you please state your ing opinion and not change it every god damn post?

[MannyIsGod]

Just to be clear - I don't give a that you didn't like it. Thats fine. Everyone is en led to their opinion. But you not liking it doesn't mean it was lazy screen writing. Thats what you don't seem to get.

[silverblk mystix]

Yeah, the screenwriter should have abandoned the entire concept of the book and just told Cormac to suck on it.

I would have loved to see the movie A Country for Old Men.

It was not only the screenwriter. The producer and director could have been swayed-IF the screenwriter came up with something brilliant.

There is no set rules. Cormac McCarthy doesn't necessarily have to approve. It may be part of the deal but most times it is not part of the deal.

Stephen King has had many books that were made into movies that did not stay 100% faithful to the book and were good movies.

[MannyIsGod]