Reply With Quote
A Country Where Old Men Win.
The Cohen brothers weren't the only ones at fault because The Cohen brothers could have changed it too.
A Country Where Old Men Win.
You seem to want a black and white answer.
I tried explaining that it was unsatisfying-because I FELT unsatisfied after the ending.
THAT was not good enough--you tried to deride me and insult me and say that---IF you DON'T know why or CAN'T explain it--it musta gone over your head.
So I tried to explain it in terms you WOULD understand since you seem to NEED to have me explain it in technical terms...
NOW-you don't LIKE my explanation --that at the core--is that the ending is unsatisfying TO ME --as a moviegoer...
You now want MY OPINION????
That is what I said from the start---
this thread is asking people to name movies you THOUGHT were good--UNTIL THE ENDING!!!!
THIS movie for me hits that on the in' nail. The ending ruined it for me.
I am getting the distinct impression that you guys have had this debate when the movie first came out and it was divided into people who liked the movie but hated the ending---and people who loved the movie BECAUSE of the ending....
and your response at that time----AND NOW;
is that those who didn't like the ending:
a) just didn't get it
b) are just not as smart and sophisticated as you are
c) are beneath you
am I getting warm here?
Nope.
People can not like the ending and still get it. You first said there was no resolution, then you said there was. Which post am I supposed to believe?
You change your stance with every post. Do you not see this? At this point I'm just ing with you while I watch MNF because you're obviously not very smart and have the debate skills of a re ed monkey.
Well, I guess I'll actually contribute now and say The Road. This Cormac McCarthy book turned film actually seemed pointless. I don't even know why. I like some movies that go absolutely nowhere plot-wise, but this one didn't connect with me.
Great read, hard to watch.
Pretty tough material to work with, though.
Yes and NO
yes-it did NOT satisfy ME til the very end.
AND
NO-
a LOT of other people were not satisfied with the ending either--it was pretty split from what I remember reading at the time.
You're not, actually.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread say you're not allowed to not like the ending of No Country for Old Men. Or the movie in its entirety, for that matter. In fact, I know several people personally who didn't like the ending and, while I still disagree with their points, I respect and understand their opinion. Because they have been able to articulate it to me in a way that makes clear their overall understanding of the film/its ending, and have been able to explain their specific reasons for not liking the way the film ends.
You have yet to do that. And, frankly, you're not in any way required to provide us with such an explanation. You could, at any time, say "I didn't like it, and that's that" and this conversation would end. So long as you insist on offering your opinion, however, I have no problem pointing out the many ways in which it is completely senseless. That's kind of how the discussion part of discussion forums works.
Silent Hill - not a very good movie, but the ending was really crappy.
I never read it but I can see how a novel of that nature is hard to translate to film. I did watch it and I thought it was worthy of being labeled a good movie. Pretty tough to convey that type of landscape though.
I assume this thread was made for Unbreakable.
Passion of the Christ
Well since you are back to insults again it seems I am wasting my time again.
So you.
The main point of contention with the dumbass of the day was his labeling of the screen writing as lazy. Sure, you are allowed not to like it but everything you dislike is not the victim of lazy screen writing.
The very idea of the Signs movie pisses me off. Aliens that can travel to another planet, but decide to invade a planet that's 70% filled with water? You know, the stuff that KILLS them? ARGH. This movie makes me irrationally pissed, and I can't understand why anyone will defend this movie.
Reminds me of this: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=signs
Eh, the whole destruction phase is the first part of the book, IIRC. The second part is him dealing with isolation. (Been awhile since I read it, could be wrong.)
Well I liked the movie and I didn't like the ending.
And I don't really care if you want it articulated to your satisfaction because as many times as I tried to answer your questions and get the point across-it seemed that it was never good enough to stop you and a couple of others from demanding --MORE explanations.
Apparently this movie means a lot to you guys.
The insults that were thrown at me say a lot about the people throwing the insults.
Good night.
Signs pissed me off in a manner similar to Frailty. Again, I found the film much more compelling when you think the guy is just nuts. As soon as you know that there are actually aliens, and you see them, it turned into a different movie for me and I completely disengaged.
I just picked up this book at the mall for 3 bucks. Looking forward to reading it on my 14 hour flight to home.
What if they were moving their whole race, their ships were disabled and they had to drop out of hyperdrive in our solar system. They were running out of supplies and needed Earth for their civilization to survive and had no other choice. Eh.... eh... eh....
I can see what you're saying but I basically think that focusing on the larger picture is important for Signs. I don't think its as good as the 6th Sense but I definitely think its a good movie.
Its definitely illogical but I think I have to ignore something in almost every movie or I'd never enjoy one. IE why the couldn't Frodo just ride the giant eagle to the ing mountain in the first place?
If you hold true to form you'll be loving me by your next post so meh.
The ONLY barely acceptable explanation I've heard from someone is the whole religious angle. (It says over the radio that the aliens are driven off, but we're only explicitly shown the one alien in Mel Gibson's household, who is driven off by the BLESSED water. The person then implied that it was God, or belief in him, which drove off the (assumed) non-religious aliens.) This viewer also explained away the "invader" angle by claiming that the aliens actually were trying to just make contact but had no idea of our culture.
It was a ty argument, but the only one I've ever heard that made me think for more than half a second.
Um, the book, radio broadcast and original movie of War of the Worlds all had an ending where the aliens die by a virus/bacteria that kills them off.
Speilberg had nothing to do with that one.
If it hasn't been mentioned already, I'd have to say Signs. The movie had a great buildup but a terrible, hurried ending.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
