-----Original Message-----
>From: jacquesdebierue <
jacquesdebierue@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Nov 9, 2007 9:15 AM
>To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: No Country for Old Men (the
movie)
>
>Says Hunter:
>
><<Nobody goes to the movies for the irony. They
go for the satisfaction.>>
>
>I wonder why he feels authorized to speak for every
viewer... And
>since when is irony an impediment to getting
"satisfaction"? This
>review seems very poorly argued. It's more like a gut
reaction written
>out in a hurry, without much clarity of
thought.
>
>Best,
>
>mrt
I saw this movie last weekend at a screening followed by a
panel including the Coens and the four main cast members.
While I liked the movie more than Stephen Hunter did, I can
find nothing wrong with his review. It's hard not to discuss
a few of the elements that are going to severely piss off a
large section of the audience without giving away spoilers,
but I think Hunter managed to do it in his review. Although I
will agree that he probably shouldn't use words like
"nobody". That's far too all-inclusive.
When asked how they collaborated on the screenplay, Joel Coen
said that they took turns: one of them would sit at the word
processor while the other one would hold McCarthy's book open
at the spine. I have a feeling that wasn't much of an
exaggeration. It's extremely faithful. To a fault.
Still, it's well worth seeing. I think rara may be able to
engange in a long discussion about a movie being TOO faithful
to the source material once enough of us have seen this
one.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Nov 2007 EST