I cannot tell you how glad I am that Miramax sent out screeners of “No Country for Old Men” to the various critics’ groups. If I’d had to wait until it actually came out on DVD to resolve these questions, it surely would have driven me crazy.

Some astute readers have posted follow-up questions and observations on my previous two posts about this movie (here and here), and since I have the resources, here are some answers!

Q Tip: “When [Bell] pulls up to the motel there are two doors that are roped off in the crime scene and both room doors seem to have their locks blown out by the pressurized cow-killer.”

Marie: “There were two hotel rooms with locks blown out. I supposed that he was in the room next door, after it was confirmed that he was not in the room Bell entered. And I assumed that Sheriff Bell sensed that as well, but backed away and didn’t attempt anymore exploration, because he knew that he was just an old man, not up for the fight.”

Continue reading…

[NOTE: This post is about the film "No Country for Old Men" and is brimming with SPOILERS. Do not read this if you have not seen the movie.]

In a previous post, we talked about an element of “No Country for Old Men” that had led to misunderstandings. Now we address something where there truly are several possible explanations: Sheriff Bell and Anton Chigurh in the motel room. Were they there at the same time? What is the deal with that scene?

First, the events leading up to it. Bell arrives at the hotel just as the Mexicans are fleeing the scene. (They learned where Moss was by talking to his mother-in-law at the bus station, you’ll recall.) Bell sees numerous spent bullet shells next to the wall outside the swimming pool, where Moss was standing the last time we saw him; floating in the pool is, presumably, the woman he’d been talking to. Bell hurries to Moss’ hotel room, where a wounded Mexican is crawling away and where Moss lies dead just inside the door.

It would appear the Mexicans arrived while Moss was still talking to the pool girl. Moss was carrying his rifle (in a case), so he was able to return fire on the Mexicans before fleeing to his room. With one of their own having been hit, and with the money not sitting in plain sight, and with Moss fighting back, the Mexicans aborted their mission and took off.

Bell informs Moss’ wife of her husband’s death, then goes to the morgue, then has coffee with the local sheriff, who tells him the money was not in the hotel room. He guesses the Mexicans must have taken it, but Bell points out that they were speeding away pretty quickly.

During this time is when Anton Chigurh visits the hotel room. When Bell returns after having coffee, the lock has been blown off the door. He stops outside the door. We can see the reflection of something off the shininess of the blown-off lock, but it’s impossible to tell exactly what we’re seeing, whether it’s Bell’s own reflection or the reflection of someone inside the room.

Continue reading…

[NOTE: This post is about the film "No Country for Old Men" and is brimming with SPOILERS. Do not read this if you have not seen the movie.]

By far the most thoughtful discussion I’ve ever seen on this website has been the one about “No Country for Old Men” (the best film of 2007, in my opinion). If you read the comments people have posted, you’ll see a variety of interpretations of the film’s themes and messages, and even some alternate theories about the plot.

Many of these interpretations are perfectly valid insofar as they are not contradicted by anything within the film itself. But there is one theory — a persistent one, surprisingly — that is flat-out wrong. It is the theory that Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), the man who steals the bag of money and tries to outrun the evil Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), is not killed when the movie says he is killed and in fact is still alive, hiding out, perhaps in preparation for a sequel.

Miramax has been kind enough to send screener DVDs of the film (along with other “prestige” pictures) to members of various critics groups. Now that I have the film in hand and am not relying solely on memory, I hope I can end this speculation once and for all.

Continue reading…

With mere hours to go before 2007 is naught but a memory, let’s enjoy this cornucopia of end-of-the-year features, won’t we?

“The Best and Worst Movies of 2007″ is exactly what it sounds like. It also includes some miscellaneous data and a list of Hollywood’s Shameful Secrets© for 2007.

“Eric’s Media Inventory: What I Watched and Read in 2007″ is, curiously, also exactly what it sounds like. This is the one that maybe is only interesting to me, so you’re allowed to skip it if you want to.

Finally, this week’s “Snide Remarks” is, naturally, “The Best of ‘Snide Remarks’: 2007,” a collection of my favorite chunks from this year’s columns.

Have a safe and enjoyable New Year’s Eve, and I’ll see you in 2008!

This week’s “Snide Remarks,” including the audio version, is here.
The audio version (i.e., the podcast) is also here.
Subscribe to the podcast’s feed here.

Someone named Katrina (not the hurricane) did not appreciate my negative review of “Alvin and the Chipmunks.” Her e-mail reads more or less the way you would expect an e-mail from someone who loved “Alvin and the Chipmunks” to read.

Dear Eric Snider,
I just read your review of the Alvin and the Chipmunks and you have made me extremely mad because you ,yourself, have no idea what you are talking about. Before you try to critizes a movie you need to watch it first. Theodore DID NOT eat Simon’s pop. That is impossable, seeing as how Theordore is the green chipmunk and Simon is the blue. Simon didn’t even eat Theordore’s poop after saying it was a “raisen.” He spit the the poop out and said ” You owe big time.”

I just saw the movie last night and it was written so that it would fit with the cartoon. You know the one called Alvin and the Chipmunks. If you read the dedication at the end of the movie you would of seen that Alvin, Theodore, and Simon were created 50 years ago. You must of not grown up watching the cartoon because if you did you would of seen all the jokes that came from the cartoon that were in the movie. And any one who agrees with you has never seen the cartoons either and has no education. So how about you spend your money and go watch the movie and then write your review.

Big Fan of the Chipmunks,
Katrina

She is correct that I accidentally reversed the roles of pooper and poop-eater in my review. I sincerely regret the error and have fixed it now. As if Theodore would ever eat Simon’s poop! That is totally something Simon would do, as any faithful viewer of the old cartoons would of known.

Just got a press release from Excel Entertainment regarding the film “Stalking Santa.” It says:

BREAKING NEWS 12/17

Stalking Santa trailer was posted on YouTube just two days ago …. We were at 300,000 viewers this morning and now a few hours later we are almost at half a million viewers(475,104) and going up.

Alot of Hollywood movie trailers on YouTube have only hit that mark and we believe we will pass half a million soon. “The Golden Compose” trailer with all its hype only hit just over 500,000. So move over Hollywood and make room for Independent filmmakers

News Updates 12/18 As of Today we at 750,00 viewers

Current YouTube viewing polls:
#1 - Most Viewed (Today)
#1 - Most Viewed (Today) -Comedy
#1 - Most Viewed (This Week) - Comedy
#12 - Most Viewed (This Week)

“So move over, Hollywood, and make room for independent filmmakers — independent filmmakers who will sell their films to Excel Entertainment after receiving promises of a solid theatrical campaign, only to have Excel chicken out and send the film straight to DVD after all!”

As for the “Stalking Santa” trailer getting over 750,000 (or 750,00) views on YouTube, that’s fantastic. I hope it helps sell DVDs. As for that being more impressive than “The Golden Compass” (or, possibly, “Compose”) getting 500,000 views, that’s a bit unfair. The trailer for “Compass” may have only gotten half a million hits on YouTube, but it was also readily available on dozens of other movie websites, where it presumably got thousands more hits; plus it was shown in theaters, which meant a lot of people didn’t need to look for it online at all. The “Stalking Santa” trailer, on the other hand, is pretty much only on YouTube. So yeah, 750,000 is phenomenal, especially for an under-the-radar indie film like this, but let’s not exaggerate things.

[YouTube link]

Paramount Vantage sent out a press release today hyping a new type of banner ad that will allow people to buy their movie tickets right there in the banner, without having to leave whatever website they’re on. It is kind of cool, and it is kind of convenient. But the movie they’re launching it with is “The Kite Runner,” and here’s what they say about it:

“… transactional banners to promote and sell tickets for their up coming blockbuster movie The Kite Runner…”

We are going to overlook the miscasting of “upcoming” as two words and instead obsess over the word “blockbuster.” There are two amusing reasons why this is the wrong word.

- Most elementally, how can a film be a “blockbuster” (defined as “major box office hit”) when it hasn’t opened yet? With a cumulative domestic gross of $0, it’s actually more of a flop.

- Even after “The Kite Runner” is released, it stands absolutely no chance of being a “blockbuster.” It is a quiet film, mostly in Dari (a variant of Persian spoken in Afghanistan), and it’s about little boys who fly kites until one of them gets raped. I promise you, there is not a single person at Paramount Vantage delusional enough to think it will be a huge financial hit. It’s a prestige picture, the kind that’s released in the hopes of getting awards and maybe making $50 million if it’s lucky. It might be a “sleeper,” it might be a “sensation,” it might be a “critical darling.” (Actually, no, it won’t be that.) But it will not be a “blockbuster.” Sorry!

I do not care about the Golden Globe nominations.

I know there are quite a few fans here of the “Twilight” books about a teenage girl who has fallen in love with a vampire, so here’s some more big news about the upcoming movie based on the first novel. A director (Catherine Hardwicke) was confirmed a few months ago, and now we have our leads.

Bella will be played by 17-year-old Kristen Stewart, best known as Jodie Foster’s androgynous daughter in “Panic Room.” (That was five years ago; she has grown out of her androgyny.) She’s currently in “Into the Wild” and was seen earlier this year in “The Messengers.” She’s a solid actress and a good choice for the part, I think.

Edward’s the tricky one. The book spends many pages describing him, and in particular how beautiful he is. Can you find an actual human being to play such a role? Maybe it will be like Stephen King’s “It,” where it’s one thing to describe on paper how scary something is, but quite another to actually show it.

Anyway, they’ve hired 21-year-old Robert Pattinson, an English actor best known for playing Cedric Diggory in the Harry Potter movies. Does Edward have an English accent in the books? I don’t remember. English accents are romantic, though, so lots of male leads in chick flicks have them. Pattinson hasn’t been in enough movies for me to have an opinion on his talent, and I’ll leave the discussion of whether he’s beautiful enough to play the impossibly gorgeous Edward to others.

The book’s author, Stephenie Meyer, cheerfully admits on her website that she has no say whatsoever in the casting of the film, but offers some suggestions for whom she would choose. Given her previous selections, I’d guess Pattinson probably fits in with her tastes.

The movie is supposed to start shooting soon, with a tentative release date of late 2008.

Someone has posted a comment on my review of “The Golden Compass” at Film.com that is so incoherent, you’d think it had been written by Tim Nasson. Here’s what “WALLYONE” had to say:

Golden Compass is rather well put together, like one might expect a refreshing new candy. Be mindful the picture is aimed at the 13-15 year age group (which might explain why Mr Snider’s review has a bi-polaric bearish overview which concludes with best paragraph (of which I heartily and bi-polaric concur)) The picture would appear to be enjoyed by a mature audience through that 13-15 wonderment/confirming age, where at least you could argue/disagree with authority (in at least on your alternate growth world stage). Overviews should also take note the repeated efforts to sell the (untitled (at least to this reviewer) follow-on well wrapped candy for which the production costs will much less because at least half of the story is already in the can. The Dakota Richards heroine character (Lyra) has been well set, while the Kidman (Mrs. Coulter) is likely to suprise in development(s) based on the slapping of her soul and unsaid/unheard lines to unbuilt bridges. One of the most confirming scenes was Lyra’s use of Mrs. Coulter’s fly to strike back at the adult with their own toy (13-15 behavior). thankyou

Translation? Anyone?