MovieChat Forums > Hell or High Water (2016) Discussion > Just saw this, my take.

Just saw this, my take.

posted 5 years ago by arflexit (2376)
20 replies | jump to latest

Good movie, good acting; a bit slow and dry in the middle of the movie but it builds the tension and there is a pay off at the end.

Overall I liked this movie, it has a very similar feel to No Country for Old Men only it is better, IMO, for a couple of reasons:

1. Jeff Bridges plays an interesting (and invested character) that is clinging to his job and the 'thrill of the hunt' unlike Tommy Lee Jones's character in No Country who was disinterested and seemingly not wanting to get involved (making him a useless and boring character.

2. Ben Foster's character is a bit over the top but still believable unlike Javier Bardem, who is so over the top Hannibal Lecter wanna be that it is almost comical.

3. The movie never feels pointless or loses direction. No Country put so much stock in the dynamic cat and mouse game between Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin, that when Brolin's character dies the movie loses all purpose but drags for another 30 minutes. Also No Country has too much randomness and plots that go nowhere. For example, there is no clear direction or purpuse to the people that hired Javier and Woody Harrelson's characters, are they a front organization for the cartel? Is that why they are hiring a pycho like Anton to get the money back. there is more but my point is, Hell or High Water never has moments like this were things seem pointless or without direction. It is a much tighter movie.

[–] Daggerboard (581) 5 years ago

Agreed. This was one of my favorites of 2016. Didn't really care for No Country for Old Men at all. Still surprised at the accolades it gets.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I am surprised too that NO Country gets so much recognition; it is a fine enough movie sure. But it is over the top, at parts directionless, doesn't have great flow and has several very pointless 'sub plots' that go nowhere. Also Anton being considered such an "iconic" movie villain I think is almost outrageous. He is so over the top there is zero believability to him and it is almost comical.

Hell Or High Water is much more grounded and stays focused on the plot. Tanner is a character that is a bit over the top as well, but it is not so much so that it breaks all suspension of belief. And he really only has one really over the top scene at the end; but it seemed like he was planning on 'going out shooting' all along so it is not so over the top it is unbelievable or comical.

Also a big difference is Jeff Bridges character does not feel boring, distracting from the flow and narrative, and pointless like Tommy Lee Jones's character in No Country.

[–] Daggerboard (581) 5 years ago

The character of Anton actually ruined the film for me. Too odd and distracting.
Thought I'd put on Hell or High Water while doing some work just now, and the moment the music began I was pulled right in. I'll have to wait until I can actually sit and watch it without disruption. It's such a visual film, both in the beauty of the cinematography and landscape, and in the story-telling.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

For me both Anton and Tommy Lee Jones's character ruin the film; one character is unrealistically crazy (how the f' is he able to walk around killing people with a cattle prod, and why do people just stand around and let him kill them?) and the other is a little too 'real' only wanting to bide time until retirement and actually trying to reject the plot. It is fine if you have a 'side character' that is like that, but doesn't work having him as a main character, he was annoyingly boring with his disinterest and refusal to participate in the plot and really disrupts the pace and flow of the film.

Yes I agree, though these 2 films are similar in setting; the visual style of Hell or High Water is way better and does a better job pulling you into the setting. It was a really well shot film.

[–] Tectash (34) 5 years ago

I am surprised too that NO Country gets so much recognition; it is a fine enough movie sure. But it is over the top, at parts directionless, doesn't have great flow and has several very pointless 'sub plots' that go nowhere. Also Anton being considered such an "iconic" movie villain I think is almost outrageous. He is so over the top there is zero believability to him and it is almost comical.

Maybe you could elaborate further on this? How is being over the top bad for a movie villain? Heath's Joker from 2008 is over the top but is also like Anton considered one of cinema's greatest villains. To me those two actually have a lot in common. Both are agents of chaos, they are also both an example of the negative flat character arc. It is interesting to me how the supporting Oscar win went to villains three consecutive years. 2007 was Javier Bardem for Anton, in 2008 it was for Heath Ledger's Joker and in 2009 Christoph Waltz for Hans Landa.

Here in my book are two good analysis of No Country For Old Men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KADoPXknQCI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9SF4mXi49o

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

It is quite simple your question even answers it. My problem with Anton is he is basically an over the top comic book villain a la the joker. It is fine for comics no one is expecting realism and it fits into the fictional universe. No country for old men is not in a fictional universe and at seemingly was aiming to take place in a real world setting. Anton does not fit in with the realism setting they were aiming for.

[–] Tectash (34) 5 years ago

Anton is a lot more subtle than the Joker is. There is no crazy laugh, no crazy getup. He is an insane calculated psychopath. What makes him so good is how callous he is. I love both villains but last thing I would call Anton is over the top.

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

I can't believe there are people arguing over which film was better! I enjoyed HOHW but No country is the superior film.

[–] Tectash (34) 5 years ago

I enjoy both films, if I had to pick I would go with No Country For Old Men. Hell or High Water is a solid flick though.

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

No country gets the nod for better characterization.

[–] Tectash (34) 5 years ago

Agreed.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

How does No Country have better Characterizations? I would argue that almost all the 4 character in Hell or High Water have more depth and go through more of an arc than any of the 3 main characters in No Country. You will have to elaborate on this because I do not agree at all.

Just so you are aware of my assumption at the start of this; I think you and many others were so dazzled with the performance of Javier Bardem and the directing style of the Coen brothers that you are giving attributes to No Country (such as "better characterization") that is not actually there. Now of course I could be wrong about this of course but that has been my observation of people that praise No Country highly.

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

With characterization I go with a gut instinct. Was the character believable? Did I care about the character? Breaking down movies is a boring exercise. Whether it was acting, writing, direction, or a combination of all three, I found myself being much more emotionally invested in No Country. I suppose a lot of these things come down to taste. I have no interest in having a "my movie choice was better than yours" discussion. I'm glad you enjoyed HOHW.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I fully respect your answer. You are not necessarily saying you objectively think No Country has better characterization only you feel like it does because of your emotional investment. Completely acceptable answer

I don’t agree though. I think the character Anton did not fit the setting. He was just Little too unrealistic in the setting. If he existed in the silence of the lambs universe I might say the character and performance was everybit as good as Hannibal Lecter because the character would fit in with the more over the top psychopaths of that universe. I just did not think Anton fit into the realism the rest of the film presented

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

Anton killed the movie for you. I thought he was great. We are talking about a hired killer here. Some of them are going to be batshit crazy. Plus he was foreign.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Actually I do still like the film and Anton was not the biggest problem I had with it. TommyLee Jones’s character wa the thing that really hinders this film. His character being so disinterested in the plot screws with the pacing

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

Huh.....

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I know right, OMG; someone might have a different opinion than you. I can't believe it either.

No I do not think No country is a "superior film" you will have to provide some justification for that.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I don't know, Anton walking around with a airtank and a cattle prod is not very subtle; strangling a cop in a police station is not very subtle; blowing up a car outside a pharmacy? walking around in broad daylight with a huge shotgun with a make shift silencer? His demented coin flip game? His 'code' he follows? Subtle is not one thing I would call this character. The performance was great, don't get me wrong. And I thought the dynamic cat and mouse game between Anton and Josh Brolin's character was brilliant; but that does not mean I did not see Anton as a character that did not fit with the 'realism' of the setting. It at least stretched the willing suspension of belief.