>ITT: Films with a great first half that become terrible

>>79565911
you first op

>>79565911
Were just waitin on you op

>>79565919
>>79565939
hancock

>>79565984
its customary to start with atleast two examples

>>79565911
>he only watched it once

>>79566022
>>79566022
im not OP

>>79565911
>He thought Llewelyn was gonna kill Chigurh and have a happy ending
kek

>>79565911

pleb thread?

File: rufkm.jpg (5KB, 227x222px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 227x222px

>>79565911
>it's a "/tv/ contrarians try to pretend NCFOM is shit" thread

>>79566254
it's a dumb frogposter is blind and can't see that everyone in this thread is defending the movie post

dumb frogposter

Why do you think the movie took a turn for the worse in the second half?

>>79566254
NCFOM's problem is that it's being compared to TWBB which came out at the same time, has a similar setting and frankly is a stronger film all around

>>79566770
The first half had great, tense scenes and good pacing. But after the hotel shootout, it just felt like a string of shot/reverse shot dialogue scenes.

>>79567129
The second half had some tension going for it, not to mention that it delved further into film's themes and executed them quite well might I say. If you wanted action you watched a wrong film, lad.

>>79567129
>felt like
Either it was or it wasn't

>>79565911
>NCFOM
>terrible

I don't think you'd fit in here.

>>79567129
So listen to what they're saying, dummy.

>>79566931
There Will Be Blood is set in the 1900s

No Country for Old Men is like the 80s