Quote:

---

But you ain't Mexicans

---

When they're in the hotel and Marcus is talking to alberto while watching the Televangelist...

"You're Indian. Aren't you supposed to be burning sage and dancing around the bed whooping?"

"I'm catholic."

Finally caught this over the weekend. One of the better movies I've seen in recent memory.

Caught it this weekend too. Really great film. Great performances by Pine and Foster (is Foster ever anything less then great?). I liked Bridges character, and didn't mind his acting in general, but his voice annoyed me a bit. Like he stuffed way to much dip in his mouth or something.

Loved that the Aggie-Longhorn rivalry even played a small part (Pine's character being an Aggie fan, and Bridges' a Longhorn fan).

Regarding the end: Does anyone think Marcus went to Toby's the next day to settle the score? Personally I don't think so, but I do like to pretend that I got two movies for the price of one, in that both possibilities exist. A sort of Schrodinger's Cat situation like we got at the end of Inception.

Great analysis

Quote:

---

Regarding the end: Does anyone think Marcus went to Toby's the next day to settle the score? Personally I don't think so, but I do like to pretend that I got two movies for the price of one, in that both possibilities exist. A sort of Schrodinger's Cat situation like we got at the end of Inception.

---

This sums it up from the man himself

http://ew.com/awards/2017/02/16/hell-or-high-water-screenplay-breakdown/

I thought it was great. Built up to an intense level, and it projected so well to the screen. You quickly saw that Bridges' character was just being eaten up inside while sitting in his recliner doing nothing at home. He had to try and figure out why it all happened due to the regret of losing his partner.

To me it played more of Marcus in a curiosity killed the cat situation, except Sheridan explains he didn't want to be cliche and include the shootout. Just 2 guys who both know exactly what side the other is on, examining each other for clues, weaknesses, etc. I walked away thinking Marcus went back to retirement with regret, and Toby went back to tending to his land. No future possibility of a shootout or another meeting.


It was a great finish...other than the minor little thing I noticed that Bridges parks and gets out of his car in a different spot on the property than where it is when he leaves. Someone on set dropped the ball on that one.




EDIT, MW beat me to it. Good response.
EDIT 2: The movie has been available on streaming, bluray, Netflix etc for some time now, so I'm not putting up spoiler tags.

Finally got to see this weekend. Great movie. Loved the ending

Good stuff. Thanks for the convo and link!

Too often we don't see the true, lasting aftermath of cinematic climax on screen (although in that porno with 20 minutes of dialogue, maybe we did). Good to see this take on the aftermath of it. Also why I so much loved the first act of Hunger Games 2, and why I might actually prefer the second Dune novel to the first.

I was hoping Toby might make a more explicit gesture of regret and offer to provide some compensation to Alberto's family (perhaps pay for his kids' college or something). But, I guess he was too damaged of a soul at that point (or even before). In the EW link above, the writer gives a great explanation:

Quote:

---

That doesn't make it any less selfish in its own strange way, but he literally did none of this for himself.

---

MW03,

I like your explanation of the ending better than the possible shootout scenario. I didn't think that it was in either man's character to shoot the other.

I disagree with the premise of there is no chance of a shoot out in the future. I think the family showing up put a pin in the discussion, which is backed up by the exchange they have at the very end as Marcus is leaving.

Marcus tells him it will haunt him and Toby for the rest of their lives, and Toby responds with something along the lines of he can come by his place in town any time to finish the conversation, "maybe I will give you peace." And Marcus responds, "yeah, maybe I will give it to you".

Within the context of their conversation before the family showed up, (how they will both be haunted for the rest of their lives) I took giving the other "peace" as giving the other a bullet.

Yes, "peace" meant bullets, but I don't think either of them was the type to actual kill the other.

Maybe not before they both lost their closest friend/brother, but I think Toby would absolutely kill for his brother/ kill to protect what he has gained, and Marcus has nothing left keeping him from taking his vengeance.

Gramercy Riffs said:

---

Quote:

---

Can someone confirm the situation with the bank foreclosure and the oil lease? Would this situation actually occur where a bank could foreclose a property and then have full rights to the minerals etc? My only hang up with the plot was thinking that the Chevron lease would prevent the foreclosure, not encourage it. Is that correct?

---

The lease wouldn't have any effect on the foreclosure until the property began generating actual cash flow and the payments were made. Of course the bank has the option to restructure the loan with the lease in mind to give the borrower more time, but it was implied more than once that the lenders had made a habit out of obtaining these properties through similar means, so a restructure was likely out of the question. If the bank had been paying the taxes since 2012(?) with no repayment, the loan had probably been classified for a while and the foreclosure would have been completely justified.

Truthfully, I didn't pay too much attention to some of those details, because as a banker the predatory lender theme gets old. It all made enough sense to not let it get in the way of a great movie. But to your point, if we're playing along with the crooked banker theme, the mineral rights (lease in place or otherwise) would have made foreclosure an attractive option for the lender.

---

Just saw this movie on cable over the weekend and really enjoyed it for the most part (I'm from Olney, so it was a hoot to hear them talking about robbing the banks in Olney, Archer City, and Vernon), but the lawyer in me had a problem suspending disbelief once the motivation for the robbery was revealed.

Yes, the reverse mortgage scenario was fairly realistic, so far as it went (although anyone who does foreclosures in Texas could have told you that the deadline to pay it off would have been 10 a.m. on the first Tuesday of a month, not a Friday), and the timing could put the heirs in a bit of a bind to pay it off before foreclosure after death. However, adding the oil play to it was taking it too far. If this lady was sitting on land that was going to generate $50k/month in royalties, there would have been a signing bonus for the lease sufficient to pay off the lien. Furthermore, the bank doesn't just get to take title to property that is foreclosed on--it's sold at public auction, and some bargain hunter would have bid more than the lien amount for property in the middle of an oil play. But, it gets worse--they go to a lawyer to help them concoct this scheme, and rather than helping them arrange new financing (and I can't imagine that being difficult under these facts), he helps them launder the bank robbery proceeds, risking jail when there are easy alternatives available.

Watched this on showtime this weekend. Great movie, but I almost had to turn on closed captioning for the hearing impaired. Lots of low talking and mumbling in this movie. Had to crank the sound way up. I need to watch it again because I also came in about 10 minutes after it started so I missed the 1st bank robbery.

Loved the part where Pine beat the crap out of the punk in the Challenger at the gas station and then went for the passenger and the guy said, "He had it coming to him!"

Got the DVD very shortly after release

FancyKetchup14 said:

---

Bump. This is on Netflix currently.

---

Watched ot last night. Very good. Loved the line about chls making bank robbing harder these days

MAROON said:

---

Loved everything about this movie.

Think interaction between The Rangers and the old waitress was classic

---

"We don't serve effing trout"

I rewatched this recently, and felt the same way I did the first time. I really like the movie, but the ending bothered me.

Ben Fosters character goes from a turd, to the hero. It was too sharp a turn for me to buy it.

But now that I noticed it in this movie, I've started to notice it in Sheridan's others stories. A quick turn, but too superficial and quick for me to really buy into it.

Yeah, maybe. But after 2 hours of the opposite, it just seemed completely out of character, more than redemption to me.

But I see what he was going for.

Understand your thoughts as well. I just think he felt he could help the only other person in the world he cared for by acting like the pos he is by killing the Ranger and not caring how many innocent people he took out.

ben foster was a hero to me cause he totally put one over on the do-gooders that tried to make a citizens arrest. mind your own business people.

Although predictable, I thought this was the best line in the movie.

Uncle Gunnysack said:

---

ben foster was a hero to me cause he totally put one over on the do-gooders that tried to make a citizens arrest. mind your own business people.

---

Really? I loved that posse of gun-toting do-gooders. They were just outmatched.