No Country for Old Men

[Eastside Parkway]

Just saw an advance screening of this. I thought it was fantastic. Incredibly tense, and great characters, and realistic but at the same time unpredictable. Awesome writing and dialogue as can be expected from the Coens. I don't want to give away too much, but if you're a Coen Bros fan, this is an absolute must see.

[CallaghanFilms]

I've been itchin to see this one for some time...

My prediction? That Javier Bardem gets the nod (and possibly the win) for Best Supporting Actor. I see him being counted amongst the greatest villains of the last 20 some odd years of cinema.

Mark my words and mark em well

[Weston]

Just from what I've seen in the trailers I wouldn't doubt that Callaghan is right. He looks like a scary mofo.

[Sad Max]

Hoo hoo hoo a new Coen Bros movie can't wait can't wait can't wait

[ZFarms Productions]

i definitely am going to see this when it comes out. its gonna be a great movie.

[Billy Pilgrim]

I'm a huge Coen Brothers fan. So, needless to say, I'm excited.

[CallaghanFilms]

Dare I say it?
I dare! I dare!
This could be in contention with Raising Arizona to be
theCoen Bros Film!

[Billy Pilgrim]

More like Barton Fink. I love Raising Arizona, don't get me wrong, I just think, although it's entertaining, it's not on the level of Barton Fink, Fargo, or Miller's Crossing.

[Eastside Parkway]

This movie reminded me quite a bit of Fargo, actually. Fargo in the southwest.

[DeSica]

Dare I say it?
I dare! I dare!
This could be in contention with Raising Arizona to be
theCoen Bros Film
http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/9/2/8/5/12055829-12055831-large.jpg

The Dude might disagree there...

[CallaghanFilms]

I dig The Dude and Barton Fink, but I have never gotten the love affair with Fargo. One of my all-around least favorite films (and no, not just amongst Coens' flicks)

My Top 3?
#1 Raising Arizona
#2 Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? (I know, I know...but the hell with yuz)
#3 The Hudsucker Proxy

...this list very well may change once I see No Country tho.

[rawfa]

"The man who wasn't there" for me is one of the most visually stunning movies ever. Each shot is like a painting. Roger Deakins is amazing and he is also DPing "No country for old men". I've seen some scenes and Barden's acting is superb. I'm dying to see this movie.

[Sad Max]

Funny; for me "Man Who Wasn't There" is far and away the least of the CB's films.

Different strokes...

[rawfa]

Funny; for me "Man Who Wasn't There" is far and away the least of the CB's films.

Different strokes...

Yes, I get that response a lot. I don't know, there's just something personal about that film and me. The music, the framing, the lightning, the acting.

[Sad Max]

Well, your tastes and opinion are clearly flawed and I suggest that you start liking what *I* like, right now.

:)

[rawfa]

Well, your tastes and opinion are clearly flawed and I suggest that you start liking what *I* like, right now.

:)

Hahaha...yes, master.

[traviscool]

New trailer on Apple it looks amazing! here (http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/nocountryforoldmen/)

[Logan LeBlanc]

I can't wait for this film. Seriously, I'm heading to the Coen's house and demanding a personal screening. I love a lot of their films but I never loved Raising Arizona as much as everyone else did. I may need to see Dr Phil.

[Sad Max]

You are a fool.

We pity you.

:2vrolijk_08:

[Kennedy]

Opens today. Reviews are stellar so far.

[Blaine]

My three favorite Coen Bros. films:

1. Fargo
2. The Big Lebowski
3. Blood Simple

I can't wait to see this new one. If it's as good as it looks like it's going to be, it might shoot right to the top!

It got great reviews on Ebert & Roeper. They said it was the best since Fargo & Lebowski.

[Batutta]

My favorites are--

Raising Arizona
The Man Who Wasn't There
Fargo

I'm not the hugest fan of Big Lebowski. The parts are often immensely hysterical, and few films even approach it, but the whole doesn't add up to much. Granted that's kind of the point, but I think some of their other films are richer and more rewarding. Still, all of their films are immensely watchable, even The Hudsucker Proxy. My least favorite is Intolerable Cruelty.

[Mark Harris]

Run, don't walk to see this film. I think it's their best yet. I was a little disappointed in the Lawyer one and the Tom Hanks one, and thought they had lost it. But this film is exactly what I would expect from them this many years on. I hope their work continues to mature like this.

Amazing.

[Blaine]

Run, don't walk to see this film. I think it's their best yet. I was a little disappointed in the Lawyer one and the Tom Hanks one, and thought they had lost it. But this film is exactly what I would expect from them this many years on. I hope their work continues to mature like this.

Amazing.Okay, Mark, that seals the deal!:beer:

[Mark Harris]

Okay, Mark, that seals the deal!:beer:


Lot of the youngin's won't care for it I fear. It is very slow paced in many points, and there is very little camera movement. Lot of stationary camera.

But wow. Just wow.

I don't know who is doing THE ROAD and I never saw All the Pretty Horses(though with billy bob directing, I will pick it up), but it seems that they really nailed MacCarthy's tone well. It felt like his book. But like I said, felt exactly like a Cohen Bros film should feel at this point in their careers and developments as filmmakers.

[J.R. Hudson]

You mean it isn't just run and gun shaking camera hand held get as much coverage as possible and then edit it later ?

[Mark Harris]

I mean there are not a lot of dollies, push-ins, cranes, etc. The Cohens have used moving camera a lot in the past, but this one is notable for how often the camera stays planted. Though they do go back to an oldy-but-goodie, sticking the camera on the bumper of the car, like in Blood Simple.

[Zak Forsman]

SPOILERS!!!












for me, this film's underlying notes on death and dying (summed up beautifully by Tommy's Lee Jones' description of a dream at the end) plays like an anti-companion piece to raising arizona's themes of birth and childhood -- i'm always reminded of Gale & Evelle's birth-like escape from prison in that film. here, we are given plenty to think about in terms of our own mortality -- from fearing it to accepting it, maybe even to wanting it -- which leads me to a question I've had. Did Ed (TLJ), who could see Chigurh's reflection in the barrel of the hollowed out deadbolt, enter that room hoping to die? I think he did. I think he wanted to.

[jpeck]

Best film I have seen this year. The cast could not have been any better. Javier Bardem is one of the best 'villians' the big screen has seen in years, what a treat.



+++++++++++++++++++ SPOILERS +++++++++++++++++++






I don't believe that Ed went into the room to die, but he did go in there expecting a different outcome than what he got. Which is why he pulled out his gun.

He knew Chigurh was in there via the movement seen in the broken deadbolt. He checked the room and the only other exit was the washroom window which was still locked from the inside. The air vent had been opened after the cops closed off the room and Anton knew exactly where Llewelyn hid the money. Plus we saw the dime on the floor beside the grate.

Ed 'failed' to face his fate in that room, or we could say, he was given the 'heads' of a coin toss. He is no sheriff, he is an old man. As his relative said to him later on, things haven't changed, you just get old.

[Jim Brennan]

Wow I LOVED the first hour and a half or so of this film. But then I felt betrayed.


Semi-Spoilers below.










Not just with what happened (those of you who have seen it know what I mean), which was disappointing, but probably inevitable. But the focus of the story suddenly shifts. We follow plot A for the bulk of the film, then suddenly that's over and we deal with angst for 15 minutes and a very anti-climactic ending.

Very disappointing since everything up to that point completely KICKED ASS!

I can firgive some things I didn't get (Like why Woody Harrelson's character even existed, or who Anton was even working for, or why did it seem like he was in the room when TLJ checked it, but then he just vanishes...) But mmaking me believe the story was about one guy until 3/4 of the way through the movie, then switching that and giving me absolutely no payoff...It almost seems like an amateur writer's mistake.

[Zak Forsman]

for me, the film had been about much, much more than moss, so diverting the story away from him simply felt like a interesting choice, not a "mistake". meaning, when it happened, i trusted the filmmakers would be taking me to a far more interesting place. and they did, a thought-provoking one. for me, the motel room scene in which chigurh vanishes is a gateway to making the underlying thematic elements (fate, death, choice) more literal. people don't "vanish", giving one much to consider.

[jpeck]

Jim, there seems to be many people who feel the same way about how the Coen brothers decided to end the film. I have not read the novel, but keep hearing that the film is very close to it. So maybe the novel was the same way?

[Jim Brennan]

I get what they were trying to do, I just don't think it worked all that well. They treat the bulk of the movie like a gripping, intense story about one guy trying to get away from another guy. And they do that really well. TLJ is pretty much a reluctant bystander most of the time. Even when we are privy to what's going on in his head, it's revealed in a semi-sarcastic deadpan to a half-wit deputy. The movie never seems like it's about him until the end. He does the opening VO, then we don't see him for about 20 minutes, and he shows up in about 15-20 minute intervals for a scene.

But maybe that's just me. I'm a fan of the Bros Coen, so I get their quirkiness. But in a movie like Fargo, even though you don't meet Marge for about the first 20 minutes or so, you get a sense that the movie INVOLVES her. Her actions affect the story to some degree. Aside from talkiing to the wife and seeing moss near the end, TLJ never interacts with the other players. And nothng he ever does ever affects anyone else. If the film is suppose to be about how all of this is overwhelming him (as he states to a suddenly new character we don't even know exists until the last ten minutes of the film) then we should see evidence of that sooner.

But, that's only my opinion.

EDIT: jpeck, I haven't read the novel either and maybe that's part of why I don't get this stuff. But, as difficult as it is to adapt a novel to a screenplay, the film should not be a supplement to the novel, nor should it work the other way around. The film should be an independent body of work that does not require the viewer to have read the book to fully understand the film.

[jpeck]

I agree completely with you about the book to film transfer needs to be separate entities. I don't think that was the 'problem' here that some of the viewers are having.

I was suggesting that the movie may have a similar ending that is found in novels and not in film.

For me personally, I did not find an issue with the transition from Moss being the main story to a convergence of Moss with Ed and Chigurh. There was very little character development within the film, so it is either a bad story or about something else.

[Jim Brennan]

That may be. I haven't read the book, but I have to believe that there is some thread in the book (if the narrative flows as the film does) that is missing in the film which keeps the reader more engaged in TLJs character.

And as much as I have criticized this aspect of the film, there is a A LOT to love. The dialogue between Moss and his wife is priceless, as are the exchanges between TLJ and the deputy: ("these two look managerial" Priceless) The lack of score is extremely effective, especially in the scenes in the two hotel rooms where you know Moss and Anton are yards from each other, and the film looks great. There were a few "I think I just soiled myself" moments as well.

[Phil Maker]

This movie was like The Good Bad and The Ugly meets The Terminator meets Pulp Fiction. It was a great movie until the European ending. it just ended -- with no climax. Kudos to being different, but emotionally it leaves you hanging. I do love, love, love the fact that other than the Mariachi scene there was NO music in the entire movie. No melodramatic violins artificially pulling emotions from you which has become soooooo cliche' in Hollywood crap movies. Just sweet, beautiful silence. Ahhh.

[BryantStanton]

Just saw this today and wow.

Great film. I'm definitely gonna go see it again next weekend when it hits wide release and isn't 30 minutes from my house.

My friends and I talked about it the whole ride home. I was very excited for this film, and it was actually better than I was hoping.

Best film so far this year for me.

[Drew Ott]

Lot of the youngin's won't care for it I fear. It is very slow paced in many points, and there is very little camera movement. Lot of stationary camera.

But wow. Just wow.

I don't know who is doing THE ROAD and I never saw All the Pretty Horses(though with billy bob directing, I will pick it up), but it seems that they really nailed MacCarthy's tone well. It felt like his book. But like I said, felt exactly like a Cohen Bros film should feel at this point in their careers and developments as filmmakers.


This is my top pick film for 2007. It's fighting against Eternal Sunshine to be my favorite film of the last 5 years.

I found it to be incredibly intense, beautifully shot, well acted, and greatly told. Similar to Fargo in the sense that it's a film that relies heavily on setting and dialect; however, much better than Fargo. It was mature and had a deep message that I haven't completely grasped yet. Everybody should see this.


***spoilers***




Regarding the ending, I was OK with that. I actually enjoyed seeing the entire theater look for more. It sort of said, "That's all we're going to tell you. You have to do the rest," to me and even though that can be a let-down for some, it wasn't for me.


The thrilling scenes in this film scared me more (or drew more emotion from me) than any horror movie I have ever seen. This was in part because everything I was seeing felt real to me.

[Dr. Feelgood]

All I can say is Javier Bardem!

I saw this film late last night at the last moment - great, captivating with steller
pacing. I was very happy with all the casting, even T.L. Jones who I'm not that
fond of, but he was good. But Javier Bardem...

I'm not surprised the end of the film is being called European. but I really enjoy
it because it's honest, imo. Kudos to the Coen Brothers.

[Kennedy]

Favorite film of the year. Read the book a few months ago and the film is dead-on, including the ending. And that's not a criticism. The acting, directing and photography was fantastic across the board.

It reminded me of blood simple in a lot of ways with it's slow, tense, build-ups, and the number of "quiet" scenes.

[DeSica]

My friends and I talked about it the whole ride home. I was very excited for this film,


Same with my buddy and myself...and on the whole we both enjoyed it very much, though there was a tinge of wanting more substantial closure that we felt now and again. Just a few scenes had us wondering...

The scene with TLJ showing up at the motel where Moss was killed and entering the room was a bit puzzling...was Anton not in the room hiding? Did TLJ (Bell) assume that when he saw the air duct cover on the floor, that AC (Bardem) had already come and gone?

When AC confronts Moss' wife (Macdonald), she says she doesn't have the money...but AC does not mention anything as to it already having been recovered. Since he is a man of principle, and he was hired by Stephen Root to find the dough, who would he have returned it to after having killed Root? (or did I miss something there?).

How much time had transpired between Moss and the poolside chick talking, and the shot of the pickup pulling away when Bell shows up? I guess not much, since she was dead in the pool...did the guys show up while he was still chatting, and gunplay broke out?

I thought Kelly Macdonald did a nice little job in the film and Woody Harrelson was spot on in his little part...you could see it in his face when AC had him in his room, Wells knew he was going to die, and you could tell he thought it sucked. Telling AC that he had no idea just how crazy he was really was classic.

I think we have been conditioned as north american audiences to expect the ending films to be neatly tied up and explained...this ending just sort of happened, like everything else in the movie.

Maybe it is sort of european, or maybe they were just being true to the source material...I want to read this book now.

[Zak Forsman]

When AC confronts Moss' wife (Macdonald), she says she doesn't have the money...but AC does not mention anything as to it already having been recovered. Since he is a man of principle, and he was hired by Stephen Root to find the dough, who would he have returned it to after having killed Root? (or did I miss something there?).
SPOILER


















chigurh already had the money by then, but had "promised" moss that he could save his wife if he stopped running, and moss didn't stop running.

[DeSica]

SPOILER








chigurh already had the money by then, but had "promised" moss that he could save his wife if he stopped running, and moss didn't stop running.

Right...but who did he return it to? Or would his principles have lapsed then, allowing him to keep it? That just would seem out of character, since he likes to keep his promises and finish his jobs....

[Billy Pilgrim]

My friend and I, on an impulse today, just drove down to LA and saw this at the arclight. I loved this film. Definitely one of the best films this year. It has lived up to the hype for me, and even surpassed it. The pacing, the cinematography, the acting--all spot on. I felt the ending was fitting.

SEMI-SPOILERS

















I almost half-expected a Silence of the Lambs confrontation at the end in the hotel room, but was glad it didn't happen. It felt much more appropriate. Ed's dream story was very poignant.

[jpeck]

++++++++SPOILERS++++++++




Right...but who did he return it to? Or would his principles have lapsed then, allowing him to keep it? That just would seem out of character, since he likes to keep his promises and finish his jobs....


Well he can't return it to anyone because he killed them. For me, it was like his twisted ideals made him go after the money, not for himself, not for anyone, just because that is who he is and what he is about.

With his hair cut and clothing, I doubt he is out for personal gains. :grin:

[spidey]

great film

[DerrickTempleton]

The suspense in that film was definitely some of the best I've ever seen. I loved every bit of it and the eurotrash ending didn't bother me at all. I was captivated because when I was a little kid I spent a lot of time thinking "what would I do and how long could I last if I just found a case of money somewhere?" ohhhh man what a treat watching that play out. A+

[Zim]

Me too. I always wonder what I'd do if I found some drug dealer's or bank robber's money.
I never thought about how they tracked the case. I better re-think my plan!!

It was a good movie. The ending had a deeper meaning to it. His dreams, his dad, God, getting old, etc.


But was the bad guy in the motel room? Wasn't a big room. Where was he hiding?

[Taylor Rudd]

But was the bad guy in the motel room? Wasn't a big room. Where was he hiding?

Behind the door, methinks. When TLJ and AC are looking at the deadbolt, his POV was on the other side of the door in the corner (so he was blocked when the door was open).

When TLJ was in the bathroom, he looked at the lock on the window. I had a feeling he was going to unlock the window, leave the room, then reenter through the window and blast AC.

I just saw it last night. I'm still not sure what to think.

[Zim]

I saw it last night too. Well at 4pm on Friday afternoon. It was packed. It is playing at the old theater in town. (used to be the porn theater) Not a chain mulitplex. Great sound in this theater. I heard the mulitplex was pissed because they didn't get it first.

Anyone know why it went out on a limited release?

Trudd I'm just going to have to see it again I guess.

[STYLZ]

--KINDA SPOILERS--

After reading most of this thread earlier today I decided to go see the film. I caught a few post about the European ending(while trying to avoid the spoilers). I had no idea it would be this disappointing. Was it a decent movie? Yeah. Did I feel any sympathy for any of the characters? Not really. Am I pissed you guys hyped it up way beyond what I felt it deserved? YES. To each his own though. The good thing is right when I put my head in my hands and said "oh god" thinking "how much longer will this go on" it ended. I was the first out of the theater. Partially because I know what a European ending means. Rest of the people were like WTF. LOL.

[MattinSTL]

You know what... I gotta' disagree Stylz... you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that... but I think that over time you will realize how good this movie really was. This thing is going to open up like an onion for years (for many people).

I gotta' say... it was pretty much brilliant. My girlfriend didn't really lock onto it. She pretty much sees it as a mediocre film at best.

I, on the other hand, loved it... well... maybe not "loved it"... but I was in awe at the effectiveness of the storytelling combined with what appeared to be a super-low budget approach. I'm sure that this is partly an illusion... but it sure looked like they made a great movie on a shoe-string.

OK... if we aren't past SPOILER WARNINGS THEN HERE'S ANOTHER ONE NOW!









Didn't TLJ's character tell a story about a ruthless murderer that he put in jail as a kid? That guy is Chigurh, right? He put a man in jail that would be sent to the chair and that guy "was out in 15 minutes"? This is Chigurh right? Why else would TLJ tell this story at the opening of the film? I think it's to define a ruthless killer who is also so smart that he is out of jail in 15 minutes.

OK... next. I think that in the motel room... that is the moment that TLJ is referring to in his description of his dream. I think that TLJ realized, either ON THE SPOT, or else perhaps later... that Chigurh had him. When he flipped on the light in the bathroom and saw that the window was locked... and then looked down at the vent... what was he thinking?

EDITED TO ADD: After seeing the movie again... Chigurh killed Stephen Root's character because he hired the mexicans and then also Woody Harrellson's character (can't remember the names, sorry)... Stephen Root inconvenienced Chigurh.

Unfortunately I'm now unclear about the ending... the significance of TLJ's dream as it relates to the whole story.

[jpeck]

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!




Chigurh is not the kid in TLJ's story at the start of the film, but he was defining what killers are like.


The vent was open because that is where Moss stashed the case of money.

[MattinSTL]

Why does TLJ say that the teenager that he sent to the chair "was out in 15 minutes"? What's the relevance?

Another thing I liked about this movie is the parrallels drawn between Moss and Chigurh with the first thing we hear from them, "stand still" [so that I can kill you].

[Barry_S]

I think it's funny that people are talking about a "European" ending when the Coen brothers have such a uniquely American film voice. It may not be Hollywood formula style, but I still think it's very American.

When TLJ is at the motel room, there is no way that Anton Chigurh is in the room at the same time. TLJ is a smart and experienced officer--there is no possible way he would miss a huge killer in a tiny motel room. There is also no way that Chigurh would avoid trying to kill TLJ if he saw him. So where does that leave us?

The shot of the locked bathroom window makes it clear that Chigurh had to leave the room using the front door. Maybe the cross-cut shots of TLJ and Chigurh hiding in the shadows are staggered in time, so the hiding took place before TLJ arrived and Chigurh has already left. When TLJ is seeing the reflection in the punched out lock, maybe he's imagining it, or it symbolizes the fact he can't keep up with Chigurh.

What about the C/U shot of the vent grate and the coin. Coins and chance are one of the film's motifs. The coin tells us that Chigurh removed the grate because he did it before using a coin. The coin is symbolic of the 50% or random probablility of an event taking place. This is a little strange, but I wonder if the motel room setup is like the Schrödinger's cat experiment. Before TLJ enters the room there is a 50% probability of Chigurh being present. Both simultaneous states exist--Chigurh there and Chigurh aleady gone, until TLJ opens the door and that act flips the state to one condition.

Whatever the case, I think the scene symbolizes the fact that TLJ can no longer keep up with the unfolding events.

[MattinSTL]

EDIT: My apologies for my previous post Barry... I think your analysis is possibly brilliant. I saw the movie again and I can totally see your take on it.

[jpeck]

You are confused about the dialogue, here is what TLJ said at the start of the movie about the killer:

Said he knew he was going to hell. Be
there in about fifteen minutes. I don't
know what to make of that. I surely don't.

[Barry_S]

Haha--I have to see it again too. Sorry, but there is no possible way that Chigurh is still in that tiny motel room when TLJ is inside. They would have had to establish that TLJ is a bumbling moron on the level of Barney Fife if we're going to believe that the huge Chigurh has outfoxed TLJ by hiding behind the door. Coins are associated with a very powerful symbolism, so I don't think it's just a tool in this context. TLJ on the bed, slumped, tired, confused--is his defeat.

[jpeck]

The shot of the locked bathroom window makes it clear that Chigurh had to leave the room using the front door. Maybe the cross-cut shots of TLJ and Chigurh hiding in the shadows are staggered in time, so the hiding took place before TLJ arrived and Chigurh has already left. When TLJ is seeing the reflection in the punched out lock, maybe he's imagining it, or it symbolizes the fact he can't keep up with Chigurh.

That may have been the case if we only saw TLJ looking at the reflection, but we also see Chigurh looking at the keyhole as well.

Plus I just looked at the script and it says Chigurh is still inside.

[jpeck]

Haha--I have to see it again too. Sorry, but there is no possible way that Chigurh is still in that tiny motel room when TLJ is inside. They would have had to establish that TLJ is a bumbling moron on the level of Barney Fife if we're going to believe that the huge Chigurh has outfoxed TLJ by hiding behind the door. Coins are associated with a very powerful symbolism, so I don't think it's just a tool in this context. TLJ on the bed, slumped, tired, confused--is his defeat.

TLJ is a chicken, an old man and this aint no country for him. He thinks that in the olden days, there was no need for a gun. However, we find out things have always been the same when he talks to his family member. He even pulled out his gun when going in and he knew Chigurh was in there from the reflection. He knew that he had come back and got the money and he knew that he had not ran out the back window. Just like the ending of the film, TLJ didn't go in there with a bang, but with a wimper.

[Jim Brennan]

Then they are too underhanded for me. They set it up (IMHO) to absolutely make you believe he is in there. it looks like he is right behind the door. BUt then there is no payoff.

I don't see the ending as european. To me, european endings are about unresolved issues or unhappy endings. This endind was simply two circumstantially connected people who both go on with their lives. One with barely a clue the other exists, the other only haunted by a presence he never gets to confront. One is changed (TLJ), although I could argue that his choice to retire is caused by a career of confusion and being overwhelmed more than Anton himself. The other is not. I hated the ending.

[Jim Brennan]

Let me qualify that. I thought the last 20 minutes was moving, well writeen and performed. But it seemed so disconnected from the rest of the film for me.






Spoilers below









And what the hell was the point of Anton getting in that car wreck? I thought it revealed nothing about him that wasn't already obvious and it meant nothing to the plot. I mean yeah, I jumped out of my seat when it happened, but it was pointless.

[Luis Caffesse]

SPOILERS:

Okay - here's my take.....





Chigurh was most definitely in the hotel room when Ed (TLJ) went into the room.
Ed knew this, drew his gun, and went in - either to make a difference or die trying - or maybe both.

Chigurh has no real reason to kill Ed - Ed is on the outside of all this mess, he is not even important enough to these events to kill. Most of the people that Chirgurh killed he did because he either 'needed' to, or because 'fate' decided that they needed to die.
Had Ed looked behind the door, it would have been the same as flipping the coin (50/50 Heads he looks behind the door, tails he doesn't) - had he revealed Chirgurh, Chirgurh would have shot him in order to save himself. Instead Ed goes to the back, sees that the window is still locked from the inside, and realizes that Chirgurh was still in the room. At that point - Chirgurh probably left the room through the open door. Ed won the 'coin toss' - he lives, and Chigurh got away.

Ed comes back into the room, realizes that he's just an old man who can't really make any difference in this. He's completely powerless, and not even enough of a force to bother killing. The people he is chasing are so far beyond him that they don't even see Ed as a threat. Like someone else eluded to...it's truly 'No Country for Old men' - and Ed is an old man.

As far as the car wreck at the end - Chigurh is the major force of the film, dictating who will live and who will die. He likes to think of himself in control - he is the one in charge of dispensing 'fate' to the rest of the world with the flip of a coin. But - even he is not immune to the random acts of life. No matter how scary he might be, the randomness and indifference of fate can still change his course... the same way it changed the course of the Elk that Moss shot in the opening... and the same way it changed Moss's course when he sumbled onto the drug deal.

Just my 2 cents.



EDITED TO ADD:
I know some of you might find this a weird comparison - but Chirgurh isn't all that different from the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse in Raising Arizona.
Only imagine if the Lone Biker had won out in the end, instead of HI.

I can see why the Coens were attracted to this novel.
The story is right up their alley.

[DeSica]

Let me qualify that. I thought the last 20 minutes was moving, well writeen and performed. But it seemed so disconnected from the rest of the film for me.
Spoilers below
And what the hell was the point of Anton getting in that car wreck? I thought it revealed nothing about him that wasn't already obvious and it meant nothing to the plot. I mean yeah, I jumped out of my seat when it happened, but it was pointless.

I think the ending underlined TLJ's emotional angle and the idea of how time passes...

As some have pointed out here, he was always a step or two behind. There was so much going on, so many players, so much action, yet he never really was there for any of it, though he was investigating it. His slow methodical country boy take on police work wasn't up to pace with the dudes he was dealing with and the times that were coming. He only caught up to Moss when he was dead...Harrelson found him in mere hours.

The scene where he is reading the paper and talking with the deputy shows he just doesn't get what this crazy world is coming to, and the talk with the other older cop in town (El Paso) sort of acts as a mirror for him...his contemporaries are reflected back at him and he sees a bit of himself. He's failed to help Moss, failed at catching a killer, and will be of no help to Moss' wife...

Even his realisation that AC would be back at the room was a bit too late. If he had figured it out a little bit earlier, he could have waited in ambush for the killer, instead of almost having been ambushed himself. When he visits the old man in his shack, it all washes over him...his time, as it were, has faded away. He was once younger, and saw his father as an older man...but now he is older than his father ever was...some points of reference in his life have shifted, but only now does he really notice.

His dream of his father could be seen as coming to terms with his own mortality, and that no matter how fast or slow you ride, or what turns you take, the destination is always the same...and inevitable.

As for the crash...I saw it coming a mile away, and mentioned it to my buddy as AC drove down the all too quiet street.

AC was a bit of a hypocrite when it came to fate, and not as sane as he believed himself to be. Moss' wife points out the former, and Harrelson the latter. It was fitting that a guy who did have control over the things he did to people, but liked to pass it all of as fate and luck, ends up getting hit in a true random fashion. When I predicted the crash, I told my friend AC would die in it...and I was wrong.

It made sense at the time that this total psycho who kills with impunity should die in such a cheesy and random fashion after killing an innocent person who called him out on his BS...but I guess he represented evil, and evil never really dies.

It was funny how when he was in shock from the accident, he was pretty much still himself...as if to show the guy never really had much emotional range to begin with. Robotic, almost...

[Barry_S]

I'd say my problem with that motel scene is TLJ's performance leading up to it, because he does a pretty good job acting like he's on top of things and still has his wits about him. He doesn't return to the crime scenes with the DEA, etc, because he's already extracted the useful information. He figures out the weapon AC is using for the killings and deduces Llewelyn's role in the crime. I think he should have conveyed more impotence and weakness all along because why else would half the theater be expecting him to ask for a "...hard-target search of every residence, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area. Checkpoints go up in 15 miles. Your fugitive's name is Anton Chigurh. Go get him!"

[Billy Pilgrim]

Excellent analysis , DeSica. Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Drew Ott]

My interpretation of the hotel scene is the same as Luis'.

On Barry's recent comments, I thought there were lots of hints in TLJ's performance that would hint at him realizing he's not fit for "the country" anymore.
I don't remember when this was, but TLJ says at one point, "I'm off radio..." and hangs his head. He realizes there's really nothing he can do, and he's letting all of the civilians down.

^When was that? Anyone?

[jpeck]

Voices. Sheriff Bell glances off.


...Call your local law enforcement.
I'm not on their radio.




*This is when he gets to the motel after seeing the Mexicans driving off. I don't think is had any special meaning, it was just him telling people to call the cops, because he is from another jurisdiction.

[BryantStanton]

Spoilers below









And what the hell was the point of Anton getting in that car wreck? I thought it revealed nothing about him that wasn't already obvious and it meant nothing to the plot. I mean yeah, I jumped out of my seat when it happened, but it was pointless.

They way I saw this scene was a connection between AC and the story that TLJ told earlier about the cattle farmer.

The cattle farmer was so sure of his task, to kill a cow, and the bullet he put through its head ricocheted around and came out, striking the farmer in the shoulder, and making him lose all use of his arm for the rest of his life.

As TLJ put it "Even in the competition between man and steer, the outcome is not certain".

AC spends the whole movie in complete control. He is never questioned (interestingly, if you'll notice, the only people who confront or question him are women, which I found interesting). When he gets in the car crash, he is jolted. He is not in total control, because chance and accident still exist.

I found the car crash scene to be very interesting because of this. AC believed he was in constant control, and a simple twist of chance showed him that this isn't always true.

Anyway, that's how I interpreted the crash scene.

[jpeck]

As for TML's dream, I think the most important part was him waking up, meaning him coming to realize that everything is too much for him. The title of the novel/film is a perfect description of the ending of the film. TLJ has said in multiple interviews that he sees the ending as being hopeful.

Something I find great about the ending is how it makes the viewers feel. Do we end up like an 'old man' or not?

[Drew Ott]

Voices. Sheriff Bell glances off.


...Call your local law enforcement.
I'm not on their radio.




*This is when he gets to the motel after seeing the Mexicans driving off. I don't think is had any special meaning, it was just him telling people to call the cops, because he is from another jurisdiction.

I found that as symbolic, even though it also had a very literal meaning.

By the way, do you have the script?

[jpeck]

I found the car crash scene to be very interesting because of this. AC believed he was in constant control, and a simple twist of chance showed him that this isn't always true.

I don't agree with that at all. Maybe it made viewers think he wasn't always in control, but we definitely did not see any indication that it made some kind of impact on him or shook him up. It is not that he expects something like that to happen, but when it does, what can he do? It is a simple flip of a coin.

[jpeck]

Here is a link to the script:http://www.youknow-forkids.com/nocountryforoldmen.txt


EDIT: I know the final line of the movie is missing, but not sure what else.

[24fps4ever]

went to go see this film last night, I really liked this film due to the fact that you have to fill in the pieces, like we are all doing now, there is no real explanation
to the hotel scene, we can sit here and say what really happend but in all actuallity we all have our own ideas and theories, I have my own and I say it really did happen but anyway I cannot belive they filmed this movie 40 minutes away from my house and I was out of the country at the time!! talk about bad timing!

great film...hope it starts a trend

[BryantStanton]

I don't agree with that at all. Maybe it made viewers think he wasn't always in control, but we definitely did not see any indication that it made some kind of impact on him or shook him up. It is not that he expects something like that to happen, but when it does, what can he do? It is a simple flip of a coin.

I stand by my interpretation, but I can completely see what you mean.

Curious, right before the car crash, did you happen to notice how he reacted to Moss' wife refusal to call the coin? He seemed fairly taken aback that she refused to play along with his game. Of course he killed her anyway, but for a brief moment I did see some sort of shock in his eyes that he wasn't completely in power over this person.

[jpeck]

I don't remember seeing any frustration on his face, but the tone of his voice was different than normal once she confronted him about it being in his hands. I would agree her not choosing to play the 'coin toss' rattled him a bit. I wish I could watch the ending right now. :furious3:


Speaking of the wife, Kelly Macdonald was perfectly cast in that role. Her and Brolin worked well together, especially the scene near the beginning with the banter between them.

[Jim Brennan]

Y'know I get all this symbolism and I appreciate the layers of meaning. But I am still put off by the fact that for an hour and a half I think I am watching a really good movie about one guy...then bam, suddenly it's not about him at all. I'm a chracter guy more than a plot guy, and I was totally invested in Llewelyn. I'm not bothered by what happened to him, but rather how what happened to him fits in the context of the piece. Turns out it's just one more straw on Ed's camel's back. And really since Ed knows nothing about the exact circumstances of what was happening to Llewelyn, what happens to him could have been represented by anything. Could have been a kid who got raped, or an old lady knocked over for her SSI check. I just wish that if the film was going to be about Ed and his struggle with his chosen career, they wold have focused on that instead of making a crime thriller for 90 minutes, then changing gears. I felt cheated, because it was so damned good.

[Drew Ott]

Y'know I get all this symbolism and I appreciate the layers of meaning. But I am still put off by the fact that for an hour and a half I think I am watching a really good movie about one guy...then bam, suddenly it's not about him at all. I'm a chracter guy more than a plot guy, and I was totally invested in Llewelyn. I'm not bothered by what happened to him, but rather how what happened to him fits in the context of the piece. Turns out it's just one more straw on Ed's camel's back. And really since Ed knows nothing about the exact circumstances of what was happening to Llewelyn, what happens to him could have been represented by anything. Could have been a kid who got raped, or an old lady knocked over for her SSI check. I just wish that if the film was going to be about Ed and his struggle with his chosen career, they wold have focused on that instead of making a crime thriller for 90 minutes, then changing gears. I felt cheated, because it was so damned good.

What if it was "about" 2 different things?

[Luis Caffesse]

Y'know I get all this symbolism and I appreciate the layers of meaning. But I am still put off by the fact that for an hour and a half I think I am watching a really good movie about one guy...then bam, suddenly it's not about him at all. I'm a chracter guy more than a plot guy, and I was totally invested in Llewelyn. I'm not bothered by what happened to him, but rather how what happened to him fits in the context of the piece. Turns out it's just one more straw on Ed's camel's back.

How does that take away from Llewelyn's story at all?
Are you no longer invested in him - or is it that you simply weren't invested in Ed's character so that you were bored once Llewelyn was out of the picture? (no pun intended)

[Barry_S]

I really liked the film, but I understand people feeling shortchanged by the switch. I thought Llewelyn was way more interesting of a character than Ed and I never felt like Ed's character got developed to the point where the ending was both appropriate and satisfying. The ending felt too abrupt.

[Jim Brennan]

What if it was "about" 2 different things?

I'd buy that, if that was the attempt. But for me it didn't work. I realize that I am in the minority and I accept that. It just keeps rubbing me wrong, like it was an amateur mistake. I know they aren't amateurs and I own all of their films and love a lot of them. It just seemed wrong to do it that way. I'll get over it, and probably see it again. But switching focus like that is for me, almost unforgivable. I know Hitchcock did it in Psycho, but he killed Janet Leigh off a lot sooner.

And to Luis, yes and no. I did find more interest in Llewellyn's character, mostly because he was the focus of the film. Not just in the amount of time, but the intensity of the scenes he was in. How can you be invested in Ed when (except for the scene in the hotel room) he is never in any danger and you know almost nothing about him?. But if the whole movie had been about Ed, I would have had the opportunity to be invested in him. That could have been a great movie too.

[Billy Pilgrim]

I actually felt Ed was more developed than any of the characters. He doesn't have as much screen time, but in his thoughts in the opening voice-over, his behavior, and the things he says when he talks to people, his dream speech, etc. Although Llewellyn's story was more "action-packed" and gripping, but I felt Ed's was far more poignant, and more poetic, in a Texas kind of way, if that makes sense. After the whole thing, I felt like I didn't really know Llewellyn all that well. In fact, I didn't really find him particularly likable. But that's beside the point.

[Mark Harris]

The ending felt too abrupt.

I think the abruptness was entirely intentional.

I think one of the main points of the film is how incomprehensible death is. From AC's intentional killings, to his random killings to his random coin flip and letting the guy at the gas station off, to his own car wreck, death can come from anywhere or no where at all, and we will never understand the logic of it.

And it's the same with the ending and Llewellyn's death.

I think many people are put off because the story does not follow so much the conventions we are used to in an American movie as it does the conventions of life.

In life, death is meaningless and random - or at least operating by a logic we cannot comprehend. In our movies, it's usually wrapped up and made meaningful. This is easier to stomach, but at the same time hubristic and a little dishonest. This is the reason I love this film so much. It successfully gives you so many feelings that death actually gives you: robbed, emptiness, pointlessness, sad, angry. These are the things I felt when they switched it up and we came up upon Llewelyn's body. But within the context of the story, and not as a filmmaker looking in and feeling gipped.

But I also think you have to get on board with it to get these things. With the Cohen bros I was willing to get on board and go wherever they went. If you are not, you just are not. But you have to be to get it.

[Barry_S]

After reading the script, I agree it was intentionally abrupt. It's interesting that they cut out a couple of Ed's dream scenes that probably would have fleshed out the ending a little more. Maybe they thought that was too sentimental for a character we weren't all that close to. I'm a huge fan of the Coen brothers and liked this film, but I still would have liked an additional closing shot to finish off the film.

[jpeck]

I don't even think the dream scenes are that important compared to Ed waking from them. (which is not in the version of the script I linked)

[Stephen Mick]

Just got back from seeing NCFOM. I was looking forward to it, and wasn't disappointed. The ending (to me) made the movie. I won't try to analyze the storyline, as I think the beauty of the movie is that it remains open for interpretation.

Oh, and saw a trailer for There Will Be Blood, and my wife's cousin (Kevin J. O'Connor) is in it. Now I can't wait to see that one, too.

--SM

[MattinSTL]

This may be schmaltzy... but thank you everybody for your comments. After I saw this movie I was positively DYING to talk about it, but unfortunately my girlfriend didn't get it... and nobody that I talked with today got it... but enough of you guys got it that I can sleep well tonight. When you see something you admire and try to explain why... it's comforting to hear that others got the same message.

I had to work all day today so I couldn't see it again... today... but I will see it again soon. I am completely compelled to analyze the entire movie as a work-study. The fact that the movie was so dead simple in it's look... and yet SO effective in it's emotions... I have to absorb as much of this as I can.

[DeSica]

It really is cool how so many people want to see this film again right away. The film does make for great discussion, and the different takes on various things are quite interesting. My friend and I went back and forth on a few things all the way home in the car, and he admitted he wanted to see it again. This is a mere 4 or 5 hours after I explained the basic premise of the film and convinced him to see it....he really knew next to nothing about the movie, and hadn't really even heard of it. I think I might see it again soon, just to see Woody Harrelson's character tell AC how nuts he is...classic.

Another thing I have been thinkin about is how different TLJ's character is in that final scene...deflated. Discussing what he might do that day just seemed so foreign and discomforting to him. He used to be a man with a job and a purpose...and in a matter of days, maybe hours, he seems not to know what to do with himself anymore. You don't get the idea that retirement is something he was looking forward to, or will enjoy.

Maybe the brothers have stumbled on the ultimate gimmick...don't give the audience obvious and immediate closure, and they will come back for more. Sure beats making a double feature and then splitting them up...

...and you're welcome, Matt.*


* I always thought it was funny that some people thought your name was Mattin, or something weird like that, as opposed to Matt in St Louis...

[chris f]

i definitely enjoyed this film. out of all the films i've seen this year this is the only one that i am tempted to see again in the theaters (preferably during the day when there is no one else in the theater so i don't have to overhear people explaining what's happening to their dates and exclaim "you've got to be kidding me" at the end of the film ala friday night) my biggest regret is not paying closer attention to what TLJ says in his last scene, like many others i didn't realize the film was so close to the end at that point.

[MattinSTL]

I realize that some people may be annoyed with my praise of this movie... but I can't stop thinking about so many of the choices. Perhaps a lot of credit goes to the original story... the book, but I don't know?

Some of the things I particularly enjoyed... the casting is obvious, I don't think they could have done a better job there.

Do we still need to say SPOILERS at this point? Once a thread is 9 pages long... don't people REALIZE that there will be SPOILERS? What else could the topic be?


I could start explaining what I like about the film in so much detail that it would be the longest post ever... but here are some things that I will apply to my own work at some point, with my own style and story.

The calmness with which Chigurh gets up and gets his handcuffs ready to choke the police-officer... this offset with the look of psychotic determination as he does it. I think this scene is important to lay down the groundwork for the fear that only builds when Chigurh's character is involved in a scene. As Chigurh leaves the station I love the artistic flair of black rubber scrapes that the boots made on the floor during the struggle... rather then have Chigurh simply walk out in any typical shot... they used the location of the scuffle (pun intended) as a showcase for the exit.

I like how both Chigurh and Moss are immediately painted as similar men... sure Moss is "sort of a good guy" but he isn't that good... we go right from Chigurh telling a guy to stand still when he kills him... to Moss telling the elk to stand still as he tries to kill it... and then Moss takes things from the crime scene... the two men are similar. Very smart and opportunistic to the situations that unfold before them... they are also both "young men."

So early on they establish that these men could be cut from the same cloth... and the story returns to this point frequently. I particularly like how you think that Moss MIGHT be able to combine his intelligence with just enough LUCK to somehow defeat Chigurh... without hope as an audience the encounters wouldn't be so suspenseful.

I also like how Chigurh uses odd tools... but he has decided that they are the "one best tool" for the job (as he says to the guy he kills in the skyscraper... name?) I like how the odd silencer/suppressor on the shotgun is very much like the metal can of air... I'm sure it's no coincidence that the suppressor is silver like the can. Speaking of the cattle stun gun... this is part of what makes Chigurh so scary as a bad guy... he is so slow and methodical... the stun gun is such a scary weapon because it's actually big and awkward... it's an ODD CHOICE that suits this guy... but he's so in control that it doesn't matter, it's not like he's going to have to run anybody down with that thing. Whoever chose that tall, skinny cylinder was a genius... I'm willing to bet that most air cans don't look like that or have those proportions, but if he was carrying a little fat jug... a can the size of a gallon of milk... this weapon wouldn't have been nearly as scary... they needed the can like this for several of the shots where you know what's coming as we see his feet... and the bottom of that can.

Well... I could go on and on with this... but I'm just saying... that for a lot of reasons... this story really pushed my buttons.

I also wonder how experienced all the old actors were? Was that incredible directing or incredible acting? (obviously both... but I'm just sayin')

[Jim Brennan]

I've probably been the most vocal critic of this film iin this thread. But I will see it again. As much to re-visit the parts I really liked (which were many), as to challenge my earlier convictions about what I didn't. I don't imagine my opinion will be changed that much, but with so many people seeing things I didn't (or seeing the same things, but attaching a different value), I need to look a little harder.

Maybe this is what happens to your critical abilities when you spend so much time watching "Hannah Montana" and "Drake and Josh".

[Kennedy]

Saw the film for the second time this last weekend. When I told people who had seen it that I was going to see it again, they said "Why?"

Unfortunately, the audience the second time around was dismal. I should have known better than to go during the holidays, because there were probably a lot of people who see one a movie a year and just thought this was some Tommie Le Jones western. Non-stop talking, with some of the dumbest questions I have ever over-heard, as well as the Mrs. Nostradamus next to me who at the start of every suspenseful scene would mutter to her husband "I'll bet he's gonna ..."

At least 5 people walked out of the movie (most during Chigurgh's self-medication scene).

The only time people shut up was at the very end, and everyone just sat there speechless.

[Blaine]

I wasn't wild about the ending. I can only think of one or two writers whose dialogue I like better. The only piece of dialogue that didn't work for me was:

MOSS
...if I don't come back tell Mother I love her.

CARLA JEAN
Your mother's dead, Llewelyn.

MOSS
Well then I'll tell her myself.

[Jim Brennan]

That wasn't my favorite line, although it seems to be a hook for a lot of folks. But just about every other line between the two of them is great.

[jpeck]

I actually liked how Brolin said it, but when it is in written form it sounds AWFUL.

Those lines remind me of a conversation that I had recently about certain actors. For example, Bruce Willis can say lines that if somebody like Will Smith said would make you smack your head.

[Blaine]

Well, my problem with the line is it sounded TOTALLY set up and fabricated, not organic.

I really loved this movie right up to the ending then I got a WTF. I still think the greatness of the majority of the movie makes up for the ending.

I thought had Anton died in the auto accident it would put the period on how we have no control over fate. As it was, the first thing I thought was, "when is the sequel?" And I have always loved the fact the the Coen Brothers haven't retread ground with their movies. Succeed or fail, they've always done something different.

Josh Brolin is on a pretty good run right now.

[jpeck]

The Coens always have lines like that for the 'simple folk'. You can see almost any of those kind of characters saying that.

[Drew Ott]

I completely agree Blaine about that line. I had forgotten about that. From a film with mostly believable dialogue, this line took me out of suspended belief (or is it suspended disbelief?) for a little bit.

Most people in the theater laughed at that, but I saw it as more of an emotional line; I guess I was wrong.

[MattinSTL]

Sequel? You and me both... although I'd welcome it at this point. For some reason I couldn't get enough of this film. I haven't stopped thinking about it since I left the theater...

... so many artistic details... the bouquet of boot scuffs on the floor... one of the few movies I've EVER seen where night looks like night and all the lighting was truly motivated and seemed natural... etc. etc.

[DeSica]

I haven't stopped thinking about it since I left the theater...
Buddy...form a support group or something.:2vrolijk_08:(I'm kidding...everytime I see a commercial for this film, I just want to go out and see it again.)


one of the few movies I've EVER seen where night looks like night and all the lighting was truly motivated and seemed natural... etc. etc.You're right...probably because the lighting served the scene, instead of some over paid ego who demanded that their face always be clearly visible in every shot.

Which makes me notice something else. Nobody overpowered the film.

All the performances were excellent, but nobody tried to make it about themselves. I wonder how it would have turned out if they used "stars" instead of strong actors. I've seen TLJ ham it up in my day, but his performance here was poetic, now that I reflect on it. There was some very capable directing on display in this film.

Bardem and Brolin were great, too, and the portrayal of Chigurh is masterful unto itself, but there was something about TLJ's character that just holds the thing together. Supporting actor nod?

Bardem seems a shoe in for at least a Golden Globe nomination.

[Batutta]

Bardem seems a shoe in for at least a Golden Globe nomination.

Bardem seems a shoe in for the Best Supporting Oscar if you ask me. Most haunting performance I've seen in years. I actually think the Coen's might have a shot at walking away with the whole affair. It's been a weak year, and people might just give them Best Picture as a nod not only to this film, but their body of work. There are long stretches of this film that work almost as a silent film, just pure filmmaking. The ending isn't satisfying but I wasn't really expecting it to be. It wouldn't have been honest. An example of a similar film, which is pretty good as well, but that has a more "satisfying" ending that doesn't really work is A Simple Plan. All the actors in this are pitch perfect, but it's Bardem's movie.

[Blaine]

Bardem seems a shoe in for the Best Supporting Oscar if you ask me.Personally, I'd go with TLJ. It is absolutely the best performance he has ever given. (Period)

I haven't had a chance to read the source material yet, but I have a suspicion that the Coen Bros should probably get Best Adaptation, too. It's a 99% perfect movie.

[Batutta]

Personally, I'd go with TLJ. It is absolutely the best performance he has ever given. (Period).

I think there's a perception that Tommy Lee Jones can do that kind of performance in his sleep. He's played that same character many times before, even this year in Elah. I think he was great, but the Academy usually goes for great and memorable, which Bardem was.

[TheMacB]

you guys got me thinking so i looked this up:

In the last 3 years, 50% of the acting oscars have gone to actors portraying real people. And 11 of the last 28 acting oscars.

That seems like a lot, right?

[Luis Caffesse]

That seems like a lot, right?

It does...but, it all depends... what percentage of films nominated were based on true stories? And what is the percentage of of films released based on true stories? If those are also in the 50% range...then no, it wouldn't be odd at all.


EDITED TO ADD:
How did this turn into a conversation about 'real people'?

[TheMacB]

i was just thinking it would be pretty sweet to see Coens actors winning awards again and that got me thinking about what their chances are. And then I thought, well it all depends on how many actors playing real people get nominated because they seem to be the real shoe-ins.

[Luis Caffesse]

i was just thinking it would be pretty sweet to see Coens actors winning awards again and that got me thinking about what their chances are. And then I thought, well it all depends on how many actors playing real people get nominated because they seem to be the real shoe-ins.

Ahhhh, gotcha.
Makes sense.

Personally - I think they've got this one nailed, unless people feel they already had their day with Fargo... but I doubt that. This film so easily stood above the crowd of mediocre films this year, in my opinion. The only real competition it has, for me, is Zodiac. But seeing as that film didn't seem to go over quite as well with the masses... I can't imagine the Coens won't walk away with something.

[StefanHaynes]

I absolutely loved the loud groans of the audience at the end of the film. It put a smile to my face.

Wonderful film, although it occasionally came up a bit contrived. Thank gods Coens have finally put a proper stop to their suck-streak.

[MattinSTL]

I saw this again last night. I'm embarrassed at my previous certainty about the motel encounter... this time I tried really hard to analyze that scene and it left me puzzled. Now I have to read this entire thread again and see if I think somebody made sense of this. A girl I know said that Chigurh wasn't even IN the room the entire time and I thought she was a moron... now I'm thinking that she may not have been stupid in considering that a possibility. (although I still think he WAS in there)

Also... at the end... so it's his father that rode past him with the horn of fire... previously I thought that was symbolism for his own prediction that at some point Chigurh or some other guy he was hunting... was going to kill him (Ed)... and again... I'm definitely puzzled by the ending this time, whereas I felt certain on it the first time I saw it.

For anybody in the Saint Louis area... go see a movie at the Moolah Theater... you will NOT be disappointed... I'm amazed that I lived here my whole life and I've been missing out on this jewel.


SPOILERS:

Okay - here's my take.....





Chigurh was most definitely in the hotel room when Ed (TLJ) went into the room.
Ed knew this, drew his gun, and went in - either to make a difference or die trying - or maybe both.

Chigurh has no real reason to kill Ed - Ed is on the outside of all this mess, he is not even important enough to these events to kill. Most of the people that Chirgurh killed he did because he either 'needed' to, or because 'fate' decided that they needed to die.
Had Ed looked behind the door, it would have been the same as flipping the coin (50/50 Heads he looks behind the door, tails he doesn't) - had he revealed Chirgurh, Chirgurh would have shot him in order to save himself. Instead Ed goes to the back, sees that the window is still locked from the inside, and realizes that Chirgurh was still in the room. At that point - Chirgurh probably left the room through the open door. Ed won the 'coin toss' - he lives, and Chigurh got away.

Ed comes back into the room, realizes that he's just an old man who can't really make any difference in this. He's completely powerless, and not even enough of a force to bother killing. The people he is chasing are so far beyond him that they don't even see Ed as a threat. Like someone else eluded to...it's truly 'No Country for Old men' - and Ed is an old man.

As far as the car wreck at the end - Chigurh is the major force of the film, dictating who will live and who will die. He likes to think of himself in control - he is the one in charge of dispensing 'fate' to the rest of the world with the flip of a coin. But - even he is not immune to the random acts of life. No matter how scary he might be, the randomness and indifference of fate can still change his course... the same way it changed the course of the Elk that Moss shot in the opening... and the same way it changed Moss's course when he sumbled onto the drug deal.

Just my 2 cents.



EDITED TO ADD:
I know some of you might find this a weird comparison - but Chirgurh isn't all that different from the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse in Raising Arizona.
Only imagine if the Lone Biker had won out in the end, instead of HI.

I can see why the Coens were attracted to this novel.
The story is right up their alley.

This entire post is brilliant... after seeing the movie again I appreciate this. Another thought about the comparison's of Raising Arizona and NCFOM... the name "Ed" and who Ed is... ironic, no?

[MattinSTL]

They way I saw this scene was a connection between AC and the story that TLJ told earlier about the cattle farmer.

The cattle farmer was so sure of his task, to kill a cow, and the bullet he put through its head ricocheted around and came out, striking the farmer in the shoulder, and making him lose all use of his arm for the rest of his life.

As TLJ put it "Even in the competition between man and steer, the outcome is not certain".

AC spends the whole movie in complete control. He is never questioned (interestingly, if you'll notice, the only people who confront or question him are women, which I found interesting). When he gets in the car crash, he is jolted. He is not in total control, because chance and accident still exist.

I found the car crash scene to be very interesting because of this. AC believed he was in constant control, and a simple twist of chance showed him that this isn't always true.

Anyway, that's how I interpreted the crash scene.

Another very intelligent post... in the story, the guy that kills the cattle loses function in his arm through a random event... Chigurh, who kills people with the cattle stun-gun, meets the same fate. Very good comparison man.




Maybe the brothers have stumbled on the ultimate gimmick...don't give the audience obvious and immediate closure, and they will come back for more...



After the movie last night the motel scene was the only thing that really had my cousin messed up... and I actually said this to him at the time... I probably should have credited YOU with this idea... that perhaps the motel scene was intentionally left kind of ragged and unsure... as a way to pull you in with questions?

Well I saw the movie twice and I've read this entire thread two or three times... I think I finally got this out of my system. Thanks.

[Jared Meyer]

Luis that's a great analysis of the motel room scene. Definitely helps clear it up for me.

What is the consensus on the fate of the money? Do we ever know for sure whether Anton finally procured it?

My first thought was that we aren't shown who ends up with the satchel in order to say that the satchel/money really isn't what's important to the story.

But I wanted to be sure I didn't miss something.


I wasn't wild about the ending. I can only think of one or two writers whose dialogue I like better. The only piece of dialogue that didn't work for me was:

MOSS
...if I don't come back tell Mother I love her.

CARLA JEAN
Your mother's dead, Llewelyn.

MOSS
Well then I'll tell her myself.
Blaine, that line bothered me too. It sounded like it was included to sound clever, but it makes no sense. Llewelyn really forgot that his mother was dead? Really? Come on. Other than that the dialogue was absolutely brilliant. But that one little exchange stood out because it took me out of it for a second.

[spidey]

the money was a maguffin just like in psycho in a sense.

[Jared Meyer]

Well sure, but I'm still curious if we're given any indication as to where it ends up. :)

I see what you're saying but I don't think the satchel is actually a mcguffin though. The satchel is not just a mysterious briefcase or an intelligence docket. It is relatively important that the object of desire is specifically a huge amount of cash. We see Llewelyn's attitude to the money in the efforts he goes to keep it, and yet how conservatively he spends it. And his stubbornness prevents him from accepting anything less than the entire stash when Carson offers him a portion of it in exchange for his protection... So I don't think it's a mcguffin per se. One of the recurring themes in the Coen Brothers films is greed, specifically the love of money, causing men to become evil and violent.

I had a small Fargo flashback when Bell and Roscoe are talking in the diner after Llewelyn has been shot-


Roscoe
It's all the goddamned money, Ed Tom.
The money and the drugs. It's just
goddamned beyond everything. What is
it mean? What is it leading to?


Marge Gunderson
And for what? For a little bit of money.
There's more to life than a little money,
you know. Don't you know that? And here
ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well, I just
don't understand it.

[Luis Caffesse]

Another thought about the comparison's of Raising Arizona and NCFOM... the name "Ed" and who Ed is... ironic, no?

Hhaahahhaa
That's hilarious...though, you know... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
:)

[Batutta]

I know some of you might find this a weird comparison - but Chirgurh isn't all that different from the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse in Raising Arizona.
Only imagine if the Lone Biker had won out in the end, instead of HI.

I can see why the Coens were attracted to this novel.
The story is right up their alley.

I did a paper on the Coens for college, and one of the recurring characters in many of their films is the lone, amoral killer. In Blood Simple, it's Visser (M. Emmet Walsh), in Raising Arizona, The Lone Biker, in Miller's Crossing, The Dane, in Barton Fink Charlie Meadows (John Goodman), in Fargo it's Gaear (Peter Stormare), in O, Brother it's John Goodman again, in No Country it's Anton Cigurth. Interestingly enough, most of the films that don't feature this character prominently tend to be their weaker efforts, although weak for the Coen's is better than most filmmakers best.

[MattinSTL]

Chigurh ends up with the money. The coin on the floor at the vent, in the room Moss is in... tells you that. Plus, Chigurh killed Stephen Root's character (the guy who HIRED Chigurh in the first place) because he sent BOTH the mexicans to try and find the money (with ANOTHER transponder) AND then Harrelson to corral (meaning possibly kill) Chigurh... at that point Chigurh's previously argued principles for his actions would still justify him simply keeping the money.

The dime on the floor of moss' motel room... at the open vent, says Chigurh has the money. If they hadn't shown the dime on the floor then I would have assumed that the mexicans that shot Moss had the money... because otherwise what's the point of that shootout? (from the Mexicans' perspective)

[DeSica]

Chigurh ends up with the money. The coin on the floor at the vent, in the room Moss is in... tells you that.Yes. I saw it that way too...but as for who he returns it to....
Plus, Chigurh killed Stephen Root's character (the guy who HIRED Chigurh in the first place) because he sent BOTH the mexicans to try and find the money (with ANOTHER transponder) AND then Harrelson to corral (meaning possibly kill) Chigurh... at that point Chigurh's previously argued principles for his actions would still justify him simply keeping the money.Okay, that makes sense in answering I question I posted early on about who Chigurh would be returning the money to...since he killed them man he was working for, yet his ethics seemed to require him to see a job through to the end.

I can buy him keeping it due to a perceived slight.


The dime on the floor of moss' motel room... at the open vent, says Chigurh has the money. If they hadn't shown the dime on the floor then I would have assumed that the mexicans that shot Moss had the money... because otherwise what's the point of that shootout? (from the Mexicans' perspective)Exactly...the dime was set up previously when Chigurgh wasted the other Mexicans and searched the vent in the motel room moments after Moss retrieved the stash.

On thing nobody really mentions is how the whole sordid drugs and cash thing goes back to a reputable looking business type operation...with acoountants and offices and high rises...and how the matter of recouping the missing assets is discussed in a very plain business manner.

I thought it made for a subtle, yet interesting juxtaposition.

[Luis Caffesse]

Not to split hairs, but to me the dime on the floor only sets up that Chigurgh opened the vent - it shows us he looked for the money, not necessarily that he found it....who's to say that the money was still in there?

Then again, from a dramatic point of view I honestly I don't really care who ended up with the money, in the same way I don't really care why Jerry needed the money in Fargo. It doesn't enhance my enjoyment of the story one way or the other to have that question answered.

[Brandon Rice]

So, I saw this movie, and though I thought the writing, and acting was awesome... and it was a haunting film... I wasn't at all satisfied at the end of the day.

[Drew Ott]

So, I saw this movie, and though I thought the writing, and acting was awesome... and it was a haunting film... I wasn't at all satisfied at the end of the day.


Brice I thought you sheltered yourself from R rated films.

[DeSica]

So, I saw this movie, and though I thought the writing, and acting was awesome... and it was a haunting film... I wasn't at all satisfied at the end of the day.

Well, they can't all be The Lady In The Water...

[ReneH]

To me the movie also demonstrated the level of understanding one can get by embracing multiculturalism.

The scene where Llewellyn was lying on some steps in Mexico while a group of Norteno musicians gave a hint of what was going to happen to Llewellyn. The song they were playing had lyrics, as close as I can remember, that had to do with angels visiting, which implied that he was going to meet his fate.

Did anyone notice that there was no music throughout the film, except for the Norteno singers. Nothing to indicate or emphasize some dramatic point in the movie.

[Jared Meyer]

Well, they can't all be The Lady In The Water...

Lol!! I almost choked on my food at that one. :laugh:

[Kyle Stebbins]

Did anyone notice that there was no music throughout the film, except for the Norteno singers. Nothing to indicate or emphasize some dramatic point in the movie.

For the most part there was no music, however, there WERE musical stings. Whenever something got really tense (and only on occasion) there would be a few drawn out notes. I noticed it, too.

[spidey]

lol. lady in the water lol.

[Brandon Rice]

Brice I thought you sheltered yourself from R rated films.

Serious? Nope, I see most films.

[Drew Ott]

Serious? Nope, I see most films.


I remember you not wanting to see something a while back...

everyone said "See it! You have to see it!"

Anybody else remember what I'm thinking of?

I definitely take your word on that but something comes to mind.

edit - I cracked up at the Lady in the Water comment.

[sean90291]

The ending blows. I liked what they were TRYING to accomplish, thematically. Really, really love that. But I think it falls far short of the power and perfection of the rest of the film. Too bad. Almost the best film I've ever seen.

[DeSica]

I remember you not wanting to see something a while back...

everyone said "See it! You have to see it!"

Could be he just wasn't into seeing a certain film because it didn't interest him at all...like me with Titanic. Everyone said I should see it...I still haven't seen it, and refuse to watch it...

SPOILERS

...it sinks at the end, right? Plus, I already saw A Night To Remember.

Everyone said I had to watch American Pie...that blew and sucked at the same time.



edit - I cracked up at the Lady in the Water comment.Just my way of saying chacun son gout...

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Not to split hairs, but to me the dime on the floor only sets up that Chigurgh opened the vent - it shows us he looked for the money, not necessarily that he found it....who's to say that the money was still in there?

I don't think so... the Mexicans were in and out of there fast as witnessed by their exit. They would have had to know the exact hiding place, and I really doubt that.

Don't forget, earlier in the movie a small group of Mexicans (3) were in the same motel as the money with a tracking device and they never bothered checking the vents. Chigurh took them out and then checked the vent for himself at that part of the movie. (Setting up the later scene)

Move forward: They showed us the open vent and coin for a reason.

Besides, after that he continues to go on to track down the wife after the funeral. You can tell that he isn't even looking for the money at this point. She's mentions that she doesn't have it and he doesn't even bat an eye. He knows. He's just fulfilling a promise.

As for Chigurh being in the same room as the Sheriff... that's definite.
He's an old man and not up to the chase anymore. He discovers that while in the room. Hence the look on his face when he sits on the bed followed by his immediate retirement.

"No Country for Old Men"

He goes on to discover that life has always been this way, even back when his Father was young. Then he has the dream.... :thumbup:

Best movie I've seen in a LONG time.

Mike

[Luis Caffesse]

Move forward: They showed us the open vent and coin for a reason.

Absolutely - and I think the reason was to show Ed that Chigurh had been back in the room... that Ed was right, but too slow. That is a much more important point to move the plot forward than Chigurh getting the money. All I'm saying is, it's possible Chigurh does not have the money. All we can say for absolute certain is that he looked for it inside the vent. But nothing tells us, for certain, that he found it there.

But again, splitting hairs - because it doesn't really make it a better movie one way or the other.


...like me with Titanic. Everyone said I should see it...I still haven't seen it, and refuse to watch it...

And I thought I was the only one!
We should start a club.
:thumbsup:

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Absolutely - and I think the reason was to show Ed that Chigurh had been back in the room... that Ed was right, but too slow. That is a much more important point to move the plot forward than Chigurh getting the money. All I'm saying is, it's possible Chigurh does not have the money. All we can say for absolute certain is that he looked for it inside the vent. But nothing tells us, for certain, that he found it there.

But again, splitting hairs - because it doesn't really make it a better movie one way or the other.Yah, splitting hairs I think.

They physically showed him in the room on the other side of the door so the vent wasn't needed for that. They were both looking at their reflections in the cylinder. If it wasn't in the vent... where was it?

I really think that since they continue to show Chigurh and he is no longer going after the money that it is assumed he found it. Otherwise he would be making a trip across the border. :)

It also makes the other scene of him opening the vent useless. Setting up nothing...

Irregardless, they didn't spell out a lot of things for the viewers but they showed us enough to put the pieces together.

Just my opinion though...
Maybe someone who read the book can chime in?

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I also love how they both handed over a lot of cash for a simple shirt. I'm willing to bet that the money came from the same case. :)

Edit: To make it even more clear in my mind that he found the money... Chigurh never pays for anything in the movie. He steals and kills for all of his needs.

Until the end when he pays the kid $100.00 for the shirt.

[Blaine]

Time has obviously passed since he was in the hotel and found the money. He would have put it where ever he puts his money. He takes what he needs as "walking around" money, then goes out to finish business because that's who he is.

[Luis Caffesse]

To make it even more clear in my mind that he found the money... Chigurh never pays for anything in the movie. He steals and kills for all of his needs.

Until the end when he pays the kid $100.00 for the shirt.

Well, I still think the vent shot was more about Ed and his being a step behind the entire way than it was about making it clear that Chirgurh found the money. Granted, it insinuates Chirgurh found it - but I still don't think it can be conclusively taken from that shot alone.

BUT - the shirt thing - THAT convinces me.
I completely forgot about that. Really good point.
:thumbsup:

[Jim Brennan]

Well, whose to say he doesn't always walk around with that kind of money? Besides, if Anton already had the money, and puts it "where ever he puts his money", why would he go back to the motel room?

[Brandon Rice]

I remember you not wanting to see something a while back...

everyone said "See it! You have to see it!"

Anybody else remember what I'm thinking of?

I definitely take your word on that but something comes to mind.



It was Sin City, and actually I have seen it since then... but there are certain films I won't see in theater's but on DVD where I can advance past scenes I don't care to watch.

[MattinSTL]

I don't know if this point matters... but Ed is in the diner talking to the other old man and chiming in as the other old man bitched about what the country is coming to... complete to "kids walking down the street with green hair and bones in their noses"... then... when they are out in the parking lot... the old man says to Ed... that Anton keeps returning to the scene of the crime... and THIS is why Ed goes directly to the motel after that statement... it's not like Ed was doing some great detective work and used intuition to go there... it's a statement from the other guy and the very next scene is Ed going there. If Ed came up with that on his own then he probably wouldn't have been having coffee with the other old man (cop or whatever that guy was).

In the context of this discussion about Ed's skill as a detective, I think it's worth mentioning.

Since the idea of Anton returning to the scene of the crime is the last thing mentioned before this new scene... well... you guys can fight it out. Does that mean that Ed may have imagined the reflection? Some say yes... I'm really not sure but my gut says Anton was in there... hopefully the entire time, because in my opinion that makes the story better. Prior to this scene they kept showing Anton and Ed being in the same places and seeing the same things... like the TV in Moss' trailer... they both had the identical reflection... so whatever...

[Blaine]

Well, whose to say he doesn't always walk around with that kind of money? Besides, if Anton already had the money, and puts it "where ever he puts his money", why would he go back to the motel room?No, no, no. I think you misunderstood me. I feel he went back to the hotel and retrieved the money. Obviously, some time had passed from the time in the hotel in El Paso until he went to Carla Jean's mother's house in Odessa.

[DeSica]

when they are out in the parking lot... the old man says to Ed... that Anton keeps returning to the scene of the crime... and THIS is why Ed goes directly to the motel after that statement... it's not like Ed was doing some great detective work and used intuition to go there... it's a statement from the other guy and the very next scene is Ed going there. If Ed came up with that on his own then he probably wouldn't have been having coffee with the other old man (cop or whatever that guy was).

In the context of this discussion about Ed's skill as a detective, I think it's worth mentioning.


I think I may have mentioned that part in an earlier post as an example of Ed being a step or two slower in his later years.

The idea of going back hits him just as you say, due to the statement the other old lawman makes...you can see the look on Ed's face as it dawns on him. It didn't even cross the other cop's mind to go back to the motel, and he was the one who made the observation.

Both those men don't quite grasp the landscape they find themselves in anymore. They don't understand their prey....so they can't track it effectively anymore. I thought it was interesting how he never wanted to visit a scene or talk with new people on the case. He always felt it was a waste of time and that nothing could be gained from it. His younger associate keeps asking him, but he waves it off.

It is as if he isn't so keen on the small elements of the hunt anymore...and though it comes across as experience, maybe it is a lack of motivation due to getting older.

Moss is introduced to us in a hunting scene, comes up short, and then he eventually becomes the hunted. Woody is a hunter, too...who falls prey to his game after underestimating it.

There is a real strong theme there.

Ed may have been an old lion that had to abandon the pride and give up the hunt because he wasn't up to it anymore. Old lions get chased off by younger, stronger, quicker ones...they hunt alone and find life difficult, if I remember my nature documentaries correctly.

So now Ed leaves this world to the younger, swifter men...he actually has to discuss what he might do for the day with his wife. I think that shows the futility with which he views his new lot in life. And the night before he dreams of a dead father and his own mortality...and a day that he once thought distant, looms ever closer.

I think the whole thing hits him in the gut at a certain point, and he knows he isn't what he once was...or what he felt himself to be. He feels irrelevant to the whole situation.

The old man in the shack makes him see that his own lifetime is nothing in the grander scheme of things, and that events will progress, and pass him by, just as they have always done. His refusal to accept would just be his ego talking....his time as a cop is coming to an end, just as everyone's time on this earth must. Ed is forced to see himself as part of the group the man in shack belongs to.

He's an old man.

I think the old guy in the shack is quite an interesting character. His body and surroundings have decayed, but his mind is sharp as a tack, and he tells a story that happened almost 80 years ago. It might be meant to show an acceptance of aging and the passing of time, or to serve as some sort of figure to Ed of the passing of time and the effect it has is inevitable. It will happen to him, too, no matter what he thought previously.

Either way, he sees things differently at that point, but the old man seems to have known all along and found peace with it. Now Ed has to stop doing what he did for so long and do something else...or nothing of any consequence, if you look at it through his eyes.

Now he is just a spectator.

So what is left in life for him, really?

[Loki]

This film was just amazing all around.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Does that mean that Ed may have imagined the reflection? Some say yes... I'm really not sure but my gut says Anton was in there... hopefully the entire time, because in my opinion that makes the story better. Prior to this scene they kept showing Anton and Ed being in the same places and seeing the same things... like the TV in Moss' trailer... they both had the identical reflection... so whatever...
In the book I believe he watches Ed from the parking lot. In the screenplay he's there, inside the room. There's nothing imagined about his presence in both mediums. He's there.

Cheers,

Mike

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Just an FYI, in the book Chigurh finds the money in the motel and returns it after taking his "cut".

Just found that out...

Mike

[DeSica]

Just an FYI, in the book Chigurh finds the money in the motel and returns it after taking his "cut".

Just found that out...

Mike
Returns it to who?

...maybe the accountant he didn't kill? (or did he kill that guy?)

There was a nice little article in December's GQ about Tommy Lee Jones and the film...pick it up if you have a chance.

[Psynema]

Just saw this tonight - might sound odd to say, but really don't get out much and didn't even know it was a Coen film until the end LOL - (I had given up on them for the aforementioned reasons LOL)

Hotel Room Scene - first I'm thinking it's TLJ's "imagination" that he's in the room, and he's debating whether or not to risk his fate going in, but on the other hand, IIRC, he doesn't really know Chigurh to know his face, so perhaps it was meant to be Anton really in the room.

On the reverse argument, Anton knows the money isn't there and has no reason to go back...logistically speaking, he would've been gone before the cops arrived if this was intended as a flashback to right after the murders as he did have a silencer and did immediately follow Moss to the next hotel.

So, logistically, doesn't quite make concrete "sense" in anyway, but I'm just going to guess it was TLJs imagination or a metaphorical "Anton/Fate" is watching you.

IMO Anton seems to be an nihilist in a sense - that he really doesn't care about goods/money/life, but rather, has sort of taken the role of "fate" in the sense that he stalks people particularly for making a free will choice or going for it all ie "the american dream" in a greedy sense - Moss is the main source of instant free will decision making, so he's the main target, as are the people against him - Woody, Root etc. TLJ really seems to be at odds, deciding to quit the force and realizing his futility, so he gets a pass.

Moss's wife statement comes as a shock to Anton as she doesn't "buy in" to his theory of humanity as "opportunists", however, her very defiance is also a form of free will, so she gets whacked.

Anton reminds me EXACTLY of John Goodman in Barton Fink, going after the stereotypical "Caught up in the public perception of what life should be" and the nihilist against it showing these people for who they really are. Fink also had a semi "non traditional (sensical)" ending to it, so did the hotel room scene.

Both films have the revenge against people with the "Typical american" idea of success.

Fink was full of arrogant hollywood types trying to fullfill the dream, leaving a quaint but successful playwright career vs. the lowclass John Goodman, his heroic author turns out to be a fraud, and pretty much the film unveils to him the bullshit of American Success and spits in his face the quaint family life he left behind, specifically characterized by his parents head in a box.

Likewise, No Country for Old men is dealing with similar issues - Not to sound racists, but I think they're obviously playing on the Mexican trying to live the American riches dream, especially with the comment "I've never seen a Mexican in a suit" and they're forced into the drug trade and ALL END UP DEAD pursuing riches, Moss's poverty is blatantly displayed, and they make a point to say his wife works at Walmart and Moss arrogantly states "You're retired now honey". To contrast this TLJ obviously has not forgotten his quaint upbringing and wife/family for his legacy - he's realized it's a lost war and can't conquer his enemy as a cop anymore, so he lives - the coin in the motel room was chance, but he made his decision by free will by quitting and settling with his wife.

Then again, Chigurh got away and may be after him next, perhaps what TLJs dream implied LOL. - So who knows.

[Psynema]

What are everyone's thoughts on both Chigurh and Moss buying people's shirts? I think there's obviously a connection of course - Moss runs into greedy men, Anton runs into a willingly kid.

[kss212]

I really didn't think it was that amazing

I enjoyed it, especially the villain and his down right frightening forced conversations(gas station guy)

the story to me just seemed too bare

[aravance]

This is an extremely thorough blog post about the ending of the movie.

I found it really insightful and agree with a lot of what he analyzes.

It's a little lengthy, but if you have some time it's a great read.

http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2007/12/ending-for-no-country.html

[DeSica]

Interesting blog....

So Chigurh was in the next motel room? Cool...that explains the different lighting I noticed coming through the window (which I thought was just due to the angle of the shot).

I can see how the Coens could be seen as just putting it up on the screen for it's own sake and letting the audience make of it what they will, but there is still the matter of subtext carried over from the source material. Not having read the book, I find meaning in certain elements of the film, whether they were meant to be found there or not, either by the brothers, or the author himself.

One thing came to mind when reading that entry...

Carla Jean refuses to play Chigurh's game. She sees it as all him, and nothing to do with chance or luck, or whatever he wants to call it. His acts are deliberate, and she sees the flipping a coin for her life as farce. He almost mocks fate by ascribing things to it that are really his own doing.

Minutes after this supposed random act, a true one happens when he gets hit by the other car...like a jab from fate, showing him who's boss.

It just hit me that she could have lived (didn't she get the chance to call a coin toss over whether he would kill her or not?). Chigurh promised Moss that he would kill her, but it is likely she would have lived if she won the toss, like the old guy in the gas station. She actually chose to die by not taking the toss, or at least she made Chigurh choose to kill her (and therefore keep his promise, which she knew nothing about until Chigurh told her).

Now that I think about it, he was actually giving her a chance...and he came off like a jerk for it (though telling her about Moss having the chance to save her was low, this was still the closest thing to an act of kindness or mercy as we had ever seen from this guy).

Or am I remebering the scene wrong?

[Kirk Gillock]

Brilliant film.

The scene near the beginning, when Llewelyn goes back to give the man some water and leaves his truck parked on the hill. He turns around to see his truck silhouetted (alone) on the hillside and, after a short while, turns around again to see another truck parked beside it. Absolutely perfect. From that point on the movie never slowed down.

[mcgeedigital]

Worst movie ever.

I want my money and the time I wasted back.

[Zak Forsman]

Worst movie ever.

why's that?

[BryantStanton]

Worst movie ever.

I want my money and the time I wasted back.


I understand the film isn't everyone, but that's an exaggeration if I ever heard one. If you can't appreciate the story, as a filmmaker you should be able to appreciate the amount of technical perfection involved in the film... the sound, the photography, etc.

Would you seriously rank this below something like Mario Brothers? There are hundreds of films that are far worse, both in story and production value.

Your comment seems hasty at best.

[mcgeedigital]

Okay, worst movie I have seen in the last 2 years....


I didn't go to this movie as a film maker, I just wanted to go enjoy a film, and not over analyze everything about it.

Maybe I went out of my way to bash it, but almost everyone in the audience, including my wife, said "WTF" out loud after the last scene.

The production value was good, the sound was good, even the editing was good.

But in my mind the "esoteric-ness" of the movie was lost on most of the audience I viewed it with.

[karapetkov]

I'm perplexed...

The first part was built beautifully, but then...

I guess they dug deeper than I was willing to go, or just dug at the wrong place, cause when I went there and looked into that hole, i didn't see anything I was willing or expecting to see.

Or maybe it's just me...

The actors rocked though. TLJ is the man.

And sometimes the lack of soundtrack can be a good thing. :violin:

[DeSica]

Maybe the film should have a disclaimer...

-Warning: This film stays true to source material. People who like ABC films where everything goes acoording to pattern may be disappointed. Concepts will not be dumbed down nor will the viewer's hand be held (except maybe by their date) during the course of the movie. Film may include thought provoking, vague or open ended situations. Viewer discretion is advised-

or

You could have one of the amusement park cut outs with a stack of IQ tests and have people fill them out. The ticket taker could then check results against the cut out and allow people based on whatever standards are set for the particular movie...

...the smiling cartoon cut out would have a blurb that read "You must be at least this intelligent to see this movie..."

[mcgeedigital]

Maybe the film should have a disclaimer...

-Warning: This film stays true to source material. People who like ABC films where everything goes acoording to pattern may be disappointed. Concepts will not be dumbed down nor will the viewer's hand be held (except maybe by their date) during the course of the movie. Film may include thought provoking, vague or open ended situations. Viewer discretion is advised-

or

You could have one of the amusement park cut outs with a stack of IQ tests and have people fill them out. The ticket taker could then check results against the cut out and allow people based on whatever standards are set for the particular movie...

...the smiling cartoon cut out would have a blurb that read "You must be at least this intelligent to see this movie..."

Ah I see, so those of us who disagree with the majority are just to simple to understand the awesome grandeur of this epic work.

:violin:

[Zak Forsman]

DeSica could have worded it better. it's not about a viewer's level of intelligence. The Coen Bros crafted a film for a specific audience that has developed a certain sensitivity or appreciation that would allow them to remain engaged by unconventional choices. still, whether or not NCFOM was successful in rewarding that audience is open for debate, and has been since its release.

[karapetkov]

Maybe the film should have a disclaimer...

-Warning: This film stays true to source material. People who like ABC films where everything goes acoording to pattern may be disappointed. Concepts will not be dumbed down nor will the viewer's hand be held (except maybe by their date) during the course of the movie. Film may include thought provoking, vague or open ended situations. Viewer discretion is advised-

or

You could have one of the amusement park cut outs with a stack of IQ tests and have people fill them out. The ticket taker could then check results against the cut out and allow people based on whatever standards are set for the particular movie...

...the smiling cartoon cut out would have a blurb that read "You must be at least this intelligent to see this movie..."


Man, I'm supposed to be smart, ROTF.:2vrolijk_08:

Maybe it's just that I haven't read the novel.

The same thing happened to me with all the LOTR films [not trying to make any parallel here].

I hadn't read Tolkien's book and I felt that many moments which were supposed to make me say WOW!, just made me say WTF. And unfortunately there was a big WTF in the end too. "Hobbits, bobbits" :)

A lot of people who have read the book, like the movie, but that's no excuse for it when it lacks something in the eyes of those who haven't read the book. The movie should be self-sufficient, otherwise the script has weaknesses.

Juz my 2c.

[Luis Caffesse]

The movie should be self-sufficient, otherwise the script has weaknesses.

Juz my 2c.

Couldn't agree more.
I can understand how having read the source material might give an audience an added level of enjoyment of a movie -
but it should never be a requirement.

[DeSica]

Couldn't agree more.
I can understand how having read the source material might give an audience an added level of enjoyment of a movie -
but it should never be a requirement.

That has been stated and restated...

I haven't read the book myself, but I still enjoyed the film a great deal, even if I was expecting a different ending.

What I meant was that the brothers didn't try and change the ending, or any other substantial part of the movie, just to satisfy the wider film going audience...they could have had endless screenings with test audiences and had a different ending where the bad guy dies and Old Yeller doesn't get shot, but they didn't. I give them alot of respect for that.

I don't know why some stuff has to be explained as if we were all 7th graders...the post I made about warnings was satire, but it is true that sometimes people don't want to see a film that involves too much "thinking"...or "reading" (subtitled films), so why not tell them ahead of time?

The IQ test thing was just a slap in the face for some people...why not challenge yourself every so often? Why does everything have to be so cut and dried...so easy? Not every film has to be deep and meaningful, but not every film has to be just some running, driving, shooting and blowing stuff up...

The ending had me sitting there for a moment, wondering what was going on, but it got me thinking...and then my friend and I spent 20 minutes talking about what happened and what the ending meant and some other things we found interesting.

I spent 5 minutes talking about it on Saturday night with a director friend and another older gentleman. This isn't some small art house film...people have taken notice.

The ending is not a bad one..it wasn't tacked on, or hurried, or slapped together to explain unfinished issues in a poorly constructed film...it was just not the usual kind of ending. I can understand someone saying "I liked it, except for the ending....", but it wasn't a poorly made film, nor was the ending horrible....and at least it was there.

I find most of David Lynch's stuff to just stop and swerve off into nonsense...and he gets called a genius for that. For my money, he makes some interesting films, well shot, that have no ending...they just get nuts until the credits eventually roll...

....but that is just me.

[mcgeedigital]

Couldn't agree more.
I can understand how having read the source material might give an audience an added level of enjoyment of a movie -
but it should never be a requirement.

Exactly.

[Luis Caffesse]

Exactly.

That said - I have to say that I still think 'No Country' stands just fine on its own two feet as a fantastic film.

I'm still curious to hear why you didn't enjoy it.
You mentioned:


But in my mind the "esoteric-ness" of the movie was lost on most of the audience I viewed it with.

I wonder if we can nail this down to something.
I mean, in the end was it simply that you didn't find yourself caring about the characters?
Was it that you felt the film was perhaps reaching for 'something more' than it really was, trying to be more than it should be?

Not trying to put words in your mouth here...I'm just curious.

[karapetkov]

There are interesting things in No Country..., for sure. The actors are really good.

I'll give it a second viewing sometime.

David Lynch is in a similar vicinity, but I like some of his works, they're crazy in a compelling way. I'm not a huge fan, though.

I guess it's a matter of taste.

[Jared Meyer]

...whether or not NCFOM was successful in rewarding that audience is open for debate, and has been since its release.
True.

For any who are interested, here's a podcast from the NCFOM website with several film critics debating the ending and many other aspects of the film:

http://www.nocountryforoldmen.com/podcast/

[DeSica]

There has to be something to this film if it has sparked so much debate without ever being controversial in a gimmicky, crude or attention grabbing way...

...can you people remember a film that has had so many people talking about it in cinematic terms in the last 5 years? 10?

Whatever you think about it, at least it has you thinking.

[ZFarms Productions]

just saw No Country For Old Men.

Phenomenal film. Great acting, directing, editing, cinematography. Easily my favorite film of 07, and my pick for Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor.

[Blaine]

Phenomenal film. Great acting, directing, editing, cinematography. Easily my favorite film of 07, and my pick for ... Best Supporting Actor.Yeah, but I felt it should have TLJ for Best Supporting Actor. I think it is his finest work to date.

[ZFarms Productions]

I'm happy with TLJ for Best Actor for In The Valley of Elah. That was a great performance too.

[TheMacB]

Yeah, but I felt it should have TLJ for Best Supporting Actor. I think it is his finest work to date.
TLJ's best (IMO): The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. He won Best Actor at Cannes. and Guillermo Arriaga won Best Screenplay.


I'm happy with TLJ for Best Actor for In The Valley of Elah. That was a great performance too.
and both were shot by Roger Deakins.

[chris f]

I just saw this again last night and wow, it was even better the second time. After I saw it the first time I thought it was a great film, but was mad at myself for not absorbing all the dialogue (especially TLJ's opening monologue, the scene with is brother (it is his brother right?), and the final scene). Viewing it a second time let me really focus on TLJ's character and the film had a whole new meaning for me and made me truly realize how great (and sad) this film is .

[Bsmith]

I have to say I was pretty disappointed in this movie as well. I will give it credit for the first half or so as it was a pretty fun ride, however....


SPOILERS.........



after spending the whole movie invested in the main character and for him to just die for whatever reason and not showing it....I was pretty pissed. The whole ending just didn't sit right with me. And I'm usually the person defending weird endings telling people you need to think about it and be open about it. I don't know, I guess it was just going so well I was pissed when all the big events seemed to happen off screen and I get a 15 minute speech about a dream from a character that didn't even really play that big of a role in the movie to finish it off.

[karapetkov]

I don't get this movie but Javier Bardem seriously rocks!

[LukeJ]

I went to the 10:15 opening night showing. Got there at 9:30 and it was sold out. Bought a 10:45 against my better judgment because that's kinda late for an old guy. Decided to stick my head in to the 10:15 just for kicks. Plenty of scattered seats so I duck into one. At 10:10 there's exactly eight seats left and honest customers still trickling in. Now I'm nervous. Six seats left, four two. I can just picture some liberal film buff calling out the crowd because he's got a ticket and there's no seats left. A couple walks in and has to sit separately. I probably ruined their first date. It crosses my mind that they might be able to trace the stubs. My guilt pretty much put a damper on the first fifteen minutes but even so, it was still my favorite movie of the year.

I too wish I could have seen Brolin go down and I was a little confused by the dead Mexicans and the ending, but still, it was just a grand epic piece by the best filmmakers of my generation. The pit bull, the cattle prod gun thing, Woody Harrelson, all of it was mezmorizing. And no music.

[J.R. Hudson]

SPOILERS

What a let down of a film.

Up until the end, I was in love with it. Wonderfuly shot, great 'silent' score. The performances and pacing just superb in every way. And then ...

WTF

At first I was pissed that Brolins character died and even more pissed we never saw it but I accepted it as it moved forward. I figured the Cohens, by design, got the response they wanted. Maybe I'm feeling the same thing as the wife almost ....

But, just ...

That's it ?

Did they run out of pages ? Is there some alternate ending their holding ?

I don't always need the protaganist to win, but ending a film after nothing happens is, is, is asinine. So Brolin dies, Tommy Lee goes and visits an old relative and then speaks with his wife about his dreams and thats' it ?

Huh ?

Not for me. I needed the 'good guy' to win and I wanted a showdown; old west style. The film reeks of cowboys and villians, a classic tale and just falls on its face with one of the most anti-climatic endings ever in cinema.

It's like the film was going at a nice 65 MPH cruise and then just stopped.

A perfectly made film and my nod for best picture, up until the last :30 Minutes when we find out Brolin's character was done in. Films like this piss me off, it goes from wonderful story to no story at all - what-so-effin-ever.

Maybe they thought it clever and artsy to not even show the death ? I've invested an hour and half into this guy, wanting him to win, wanting to see him showdown with the villian and I don't get anything close.


Pfffffffffff

Major Let down

Maybe in time, I'll go back and watch it and apprecaite it more, but .... Sad and tragic like real life but gie me something in the end, even if the bad guy wins.

[mcgeedigital]

Couldn't agree more John.

Be prepared to be vilified for not recognizing the pure GENIUS of this film....:violin:

[Blaine]

I really liked this movie IN SPITE of the ending, which I agree completely sucked. That's why it wasn't a perfect movie. It was on its way there then absolutely fell apart. The acting and cinematography were extraordinary. It it only had an ending, it might have cracked my Top 10. As it is, I see it as one of the best movies of the year, if flawed by forgetting to have an ending.

[Batutta]

I'd rather watch a great movie with a crap ending than a crap movie with a great ending.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I'm not going to debate the "Genius" of this film. I just disagree with a lot that's been said here.


Not for me. I needed the 'good guy' to win and I wanted a showdown; old west style. The film reeks of cowboys and villians, a classic tale and just falls on its face with one of the most anti-climatic endings ever in cinema.
Couldn't disagree more. This film left me thinking and contemplating exactly what took place for a day or so. The ending is there, it's just not the cookie cutter ending that Hollywood has churned out for decades. You also have to think about it and put it together since they don't lay it all before you. That I liked.

The ending is shocking and real, it just wasn't what you wanted.

That's cool. I can understand that. I have no argument with that. This movie isn't for everyone. If I went in wanting your ending then I would have been pissed too!

I went in with zero expectations and left a little shaken, but entertained thoroughly. Of course, I hate the endings of most "Happy/Everything works out" Hollywood movies.

This movie was more like life than just about any movie I've ever seen. I found that refreshing.

Flame on... :D

Cheers,

[spidey]

i like the ending i dont think you should always get what you want.

[spidey]

I really liked this movie IN SPITE of the ending, which I agree completely sucked. That's why it wasn't a perfect movie. It was on its way there then absolutely fell apart. The acting and cinematography were extraordinary. It it only had an ending, it might have cracked my Top 10. As it is, I see it as one of the best movies of the year, if flawed by forgetting to have an ending.

dont say that, its your opinion but don't say it forgot an ending.

[Blaine]

I went in with zero expectations and left a little shaken, but entertained thoroughly. Of course, I hate the endings of most "Happy/Everything works out" Hollywood movies.Well, I for one, don't care if it's a "Hollywood" ending or not. I think the Hollywood ending carries a pejorative connotation by people who fancy themselves a bit above the rest. Sometimes the Hollywood ending is right, sometimes it isn't. But SOME KIND of ending is generally required unless you want to write a Stephen King story. As I said, I liked NCFOM but I felt the ending was lacking. The only thing this ending did for me was to ask when the Coen Brothers were going to make their first sequel.

dont say that, its your opinion but don't say it forgot an ending.Perhaps you're right. They stuck an ending on that left itself wide open to a sequel...Kill Bill anyone?

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Well, I for one, don't care if it's a "Hollywood" ending or not. I think the Hollywood ending carries a pejorative connotation by people who fancy themselves a bit above the rest. Please!

How many endings are there that end with a shootout and the good guy walking away with the girl and the money? Far too many for my liking.
I don't fancy myself anything. What I do see are people used to a certain ending and a little dismayed by not getting it.
I have an idea. Put on your favourite movie with the "good guy wins" ending and watch it continuously.
It will be just like going to the movies 99.9% of the time.

This movie was refreshing all the way around, but I'm not going to debate that with anyone who's first response is aimed at belittling me for disagreeing.

I'm not "above" Hollywood, I'm just tired of the same old formula.
No Country for Old Men did something different. For that I applaud them.

I understand that it's not for everyone. I'm just not about to say that maybe this movie is "above" the average viewer. That would be rude.

See my point?

Cheers!

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Perhaps you're right. They stuck an ending on that left itself wide open to a sequel...Kill Bill anyone?Which Kill Bill are you talking about? You do realize that it was intended to be one long movie but was split into two due to the greed of the film industry. Or are you talking about the possible sequel when Copperhead's daughter grows up?

Just curious.

[Blaine]

I'm merely suggesting that in the way that Kill Bill was meant to be split into two, I believe that such insidious forces may be at work here. :cheesy:

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I'm merely suggesting that in the way that Kill Bill was meant to be split into two, I believe that such insidious forces may be at work here. :cheesy:Well, I highly doubt that. That would be very sad indeed.

As it was, Kill Bill was initially intended to be one film. It was greed on someones part that turned it into a two picture deal. Not sure who's exactly so I won't point the finger.

NCFOM was based on a book.
I really don't think they will revisit this story.

There's no need.

Cheers,

[Blaine]

NCFOM was based on a book.Which I'm currently reading.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Which I'm currently reading.Cool. I hear the movies better.




:laugh:

j/k

[Blaine]

Cool. I hear the movies better.




:laugh:

j/kWhen I originally saw the movie I was raving about the Coen Brothers' dialogue. Now that I'm reading the book, I realize that most of the dialogue seems to be lifted directly from the book. Once you get past the fact that CM doesn't use quotation marks in his dialogue, it's pretty cool.

Don't misunderstand me, I am a HUGE fan of the movie...just absolutely hate the ending.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Very cool. I plan on reading that soon. Just finishing up with a series first.
Let me know what you think when you are finished, especially concerning the ending.

Have a good one.

EDIT:



Don't misunderstand me, I am a HUGE fan of the movie...just absolutely hate the ending. And that is definitely your prerogative.
I loved it.

I just hope there is no sequel! :D

[J.R. Hudson]

I'd rather watch a great movie with a crap ending than a crap movie with a great ending.

Huh ? Examples ?


I'm not going to debate the "Genius" of this film. I just disagree with a lot that's been said here.


Couldn't disagree more. This film left me thinking and contemplating exactly what took place for a day or so. The ending is there, it's just not the cookie cutter ending that Hollywood has churned out for decades. You also have to think about it and put it together since they don't lay it all before you. That I liked.

The ending is shocking and real, it just wasn't what you wanted.

That's cool. I can understand that. I have no argument with that. This movie isn't for everyone. If I went in wanting your ending then I would have been pissed too!

I went in with zero expectations and left a little shaken, but entertained thoroughly. Of course, I hate the endings of most "Happy/Everything works out" Hollywood movies.

This movie was more like life than just about any movie I've ever seen. I found that refreshing.

Flame on... :D

Cheers,

Flame on. I don't think anyone is here to flame.

I definately am not looking for a 'formulaic HoWood ending'. My point is that there is no ending or tie to the characters. I'm wondering what TLJ's role was about ? The man just is apathetic and never grows as a character. HE starts off not caring and ends it by quitting and not caring. It would have been much more refreshing for him to realize a new vigor in his career.

Brolin dying wasn't my big problem. I do think it a bad idea not to show his death and bizarre to simply have the banditos take him out. No explantion whatsoever how they found him or how they new who he was. He tossed the transponder out, so what happended ?

In accepting not showing his death, I chalk it up to experiencing a vicarious feeling through his wife. I accepted this no matter how much I didn't like it.

But no one wins in this one. No one grows. It's just 'blase' in the end.

I don't need a OK CORRAL but I needed something more, or better put, something else. The story literally just ends. They told me 3/4 of a tale and walked away.

Who got the money ?
How did the banditos find Brolin ?
Where did 'Sugar' (sp?) go ?
Did he definately kill the wife ? (He checked his shoes, was that a sign?)
Did TLJ quit ?
How did Sugar and Woody's character know Brolin was across the border in the hospital ?
How did Woody know to go look over the border fence and found the case ?

This film was on pace to be one of my favs EVER and wwhen it was over, it was lacking, if anything, a story.

Too many unanswered questions and only a fraction of a story gave me zero resolution.

TLJ's character was irrelevant. His character could have been (insert anyone)


dont say that, its your opinion but don't say it forgot an ending.

It did. :undecided

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Who got the money ?
How did the banditos find Brolin ?
Where did 'Sugar' (sp?) go ?
Did he definately kill the wife ? (He checked his shoes, was that a sign?)
Did TLJ quit ?
How did Sugar and Woody's character know Brolin was across the border in the hospital ?
How did Woody know to go look over the border fence and found the case ?


Alright... I only saw this once but here goes.

Chigurh got the money. He was the ONLY one with previous knowledge of its whereabouts (the secret hiding place) and the shootout was too chaotic. There was no longer any tracer so they never would have found it that quickly.
We also see the coin beside the open vent when TLJ's returns to the scene. That clinches it for me.

The Bandito's found Brolin thanks to his Mother in-law. I really thought that was clear?

Chigurh killed Brolin's wife. He made a promise. He did offer her a way out (the coin toss) and she threw it in his face. Having him check his shoes on the way out seals the deal.

These guys get paid to find people. I think we can assume they are good at it. Besides, Chigurh knew Brolin was hurt. He probably knew exactly where he would go. Across the border to the nearest hospital.

Also, Woody was tracking Brolin & Chigurh at a distance, he was probably also given a tracking device since the boss wanted Brolin found. Remember why Chigurh killed him as well? Brolin still had the tracking device right up to the shootout with Chigurh. Maybe he watched the entire fire-fight between the two of them and sat back and waited for the right moment. He knew Chigurh was involved so he had to be careful.

Woody then backtracked from the hospital (knowing he ditched the case of money) and looked for blood and such. Yes, he got a little lucky, but the signs were there.

I really don't think everything needs to be shown to the audience. It definitely wasn't a spoon feeding kind of movie. That's really what I loved about it.

As for "where did Chigurh go?"
Are you saying that you have to know what happened next?

What happened to Butch Cassidy and Sundance? :thumbsup:

[J.R. Hudson]

I thought Butch went and led a revolt in China ?

-

That's right, the Banditos approached the mother-in-law helping with bags.

-

Great film, just agghh, like I read a book and stopped with a couple chapters to go.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I thought Butch went and led a revolt in China ?

-

That's right, the Banditos approached the mother-in-law helping with bags.

-

Great film, just agghh, like I read a book and stopped with a couple chapters to go.LOL! No problem. I get why some people feel that way.

I just hope they don't think it was a mistake or done unintentionally.

It was obviously a creative risk and I personally think that it paid off big time!

But that's just me.
I usually go against the grain that way.

Cheers,

Mike

[J.R. Hudson]

Creeative Risk is something I can appreciate.

[Batutta]

Huh ? Examples ?

There are many a mediocre movie that have satisfying endings. Given the choice, I'd rather watch No Country For Old Men again than some middling piece of Hollywood fluff, despite the film's unsatisfactory ending. I'll probably watch it again just to soak in all that is great about the movie, and will probably like it more knowing ahead of time that the ending is ant-climactic.

[J.R. Hudson]

Oh.

Well you said ... ' ... than a crap movie with a great ending.' so was wondergin what crap moves had great endings.

LOL

I see your point.

[c.g._eads]

Okay, just caught this movie. SPOILERS...

I rarely stray from the idea that everybody has their own opinions and therefore everybody is "right". But if you thought they couldn't have made a better ending to this film, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You're dead wrong. People will talk about the "brave" choice and the unique approach to filming a climax that occurred in this film (by not showing it?????) but The Coens really screwed up here. They had the opportunity to make a classic. Instead they made an almost-classic. I honestly believe it's because they didn't know how good of a movie they had. They didn't know how great the characters were that they created.

These characters... were awesome. Everybody talks about Anton and how great he was. But I liked Josh Brolin just as much. I've never wanted a person to escape more than I wanted him to escape. I don't know where Josh Brolin has been hiding, but man was he great in this movie. I cared so much for his character. And every tip, every scene, every sequence, every conversation, led to these two guys having a showdown. And that's what you wanted. That's what you wanted to see (if you weren't warned about the movie's ending ahead of time - do not try and tell me that you didn't want to see this showdown). But because The Coens made 20 movies and they wanted to be unconventional, they screw it up by not showing that showdown. It was really disheartening. I feel bad for these guys for how badly they misjudged this. I almost think... and I know this is terrible to say... but I almost think the Coens were f*&king with us. That they were saying, "you think you're going to get a great ending don't you? Well, hahaahhahahah, psyche!" They even went so far as to, 5 screen minutes before the "showdown", have an awesome challenge set by the main character. That was one of the greatest movie lines ever! "I've decided to make you a special project of mine." [hangup] FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE FREAKING SHOWDOWN! And then you don't even show it?????? So disappointing. So sad. You screwed it up guys. You screwed it up bigtime.

For those that will try to say, "It was a better choice than having some cliche showdown that we've seen a thousand times before." Uhhh, no. That's just the thing. This isn't Brett Ratner directing the final showdown. It's the Coen brothers! So any showdown between these two characters would've been entirely unique and exciting.

And I don't care if it's the same ending as the book. Unless the book was 100 pages long, they changed a whole bunch of other things. So why not change the ending to show these two great characters square off?? Man did I want to see that happen. And I know that, even if you refuse to admit it on this board, that you did too. Do not tell me that if you would've seen these two face each other, even if it was an average face-off, that you would've thought, "Man, I wish they would've skipped that altogether and just showed the aftermath of it." If you do, you're lying.

Well, too bad, Coens. You almost made one of the greatest movies ever.

[MattinSTL]

While I loved the movie I have no problems whatsoever with that analysis.

Considering TWBB's ending receiving praise on this forum, I'm surprised that there's any dissension from the same people. I see both movies as having a similar ending... where the audience is really told all they have to be told... but I think 99% of that audience would be happier with something more... if not something else.

If the whole world doesn't compare these two films as if they are somewhat similar in substance, if not flavor, then I'll be surprised.

Where NCFOM gets the nod in my book is 1) no manipulating soundtrack... 2) no perceivable lighting... 3) acting that NEVER feels (or sounds) like acting.

To me that speaks volumes about the subtle brilliance of the film.

[Batutta]

People will talk about the "brave" choice and the unique approach to filming a climax that occurred in this film (by not showing it?????) but The Coens really screwed up here. They had the opportunity to make a classic. Instead they made an almost-classic. I honestly believe it's because they didn't know how good of a movie they had. They didn't know how great the characters were that they created.

I'd go with you on this if the Coen's hadn't already created some great films, and great film characters before. Character is pretty much their forte. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing with this story. They didn't just say, "ah, the movie's not that great so let's end it this lame way." In an interview they mentioned what appealed to them about the book was the turn it takes 3/4 of the way through, and if they could do that in a film. They just took a risk that didn't work. And it wasn't a risk that was unprecedented in film history before. Hitchcock kills off his lead character HALFWAY through Psycho. I still maintain the problem with No Country's ending isn't how they end the story, but where.

[Batutta]

Considering TWBB's ending receiving praise on this forum, I'm surprised that there's any dissension from the same people. I see both movies as having a similar ending...

The difference is that No Country is a genre film, a thriller, and with genre films there are certain expectations the audience wants met. One of them being a clear resolution (preferably with evil being defeated). In a sprawling character based epic like There Will Be Blood, there is no central plot device (people chasing a money bag), so no expectation of how the story will resolve itself.

[c.g._eads]

Batutta, I was thinking of the Coens making some pretty bad movies lately. The Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty (was that theirs?), The Man Who Wasn't There - I even thought O Brother kinda sucked. I think they just didn't know that they had another Fargo on their hands so they tried to be too experimental.

These guys are amazing filmmakers. They just seem to have a quirkiness to their taste that never quite feels right unless they do one of these simple "someone has money and someone else wants it" films. I still think that their short in Paris Je'Taime was the best *directed* piece in the film (not the best overall though).

I agree with you on your assessment of the ending. Although I'd say it was both a matter of how AND when.

[c.g._eads]

Mattin, yes, there seems to be this craze of anti-climactic endings in "serious" films these days that is very miscalculated. Actually, this movie reminded me a lot of another film that I liked until the end - American Gangster. You had these two guys who were gearing up for a major showdown and then at the end you get them high-fiving each other and asking if they want more sugar in their coffee (although that was a true story - still, take some creative liberties -- it's a film).

What's wrong with a serious movie actually following through on two hours of set-up? Are they afraid they'll be accused of selling out? They attempted to please the audience through the first 95% of the movie. Why not try to please them for the final 5%?

[Batutta]

Batutta, I was thinking of the Coens making some pretty bad movies lately. The Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty (was that theirs?), The Man Who Wasn't There - I even thought O Brother kinda sucked. I think they just didn't know that they had another Fargo on their hands so they tried to be too experimental.

These guys are amazing filmmakers. They just seem to have a quirkiness to their taste that never quite feels right unless they do one of these simple "someone has money and someone else wants it" films. I still think that their short in Paris Je'Taime was the best *directed* piece in the film (not the best overall though).

I agree with you on your assessment of the ending. Although I'd say it was both a matter of how AND when.

I just don't think they approach their films with that much self consciousness to think "this could be another Fargo". They just make their films and let the chips fall where they may...I can agree that killing one of the primary characters off screen was a bad move. I don't have a problem with him dying, but they should've at least showed it. In Psycho, Janet Leigh gets killed halfway through the movie in one of the greatest death scenes ever shot.

[jpeck]

Variety says that the No Country for Old Men team of Joel and Ethan Coen and producer Scott Rudin will transfer another Pulitzer Prize-winning author's work into a film.

Columbia Pictures has acquired screen rights to the best-selling Michael Chabon novel "The Yiddish Policemen's Union," with the Coens writing, directing and producing with Rudin.

Chabon sets up a contemporary scenario where Jewish settlers are about to be displaced by U.S. government's plans to turn the frozen locale of Sitka, Alaska, over to Alaskan natives. Against this backdrop is a noir-style murder mystery in which a rogue cop investigates the killing of a heroin-addicted chess prodigy who might be the messiah.

The Coens will turn their attention to the book after they shoot A Serious Man for Working Title and Focus.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41859 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41859)

Anyone read the novel?

[Zak Forsman]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41859 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41859)

Anyone read the novel?

I hope they realize they have another Fargo on their hands

[Batutta]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41859 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41859)

Anyone read the novel?

No, but that description makes me want to. Already sounds like a Coen Brother's movie, even the quirky title, which I have a feeling won't make it through the marketing department.

[J.R. Hudson]

Okay, just caught this movie. SPOILERS...

I rarely stray from the idea that everybody has their own opinions and therefore everybody is "right". But if you thought they couldn't have made a better ending to this film, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You're dead wrong. People will talk about the "brave" choice and the unique approach to filming a climax that occurred in this film (by not showing it?????) but The Coens really screwed up here. They had the opportunity to make a classic. Instead they made an almost-classic. I honestly believe it's because they didn't know how good of a movie they had. They didn't know how great the characters were that they created.

These characters... were awesome. Everybody talks about Anton and how great he was. But I liked Josh Brolin just as much. I've never wanted a person to escape more than I wanted him to escape. I don't know where Josh Brolin has been hiding, but man was he great in this movie. I cared so much for his character. And every tip, every scene, every sequence, every conversation, led to these two guys having a showdown. And that's what you wanted. That's what you wanted to see (if you weren't warned about the movie's ending ahead of time - do not try and tell me that you didn't want to see this showdown). But because The Coens made 20 movies and they wanted to be unconventional, they screw it up by not showing that showdown. It was really disheartening. I feel bad for these guys for how badly they misjudged this. I almost think... and I know this is terrible to say... but I almost think the Coens were f*&king with us. That they were saying, "you think you're going to get a great ending don't you? Well, hahaahhahahah, psyche!" They even went so far as to, 5 screen minutes before the "showdown", have an awesome challenge set by the main character. That was one of the greatest movie lines ever! "I've decided to make you a special project of mine." [hangup] FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE FREAKING SHOWDOWN! And then you don't even show it?????? So disappointing. So sad. You screwed it up guys. You screwed it up bigtime.

For those that will try to say, "It was a better choice than having some cliche showdown that we've seen a thousand times before." Uhhh, no. That's just the thing. This isn't Brett Ratner directing the final showdown. It's the Coen brothers! So any showdown between these two characters would've been entirely unique and exciting.

And I don't care if it's the same ending as the book. Unless the book was 100 pages long, they changed a whole bunch of other things. So why not change the ending to show these two great characters square off?? Man did I want to see that happen. And I know that, even if you refuse to admit it on this board, that you did too. Do not tell me that if you would've seen these two face each other, even if it was an average face-off, that you would've thought, "Man, I wish they would've skipped that altogether and just showed the aftermath of it." If you do, you're lying.

Well, too bad, Coens. You almost made one of the greatest movies ever.

Can't agree any more than I do with this take.

And well put:

This wasn't some POPCORN showdown coming, this was the Cohens. They really created a killer film, unreal performances. The whole package was there.

They screwed up. :violin:

Ahhh well.

[c.g._eads]

Thanks Hudson. It's good to see you're still alive.

You know, it crossed my mind that this may have all been calculated. I mean, I guess we're all talking about that ending. I heard enough about it so that I was curious to see it. To be honest, I probably would have waited for video otherwise. Maybe the Coens do win....

No, a classic movie trumps every gimmick. Never mind.

[Drew Ott]

I actually liked the ending and I'm not lying (though I see your point).

I mean, of course I wanted to see some classic show-down and experience the tradition climax-resolution while I was watching.

Then the screen went black.

This caused me to completely reevaluate everything I had just witnessed, and I don't think I would have done that otherwise. It went from a movie about a story to a movie about themes and ideas. I liked it.

But yes, part of me wants to see a show-down.

[jpeck]

This is a totally serious question, did anyone actually think Moss stood a chance against Anton in a showdown? I know I didn't and that is why I didn't mind the Coens skipping over it once I started thinking about the movie. But of course like everybody else, I was expecting one to happen.

[c.g._eads]

I totally thought he had a chance. He injured him in that night time street fight. That's what you wanted to see. If the underdog could win.

Oh, and when Anton saw Woody at the bottom of the stairs, why didn't Woody just run? He would've had a better chance running then he would in a room alone with Anton. And even though Anton was a lot of things, he definitely wasn't fast. He could've found cover at the Cheers bar. Sam would've helped him out.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I actually liked the ending and I'm not lying (though I see your point).


Same here.

I understand what you guys are saying but I LOVED the ending.
When the screen went black.... the first words out of my mouth were... "COOL!"

I am so glad that this movie isn't like every other movie. Time for a change....
Cinema was getting far too predictable for me.

[J.R. Hudson]

This is a totally serious question, did anyone actually think Moss stood a chance against Anton in a showdown? I know I didn't and that is why I didn't mind the Coens skipping over it once I started thinking about the movie. But of course like everybody else, I was expecting one to happen.

He seeemed to fair well during the gunfight in the street in shooting him in the leg. And he did stay one step ahead of him.

:thumbsup: :D :smile:

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

He seeemed to fair well during the gunfight in the street in shooting him in the leg. And he did stay one step ahead of him.

:thumbsup: :D :smile:The only reason why he kept one step ahead of him was because he knew he was coming... Beep.. beep... beep... beepbeepbeepbeeeeep.....

Once he destroyed the device... he wouldn't hear him coming next time.
:thumbsup:

And I'm willing to bet Chigurh would still find him even without the tracker... as he did. :)

EDIT: BTW, Brolin's was pretty damn skilled. That's what made things all the more interesting, but Death was coming and there's no way to stop it.

[Blaine]

The only reason why he kept one step ahead of him was because he knew he was coming... Beep.. beep... beep... beepbeepbeepbeeeeep.....And without the device Chigurh would have more trouble finding him. Sure, he's a predator, but he DID have the aid of the tracking device to make things much faster. I think the playing field would have been somewhat leveled had he not had it.

Moss KNEW "they" would be coming after him. He took off and sent Carla Jean to her mother's in Odessa. It was Carla Jean (through her mother) that actually brought Moss down.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

And without the device Chigurh would have more trouble finding him. Sure, he's a predator, but he DID have the aid of the tracking device to make things much faster. I think the playing field would have been somewhat leveled had he not had it.
Yes, I hinted to just that in my previous post.




And I'm willing to bet Chigurh would still find him even without the tracker... as he did. :)


But yes, the playing field would have been leveled.

My money is still on Chigurh. The guy was unstoppable.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Moss KNEW "they" would be coming after him. He took off and sent Carla Jean to her mother's in Odessa. It was Carla Jean (through her mother) that actually brought Moss down.Yup. I mentioned that to J.R. a few posts back.

He really had no chance.
Poor bastard.

[J.R. Hudson]

My money is still on Chigurh. The guy was unstoppable.


Except in the gunfight they had.

: ) : O

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Except in the gunfight they had.

: ) : OWhat do you mean? The guy ran away...

:thumbsup:

[J.R. Hudson]

Lol

!

[J.R. Hudson]

Alright

I've settled down

It;s starting to come to me. Still musing.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

It really does leave you thinking about it for a while afterwards doesn't it?

"What business is it of yours where I'm from, friendo?"

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/23237/1203129633.jpg

:D

[J.R. Hudson]

That scene ruled. I would have been peeing behind the counter.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/scared/scared0016.gif (http://www.ladies-shoes.biz/ladies-shoes/63889-1.html)


I know what you mean...

[karapetkov]

No, the acting was teriffic in this movie, no doubt.

I watched it again and it was the same as last time - no ending. :grin:

There's something deeply wrong with Javier Bardem. :Drogar-Dolar(DBG):

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

No, the acting was teriffic in this movie, no doubt.

I watched it again and it was the same as last time - no ending. :grin:

There's something deeply wrong with Javier Bardem. :Drogar-Dolar(DBG):Did you watch the extra 10 minutes following the credits?

[Zak Forsman]

Did you watch the extra 10 minutes following the credits?

that is mean.













...and hilarious.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Hehehe...

:D

[J.R. Hudson]

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/scared/scared0016.gif (http://www.ladies-shoes.biz/ladies-shoes/63889-1.html)


I know what you mean...


Ohhh

cool emoticon ! :Drogar-Shock(DBG):

[karapetkov]

Did you watch the extra 10 minutes following the credits?

No, i skipped them cause I thought that would be just TLJ and Javier Bardem making funny faces. :laugh:

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Just saw this again for the second time. It really is all very clear.

Chigurh gets the money.
Chigurh kills the wife at the end.
TLJ has now been visited by "God" and knows that his Father is lighting the way and will be waiting for him. (Thanks to the dream.)

There really isn't much left to ponder.

[Luis Caffesse]

I saw it for a second time as well - and I have to say it's just as good the second time around. BUT - I have to disagree a little bit, Kyser (unless I missed something) - it's still not completely clear who got the money. I reallly don't want to get into this again...but even the second time around I'll agree that it's strongly insinuated that Chigurh got the money (and that is what I believe happened) - but I can absolutely see how someone can walk about of that film and still feel that perhaps someone else wound up with the money.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I saw it for a second time as well - and I have to say it's just as good the second time around. BUT - I have to disagree a little bit, Kyser (unless I missed something) - it's still not completely clear who got the money. I reallly don't want to get into this again...but even the second time around I'll agree that it's strongly insinuated that Chigurh got the money (and that is what I believe happened) - but I can absolutely see how someone can walk about of that film and still feel that perhaps someone else wound up with the money.I really don't. Look at what they told us...

The discussion between the two Sherrif's state that no money was found at the scene and the Mexicans left in a "real" hurry. As we saw... gunfire was still in play.

If the police found an open vent during the initial search they would have stated that was likely where he hid the stash, and it was now empty.

The Sheriff returns.... the vent is now open, we see the coin, Chigurh was in the room and there are drag marks in the dust from the case being removed.

Most importantly!
Chigurh was the only person who knew that the vent was his secret hiding place. The Mexicans had no clue!!

Without showing him actually taking the money... it really can't be much clearer for me.

Just my opinion though.

Cheers.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

PS- He also gave the kid $100.00 for his shirt.

One last point. At the end of the movie he is no longer looking for the movie.


Carla Jean
I knew this wasn't done with.


Chigurh sits at the far end of the room in the late-afternoon shadows.


Chigurh
No.


Carla Jean
I ain't got the money.


Chigurh
No.


Carla Jean
What little I had is long gone and
they's bill aplenty to pay yet. I
buried my mother today. I ain't paid
for that neither.


Chigurh
I wouldn't worry about it.
Sorry, it just all seems too coincidental for me.

I just love this movie the more I think about it. :D

[Blaine]

There is no doubt that this is a thought provoking movie. I've seen it a couple of times myself and agree with you Mike about everything that happened at the end. I'm STILL disappointed with the ending though, but feel this is definitely the BEST movie of perhaps the last few years DESPITE that ending.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

No doubt, Blaine.

A little bump for the movie that kicked butt at the Oscars last night! :thumbup:

Cheers,

Mike

[chstick]

I'm STILL disappointed with the ending though, but feel this is definitely the BEST movie of perhaps the last few years DESPITE that ending.


Regarding the ending. A DVXuser in the 'Oscar' discussion said that, "The ending wasn't "bad", it just wasn't what I wanted".

I thought that probably describes it pretty well (for most).

My .02 on the ending is this...
It went out with a whimper....like the book...like OLD MEN...like life.

I didn't like it (the ending) when I saw it in the theater, didn't hate it either. However, after a few days to think about it, I've not only warmed to it, but it feels a little more right.
In a way it was like the Sopranos finale (didn't like it at the moment I saw it, but a few days later thought it was genius).
These two examples are kind of going back to more of a HITCHCOCK style of story telling.....where the build up & suspense IS the bang...not the ending. I think the film audiences of today have been conditioned to expect 'the big payoff' at the end of movies. One of the great aspects of filmmaking is telling a story by what you leave out.....in doing this, you really have to walk a fine line between making something great and having a "what the f*#k...that sucked" moment.

As for the Coen bros big night last night. I am stoked for them. I've been a huge Coen bros fan since BLOOD SIMPLE, and, like Scorsese last year, it almost seems like a little payback for Bloodsimple, Fargo, The Big Lebowski et al...

I'm a little bummed that Deakins didn't get the cinematography Oscar....but it probably hurt his chances being on the ballot twice in the same category. I'm sure a lot of the 6000+ Academy members just put an X next to Deakins name (be it Jesse James or NO COUNTRY)....not to take anything away from the amazing job Elswit did in "There Will Be Blood".

Cool, Coen bros, Oscar winning directors.

Well deserved.

[karapetkov]

"The ending wasn't "bad", it just wasn't what I wanted".

I too agree with that. The movie wasn't marketed well, meaning that based on the reviews and trailers, I was expecting something else, while actually this is an art-house film.

It is possible that the problem actually is in the trailer and reviews that I've read but still, for me, something was wrong in the chain.

[chstick]

The movie wasn't marketed well, meaning that based on the reviews and trailers, I was expecting something else, while actually this is an art-house film.

It is possible that the problem actually is in the trailer and reviews that I've read but still, for me, something was wrong in the chain.


I never even saw a trailer....funny, I haven't even thought of that.

For me, as soon as a new Coen bros film comes out I'll go see it, period.

[Marlon Ladd]

Well, it's looks like the discussion of this film has been beaten like a dead horse, but I think I'll chime in anyway. I loved the acting and direction of this film and if you're a filmmaker it's definately one to see. However, I thought the story had too many holes in the story to me for it to be considered a great film.

1. Why in the heck was Woody Harrelson even in the movie?? He was there for 5 minutes like his character was going to make something happen and then he gets killed. I'm confused as to why Woody's character was supposed to be "The Man" to get "The Man" and knew everything there was to know about the killer, but then can't last an entire day after being able to track the guy that had the money in the hospital and find the money quicker than the killer. So, Woody's smart enough to find the guy and the money, knows everything about the killer and still is not smart enough not to get killed by the very guy he was hunting?

2. We get the majority of the movie from the guy with the money and Javier's (the killer's) perspective and then when the guy with the money gets killed (after 2 hours of battling back and forth), we don't even get to see what happened. He had managed to stay 1 step ahead of death and Javier the entire time and then at the end he just gets really dumb and then we don't even see how exactly he falls.

3. I know somebody will talk about symbolism here, but please tell me why Tommy Lee's character was even in the movie. He may as well have been a reporter documenting everything that was happening. I just didn't understand his place in the film. I know what the title says, and I know his character was coming to the understanding that it is "No longer a country for old men," but his character seemed as if he would have never fit it. There seemed to be nothing at all special about his character - not even intelligence or a keen intellect from experience. I just wish he would have actually did something in the movie. Anything.

4. Oh, when Tommy Lee goes back to the hotel and we see Javier clearly in the room - where did he go? Did I miss something? Did he have powers or something? One sec. he was there and then when Tommy goes in, he's gone. What'd I miss?

5. The ending was so random - kinda' different, kinda' crazy, kinda' cool, because it was different. But, WTF? There's still the question of what was the movie "supposed" to be about? Was it Tommy's character realizing that he was too old for the job? If so, why didn't the story center around him more?

Anyway, I did enjoy the film, but felt very with some parts of it. I do think we definately need movies like this, because they are so different and some of the things the directors were able to do really raised the bar to an extent. I have only seen it once and may see it again, but I just have one question: did the film get so much oscar notoriety, because it was a film with a story to be remembered for years to come or because it was simply something different and new?

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

4. Oh, when Tommy Lee goes back to the hotel and we see Javier clearly in the room - where did he go? Did I miss something? Did he have powers or something? One sec. he was there and then when Tommy goes in, he's gone. What'd I miss?


I'll tackle this one since most of what you have stated is based on opinion or disagrees with the book that the movie was based on. Nobody can really change your opinion so I won't try.

As for point #4... he was behind the door. When TLJ enters the bathroom Javier could have easily slipped out the front door. When I saw this the second time around I watched for it. He could have easily left unnoticed.

And yes, TLJ realizes that this is no country for old men.

It also seems that a lot of your disagreements are with things that just don't play out like the average movie. This is the main reason why I loved NCFOM so much!

Cheers,

Mike

[Marlon Ladd]

Okay, Mike. You're right that he could have slipped out - but why show us both men as if there will be a confrontation and then absolutely nothing, including an explanation? So, there was a book the movie was based on? I can agree that the movie was unconventional and I def. give it credit for that. I guess I may have to go back and watch it again 1 day.

[J.R. Hudson]

I side with Lee on many if these questions. It is also not in character for Javier to kill TLJ; he didn't hesitate to off anyone else, why not jump on him from behind the door ?

Still

Fascinating film and plenty of greatness to take from. Not many perfect films out there; but this was damn near close. Like getting the best fellatio in the world and then she stops right before ....................

(Nice analogy, I know)

[capitalP]

One more thing, I know it was the 80's, but when Police Officers get killed, isn't there usually a nationwide manhunt? It seems like after he killed that police officer, there wasn't really a man hunt or anything, it was more like... oh well, another a police officer is dead...

Out of all the things that I questioned in the movie, that right there got to me the most, but that's just minor compared to the overall satisfaction of the film... and oh Yeah Leenewton I would write SPOILERS before your post, I'm sure there's still people who hasn't seen it yet.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I side with Lee on many if these questions. It is also not in character for Javier to kill TLJ; he didn't hesitate to off anyone else, why not jump on him from behind the door ?
Because TLJ surprised him. Chigurh didn't expect anyone to be there. He also just got the money. Why risk it all when you can leave?

He was injured and had been through one hell of a ride up to this point. Also, what if he did kill him right there and he had his Deputy in the car?

Chigurh is always in control of the situation and he tends to get the jump on people. There were just too many unknown variables and TLJ got the drop on him while he was holding the bag.


Mike

[Barry_Green]

I've got a friend who's making the rounds to catch up on all the Oscar winners; last night he went to see this pic. He named it "No Ending For Old Men."

[karapetkov]

I've got a friend who's making the rounds to catch up on all the Oscar winners; last night he went to see this pic. He named it "No Ending For Old Men."

Lol. :)

I liked the way the brothers behaved in the ceremony. They were normal.

Particularly what Joel Coen said, it was something like:

"Thank you for allowing us to keep playing with these things.". (or something like that)

Cool people... and super-talented, obviously.

But the movie is still end-less for me. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

[Billy Pilgrim]

I just read an excellent, insightful article about this film:

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/?2008,2,200

Contains Major Spoilers

I love that site.

[Billy Pilgrim]

Also, No Country For Old Men Sock Puppet Show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-MHg1HKSKI&feature=related