No Country for Old Men

[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/k

When 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 [SIZE=-1]prerogative[/SIZE].
I loved it.

I just hope there is no sequel!

 

[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...

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.