No Country for Old Men

bballplaya283 said:
What if it was "about" 2 different things?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Barry_S said:
The ending felt too abrupt.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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
 
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.
 
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...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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')
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
The Coens always have lines like that for the 'simple folk'. You can see almost any of those kind of characters saying that.
 
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.
 
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.
 
MattinSTL said:
I haven't stopped thinking about it since I left the theater...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top