No Country for Old Men

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?
 
leenewton said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
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
 
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."
 
Barry_Green said:
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."
Click to expand...

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)
 
leenewton said:
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?
Click to expand...


i agree...
 
Omg. I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to understand this thing.

I guess HD does this to people. :Drogar-Angry(DBG):

Still, not in the same league as Atonement, for example.

And ill-marketed too. The way it's built, it's an art-house film.

I guess they tried to put a subtle character story into a good-guy-bad-guy-chase-the-money sellable shell.

Confusion...

Not bad, but not as good as people say. :Drogar-Mark-10(DBG)
 
Great film for the first 2/3. I've seen it twice.

I think that the reason the wheels fall off at the end is that they try to stamp on some existential depth with the Tommy Lee character that clearly is not the tone of all of the earlier parts of the movie, and it just doesn't resonate. It feels hollow or flat or like the ending to a film that isn't following a film noir, suspenseful shoot-em-up. The film just doesn't have the emotional depth or poetry that it tries to punctuate itself with. It's just not that kind of film.

The ending of the film is not redeeming in anyway either. I don't mean that it doesn't have a happy ending. I'm actually glad that it took a more realistic turn. But it doesn't provide any insight into what we have learned, or add to it. It's just there. Tommy Lee retires for the exact same reasons that he has been hinting at the whole movie. This isn't satisfying or deep. It's obvious.

I can certainly applaud the film for trying to add a poetic quality to a film and play agaisnt our expectation. But taking the action, in itself, doesn't make it successful.

It's like the Coen Brothers play with their film noir crayons for a couple hours then try to bust out some ink calligraphy at the end. If they want the poetry they are going to have to play that game for the whole film.

Fun movie for awhile.

There Will Be Blood was better.
 
But I must say that again, the acting was unbelievably good. The entire cast.

I rewinded many parts, just to enjoy the way they acted. Especially the "friendo" scene :).

From IMDB trivia:

In the novel (but not in the movie), Sheriff Bell says of the dope-dealers, "Here a while back in San Antonio they shot and killed a federal judge." McCarthy set the story in 1980. In 1979, in San Antonio, Federal Judge John Howland Wood was shot and killed by rifle fire by a Texas free-lance contract killer named Charles Harrelson. Actor Woody Harrelson (Carson Wells in the movie) is his son.


How about that? :)
 
personally, and let me re-itterate that ...PERSONALLY ... what i enjoyed about this film, is that its written unpredictably somewhat like real life. the bad guy doesnt always go down, and sometimes people who could potentially make a difference just give up and take the easy way out , and sometimes we just never find out what really specifically happened. I just liked that it had those certain core story thing that they just left up to the viewer to figure out. it was a peice of cinema for the thinking movie goer. I really enjoyed that. i have to say that im really tired of films handing the audience everything on a silver plate like were too stupid to figure things out for ourselves, or the actual film is inadequate in its portrayal so they have to write in some unnatural dialog where someone at some point has to oddly talk to themselves or someone else and explain the whole thing, because the film doesnt speak for itself through the actual things we see. personally i just enjoyed that it spoke for itself and portrayed a complete story as far as im concerened. when the guy gets away at the end ..its the end. theres nothing more that happens between these charachters. most are dead. one has given up and gotten out, and the other has gotten away with the money. the intersection of their lives has ended, and the fiasco with the drug money has come to a close. theres just nothing more to see at that point. i think its really only a little shocking to some because every film we see has left us so ridgid in our expectation of what has to be in a movie. we all sit there and wait for the happy ending or the "5 years later" wher we see what happened from there. ..this film just is what it is to anyone who sees it, but again, persoanlly . im glad to see a film that dares break the mold of what weve become so used and chained to. there are many different types of stories to tell out there, and its good to see that they dont all have to play out like the same old rehashed hollywood flick in order to succeed. originality and creatvity show us they are still alive through films like this one.
 
I actually liked the Tommy Lee Jones film, The Three Burials..., better than this.

His character in The Three Burials really moved me.

I am not knocking No Country, I mean I did see it twice. I just didn't really care about the characters for whatever reason. The sense of place in it was top-notch. I also never knew where it was going, which excited me.
 
I tried to read through this thread before posting, but could only get to page 10 or so before I had to stop.

I can't believe how much people seem to like this film, and I have no idea how this managed to win Best Picture.

This was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Here's why:


******************WARNING! SPOILERS! **********************
(Not that it matters, because the plot was so thin there's hardly anything to spoil)



1) Moss running from Chigurh and the others started off as tense and exciting. But just when that plot would start to get entertaining, they would cut to something else that totally killed the pace.

2) Speaking of killing the pace, Tommy Lee Jones could have been left completely out of this film. He added nothing to the overall plot, and didn't even interact with any of the main characters. Each time they bring him in, he's talking for minutes with yet another worthless character about stuff that has nothing to do with the plot.

3) Moss is an idiot. He doesn't even bother to check the bag until really late in the game, despite the fact that Chigurh manages to track him down against all odds. How did he know how much money was in it (he tell his wife earlier) if he didn't count it? More importantly, why does he send his wife out of state, but only drive a few towns over? If I stole millions of dollars of drug money and had a horde of people chasing me, I'd be in Canada by the next afternoon...

4) As soon as you actually start to care about Moss, they kill him off. That's no big deal by itself, but you don't even get to see it! How lame is that?? They spend an hour and a half trying to get us interested in this character, and then they show us his death as a meaningless footnote. I watched this film on DVD with some friends, and we all spent the next fifteen minutes of the film convinced that he had faked his death and would be returning in a dramatic ending. But he was just dead, and apparently it didn't matter. It would have been great for them to have shown us him dying in a shootout with the Mexicans, rather than just show a three second cut of his corpse in a doorway.

5) Chigurh was supposed to be evil, but we barely see him kill anyone. Over half of his kills were just implied (the lady at the trailer park, Moss' wife, the man in Root's office, etc.). If he's supposed to be so uncaring and evil, we should have no doubt when he kills someone. It doesn't have to be gory, just clear. Shooting someone off screen is fine, but we need to see it happen.

6) Woody Harrelson's character was worthless. He could have been totally removed and nothing would change. I actually thought he was going to be relevant when he discovered where the money was, but then what happens? Nothing! He doesn't retrieve the money, he just visits Moss in the hospital.

7) Lack of music. Having no music works fine when the pace is fast and the dialog is constant. The Shield pulls this off in one of the best ways I've ever seen. But having no music is terrible when you have slow paced, boring dialog that doesn't advance the plot. The parts where Moss was being chased worked well without music, but the Tommy Lee Jones parts didn't. Sadly they constantly interrupted the action, so I was constantly reminded of this.

8) No ending. I can think of about 100 ways this film could have been almost redeemed by a good ending. Having Chigurh caught, or cornered by Tommy Lee Jones or the cops. Having Chigurh killing Tommy Lee Jones in a dramatic way, and escaping, perhaps then providing a voiceover of his own. Whatever. But having Tommy Lee Jones whine to yet another new useless character about some dream he had that wasn't relevant to anything??? My friends and I actually went back and re-watched that ending scene to see if we missed some profound revelation about something that had happened prior. Was Chigurh really some criminal that TLJ had let slip through his fingers years past? Was TLJ really involved in the drug transaction? Was Moss an undercover cop? Nope. TLJ just has crappy dreams. Apparently the moral of this story was not to go to bed right after eating.


I could go on, but it's not really worth spending any more time thinking about this movie...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top