"No Country For Old Men"
 

(Spoiler alert!!!)






I did'nt like this movie as a whole. Tommy Lee Jones was great in this as the sheriff I will say. I was caught up in the cat & mouse game up until the lead charctor got killed.....and then as if that were not enough...his wife! I wanted to see the wife triumph through all that happened and the writers kill her off!

This story had no resolution. It'll hold you to your seat with suspense and then abrubtly end.

Russ

you are right....
 

...No Country for Old Men had absolutely no resolution. A good friend of mine is a member of the academy and gets to vote. She absolutely hated the movie, so don't blame her!

Wow! It is one of my favorite movies of the last several years!

The good guy doesn't always win. This is one of those. Unfortunately, that's how it goes sometimes. And it's always a bit more of a surprise in a film when they don't give it the "Hollywood" ending. I respect them for it. It's a downer, but it's a great film.

Spoiler alert on Citizen Kane. He dies too.

I am reading the book this weekend, then will rent the movie. Hope I like one of 'em!

True Ed, but at least with "Kane" the audience is informed that "Rosebud" was a sled!:D

The good-guy sometimes needs to suffer in a movie to make it believable & true....but in this case we (the audience) WANTED this charactor or at the very least....his wife....to triumph over the rotten SOB hitman.....OR, for the hitman to allow the wife to live.

I was really into the movie, very good....but when they killed off the innocent harmless wife I simply hated the movie for doing that. That alone served no purpose to the otherwise good story IMHO.


Russ

Plot Spoiler Warning!!!!
 

But that was the point of the character. He killed without morality or pleasure. The film's deviated from the book by having the wife refuse the coin flip, which made her death seem like a moral dilemma. But it wasn't. It was her turn to die, and nothing stopped it, while it wasn't his turn to die in the car crash, and he didn't.

The film and book are about the end of morality as the reliable guiding force in American life. Moss shooting an antelope at 1000' and Chigurh shooting Carson at 6' are exactly the same act.

"Michael Clayton" it ain't.

I liked both films for very different reasons: MC as an entertaining Hollywood film, and NCFOM for much more. YMMV.

I liked the movie because of the unexpected ending.

I read the book after I saw the movie. If I didn't know better I would have said the book was written after the movie was made. Pretty much dead on.

BTW- I enjoyed the movie and the bad guy. He was damn good.

Yep, that's the tie to the title, as Tommy Lee found today's "country" so different from that of his ancestor lawman. I liked the film, but it certainly isn't everybody's cup of tea. That scene with the coin flip with the service station clerk was chilling!!

Anyone who has watched Coen brothers films before should not have been surprised by how this one ended.

I liked it, even the ending, and note that this film has possibly the best bad guy ever, Anton Chigurh.

Bardem's performance will be talked about for years.

http://www.altrovideo.com/wordpress/...or-old-men.jpg

the coen bros and cormac mccarthy are hand in glove in this film. the coens have always explored the ubiquity, banality, and comedy of evil. in this one they go a step beyond and join up with mccarthy staring evil directly and without flinching right in the face.

to hate the film because it doesn't deliver the payoff you desire is a basic misunderstanding of the story.

i won't go any farther because summer has already said everything else i could say about this film but i will mention that EVERYTHING mccarthy has written is well worth reading. i would even go so far as to say he must be read. i cannot a imagine a contemporary writer coming from a deeper position than he.

the film of his pulitzer prize winning book The Road is either in production or has wrapped, starring viggo mortensen as the father. if you think NCFOM was dark, check this one out.

(OT - Mortensen is well cast in that role.)

i after watching half of it, I simply hated the movie 2.:thumbsdn:

someone please send me the spoiler --- I watched the whole movie and didn't understand it at all. A hitman and his huntee etc etc and then tommy lee jones eats at the table with his wife and the credits scroll. All of it must've went way over my head.

double post

sorry

Think it's time to ditch this laptop:)

What I got -

When Tommy Lee Jones visited Maurice Minnehan (guy with cats), they talked about a lawman being gunned down on his porch in front of his family and it was horrifying that what used to be a respected institution was shot down so casually. That happened ~75 years before and the point was times change and bad men get more evil but men have always been evil and will always act in ways you don't understand. So, you must rise up to the challenge and beat them. Anton Chigurh was just evil and had nothing motivating him to be evil, he just was and Tommy Lee Jones could not get a handle on that. I took the last scene to mean Tommy Lee Jones was no longer a sherrif and thinking about retirement property in Florida. His life as a lawman had gotten too complex and he wanted nothing more to do with it.

I think......

:scratch2:

Yep, that's my story and I am sticking to it! Regardless of the Coen brother's way of storytelling which you can either take or leave, Javier Bardem's performance as Anton Chigurh was staggering. Soulless, remorseless, and unplacatable. He cannot be appealed to or bargained with; he is more focused on his task than the original Terminator. IMO there has never been a better bad guy and watching the film for his performance is worth the price of admission.

Obviously you, like most american film goers, watch movies for plot only without any appreciation of thematic or literary device. The murderer in NCFOM represents fate. He himself is almost killed by the random car crash at the end of the movie. The "Country" that's no good for old men in this film is, via metaphor, life itself. We're all done for.

It's a spectacular movie but not if you fail to view the auteuristic qualities that link it to other Coen Bros. films. The book reads uncannily like a Coen Bros script in certain ways, only much darker - Ethan and Joel must have pinched themselves when they first read it.

I really do recommend reading the book. The Coens were remarkably faithful to it (word for word dialog), but you get a better sense about the ambiguities of fate and the rise of amoral, dispassionate evil.

I had a friend who quit smoking dope about the time this book/movie takes place, when she started hearing about how the Mexican drug cartels were killing everyone in sight (and at one point, chopping up bodies and blending them with weed). The combination of huge amounts of money and huge amounts of firepower have rendered devastating changes along the Rio Bravo.
Remember the news story that was kinda buried last year about the Indiana (?) National Guard unit that was on patrol down their when they got "captured/surrounded" by cartel convoy. The cartel was sporting M60s mounted on trucks.

It might just be the other things I'm reading and working on in my life, but I saw it as a story of acceptance. Tommy Lee Jones makes a decision. He can continue to fight evil, or accept that it is and live his life. He chooses life. I don't mean life as opposed to death, but life as opposed to struggle.

I watch movies for entertainment. Call me anything you like, but for me, that movie did not qualify as entertainment. A revenue generator for the Coen Bros, yes.

I watched it with my wife, our daughter, and daughter's fiancé, none of us enjoyed it.

Eight thumbs down for us.

This movie was a remarkable story that was excellently executed and wonderfully portrayed, imo. To this date I've watched it five times each with different people and every one of them took something different away from it.

There were some funny parts.

Personally, I'd say it went to the "art" side as opposed to the "entertainment" side. I like both kinds of movies, and that's why they build multiplex theaters.

"Art" is usually conceived to tell the future something about the present (even when the "present" is represented by past and future events), while "entertainment" is usually created to tell the present something about the past (including most sci-fi, hence the "Western" and "WWII" motifs).

Art also attempts to defy death by projecting outward, whereas entertainment attempts to comfort and console us in the dark night.

Both art and entertainment are needed. Sometimes they overlap. Neither is necessarily better.

Picking my feet up now. ;)

Well put. Aage, it just wasn't your kind of movie. Doesn't make it bad. Kinda like how I can't stand Pink Floyd. Doesn't make them bad. Just not for me. 'Cept for the really early stuff, of course. See Emily Play and that. But the rest of it... not so much.

I thought NCFOM was a terrible movie because of the story. Now the guy that played the killer gave a terrific performance. He really WAS that character.

His weapon was an air tank and a plunger, man that is frickin wicked. He literally slaughtered his victims like cattle. Some of his victims just stood there almost accepting their impending doom. Very dark movie but I enjoyed it.

What credentials qualify you to make such a statement?

you don't have to have credentials to make comments like operaman's. you just make 'em.

i have followed this thread along, because i am a fan of both mccarthy's and the coen brothers. i am fascinated by the level of discourse this movie has elicited, from those who don't like, and those who do like. of course, i do like (see avatar). the fundamental error made by many of the 'don't likers' is that they take it for entertainment. this most surely it is not. as others have pointed out, it is a meditation on evil and our participation with it or our rejection of it; and again, it meditates on fate. this was at one common fare in popular entertainment (bill shakespeare for example, or any of the ancient greek dramas, and so forth and so on)

somehow, we don't tolerate that very well any more. if these topics are approached seriously, straighforwardly, without apology, most will have no part. it is not entertaining, i.e. a flight of fancy with a 'happy' ending.

like summer and others above, i have a certain appetite for entertaining film, but i go in ahead of time knowing that i will feel the same as i do when i eat a sugary sweet. it was fun while it lasted....

when i want a solid meal, of course, i look for sturdier fare. that said, the only other thing i would say is, this movie should be backed up with a reading of the book. NOT one of mccarthy's best, in my estimation, but a strong one nevertheless. it displays all of his concerns with fate, evil, and the choices one makes in life.

if anybody is still reading, and you are interested in getting a deeper sense of what mccarthy is all about (for me, NCFOM was a cormac mccarthy movie, not a coen bros. movie), then, in order of excellence, IMO, his books are: The Road; Blood Meridian (you thought chigurh was bad? wait'll you meet up with The Judge), and Suttree.

you can also find out more at www.cormacmccarthy.com

That's not Bob Crane?!?!?

Yeah, well, that's the truth.

So what is your take on Ridley Scott tapped for Blood Meridian directorial duties?

my take is that that will be awesome. unbelievable. perfect. i can't wait. in the meantime, go and read that book, and tell me you were able to set it down whenever you wanted to. i dare ya.

+ 1 on "The Road." Not to be confused with "On the Road."

Russell Banks ("The Sweet Hereafter") is another author who uses death and bleakness to reveal how we humans deal with living.

For the record, I am an American who understands metaphor. In fact, I am entertained by metaphor.

Ken

I'm surprised so many people really didn't like this movie, I thought it was great, although the abrupt ending sort of comes out of left field - I was able to appreciate that much more when I thought about what happened in the movie afterwards, but at the time I was annoyed just because I wanted to see more.

I'm not surprised that American viewers are disappointed that the "villain" won in the end. I've always been frustrated by the shallowness of our culture in that regard, it's such a cliche to always have a happy ending, it's unrealistic, and it's been done to death. But like others here have said, this movie is art, which life imitates, right?

Although the acting in this movie was good in general, I found the actor who played Chigurgh to be absolutely fantastic, what he said and how he said it sent chills down my spine. This is one I'll probably buy, I need to see it again to really appreciate it.

Dave

There was an ending to this movie???

Well it certainly didn't go on forever.

I need to see it again myself.
I had no idea it was based upon a book for one thing. I was not so much expecting nor wanting a happy ending, as you have stated the ending just did not satisfy me. Although I could not stand that the structure of the story mandated that the wife must be killed by the hitman....I wanted MORE reaction from T.L Jones charactor in relation to it. Not for him to just stare out a window reciting a memory.....then fade out to credits.

I did not nor would I want his charactor to go "Dirty Harry" on the bad guy....I just wanted more meat! The last hour & ending needed more exposition IMHO. Especially that most (like myself) were not even aware a novel excisted in the first place.

Maybe I'd like the book better.

Russ

Ahh, the ending... I've talked to a lot of people who hated the movie and hated the ending, but also people who liked the movie and still hated the ending.

Something that seems lost on people is how the ending - taken word for word from the novel - resonates with the Coens' earlier film "Raising Arizona" from the mid-80s. It ends with Nicholas Cage recounting a dream in which he imagined himself in the future with his family. Instead of "and then I woke up", the dream ends with "hell, maybe it was Utah!".

Hence this is a tragic and realistically morbid twist on their earlier comic film (which also featured the not-so-comic character of a dark, murderous vigilante outlaw bounty hunter very much like Chigurrh). This is brilliant.

The Coens have become "Auteur" directors which vaguely means that to appreciate any piece of their work requires some lengthy immersion in all the rest of their work.

What follows is simply my opinion, YMMV.

I have almost ceased watching films. Especially films that actually make money in theaters. I'm not a movie snob. Just bored senseless by exploding buildings, spring-loaded cats, CGI everything, and worst of all; story-lines geared solely to pleasing the 15 to 30 demographic.

In short, I don't care if I ever see another "Hollywood blockbuster".

--------- Spoiler Alert ---------

I loved this film. In my opinion, it is (and grandly so) the polar opposite of the films I describe above.

From the first to last frame, NCFOM is metaphor; and powerful metaphor at that. We are treated (or perhaps subjected) to a slice by slice dissection of the very best and worst that the human animal has to offer.

There was a moment in this film that I firmly locked into where this story was driving me, and a shiver ran down my spine... When a sleepless, tortured Moss rises from his bed and fills a jug with water, I knew that fate had its hand on the tiller.

In truth, there are only 3 characters in this story, Bell - Chigurh and Moss. Their "three fateful faces of death" is the very heart of this story. They never share a single frame of film together, but they are bound by their natures and circumstance to collide. For me, the most brilliant piece of McCarthy's storytelling, and the Coen brothers film-making is that they never do.

No spring loaded cats, CGI cartoon superheroes, massive explosions, or dumbed down, pablum recitations of Cinderella, Wizard of Oz, or Dirty Harry. Just a great story, as unpredictable as life.

well said, fotno. well said. fate is undoubtedly the major theme of mccarthy's writing, and he does it in a way that illustrates the impersonal nature of fate acting through the human host.

i like to think of fate in this way: we connect ourselves to our fate when we act with what the greeks called hubris i.e. the sense of pride which allows one to believe that he can overcome the consequences of going against what he knows to be wrong. in this case, moss unleashes the furies on himself when he takes the money. an act of hubris if there ever was one. he has now locked himself together with chigurh.

the other face of fate is destiny. my destiny is what i discover when i refuse the selfishness of taking on what cannot be overcome. my true self emerges and i am drawn to become what i truly am. if i bring the fates down on myself, then that can never happen.

one is doom, the other salvation. and this is the realm that all of mccarthy's work dwells in. if anyone's read The Road, then we get a relentless, utterly bleak, fate blasted world that ends with a grace note of salvation. an utterly miraculous, sparse, almost impossible to accept, yet nevertheless there it is fleeting vision of the world beyond this.