No Country for Old Men discussion (Spoiler)

[Cory W]

I thought the movie was amazing. However, I have heard a lot of people didn't enjoy the end.

I really thought the end was absolutely outstanding. I loved Tommy Lee Jones' role and thought ending it with him accepting that the (his) world had changed was brilliant. It really wasn't so much about the perceived bad guy getting away with a crime as much as it was about so many other things.

What were your thoughts on the end? Or just the movie in general?

[JFK]

Loved the movie, saw it inflight, will watch is again sometime

[moeloubani]

Totally got lost near the end? Wtf happened? Why didn't they have a shoot out or a fight?

[dready]

Started off awesome and then it really bogged down.

[Minte]

The entire last 20 minutes of the film was disappointing.

It started well and got better,a little more senseless killing than was really required but that last 20 minutes and the ending really annoyed me.
I suppose we will be seeing the sequel in a year or so.

[Cory W]

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Totally got lost near the end? Wtf happened? Why didn't they have a shoot out or a fight?

IMO

He checked into the motel and had the opportunity to "cheat" on his wife, instead he went in the room, hid the money in similar fashion as he did in the prior motel room. The Mexicans killed him, however, they didn't find the money.

Anton showed up at the crime scene, broke the lock and knew where he would find the money.

[corvette]

its rare when you see pure, unrelenting evil pass through the show without justice at the end.

[Cory W]

Originally Posted by Minte

The entire last 20 minutes of the film was disappointing.

It started well and got better,a little more senseless killing than was really required but that last 20 minutes and the ending really annoyed me.
I suppose we will be seeing the sequel in a year or so.

I really don't think it left itself open for a sequel. I think there was closure.

I loved the end.

[corvette]

btw, i was waiting for your critique of this movie cory

[Cory W]

Originally Posted by corvette

its rare when you see pure, unrelenting evil pass through the show without justice at the end.

Which was absolutely awesome.

And I even think, in a way, Anton was a subconscious figure that represented random violence associated with unfortunate circumstantial placement in life.

I think by stripping him of conscious, guilt and humanity wasn't necessarily because he was evil, more that just sometimes circumstances are evil.

[Phoenix]

anton didnt have the money when he was walking down the street at the end though

[corvette]

allow me to paraphrase wiki:


Themes and style
Not only is No Country for Old Men a "doggedly faithful" adaptation of McCarthy's 2005 novel, it revisits themes Ethan and Joel Coen have used in Blood Simple and Fargo. The novel's motifs of chance, free-will, and predestination are familiar territory for the Coens, who presented similar threads and tapestries of "fate [and] circumstance" in those earlier works.[5][6] Numerous critics cited the importance of chance to both the novel and the film, focusing on Chigurh's fate-deciding coin flipping,[7] but noted that the nature of the film medium made it difficult to include the "self-reflective qualities of McCarthy?s novel."[8]

In The Village Voice, Scott Foundas writes that "Like McCarthy, the Coens are markedly less interested in who (if anyone) gets away with the loot than in the primal forces that urge the characters forward... In the end, everyone in No Country for Old Men is both hunter and hunted, members of some endangered species trying to forestall their extinction."[9] Roger Ebert writes that "the movie demonstrates how pitiful ordinary human feelings are in the face of implacable injustice."[10]

New York Times critic A.O. Scott points out that Chigurh, Moss, and Bell each "occupy the screen one at a time, almost never appearing in the frame together, even as their fates become ever more intimately entwined."[11]

Variety critic Todd McCarthy describes Chigurh's modus operandi:

? Death walks hand in hand with Chigurh wherever he goes, unless he decides otherwise ... if everything you've done in your life has led you to him, he may explain to his about-to-be victims, your time might just have come. 'You don't have to do this,' the innocent invariably insist to a man whose murderous code dictates otherwise. Occasionally, however, he will allow someone to decide his own fate by coin toss, notably in a tense early scene in an old filling station marbled with nervous humor.[12]

[Minte]

Originally Posted by WEG Cory

I really don't think it left itself open for a sequel. I think there was closure.

I loved the end.

There certainly is no gray area on that ending..you either loved it or hated it.
My only thought was that it could've been so much better than it was.

I guess we can only wait and see if there is a sequel.

[corvette]

Originally Posted by WEG Cory

Which was absolutely awesome.

And I even think, in a way, Anton was a subconscious figure that represented random violence associated with unfortunate circumstantial placement in life.

I think by stripping him of conscious, guilt and humanity wasn't necessarily because he was evil, more that just sometimes circumstances are evil.

not absolute, as he seemed to show some at the end when he offered the lady a coin toss for her life, and why did he wipe his feet at the end? was it something other than to signify that he killer her?

[corvette]

kind of like movies that keep you thinking in the end, like eyes wide shut

[Cory W]

Originally Posted by corvette

btw, i was waiting for your critique of this movie cory

Have you ever read Lolita?

I always felt that the character, Clare, didn't really exist, he was simply a figment of Humbert's guilt.

I felt you could watch this movie in the same way, in other words, that Anton was a representation of circumstantial evil and change for the worse, and less of an actual person.

[Cory W]

Originally Posted by corvette

not absolute, as he seemed to show some at the end when he offered the lady a coin toss for her life, and why did he wipe his feet at the end? was it something other than to signify that he killer her?

I believe he used the coins to project randomness upon people's lives. The coin, although an inanimate object, was no different than the bag of money. Both could be injected with meaning given the appropriate circumstances. The coin could forever change fate, and did in two very polar-opposite instances.

Anton wasn't real. : )

[psili]

My original post was a bit harsh.
I'll say I didn't dig the movie because it was mis-represented.
That's all.

Originally Posted by My Original Post

Much like other "art" opinions, just watch all the self-absorbed masturbators say what they want after they hear or read something they agree with and they can regurgitate so they can sound smart. -- that's what this thread's about.

My personal note, it was a well-made movie with a shitty ending. The previews taunting it as something special were bullshit. And anyone speaking about "oh, I so UNDERSTOOD THAT!" bullshit -- you're a pretender.

[Cory W]

Originally Posted by Minte

There certainly is no gray area on that ending..you either loved it or hated it.
My only thought was that it could've been so much better than it was.

I guess we can only wait and see if there is a sequel.

Out of curiosity, would you have enjoyed the end more if closure had been in the form of more, say, tangible outcome?

[BOSS1]

Originally Posted by WEG Cory

I thought the movie was amazing. However, I have heard a lot of people didn't enjoy the end.

I really thought the end was absolutely outstanding. I loved Tommy Lee Jones' role and thought ending it with him accepting that the (his) world had changed was brilliant. It really wasn't so much about the perceived bad guy getting away with a crime as much as it was about so many other things.

What were your thoughts on the end? Or just the movie in general?

The end was the part of the movie, especially the last monologue of the cop

[Minte]

Originally Posted by WEG Cory

Out of curiosity, would you have enjoyed the end more if closure had been in the form of more, say, tangible outcome?

Like I mentioned,the last 20 minutes of the film was out of synch for me with the first 100 minutes.
The ending to me was just the directors way of being artsy.
A proper story should have an ending,not leave the reader wondering or waiting for more.

[StickyGreen]

I thought that movie fucking sucked... waste of my blank DVD-R...

[BobG]

The movie would have been an excellent shoot'em-up if they didn't decide to go all vague and artistic toward the end. Felt like it got a little lazy too like they had to keep it under a certain time limit so they had to cut it short. Like when you write your signature too big and you have to write the last few letters really small and trail them downward. Oh shit, I started this thread off blunt and got all metaphoric a the end.

That being said, see There Will Be Blood. Excellent, front to back

[Chio]

I liked the movie but felt the movie should have ended with the crash.

Just like a coin toss, it would have been nice to see him go in such a freak occurance much like the shop keeper if he had chosen wrong.

[Gouge]

The movie is just like the book, what was there not to like or understand?

[ronin]

I liked the movie, just rented it this weekend. I also was a little lost at the end but I would see it again...

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by WEG Cory

Out of curiosity, would you have enjoyed the end more if closure had been in the form of more, say, tangible outcome?

tangible = moral?

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

I thought that movie fucking sucked... waste of my blank DVD-R...

[Porn Farmer]

Originally Posted by Minte

A proper story should have an ending,not leave the reader wondering or waiting for more.

Says who?

I can't stand predictable, boring, unimaginative endings.

No Country For Old Men was the best film of the year and the ending was perfect!

[tony286]

a very good film

[woj]

pretty good flick, but like others have pointed out, not sure about the ending...

[Iron Fist]

[hershie]

I felt jipped like I did at the end of the Sopranos with the black screen maneuver. But great movie otherwise.

[Altheon]

Originally Posted by corvette

kind of like movies that keep you thinking in the end, like eyes wide shut

Good point. Movies like No Country and Eyes Wide Shut have levels to it. Just focusing on the surface of the movie leaves you feeling a little flat. It's when you dig a little deeper you get to interpret characters and story lines in many ways.

I know some movies you see once and don't quite like but you give them a second shot and you end up seeing things the second time around. Take the George Clooney remake of Solaris. It would fit in with these two movies as having multiple interpretations.

-A

[jollyperv]

Honestly, I didn't really see the point of Tommy Lee Jones even being in this movie.

[Evil E]

For some reason, I have a very vague memory of the ending.

[Porn Farmer]

Subtext is content of a book, play, musical work, film, video game or television series which is not announced explicitly by the characters (or author) but is implicit or becomes something understood by the observer of the work as the production unfolds. Subtext can also refer to the thoughts and motives of the characters which are only covered in an aside. Subtext can also be used to imply controversial subjects without specifically alienating people from the fiction, often through use of metaphor.

Yes, it's called having to think people. I know for many of you it hurts your brain, but it is good for you!

[JC-OCCash]

Hey bro.....I watched the movie with Aime last night based on your reccomendation and I have to admit I loved it.....I actually liked it better the more I thought about it...Anton's character was incredible...

[marketsmart]

actually, i think the ending meant that there was actually no difference between the past and present when it comes to violence..

he said his dream was about his father and his father carried a flame that could make a fire at any time..

to me, it meant that violence can be born at any time no matter how far we progress as a people or how much time passes.. just my 2 cents...

also, if you pay attention to the beggining monologue of how he sent the boy to the electric chair and about how it wasnt a crime of passion, i think the whole movie is about the fact that violence and wickedness doesnt neccessarily have to have a reason or a purpose, its just there sometimes...

[jimmy-3-way]

Originally Posted by jollyperv

Honestly, I didn't really see the point of Tommy Lee Jones even being in this movie.

He's the old man that there's no country for.

Der.

[Useless Warrior]

It was an astounding film and it ended as it was meant to. I fail to understand why a shoot-out or Chigurh's arrest or death would have been a better ending, or why anyone would believe that a sequel is necessary or even possible. This wasn't Rambo.

[Walrus]

Originally Posted by Porn Farmer

Yes, it's called having to think people. I know for many of you it hurts your brain, but it is good for you!

It's funny, but there will always be people like that. Don't understand 'em, but they will always exist. I do think, however, that the best movies can both entertain and make you think. 'No Country' certainly achieved that.

[The Judge]

Gentlemen, that is a Hollywood movie, the makers are sitting now on their big pile of $$$ and laughing at the idiots who went to see their con and are now discussing it so seriously. You paid to see it, you got conned, you don't even realize it, move on.

[Jman]

Originally Posted by Minte

Like I mentioned,the last 20 minutes of the film was out of synch for me with the first 100 minutes.
The ending to me was just the directors way of being artsy.
A proper story should have an ending,not leave the reader wondering or waiting for more.

I agree 100%, movie kept me on my seat until Woody comes in. After that I slowly lost interest.

I'll watch it again but I'm sure same thing will happen.

[kowalsky]

People who didn´t like the movie because of the end are people who like to see movies for the stories. This is not that kind of movie, you don´t even need to see the whole movie to enjoy those rolls, that picture, those magic moment created by a camera. Coen brothers are genius!!

[Porn Farmer]

Originally Posted by The Judge

Gentlemen, that is a Hollywood movie, the makers are sitting now on their big pile of $$$ and laughing at the idiots who went to see their con and are now discussing it so seriously. You paid to see it, you got conned, you don't even realize it, move on.

Conned? Are you fucking serious?

I feel conned when I watch shit like Independence Day or Forrest Gump or any Adam Sandler movie. Shit that appeals to people with IQ's of 50.

When I see a movie like 'No Country for Old Men' it stays with me for days. I think about it and deconstruct it and ponder its meaning. That is called getting your money's worth.

[ADL Colin]

I like it. I don't need resolution. Whatever.

[Enemator]

I love it.

[TheStout]

Originally Posted by corvette

its rare when you see pure, unrelenting evil pass through the show without justice at the end.

If you want to see evil you should see There Will Be Blood. Great movie and the ending is amazing

[SykkBoy]

my favorite movie of 2007.

For those who say Tommy Lee Jones' character had no place in the movie.,...um, the movie was about HIM, NOT Lewellyn or even Chiguhr. Think about his last words "then I woke up" he woke up from his dream, but also woke up to the realization he was getting too old for this shit. Pay really close attention to the talk he has with his uncle in the wheelchair. The man that was allowed to die on his porch while no one else seemed to care...it happened in 1909.

This movie also has an undercurrent of money being a corruptive force....think about the misery the money brought everyone it came in contact with. Then there are the college kids who will only give Lewellyn the jacket after he gives them money. Then there are the kids at the end who are just innocent minds who offer a man in need a shirt without the thought of money. Then he offers the kid a $100 and the corruption starts as they start arguing over the money.