No Country for Old Men discussion (Spoiler)
 

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?

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

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

Started off awesome and then it really bogged down.

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.

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.

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

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

I loved the end.

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

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

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]

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.

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?

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

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.

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. : )

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

tangible = moral?

:1orglaugh:Oh crap

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! :thumbsup

a very good film

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

:1orglaugh

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

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

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

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

Yes, it's called having to think people. I know for many of you it hurts your brain, but it is good for you! :1orglaugh

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...:thumbsup:thumbsup

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...

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

Der.