Just Watched No Country For Old Men (spoilers)
 

What a piece of shit.

First of all, the guy bringing back the dying drug dealer water is one of the most absurd thing I have ever seen in a movie. It is obviously there to make the movie go from point A to point B, not because it makes any fucking sense at all. Ludicrous.

Secondly, are we supposed to believe this pyscho killer guy goes around shooting up half of Texas and nobody pays no nevermind? Shootouts in the middle of the streeets, hotels being blown to pieces, cops dying. I mean wtf? Talk about plot holes.

Thirdly, whats up with the sheriff? He has this mass murderer running around loose and he spends the entire day at the coffee shop reading the newspaper? One of his cops is dead and he doesn't give a shit?

Fourth, both the main character and his wife are killed off camera. Forgive me, but thats simply inexcusable. I dont mind that the "hero" dies. Actually, it sometimes makes for a better ending. But this was just stupid.

Lastly, the ending was just horrible. The sherrif is talking about his dreams and then the movie ends? Oh my...

The movie had superb acting and great shots (like most "made for the oscar" movies) but all these plot holes and the awful conclusion made it crap. If anyone enjoyed this movie, I'd love to hear your opinions.

spoilers?

how can you possibly spoil anything from a movie in which nothing
fucking happens?

So, it was like an episode of Jericho?

It was about a sheriff who didnt understand the world anymore.

The guy was killed, the woman was not.

And the DEA was investigating the drug shit in the desert, thats why he didn't have anything to do.

And the only place he could find that perfect world again was in his dreams.

Basically what happens is what I just posted in the thread, plus a few minor details here and there. But if you think about about it, the plot had more holes than a fishnet.

I came "this close" to asking for my money back after seeing it. I wasn't that it was sooo bad, it just wasn't what I thought it was going to be. In the end, I didn't ask for a refund because it was my fault for not reading more reviews if I planned on being that fucking picky about it. But yeah, didn't care for it but my BF and I had a great time making fun of all the ass kissing reviews afterward. That was the most entertainment either of us got from it.

How do you know the woman wasnt killed? When he came out of the house, he checked the soles of both his shoes as if looking for blood.

It's true about the DEA, but you'd still imagine the guy would be out and about looking for the guy who killed one of his cops.

It was a great movie, if the subtleties of greatness whooshed over your head, thats your fault, not theirs.

So it whoooooooooooooooooshed over my head did it? :1orglaugh



When the movie ended, just about everyone in the theatre literally groaned.

Because she for once, didn't play his game. Thats why he got into the car wreck. This invincible unshakable assassin was distracted by the thought of someone not willing to enter his world and play his game and BAM he gets hit.

Same reason the sheriff wasnt killed when he walked into that room with churgar hiding behind the door, because the sheriff didnt look, as he said himself the reason he was retiring "im scared". and the same way that churgar had killed the person who begged for mercy but then asked "well....did you see me?"

So because modern moviegoers are so stupid they need everything spelled out for them, that makes it a bad movie? Not ever story HAS an ending, not ever plot is wrapped up in a nice neat little box for your pedestrian viewing pleasure. i was lost myself too when it was over but after researching the meaning i found the vast majority held a very convincing and believable view of the events.

Great movie, the Coen bothers did a excellent job of doing the book justice by sticking to the story.

That's an interesting take. Still I think he killed her, why else would he stop only to check the soles of both his shoes? To see if he stepped on dogshit? :1orglaugh

If it was supposed to be that easy they would have shown you it happening. they were forcing you not to think "omg thats logical he always does that" but to say "well i didnt see it there has to be an explanation"

Just from your post, I doubt it could be explained to you. Can I interest you perhaps in a nice, non-cerebral movie choice, such as the Patrick Swayze classic Road House?

All kidding aside though, this movie is not about plot. There's some bigger ideas going on, and it ended up not being about Josh Brolin's character at all. I know what it was trying to say, but I was too wrapped up in the whole drug money thing to care about some old man ruminating about how the world has gone to shit.

In my opinion, it showed too much violence for the sake of being violent. And it was too bloody and violent at that. The dialogues tried to hard to be deep and meaningful, and although some were very well done, they were so overshadowed by bloody shootouts and meaningless executions that they just came off as fake.

check this, well worth the read http://www.meetinthelobby.com/debate...en-ending.html

I dont watch pop corn flicks at all. I try to watch only movies that make you think, while you're watching them and afterwards. So how about you try to explain these various and obvious plot holes and not inslut me?

Instead of everyone taking the "It was too deep for you" approach, how about trying to explain the two major plot holes in this film?


1- Why would anyone bring a dying drug dealer water in the middle of the night? First, he was already dying when he left him. Second, it was a horrendous crimes scene and going back was about as dangerous as putting a gun inside your mouth and pulling the trigger.

2 - How could the killer shoot up the entire state and not a goddamn thing happen?

List 3 movies you've seen that made you think, then maybe I'll offer up my interpretation. That review you wrote doesn't exactly cast you in the light of a thinker. just saying.

1. Because if he didn't, there wouldn't be a movie. Plus, it was showing character...instead of Moss saying "Even though I'm going to take this money, I still have a good heart."

2. Does that really matter? They're in the middle of Texas in the 80's. You say you like to think about your movies, but your picking the wrong things to think about.

So I'm not a thinker? That's nice. Ok I'll play along.

Death In Venice
Requiem For A Dream
The Mission


After you offer up your intepretation, if you decide to do so, please let me know what was wroing with my "review". It wasn't even a review, just some doubts I had about the plot and the parts I found to be ridiculous.

I agree 100% with Falcon, it was a horrible movie. Actually though, despite how stupid it was how some of the events came out, it was still decent with the action, BUT then when the main character gets killed and they didn't even show it, that was fucking stupid, and I'd assume the wife got killed off camera also.

Anyways, once the hero got killed, it all fell apart, what's up with the sherrif just talking, that was boring as hell, I was ready to fast forward it.

Then, what was the purpose of the main bad guy getting in the car accident at the end ???? It had no point. Well, my friend said to show he wasn't invincible, but it was the end of the movie, so what ?

Another thing I didn't care for in the movie was the backstory, there was none or at least I didn't pick up on any like what the fuck was Woody Harrelson doing there ?? I don't understand his role. Then when he knew exactly where the briefcase of money was, that was fucking retarded.

1- Exactly. There would be no movie. That means it was just injected in there to make the plot move into second gear, but really made no sense at all.

2 - Yes, it matters. You cant go shooting up half a city in the US and not have shit happen to you. What about that scene right outside the motel? Shotguns going off left and right and not a single person gets out or calls the cops? Oh sorry, one person does come by, some guy in a truck, fortunately enough thats the truck our guy escapes in. Give me a break. I do think about stuff like this. Poor storytelling IMO. :2 cents:

Interesting read, thanks. I suppose I understand a bit better now why some folks enjoyed it so much. I simply don't like stories with plot holes that big or with endings that are totally inconclusive.

I didnt understand Woddy's role in it either. It looks like he's gonn save the day and then he gets wacked 15 minutes later? Why he just left the money there is hard to understand also. The more I think about it, the foundation of this movie seems to be the action and stalker chase, but actually it just uses that entire part to get some kind of message across about society becoming extremely violent.

It's not horrible because of the old guys in the end...that IS what the movie is about. like I said earlier, I was very wrapped up in the straightforward crime thriller they were unraveling, so when they ended it the way they did, I knew it was a curveball -- but I didn't like it too much. Everything you watched beforehand was a setup for the "old men" scene. It didn't really matter how Moss died, or that we even see it. Tommy Lee Jones is really the main character.

The movie is also about the randomness of the universe, and the unfairness also -- when you think about how the completely innocent wife is killed at the end. This idea goes a little further in the car crash scene at the end. Just because you guys had the rug pulled out from under you, doesn't make it bad movie.

I'd recommend it based on the first 3/4. I didn't like the end either, but I got it.

Yeah, but what if it ended wrapped up in a neat little bow conclusion? Wouldn't that make it like every other movie? The Coens don't do that type of thing.

that was the worst movie in the history of movies. my friend was begging me to leave the whole time and i was thinking to myself "its going to get good any minute". then all of a sudden hes talking and i wasnt paying attention because it was so boring and it was over all of a sudden.

I didnt say I wanted that, nor that I expect it from any movie I watch. But when directors end a movie this way, and people who like it (such as yourself) say "Oh, it doesnt matter that this or that happened, or that this or that didnt make much sense, what really matters is..." I just cat stand for that. A story is a story, it is all important. And it has to make sense, all of it. How are we supposed to draw our own conclusion if not?

LOL :1orglaugh

In all fairness to the movie, you should have been paying attention. I found interesting what Tommy Lee Jones was saying at the end. But to end a movie like that just reeks of copout to me.

+1 for the opinion of the thread starter. The movie was incredibly overrated. People can't convince me that is is on par with movies like American Beauty, Mystic River, Shawshank Redemption, etc., etc.

BTW, the bad guy kills the wife in the book I believe...so I think it is safe to assume that the Coen brother killed her as well...

The only interesting part of the movie was the mindset of the bad guy and how "fate" plays a big part in who dies and who lives...

pseudo-intellectual film if I ever saw one

Ending sucked, but the movie as a whole was not bad at all.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that he didn't kill her because of the checking the soles of his shoes things....although he may have been shaken that she didn't play his game.

OMFG!!! so that WAS the ending???? fuck i am on a copy dvd, i thought the ending got cut off, i was like "no fucking way it's really the end" :1orglaugh
oh man, that movie had me liking it all the way thru til it just abruptly ended, i even rewinded a few times to see how it couldve ended like that, i had no idea!

I loved the movie and can understand why some did not...

it's worth mentioning that Moss isn't really the hero of the story...just another victim of Chiguhr....the movie and story is all about Tommy Lee Jones' character and who he's mulling retirement because he's getting too old.

Think about his speech at the beginning and how it ties in with his speech at the end...and the final words "...and then I woke up". Also pay attention to the talk he has with his uncle in the wheelchair...

I took it as the wife got shot as well, hence him checking his soles

the car wreck was fate...it also became a corrupting point for the young boys on the bikes...think about the theme of how money corrupts...look what it made people do in the movie...those little boys in the end were selfless and perfectly willing to give up a shirt...but once he gave them money...they started bickering about splitting it...

As for why Moss went back to give them thirsty man some water...his conscience got the better of him. he felt it was one thing to take the money, but another let someone die that he could let live...

ahhh i thought he was going back to get the coke/drugs

....guess that explains why he had the water jugg (i thought for him since he'd be gone quite a while) and also why he left his truck up on the hill, i'm retarded for not realizing that lol

but still, the ending, got damn that blew, i needed more closure

I just found this review on IMDB and I gotta share it:


"No Country for Old Men" is for the kind of film fan who remarks, "Gee, wasn't that murder a clever mise-en-scene?" and who asks, "What kind of lens do you think they used in that strangulation shot?" The skeleton of "No Country for Old Men" is a cheap, 78-minute, gun-monster-chase B movie. Javier Bardem plays Anton Chigurh, the monster. He is Frankenstein; he is Max Cady from "Cape Fear;" he is from your childhood nightmares. He may be death personified.

One of many completely implausible scenes: an arresting officer, defying any logic, turns his back on Chigurh. Chigurh, displaying the supple sinuosity of a Cirque du Soleil contortionist, or an orangutan, slips out of his handcuffs. This is done out of camera view, because for Bardem it would be impossible; thus the scene's implausibility. Chigurh then, in real time, strangles the young police officer to death on camera. This is an extended sequence. This is the payoff for "No Country for Old Men": watching one human being kill other human beings, in scene after scene after scene, using various weapons, including a captive bolt pistol usually used on livestock. Guess Chigurh couldn't get hold of a Texas chainsaw. This is a slasher flick for the pretentious.

Early on, there are well-done, if standard, chase scenes. A man outruns a car: not believable, but fun to watch. A pit bull chases this fleeing man down a whitewater river. The man reloads his gun at the very last moment (of course) and shoots the pit bull dead just as it is about to sink its teeth into the man. Later, in a hotel, a beeping transponder informs the killer where his prey hides. Your pulse may race and you may think that this is all leading up to something interesting. You will be disappointed.

Tommy Lee Jones, whose ear lobes appear to be metastasizing as he ages, wanders aimlessly through the film as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, delivering cornpone, homespun, cowboy poet ruminations that are more or less opaque in meaning. No doubt the film's fans are even now feverishly compiling a companion volume that decodes Bell's dreams and conveys their depth.

Woody Harrelson, late the bartender of the TV sitcom "Cheers," shows up for a completely pointless half-hour role that yanks the viewer right out of the movie. "What is Woody Harrelson doing here?" Some years back, some bored English majors decided that conventional narrative structure was not intellectual enuf, and decided to play games with narrative. "No Country for Old Men" plays these sorts of games. The viewer is invited to invest time getting to know characters who are eliminated from the plot in ways that convey no meaning and are not moving. The narrative flow is truncated and yet the movie keeps going; viewers ask themselves why the movie is continuing -- sometimes out loud, even in a movie theater -- this is supposed to be a deep, intellectual experience. It is not. It is merely annoying.

Other than bratty English major head games, pretty much the entire substance of "No Country for Old Men" is a series of murders and tortures committed by Chigurh, who may symbolize your high school's worst bully ? a bully so terrifying exactly because he targeted English majors. His victims are often courteous; their likability makes watching them be humiliated and then murdered an uncomfortable, and, given the film's structure, ultimately pointless exercise. Not only are the Coen Brothers torturing their characters, they also torment their ticket-buying audiences.

Chigurh's nice victims are often poor, rural, Southern, whites, the kind of people often not featured as positive, lead characters in Hollywood entertainments. They are often villains ? witness films like "Deliverance." Here they are murder victims. Chigurh is associated with Mexicans, part of a rising "dismal tide," as one Anglo character puts it. No matter how you feel about immigration, you may find this association of Mexicans with a rising tide of evil to be offensive.

The film's boosters insist that the movie offers three deep and shocking lessons: life doesn't always follow a neat narrative structure; evil often triumphs; and the old days were more peaceful and, nowadays, things are getting really bad. In truth, everyone walking in to the theater already knows the first two "lessons." No one needs the Coen brothers to inform him that life doesn't always follow a neat narrative structure, or that evil often triumphs. We expect filmmakers, and all artists, to offer us a more substantial thesis. As for the third "lesson," that the old days were more peaceful and things are getting really bad today -- have the Coens, or Cormac McCarthy, heard of Attila the Hun, or any number of other less-than-peaceful and courteous personages from our common human past? One might well be dubious about "No Country"'s "lessons." Visit internet discussion boards devoted to this movie, and you will find fans asking, not "What is fate?" or "What is the role of a good man in a bad world?" but questions like, "If Hannibal Lector and Anton Chigurh were locked in a room, who would come out alive?" Given such reflections, one is safe in concluding that the appeal of this film is its emphasis on graphic violence, rather than on any more advanced intellectual or artistic merit.

it was ok, not great, ending wasn't too great, but I think probably I didn't really think about it enough to make it great, I never got to the "Oh ya, that makes sense" part, I am sure it's there somewhere, but honestly didn't care enough about the movie to try to figure it out.

I thought the movie was great. To each his own I guess :winkwink: