No Country For Old Men (BEWARE SPOILERS!)

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

With 10 being the best and 1 being the worst, how would you rate No Country for Old Men?

10
23
29%
9
25
32%
8
16
21%
7
7
9%
6
3
4%
5
1
1%
4
0
No votes
3
1
1%
2
0
No votes
1
0
No votes
I'm waiting for DVD / TV
2
3%
No No Country for Me
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 78

Postby instant_karma on Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:20 pm

I guess in retrospect, it should've been obvious to me he would be using a gun during the chase. Running after a guy hauling a gas canister around would be kind of stupid.
User avatar
instant_karma
Comes in 4 exciting flavours
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:57 am
Location: Thereabouts

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:46 pm

instant_karma wrote:I guess in retrospect, it should've been obvious to me he would be using a gun during the chase.


It's unna'derstandable that a you would a be flummoxed... conna'sidering your love for a the Princess Bride, eh?

:wink:
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby instant_karma on Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:55 pm

DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
instant_karma wrote:I guess in retrospect, it should've been obvious to me he would be using a gun during the chase.


It's unna'derstandable that a you would a be flummoxed... conna'sidering your love for a the Princess Bride, eh?

:wink:


I've just been scolded... :oops:
User avatar
instant_karma
Comes in 4 exciting flavours
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:57 am
Location: Thereabouts

Postby Maui on Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:54 pm

DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
Maui wrote:I've watched this a second time as well. I was able to catch more of the humour second time around ... What on earth is that thing called that Sugar was blasting everyone in the head with and knocking off doorlocks with???


Apparently even onna the second viewing you missed a the Sheriff's monologue about a the cattle farmer who used a the "stun" gun to shoot a the bolt right inna to a the skull of a the bovine, eh? Killing it inna'stantly, anna the bolt, she retracts back inna'to a the gun, no?

Both times, you must a have a stepped out to get a the pop-a-corn refill, no? :wink:


Oh quit picking on me! ;)
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby judderman on Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:23 pm

I feel bad. Am I a complete philistine for continually thinking of The Terminator as I watched this? Because that was what I kept feeling as this movie progressed; unrelenting, pounding intensity, as if one were being chased by a wall that could turn corners. No Country For Old Men is what The Terminator would have been if Cameron could actually write dialogue. Every beat of silence is perfect, and the absence of a score only highlights just how masterfully crafted this movie is. Even Hitchcock couldn't work without Herrimann. Like the dirty gritty action films of the time it's set in (The Hitcher, First Blood and yes, The Terminator), every gunshot feels like it struck you, every crash feels painful, every wound is visibly debilitating. None of this sanitised crap we see in later action films, which reduce the effects of violence to playing Lazr tag with Ken dolls. I have to wonder; these later flicks may have gotten past the MPAA, but which kind of violence would you want your kids exposed to? One that says bad guys keep going after getting fifteen shots to the chest or one that shows that if you so much as badly aim a gun, you or someone you love will end up in hospital?

I've read people on this thread describe Chigurh as the embodiment of fate. I wouldn't describe Anton Chigurh as an embodiment of anything. That's giving him too much credit. He's not Nemesis, he's not Fate. He's not even the personification of his programming, like The Terminator. He just likes to kill, and finds rationales to justify his desires. As one early critic (erroneously) described Iago in Shakespeare's Othello, Chigurh is a "motiveless malignity", an evil searching for a reason to be evil. People always talk about the "presence of evil." There is no such thing, and this movie gets that. Evil isn't a presence, it's an absence, just like cold is the absence of heat. Evil is not just the absence of conscience, but the absence of any form of connection with humanity. Javier Bardem captures this perfectly in his terrifyingly vacuous performance. He acts like a kind of psychic black hole, draining the life and happiness around him but remaining totally inert. If he were capable of pathos, I would describe him as pathetic.

As a rule I'm not fond of film noir, because I don't see the point of watching a man I can't stand slowly and methodically dismantle his own life while taking others along with him to oblivion. Rather than sympathy or catharsis, my main reaction when watching noir is to try and reach through the screen and throttle the main character. I gotta give credit to the Coens for being one of the few talents left with the guts to tackle noir in this day and age, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the end result. That said, Llewellyn Moss spins what could have been another despicable noir nonhero in new directions, making him just likable enough that he draws a modicum of sympathy from the audience. He's not stupid; he's not pathetic. He actually does have an idea how to beat this monster he's set loose on himself and his wife, and, even though his actions lead to both their deaths, you could still give him credit for trying.

Before I sign off I just want to give credit to someone who I never thought I'd see in a film again: Kelly MacDonald. The wee Glaswegian lass who seduced Euan MacGregor in Trainspotting was last spotted in the UK doing cringe-worthy voiceovers for deodorant commercials ("Muir than joost strrong; as strrong as a wooman!") but here completely transforms herself in every possible respect into a steely Southern belle who loses her life by telling Chigurh what he really is. She won't get an Oscar nom for this, but she should.
User avatar
judderman
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 4:24 am

Postby instant_karma on Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm

Wow. I totally didn't recognize Kelly MacDonald. Last thing I saw her in was Gosford Park. As you say, that was some transformation.
User avatar
instant_karma
Comes in 4 exciting flavours
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:57 am
Location: Thereabouts

Postby Chilli on Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:25 pm

judderman - excellent review, mate.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby Vegeta on Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:04 pm

Excellent review, judderman. I especially like the bit about "absence".
User avatar
Vegeta
PARAGON OF VACUITY
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:22 am
Location: U.S.S.A.

Postby tapehead on Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:17 pm

judderman wrote:I feel bad. Am I a complete philistine for continually thinking of The Terminator as I watched this?


Well, you do seem to have it on your mind alot lately - no comparison to a French new wave piece this time around?
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby TonyWilson on Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:13 pm

I have to disagree with Judderman slightly about Chigurh. He was the embodiment of violence in an important sense. As character, yes he was a psychopath - there was an absence of humanity, but metaphorically he's the violence present in society that Sheriff Bell is terrified of. Other than that interpretational niggle and the fact that hundreds of movies have a seemingly indestructible antagonist hunting someone down, I thought it was a good review.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby tapehead on Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:41 pm

I was the one (I think the only one), who referred to Chigurh as an arbiter of fates in his own mind, so I think that part of what Judderman wrote might be a reference to this point. I still see that as Chigurh's pathology, if you will, But Judderman's brings up some good points, although the film doesn't remind me much of the 80's 'vengeance' or 'search and destroy' titles he mentions.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Nachokoolaid on Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:40 pm

I hope Bardem wins the Oscar, but I hope that Jones is nominated for Supporting actor as well.
User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Postby Ribbons on Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:03 pm

Nachokoolaid wrote:I hope Bardem wins the Oscar, but I hope that Jones is nominated for Supporting actor as well.


I agree, I think that'd be a nice surprise.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 14157
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby judderman on Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:11 pm

tapehead wrote:I was the one (I think the only one), who referred to Chigurh as an arbiter of fates in his own mind, so I think that part of what Judderman wrote might be a reference to this point. I still see that as Chigurh's pathology, if you will, But Judderman's brings up some good points, although the film doesn't remind me much of the 80's 'vengeance' or 'search and destroy' titles he mentions.


Hope I didn't offend. If I came across as snarky it's because I've met WAY too many self-important narcissists who have the same rationales as Chigurh, and I refuse to allow them to think they're right.

And I wasn't comparing the movie plotwise to those other films, but in terms of their intensity and their honest depiction of violence.
User avatar
judderman
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 4:24 am

Postby tapehead on Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:20 pm

judderman wrote:
tapehead wrote:I was the one (I think the only one), who referred to Chigurh as an arbiter of fates in his own mind, so I think that part of what Judderman wrote might be a reference to this point. I still see that as Chigurh's pathology, if you will, But Judderman's brings up some good points, although the film doesn't remind me much of the 80's 'vengeance' or 'search and destroy' titles he mentions.


Hope I didn't offend. If I came across as snarky it's because I've met WAY too many self-important narcissists who have the same rationales as Chigurh, and I refuse to allow them to think they're right.

And I wasn't comparing the movie plotwise to those other films, but in terms of their intensity and their honest depiction of violence.


Not at all - I did find it a good way to kid of guess Chigurh's way of thinking, especially considering his coin toss and other little habits, but it's open to everyone's speculation, and there's some great theories in this thread. It's worth remembering he is a narcisstic sociopath too.
I think your comparison to Terminator threw me at first because it's so stylistically different - from the pounding score to it's almost invulnerable inhuman antagonist - Chirgurh still has the vestiges of human emotion and vulnerability, as his slight annoyances and that one scene of rage where he kills 'Man Who Hires Wells' evidences (I think people who have read the novel have flagged this scene as one that doesn't occur the same way in the film). But watching the scene where he performs surgery on his own leg, the viewer can hardly avoid thinking back to Arnie in the first Terminator fishing his own eyeball out of his head.
I found the violence and nihilism I felt in 'No Country...' a little more similar to a Peckinpah movie, but I don't know if I can substantiate that idea, although it might be worth a try.





One more thing, I found what appears to be 2005 draft of the screenplay online.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:12 am

tapehead wrote:as his slight annoyances and that one scene of rage where he kills 'Man Who Hires Wells' evidences (I think people who have read the novel have flagged this scene as one that doesn't occur the same way in the film).


there was nobody else in the room, I think, so that rather interesting ambiguity that the Coens brought ("Do you see me?") is the major difference. It certainly ties in with the notion of just whether Chigurh is in the hotel room that Bell enters after Moss' demise...

tapehead wrote:as I found the violence and nihilism I felt in 'No Country...' a little more similar to a Peckinpah movie, but I don't know if I can substantiate that idea, although it might be worth a try.


I'm down, expound!
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby judderman on Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:26 am

It's funny; I have considered some of the Coens' other movies, such as The Man Who Wasn't There or Barton Fink, nihilistic, but I didn't find this film nihilistic. I think the reason for my different reaction to this film is that, even though they were doomed, the characters had a nobility that rendered their fates tragic rather than infuriating.
User avatar
judderman
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 4:24 am

Postby tapehead on Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:33 am

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
tapehead wrote:as his slight annoyances and that one scene of rage where he kills 'Man Who Hires Wells' evidences (I think people who have read the novel have flagged this scene as one that doesn't occur the same way in the film).


there was nobody else in the room, I think, so that rather interesting ambiguity that the Coens brought ("Do you see me?") is the major difference. It certainly ties in with the notion of just whether Chigurh is in the hotel room that Bell enters after Moss' demise...


I took that as Chigurh actually wondering aloud if he were like the other humans or some wraith-like force (or fate - I'm sticking with that idea)

As for the rooms, I guess I was thinking Chigurh was in the same room, behind the door (you see his reflection in the cylinder, right?)... but I've already had a few heated discussions with people insisting he was next-door.

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
tapehead wrote:as I found the violence and nihilism I felt in 'No Country...' a little more similar to a Peckinpah movie, but I don't know if I can substantiate that idea, although it might be worth a try.


I'm down, expound!


Lemme watch 'Straw Dogs' again and I might come back with something.

judderman wrote:It's funny; I have considered some of the Coens' other movies, such as The Man Who Wasn't There or Barton Fink, nihilistic, but I didn't find this film nihilistic. I think the reason for my different reaction to this film is that, even though they were doomed, the characters had a nobility that rendered their fates tragic rather than infuriating.


I have to agree, at least as fair as saying Bell makes those last lines of his like a tragic soliloquy - maybe 'existential' would be a better description.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby John-Locke on Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:01 pm

Finally I can read this thread.

Just got back from seeing this, in a word

BADASS!

Loved every god damned minute of it, without a doubt in my mind Chigurh is the single most frightening character to ever appear in a film. Every single performance is astounding and I've never witnessed a packed audience being to tense before.

I dragged my girlfriend along because I really wanted to see this film and as a test to see if she'd like it or not, she didn't understand what I meant when I said "Films and Movies are not the same thing" before, now she gets it. Suffice it to say she loved it as much as me which made me a very happy man indeed.

Too many great moments to bring up here.

Darkest, coldest and funniest line in the film for me was when Chigurgh tells Kelly Macdonald not to worry about all those things (funeral expenses etc), the outcome was inevitable so being prepared for it I found it both sick, chilling and highly amusing at the same time.

For a film that is in a nutshell about being afraid of dying/growing old/how fucked up the world is, it sure was awesome.

Without a doubt in my mind the best film the Brothers Coen have made.

A+++
Image
User avatar
John-Locke
BULLETPROOF TIGER
 
Posts: 12365
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Unknown

Postby tapehead on Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:17 am

John-Locke wrote:Darkest, coldest and funniest line in the film for me was when Chigurgh tells Kelly Macdonald not to worry about all those things (funeral expenses etc), the outcome was inevitable so being prepared for it I found it both sick, chilling and highly amusing at the same time.

For a film that is in a nutshell about being afraid of dying/growing old/how fucked up the world is, it sure was awesome.


I thought you'd probably love it JL. I want to watch it again while it's still in cinemas. It's faultless, incredible.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby HollywoodBabylon on Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:15 pm

Seen this movie the other day.

First things first; this has all the traits of a quintessential Coen brothers film; fine dialogue, lovely cinematography, good direction and top drawer performances. Yet for all of us who like their Coen movies sprinkled with dashes of humour, drama and quirkiness, well, forget it. Because, for me this shows them striking out into a new, bold territory - serious, studious and quite foreboding. It looks promising.

Why then do I feel that I can only recommend this movie with reservation, with a sense of disappointment mixed with admiration? I'm still not totally sure but it left me feeling slightly deflated, slightly bemused and even slightly indiffferent despite the obvious care, talent and skill on show and (more importantly) the genuine and serious attempt by the Coens to show their work and world in a darker more sombre light - almost nihilistic at times I suppose. To be sure, I was impressed by the way their characters either questioned their faith in themselves and the world around them (Tommy Lee Jones, excellent, the best role in the fim) or those put to the desperate test (Brolin, again good) or just those who seemed plainly vulnerable (Kelly MacDonald, whose accent was pretty spot on to say the least for a Scots lass). So, yes, all those things and themes pretty much stayed with me.

So why the niggling doubt?

Well.... my main reservation with this picture was with the Javier Bardem character. Merciless, psychotic and devoid of feeling he may be (and, boy, those killings are quite brutal) but this character just didn't quite work for me. That's not the fault of Bardem (to a degree, at least). He's one of my favourite actors around (anyone see him in Before Night Falls and especially The Sea Inside?) and is up there with Day Lewis or Oldman. But here his character of Chigurh doesn't disturb me or engage me in the same sense that all other truly psychopathic killers have done (most notably Michael Rooker in Henry Portrait Of A Serial Killer or Brian Cox's Hannibal Lecter). At times, Chigurh came across as almost zombie-like, an automata, a humanoid version of Alien or Predator; not so much as amoral, but so cold stoned as to be nothing at all, a characterless, faceless person rendered almost mundane; inert, without conviction or any true intent, a man machine and about as frightening as one. Yes, he was midlly disturbing at times, midly meancing, but truly frightening? Chilling? Sorry, not for me, no. And certainly not enough to carry the evil weight of this movie to the heights it admirably aspires too. It was a pretty unusal character flaw by the Coens, I thought, and in the context of what I was watching (evil v decency in a thriller shot through with nihilism) compromised what could have been a great movie into being a good - at times very good - one. Nothing wrong with that, I know, but it could have been so much more.
User avatar
HollywoodBabylon
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:55 pm

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:57 pm

I saw it today. It looked great, it sounded great. Josh Brolin is convincing. Javier Bardem is intense. Both the film and it's actors are extremely deserving of all the praise it has gotten EXCEPT...

...am I the only person who was left disappointed and deflated by the last twenty minutes or so. The film and the story had me locked in all the way...but...I was left cold by the conclusion.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13931
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby MacCready on Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:59 pm

Fried Gold wrote:I saw it today. It looked great, it sounded great. Josh Brolin is convincing. Javier Bardem is intense. Both the film and it's actors are extremely deserving of all the praise it has gotten EXCEPT...

...am I the only person who was left disappointed and deflated by the last twenty minutes or so. The film and the story had me locked in all the way...but...I was left cold by the conclusion.


I was hoping for a little more myself
User avatar
MacCready
MAN IN SUIT
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:52 am

Postby Nordling on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:01 pm

Those last 20 minutes make NO COUNTRY the masterpiece that it is.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:10 pm

I take it then I am an unreasonable philistine to have expected a satisying resolution and reasonable conclusion?
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13931
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:13 pm

Fried Gold wrote:I take it then I am an unreasonable philistine to have expected a satisying resolution and reasonable conclusion?


No, and I don't think anyone has said that. I really liked the fact that it was UNsatisfying. Life is often unsatisfying.

While I agree that it was unsatisfying, I don't think the conclusion was unreasonable. The story had been told.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17645
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:18 pm

Fried Gold wrote:I take it then I am an unreasonable philistine to have expected a satisying resolution and reasonable conclusion?


I think a you meant a to post this inna the Cloverfield thread, no?
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby Pacino86845 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:20 pm

Lord Voldemoo wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:I take it then I am an unreasonable philistine to have expected a satisying resolution and reasonable conclusion?


No, and I don't think anyone has said that. I really liked the fact that it was UNsatisfying. Life is often unsatisfying.

While I agree that it was unsatisfying, I don't think the conclusion was unreasonable. The story had been told.


I hear you Fried, and it seemed as though most people in the same theater as me had similar reactions toward the ending. It didn't detract from my own enjoyment of the film, I loved the fact that the SPOILER ultimate showdown would only take place in our imaginations, and it's mainly for the fact that I had trouble following Tommy Lee Jones's stories that the ending felt a little cold to me. I've since picked up the book though, should start reading it soon hopefully, and I'll probably go see the film a second time in the cinema. It was one of the most effective thrillers I've ever seen, and combined with the rich imagery, amazing visual storytelling flair, and outstanding performances by the entire cast, it's definitely my film of 2007 so far.

There Will Be Blood, Le Scaphandre et le Papillon and Michael Clayton are the only other films that I haven't seen that might dethrone it.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby Nordling on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:20 pm

It's a stark, harsh ending. But it does end. It's unpleasant and unsettling, because by all aspects evil triumphs. It not only destroys a life, but takes away from another life their whole reason for existence. "It ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity."
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:28 pm

I honestly don't understand why people expected Moss to be even near the equal of Chigurh or the other gangsters. It's clear he's not particularly clever, he causes some trouble of course, any ex-soldier would. But to think he has the capability to defeat those he was running from was pure fantasy. I thought that was obvious.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Pacino86845 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:31 pm

TonyWilson wrote:I honestly don't understand why people expected Moss to be even near the equal of Chigurh or the other gangsters. It's clear he's not particularly clever, he causes some trouble of course, any ex-soldier would. But to think he has the capability to defeat those he was running from was pure fantasy. I thought that was obvious.


Well one way or another we'll never find out, eh? I thought Chigurh would kill Moss, most certainly, if it ever came to a showdown, but Moss was pretty smart and resourceful nonetheless, and would've at least put up a good fight. Plus he PWNT Chigurh via bullet-wound to the leg, no? That seemed like a pretty big deal to me, that he could do even that much while Chigurh had the upper hand.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby DaleTremont on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:32 pm

Fried Gold wrote:I take it then I am an unreasonable philistine to have expected a satisying resolution and reasonable conclusion?


*coughs*

DaleTremont wrote:You know, speaking as someone who hasn't read the book, I thought the end scene was a little underwhelming...and I'm sure that was probably the point, but nonetheless, if making a statement means you end the movie on an awkward note- well, shucks, it seems like you're doing yourself a disservice. Or, rather, doing the audience a disservice. Up until that final monologue, the energy in the theatre was palpable, but then it just dropped. And yeah I totally feel like the asshole deriding the artist's vision for saying it, but honestly some things that work great in literature just don't go over as well in film, imo. I could completely imagine how in a book that would be a great grace note to go out on, a quiet contemplation on the meaning behind the title "no country for old men" tying things together and posing new questions for people to ponder on, etc..etc... But in the movie, for me personally it fell flat. I thought it was awkwardly staged to boot- the camera squarely on Tommy Lee centered in frame, static, almost like a documentary interview, then the cuts back to his wife who listens with what I took to represent a receptive, loving expression but I couldn't help but project my own boredom just behind those eyes...


Two months and two pages later someone finally is in accord!
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Postby Maui on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:44 pm

Fried Gold wrote:
...am I the only person who was left disappointed and deflated by the last twenty minutes or so. The film and the story had me locked in all the way...but...I was left cold by the conclusion.


No, you are not. I was completely satisfied with the ending however many people I know that saw it, were left cold - that's it? What happened to Sugar?

The ending: this is what society has become. Bell has lost, he's given up the fight. In the book Bell became a cop to make amends to past mistake that he made that continually rids him of guilt. This is why he chooses to go into law enforcement, be the good guy. This is never brought up in the movie, but to me, is kinda critical. The closing scene kinda sums everything all up. Even after doing what Bell thought was right - it didn't make a difference. Society is declining, will continue to decline - and I just plain give up!
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:56 pm

Pacino86845 wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:I honestly don't understand why people expected Moss to be even near the equal of Chigurh or the other gangsters. It's clear he's not particularly clever, he causes some trouble of course, any ex-soldier would. But to think he has the capability to defeat those he was running from was pure fantasy. I thought that was obvious.


Well one way or another we'll never find out, eh? I thought Chigurh would kill Moss, most certainly, if it ever came to a showdown, but Moss was pretty smart and resourceful nonetheless, and would've at least put up a good fight. Plus he PWNT Chigurh via bullet-wound to the leg, no? That seemed like a pretty big deal to me, that he could do even that much while Chigurh had the upper hand.


I get what you are saying, Pacino. Moss was dead the second he stole the money but I guess he did give Chigurh a run for it - although that only served to enhance Chigurh's status as a blackhole of violence, a constant point as it were. Even badly injured he's still deadly. It's like the car crash at the end, you just know the person in the other car is dead because that's just what Chigurh is, unthinking unfeeling unmitigated violence and death even if it nearly kills him.
And the scene with Bell at the motel door, in my opinion he's imagining Chigurh behind that door, though it's abit of a coup de cinema because of course Bell is just terrified of what could be behind that door, that the audience see Chigurh is because he's the personification of what Bell fears.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:29 pm

- Llewellyn wasn't meant to be a match on Chigurh.... However, they did set up that he'd "seen Chigurgh and wasn't dead". He's the first to strike a blow on the unstoppable killer. It was also set up that he knows how to handle a gun and had army training. So maybe one could start to get the feeling that Chigurh isn't unbeatable and that Llewellyn did have a chance.

- I thought it was, in the end, the Mexican gang which killed Llewellyn. After all the cat & mouse chase, Chigurh didn't even get the hit, (maybe I've got that wrong) but still had to go back to the scene to get the cash....which again it seems the Mexicans ended up getting.

- As with Pacino's post, the audience in the cinema today seemed unsatisfied with the ending. And it's not in a "well life is just as unsatisfying" kind of way. It's in a "we didn't really get quite enough resolution for the important people in the story".

- Again, the ending didn't spoil my enjoyment of the film. But it didn't exactly put any icing on the cake.

- more again....we don't really get a lot of time with Tommy Lee Jones' character, so hanging the closing sentiment on him didn't seem quite so solid. He starts off complaining that this is "no country for old men" and at the end is still quite sure.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13931
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby Maui on Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:39 pm

Fried Gold wrote:-

- I thought it was, in the end, the Mexican gang which killed Llewellyn.


Correct - books says so! ;) Mexicans got the cash too.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:45 pm

The mexicans killing Moss just shows that he was staggeringly out of his depth. He had 2 seperate parties after him, in what but all the most fantastical of films does someone get away clean from those odds?
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:00 pm

Maui wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:-

- I thought it was, in the end, the Mexican gang which killed Llewellyn.


Correct - books says so! ;) Mexicans got the cash too.

So I was paying attention after all!

What about the bit where internal affairs knew what he was up to all along?
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13931
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby Maui on Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:06 pm

Fried Gold wrote:
Maui wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:-

- I thought it was, in the end, the Mexican gang which killed Llewellyn.


Correct - books says so! ;) Mexicans got the cash too.

So I was paying attention after all!

What about the bit where internal affairs knew what he was up to all along?


Yes, good job FG!!! In the book, it appears he is setup by a young female hitchhiker that he picks up on the road - then the Mexicans kill him in the hotel room (that he's in with the girl). Mexicans get the cash - girl gets a cut.

My feeble mind can't dig up any factoids on the IA stuff. I'll have to peruse through the book tonight.

In the book, Llewellyn makes mistakes, costly ones. Not the kind of mistakes Sugar would make.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:28 pm

I was joking about the internal affairs stuff. But now you mention it, the guy in the office who put Woody Harrelson on the case did seem to be playing all the sides.


....I haven't read the book either.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13931
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby Maui on Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:44 pm

Fried Gold wrote:I was joking about the internal affairs stuff.


....I haven't read the book either.



Twit! :) I was gonna say, I don't remember any internal affairs stuff in the book.

Read the book FG, it's a quick/violent read. It will put some more depth into characters for you.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:53 pm

Homer: Wait, I'm confused about the movie. So the cops knew that internal affairs were setting them up?
Glen: What are you talking about? There is nothing like that in there!
Homer: Oh, you see when I get bored I make up my own movie. I have a very short attention span.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13931
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby Maui on Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:55 pm

Fried Gold wrote:
Homer: Wait, I'm confused about the movie. So the cops knew that internal affairs were setting them up?
Glen: What are you talking about? There is nothing like that in there!
Homer: Oh, you see when I get bored I make up my own movie. I have a very short attention span.



Nice FG!

I only got 8 out of 10 on the Flixster Simpson's Quiz though. :roll:
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby John-Locke on Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:28 pm

The Mexicans got the Money?

I thought SUGAR got the money which explains why he went back to the hotel room, why we see the cover off the air vent and also why he had such a large bill to give the kid for his shirt.

Do you think the girl by the pool set Moss up? it was surely her floating dead in the pool when Bell turned up but was she in with the Mexicans? Either way Moss died because he thought he'd won already, he thought his plan was infallible and he let down his guard. Did we really need to see our hero getting killed so unceremoniously?
Image
User avatar
John-Locke
BULLETPROOF TIGER
 
Posts: 12365
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Unknown

Postby Maui on Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:00 pm

John-Locke wrote:The Mexicans got the Money?

I thought SUGAR got the money which explains why he went back to the hotel room, why we see the cover off the air vent and also why he had such a large bill to give the kid for his shirt.

Do you think the girl by the pool set Moss up? it was surely her floating dead in the pool when Bell turned up but was she in with the Mexicans? Either way Moss died because he thought he'd won already, he thought his plan was infallible and he let down his guard. Did we really need to see our hero getting killed so unceremoniously?


Yup, the Mexicans do eventually get the money.

JL, I think you mean Moss NOT Sugar. He did take some of the money out of the briefcase which allowed him to pay for cabs, hotels, buy clothing - but he didn't use all of it. He barely touched the cool million.

Yeah, I do think the girl set him up. The way they depict it in the movie is that Moss just notices her by the pool, that's it. However, when you read the book, he picks the young girl up when she is hitchhiking, they eat at a restaurant and go back to a hotel. They drastically change this on the big screen - but that's who I figured who she was in the movie. It just appears like a flirtation at first when he sees her by the pool, but then we see her floating, then we know better.

In the book we don't get any description of Moss's death - we just know it happened and that the Mexicans got the loot!
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby Vegeta on Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:05 am

Maui wrote:
John-Locke wrote:The Mexicans got the Money?

I thought SUGAR got the money which explains why he went back to the hotel room, why we see the cover off the air vent and also why he had such a large bill to give the kid for his shirt.

Do you think the girl by the pool set Moss up? it was surely her floating dead in the pool when Bell turned up but was she in with the Mexicans? Either way Moss died because he thought he'd won already, he thought his plan was infallible and he let down his guard. Did we really need to see our hero getting killed so unceremoniously?


Yup, the Mexicans do eventually get the money.

JL, I think you mean Moss NOT Sugar. He did take some of the money out of the briefcase which allowed him to pay for cabs, hotels, buy clothing - but he didn't use all of it. He barely touched the cool million.

Yeah, I do think the girl set him up. The way they depict it in the movie is that Moss just notices her by the pool, that's it. However, when you read the book, he picks the young girl up when she is hitchhiking, they eat at a restaurant and go back to a hotel. They drastically change this on the big screen - but that's who I figured who she was in the movie. It just appears like a flirtation at first when he sees her by the pool, but then we see her floating, then we know better.

In the book we don't get any description of Moss's death - we just know it happened and that the Mexicans got the loot!


I got the impression that Chigurh got the money in the book. Didn't he take the cash to a man and tell him that he got the job done (even though the man didn't hire him). :?
User avatar
Vegeta
PARAGON OF VACUITY
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:22 am
Location: U.S.S.A.

Postby Chairman Kaga on Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:37 am

Vegeta wrote:
Maui wrote:
John-Lo cke wrote:The Mexicans got the Money?

I thought SUGAR got the money which explains why he went back to the hotel room, why we see the cover off the air vent and also why he had such a large bill to give the kid for his shirt.

Do you think the girl by the pool set Moss up? it was surely her floating dead in the pool when Bell turned up but was she in with the Mexicans? Either way Moss died because he thought he'd won already, he thought his plan was infallible and he let down his guard. Did we really need to see our hero getting killed so unceremoniously?


Yup, the Mexicans do eventually get the money.

JL, I think you mean Moss NOT Sugar. He did take some of the money out of the briefcase which allowed him to pay for cabs, hotels, buy clothing - but he didn't use all of it. He barely touched the cool million.

Yeah, I do think the girl set him up. The way they depict it in the movie is that Moss just notices her by the pool, that's it. However, when you read the book, he picks the young girl up when she is hitchhiking, they eat at a restaurant and go back to a hotel. They drastically change this on the big screen - but that's who I figured who she was in the movie. It just appears like a flirtation at first when he sees her by the pool, but then we see her floating, then we know better.

In the book we don't get any description of Moss's death - we just know it happened and that the Mexicans got the loot!


I got the impression that Chigurh got the money in the book. Didn't he take the cash to a man and tell him that he got the job done (even though the man didn't hire him). :?


I agree with Locke that Chigurh got the money by returning to the crime scene after the fact and after he saw how Moss hid the case in the first hotel. I don't see anything to indicate the Mexicans got the money.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby tapehead on Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:44 am

My thought was that Locke was correct on this point too.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Vegeta on Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:48 am

wasn't there a dime left at the hotel by the vent taht he used to turn the screws.
User avatar
Vegeta
PARAGON OF VACUITY
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:22 am
Location: U.S.S.A.

Postby Chairman Kaga on Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:18 am

So we are in agreement. Maui needs to rewatch that part. :lol:
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests