Quoted from Soap Hands 1. No Country for Old Men- awesome movie, by far the best I've seen this year, probably at the bottom of my top ten all time list.

I finally saw No Country for Old Men tonight and I have to say I was disappointed. Before seeing it I had heard nothing but praise for it, so my expectations were high and it didn't live up to them. The first two thirds of it were quite suspenseful, but the ending left me feeling dissatisfied.

SPOILERS
************************

I thought the protagonist was a bit of a dumb ass. First he makes off with 2 million bucks, then he goes back to give someone some water, WTF?

After going back and getting chased off, he leaves his registered vehicle at the scene of a bloody murder and thinks he can just walk off with the money, kill anyone who comes looking for it and all will be well. Come on.

Then you had Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) knowing exactly where to look for the money and finding it. Again, it was too implausible.

Also, killing Llewelyn so far from the end and not even showing it happen was also a very poor choice by the writers. This guy was the protagonist, the guy we were on the journey with. How are we supposed to stay engaged once he’s gone?

Hi Chris, I am sorry you did not enjoy this movie, I thought it was the one of the best movies I have seen for a long time. Not that I am in anyway qualified speaking behalf of the Coen Brothers or Cormac MaCarthy but I thought I may as well comment on your points.



SPOILERS
************************

Quoted from Takeshi thought the protagonist was a bit of a dumb ass. First he makes off with 2 million bucks, then he goes back to give someone some water, WTF? After going back and getting chased off, he leaves his registered vehicle at the scene of a bloody murder and thinks he can just walk off with the money, kill anyone who comes looking for it and all will be well. Come on.

You are 100% correct here. He was a dumb ass and the whole plot relied on this fact to work but that was the whole point of the movie. It is a movie about a dumb ass dude who lives in a trailer park in Texas finding a load of cash, to be honest I thought It was a great Idea - who is not sometimes sick and tired of having our hero in every movie great looking, highly intelligent and capable of kicking the hell out of any guy who crosses him?

It would have been different if the Coen Brothers had pretended otherwise but they were pretty straight up from the opening scene that our man was never going to be the sharpest tool in the box. The movie's theme is the lengths that stupid people will go to to get hold of money - have you seen any other Coen Brothers movies (Fargo, Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowsky to name a few) They all have very similar themes and dumb ass lead characters.

Quoted from Takeshi you had Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) knowing exactly where to look for the money and finding it. Again, it was too implausible.

This was not as implausible as you seem to think, It helps i guess because I have read the script and actually seen this movie 3 times now but It is mentioned in the movie.

The Hotel is right across the road from the border, Llewelyn was in the hospital right on the Mexican side of the border. Carson Wells knew that he would have had to walk across the border and no way would have been able to take the money with him. So he knew it would have to have been stashed on the way. In the script he does see some blood splashed on the bridge that leads him to the spot where the bag was thrown, i think they cut this from the movie. But even without that scene you can hardly call it implausible, maybe a lucky bit of detective work but still very plausible.

Quoted from Takeshi , killing Llewelyn so far from the end and not even showing it happen was also a very poor choice by the writers. This guy was the protagonist, the guy we were on the journey with. How are we supposed to stay engaged once he’s gone?

I think that what many people have missed is that our protagonist was actually Tommy Lee Jones' character the Sherrif. The Title of the movie is "No Country for OLD men", This was more a movie about the aftermath of carnage that the Sherrif witnessed during his last days on the job. He is our narrator, this is his story. I think Llewelyn was certainly the hero but as you have already said far too stupid to stay alive.

The theme of witnessing the aftermath of events runs strong in this movie, we never see the big shoot out at the beginning we only see the dead bodies on the ground afterwards remember so the idea what we never see Llewelyn get killed is not out of place in the movie, as the Coens were more concerned with what happened afterwards not during.

I agree it is probably not the most straight-up action movie and this puts many people off it, but It was adapted from a highly acclaimed novel and though i have not read it myself I have heard that the movie is a very faithful adaptation. I also think It is one of those movies that demand a second viewing.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion and our preferences are all bound to differ I just think your complaints are probably a bit unfair and hope you do not mind me commenting on them?

Pleas feel free to destroy one of my reviews

Cheers Murphy

Quoted from Takeshi SPOILERS ************************ I thought the protagonist was a bit of a dumb ass. First he makes off with 2 million bucks, then he goes back to give someone some water, WTF? After going back and getting chased off, he leaves his registered vehicle at the scene of a bloody murder and thinks he can just walk off with the money, kill anyone who comes looking for it and all will be well. Come on. Then you had Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) knowing exactly where to look for the money and finding it. Again, it was too implausible. Also, killing Llewelyn so far from the end and not even showing it happen was also a very poor choice by the writers. This guy was the protagonist, the guy we were on the journey with. How are we supposed to stay engaged once he�s gone?

SPOILERS

I think one of the problems (if you can call it that) is that Llewelyn isn't the actual protagonist, but he does fill that role. The Sheriff is the actual protagonist is he is the one that actually changes and has revelations througout the journey (movie). Tommy Lee's dialogue opens the script and ends the script. Also, we don't see Lleweyn's demise, we hear it from the Sheriff's POV.

Do I think it's structurally sound? Nope. But that's the Coen Brothers for you. They march to the sound of their own drum and if it feels right for them, then it works for them.

I do AGREE with you about the assessment of Lleweyn's character and why he took the money and why he went back with the water. It isn't set up and by the end of the movie, nothing is revealed about his character (which adds to the point that he's not the protagonist). I found that quite off-putting.

But I still think it was beautifully shot and the scenes were crafted superbly.

Hey,

******SPOILERS******

I more or less agree with what Murphy says. I don't know if I'd say Lleweyn is a dumbass. He didn't think out what he was doing that well, like most everyone kept telling but hey, that's his character, I didn't think it was a plot hole. Also, the thing with Woody Harrelson's character, what Murphy said.

Quoted from Chris Reid The first two thirds of it were quite suspenseful, but the ending left me feeling dissatisfied. Also, killing Llewelyn so far from the end and not even showing it happen was also a very poor choice by the writers. This guy was the protagonist, the guy we were on the journey with. How are we supposed to stay engaged once he’s gone? I think one of the problems (if you can call it that) is that Llewelyn isn't the actual protagonist, but he does fill that role. The Sheriff is the actual protagonist is he is the one that actually changes and has revelations througout the journey (movie). Tommy Lee's dialogue opens the script and ends the script. Also, we don't see Lleweyn's demise, we hear it from the Sheriff's POV. Do I think it's structurally sound? Nope. But that's the Coen Brothers for you. They march to the sound of their own drum and if it feels right for them, then it works for them.

Based on all these things I think you're main complaint is that the movie didn't follow a conventional structure and if that's your criteria for liking a movie you probably won't like No Country. In my book it gets more points for changing it up.

I generally try to judge it by what it's trying to accomplish versus how well it does in accomplishing it. For me, at the end of the day, it's not how well it follows conventional formulas but whether or not it works.

I disagree with you and Murphy about Jone's character being the protagonist. I think for most of the movie Brolin's character is the place holder for the protagonist and at the end it switches to Jones, but the main focus that brings it altogether is the theme.

I thought the choices they made (including Brolin's demise), in particular the films structure, all contribute to conveying the film's theme. At the end of the film, yes, I didn't feel satisfied, I didn't feel I had closure, but in the context of the rest of the film, I thought that was a very powerful thing to convey (and in an unorthodox way(rhyme +2 points)). I thought it was a very powerful, touching, and thought provoking ending.

******End Spoilers*******

I thought the entire thing was masterfully done.

On the No Country site they have a section called notes on the ending, when you see the movie I suggest you check it out.

http://www.nocountryforoldmen-themovie.com/

http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/2007/11/a-ghost-and-a-d.html

sheepwalker

Sleepwalker, thanks for the link, there is a hell of a conversation going on in the comments section I had to give up after a while - that page must be 4 miles long!!

Not sure I buy it but there is a very good theory developing that Chigurh does not actually exist and is really only there to represent death and not actually cause death.

***Spoliers***

This mean for instance that Carla Jean kills herself (she never wanted the coin toss, she has already decided), the bloke in the garage who won his coin toss may well have been due for a heart attack but proved he was not ready. llewelyn actually killed Moss etc..

Like I said not sure if I got for that but is certainly interested that Javier Bardem in an interview has hinted that he might not have been real. I think I am going to watch this again with that in mind and see how it goes.

Anyway thanks.

There was a great discussion going on about the Coen Brothers new film in Best/Worst 2007 thread. It was sort of off-topic, so I split the original thread into two separate threads, taking the No Country for Old Men discussion and creating its own review thread here.

-Zavier

Thanks for that, Sorry for getting off topic there - Thinking about it I am amazed there never was a thread for this movie anyway.

Cheers

SPOILERS

What was the deal with Anton? Did he kill those gus who hired him so he could get the money for himself, or was there another reason?

To be honest I am not sure It was ever explained in anyway I have picked up, I assumed that part of his orders was to kill the two guys - were they in charge of the deal in the first place? Maybe they were blamed for the mess and Anton was supposed to take them out, thats what i went with anyway and it seems to fit.

EDIT - Sorry i may have misread your post - the above refers to the two guys he killed back at the scene of the mess in the desert.


He was hired by the same guy who hired Carson Wells, That is why he went back to kill the guy who hired him because he felt he was double crossed by them hiring Carson. And of course I am sure he must have at least thought about the idea of walking away with $2m.

Yeah. That's what I thought. But I'm surprised he would have hired someone he didn't know to handle such a delicate situation. And why did Anton kill those two guys in the desert? It didn't make sense.

I liked this one until the end. I felt like someone in the editing room went cutting happy and just, well cut it.

With a better ending this would have been better.

I agree, Pia. The audience I saw it with sat there in stunned silence after it finished. They were obviously thinking what, that's it? And I saw this at an independent cinema in the city, not some multiplex in the burbs.

This was a great flick from beginning to end. Great performances, amazing suspense, breathtaking cinematography. One of the year's best, it's pretty much flawless. The Coen boys strike again!


Matt.

I wouldn't call a movie with a weak ending flawless, Chis.

Hey,

Quoted from Pia I liked this one until the end. I felt like someone in the editing room went cutting happy and just, well cut it. With a better ending this would have been better.

Quoted from Chris Reid The audience I saw it with sat there in stunned silence after it finished. They were obviously thinking what, that's it? And I saw this at an independent cinema in the city, not some multiplex in the burbs.

For those that didn't like the ending I refer you to my post above. Follow the link and read some of the stuff in the section called "Notes on the Ending". Like I said in the above post the ending was different. I was also left expecting more, but I think that was the feeling they were trying to convey and in the context of the film, with its themes, that ending( that left us with that feeling) was really powerful.

I really think if you didn't like the ending you should give the movie another shot, once you embrace what they are trying to do with the ending it's really a great, great movie.

sheepwalker