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

SPOILERS DOWN BELOW DECK.....


I am really not sure why people think the ending was weak?

The Sheriff retired from duty after through the course of the film coming to the realization that he was not able to do his job anymore.

The greedy fool who put his wife's life at risk for a bag of money got killed.

His wife got killed because big crazy evil dude never breaks promises.

The big crazy evil dude got away with the money - It does happen sometimes! actually happens more times that anything else in real life.


i really am unable to see how the above constitutes a weak ending.


Seriousley have a read of this, it is a good article and may shed some light....

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

I can't see how in this day and age a psycho could go on such an indiscriminate killing spree and not get caught; like the scene where Anton busts into room 38 to kill those guys (Mexicans I think) and one of them opens fire with a machine gun. Common sense tells you that the cops would've been there in minutes, but after killing them, Anton sits on the bed and takes a breather. This is one of the many implausible scenes. I'll get a copy of the script and find all the rest.

Not sure about in this day and age, did you realize this movie was set in 1980? to be honest nor did I first time watching but apparently it is.
Chris, You really should not be panning a movie for reasons like that - after all it's the movies!! We are here to entertain.

* In I Am Legend do you really think Will Smith could of fitted those huge steel window cover's by himself? Not a chance,  does that make that whole movie worthless? Of course not. There are plenty of other things that make I Am Legend rubbish in the script and CGI but little plot flaws in the name of artistic license do not.

* Remember the horses head scene in the Godfather? Huge plot hole, really huge. There is no way on earth anyone could have pulled that off without being caught or waking the producer up. And yet (rightfully so) The Godfather is recognized as one of if not the best movies ever made. Go figure?

The list could go on and on....


I would happily debate this this with you Chris as I do believe this movie is a masterpiece of storytelling and film making, but please come back with some real reasons why this movie sucks. Did you read that article yet? it really is worth a read - the guy that wrote it thought the ending was weak after the first time he watched it.

That link you supplied isn't working, Murphy.

I'll check out the script and read some more articles, before continuing this discussion.

I liked the movie very much. Did not like the ending. I also think it's kinda naive to think if only someone reads a certain article one will embrace the masterpiece NCFOM truly is. I don't think it's a masterpiece, but it's pretty close.

SPOILERS

The main problem is the ending, really. It's not that it's bleak. It's not the that bad guys gets away. It's just that I think it breaks style and contradicts itself. And all this talk about Anton not being real and representing whatever, and there's a lot of that on Imdb, is really pissing me off. This is not a Lynch movie. It's not purely allegorical. Anton interacts with several characters on screen. Is the phone conversation with Llewellen all in his head? When Anton kills his boss, is that really a suicide and who is the accountant talking to? Does the conversation between Anton and the fat woman at the motel never take place?

Murphy talked about how Llewellen is a dumbass, and that's the point of the movie, that he's kinda stupid. But at the same time he manages to concoct elaborate schemes for hiding the money and confusing Anton. Making a character shizophrenic is not the same thing as making him complex.

Someone wrote in a review that this movie is a triumph as a character study and a let down as a coherent story. I agree to some extent.

And let me be absolutely clear: This is not a case of being let down because it's not an action movie or because it's unconventional. I love the Coen Brothers, and I love Blood Simple, which this one reminded me of, but I don't think the ending was all it could've been.

Okay fine, we fade out from Brolin being offered a beer and then he's dead. Bad choice, but let's go with it anyway. Then when Bardem's character comes for his wife and offers her a chance to call a coin toss and she refuses. He kills her and is then in a freak car-accident which he walks away from. Like Bell's story of the man with the slaughter-house who who accidently injured himself while putting down cattle, Anton is injured. Only not while putting down Carla-Jean. No, we get a tagged on scene with, of all things, a car-crash. A truly contrived plot-device and more importantly completely wrong for what's supposed to represent, IMO. By removing his injury from the actual act of killing it becomes just that, a freak accident, detached from everything else. Anton should've been injured in the process of doing his slaughtering, otherwise the causality gets lost and it's just some silly "karma" thing.

So in the context of story the car crash definitely does not work for me. In the context of character study it absolutely does. Anton tries the whole movie to control chance and fate (what else is a cointoss?) and is then in the end hit by what seems like utter chance.

I read the article Sheepwalker linked to and one thing came up that I just had to roll my eyes at:

Quoted Text I'm not sure that I fully 'get' the ending myself, or that I'm completely meant to.

No. Seriously. Don't.

Quoted Text The first is the emphasis on the idea of Chigurh as an actual supernatural figure. By the time the killer, so fantastically incarnated by Javier Bardem, strides into the office of Stephen Root whose character is merely billed as "Man Who Hires Wells" with that enormous gun at his side, even a filmgoer who's not one of "The Plausibles" (as Hitchcock derisiviely referred to plot nitpickers) might well ask "How did he get past reception?" But the ugly galvanic action kicks in before the question can finish, and then there's the exchange with the fellow from Accounting, who finally asks, "Are you going to shoot me?" To which Chigurh replies, "That depends. Do you see me?"

If he is a supernatural figure, in what way is that so? Can he walk through walls? Obviously not, or he wouldn't need to blow out the locks. Is he immortal? No, he bleeds like everything else. Is he all-knowing? No, he needs a tracker to find his kills. Saying he's "supernatural" is the easiest way to explain away plotholes. "No, it's not a plothole, he's just SUPERNATURAL!"
Granted the Coens do cut the scene peculiarly, but at this time we've already seen him kill the people at the front desk to get to Llewellen so I think it's safe to assume he did the same here. HOWEVER, that's not to say that Anton himself doesn't feel like a supernatural being - guided by chance. Which is the most awesome kind of control one can have. Confer this with how Carson Welles notes that they're on the 13th floor, an unlucky number. This could also explain the line "Do you see me?". The answer must be found in the psychology of the character not in some non-specific astral plane logic.

The implications of supernaturalness aren't literal. They can't be, unless the movie's gunning for the much coveted prize "Best student film". It's terribly contradicting, and I for one do not see that as virtue in itself.

That being said, there was plenty to love in No Country for Old Men, and who knows, maybe I will revise my opinion of it upon a second viewing. But right now I'll stand by calling it "at least three-quarters of a masterpiece".


Btw. If Bell wanted a finger-print so bad how come he doesn't check the glass of milk in the beginning instead of drinking from it?

Death Monkey, A lot of what you say does make some sense, But I think it is really difficult to tackle any issues with the ending because as far as I understand the screenplay is a faithful adaptation of the novel, The novel by all accounts ends in a similar  way - although we do see Carla Jean get killed before Anton's car crash. I am gonna have to read the novel now.

But I certainly do not think that if Anton was to get injured it should be while he is killing someone. Real life does not work like that so there is no reason for a movie to, sometimes chapters in out lives never have an true ending and I have never been under the impression that movies need to either. I read somewhere that in the novel once Anton has fled the crash scene one of the boys finds his gun in the car and they take it, then the gun is used in a robbery or something and they have Anton's fingerprints on it (or something to that effect anyway) so this could have been the reason for including the  crash in the first place and for whatever reasons the Coens stuck with it.

It was the same last year with the final Soprano's, I remember most of the US going nuts over that one.

You were talking about we assume that Anton killed the motel owners as he did at the border hotel, are you referring to when Llewelyn was killed? As Anton was not responsible for that, It was the mexicans who killed Llewelyn and the girl in the pool, Anton only turned up afterwards to get the money. I actually think it was a great move not showing Llewelyns death, We were supposed to be seeing the same as the Sheriff in that scene.

Oh and as for the milk Anton never drunk out of the glass he drunk right out of the plastic bottle, the Sheriff got the glass when he entered the trailer.

The best thing about this movie though is that It has got so many people talking about it, It certainly has polarized movie goers. Which at the end of the day is brilliant for movies in general, after all the more people talk about the ending to NCFOM the less they are discussing Cloverfield or P.S. I love you.

Quoted from Murphy Death Monkey, A lot of what you say does make some sense, But I think it is really difficult to tackle any issues with the ending because as far as I understand the screenplay is a faithful adaptation of the novel, The novel by all accounts ends in a similar  way - although we do see Carla Jean get killed before Anton's car crash. I am gonna have to read the novel now.

Hey Murphy.

Well then my trouble is with the novel as well. I don't think the Coens can be excused by saying "It s not our fault, the novel ended like that." If they didn't like the novel's ending they should've changed it, taken artistic liberties. It is, after all, their movie. By keeping the ending they vouch for it.

Quoted Text But I certainly do not think that if Anton was to get injured it should be while he is killing someone. Real life does not work like that so there is no reason for a movie to, sometimes chapters in out lives never have an true ending and I have never been under the impression that movies need to either.

But saying that is like giving carte blanche to have ANYTHING happen in a movie. If the movie ended with Anton getting AIDS and dying from that 10 years later, you could say "Well it happens in real life". And it does, but is still completely out of sync with the rest of the film, and breaking character is NOT a virtue in and of itself. The movie is not a documentary. Just because something COULD happen doesn't mean it should.

For a debate on this, there's Todd Solondz Storytelling.

And what do you mean, people don't get injured while trying to kill someone in real life?

Quoted Text It was the same last year with the final Soprano's, I remember most of the US going nuts over that one.

I didn't mind the end to the Sopranos that much. I don't think it worked that well but I wasn't furious with the series for trying to be artsy.

Quoted Text You were talking about we assume that Anton killed the motel owners as he did at the border hotel, are you referring to when Llewelyn was killed? As Anton was not responsible for that, It was the mexicans who killed Llewelyn and the girl in the pool, Anton only turned up afterwards to get the money. I actually think it was a great move not showing Llewelyns death, We were supposed to be seeing the same as the Sheriff in that scene.

No I'm talking about the guy who Llewellyn told to call him if anyone came looking for him.

Quoted Text Oh and as for the milk Anton never drunk out of the glass he drunk right out of the plastic bottle, the Sheriff got the glass when he entered the trailer.

Well check the bottle then? Check the coin they found. Check any number of things. It's not like he was careful with his fingerprints. Maybe the reason why Bell thinks he's a ghost is because he never bothers to do any of these things. Nor confer with DEA or FBI.

Quoted Text The best thing about this movie though is that It has got so many people talking about it, It certainly has polarized movie goers. Which at the end of the day is brilliant for movies in general, after all the more people talk about the ending to NCFOM the less they are discussing Cloverfield or P.S. I love you.

I somewhat disagree with that. I think there's a tendency to be too lenient on these kinds of movies, saying that because the ending makes you think, it's a good one. I think we should ask ourselves, what does it make us think about? Does it inspire profound debate about its themes or does it only make us think because it's intentionally obscure?

Plotholes make me think as well. Loose ends make me think. That doesn't mean they're not detrimental to the plot.

Hey,

*****Spoilers******

Quoted from Death Monkey I also think it's kinda naive to think if only someone reads a certain article one will embrace the masterpiece NCFOM truly is.

That wasn't necessarily my intention. I only consider that stuff a supplement to the ending that might help in understand/appreciating it. There's no guarantee of course. Even the article that I specifically pointed out doesn't have much to do with what I was saying about the ending, I don't even completely buy it my self, I just thought it was interesting. There are a couple more besides that one article on the site if you haven't look by the way.

Quoted from Death Monkey And let me be absolutely clear: This is not a case of being let down because it's not an action movie or because it's unconventional.

Quoted from Death Monkey The main problem is the ending, really. It's not that it's bleak. It's not the that bad guys gets away. It's just that I think it breaks style and contradicts itself.

Why don't you like it because it breaks style? Because there is a standard that movies shouldn't, right? To me that sound pretty similar to saying you don't like it because it's unconventional. If that's not what you're saying please clarify the difference for me.

About the second part I don't understand or don't remember. How does it contradict itself?

About the car crash stuff: When people were talking about not liking the ending I thought they were talking about the immediate ending(last two scenes with Jones). Did you really have a problem with the car crash? I didn't have a problem with it at all. I guess you didn't like it because you saw it as a plot device? (exposed the craft) I saw it as them giving priority to their themes (which you pointed out) and didn't have a problem with it.

Supernatural Chigurh:
I don't completely buy it either. I personally feel that the Coens went back and forth in regards to this. He was flesh and blood but certainly there were supernatural elements to him. My personal take is that there was a man, but he was attributed supernatural, irrational traits, on a psychological level(like Death Monkey mentions) by men that are in fear or whatever.

Quoted from Death Monkey Well check the bottle then? Check the coin they found. Check any number of things. It's not like he was careful with his fingerprints. Maybe the reason why Bell thinks he's a ghost is because he never bothers to do any of these things. Nor confer with DEA or FBI.

This seems to be representative of a lot of complaints that a couple of you have been making. I guess I do give it more slack in this regard but I don't understand why you all are being so stern. I think it's completely within the confines of the rules and tone it set up for it's self. It is a movie. They are trying to tell a story and I grant them a certain artistic license. I don't think they were trying to be hyper realistic.

There are several great movies where there are far more unbelievable things, imo.

Quoted from Death Monkey I somewhat disagree with that. I think there's a tendency to be too lenient on these kinds of movies, saying that because the ending makes you think, it's a good one.

I totally agree. But, I think there is something to talk about. Besides that though, I think the ending does more then just leave us with something to talk about. The way it ended left me with a feeling, which in my opinion, they achieved primarily through having an unconventional story structure(an almost broken structure), which I think is different and I give them a lot of credit for. I think the feeling this generated supplemented the themes of the film.  

Quoted from Death Monkey That doesn't mean they're not detrimental to the plot.

I agree they elevated themes over a conventional plot. I don't have a problem with that. Beyond that though, I think the different type of plot structure contributes to the themes.

Now, if you want to keep arguing(and I suspect you will) I don't know how well I'll be able to go on. It's been awhile since I saw it and I don't remember enough to make as good of an argument as I should be able to, but I'll go on the best I can.

sheepwalker

Quoted Text That wasn't necessarily my intention. I only consider that stuff a supplement to the ending that might help in understand/appreciating it. There's no guarantee of course. Even the article that I specifically pointed out doesn't have much to do with what I was saying about the ending, I don't even completely buy it my self, I just thought it was interesting. There are a couple more besides that one article on the site if you haven't look by the way.

Yeah I saw there were others, but I honestly didn't have the time to go through 'em all.

Quoted Text Why don't you like it because it breaks style? Because there is a standard that movies shouldn't, right? To me that sound pretty similar to saying you don't like it because it's unconventional. If that's not what you're saying please clarify the difference for me.

Not right. Let me rephrase: It breaks style and it doesn't work. Breaking style CAN work, if you set it up right. Take Adaptation. The final act is what makes it a masterpiece because it breaks style. But it doesn't do it just for the sake of being unconventional or at the expense of the story, it's perfectly set up in the previous two acts and is really the only way the movie can end.

Quoted Text About the second part I don't understand or don't remember. How does it contradict itself?

Well I find Llewellyn's demise a break of character and contradictoring the way he was set-up, and also the entire Anton character towards the end, but it's not the most fitting word, I concede as much.

Quoted Text About the car crash stuff: When people were talking about not liking the ending I thought they were talking about the immediate ending(last two scenes with Jones). Did you really have a problem with the car crash? I didn't have a problem with it at all. I guess you didn't like it because you saw it as a plot device? (exposed the craft) I saw it as them giving priority to their themes (which you pointed out) and didn't have a problem with it.

Yeah, I had a problem with it, did you not have a problem with it? I really did have a problem with it.

Kidding aside, I think when filmmakers prioritize their themes ahead of, or at the expense of the narrative it leads to bad places. Making a scene about a certain theme is not difficult, but it takes skill to incoporate this theme seamlessly into the narrative. But like I said the reason why the crash doesn't work for me is that it's completely detached from the event it's thematically bound to. The killing of Carla Jean.

Quoted Text Supernatural Chigurh: I don't completely buy it either. I personally feel that the Coens went back and forth in regards to this. He was flesh and blood but certainly there were supernatural elements to him. My personal take is that there was a man, but he was attributed supernatural, irrational traits, on a psychological level(like Death Monkey mentions) by men that are in fear or whatever.

We can agree on that, I think

Quoted Text This seems to be representative of a lot of complaints that a couple of you have been making. I guess I do give it more slack in this regard but I don't understand why you all are being so stern. I think it's completely within the confines of the rules and tone it set up for it's self. It is a movie. They are trying to tell a story and I grant them a certain artistic license. I don't think they were trying to be hyper realistic. There are several great movies where there are far more unbelievable things, imo.

Really? I find it pretty condescending if the movie asks us to pretend fingerprints don't exist in the context of the most elusive serial killer ever. Forget, DNA, forget fibers, I'm talking fingerprints, something we've been able to lift off people for almost a century now.

I don't know what 'tone' this is fitting with, and I actually do consider it one of the most unbelievable plotdevices ever (if they didn't find fingerprints). I'm still waiting for someone to tell me I've overlooked one thing that will explain it all away.

To me, it's like making a movie in which we're asked to pretend cops don't have guns.

Quoted Text I totally agree. But, I think there is something to talk about. Besides that though, I think the ending does more then just leave us with something to talk about. The way it ended left me with a feeling, which in my opinion, they achieved primarily through having an unconventional story structure(an almost broken structure), which I think is different and I give them a lot of credit for. I think the feeling this generated supplemented the themes of the film. I agree they elevated themes over a conventional plot. I don't have a problem with that. Beyond that though, I think the different type of plot structure contributes to the themes. Now, if you want to keep arguing(and I suspect you will) I don't know how well I'll be able to go on. It's been awhile since I saw it and I don't remember enough to make as good of an argument as I should be able to, but I'll go on the best I can. sheepwalker

It's a matter of taste I suppose. I just don't think it's that admirable, or difficult to spell out your themes out of context with the story. Perhaps Cormack McCarthy shares the blame, but I think the mark of a great storyteller (Which I usually consider the Coens) is the ability juggle both without sacrificing any part. Don't pull us out of the story, but don't let the action erode the themes.

I really did like the film (4/5 in my book), so it's too bad all we're discussing are the parts I didn't like.

Hi Death Monkey, Fair play you have really thought about this and can understand your views on why things do not work for you. I just wanted to get back to you on the fingerprint question, I am not sure what the issue is with fingerprints in this movie. I thought maybe I missed something in the Sherrif's dialogue so just did a word search on 'print' and 'fingerprint' and came up with nothing.  One can assume they did check the crime scenes for fingerprints, one assumes that they have plenty of fingerprints available from the cop car, hotel rooms etc...  But not really understanding what the problem is I am just guessing at what the answer is.

Fingerprints are only useful if you have a fingerprint match on file from a bad guy yes? So unless Anton has ever been arrested and charged then they would not have a fingerprint on file for him. Therefore they could have thousands of fingerprints lifted from all the crime scenes and it still would not make a difference. He escaped from the jail before he could be processes so they could not have got the fingerprints then.

Unless your problem is that nobody takes any fingerprints? I guess this is purely because we never see any CSI's in action. I doubt the town sheriff would be tasked with taking fingerprints, hell i don't think the town Sheriff is even officially on this case, I get the feeling that he is just working on his own trying to track down Moss while unseen to us there are a whole host of enforcement agencies running this case and the search for Anton. That is not part of the story though, our story is all about the Sheriff the rest is unimportant.

Quoted Text WENDELL The Rangers and DEA are heading out to the desert this morning. You gonna join ' em?

Anyway some really good feedback from you, and I can see some of your points about the ending - not however to stop me loving the movie. I need to maybe try and understand better why I loved the movie because the first time I watched I was very satisfied with everything and with each subsequent viewing the movie just gets better and better.

Hey,

I'm gonna have to concede most of the points to you Death Monkey, at least till I see the movie again. I don't remember well enough to argue adequately. All I remember is that I didn't have any problems with it whatsoever.

One thing though:

Quoted from Death Monkey I just don't think it's that admirable, or difficult to spell out your themes out of context with the story. Perhaps Cormack McCarthy shares the blame, but I think the mark of a great storyteller (Which I usually consider the Coens) is the ability juggle both without sacrificing any part. Don't pull us out of the story, but don't let the action erode the themes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "out of context with the story", I'm sure I'm being a little slow but please help me out here. It was still in the context of the story, wasn't it? Do you mean you didn't like the way they told it (their narration)?

And if it is the narration, what exactly didn't you like about it? You specified in your last post that  it wasn't the break in style per say but that you thought the break in style didn't work. What do you think didn't work about it?

I'm not going anywhere with this stuff I'm just trying to understand your position better. If you have the time. If not, I understand completely.

sheepwalker

Quoted from Murphy Hi Death Monkey, Fair play you have really thought about this and can understand your views on why things do not work for you. I just wanted to get back to you on the fingerprint question, I am not sure what the issue is with fingerprints in this movie. I thought maybe I missed something in the Sherrif's dialogue so just did a word search on 'print' and 'fingerprint' and came up with nothing.  One can assume they did check the crime scenes for fingerprints, one assumes that they have plenty of fingerprints available from the cop car, hotel rooms etc...  But not really understanding what the problem is I am just guessing at what the answer is. Fingerprints are only useful if you have a fingerprint match on file from a bad guy yes? So unless Anton has ever been arrested and charged then they would not have a fingerprint on file for him. Therefore they could have thousands of fingerprints lifted from all the crime scenes and it still would not make a difference. He escaped from the jail before he could be processes so they could not have got the fingerprints then. Unless your problem is that nobody takes any fingerprints? I guess this is purely because we never see any CSI's in action. I doubt the town sheriff would be tasked with taking fingerprints, hell i don't think the town Sheriff is even officially on this case, I get the feeling that he is just working on his own trying to track down Moss while unseen to us there are a whole host of enforcement agencies running this case and the search for Anton. That is not part of the story though, our story is all about the Sheriff the rest is unimportant.

The only reason I really mentioned the fingerprints was because someone (you maybe?) mentioned that the Sheriff was very adament in the novel about getting a finger-print from Anton, and it just seems like if that was the case, he was being very careless about it.

[center][/center]


Anyway some really good feedback from you, and I can see some of your points about the ending - not however to stop me loving the movie. I need to maybe try and understand better why I loved the movie because the first time I watched I was very satisfied with everything and with each subsequent viewing the movie just gets better and better. [/quote]

Hey, I'm gonna watch it again one of these days. Maybe I'll find the ending more compelling and satisfying when I know the big picture from the get-go.

I've finished digesting this and what I feel let down by the most was Llewellyn being killed off screen and by peripheral characters to boot.

The second thing that flattened the ending for me was how easily Ed Tom gave up on his pursuit of Anton, especially when you consider that Carla was his friend.
Plus, lets not forget Anton was a cop killer and when it comes to chasing cop killers, the cops leave no stone unturned.

The car crash didn’t sit well with me either, but I was just grateful that Anton didn’t die in it. That really would’ve been too much.

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

Interesting conversation between a few critics discussing the movie and the ending.

Quoted from Murphy http://www.nocountryforoldmen-themovie.com/podcast/ Interesting conversation between a few critics discussing the movie and the ending.

They couldn't find one critic who didn't LOVE the ending? It becomes kinda circle-jerkish in its back-patting. "Why don't people understand the ending is great!?"

Would've been more interesting if it was an actual discussion between different points of views. They mention Rex Reed, so why didn't they invite him?

Anyways, they talk a lot about Ellis' scene and I think it's sorta plastered on there at the end. It would've worked so much better if Ellis had been set up in act I as a character, and not just suddenly someone, whom we don't know, Ed Tom needs to see at the end.

Just finished watching this and I've gotta say I was blown away. Possibly my favourite Coen brothers movie, and that's saying something.

SPOILERS

As for the ending, I'm at a loss as to why so many people have issues with it. Granted, the way they handled Llewellyn's death was jarring at first as they seemingly washed over the whole event, but I quickly realised that this was the whole point. It just goes to show the futility of Llewellyn's greed. This theme is so tightly woven into the rest of the film I fail to see how anyone can miss it.

Quoted from Death Monkey It breaks style and it doesn't work. Breaking style CAN work, if you set it up right. Take Adaptation. The final act is what makes it a masterpiece because it breaks style. But it doesn't do it just for the sake of being unconventional or at the expense of the story, it's perfectly set up in the previous two acts and is really the only way the movie can end.

I couldn't disagree more. How is the ending unconventional just for the sake of it? Would you have wanted him to survive and live happily ever after with his wife and 2 million bucks? Would that have driven home the theme established throughout the film? How about he dies in a showdown with Anton and goes out in a blaze of glory? Would that have done it? Not for me. The fact that he died offscreen at the hands of relatively inconsequential characters serves to amplify the futility of his goals. He pays the price for his greed. It doesn't matter who pulls the trigger, he signed his own death warrant when he risked both his life and his wife's because of his greed. I think that's why the writers chose to have him die off screen. The bad guy didn't win because Llewellyn WAS the bad guy. Sure, he's likeable, his intentions are true, but his greed became his undoing. That's the whole point.

That's what I love about the Coen brothers. Their themes are simple but so intricately executed through their stories that you just have to applaud. Take the scene where Llewellyn buys the jacket from the college jocks. At first they're concerned for him but all compassion goes out the window as soon as money enters the picture. Again, when the mexican band take Llewellyn's tip. Same again with the kids when Anton is injured near the end. Money corrupts. Life and death is a coin toss. You spend your life in pursuit of wealth and you may never get a chance to enjoy what you already have. Simple, universal themes driven home in almost every scene. Great stuff.

Quoted from Martin Just finished watching this and I've gotta say I was blown away. Possibly my favourite Coen brothers movie, and that's saying something. SPOILERS As for the ending, I'm at a loss as to why so many people have issues with it. Granted, the way they handled Llewellyn's death was jarring at first as they seemingly washed over the whole event, but I quickly realised that this was the whole point. It just goes to show the futility of Llewellyn's greed. This theme is so tightly woven into the rest of the film I fail to see how anyone can miss it.

You assume people miss it?

Quoted Text I couldn't disagree more. How is the ending unconventional just for the sake of it? Would you have wanted him to survive and live happily ever after with his wife and 2 million bucks? Would that have driven home the theme established throughout the film? How about he dies in a showdown with Anton and goes out in a blaze of glory? Would that have done it? Not for me. The fact that he died offscreen at the hands of relatively inconsequential characters serves to amplify the futility of his goals. He pays the price for his greed. It doesn't matter who pulls the trigger, he signed his own death warrant when he risked both his life and his wife's because of his greed. I think that's why the writers chose to have him die off screen. The bad guy didn't win because Llewellyn WAS the bad guy. Sure, he's likeable, his intentions are true, but his greed became his undoing. That's the whole point. That's what I love about the Coen brothers. Their themes are simple but so intricately executed through their stories that you just have to applaud. Take the scene where Llewellyn buys the jacket from the college jocks. At first they're concerned for him but all compassion goes out the window as soon as money enters the picture. Again, when the mexican band take Llewellyn's tip. Same again with the kids when Anton is injured near the end. Money corrupts. Life and death is a coin toss. You spend your life in pursuit of wealth and you may never get a chance to enjoy what you already have. Simple, universal themes driven home in almost every scene. Great stuff.

You know, whenever I mention the ending didn't work 100% for me, I always have people set up straw men like "Would you rather have [insert really lame ending]???" Please stop it, it's very condescending and presumpteuous.

Look, I don't mind Llewellyn dies, I don't mind Anton gets away, I don't mind the Sheriff retires. I just didn't like the way they went about it. As I've explained.

Llewellyn was the bad guy? By virtue of what? Greed? He was a bad guy because he wanted to keep 2 million dollars in a drug-deal gone bad? Or was he a bad guy because when asked to give up his own life to save his wife, he didn't? If that's "the whole point" then I think it's a really famished bottomline. I call it being a human being.

Llewellyn was a victim of greed, yes, but he was not the bad guy, in my book. Neither audience nor the film itself held him in that regard, IMO. The primary bad guy was the two million dollars. The Mcguffin. It was the catalyst of everything, like the Ring in LOTR. So the bad guys absolutely did win, that's why Ed Tom retires in the end. because the bad guys eventually always win.

The more I thought about the ending the more I liked it, but I'm still not as thoroughly jubilant about it as some reviewers. The scene with Ellis does not work for me in its current inception, and the car crash I didn't like, as I've already mentioned. I think the off-screen death of Llewellyn was sloppy and I would've faded out later. I'm still undecided by Ed Tom's two dreams to end the film. I think the theme of retirement and death are really so overt over the course of the film that I didn't really need another musing on it. I would rather have it end with the conclusion of the Ellis meeting. That you can't stop what's coming.

I'm happy it worked for you. For me, not so much. There you go.

Quoted from Death Monkey You assume people miss it?

From what I've read here and elsewhere on forums, it seems plenty of people miss the point. Maybe it's because the first half of the movie plays out like a more conventional thriller so people expect a conventional ending. But if you look deeper into the first half of the movie there's plenty going on between the lines to clue you into the ending.

Quoted from Death Monkey You know, whenever I mention the ending didn't work 100% for me, I always have people set up straw men like "Would you rather have [insert really lame ending]???" Please stop it, it's very condescending and presumpteuous.

I wasn't being condescending or presumptuous, I was asking what your preferred ending might have been because, personally, I couldn't see it ending any other way without being detrimental to the story's theme.

Quoted from Death Monkey Llewellyn was the bad guy? By virtue of what? Greed? He was a bad guy because he wanted to keep 2 million dollars in a drug-deal gone bad? Or was he a bad guy because when asked to give up his own life to save his wife, he didn't? If that's "the whole point" then I think it's a really famished bottomline. I call it being a human being.

Are you saying any human being would have taken the money despite the obvious danger involved? And what is a "famished bottomline"?

By bad guy I don't mean antagonist, but he's certainly not the protagonist either. He's probably closer to what Dramatica calls the Contagonist. He's just one representation of the film's thesis and his actions influence the protagonist's (Ed Tom's) realization at the end of the film.

I think the film would have still worked without the Ellis scene but I fail to see how it's detrimental to the film as a whole.

Hi Martin, (I am not for a minute suggesting that you are - I don't think your post was anyway condescending) BUT there are so many threads over on message boards (IMDB being the worst) where the ending of this movie is turning into a debate about who is smart enough to "get it". It is getting a bit silly really, if anyone thinks that whether or not you liked an ending to a movie is an indication of intelligence then they really need to get a grip.

So I can understand if Death Monkey is a little defensive over this because judging by his comments he clearly understands the themes that run through the movie but just did not like the ending. He does a far greater job that in communicating those themes and what the end meant for him than I have managed to do.

I do however happen to agree with your take on the movie, when I first watched it I just accepted the ending and it just felt the right way to end the movie - I never thought for a moment that it would end up causing such a storm.

As a writing exercise (I wanted to try and write a short action piece with little dialogue) I actually had the idea today of writing the scene where Llewelyn gets killed. It was only supposed to be a personal exercise, a short 6 pager filling in the gaps we do not see in the movie. But it actually has come out OK and I think I might submit it to the site, it is called 'The assassination of Llewelyn Moss by the coward Roberto Vado'.

Just for a laugh keep a look out for it if you fancy a read.

I wasn't saying death monkey missed the theme, I've read his work and many of his posts and he clearly knows his stuff. Maybe I gave the wrong impression because I quoted him later in my post. I've spoken to many people who wanted Llewellyn to escape with the money. For me, that would have ruined the movie. I'm pretty sure DM and I are on the same page in that respect.

I'm not one of those people who tries to belittle others because they weren't satisfied with a movie I loved. I'm a big Lynch fan but his films infuriate me because there are so many elements I know I'll never comprehend. Does it matter to me? No, because his films can still have a profound effect even if I don't fully understand everything I've seen.

Quoted from Martin From what I've read here and elsewhere on forums, it seems plenty of people miss the point. Maybe it's because the first half of the movie plays out like a more conventional thriller so people expect a conventional ending. But if you look deeper into the first half of the movie there's plenty going on between the lines to clue you into the ending.

What do you think sets it up? I'm asking out of curiosity, 'cause I'm gonna re-watch it tomorrow so I'll be on the lookout.

Quoted Text I wasn't being condescending or presumptuous, I was asking what your preferred ending might have been because, personally, I couldn't see it ending any other way without being detrimental to the story's theme.

You asked me if I would've preferred a number of ludicrous endings you came up with, and then ended off saying "Not me."

That's like saying "You don't like ice-cream? Would you rather have crap on stick? How about a urinal-douche sandwich? Not me. I like ice-cream."

Quoted Text Are you saying any human being would have taken the money despite the obvious danger involved? And what is a "famished bottomline"?

I would definitely say it's human nature to take the money and you don't have to be "bad" or "evil" to do so. In fact, had Llewellyn handed the money in he would probably be in a small goody-two-shoes minority, IMO.  

Famished bottom-line = A weak point/conclusion. Yes I'm using an archaic sense of the word. Sue me!  

Quoted Text By bad guy I don't mean antagonist, but he's certainly not the protagonist either. He's probably closer to what Dramatica calls the Contagonist. He's just one representation of the film's thesis and his actions influence the protagonist's (Ed Tom's) realization at the end of the film.

I still think it's wrong to paint Llewellyn as a "bad guy" because that sorta separates him from other human beings. As you mention yourself money corrupts everyone in the film, not a specific kind of person that we can label "bad" or "good". Llewellyn is someone Ed Tom tries to save, and fails to. But he's not a bad man.

Quoted Text I think the film would have still worked without the Ellis scene but I fail to see how it's detrimental to the film as a whole.

I think it's a pace and structure issue. Generally think it's lazy to introduce important characters or character-development in the third act. It's like "oh by the way, there's this guy too and he has something important to say". I feel if Ellis had been set-up in the first act he would've worked better, and he wouldn't seem so random. But I actually think a lot of Ellis' dialogue could've been given to Ed Tom's wife.

But I agree with you completely that Moss shouldn't have gotten away with the money. That would negate everything in the movie. That would be a fairly-tale.

There is a piece of dialogue between Moss and the girl in the pool in the last scene that we see Moss alive, I never picked up on it until the last time I watched it...

Quoted Text WOMAN Oh. That's who you keep lookin' out  the window for? MOSS Half. WOMAN What else then? MOSS Lookin' for what's comin'. WOMAN Yeah but no one ever sees that.

Thats a nice touch, If nothing else it is a good bit of writing and sets up the fact that we never see what's coming to Llewelin.

I think when you watch this the first time there is enough to take in with the story-line and fantastic cinematography - Just watching Chigurh takes up so much attention, he is a brilliant  villain. The second time for me was automatically more about Sheriff Bell, If you see the end of the movie as being through his eyes then the idea of not seeing Moss get whacked just comes naturally. I def think that there is so much to take in in the movie that a single viewing is probably not enough.

Let us know what you make of it 2nd time Death Monkey, would be interested to hear your views.

Quoted from Murphy There is a piece of dialogue between Moss and the girl in the pool in the last scene that we see Moss alive, I never picked up on it until the last time I watched it... Thats a nice touch, If nothing else it is a good bit of writing and sets up the fact that we never see what's coming to Llewelin. I think when you watch this the first time there is enough to take in with the story-line and fantastic cinematography - Just watching Chigurh takes up so much attention, he is a brilliant  villain. The second time for me was automatically more about Sheriff Bell, If you see the end of the movie as being through his eyes then the idea of not seeing Moss get whacked just comes naturally. I def think that there is so much to take in in the movie that a single viewing is probably not enough. Let us know what you make of it 2nd time Death Monkey, would be interested to hear your views.

I will. Though I actually picked up on that piece of dialogue right away the first time. And it IS really good.

I'm also a little unsure about why they didn't show Anton killing the hairdresser who gave him that god awful haircut. But then again, I guess the audience could work it out without having it rammed down their throats.



No. It's okay, guys. I'll show myself out.    

We could even talk about the German porn star who ended up losing his mustache to Moss, did Moss kill him for it? Now that would have made an interesting sub-plot and could have shed new light on the ending. Was it the Germans who came back for revenge and not the Mexicans?

Hey,

I think the hair was an awesome touch. For me it will forever be associated with coin tosses.

I also like the Mosstache. I'm gonna work on growing one starting now.  

sheepwalker

Just got back from this and I have to say it was one of the best films this year (maybe #3 in my book). The tension was so intense, you could cut it with a knife. A lot of the scenes were dead silent, so much so you could hear a pin drop, so when a gun went off, the whole audience jumped. It was a blast (no pun intended). The hotel bathroom scene with Anton got people squirming as well...

Speaking of Anton, is this guy one of the best villains ever or what? Seriously, I was freaking out from the start when he was interrogating the guy at the gas station. This guy was chaos incarnate... literally. He had no development, no motives, and killed people on the flip of a coin (quite literally chance). His character was very disturbing and tied in to the film's chaotic nature as a whole. A lot of people seem to have problems with the film's structuring (even I have to admit the third act was a bit of a drag) but I think in the end, it all had a point and the Coen bros. pulled it off quite effectively.

Woody Harrelson was also great. He had a small role but I still think his performance has been underrated so far.

Anyway, awesome film. The kind of film I'd like to write myself but just don't have the skills (right now?). This is the Oscar winner. I'd be very disappointed if this one doesn't take home at least half of its nominations.

I already posted a review of this film on the SimplyScripts website, and I won't go so far as to post the whole thing here. I just have to say that I really hated the ending of this film... at first. But once I re-examined it, I came to the realization that everything (and I mean everything) played into the theme of the inevitable and unforeseeable.

What a fantastic picture. My Oscar predictions for it:

Best Picture (it's main competition is "There Will Be Blood")
Best Director (Julian Schnabel might take it, or Paul Thomas Anderson)
Best Adapted Screenplay (again, MAYBE Anderson)
Best Supporting Actor (Bardem has it in the bag, I think)
Best Editing (though I'm rooting for "Bourne Ultimatum")

Let's hope for the best.

I must admit this movie didn't really do anything for me. It's basically just a chase movie with blood and gore and it got to be so annoyingly repetitive and predictable (which was probably the point) that I had to force myself to keep watching this.

I fail to see why this movie should be nominated for anything. Granted, Bardem was good - but psychos are usually the most interesting characters and easy to play (cos' we all have a psycho burried deep within us).

Quoted from Takeshi 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?

he takes the water back to a dying man because he is not a heartless, cold blooded murderer like anton. this is done precisely to set up this crucial difference. moss feels pity for another human being - anton certainly does not. it also foreshadows moss's inability to understand what it takes to "be a part of this world" as bell states.

Quoted from Takeshi 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.

he leaves his registered vehicle there because he is chased off by men with shotguns. would you return to that spot again? i know i wouldn't.

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

how difficult is it to track another person? give me your name and i can probably have your address and phone number in 30 seconds. i'm pretty sure that wells, a retired army colonel, who has obviously done many trackings before, could find moss without much difficulty. moss was leaving quite the trail of bread crumbs.

Quoted from Takeshi 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?

again, i disagree. the story is not about moss. it is about bell.

Quoted from sniper I must admit this movie didn't really do anything for me. It's basically just a chase movie with blood and gore and it got to be so annoyingly repetitive and predictable (which was probably the point) that I had to force myself to keep watching this. I fail to see why this movie should be nominated for anything. Granted, Bardem was good - but psychos are usually the most interesting characters and easy to play (cos' we all have a psycho burried deep within us).

the story is an allegory.

it is much more than just a chase movie.

Quoted from sync how difficult is it to track another person? give me your name and i can probably have your address and phone number in 30 seconds. i'm pretty sure that wells, a retired army colonel, who has obviously done many trackings before, could find moss without much difficulty. moss was leaving quite the trail of bread crumbs.

Yes, but they didn't have mapquest.com in 1980. In fact they didn't have them internet tubes at all. So how does Wells find the suitcase? Does Moss tell him where it is, 'cause that would make sense. But it sure is patronizing if the film expects us to believe Wells could find the money in a completely random place, because he has ARMY TRAINING...

Quoted from Death Monkey Yes, but they didn't have mapquest.com in 1980. In fact they didn't have them internet tubes at all. So how does Wells find the suitcase? Does Moss tell him where it is, 'cause that would make sense. But it sure is patronizing if the film expects us to believe Wells could find the money in a completely random place, because he has ARMY TRAINING...

Wells knew that Moss only walked from the Eagle hotel across the bridge to Mexico. He knew that he could not take the money with him accross the border, so he had to have stashed it somewhere first. As he was badly hurt he also would not have had much time to hide it somewhere good so would in all likelyhood have stashed in along the way.

It is a short distance from the hotel to the border, would not take much of a genius to figure it out.

In a script I read (though not the one that is posted now, so must have been an earlier draft) it showed that Wells saw some splashes of blood on a part of the bridge and that caused him to look over the side.


*And anyway, this is not a plot point that is central to the script. Wells never got the money, the storyline was not altered a single bit due to Wells knowing where the money was.  If this was a plot point, or a turning point in the story I may have some agreement with what you are saying. Not that i find it difficult to believe at all that Wells saw where the money was stashed but I would be a little disapointed that a shift in plot hinges solely on Well's brilliant detective skills. But that ain't the case at all, Wells could have found the Ark of the covenant hidden in the Mexican bushes and nothing would have changed because a few minutes later he was dead anyway.

Quoted from sync he takes the water back to a dying man because he is not a heartless, cold blooded murderer like anton. this is done precisely to set up this crucial difference. moss feels pity for another human being - anton certainly does not. it also foreshadows moss's inability to understand what it takes to "be a part of this world" as bell states. he leaves his registered vehicle there because he is chased off by men with shotguns. would you return to that spot again? i know i wouldn't. how difficult is it to track another person? give me your name and i can probably have your address and phone number in 30 seconds. i'm pretty sure that wells, a retired army colonel, who has obviously done many trackings before, could find moss without much difficulty. moss was leaving quite the trail of bread crumbs. again, i disagree. the story is not about moss. it is about bell.

Not taking the water back wouldn't have made Moss a cold blooded murderer, because he wasn't the one who shot the guy.

I understand why he didn't go back to the car, but he was a dumb ass to think that proceeding with the plan was a viable option after leaving his registered vehicle there.

If it was so easy for Wells to find Moss why did it take Bell so long?

As for who the story was about, I'm pretty sure the Coens have said that both Moss and Bell were the protagonists’' of the story.

Quoted from Takeshi Not taking the water back wouldn't have made Moss a cold blooded murderer, because he wasn't the one who shot the guy. I understand why he didn't go back to the car, but he was a dumb ass to think that proceeding with the plan was a viable option after leaving his registered vehicle there. If it was so easy for Wells to find Moss why did it take Bell so long? As for who the story was about, I'm pretty sure the Coens have said that both Moss and Bell where the protagonists’' of the story.

I have said this before but due to this conversation still going on it is worth repeating. Llewlyn Moss is a dumb ass, this movie is about a dumb ass that finds some money. I can understand people not really liking this, or thinking about what appears to be our main protagonist being dumb. After all we are used to seeing our hero's been smart, cunning and full of wits. After all if Hollywood had made a movie about someone finding a bag full of money the chances are that it would be Will Smith playing a really clever welder who also happened to have an amazing ability to run faster, fight stronger and drive better than any of the bad guys. This is what people expect from their hero in such a scenario. But here Cormac McCarthy gave us a guy who really does think he can get away with taking the money, he really fails to see what is so obvious to most of the viewers, we can see what is coming to him, he cannot.

Bell is our real protagonist, he opens the movie and although is rarely on screen during the second act he still remains the central character, this is his story. For whatever reasons the Coens chose not to make more of Bell in the second act. I think maybe they wanted us to think that Moss was out hero, our protagonist, it certainly makes it more of a surprise and shocking when Moss is killed. If they had made it clearer that Bell was our protagonist during the movie then Moss's death would not have had the effect it did in the end. But by killing Moss off-screen the Coen's chose that moment to tell us that we were following the wrong man so to speak. I am sure it is no coincidence that the first person we see as soon as we realize that Moss is dead is in fact Bell and from then on it remains his story.

The movie is called No Country For Old Men, it is about an old man coming to terms with the fact that the world has changed and he does not seem to have changed with it.

There is nothing at all wrong in having a movie about someone who makes stupid choices and then ends up paying for them. I honestly do not understand why people seem to have an issue with this at all. Moss was not an evil man, he was not a criminal, but he was pretty stupid and it was his stupidity that got him killed. While Hollywood seems to think that in order to kill someone we need to make them have done something to deserve being killed, I think it is fine for stupid people to get killed too. He was not really our protagonist so there was no problem, People just assumed he was the protagonist and hence why they have a problem with it.

Anyway, not saying I am right but that is my view and it works for me. It is a truly excellent movie.

Quoted from Murphy Wells knew that Moss only walked from the Eagle hotel across the bridge to Mexico. He knew that he could not take the money with him accross the border, so he had to have stashed it somewhere first. As he was badly hurt he also would not have had much time to hide it somewhere good so would in all likelyhood have stashed in along the way. It is a short distance from the hotel to the border, would not take much of a genius to figure it out. In a script I read (though not the one that is posted now, so must have been an earlier draft) it showed that Wells saw some splashes of blood on a part of the bridge and that caused him to look over the side.

Well, even if Wells knew exactly what route he took to Mexico he could've stashed it anywhere in the hotel or around that place. Regardless of what's in the script, in the movie it's communicated that it's sort of happenstance. He walks across the bridge (we don't know if he's searched anywhere else) and for no particular reason decides to climb up and look down at the exact spot where the money is. IF he had seen blood then okay, I would've been able to live with that, but as it's presented in the movie it's jarring, IMO.

Quoted Text *And anyway, this is not a plot point that is central to the script. Wells never got the money, the storyline was not altered a single bit due to Wells knowing where the money was.  If this was a plot point, or a turning point in the story I may have some agreement with what you are saying. Not that i find it difficult to believe at all that Wells saw where the money was stashed but I would be a little disapointed that a shift in plot hinges solely on Well's brilliant detective skills. But that ain't the case at all, Wells could have found the Ark of the covenant hidden in the Mexican bushes and nothing would have changed because a few minutes later he was dead anyway.

Which brings up an important question: Why even have the scene in there? As it's bewildering at best and doesn't really acheive anything, why is it in there?

Quoted from Death Monkey Well, even if Wells knew exactly what route he took to Mexico he could've stashed it anywhere in the hotel or around that place. Regardless of what's in the script, in the movie it's communicated that it's sort of happenstance. He walks across the bridge (we don't know if he's searched anywhere else) and for no particular reason decides to climb up and look down at the exact spot where the money is. IF he had seen blood then okay, I would've been able to live with that, but as it's presented in the movie it's jarring, IMO.

I dunno, I never really thought that. He was walking across the bridge, we was undoubtably wondering where Moss stashed the money, it was probably all he was thinking about. Is it really unbelievable to think while doing this he had the idea to just have a look over the fence to see if Moss had been stupid enough to just throw it over? I think I may well have done the same in his position. I honestly cannot understand why this is such a big issue.

Quoted from Death Monkey Which brings up an important question: Why even have the scene in there? As it's bewildering at best and doesn't really acheive anything, why is it in there?

Because at that point we were led to believe that Wells was going to get the cash and Moss was in trouble. It made Well's death mean something more, it gave us hope that Moss was gonna get away with it.


I think it is strange that this discussion still goes on but I am glad it does in a way. This movie got best picture and best adapted screenplay, it is good that we can try and understand it more, it can only help us to understand what makes a really great movie.

Don't understand why Wells finding the money has been such a big issue. I didn't even think about it after leaving the theatre. The way things seemed to play out, he was thinking about it and then just happened to notice it lying in the weeds. That's it. I could be wrong, of course, but I never thought of it as anything complex.

I'm glad no Country won best picture, it was well-deserved, but I've seen the movie three times now and every time the people I see it with ask me "come on! how did he know the money was there?" and I sit and try to defend it, but I can't. It's not a huge deal, but it is jarring when The Coens could've solved with a simple shot of blood, why didn't they? I mean, it's an amazing film and all, but they are not perfect, they do make mistakes, and this, IMO, is one of them.