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.