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.