No Country for Old Men

[megladon8]

There's been some very nice elucidation of the wrongness of your point in the prior pages (I haven't jumped in much, but I'm loving this discussion, guys). However, the story that Bell's uncle relates about Bell's other uncle kind of undermines your theory.


I don't remember that particular conversation.

I'm actually surprised at how little of the film I do remember.

Luckily, my friend wants to see it again, so we may go this weekend/early next week.

[Sycophant]

I'm actually surprised at how little of the film I do remember.At least you remember that it's really good!

The more I think and read about this film, the more I'm convinced that it's easily one of the best films I've seen all year.

[megladon8]

At least you remember that it's really good!

The more I think and read about this film, the more I'm convinced that it's easily one of the best films I've seen all year.


I think so, too.

I think perhaps the reason why I've forgotten so much is that it was just so much to take in.

Even my friend Nick, who rarely likes anything outside the mainstream action/comedy realm, and at times throughout the film seemed to be quite bored, ended up saying that he thought something about the movie was quite profound.

While my quick interpretation of it seems to be quite wrong, I do think that the film could have multiple possible interpretations.

With regards to the character of Anton, and the whole argument of whether or not he was in the room (and if he was, how did he get out undetected), I think he was both a real and symbolic character. He was at times human, and at times almost a more-than-human force. So maybe it's not that big of a stretch to say that he was there, and he did vanish into thin air.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong again.

[Duncan]

And I don't think "faith" enters into this at all. The story is steeped in nihilism, a godless philosophy. Maybe my view on this will change after I read the book.
If this is directed at me, I did not imply any religiousness in my use of the word "faith." I myself am an atheist, but that does not preclude me from having faith in things. And I've been arguing all along that the story is steeped in nihilism. That's, like, why I find so little of interest in it.

[Duncan]

Anyway, I think I'm going to have to file this film away with The Fountain and just stop discussing it. Otherwise I'm going to get too worked up over people liking it so much.

[Raiders]

Anyway, I think I'm going to have to file this film away with The Fountain and just stop discussing it. Otherwise I'm going to get too worked up over people liking it so much.

At least we agree that The Fountain love is ridiculous.

[Kurosawa Fan]

First, I don't believe that the beacon, the fire his father will build is necessarily supposed to be in the afterlife. Bell never says his father is building the fire at the end of the path, just somewhere out there.

"...I knew that he was goin' on ahead and that he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold..."

If anything, this dream is a bleak look at life, not death. Bell has been travelling in this dark, hostile world, "hard country," keeping his father's spirit and hope along with him. The events in the film have caused he and his father's spirit to split off, he's lost his hope, but his father's spirit keeps forging ahead. Bell knows that up ahead, somehwere, his father will have created a beacon of hope for him to find.

"Then I woke up," is not a statement of hopelessness, it's one of doubt. He has been deeply scarred by the events of the story. But ... that doesn't mean he still doesn't have some hope.

And I don't think "faith" enters into this at all. The story is steeped in nihilism, a godless philosophy. Maybe my view on this will change after I read the book.

This is interesting. We certainly agree that the last line isn't bleak. I also argued that Bell is still having doubts, but that there is hope for him.

As for the dream, a light in the darkness seems like an obvious metaphor for death, especially since his deceased father was carrying that light. It doesn't have to be at the end of the path, because the afterlife means there is no end to the path.

I still connect the conversation that Bell had with Ellis about God not coming into his life in old age with his dream at the end. The conversation goes as follows:

Bell: "I always thought when I got older God would sort of come into my life in some way. He didn't. I don't blame him. If I was him I'd have the same opinion about me that he does."

Ellis: "You don't know what he thinks."

Bell: "Yes I do."


To me, that dialogue wouldn't exist in a godless world. Ellis obviously believes, and is disheartened that Bell has lost faith. Ellis also later says, "What you got ain't nothin new. This country is hard on people. Hard and crazy. Got the devil in it yet folks never seem to hold it to account."

Both of those allude to God, and to a lack of faith in people. Their purpose at the end of the film serve as a precursor to his dream. If this was a godless, nihilistic world, why would the Coens include these direct references to God? You put stock in Ellis relating to Bell that people have always been this violent. I don't think you can pass up this part of their conversation without seeing that he's also saying that God and the devil do exist, and that God hasn't turned his back on Bell.

[Melville]

At least we agree that The Fountain love is ridiculous.
Sign me up for that team!

[Rowland]

I'll never get the hate for The Fountain.

[Melville]

I'll never get the hate for The Fountain.
I don't hate it, but I don't understand the love for it. It's philosophizing is weak and treacly, and the whole thing just seems so forced. Although it does have plants bursting forth from a man's abdomen, so that's something.

[Spun Lepton]

I suppose I should also chime in that after some more thought, I'm going to have to jump on the "'Then I woke up' line is bleak." I wanted very badly to agree with Tommy Lee Jones' suggestion that there is still hope there, but no matter how I bend around the narrative, it really does speak for itself.

He woke up to harsh reality that there is no hope. So, in a sense, this discussion with KF is kind of moot now. The dream definitely symbolizes hope, and the final line suggests there is none to be had. Damn it, Tommy Lee, I really wanted to agree with you. *grr*

Phew. Big, complex emotions there at the end of the movie. Wonderful narrative.

[Ezee E]

Wow. This is up to #16 on IMDB's top 250 now.

[Rowland]

Wow. This is up to #16 on IMDB's top 250 now.overrated

[Sven]

overrated

I think that claim could more than likely be accurately made for at least half of the imdb's top 100 (Lord of the Rings, Memento, Amelie, The Usual Suspects, Americans Beauty & History X, puh-leeeeeze). However, as I think that this is the Coen brothers' best, I'm inclined to disagree with your own assertion, however objectively valid it may be. It's a great piece of fabulous, fabulous craft.

[Rowland]

I think that claim could more than likely be accurately made for at least half of the imdb's top 100 (Lord of the Rings, Memento, Amelie, The Usual Suspects, Americans Beauty & History X, puh-leeeeeze). However, as I think that this is the Coen brothers' best, I'm inclined to disagree with your own assertion, however objectively valid it may be. It's a great piece of fabulous, fabulous craft.Considering that we're talking about imdb, you're right that I was just being redundant.

[monolith94]

A film that offers no hope for this world, regardless of whether or not it offers hope for another, is still pretty worthless as far as I'm concerned.

Aguirre?

Anyway, I thought this film was brilliant, top 3 of the year easily. Also, re: whether or not Anton was in the hotel room when Bell comes into it, it doesn't really matter to me so much whether or not he was there. Either way, the staging and filming of the scene was so awesome that the scene was the single scariest of the year. After the film was over, the GF told me she seriously considered grabbing my hand. That's powerful filmmaking.

[monolith94]

I don't read the film as nihilistic at all. I just don't even understand where the logic for that argument comes from.

[Ezee E]

Another essay on the end of the movie (http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/2007/11/a-ghost-and-a-d.html)

[Rowland]

Another essay on the end of the movie (http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/2007/11/a-ghost-and-a-d.html)I posted this a few pages ago, which I think is what stirred that debate over whether or not Chigurh was in the room. :)

[Ezee E]

I posted this a few pages ago, which I think is what stirred that debate over whether or not Chigurh was in the room. :)
Ah. I didn't click that link. My bad.

Interesing that nobody has thought the reflection in the lock was Bell though. I don't know myself either. I've seen it three times and couldn't OBVIOUSLY tell like some people here. It seemed distorted.

[megladon8]

I don't read the film as nihilistic at all. I just don't even understand where the logic for that argument comes from.


Well it seems to me that fans of the film are very adament about their own interpretations of the events and meanings behind them.

Any deviation from that is wrong.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Ah. I didn't click that link. My bad.

Interesing that nobody has thought the reflection in the lock was Bell though. I don't know myself either. I've seen it three times and couldn't OBVIOUSLY tell like some people here. It seemed distorted.

In a copy of the script I read online, it states that the reflection is Bell. It's more ambiguous about Chigurh.

[Rowland]

Well it seems to me that fans of the film are very adament about their own interpretations of the events and meanings behind them.

Any deviation from that is wrong.That's probably because it's the most obvious reading. If I read any convincing arguments for other interpretations, I'll take them into consideration. I'm not made out of stone, but I do defend my positions.

[chrisnu]

SPOILERS!

What I found most interesting about Ed Tom was that he made himself old. He has idealized visions of his father and grandfather as faultless crusaders. He wants to follow the example he believes they led, and crumbles under his own expectations. This plays into why he refuses to take the advice of the other law enforcement, why he isn't able to go all out in fighting something he doesn't understand. There is a fear of getting hurt, and I think Ed Tom despises that weakness, and he feels like it's his duty alone to fight the darkness in the world. As Ellis put it, that's vanity.

Vanity is something that all of the male characters in the film have in common. They feel like they are masters of their own domain, or should be, in Ed Tom's case. Llewelyn describes his pursuer as a "swinging dick", which is exactly what Carson Wells does in asserting his superiority. Perhaps Chigurh is more honest, purer in his predatory nature than Wells' gentlemanly charade. I think he thinks this, as if he's fulfilling his duty as cock of the rock. Chigurh also finds out that none of us are masters of our own domain. Indifferent is a good way to put the hand of fate in this film. It's unfortunate that Ed Tom decides to acquiesce, rather than continuing to carry the flame he was talking about.

I'm of the opinion that Chigurh wasn't in that room. I think that Ed Tom wanted Chigurh to be in that room, to meet what has left him overmatched, to try and understand what he doesn't. It's the same thing when he drinks the milk, sits exactly where Chigurh sat. Trying to put himself into the mind of the criminal, half-heartedly. Too little, too late? He decides that, I believe. Too late to change now.

[Spun Lepton]

SPOILERS!
I'm of the opinion that Chigurh wasn't in that room. I think that Ed Tom wanted Chigurh to be in that room, to meet what has left him overmatched, to try and understand what he doesn't.

Maybe so, but I viewed it as more about fear that Chigurh was in there. Seemed like through a majority of the movie, Bell was almost purposely stayiing one step behind.

[lwilson85]

Do you guys think the very ending (his dream) is about fate? As in his death. Once he meets his father knowing he is waiting for him (like a grim reaper) that is the end of his life, his fate?

[Rowland]

Do you guys think the very ending (his dream) is about fate? As in his death. Once he meets his father knowing he is waiting for him (like a grim reaper) that is the end of his life, his fate?There is a lot of discussion regarding the dream in this thread. If you comb through it, you should uncover most of our interpretational positions.

[Spinal]

I read about half the thread and then gave up. Basically, I thought the film was pretty great. However, I was bothered about the lack of clarity in regards to the fate of Brolin's character. This did not strike me as pleasant ambiguity, like much of the rest of the film's ending. It simply felt to me like I was supposed to know what happened, but it didn't register. Maybe it's me. Maybe I need to see it again. But I had to read a plot summary when I got home to understand what happened at the motel. I probably missed a key line or something. Anyway, I was distracted during the final part of the movie as I was trying to piece it together. I like the idea of what happened and will perhaps enjoy the film more the next time I see it, but it was muddy to me on first viewing.

Basically, much of the film was thrilling. Quite a bit was funny. I liked the film's theme overall, but could perhaps have done with a few less scenes of wistful folksy musings. Woody's performance stuck out to me as being somewhat inauthentic. The rest of the cast was great. Not sure if I'm down with the film's gloom and pessimism.

[Derek]

I read about half the thread and then gave up. Basically, I thought the film was pretty great. However, I was bothered about the lack of clarity in regards to the fate of Brolin's character. This did not strike me as pleasant ambiguity, like much of the rest of the film's ending. It simply felt to me like I was supposed to know what happened, but it didn't register. Maybe it's me. Maybe I need to see it again. But I had to read a plot summary when I got home to understand what happened at the motel. I probably missed a key line or something. Anyway, I was distracted during the final part of the movie as I was trying to piece it together. I like the idea of what happened and will perhaps enjoy the film more the next time I see it, but it was muddy to me on first viewing.

I thought Brolin's death was simply another great way the film worked against audience expectations. It builds in a way that leads us to expect, even demand, a certain type of closure or catharsis until the Coen's completely pull the rug out from under us. They essentially put the "showdown" in the middle of the film (never giving us anything b/w Bell and Chigurh in that regard) and show us neither murder of Llewelyn or Carla Jean on-screen. It certainly caught me by surprise, but I don't think it made the film any more difficult to follow.

[Spinal]

It builds in a way that leads us to expect, even demand, a certain type of closure or catharsis until the Coen's completely pull the rug out from under us.

It wasn't that it didn't meet my expectations. It was that I didn't know what had happened until I got home and read it online. I like the idea in theory. However, the necessary information did not get through to me for whatever reason. Based on what I read of the thread, it sounds like only Antoine may have had a similar issue.

[Derek]

It wasn't that it didn't meet my expectations. It was that I didn't know what had happened until I got home and read it online. I like the idea in theory. However, the necessary information did not get through to me for whatever reason. Based on what I read of the thread, it sounds like only Antoine may have had a similar issue.

I wasn't saying that's why you thought it didn't work, just that's why I thought the Coen's did it. I'm still not sure what it made it so tough to follow since it basically just cut out the confrontation that we'd been expecting.

[Spinal]

I'm still not sure what it made it so tough to follow since it basically just cut out the confrontation that we'd been expecting.

They were talking about getting to his wife in order to punish him. She was traveling with her mother, so it seemed as if perhaps it was going to be his mother-in-law in peril rather than him. When the wife reacted to the crime scene, I wasn't sure if it was her husband or her mother. We never see a body. But we do see the mother's funeral. I realize now that it was the cancer that killed her, but it threw me off initially.

This would probably be clear if I saw it again, but it was not clear to me on an initial viewing.

[Duncan]

They were talking about getting to his wife in order to punish him. She was traveling with her mother, so it seemed as if perhaps it was going to be his mother-in-law in peril rather than him. When the wife reacted to the crime scene, I wasn't sure if it was her husband or her mother. We never see a body. But we do see the mother's funeral. I realize now that it was the cancer that killed her, but it threw me off initially.

This would probably be clear if I saw it again, but it was not clear to me on an initial viewing.

I'm pretty certain I remember a shot of Brolin lying dead in the motel room just before the wife arrived.

[Spinal]

Well, I guess I'm just not very observant.

[Ezee E]

Well, I guess I'm just not very observant.
Yeah. His body is right at the door when Bell runs up to it, the girl he talks to is in the pool. The Mexicans were there because the mother told them where they were going, which was to meet up with Llewelwyn

[Rowland]

Yeah. His body is right at the door when Bell runs up to it, the girl he talks to is in the pool. The Mexicans were there because the mother told them where they were going, which was to meet up with LlewelwynPlus we knew that Bell was on his way to meeting Llewelyn as well.Still, I understand how anyone could be thrown off by that transition. It is unapologetically jarring.

[Spinal]

Yeah, it totally makes sense when you guys explain it. I should have been able to figure it out. I guess I was just thrown off by the fact that I didn't see a definitive shot of Llewelyn's body. I thought it might have been him, but then we saw the mother-in-law's funeral and I was like, oh, they didn't show it because they didn't want to show violence towards an old lady.

Anyway, this one's on me. I suspect I'll like the film more when I see it again, although I'm still not sure how I feel about the film's worldview. It's not just that it's dismal. It's that it is fatalistic.

[Mysterious Dude]

Well, I guess I'm just not very observant.
Nah, I think the way it's filmed deliberately throws you off. I'm not sure why, though.

[Raiders]

Nah, I think the way it's filmed deliberately throws you off. I'm not sure why, though.

I've been mulling over this as well. The scene directly before it, we see Llewellyn speaking to the girl at the pool and the screen fades to black (I believe this may be the only fade with the exception at the very end). I think it more or less brings a close to Llewellyn's story and brings about the final act that is almost exclusively centered on Bell. It feels very much like a change in perspective, as though the film dims on one story and begins another. As I said before, it is very much a film about the change in Bell's attitude and perspective on this country he lives in. I think his revelation begins as he goes to the motel, thus we begin there.

[Spinal]

I think part of the problem was also that I was sitting way too close to the screen. I was in the third row, so if someone or something was shown quickly, it's very possible that I wasn't able to process it in time.

[Derek]

I've been mulling over this as well. The scene directly before it, we see Llewellyn speaking to the girl at the pool and the screen fades to black (I believe this may be the only fade with the exception at the very end). I think it more or less brings a close to Llewellyn's story and brings about the final act that is almost exclusively centered on Bell. It feels very much like a change in perspective, as though the film dims on one story and begins another. As I said before, it is very much a film about the change in Bell's attitude and perspective on this country he lives in. I think his revelation begins as he goes to the motel, thus we begin there.

Great post. The third act completely shifts towards Bell, so the sudden, unexpected murder of Llewelyn is similar to Janet Leigh's in Psycho. Both seemlessly transfer our connection with one character to another, though obviously No Country isn't doing it from the protag to the villain.

[Derek]

I think part of the problem was also that I was sitting way too close to the screen. I was in the third row, so if someone or something was shown quickly, it's very possible that I wasn't able to process it in time.

Oddly enough, the shot of Llewelyn's body is one that I remember more than most, but it is a very innocuous shot that could easily be overlooked. It doesn't linger and there's no musical or visual cues to tip you off that it contains any crucial information.

[Spinal]

Great post. The third act completely shifts towards Bell, so the sudden, unexpected murder of Llewelyn is similar to Janet Leigh's in Psycho. Both seemlessly transfer our connection with one character to another, though obviously No Country isn't doing it from the protag to the villain.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it's quite the same as Psycho because Bell was introduced in a fashion very similar to Marge in Fargo, so I had already accepted him as the film's true protagonist. Especially with the opening voice over. Also, I basically knew after Llewelyn's conversation with the killer on the phone that he was likely only going to appear in one more scene.

[Rowland]

Do you see Llewelyn's entire body? I only recall seeing his legs, glimpsed from outside the motel room.

[Raiders]

Do you see Llewelyn's entire body? I only recall seeing his legs, glimpsed from outside the motel room.

You see the whole thing. He's laying dead in the doorway.

[Derek]

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it's quite the same as Psycho because Bell was introduced in a fashion very similar to Marge in Fargo, so I had already accepted him as the film's true protagonist. Especially with the opening voice over. Also, I basically knew after Llewelyn's conversation with the killer on the phone that he was likely only going to appear in one more scene.

That's true. I think the suddenness of the transition reminded me of Psycho, but you're right that Bell is clearly an important character from the outset.

[Spinal]

Argh, I want to see this again. I feel like an IMDb forum poster.

"WTF????? What happend to Louellen?? This movie is soooooooooooo ovrrated!!"

[DavidSeven]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to seeing Llewelyn's body, we see a shot of the girl from the pool. To me, that was the tip off to start scanning for Llewelyn since the two were in the previous scene together. The shot could have came afterward though. It's a bit fuzzy.

[Spinal]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to seeing Llewelyn's body, we see a shot of the girl from the pool. To me, that was the tip off to start scanning for Llewelyn since the two were in the previous scene together. The shot could have came afterward though. It's a bit fuzzy.

Yes, I definitely saw the girl in the pool. But for some reason I thought that Llewelyn might be meeting back up with his family. I don't remember why now.

[Robby P]

Interestingly enough, in the book, Llewelyn's death isn't completely confirmed until Sheriff Bell goes to the coroner's office to identify his body. I mean, McCarthy briefly talks about a guy and some girl getting gunned down by a bunch of Mexicans in a hotel, but no names or locations are mentioned, and while it seems pretty obvious, it's still fairly ambiguous (mostly because you can't really believe what's just happened, since there's still about a hundred pages remaining at that point, and the central character has just been axed in a confoundedly nonchalant, off-screen fashion).

It's just such a shocking, frustratingly brilliant moment of genre upheaval that's handled in the most sparse, disconnected prose imaginable. I didn't feel the same way towards the movie. It felt a trifle more gimmicky when shown on the screen (or not shown, as it were), particularly in the way the Coens changed the scene's circumstances (with cowardly Sheriff Bell showing up just oh-so-late to the party and then refusing to pursue a car full of blood-stained gun-toting Mexicans...yeah, no).

I really want to see this movie again. The book is unfortunately still fresh in my mind, but there's been nothing I've seen this year that comes close to matching such exclusive technical proficiency. It literally is just textbook-perfect. Initially I found that to be somewhat irksome (bringing a stringently formalist approach to what it as an unmistakably radical departure from traditional narrative), but in hindsight, it's really just freaking amazing. (The sound of that silenced shotgun is absolutely perfectly realized. It's just exactly how McCarthy described it. My jaw dropped when I first heard it.)

[megladon8]

Saw this again tonight with Jen. It was a great second viewing, as I picked up on much more.

I really have to say that seeing this for the first time stoned out of my mind was not a good choice. I can't believe how much dialogue I missed due to - I guess - spacing out.

Like I've done numerous previous times, I'd like to ramble a bit about some brief thoughts, and perhaps I will write a full-length review sometime in the near future.

I am monumentally jealous of the Coens and their ability to write dialogue - every conversation in their films is filled with lines, quips and sarcasm which most screenwriters spend their whole lives trying to pull out of their ass...I'm still not an enormous fan of their films and/or filming techniques, but their dialogue is dynamite.

All performances are wonderful...I think that's something just about everyone can agree on. Javier Bardem's cold, calculating performance would steal the show if he weren't surrounded by equally great actors playing rich characters

I feel like I have a better grasp of the story/message in the film, though my interpretation of the meaning really hasn't changed all that much. The film's opening narration by Bell states how he looks back on "the old-timers" like his father, and how his father never even carried a gun. This adds to how Bell sees the deterioration of the world and society - represented through Chigurh as the ultimate incarnation of violence. By the end of the film, Bell sees that it's a different world now, and he does need a gun, because there is evil out there.

However...in his conversation with Ellis near the end of the film, Ellis states that, actually, nothing has changed. Evil has always been in the world, and always will be. This sort of represents two equally pessimistic viewpoints - one is that the world was nice, but is going down the crapper, and the other is that it's always been in the crapper, and it's simply getting deeper.

Anyways, I could go on and on. I actually enoyed it more the second time, but I also saw more things I didn't like. I felt the film dragged at points and the pace was sometimes a little uneven. And the issue of Llewelyn's fate kind of bothered me a little more on the second viewing.

Overall it's a great movie, and one of the year's best for sure, but not quite the best.

[monolith94]

Overall it's a great movie, and one of the year's best for sure, but not quite the best.

Right. Because the year's best, as we all know, is Khadak.

[Sycophant]

Right. Because the year's best, as we all know, is Khadak.I had not heard of this movie till right now and now I very, very much want to see it.

Re: No Country for Old Men... I really think it's the best film of the year and probably the Coens' best. I think it's damn near perfect and can't really find anything in it that I don't like.

[megladon8]

Right. Because the year's best, as we all know, is Khadak.


Hmm...never heard of it 'til now. Read up on it on IMDb and it sounds really interesting.

My favorite of the year is The Mist.

[Ivan Drago]

Javier Bardem deserves the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor - nay, Best ACTOR.

This was a phenomenal movie. I'll be shocked if it doesn't win Best Picture.



My favorite of the year is The Mist.

My favorite of the year is Superbad...but after seeing this, I'm not so sure about that now.

[megladon8]

Javier Bardem deserves the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor - nay, Best ACTOR.

This was a phenomenal movie. I'll be shocked if it doesn't win Best Picture.


Yeh, I think it's pretty much a shoo-in for Best Picture.



My favorite of the year is Superbad...but after seeing this, I'm not so sure about that now.

That's a nice, refreshing choice.

I really liked Superbad. I know it has its non-fans, but I thought it was a very funny movie with an authentic high school feel to it, and a great ending.

[Ezee E]

I can see something coming up and picking steam and beating No Country. I'm just not sure which movie it is yet.

[DSNT]

I can see something coming up and picking steam and beating No Country. I'm just not sure which movie it is yet.
Maybe There Will Be Blood or Sweeney Todd, but neither looks likely right now.

[Ivan Drago]

"Hey mister, you've got a bone sticking out of your arm."

:eek::eek::eek:

[DavidSeven]

If having to live with people actually believing this is the Coens' best film means Joel Coen finally gets a Best Directing Oscar and Ethan Coen gets a Best Picture Oscar then that's fine by me.

[Boner M]

It's great. More later. Maybe.

[Ezee E]

Maybe There Will Be Blood or Sweeney Todd, but neither looks likely right now.
I'm thinking Juno or Sweeney Todd.

However, I think that Joel Coen is definitely getting Best Director.

[Duncan]

I think both the Coens are credited as directors on this one.

[Boner M]

Did anyone think of The Vanishing while watching this?

[Raiders]

Did anyone think of The Vanishing while watching this?

Nope.

[Spinal]

Did anyone think of The Vanishing while watching this?

As in a connection between the two killers? Or something else?

[Boner M]

Nope.
I was just thinking at one stage about how both films deal with fate and the dream of security, especially in Jones' recounting of his dream about his father at the end of the film constrasted with Saskia's recounting her dream at the beginning of Sluizer's film. I dunno... I think they strangely complement each other, as well as being genre pieces that transcend their genre.

[Spinal]

I was just thinking at one stage about how both films deal with fate and the dream of security, especially in Jones' recounting of his dream about his father at the end of the film constrasted with Saskia's recounting her dream at the beginning of Sluizer's film.

Yeah, I can see that. My first thought is that the two films come out on different sides in the end though. The Vanishing has a killer who murders people as an intellectual exercise in free will. He does it because it is precisely what he would not do. Yes? The Coen film has a killer who uses a coin to determine people's fate. There is a plea made to him, telling him that he is the one making the choice ultimately, but upon first viewing, it seems to me that Bardem's character is almost a personification of fate. I'm not as familiar with the second film, so I'm a little more unsure of my interpretation at this time. But it's a thought.

[Izzy Black]

Am I the only one who was unimpressed by this film?

[Derek]

Yeah, I can see that. My first thought is that the two films come out on different sides in the end though. The Vanishing has a killer who murders people as an intellectual exercise in free will. He does it because it is precisely what he would not do. Yes? The Coen film has a killer who uses a coin to determine people's fate. There is a plea made to him, telling him that he is the one making the choice ultimately, but upon first viewing, it seems to me that Bardem's character is almost a personification of fate. I'm not as familiar with the second film, so I'm a little more unsure of my interpretation at this time. But it's a thought.

I agree he's a personification of fate, or at least an extension of it to some degree, but in the end (the car crash while going through the green light, etc.), I think the Coens suggest even he is at the whim of the chaotic impulses of the universe.

[megladon8]

Am I the only one who was unimpressed by this film?


I wasn't unimpressed, but I certainly didn't find it as great as others did.

[Boner M]

The more I think about this film, the more I like it... and that's probably because I don't see it as being doomy-and-gloomy 'world as ash' heavy as I (and a few others in this thread) initially interpreted it as. I think the key scene between Chigurh and the two kids near the end - both the youngest people we see in the film(?) - where one gives him his shirt for free, is an important one. It's a selfless and humane gesture on the young kid's part, especially when contrasted with the similar scene between Brolin and the fratboys, where they ask for the money first (and one even asks how much Brolin will offer for his beercan)... to me the final scene with the two kids offers a note of hope, which lends credence to the idea that Bell's final speech is one of doubt and not hopelessness.

That said, I really need to see it again... like many, I missed a few of the details during the elliptical final section.

[Benny Profane]

You see the whole thing. He's laying dead in the doorway.

With regards to the motel room in El Paso...

I'm pretty sure that was one of the Mexicans and not Moss. That's how it was in the book, as well.

Mexicans track down Moss, kill him, Chigurh tracks down the Mexicans, kills one of them. I don't think Moss's corpse is ever revealed to the audience.

Also, my wife was confused about the scene where Bell is outside the motel room door and it seems like Chigurh was waiting for him. She wanted to know why Chigurh didn't kill Bell. I noticed some people in the thread were confused as well. Chigurh was actually in the room next door to that room, and he got the case through the vent, which was unscrewed.

[Raiders]

With regards to the motel room in El Paso...

I'm pretty sure that was one of the Mexicans and not Moss. That's how it was in the book, as well.

Mexicans track down Moss, kill him, Chigurh tracks down the Mexicans, kills one of them. I don't think Moss's corpse is ever revealed to the audience.

Also, my wife was confused about the scene where Bell is outside the motel room door and it seems like Chigurh was waiting for him. She wanted to know why Chigurh didn't kill Bell. I noticed some people in the thread were confused as well. Chigurh was actually in the room next door to that room, and he got the case through the vent, which was unscrewed.

I'm pretty sure I remember the body on the ground wearing the same shirt that Moss had on in the previous scene, as well as it looking a lot like Josh Brolin. Why would it be a Mexican unless Moss killed one? Chigurh hasn't even arrived yet.

As for Chigurh's location, I'm also quite positive you see Bell's reflection in the busted door lock. Either way, it is playing with perception and building to a heroic showdown that doesn't happen.

[Benny Profane]

I'm pretty sure I remember the body on the ground wearing the same shirt that Moss had on in the previous scene, as well as it looking a lot like Josh Brolin. Why would it be a Mexican unless Moss killed one? Chigurh hasn't even arrived yet.

As for Chigurh's location, I'm also quite positive you see Bell's reflection in the busted door lock. Either way, it is playing with perception and building to a heroic showdown that doesn't happen.

What would be the significance of Bell's reflection in that scene? I don't know what you mean...

[Raiders]

What would be the significance of Bell's reflection in that scene? I don't know what you mean...

Well, you see Chigurh standing in the room, then pan down to the busted door lock of the same room with Bell's reflection. To me that would insinuate it is the same room. Not that a reflection couldn't possibly be seen from the room next door, but it seems unlikely.

But like I said, either way the film is merely building to a false, and sad, crescendo. If he is in the room or not doesn't make too much difference.

[Benny Profane]

If he was in that room Bell would have died. Chigurh killed everyone in his path, so it seems unlikely he would have spared Bell. He was a very consistent character.

I figure Chigurh fetched the case through the vent from the room next door, and that's where he was hiding in that scene. It looked like there were two rooms with crime scene tape, not just the one. Don't know the significance of that. Maybe the "beer" chick was staying there? Deserves a rewatch.

[Rowland]

I figure Chigurh fetched the case through the vent from the room next door, and that's where he was hiding in that scene. He unscrewed the vent in Moss's room, so I can't imagine why he'd fetch it through the vent. Besides, the vent was too small to hide the case deep inside like Moss did at the previous motel.

[Benny Profane]

He unscrewed the vent in Moss's room, so I can't imagine why he'd fetch it through the vent. Besides, the vent was too small to hide the case deep inside like Moss did at the previous motel.

I don't remember the vent being too small. Are you saying it was too small to fit the case, or too small to shove it all the way down? Because if could fit at all then how would you know how far it could or could not go?

I just saw this friggin movie and my memory is already hazy.

[megladon8]

It was definitely Moss' body on the floor - not a Mexican.

Also, while Bell didn't see Chigurh in the room, Chigurh was there. He had plenty of time to leave the room while Bell went and searched through the bathroom.

And Chigurh actually doesn't kill everyone in his path. There are several characters which he encounters/converses with who don't die.

[Benny Profane]

It was definitely Moss' body on the floor - not a Mexican.

Also, while Bell didn't see Chigurh in the room, Chigurh was there. He had plenty of time to leave the room while Bell went and searched through the bathroom.

And Chigurh actually doesn't kill everyone in his path. There are several characters which he encounters/converses with who don't die.

He kills everyone in his path connected to the pursuit of the money, unless I'm forgetting someone.

[megladon8]

He kills everyone in his path connected to the pursuit of the money, unless I'm forgetting someone.


Exactly, which I think makes it all the more telling that he doesn't kill Bell.

Bell is almost like a character from a different story. He doesn't fit in in this story or this world at all.

[Benny Profane]

He fits into the story just fine. He's even the main character.

[megladon8]

He fits into the story just fine. He's even the main character.


Yes, I know.

I'm saying the whole point of his character is that he doesn't fit in - he's not equipped to live in this world.

[Benny Profane]

Yes, I know.

I'm saying the whole point of his character is that he doesn't fit in - he's not equipped to live in this world.

OK, but that has no bearing on how Chigurh would react to him if their paths criss-crossed.

[megladon8]

OK, but that has no bearing on how Chigurh would react to him if their paths criss-crossed.


Well for one, Chigurh makes a point of asking people if they saw him before he decides to kill them or not.

Bell didn't see him, so he didn't kill him.

Like Woody Harrelson said, "you might even say he has principles."

Bell showed up at the motel room and Chigurh was still there. Chigurh was prepared to kill him, but Bell was unaware of his presence so Chigurh snuck out quietly while Bell was in the bathroom.

[Benny Profane]

Well for one, Chigurh makes a point of asking people if they saw him before he decides to kill them or not.

Bell didn't see him, so he didn't kill him.

Like Woody Harrelson said, "you might even say he has principles."

Bell showed up at the motel room and Chigurh was still there. Chigurh was prepared to kill him, but Bell was unaware of his presence so Chigurh snuck out quietly while Bell was in the bathroom.

I only remember him asking his victim if they saw him one time, but I could be wrong. And he may have principles, just not noble ones.

Either way, I need to see it again.

[megladon8]

Before the menu screen on the Eastern Promises DVD, there's a trailer for No Country For Old Men, preceded by a "Coming soon to DVD" screen.

Anyone know of an actual date on this?

[Ezee E]

Before the menu screen on the Eastern Promises DVD, there's a trailer for No Country For Old Men, preceded by a "Coming soon to DVD" screen.

Anyone know of an actual date on this?
I will guess March.

[megladon8]

I will guess March.


Yeh, looks like the release date is March 11.

[megladon8]

It's strange...while I really enjoyed the film, I have been vocal about how I don't find it as mesmerizing as others do.

Yet I feel almost compelled to see it again - a 3rd time - in the theatre before it leaves town.

[Morris Schæffer]

I really need to see this film again, because this entire discussion is going right over my head.

Gotta agree (for the time being). I just came back from the film. Everything right up until Moss walking into Mexico is easily "Very-best-of-2007" material, but after that my interest waned, but not to the point where I wanna flatout dismiss the remaining 20 minutes. It has still left a very strong impression. Anyway, whenever Brolin or Bardem or both are on-screen, the film is "can't-tear-your-eyes-away" mesmerizing, but Jones' story bored me, and that he seemingly ended up becoming some kind of focal point by the very end, spouting some dialogue that I'm still trying to figure out is either pretentious or hauntingly deep, caused some degree of frustration. In fact, isn't Bell saying what Roger Murtaugh said in the Lethal Weapon flicks? That he's too old for this shit? At least Ole Roger didn't need to recite some dream about his pa. I need to think about this. Man, I was so blown away by 75% of this flick.

[Raiders]

In fact, isn't Bell saying what Roger Murtaugh said in the Lethal Weapon flicks? That he's too old for this shit?

No. There is plenty of discussion in this thread about the final moments, so I won't rehash everything. But it isn't that simple.

[megladon8]

No. There is plenty of discussion in this thread about the final moments, so I won't rehash everything. But it isn't that simple.


It isn't that simplistic, no, but to sum it up in a single sentence, I'd say that's pretty close.

[Spun Lepton]

I'm nearly finished with the book right now, and I must admit ... I was rather off in my initial take on the film's themes. I took it all as a "nature vs. human nature" sort of thing, but I was way off.

The book makes a point about discussing choice and causality, and looking back at what made it into the movie, it seems that was a major theme in the movie, too. And it went right over my head. Or, perhaps, in one ear and out the other.

My current take:
Bell and Chigurh, in the end, have similar outlooks on choice, consequence, and fate. At the end of the story, Ed Tom has to come to grips with the fact that he's managed to live so long, when, perhaps, a braver man in his shoes might have died by now. (Like his father.) When he meets with Ellis, he talks about his experience in WWI that really drives this point home. Choices have consequences that are not immediately apparent, and all the choices we make during life add up to our eventual death, whether it be sooner or later. Ed Tom's lived so long because he's a coward, and it just eats him up inside. At the end, he has resigned himself to doing nothing more than waiting to die.

Chirugh is the most philisophical character in the story, of course. He is a psychopath, but he's definitely somebody who is examining his own life through, uh ... psycho glasses. Or something. Anyway. He sees himself as an agent of FATE. His basic line is "I wouldn't be here if you'd made a different choice in the past, so this is your fault." He honestly sees his own choices as being driven by nature or fate or ... something. It's only when he makes the very obvious choice to go out of his way to kill Moss's wife that nature intervenes to remind him that he's just as vulnerable to choice and consequence as his victims were.

God, McCarthy is a fantastic writer.

[megladon8]

Here's the DVD artwork...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/nocountryforoldmenr1art.jpg


I'm sorry, but I'm never going to understand or like the whole mis-matched names and heads thing.

It happens so often, and it's never "cool" or "artistic"...it's just stupid.

[Benny Profane]

Here's the DVD artwork...




I'm never going to understand or like the whole mis-matched names and heads thing.



I'm never going to understand why people care about DVD artwork.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Here's the DVD artwork...


I'm sorry, but I'm never going to understand or like the whole mis-matched names and heads thing.

It happens so often, and it's never "cool" or "artistic"...it's just stupid.

The Floating Heads of Doom....

I don't get it either.

[Velocipedist]

I'm sorry, but I'm never going to understand or like the whole mis-matched names and heads thing.

Nah, this is way better:

http://www.5yaks.com/marsatta.jpg

[origami_mustache]

They do it so people will notice, get confused, and complain thus keeping the film on their minds as long as possible...Good marketing. haha

[ledfloyd]

I'm never going to understand why people care about DVD artwork.
the only thing that bothers me is that many times they create these generic unappealing covers when they have amazing posters.

[Sycophant]

the only thing that bothers me is that many times they create these generic unappealing covers when they have amazing posters.Though, frankly, this is only a slight step down from the primary theatrical posters for No Country for Old Men. The cool teaser ones would never fly as DVD covers outside of Criterion, and even then, they're not all that.

And the reason the heads don't always match the names? That, my friends, is the collision of graphic design and contractual obligation.

[Raiders]

The cover does prove one thing: even the conceptual artist agrees with me that Bardem ain't no friggin' supporting actor.

[Ezee E]

But this is a good example of floating heads. It's not that bad.

What special features are there?

[Spun Lepton]

Ultimately, it doesn't matter all that much to me. I just never understood why the distributors don't simply keep the theatrical poster for the DVD cover.

That said, I don't like it.

[DavidSeven]

The cover does prove one thing: even the conceptual artist agrees with me that Bardem ain't no friggin' supporting actor.

Huh. You think he is the lead of the movie? That's odd.

[Mysterious Dude]

Huh. You think he is the lead of the movie? That's odd.
He may not be the protagonist, but he owns the movie.

[Spinal]

He's not the lead. He is a lead. Compare and contrast with Woody's character, which is a true supporting role.

[Velocipedist]

He's not the lead. He is a lead. Compare and contrast with Woody's character, which is a true supporting role.

Yes! All three of Tommy's, Javier's and Josh's characters are leads.

[Morris Schæffer]

What are everyone's thoughts on the Woody character? I've read that his performance, as brief as it is, is fantastic, but I was merely amused by it. Didn't he feel kinda superfluous?

You know what struck me as odd about the film? Twice, a character has a reasonable chance of escaping the demonic Chigurh, but twice said persons actually chose to stick around, resulting in their demise. Woody encounters the killer when he's walking on the stairs of a hotel room and, as if by force, follows Chigurh into a hotel room, seemingly awaiting his unavoidable fate. And then later in the movie, Moss'es wife runs into Chigurh who has taken up residence at her own house. Rather than cause a ruckus or run away, because she clearly states that she's heard of his evil ways, quietly sits down awaiting (probable) slaughter. If this was a horror film starring Jessica Alba or Paris Hilton, it would be typical dumb broad behavior. Since it isn't, must it be assumed that Chigurh is so evil that he compels folks simply by looking into their eyes?

[lemon]

You know what struck me as odd about the film? Twice, a character has a reasonable chance of escaping the demonic Chigurh, but twice said persons actually chose to stick around, resulting in their demise. Woody encounters the killer when he's walking on the stairs of a hotel room and, as if by force, follows Chigurh into a hotel room, seemingly awaiting his unavoidable fate. And then later in the movie, Moss'es wife runs into Chigurh who has taken up residence at her own house. Rather than cause a ruckus or run away, because she clearly states that she's heard of his evil ways, quietly sits down awaiting (probable) slaughter. If this was a horror film starring Jessica Alba or Paris Hilton, it would be typical dumb broad behavior. Since it isn't, must it be assumed that Chigurh is so evil that he compels folks simply by looking into their eyes?

I think these two characters just realize the hopelessness of their situation and would rather face their tormentor than run away like a frightened animal. I believe it speaks to how well Woody knows Chigurh (that he wouldn't be able to escape) and how strong of a woman Moss's wife is (how she told Chigurh that HE chooses if she dies, not he coin).

[Morris Schæffer]

I think these two characters just realize the hopelessness of their situation and would rather face their tormentor than run away like a frightened animal. I believe it speaks to how well Woody knows Chigurh (that he wouldn't be able to escape) and how strong of a woman Moss's wife is (how she told Chigurh that HE chooses if she dies, not he coin).

Probably, but it was rather interesting nonetheless.

[Spinal]

I thought it was clear that the wife's tactic was not about stupidity, but rather an appeal to a modicum of compassion that she felt must be present in even the worst of human beings.

[megladon8]

I thought it was clear that the wife's tactic was not about stupidity, but rather an appeal to a modicum of compassion that she felt must be present in even the worst of human beings.


I agree here, but there were other events in the film which left me scratching my head and wondering what rock she found her brain under.

Her mother was even worse.

When her mother told the Mexican dude what city they were going to and what hotel they would be staying at, I just couldn't believe it.

[number8]

Haha at No Country's SAG Awards acceptance speech.

Josh Brolin: Thanks to...
Woody Harrelson: Coen Bros.
Josh Brolin: Who...? Back off, man. I'm taking my time here. This is my frickin' moment, okay? Um... Thanks to... Miramax.... The Coen brothers are freaky little people, you know? And we made a freaky little movie. Whether or not you liked the ending.

[Spinal]

When her mother told the Mexican dude what city they were going to and what hotel they would be staying at, I just couldn't believe it.


Don't they establish that she's a wee bit senile?

[megladon8]

Don't they establish that she's a wee bit senile?


Yes that's true, I had forgotten that.

[Ezee E]

The other good Brolin moment is him talking about Javier's 3997th award.

[Spun Lepton]

What are everyone's thoughts on the Woody character? I've read that his performance, as brief as it is, is fantastic, but I was merely amused by it. Didn't he feel kinda superfluous?

You know what struck me as odd about the film? Twice, a character has a reasonable chance of escaping the demonic Chigurh

No they don't, that's the whole point of Chigurh.


If this was a horror film starring Jessica Alba or Paris Hilton, it would be typical dumb broad behavior. Since it isn't, must it be assumed that Chigurh is so evil that he compels folks simply by looking into their eyes?

:|

[Rowland]

A fantastic blog post (http://anyeventuality.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/no-country-for-old-men/) that addresses some of the issues debated in this thread.

[Qrazy]

I didn't think the last quarter properly tied its philosophical musings into the previous narrative threads (nor did I think those musings were particularly meaningful).

I agree with this.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I was looking at Jonathan Rosenbaum's review of Barton Fink in which he describes it as a kind of Jodorowsky-esque midnight movie: lots of neat effects with no attempt at coherence. It's been too long since I've seen the film to know if I agree, but it's definitely an opinion worth thinking about if only for its larger implications.

Ehh, Barton Fink is thematically coherent in my opinion and everything adds up... it's just that thematically the final tally is less than the sum of it's parts. Formally, tonally and even symbolically the brothers are on the ball but I have never come away from any of their films with any sense of real depth regarding the themes under inspection.

[Qrazy]

Regarding all this talk of genre-deconstruction, I'm always a bit weary when this comes up a lot, if only because people tend to use it as an argument as if the very fact that it's (arguably) genre-deconstruction is an immediate self-justification.

Very much agree with this.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, he points out the one scene I think that I remember above all others in the film.

It is left ambiguous whether Chigurh is actually in the motel room when Bells breaks in. There's a build up, possibly in Bell's mind, of a showdown--of finally catching up to the killer, stopping him and proving that justice can be served. But, the scene is as anti-heroic as you can get, Bell's deflated look is agonizing, and Chigurh's bizarre disappearance begs the question whether he was ever there or not.

It's hard to assume he wasn't there though when (to the best of my recollection), no where else in the film are we shown something out of chronology or something that did not 'happen' in the context of the film's reality. I figured he was either there and left while Bell was in the bathroom or at least was in the adjoining motel room.

[Qrazy]

I suppose I should also chime in that after some more thought, I'm going to have to jump on the "'Then I woke up' line is bleak." I wanted very badly to agree with Tommy Lee Jones' suggestion that there is still hope there, but no matter how I bend around the narrative, it really does speak for itself.

He woke up to harsh reality that there is no hope. So, in a sense, this discussion with KF is kind of moot now. The dream definitely symbolizes hope, and the final line suggests there is none to be had. Damn it, Tommy Lee, I really wanted to agree with you. *grr*

Phew. Big, complex emotions there at the end of the movie. Wonderful narrative.

There's hope alright, 50 percent hope.

[Spun Lepton]

It's hard to assume he wasn't there though when (to the best of my recollection), no where else in the film are we shown something out of chronology or something that did not 'happen' in the context of the film's reality. I figured he was either there and left while Bell was in the bathroom or at least was in the adjoining motel room.

In the book...

Chigurh is definitely there, and he disappears just as he does in the movie.

[Fezzik]

So, I just finished watching this for the 2nd time all the way through (one other time, I was interrupted and had to leave), and while I agree that it's one of the best films of the year, I also agree with what many here say that around the time of the first "climax"

Luellen being killed

the train comes off the tracks just a bit.

I totally agree that Ed Tom is avoiding 'fate' as it were, by staying behind it. I don't know that I would call it cowardly, but perhaps a result of knowing that he is going to eventually succumb and he's trying to prolong it. Is he maybe grasping a false hope?

I wondered quite a bit if Ed Tom was just naive in the ways of the world despite his age. Hope? Yes, there's hope. But the one thing that I think Ed Tom loses by the end of the film is his idealism.

His conversation with Ellis is very telling. Ellis basically tells him "hey, the world's always been like this" but Ed talks about God avoiding him because he feels that God wouldnt have anything to do with him.

It's a very narcissistic remark, making me believe that Ed has always felt he'd end up doing some great important deed that never materialized.

The "i woke up" line, to me, was his admittance that his naivete is gone. He said, that in the dream, his father would be waiting for him, no matter how long it took.

Then he woke up. Its like he's come to the realization that he's been counting on false hope and its time to accept his fate rather than run from it.

Again, I'm probably totally off base on this, but that's what I got from it.

Sorry for being so late to the game...I hate commenting on films after only seeing them once (I mean, yeah, I've done it, but there was too much in this film to absorb in one shot).

[megladon8]

I completely agree with your last paragraph, Fezzik - it took me two viewings to take it all in, and I still feel I missed stuff.

The dialogue is so dense (don't mean that in the bad way) that I missed stuff - especially in Jones' final speech. I didn't really even hear all of it until I saw it a second time.

[Rowland]

Maybe I'll try to see this again before the Oscars. I wish I had the time to give more movies 2+ viewings.

[megladon8]

Maybe I'll try to see this again before the Oscars. I wish I had the time to give more movies 2+ viewings.


Do you have a TV in your room?

I really enjoy putting a movie on at night while going to sleep. It's more often than not one I haven't seen before, so if I am tired I don't feel I am missing lots by being sleepy. It's a good way to get a second viewing of a movie in, if there's something you've been wanting to see again for a while.

Plus, I can't stand silence, so I find the sound of a movie in the background (on very low volume) to be soothing.

[Sycophant]

I just can't bring myself to watch movies that way. Sometimes if I'm too tired, I just consider myself not to have seen it.

[Derek]

I just can't bring myself to watch movies that way. Sometimes if I'm too tired, I just consider myself not to have seen it.

Yeah, I consider consciousness a necessity when viewing a film. I'm a stickler that way.

But hey, if they ever invent something like those headpieces in Paprika that allow me to get the full experience of a film while I sleep, I'm all for it. Four films and a solid eight hours of sleep...can't beat that. :)

[megladon8]

I just can't bring myself to watch movies that way. Sometimes if I'm too tired, I just consider myself not to have seen it.


I agree with first viewings.

But when I'm rewatching something, I'm not always the most attentive.

Then again, I'd never watch something like No Country For Old Men as a "going to sleep" movie, so I guess my advice to Rowland was pretty pointless anyways. :)

[trotchky]

A third viewing confirmed what I had suspected regarding the film's "meta" aspects: the movie is basically Rambo vs. The Terminator: The Art Film, with Anton Chigurh and Sheriff Bell the only characters aware of the movie world they inhabit (check out the shots where Chigurgh, and then Bell, sit on the couch to watch their own reflections in the TV). Bell can't reconcile the reality of his old-time Westerns - despite the repeated insistence of several characters that "what you have" is not "anything new," ie. those movies were just as morally repugnant, in their own ways (patriarchal, racist) - with the new ultra-violent, fashionably edgy, slick, cynical entertainment, and retires. 2007 was truly the year of deconstructionism.

[Yxklyx]

I was going to rent this the other day but then I saw that the DVD said "An Instant Classic" so shied away...

[Raiders]

I was going to rent this the other day but then I saw that the DVD said "An Instant Classic" so shied away...

So if the DVD had said "A Pile of Shit" you would have rented it? Or do you think maybe it is kinda silly to hold against a film what some paid reviewer said and was hand-picked by a studio for marketing purposes?

[SirNewt]

So if the DVD had said "A Pile of Shit" you would have rented it? Or do you think maybe it is kinda silly to hold against a film what some paid reviewer said and was hand-picked by a studio for marketing purposes?

:lol:

nice


BTW Raiders, a little hard on 'The Bank Job' there, don'cha think?

[Derek]

BTW Raiders, a little hard on 'The Bank Job' there, don'cha think?

51 seems right about in that somewhat engaging, but thoroughly unspectacular and forgettable range, doesn't it?

*drinks*

[Grouchy]

Crazy thought about this movie, and obviously less spectacular than the point of view that Chigurh is Death or somehow an incarnation of the Devil, but what if he's some sort of mentalist or at least someone with a sixth sense that allows him to keep track of his victims for so long? It explains a lot of things - why he's so coveted as a hitman, why he has no doubts about finding his targets throughout the movie, his strange relationship with the Woody Harrelson character (he has the same powers and that's why he understands Chigurh and locates the briefcase without much trouble), and the strange choices Anton takes in many opportunities, even avoiding killing Sheriff Bell - because he can read the minds of other people.

Of course, nowhere am I saying that the Coens intended any of this to be on their movie, I'm just saying that it gives the movie a different layer and it seems to fit every scene, including the final stuff about dreams.

[MadMan]

After giving the film some much thought, I've realized that it warrents at least 2-3 more viewings before I can even begin to properly review it. After my first viewing though I'm pretty convinced its a great film.

[SirNewt]

51 seems right about in that somewhat engaging, but thoroughly unspectacular and forgettable range, doesn't it?

*drinks*


Ya, come to think of it I'll probably never think about that movie ever again once it disappears from match-cut. I may have to rethink my score. I did enjoy some of the way it was shot.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm a little late to this party, but here we go:

I just saw this tonight, and while I found it to be obviously admirable in technique and performance, I found the development from tense thriller to ruminative dirge very sudden and surprising. I won't say it was the wrong decision, but it did leave things very muddled - is Chigurh just a man or Death incarnate? Is Bell's final monologue successful closure or a rebuke to the closure he seeks? Is Llewyn's wife committing suicide or appealing to reason?

Another viewing may be in order in the future. Lot of questions. I suspect that's probably what the film's really about. The thriller aspects, thrilling as they are (and boy, are they), play like the cinema's biggest misdirect.

Bigger, even, than the first half of Vertigo.

[Scar]

We'd better get Scar's opinion on this matter.

*chuckle*

First, let me say, that No Country for Old Men is a five star out of five star movie that I absolutely love.

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure if there has been tons of discussion about the weapons.

First off, the cattle gun: At the small slaughterhouse I worked at, we used a .22 to shoot the animals in the head. At larger slaughterhouses, they use the pneumatic gun. Pneumatic means its powered by air/air pressure. I'm sure it could be fired by using blanks, but using air is how most operate.

The shotgun silencer: My only 'dissapointment' in the film is that they used a real shotgun silencer that was developed after the time the movie takes place. It would've been nice if they would've used a homemade 'coffee can' silencer.

In regards to the shotguns recoil, there are many reduced recoil rounds. Cops use them, and I know there are some standard European huntning rounds like that.

[Ezee E]

Netflix viewer:

Sadistic violence. Turned off this movie before finding out if he shot the dog. There is enough of this horrific human behavior occurring everyday without the need to glorify it on the big screen
:lol:

[SirNewt]

In regards to the shotguns recoil, there are many reduced recoil rounds. Cops use them, and I know there are some standard European huntning rounds like that.

Could it not also have had a sliding barrel (like Browning's Sweet Sixteen) and a recoil reducing stock?

[Scar]

Could it not also have had a sliding barrel (like Browning's Sweet Sixteen) and a recoil reducing stock?

I just rewatched a clip on youtube, and realized that it doesn't have a pistol grip, but is a full stock, (thank God).

However, a recoil reducing stock would not affect muzzle jump, which was more what I was referring to, even though I said recoil. But, he might have mercury reducers installed in the shotgun stock as well.

I'm not intimately knowledgable about Browning Sweet Sixteens, but I know its definately not one! :lol:

Also, suppressors do act as a muzzle-break as well.

So, long story short, I'd say the shotgun is either a Winchester or Remington semi-automatic 12 gauge, probably firing OO buck, at least in the hotel scene. Anything more then that would be conjecture.

Back to a post I saw waaaay early in this thread (by meg, if I remember) about him holding the shotgun tight to his face, well, thats how you're supposed to do it.

[Ezee E]

If we did a casting session in this, I'd say Scar is Woody's character. The one that got away from Anton... once.

[Scar]

If we did a casting session in this, I'd say Scar is Woody's character. The one that got away from Anton... once.

Who gets to be Anton?

[Ezee E]

Who gets to be Anton?
Hmm... Winston.

[Winston*]

Hmm... Winston.

I see myself as more of a Kelly McDonald.

[Ezee E]

I see myself as more of a Kelly McDonald.
But she has feelings.

[SirNewt]

I just rewatched a clip on youtube, and realized that it doesn't have a pistol grip, but is a full stock, (thank God).

However, a recoil reducing stock would not affect muzzle jump, which was more what I was referring to, even though I said recoil. But, he might have mercury reducers installed in the shotgun stock as well.

I'm not intimately knowledgable about Browning Sweet Sixteens, but I know its definately not one! :lol:

Also, suppressors do act as a muzzle-break as well.

So, long story short, I'd say the shotgun is either a Winchester or Remington semi-automatic 12 gauge, probably firing OO buck, at least in the hotel scene. Anything more then that would be conjecture.

Back to a post I saw waaaay early in this thread (by meg, if I remember) about him holding the shotgun tight to his face, well, thats how you're supposed to do it.

Heh, kind of funny story, a buddy of mine was shooting a rifle (not a shotgun) and wasn't up on the gun enough. The recoil threw the scope back and cut him right above the eye. He's really very luck it didn't actually hit his eye.

BTW, with a browning auto-5 (the sixteen gauge being referred to as the sweet sixteen) the barrel and chamber slide on a rail to reload and cock the gun. This also reduces recoil. There are sets of friction bolts you can tighten and loosen to change the effect of the slide back. A very cool gun indeed and the design is actually the first semi-auto shotgun design. It was designed by Browning and at first manufactured by FN because all the US companies turned it down.

[Scar]

Glancing back through this thread....

In regards to Woody's character:

Of course he 'resigned himself' to letting Sughar into his hotel room. The guy was walking around with his goddamned shotgun!

[Benny Profane]

I'm watching this right now and I paused it at the very moment Bell opens the door and you can plainly see that Chigurh is not standing behind the door. Just as I thought.

[Ezee E]

I'm watching this right now and I paused it at the very moment Bell opens the door and you can plainly see that Chigurh is not standing behind the door. Just as I thought.
Whoa... I was literally going to post the same thing.

Except that he is. Haha.

[Benny Profane]

He definitely is not. There is zero doubt in my mind.

[Ezee E]

He definitely is not. There is zero doubt in my mind.
I'm watching on a shitty TV, but it looked like some figure hiding behind the door.

DVD screen capture anyone?

[Sven]

Do you guys really think it matters if he is or isn't? Whichever the case, it's too muddy and quick to even be of consequence.

[SirNewt]

This thread must be allowed to die. We shouldn't lengthen it's suffering with this pitiless selfishness.

[Yxklyx]

I finally saw this. Don't know what all the hullabaloo was about. It's decent. One of my least favorite Coen movies.

[Spinal]

While you're at it ...

[MadMan]

While I think this film is great, I find it amusing that a movie that's not even close to being their best wins Best Picture. But this is how the Academy operates. I also still have some problems with the ending, which are rather hard to explain-yet I just walked away feeling a little unsatisfied for some reason.

[Spinal]

I just walked away feeling a little unsatisfied for some reason.

Probably because they wanted you to.

[Qrazy]

Probably because they wanted you to.

Seems like they wanted that in three of their last four films. It's getting tedious.

[Derek]

Seems like they wanted that in three of their last four films. It's getting tedious.

Nonsense.

[Spinal]

Nonsense.

Yeah. It's basically just a consistent world view that has been expertly articulated.

[Qrazy]

Basically it's lazy and the Coen's are facile. I don't see any other significant filmmakers needing to end on an anti-climax to drive their thematic points across. Sure it's contextually justifiable, but worthwhile or enduring? Nah.

Tangentially from my admittedly limited exposure to his writing I don't particularly find Cormac McCarthy in general all that intellectually stimulating.

[Watashi]

Basically it's lazy and the Coen's are facile. I don't see any other significant filmmakers needing to end on an anti-climax to drive their thematic points across.
You're lazy and facile.

[Spinal]

Basically it's lazy and the Coen's are facile. I don't see any other significant filmmakers needing to end on an anti-climax to drive their thematic points across.

Ok. Can't say I agree. I find that the endings keep the film's energy and ideas alive in a way that I find exciting and effective.

[Spinal]

And actually, Burn After Reading doesn't really end in medias res, does it? It comes to a climax. But the joke is that it is impossible for anyone viewing from the outside to make heads or tails of it.

[Qrazy]

And actually, Burn After Reading doesn't really end in medias res, does it? It comes to a climax. But the joke is that it is impossible for anyone viewing from the outside to make heads or tails of it.

I don't know, where was the climax? It wraps up most of it's major narrative threads, but it didn't really come to a narrative conclusion, it just sort of tapers off.

[Qrazy]

Ok. Can't say I agree. I find that the endings keep the film's energy and ideas alive in a way that I find exciting and effective.

To me it feels like strained ambiguity rather than earned ambiguity. Bunuel's Exterminating Angel for instance comes to a strong conclusion but then ends with an ambiguous ending that reflects back upon all that's come before. 2001 A Space Odyssey, very ambiguous ending but again, extremely strong and powerful conclusion. Ditto Welles The Trial. Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice. Werckmeister Harmonies. etc.

[Mysterious Dude]

Burn After Reading's ending seems like a bit like a deus ex machina, with J.K. Simmons in the role of God. He's had hardly any role in the action of the movie and then appears in the end to personally wrap up almost everyone's stories. As I recall, he lets George Clooney go to Venezuela and pays for Frances McDormand's plastic surgery (which is all she wanted for the whole movie). What's odd about it is that we don't get to see her resolution. What if Star Wars ended with us only being told that Luke destroyed the Death Star? Still, it works for me because it's hilarious.

I can't remember if John Malkovich's story is resolved.

[Qrazy]

Burn After Reading's ending seems like a bit like a deus ex machina, with J.K. Simmons in the role of God. He's had hardly any role in the action of the movie and then appears in the end to personally wrap up almost everyone's stories. As I recall, he lets George Clooney go to Venezuela and pays for Frances McDormand's plastic surgery (which is all she wanted for the whole movie). What's odd about it is that we don't get to see her resolution. What if Star Wars ended with us only being told that Luke destroyed the Death Star? Still, it works for me because it's hilarious.

I can't remember if John Malkovich's story is resolved.

He was shot by the CIA and ends up in a coma. They decide they will deal with him if he wakes up.

Don't get me wrong, I find the film funny enough. And I enjoy all three of these (Burn, Serious, No Country) to varying degrees but I don't think any are great films. Contrast this comedy with a comedy like Monicelli's Big Deal on Madonna Street. Another film which features a group of bumbling good for nothings. That film satisfactorily climaxes and we learn a great deal about all the characters in the film with an atmosphere of humor, pathos and understanding. In Burn people just act like shit towards one another and the generally cruel, inept and bureaucratic nature of our society is highlighted and then wrapped up in a neat little package of... well that's all there is folks! Personally I don't think that's all there is and I want more. I want more of this...

"So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it."

[Robby P]

Tangentially from my admittedly limited exposure to his writing I don't particularly find Cormac McCarthy in general all that intellectually stimulating.

What have you read? I wouldn't judge his work on the basis of No Country for Old Men. It's one of his weakest novels. I always recommend Blood Meridian and All The Pretty Horses as the best examples of McCarthy's work.

[Qrazy]

What have you read? I wouldn't judge his work on the basis of No Country for Old Men. It's one of his weakest novels. I always recommend Blood Meridian and All The Pretty Horses as the best examples of McCarthy's work.

I've only read The Road.

[MadMan]

Probably because they wanted you to.Except that it just doesn't work for some reason. And actually I left Burn After Reading, A Serious Man and True Grit completely and perfectly fine with their endings. Maybe its because those endings fit those movies way better. I will admit I have not read No Country For Old Men the novel, so its true that the book probably ends that way. If that's the case, then I would have a problem with the novel, too.

[Grouchy]

He was shot by the CIA and ends up in a coma. They decide they will deal with him if he wakes up.

Don't get me wrong, I find the film funny enough. And I enjoy all three of these (Burn, Serious, No Country) to varying degrees but I don't think any are great films. Contrast this comedy with a comedy like Monicelli's Big Deal on Madonna Street. Another film which features a group of bumbling good for nothings. That film satisfactorily climaxes and we learn a great deal about all the characters in the film with an atmosphere of humor, pathos and understanding. In Burn people just act like shit towards one another and the generally cruel, inept and bureaucratic nature of our society is highlighted and then wrapped up in a neat little package of... well that's all there is folks! Personally I don't think that's all there is and I want more. I want more of this...

"So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it."
But that speech only works because it's delivered by Marge, a character who fits that speech. I certainly wouldn't want any stupid moralizing in either this, Burn After Reading or A Serious Man. I'm fine with the ambiguity and the dissatisfaction that their endings provoke. Of course, it's a matter of taste, and you're obviously entitled to disliking it.

Like Spinal said, it's a worldview that has been consistent throughout their filmography.

[Qrazy]

But that speech only works because it's delivered by Marge, a character who fits that speech. I certainly wouldn't want any stupid moralizing in either this, Burn After Reading or A Serious Man. I'm fine with the ambiguity and the dissatisfaction that their endings provoke. Of course, it's a matter of taste, and you're obviously entitled to disliking it.

Like Spinal said, it's a worldview that has been consistent throughout their filmography.

Sure, that's one of the reasons, amongst others why I'm not a very big fan of theirs in general. My point though is not that any of the characters in Burn, Serious or No Country should say a line like that, but it would be nice for me if the general outlook of the films had been reworked enough to fit in such an alternate perspective.

The anti-climaxes are a recent phenomenon for them though.

[Grouchy]

The anti-climaxes are a recent phenomenon for them though.
Eh, I disagree.

- The ending of Raising Arizona. 'Nuff said.
- Barton Fink ends with the character's script being rejected by the studio (which is his main motivation) and most of its many plots completely unsolved.
- The Big Lebowski, while not anticlimatic in tone, pays almost no attention to the resolution of the main story and goes on for several minutes just randomly expanding from the characters.

I'd say that starting with No Country, they have become more blatant with the anticlimax thing. But it's always been part of their style.

[Qrazy]

Eh, I disagree.

- The ending of Raising Arizona. 'Nuff said.
- Barton Fink ends with the character's script being rejected by the studio (which is his main motivation) and most of its many plots completely unsolved.
- The Big Lebowski, while not anticlimatic in tone, pays almost no attention to the resolution of the main story and goes on for several minutes just randomly expanding from the characters.

I'd say that starting with No Country, they have become more blatant with the anticlimax thing. But it's always been part of their style.

1. Raising Arizona ends with them blowing up the main antagonist and then returning the baby...

2. Barton Fink ends with the climactic fire. That film earns it's ambiguity.

3. You can have a denouement after your climax.

[Milky Joe]

I've only read The Road.

Come on. I'm not super crazy about McCarthy or anything, but at least read Blood Meridian or Suttree (or, you know, anything except the book recommended by Oprah) before making statements like that.

[Qrazy]

Come on. I'm not super crazy about McCarthy or anything, but at least read Blood Meridian or Suttree (or, you know, anything except the book recommended by Oprah) before making statements like that.

Sorry, I don't watch Oprah so I'm not familiar with what it is she recommends. I read it because there was some buzz about it in the book discussion thread.

Also which statement? The statement where I said from my limited exposure to his work? That statement where I explicitly qualified that I was only speaking from the exposure I've had to him?

[Winston*]

Is the goal of The Road to be particularly intellectually stimulating? Seems an odd criticism.

[Ezee E]

Top five books I've read. Could certainly be #1.

[Robby P]

I've only read The Road.

I think you would like his earlier novels, they're very reminiscent of William Faulkner. The Orchard Keeper is a great introduction to his style of writing. The Road is atypical in terms of his style and use of language.

[Milky Joe]

Also which statement? The statement where I said from my limited exposure to his work? That statement where I explicitly qualified that I was only speaking from the exposure I've had to him?

The statement where you say "I don't find McCarthy in general to be intellectually stimulating" when you have no conception of "McCarthy in general" in the first place. You should have said, "I didn't find The Road intellectually stimulating."

And that book isn't even meant to be intellectually stimulating, which I thought was fairly obvious. I mean, the only reason there was a big fuss about it was because of Oprah. Yes, clearly an intellectual powerhouse, that book.

[Qrazy]

Is the goal of The Road to be particularly intellectually stimulating? Seems an odd criticism.

Let me rephrase for you. I did not think the book was very good. Clearer?

You guys are obviously using intellectually stimulating in a very different manner than I am. I don't mean the book ought to pontificate endlessly about philosophical issues. I mean the relative quality of every facet of the novel (language use, narrative, atmosphere, character, etc) taken together did not form a cohesive unit that possessed much depth for me.

[Qrazy]

I think you would like his earlier novels, they're very reminiscent of William Faulkner. The Orchard Keeper is a great introduction to his style of writing. The Road is atypical in terms of his style and use of language.

I"ll check out Blood Meridian.

[Grouchy]

1. Raising Arizona ends with them blowing up the main antagonist and then returning the baby...

2. Barton Fink ends with the climactic fire. That film earns it's ambiguity.

3. You can have a denouement after your climax.
For number one, I was talking about the dream Hi has about his future life ending with the word "Ohio".

Anyway, it's clear there is not much to discuss here. What I appreciate about the Coens is what stops them from fully convincing you.

[Qrazy]

For number one, I was talking about the dream Hi has about his future life ending with the word "Ohio".

Anyway, it's clear there is not much to discuss here. What I appreciate about the Coens is what stops them from fully convincing you.

I don't really see that as anti-climactic though (Utah btw). I also think Raising Arizona is one of their best films. I prefer them when they're not taking themselves too seriously because I find it meshes better with their sensibilities.

My frustration with the Coens is that I think that in many ways they are very talented but they always fall short of greatness for me and it has largely to do with the way they treat their characters and the overall scope of their narratives.

For instance that shot of the hat blowing in Miller's Crossing is pure poetry, but the film built around it isn't quite as strong. I think that they have inherited Leone's issues as well. They are too enamored with instances of ugliness for their own sake. They revel in moments such as Malkovich killing the guy with the ax in Burn rather than investing it with some serious dramatic weight.

[Grouchy]

My frustration with the Coens is that I think that in many ways they are very talented but they always fall short of greatness for me and it has largely to do with the way they treat their characters and the overall scope of their narratives.

For instance that shot of the hat blowing in Miller's Crossing is pure poetry, but the film built around it isn't quite as strong. I think that they have inherited Leone's issues as well. They are too enamored with instances of ugliness for their own sake. They revel in moments such as Malkovich killing the guy with the ax in Burn rather than investing it with some serious dramatic weight.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds a connection between the Coens and Leone. What I see doesn't have that much to do with ugly scenes but more with the deliberately slow pacing of scenes and the shot-by-shot approach to filmmaking.

It's been too long since I've seen Miller's Crossing but I think I liked it a lot apart from the hat shot.

What I think distinguishes the Coens from other directors and also alienates a lot of potential audiences is that they are enamored with the structure of narratives and writing, sometimes at the cost of their themes. I feel like many of the things they do, they are really doing them as narrative jokes. Malkovich killing the guy with the axe in Burn. I don't think they wanted to do an ugly scene (and frankly, it's more hilarious than ugly) but rather end the movie off screen with a random encounter between two characters which were so far unrelated instead of giving it a more traditional resolution.

And yes, if someone finds that corny or too deliberate, I can't really blame them.

[Qrazy]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds a connection between the Coens and Leone. What I see doesn't have that much to do with ugly scenes but more with the deliberately slow pacing of scenes and the shot-by-shot approach to filmmaking.

It's been too long since I've seen Miller's Crossing but I think I liked it a lot apart from the hat shot.

What I think distinguishes the Coens from other directors and also alienates a lot of potential audiences is that they are enamored with the structure of narratives and writing, sometimes at the cost of their themes. I feel like many of the things they do, they are really doing them as narrative jokes. Malkovich killing the guy with the axe in Burn. I don't think they wanted to do an ugly scene (and frankly, it's more hilarious than ugly) but rather end the movie off screen with a random encounter between two characters which were so far unrelated instead of giving it a more traditional resolution.

And yes, if someone finds that corny or too deliberate, I can't really blame them.

Well sure, they have a number of Leone's strengths also. Although certainly not his gift for the immaculate long shot. He's in a class by himself with few others there.

Don't get me wrong, I like Miller's Crossing a lot too but I just feel that it never hits greatness. I'd give it a B or something.