Is this common thought/knowledge? Why does he think this? I just assumed Chigurh was long gone when the Sheriff shows up, and the shot of the hiding Anton was just pent up fear in Bell's head. I don't think it matters much, but I never once thought he was in the next room...

I oddly want to see this and enjoy the ending just so me and Loyal can duel!!!

You're gonna have the same reaction as loyal....

Nah, I don't think so. I think he'll get it. ; )



:O
.,.

My take:

After all the hype that has been brandied about concerning "No Country for Old Men," there's room for disappointment. In the eyes of many who keep a close watch over the yearly awards scenes, this movie has become as anticipated as a summer blockbuster of the order of "Spider-Man 3" or the latest "Pirates of the Caribbean" were to the more casual moviegoing public.

And it's perhaps that immense level of anticipation that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when writing of this movie. As I'm sure many would expect, Joel and Ethan Coen have delivered what is undoubtedly a piece of good filmmaking with "No Country for Old Men." The film is technically sound, features some great acting, and the quirky, darkly hilarious dialogue we've come to expect from the Coens. And for the most of the running time, "No Country for Old Men" is among their strongest efforts, and a film that knocks on the door of the "classic" designation. It's in the third act that the film falls off the tracks and is degraded from an instant classic to an above-average piece of cinema.

The action centers around a satchel of money from a botched drug deal. This satchel is discovered by Llewellyn Moss, a retired welder on a hunting trip who quickly takes the chance to make off with the money and get rich. However, he's soon hunted by forces with targets on his head. He sends his wife Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) off to stay with her mother while he outruns his hunters. This is where Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) figures into the proceedings. Anton is a merciless and humorless killer who is dead-set on recovering the money and killing everyone who stands in his path. Aging Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is drawn to the case because of knowledge of an earlier murder Anton committed while handcuffed in the police station.

There's a lot to be admired in "No Country for Old Men." For starters, the acting is excellent. The highlight is Javier Bardem, who gives one of the year's best performances in the role of the maniacal killer Anton Chigurh. He lives up to the pre-release hype made of the character. He's brilliant in the role, and deserving of the awards acclaim he will certainly get. Josh Brolin gives his third noteworthy performance of the year, this time playing the hero (?). After giving nice villainous performances in "Planet Terror" and "American Gangster," he does an excellent job of playing a character who isn't a villain. Part of what makes his performance work is how he manages to keep his character's motives in the grey zone between right and wrong. Is Moss really the hero, or does his willingness to kill for money make him a villain? This is a question that the film asks, but never really gets around to answering in any detail.

The cinematography is gorgeous. Roger Deakins shoots the film beautifully, as the images onscreen serve as excellent compliments to the proceedings of the story. The screenplay, adapted by the Coen Brothers from the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, is full of sharp and witty dialogue that packs a darkly humorous and decidedly quirky edge. It has a similar small town terror vibe as their 1996 work "Fargo" did, which works to great effect for the most part.

For the first ninety minutes or so, "No Country for Old Men" is poised to become a classic, but it falls off the tracks in the last thirty minutes with a weak conclusion. Some will applaud the ending for being so ambiguous; I won't. The major misstep with the film is that the conclusion is underwhelming and doesn't give a very good sense of closure on the surface. At the point where the climax of the film is neared, the Coen Brothers rely heavily upon quirkiness and ambition to go as much against traditional filmmaking techniques as possible. Though that makes for something unique in regards to tradition and convention, it also serves as a double-edged sword as certain twists leave the connecting of the dots completely and totally open, and it might feel as though crucial tasks have been left unaccomplished.

Some will undoubtedly love this anti-Hollywood twist, while others won't. I consider myself to be in the latter, and though the ending of the film does have some meaning, it takes a great deal of thought to find, and still doesn't serve as satisfying payoff for such a tremendously well-done buildup. Rather than sending the film out with a bang, the Coen Brothers send "No Country for Old Men" out with ambiguity and subtlety, and though it works on some level, it also leaves a feeling of dissatisfaction.

All around, "No Country for Old Men" is a solid film. Even in spite of a disappointing conclusion, it's an example of stellar filmmaking. Though it's probably not going to connect terribly well with most mainstream audiences (or for that matter, those who don't give a great deal of thought to the conclusion of the film), it's a must-see for any film buff. Though some missteps keep me from declaring "No Country for Old Men" as one of the year's best films, I cannot label it as anything less than one of the year's most thought-provoking and discussion worthy films, even if there's a hint of slight disappointment to be found.

Grade: B+

Have you considered the possibility that those of us who didn't like the ending, still "get it"?

That we "got" the whole thematic symbolism aspect of the ending laid out by makeshift and kypade in this thread - - and still didn't like it?!



(I just hope this thread has a better ending than No Country For Old Men - - personally, I'm hoping for a big shootout between the ending lovers and ending haters a la The Wild Bunch, but we get Tony Montana from Scarface leading our side, and the ending lovers get some effete film theory prof leading theirs...)

Nope, never crossed my mind. Instead, I just figured you guys didn't understand anything at all.

Or, I could have been kidding, a likely choice judging by the giant winking smilie at the end of the sentence.

Your choice.

So that's what that is!

I thought it was a screaming monkey clinging to a breaking branch symbolizing the weakness of your position.



(That not withstanding, you sure seemed serious in your long post above regarding your theory about the ending - - but now I "get it"! - - it was all just a film theory parody!!! )

no...that's what "; )" is.

And I have no theory about the ending. I have a theory about why there's no PROBLEM with the ending that I was hoping someone would rebut, but even that's not a "theory" so much as a bit of common sense.

The phrase "film theory" is being thrown around a lot here. In reality, I can't help but notice the distinct lack of film theory being applied in this thread. It's not as if the defenders of the ending are reaching aimlessly into a never-ending bag of interpretation to solidify their stance. Everything that is being mentioned in defense of the ending is right up there on the screen, for everyone to see. There is certainly some film criticism and film analysis taking place, but there isn't anything academic or scholarly going on.

I don't think you guys didn't "get it".

I do think you guys are being intentionally dense to the power of the conclusion because it didn't mesh with your personal expectations of a thriller, though.

I don't know, I guess it just seems silly to me to dismiss a movie like this just because it didn't end in a de facto duel to the death that takes place on logs rolling off a waterfall. But, whatever blows your skirt up!

You folks who couldn't tolerate the last 15 minutes of the picture for whatever wacky reasons...you didn't even care for the scene between Chigurh and Carla Jean? That was the best three minutes of cinema I've seen all year. I can't get it out of my head.

The movie had existentialism and chaos and order and all that fun stuff on its mind from the opening monologue. It doesn't come out of nowhere.

Favorite line, from Chigurh to Wells (I paraphrase, of course):

"Ask yourself: if the road you took brought you here, what was the point of the road?"

BAD ASS.

The biggest issue for me loyal is that you are separating the ending from the rest of the movie. If you want to dismiss the existential ruminations of the ending, that is fine... but then you must also realize the entire movie consists of this. This is not an M. Night Shyamalan situation. The ending is of peace with everything that precedes it.

I'm going to see this again today to see if the ending sits better with me, and now that I'm reading McCormac's The Road (which by the way is incredibly haunting and beautiful), I wouldn't be surprised if the ending sits better with me. That said, on first viewing - and some people say that's the one that counts - the ending ran out of steam for me due to the tension of the chase no longer existing. Where before then every step seemed to be leading to something, here it felt a bit more... Lost. As said you guys have given great reasons for the existence of each scene, and each individual scene that followed Moss' death may have been well done. But I don't think that combination of four or five scenes was satisfying to a lot of people, and I do think there was a noticably slowed beat to them as well.

So the ending sucks because you don't think an audience can do the heavy lifting?

The chase is a metaphor. Simple as that. The Jones character is the protagonist.

WTF man, what do you think all of that is?

You're being a handful today, loyal!

I've heard rumors that it was going to be the third Viggo/Cronenberg collab, which after the last two films they've done will work for me as much as anything would. That said, being only 70 pages in I think it'll need to find some major talent that knows it's not going to make any money.

I don't think that'd have worked with the desert setting - - but you're on the right track!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm happy that I'm siding with makeshift and yoshue on this one. They seem to articulate my thoughts better than I can.

I think I might be a psychic??????

Heh

I feel the very same way about them.

I thought the scene was pretty good. I would have liked it better though...

Meh, I just didn't really care for how they got the message across, and after showing so many of the other murders onscreen, I seriously think they should have shown perhaps two of the most crucial to the entire film.

As I stated earlier, I liked the film (a B+ is pretty good no matter how you slice it, at least at face value), but I don't think it's the masterpiece a lot of people think it is.

I thought it was pitch-perfect up until they got to El Paso. After that, it just didn't really do anything for me. I think it would have been stronger if the ending hadn't been built almost entirely on ambiguity and subtlety.

You know, the people who want to see Brolin die on screen are wrong, but I understand the urge to see it.

But as far as being upset that we didn't see Carla Jean get hers...why the hell would we need to see that? It's so much more powerful not knowing exactly how the deed went down. Did she fight? Did she cry? Where'd she get it? Did she allow him to flip? Did he do it for her?

Ambiguity is not a bad thing, people! Not at all!

I still would have liked to see it.

But on a note that I'm sure we can all agree on ( ), here's the one thing I've neglected to really talk about: Javier Bardem. The guy was fucking amazing in this movie. It will be a travesty if he doesn't win at the Oscars. I absolutely LOVED his scene with the store clerk.