Okay, okay, let me state the obvious. The thing that's got all these film theory geeks and English Lit majors in such a tizzy is that:


Personally, I enjoy movies that have a symbolic level, but not to the point that it stops the literal level in it's tracks. With the best filmmakers, it's transparent. You can enjoy the film's plot thoroughly and completely without even being aware of the mythical mechanisms chugging along in the background. Unfortunately, the Coens decided to let the marvelous set-up of NCFOM grind to a halt in the last act, so they could get all artsy for artsy sake. Storytelling be damned.

Pitiful.

At no point did I adopt or really consider that little analysis of yours, bradley, sorry.



You clearly only want to see a chase film. Be patient. I'm sure Jason Statham or some other icon of bad action filmmaking has another movie coming out soon enough.

And all this "ending is artsy for artsy sake" bullshit. The movie, as I understand your use of the stupid phrase, is 'artsy' from frame one. You can deal with it while the violence and thrills are going on, but as soon as that's over, "OMFG! Gets me out of here! Is Heartbreak Kid still playing at the dollar theatre?"

Yosh pretty much said everything that needs to be said Bradford, but I just wanted to chime in to say your "theory" never crossed my mind either.

You need to remember he's the same guy that thought Evan and Seth did it at the end of Superbad. So...

BTW, this movie 'twas excellent.

****

Saw it this afternoon. I need to see it again since I think my mind was mostly focused on finals. The last 30 minutes or so, admittedly, kind of flew over my head. When I get the chance I'll use a certain link that was posted to rewatch them. Until then, I can't grade or talk about the movie fairly.

I'm always weary of movies that get a lot of praise critically and on forums because they usually end up disappointing at some level (ahemThe New World anyone?), but this lived up to all the hype and then some. I also stayed away from this thread because I didn't want the ending spoiled for me. A bit disappointing that 8 pages of conversation is mostly bickering about whether or not the ending is good or bad.

For the record, it's fucking brilliant! I've never been so excited about a "wtf?" moment in my 20 years of movie watching. The collective "Huh?" in the theather at the end was priceless. Walking home it hits you: the bleakness; the mastery.

This movie was brilliant. The direction reminded me a lot of Ang Lee's direction in Brokeback Mountain: subtle, detailed, quiet. (That scene between Chigurh and Carla Jean, like the scene where Ennis visits Jack's parents in Brokeback Mountain, was perfection.) A lot of people didn't "get" BBM movie either. I don't want to come off as snobish or as an intellectual because I'm neither. But I do agree that those not satisfied by the ending may have been watching a different movie. I don't know I can add any more insight into than what has already been said, but I found it to be an extremely satisfying way to end it.

I found the movie to root for come Oscar night! :-)

A+

Another example of the phenomena I was talking about...

Ummmm..............this was stunning!

More in depth opinion later.

Yeah you can put me completely in the masterpiece camp, it works so well in so many levels. First off as the film some seem to think it is as the cat and mouse chase between Moss and Chirguh and those others who happen to come in between. Then in the story it actually is with the Jones character. His appearances seem almost just as comic relief going through the film, nothing in what seemed like the larger plot was revealed during those scenes. However glimpses in to the character of the Sheriff (critical to the film) are seen and it is totally wrapped up beautifully by the ending. Perhaps it is just me growing as movie watcher but devoting so much of a movie to a plot that is just a metaphor, for a main character who is on screen less than most others is something I really have not seen all that much. LOVED the ending btw.
A+

But you see, I felt that was the problem with No Country for Old Men: The ending rendered the movie as being entirely metaphorical. It really annoyed me that they baited us with the thrilling Chigurh/Moss/satchel of money story only to switch it out at the end and make everything about Bell. I think it was important for his story to be in the movie, but not as its primary focus. I think the Coen Brothers handled a multiple storyline aspect MUCH better in Fargo: Both the kidnapping and Marge Gunderson plots were done well the whole way through and wrapped up well. I had no problem with Jones's story being there; I had a problem with it being the film's only huge concern in the conclusion.

I heard that the novel goes into greater detail on Chigurh's character (basically, connecting him with drug dealers, explicitly stating that he gets the money from the motel, actually detailing the murder of Carla Jean), and if they'd done that with the movie, I feel it would have been better. Nevertheless, while I think it's a solid film, I don't think it's a masterpiece. I don't even think it's the Coen Brothers' best film (I liked Fargo quite a bit more). But I do need to see it again. The more I think about it, the more it seems like an A- than a B+. But then again, it was looking like a solid A until they got to El Paso (consider that I don't do "A+" grades).

I see what your saying I don't consider it a switch though, the film starts with Bell talking about the growing violence that he doesn't like. The ending didn't make everything metaphorical, it simply allowed the audience (or at least me, perhaps I'm slow) that it was introduced in the beginning.

Yeah, but I really didn't think that the movie needed to essentially become the message. What I wanted was a greater sense of closure after investing so much time in (not to mention so thoroughly enjoying) the whole storyline about the satchel of money. It really felt secondary to the Sheriff Bell story, which wasn't the best way to go about things IMO after giving us so much about Chigurh's pursuit of Moss and the satchel.

nm

Wowwwwww.

A

(more thoughts later)

So yeah...

This film is fantastic. And I'm not even a fan of the Coen Brothers (their best film was The Big Lebowski, prior to this, and that'd be like a B+) like the rest of y'all. But this film blew me away. And you know, as the film ended, I had mixed feelings about it. I didn't expect the film to end so abruptly and I felt like I missed something, but everything up to that point was brilliant. I thought about it, read this entire thread, read one of the reviews one of you guys linked explaining the ending, and then watched just the end on my computer again and it all fell into place. Regarding the complaints people had about some of the deaths taking place off screen - I found it to be perfect (chilling, in fact, when Chigurh walks out of the house and checks his boots for blood). Javier Bardem has earned his Academy Award (Best Supporting, I assume), giving the best performance I've seen all year. Brolin and Jones give great, memorable performances as well. Definitely found the film I'm backing up for Best Picture (unless There Will Be Blood is all kinds of amazing).

A

The day where Zingaling understands an arty ending better than Loyal is truly a sign of the apocalypse.

Glad you loved it anyway,

Zing liked an arthouse movie. What's next, Saw 5 becomes my favorite movie of the year?

No Country for Old Men int arthouse. But glad ydug it, Zingy.

I only watch quality films, people.

If anything, I'm surprised you all finally like a quality flick and not stuff like Ratatouille, Hairspray and whatever else you people called 'A' films this year.



(by the way, I wouldn't really call this "artsy")

I am so doing an abridged script of this film.

Never again will mop tops terrify me as much as this film.

Dammit No Country for Old Men... Come to my goddam town! I refuse to watch this on my computer. Not this one.

No, this is one that you are absolutely obligated to see on the big screen. It looks absolutely gorgeous.

Let's just settle on calling it pseudo-intellectual, and be done with all these labels...

I love the need to artificially label, and thus marginalize, that which we cannot (or don't want to) understand.

For the record, I meant "arthouse" in the sense that that's where it originally played when it was released. In the same sense that Atonement and Juno are "arthouse," I guess. Point being: it's not the typical mainstream flick.