Wow, I went into a theatre without having everything spoiled for me already!

Has there ever been a more chilling depiction of existential dread on screen? The way the Coens use everything: dialogue, mise en scene, sound, to paint this picture of a ruthless, justiceless world and the people who, whether they know it or not, are just waiting for the axe to drop. There are no filmmakers working today (or, for that matter, like ever) who are so in control of their art. God, it was masterful.

And the ending is what sends this into masterpiece territory. It may not give everyone the Charles Bronson showdown they were hoping for, but thematically, it's the only way to end the thing.

Bardem's been praised again and again, so there's no need for me to go down that road, but where the hell did Josh Brolin learn to do that? Bravo. And it was nice to see Tommy Lee Jones not phoning in a performance, not just playing Sam Gerard again. His sheriff was riveting.

I shall go again tomorrow!

Really?

I've met hyperbole. There's not much of it above. The Coens are well on their way to (may already be there) the pantheon of great filmmakers. This movie is masterful. That's the only way to describe it. And that ending...haunting.

God, what an invigorating night at the movies.

I liked it but i think the praise for it is a bit silly. I think people are talikng about it like its' the most clever thing since the perceived brilliance of Citizen Kane.

A story far different from the one told by the eight films prior to that.

Every master has had a down period. Every one of 'em.

Consider Hitchcock. Hitchcock made no less than 3 or 4 stinkers every decade he was active. I'd say his batting average is pretty similar.

He was far more prolific than the Coens though, usually making one film a year - sometimes two. The Coens kinda have less of an excuse.

I loved the Coens before the one-two-three punch of Man, Intolerable and Ladykillers. After Ladykillers I was almost certain that the third time was the charm, and that they'd simply lost their touch.

That said, they proved me wrong. No Country's a masterpiece. Loyal's a fool for thinking otherwise. A fool!

I guess I just don't see how hitting it out of the park 75% of the time is anything to be scoffed at.

They went almost twenty years before a disposable work.

Plus, The Man Who Wasn't There is a brilliant, wonderful movie.

This film was in A+ territory until the end. TLJ character litterly put me to sleep with his two conversations at the end and almost made me feel like the movie was bad walking out of it. But the previous hour and half was one of the best movies I have ever seen. Javier Bardem's is now how all movie villians should be judged by. He was ultra creepy with that haircut, but also hilarious. His scene with the gas station owner had he rolling in tears.

I just had a big problem with the main character being killed offscreen. I felt a big letdown after seeing the two of them go at it to end like that. Then also to have TLJ babble on about his dreams was just a bad way to end it. I would have ended it after Bardem told his soon to be victim Carla Jean to "Call it". That would have been the perfect ending.

B+

The Man Who Wasn't There and The Ladykillers are both amazing, so this whole discussion is kind of moot.

Really?

I thought that scene was really disturbing, just because it comes so quickly after he shoots that guy in the car at the beginning and you know that this poor guy's entire life hinges on the coin.

So he flips a coin to decide if he kills someone...

Hmm...

And Tommy Lee Jones is in the movie...

Hmm...

What does a red flag do?

Seriously though, I can understand someone not liking Ladykillers, but really what is so bad about The Man Who Wasn't There?

I loved The Ladykillers

Ladykillers really does work, except the Wayans character. I still can't believe the Coens were responsible for that.

Intolerable Cruelty, despite some good moments, is the nadir.

I actually think the Wayans character is quite funny. Definitely unique in the Coens work, but still funny.

You brought your bitch... to the Waffle Hut?

The Ladykillers was actually one of my favorite movies of 2004.

I liked Ladykillers when I saw it, but I was 14 and mostly there for the Marlon and Hanks having a moustache jokes so I don't know how I'd feel now.

Back on track, a bit.
I was going to post this in the Awards forum, but I figured it'd fit better here, in case someone is trying to avoid spoilers or something.

It's re: the following, but not only this.


I still haven't heard a convincing argument for the last thirty minutes being bad, other than the "Sheriff's dreams were boring" or "They should have shown Llewelyn's death". I mean, if you didn't dig it, you didn't dig it. I'm certainly not interested in changing minds. But why?

You have this terrible villain who stops at nothing to get his way following someone we have no reason to believe is really a match for him. Anton kills and kills for ninety minutes, leveling pretty much anyone who crosses his path. He's described by the one person who claims to know him as having "principles" -- if he says he'll kill you he will; if you beat the coin toss, he won't; if he spends days of his life tracking the money he wants back, you can forget about it.

Llewelyn was going to die. That it happens at the hands of some Mexican's who trick his mother-in-law instead of Chigurh shouldn't matter. That it happens off screen shouldnt matter. You've seen probably ten plus prior murders, and hundreds if not thousands before this movie came along. Why the upset when this particular one isn't shown? A murder is a murder is a death. I genuinely don't see a problem with one more fateful end.

As for Carla Jean's death, it's pretty much the same deal. It was gonna happen. It wouldn't have been any more interesting if it happened on screen.

The dreams at the end can be debated and interpreted til fingers fall off, but I can't buy that as a reason to call the ending "terrible". By that time every single thread is tied up. Llewelyn, Carla Jean, her mother and Carson are dead. They died deaths logical to the story. Ed Tom has retired. Again, logical enough. He's old and he's realized through this fiasco that there are people much younger and smarter than him that he just can't understand, predict, or most importantly, catch. Anton Chigurh has done everything he needed or wanted to do, and he'll go off and do whatever he does. So the film ends. Abrupt? Sure. But I'm at a loss as to what else could be expected.

So again, I say that I don't get it. Is it simply a dissatisfaction that Anton wins? Are you bothered by the scene-scene-scene structure of post Llewelyn's death (the way it goes from person to person finishing the story)? Is it genuinely upsetting that you don't get to see Llewelyn open the door and get shot? Did you want Tom Bell to come head to head with Chigurh? Enlighten me, because I don't get it.

Oh. Ok. I guess I don't really care, then.

That is exactly my problem with the film. The build-up was absolutely fantastic, but the payoff left me unsatisfied.

I'll post more later, but my grade is at a B+ right now.

Your biggest mistake is comparing No Country to the likes of Seven, Heat and Silence of the Lambs. While all great movies in their own right, No Country is a completely different beast. To say that there are no inclinations of "arty farty"-ness until the final fifteen minutes is to completely ignore what has happened throughout the movie.

It sounds like to me you're just disappointed No Country didn't live up to your pigeonholed ideas of what genre film making should be.

Jim Emerson summed up the power of the ending more eloquently than I ever could: http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007 ... ut_in.html

Yeah, I think people are drawn in by the apparently conventional thriller aspect of the film and then are disappointed when the ending doesn't follow that convention. The film's not really about the cat-and-mouse chase at all, it's just a way of externalizing the underlying themes and message of the film. And also a way to make the film exciting and thrilling for a good chunk of it. It ties in with what people were saying earlier about the Tommy Lee Jones subplot being the most boring part of the film, when it's arguably the most important part of the film.

Such a thirst for blood amongst disaffected No Country For Old Men viewers!

I don't think there's any convincing 'em, pardners.

I just think it's so odd that everyone thinks this was some sudden left turn. The entire movie had been building to that ending. From frame one.

Speaking of the Coen brothers, Intolerable Cruelty was a great movie. I don't know why a lot of you hate it.