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.

I honestly wish I didn't understand it...

Exactly. Thank you.

And Libs, arthouse, in that sense, is of course a legitimate categorization.

Yeah, it is more intellectual than arty. An arthouse film would be either more expressionalistic or had a more dip of realism. This film instead actual more connects with a figurative story as it an allusion to the grim reaper himself, and an obvious allusion at that.

As for the film, yes it was brilliant and filled with great refrences to death himself, but it had one major fault that does slightly hurt the film and the overall theme that both the novel and the Coen Bros were developing in their allusions to the grim reaper through Anton, and that was:



I realize they were trying to display the abartrary part of death and it as fate, but he needed to die at the hands of Anton not the Mexicans to make a more well concieved theme of the lurking death.

As for the end, as a writer it was perfect, but as a film making the last two scenes needed to be flipped for a more satsfying experience. Sometimes the Coen Bros forgot they were making a film instead of a novel. Besides those faults, this was beyond a perfect film.

A

Think of it in conjunction with Chigurh's last scene. We're expecting one thing, or nothing, and something hits us out of nowhere. Death and pain and tragedy is indeed lurking from every corner, and we can't escape.

...and fortunately that kinda randomness sure saves on all that creative dramatic writin' foolishness - - one day, all movies are gonna end this way - - it's like Hot Rod's anti-humor - - NCFOM is pioneering in anti-drama...

But that breaks the whole grim reaper theme slightly. I just disagree with it, but understand it.

Yeah, bradley, it's just lazy writing, and not, you know, indicative of a larger worldview or anything.

I'll try to get Cormac McCarthy's contact info for you. Maybe you can teach him a thing or two about dramatic structure and such.