No Country for Old Men Ending?

[Bob Sacamano]

If you can tell a story vividly and draw your audience in with little dialogue -- yes, that's considered good acting. Is this news to you?

please go to an acting coach with that crap, and you will be laughed out of the auditorium

a bunch of people walking around is not going to draw an audience in

 

[theogt]

please go to an acting coach with that crap, and you will be laughed out of the auditorium

a bunch of people walking around is not going to draw an audience in

Oh, dear.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Oh, dear.

start here

 

[Doomsday]

I don't have a problem with his demise, just how it was done. The whole movie is following his character and then they just cut away and he's dead. It was like the storyteller saying, oh he's not there anymore, he wasn't important, moving on. Just seemed like it defeated the purpose of the previous hour and a half.

Even though Moss was a pivotal character, I dont think the story was about him, it was about Chigurh.

 

[Kevinicus]

Even though Moss was a pivotal character, I dont think the story was about him, it was about Chigurh.

That may be, but the vast majority of time was spent with the Moss character and then he was just thrown away as if he were irrelevant..which I guess he was, which makes about 90% of the movie irrelevant. Not good.

 

[theogt]

That may be, but the vast majority of time was spent with the Moss character and then he was just thrown away as if he were irrelevant..which I guess he was, which makes about 90% of the movie irrelevant. Not good.

It wasn't irrelevant. It was pivotal to the story and the theme.

 

[vta]

There really can be no arguing of what or who the story is about, like any work of art, it depends on the points of view of the audience. The author may have something in mind, but if he has any understanding at all, he knows full well his creation is going to be chopped meat in the minds of the million + ideologies taking their turns at it.

To me, first and foremost, it's about the futility of an aging lawman, who can't cope with the growing viciousness of crime. That's why his character is such a dud, who eventually retires over it. Moss and Chigurh are pivotal characters in creating the catalyst for his decision. The Cohen Brothers downplayed this aspect, knowing full, that suspense and action sell far better than Shakespearean inner turmoil and failure of self.

Mind you, this is simply just an example of my first paragraph: the matter of my interpretation and others will no doubt disagree or see it differently.

Isn't art amazing?

 

[TheCount]

There really can be no arguing of what or who the story is about, like any work of art, it depends on the points of view of the audience. The author may have something in mind, but if he has any understanding at all, he knows full well his creation is going to be chopped meat in the minds of the million + ideologies taking their turns at it.

To me, first and foremost, it's about the futility of an aging lawman, who can't cope with the growing viciousness of crime. That's why his character is such a dud, who eventually retires over it. Moss and Chigurh are pivotal characters in creating the catalyst for his decision. The Cohen Brothers downplayed this aspect, knowing full, that suspense and action sell far better than Shakespearean inner turmoil and failure of self.

Mind you, this is simply just an example of my first paragraph: the matter of my interpretation and others will no doubt disagree or see it differently.

Isn't art amazing?

So what you're saying is there CAN be a arguing over what the movie is about.

 

[vta]

So what you're saying is there CAN be a arguing over what the movie is about.

I think so... did I really just contradict myself?
Wow, I suck.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

There really can be no arguing of what or who the story is about, like any work of art, it depends on the points of view of the audience. The author may have something in mind, but if he has any understanding at all, he knows full well his creation is going to be chopped meat in the minds of the million + ideologies taking their turns at it.

To me, first and foremost, it's about the futility of an aging lawman, who can't cope with the growing viciousness of crime. That's why his character is such a dud, who eventually retires over it. Moss and Chigurh are pivotal characters in creating the catalyst for his decision. The Cohen Brothers downplayed this aspect, knowing full, that suspense and action sell far better than Shakespearean inner turmoil and failure of self.

Mind you, this is simply just an example of my first paragraph: the matter of my interpretation and others will no doubt disagree or see it differently.

Isn't art amazing?

exactly

 

[TwoCentPlain]

It was a very good movie. To those who didn't like it, give me an example of a recent "good" movie. Because I haven't seen many good movies lately.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It was a very good movie. To those who didn't like it, give me an example of a recent "good" movie. Because I haven't seen many good movies lately.

so it was a good movie by "default"

cream of the crap I guess

 

[SuspectCorner]

Yeah.

Remember when Tommy Lee Jones is driving up to the motel and that truck is seen flying out of the parking lot with guns firing?

Then Jones drives up to the crime scene and sees Llewellen's body in the room.

Chigurh doesn't show up until night time looking for Llewellen and the money. But Llewellen is dead and the money is gone.

Another thing that tells me that the Mexicans got the money is because Chigurh visits the wife still looking for the money.

The way I remember it, Chigurh's visit to Carla Jean Moss had more to do with a promise he'd made to Lewelyn Moss.

He told Lewelyn that if he turned over the money to him - he would ONLY kill Lewelyn. I'm pretty sure he said he would ALSO kill Carla Jean if Lewelyn continued to duck and dodge him.

That's not one of my favorite Coen Brothers movies. But it's still pretty good. No matter what else they do - they get actors that just chew up the scenery. Even the bit players are just great.

 

[masomenos]

Cormac McCarthy is an amazing writer. He never writes a feel good story but his writing is unreal. They filmed the Friendo scene exactly as he wrote it. That's how great a writer he is.

You could go ahead and say that McCarthy is the best living author and I would just keep nodding my head.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Excellent movie. One of the best I've seen in a long time. I've seen it about 4 times on cable, never saw the beginning though. Did I miss something in the beginning? What's with the ending?

1) Where did the money eventually go? Did Chigur have the money in the trunk of the car when he had the accident and just left it there? Did the sheriff find the money somewhere and then retire? Did the wife of the guy who found the money get the money? Who got the money?

I wasn't sure but I thought the Mexicans actually ended up with it. Chigur showed up after they killed the 'good' guy and found the money was already gone.

2) Did Chigur kill the wife of the guy who took the money? She wouldn't call the coin flip. Later, Chigur wipes his boots on her porch. Does that mean he killed her?

Yes he killed her.

3) Did Chigur kill the accountant who saw him kill the exec in the office? Accountant: "Are you going to kill me, too?" Chigur: "That depends. Did you see me?"

I would imagine he killed him. I doubt he let him live after watching him kill another man.

The dialogue in this movie was awesome. Woody Harrelson's chat with the guy in the hospital was hilarious. "Is this guy the ultimate Bad ***?" "I was in Viet Nam, too." "What, does that make us buddies, now?" Woody Harrelson's chat with Chigur was also interesting.

It's one of my favorite scenes in the movie. I thought it was very well done.

If he's so strict about his moral code thenI don't see how he could have killed the wife... but I also assumed he did.

Because he had to keep his promise, by his moral code. He promised the husband that if he didn't just bring the money to him then he'd kill his wife for it. He gave the husband a chance to save his wife, by simply allowing himself to be killed, and instead the husband decided to try and be the brave, tough guy.

In doing so he got killed by the Mexicans and since Chigur had made him a promise, by his moral code, he had to keep the promise. He actually gave in a little her by allowing her to call the coin flip, if she would have, for a shot to live. That's why he tells her it's the best he can do.

Never read the book, in the movie doesn't she refuse to call it?

I didn't know it was a book, I'll be getting it for sure now, and yes she refused to call it in the movie. She won't call it because she believes that the coin has no say, that only he does.

Seems like everyone that has a problem with it only has a problem with Moss's demise and the movie's ending.

That's typical reaction to movies that don't have the warm and fuzzy 'good guy' winning type of ending. I loved the movie more because it ended the way you'd figure that it most likely would 99 out of 100 times in real life.

I think you're pretty much in the extreme minority here. The dialogue and music were kept to an absolute minimum because the acting was so great. I'm not a huge fan of Tommy Lee Jones, but even he knocked it out of the park in this one.

Without a doubt I agree. The more you can draw people in without having to say much the better job you're doing with all your other tools as an actor. Dialogue is only one part of a great actor.

That may be, but the vast majority of time was spent with the Moss character and then he was just thrown away as if he were irrelevant..which I guess he was, which makes about 90% of the movie irrelevant. Not good.

Ummm....no. He's not irrelevant. The fact that he was killed is VERY important. The way it's done is just as important. The man was trying to win a war he couldn't win. He thought he was only going to have to kill one man to walk away. That death is perfect cause it shows just how little he understood the situation he'd gotten himself into.

so it was a good movie by "default"

cream of the crap I guess

That's the perfect answer for someone not answering the question. lol

 

[jimmy40]

It was a very good movie. To those who didn't like it, give me an example of a recent "good" movie. Because I haven't seen many good movies lately.

Taken.

 

[theogt]

Taken.

Taken was an entertaining movie. But it wasn't in the same class as NCFOM. Not really even close.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Taken was an entertaining movie. But it wasn't in the same class as NCFOM. Not really even close.

that's what theo says, how it should be interpreted

Taken was a great movie

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I haven't seen Taken yet but I've heard good things about it.

 

[Yeagermeister]

I haven't seen Taken yet but I've heard good things about it.

I thought it was very good.