Thanks for the link. I especially like this take on the film:

"Ultimately, No Country for Old Men is a stunning Coen Brother’s film and a misleading McCarthy film. The Coens successfully convey the inherent brutality of man through stunning visuals and wonderfully acted scenes, but they fail to include the very information the audience needs to make sense of this fact."

I think this is one of the cases where I will just read the book and not see the movie.

I haven't read his books but my wife has. She thinks his books are just as dark as the movie, so she did not see them the same way that blogger did. I think it must be a question of what lenses the reader is wearing.

The ending ruined the rest of the film IMO. Brolin's character's death could have been dramatic, and after we have to assume the killer does in Brolin's wife, he is never seen again.

There should have been some confrontation between the sheriiff and the killer.

Could have done something else with my time.

.02

Do you think that the fact that there wasn't a direct confrontation between good and evil added to the dark power of the film? It's not that good battles and loses but that the good is never able to even confront the evil. Good is so impotent it can't even assemble the resources to get remotely close enough to evil to make any difference.

I can see your point, although I don't think it realistic at all,to portray the bad guy as almost invincible.

He must have killed about 30 people in the film, more or less, and he managed to walk away with a shot up leg, excluding the car accident?

The hotel scene where Josh Brolin's character was killed. There were several heavily armed men there, including Brolin, and he managed to kill them all?

Not likely to happen in the real world IMO.

The point of the movie is the title. Tommy Lee Jones (old man) doesn't fit anymore. That's why there was never any confrontation between him and Chigur. It's why the dramatic conflict w/Brolin's character is not shown. The story isn't about Brolin's character. Brolin is one of the new guys Jones talks about not understanding in the opening monologue.
It's also why the movie stops rather than ends. Once Jones gives up on trying to remain in his world (sherriffing), the movie's over.

I don't think it's about good and evil at all. It's about the old getting beaten by the new.

I thought it was a pretty good movie. Four oscars. The ending was not what I would have wished.....but perhaps as it should have been since the vet was not really doing the right thing.

The bad guy getting away unfortunately is not unrealistic.

Though he did a lot of really reckless things in which in real life he probably would have been caught in the act or they just would not have worked out.

Some really great scenery of the dry, dry west.

Tom W

Yea, loved the locations. The stark landscape made the film. Reminded my of the Three Burials of Melciades Estrada.
I've never paddled the Rio Grand thru Big Bend but one day I'd like to.

This is the kind of film that affects me for 2 days afterwards. It was full of negativity and ugliness. For some reason, I expected something more light-hearted. The ending was a head scratcher for sure. My question is, why didn't he just get on the bus with the bag and leave with his wife, instead of sticking around town? Some people said you have to see this movie 2 or 3 times to fully understand what happened, but I think I'll pass.

Also, if I were the state of Texas, I would sue for defamation of character.

He separated because he knew they would come after him and he didn't want her in danger. I think he expected to deal with them, then meet back up with her.

The end makes sense if you consider Tommy Lee Jones's character the main one. At the beginning of the movie, he tells you about all the former sherriffs who didn't even used to carry guns. The movie is a slice of life of Jones's character. The slice near the end where he feels he can't fit in the world in the way that he used to.

I agree. He planned to kill the guy who was after him.

I agree about Tommy Lee too.

HIs laconic delivery of lines was especially entertaining to me.....(examining the murder scene in the begining)....."yes, appears there was a glitch or two"....

I really liked the vietnam vet character too.....he saw this as an opportunity to grab. Nobody deserved the money and his life was unrewarding so he figured why not take a chance? I am pretty sure I would never have tried that, but when I saw dead bodys I wouldn't have approached it all either....perhaps if I saw someone alive I would have.

But that was set in 1980 and he was six years out of nam or so, so he had seen it all and it did not frighten him.

I rather liked it.

Kindof amazing it got four oscars though.

It did have some of the quality of the "Three Burials..." movie! (Talk about a strange one!)

Tom W

I rented it over the weekend and I will admit to being very conflicted about the ending of the movie, especially given how good the Cohen brothers were at maintaining a good pace with the story while at the same time never giving us the complete picture of what was going on. It was almost like we were thrown into the situation in the exact same way that Llewellyn was. And the movie doesn't wrap up into a nice little package, either.

What struck me most powerfully was the realization that none of the characters that we had invested *any* time with were successful in achieving their goals. Brolin's character didn't get to keep the money or his life. Tommy Lee Jones didn't protect anyone. Javier Bardem didn't recover the money. Woody Harrelson couldn't recover the money or stop Bardem. The only successful people were the Mexicans who were related to the failed drug deal, and the only real camera time they get is at the bus station when they find out that Brolin is in El Paso.

So in that respect it is a lot like real life: heroes fail, villains fail, regular people fail. And just because the "two hours transit across the stage" (to paraphrase Shakespeare) has come and gone, you don't automatically get resolution. Whether you liked it or not, when was the last time a movie compelled you to question it or discuss it?

How long did it take other people to realize that there was no soundtrack to this movie. It struck me about halfway through that music wasn't being used in any way. All of the dramatic tension came from the acting and the script. That is pretty powerful on its own.

I did not notice it.

I saw a gangster movie a few years ago that did not use any curse words. It was interesting that I didn't notice until it was at least 75% done.

I thought that was pretty refreshing.

How many ways can you say the f word and make it sound fresh?

Tom W

I thought it was a little TOO realistic. I think the bad guy getting away is probably a lot more realistic than we would like it to be, don't you?

I guess that's why human beings came up with the concept of heaven and hell. We're just optimistic enough to hope there will be some justice SOMEwhere along the line.

Just to be sure . . .
 

I borrowed the novel from the library.

The Coens' film is pretty close to it. In the novel, it's clear that Moss is dead; the Sheriff, Ed Tom (Tommy Lee Jones's character) sees his body at the scene or the morgue. Which should have been in the film. But it still leaves us feeling cheated; we're not sure who killed Moss, the Mexican group or Chigurh -- and McCarthy should have shown it to us! We've followed this guy Moss and been rooting for him for 200 pages, and then we don't get to see his death??!!??

For my money, that's gypping the reader. It's almost as if McCarthy started out to write an Elmore Leonard-ish crime novel, and lost interest in it 3/4 of the way through.

I've sampled his All the Pretty Horses (also a movie, I understand), and lost interest 10 pages in. I like literary fiction on occasion -- but I don't see why it can't tell a real story, too. See Steinbeck, John, literary works of.
.