No Country for Old Men?!?!

[chaselo1987]

Wow,

I just watched this movie, I had never heard of it but I saw it on a "most movies ever rented on Netflix" news update on Yahoo. I really need some help here, so I would appreciate feedback. How come people think this movie is so good? It starts out AMAZING to me, the directing, the acting...was just very nice. Then the movie ends, with some IRRELEVANT conversation? LIKE WTF?!?! I just wasted 2 1/2 hours of my life watching a movie with with no story!?!? This movie reminds me of "Million Dollar Baby" I read reviews and a few friends are like, "ya that movie is awesome" blah blah blah. I watch it and I feel like killing myself afterwards because its so dumb!!!! I may be overreacting but I really need help on understanding. What appealed you about either of these movies if you have seen them. Please share!

Emphasize on No Country for Old Men please, I really don't understand how a movie like this gets GREAT ratings on Rottentomatoes or something. This movie was just disappointing. I'm absolutely loving the movie, then all of a sudden, a gunfight happens that they don't show, the main character dies, wife is killed, the killer gets hit by a car, and then he walks, then credits show??!?!? WHAT IS THE ENTERTAINMENT IN THIS!?!?! PLEASE!!!!!

[Variable_Star]

IMDB's FAQ for No Country for Old Men contains some solid explanations for any lingering questions you may have.

[slimdude]

Yes, the ending was really stupid! I didn't particularly like the movie at all, and I thought it was overrated.

[Irrob]

Some of the greatest movies of all time leave their endings open to viewer interpretation. I could name some good ones off but I got better things to do...

[chaselo1987]

Originally Posted by Irrob

Some of the greatest movies of all time leave their endings open to viewer interpretation. I could name some good ones off but I got better things to do...

lol, and that my friend is a perfect example of contradiction.

[vegeta88]

Thematically, I thought the ending was really in line with the rest of the film. I did not understand it the first time I saw it. The conversation at the end and the dreams are not irrelevant. If you look at the link Variable_Star provided, you will find a brief explanation. It isn't overly complicated or "artsy", the movie is more about the themes and commentary on the decline of society more than a 'bad guy chases good guy' film. The book definitely emphasizes this a lot more than the film.

[DoubleDownAgain]

I thought it was fanastic. When I saw it in the theater I was blown away. It was so unconventional and it did make perfect sense to me. I'd say it helps if you view Tommy Lee Jones as the protagonist and not Josh Brolin.

Without getting into details, or spoilers, I'd say give it another try. Id' also say the tagline is an accurate description of the movie. IMO it was the best film of it's year, if not the decade.

[chaselo1987]

Originally Posted by DoubleDownAgain

I thought it was fanastic. When I saw it in the theater I was blown away. It was so unconventional and it did make perfect sense to me. I'd say it helps if you view Tommy Lee Jones as the protagonist and not Josh Brolin.

Without getting into details, or spoilers, I'd say give it another try. Id' also say the tagline is an accurate description of the movie. IMO it was the best film of it's year, if not the decade.

Will do m8. I really liked the movie starting point, and mid. I just wished for a better defined ending. I will give it a whirl again maybe. On another note, I just watched the Green Lantern. It was nowhere near as bad as made out to be. If anything Thor was way worse. I enjoyed Green Lantern, good movie, decent special effects, and not a "Fantastic Fourish" storyline.

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Yes, the ending was really stupid! I didn't particularly like the movie at all, and I thought it was overrated.

OK, here's the deal, and this is what's so daring about the film

SPOILER ALERTS!!!!

The story lures you into thinking that it's a good guy/ bad guy film - with a country sheriff giving chase all the while.

The slap in face comes when Josh Brolin's character is killed (and you don't even get to see it!!!)

You then realize that the REAL story is the one in the title - That every man has a time in his life when he should really hang up his spurs and call it a career. The evil he knew as a young man has grown beyond his capabilities, and he needs to step aside and let a younger man handle it. The old days are gone, and it truly has become No Country for Old Men.

The end scene and dreams have two specific purposes: 1) to expose Ed Tom's subconscious desire for his father's approval of his retirement, and 2) (and more importantly) To give us a peek at a humble, yet once great, man's regression to the boring, everyday life of a retiree. ("And then I woke up..." Yup, that's it, just a couple weird dreams for a guy who's got nothing to really get out of bed for)

This is a guy that once handled criminals (as well as day to day domestic disputes) for a living. He spent years hip-deep in the muck of the underbelly of societies worst.

But now, his wife won't even let him clean up the kitchen because he just wouldn't do it right. He's become a nobody in his own home. The guy went from an important man in his community to nuisance in a day flat.

That is the real story. That whole dang film is a set-up for the deflation of a once-great man. THAT is what they wanted you to experience. And just like Cormac Mcarthy's other bleak recent release The Road - The audience is expecting one thing - but that's not what he wants to show you. At the end of The Road, the audience is nearly BEGGING for something good to happen, and they only barely get it.

For NCfOM, You WANT Brolin to best Chigur, it doesn't happen. You WANT TL Jones' character to get the bad guy - he doesn't (as far as we know).

This film pulls the rug out from under you TWICE in the same movie. Brilliant in it's execution, but leaves many viewers unsatisfied because they wanted something other than what the writer wanted, and was willing, to show you.

Personally. I love it EXACTLY BECAUSE IT TRICKED ME! That doesn't happen often enough in my book.

Cheers,

Doc

[retablo]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

OK, here's the deal, and this is what's so daring about the film

SPOILER ALERTS!!!!

The slap in face comes when Josh Brolin's character is killed (and you don't even get to see it!!!)

And in typical Coen fashion, they drop the ball again... movies are about showing, not telling. It's a visual medium. That means you use the camera to tell the story... but in film after film, they continually have important moments happen off screen... for what reason exactly? To make their films even more boring?

I liked their first few films, but really nothing since Miller's Crossing.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

OK, here's the deal, and this is what's so daring about the film

SPOILER ALERTS!!!!

The story lures you into thinking that it's a good guy/ bad guy film - with a country sheriff giving chase all the while.

The slap in face comes when Josh Brolin's character is killed (and you don't even get to see it!!!)

You then realize that the REAL story is the one in the title - That every man has a time in his life when he should really hang up his spurs and call it a career. The evil he knew as a young man has grown beyond his capabilities, and he needs to step aside and let a younger man handle it. The old days are gone, and it truly has become No Country for Old Men.

The end scene and dreams have two specific purposes: 1) to expose Ed Tom's subconscious desire for his father's approval of his retirement, and 2) (and more importantly) To give us a peek at a humble, yet once great, man's regression to the boring, everyday life of a retiree. ("And then I woke up..." Yup, that's it, just a couple weird dreams for a guy who's got nothing to really get out of bed for)

This is a guy that once handled criminals (as well as day to day domestic disputes) for a living. He spent years hip-deep in the muck of the underbelly of societies worst.

But now, his wife won't even let him clean up the kitchen because he just wouldn't do it right. He's become a nobody in his own home. The guy went from an important man in his community to nuisance in a day flat.

That is the real story. That whole dang film is a set-up for the deflation of a once-great man. THAT is what they wanted you to experience. And just like Cormac Mcarthy's other bleak recent release The Road - The audience is expecting one thing - but that's not what he wants to show you. At the end of The Road, the audience is nearly BEGGING for something good to happen, and they only barely get it.

For NCfOM, You WANT Brolin to best Chigur, it doesn't happen. You WANT TL Jones' character to get the bad guy - he doesn't (as far as we know).

This film pulls the rug out from under you TWICE in the same movie. Brilliant in it's execution, but leaves many viewers unsatisfied because they wanted something other than what the writer wanted, and was willing, to show you.

Personally. I love it EXACTLY BECAUSE IT TRICKED ME! That doesn't happen often enough in my book.

Cheers,

Doc

I would give it a second chance, but I already got rid of it.

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by slimdude

I would give it a second chance, but I already got rid of it.

Buck or two at rental joints dude...

[Ray O. Blu]

The "unstoppable force" (Chigurh) finally got the money then proceeded to get t-boned by vehicular Karma, but still survived. End of story.
The conversation about dreams that Ed had with his wife was just a bookend to the narrative he began at the beginning of the film.
Basically, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Don't let the semi-ambiguous ending ruin the perfection that preceded it.

[vegeta88]

Originally Posted by retablo

And in typical Coen fashion, they drop the ball again... movies are about showing, not telling. It's a visual medium. That means you use the camera to tell the story... but in film after film, they continually have important moments happen off screen... for what reason exactly? To make their films even more boring?

I liked their first few films, but really nothing since Miller's Crossing.

I wouldn't say they "dropped the ball" considering that is what happened in the book. The book comes upon the scene after the fact as well.

[DoubleDownAgain]

Originally Posted by retablo

And in typical Coen fashion, they drop the ball again... movies are about showing, not telling. It's a visual medium. That means you use the camera to tell the story... but in film after film, they continually have important moments happen off screen... for what reason exactly? To make their films even more boring?

I liked their first few films, but really nothing since Miller's Crossing.

I loved the off scene climax. Why? Because it wasn't important. While I don't sign off 100% with the Doc's assessment it is close enough in my book. this is definitely one of those films that if you have preconceived notions heading in and aren't ready for the abrupt changes you might not like it.

I also STRONGLY disagree with your notion that It's a visual medium. That means you use the camera to tell the story... but in film after film, they continually have important moments happen off screen... There is a reason the reason why they do this... and to be honest I'm trying to think back for another example of the Coen's doing this. While film is certainly a visual medium it is more than that.

[Metalmania31]

I liked this movie. The ending did throw me off too when I first watched it, but after watching I got the feeling that it was sort of a commentary on what the movie generally told.

[Monkey]

It just isn't a very good movie, not worth the price of a rental. First half start out decent but unfortunately it went really down hill after.

[giannirenna]

Philistines.

[Lemmy Lugosi]

I was bothered by the ending the first time I saw it, but, after another viewing, it's become one of my favorite films (seen it a few more times since then).

[JCP_San_Diego]

I enjoyed the movie. However, I think the Oscar should have gone to "There Will be Blood".