No Country for Old Men

[JayBee74]

Re: No Country for Old Men

My wife and I watched this movie last night. And for about 1 hour and 45 minutes it was an A+ movie.
The last 20 minutes brought the movie down to a C+.

But I have to say, the guy that plays the pyscho does an excellent job. The guy was very, very creepy.

The only slow parts to this movie was mostly Tommy Lee Jone's(Sheriff Bell) little bits of "Down Home Country Wisdom And Philosophy". Thankfully they were oh so brief. I don't share your opinion of the last 20 minutes or how they "degraded" the movie from an A+ to a C+. This was one of the most suspenseful movies I have ever seen, and featured one of the great villains(Anton Chigurh) in screen history.

[JayBee74]

Re: No Country for Old Men

Did anyone else realize this movie took place in 1980, before the obvious clue of a date on a fresh headstone?

[TheLetterZ]

Re: No Country for Old Men

Just got back from seeing it. So much suspense. Great movie.

[DrJones]

Re: No Country for Old Men

Did anyone else realize this movie took place in 1980, before the obvious clue of a date on a fresh headstone?

The coin Chigurh used to determine the gas station clerk's fate is from 1958. Chigurh says something to the effect of it waiting 22 years for that moment.

[Money99]

Re: No Country for Old Men

The only slow parts to this movie was mostly Tommy Lee Jone's(Sheriff Bell) little bits of "Down Home Country Wisdom And Philosophy". Thankfully they were oh so brief. I don't share your opinion of the last 20 minutes or how they "degraded" the movie from an A+ to a C+. This was one of the most suspenseful movies I have ever seen, and featured one of the great villains(Anton Chigurh) in screen history.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

What happens to one of the main characters and how it's shown was highly unsuspensful and I don't think it did justice to his character considering how he was portrayed through the first 1:45 of the movie.

Spoiler

An example of how they showed the demise of Moss would be if in Star Wars they simply showed Luke taking off to destroy the Death Star and instead of showing the battle he simply returns with the job done.
I thought it was incredibly poor how they portrayed Moss to be so smart and cunning and then suddenly Tommy Lee Jones shows up and he's dead. I wanted to see how he died.
And, after his phone conversation with Sugar, it made the audience (at least me) believe there was going to be a show down - "I have a special project for you".
It killed the movie for me and I won't bother to watch it again.

[JayBee74]

Re: No Country for Old Men

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

What happens to one of the main characters and how it's shown was highly unsuspensful and I don't think it did justice to his character considering how he was portrayed through the first 1:45 of the movie.

The whole movie was laced with suspense, but the event that you describe I actually saw coming, although not in the way it was depicted.

Spoiler

I think we were all rooting for Moss(continually through the movie Brolin reminded me of a young Nick Nolte, my favorite actor), but did anyone else get the idea that this wasn't going to be a formula Jodie Foster movie where the little guys triumphs over insurmountable odds? I actually thought in this case, not showing his death did his character more justice, along the lines of Woody Harreleson's character's bravery being honored by showing a definitive, but less graphic death.

The coin Chigurh used to determine the gas station clerk's fate is from 1958. Chigurh says something to the effect of it waiting 22 years for that moment.

And I remembered the coin date and the 22 years, but was so caught up in the pure drama of the moment I didn't put it together. The other more vague clue was when Moss (Brolin) told the US border guard that he was in Vietnam in 66 (right??). Assuming Moss was in his early 20's in 1966 that brings a late 30's Moss to about 1980.

[marque1d]

Re: No Country for Old Men

Think of photography; you saw a slice of time. You don't know what happen before nor after. Re-read the title of the movie. Think about the conversation between Sheriff Ed Tom Bell and the Sheriff from El Paso or with Bell's Uncle with all the cats.

The movie doesn't need to be predictable with Bell avenging the death of Llewelyn. You KNOW what happened to the girl.

I still think Michael Clayton was the best film I've seen all year but No Country is a close second. (for now)

I really find it interesting that some weren't for sure if the movie took place in the present was was set 20+ years ago. I guess West Texas is a part of the country which can seem to be stuck in time and that's a huge compliment to the film makers for capturing what it's like to be in that part of Texas. When I talk to people about that film that always point out how well they portrayed West Texas. That comes back around to the whole seeing a slice of time notion.

[Jimplication]

Re: No Country for Old Men

I read the book first, and after watching the movie today, and then checking the book again afterwards, I thought the movie was well done overall, but as soon as the characters headed to El Paso, things got a little too obscure for my liking.

Spoiler

In the book, there is a confrontation between the pool girl, a Mexican, and Llewyn, who gets involved and ultimately loses his life as a result. He puts the money into the vent in one of the two motel rooms he rented, and after the ambulances and initial police officers leave, Chigurh enters the motel room, takes the bag of money, and waits in his car for the sheriff to look over the motel himself.

In the movie, this entire process is a bit too obscure for my liking. It's not clear enough when Chigurh enters the motel, nor is it clear who has the money, and whether anyone has the money. Furthermore, the Mexicans that follow Llewyn to El Paso don't really fit, but they do provide the means for a shootout that ultimately brings on Lleywn's death.

In the book, Chigurh returns the money, minus a few hundred grand, to the person that hired him to get it back. In the movie, the money disappears, and there is no clear indication who has it, and what happens to it. There is a shot of the open air duct vent, and having read the book, I can safely assume/know that Chigurh took it before Tommy Lee Jones inspects the motel in El Paso, but after that there is no clear indication in regards to what happens to it between the time Chigurh leaves El Paso and gets into the car accident after killing Llewyn's wife.

Lastly, the movie is unfulfilling for two primary reasons:

• 1) The focus of the entire movie is the various characters and their pursuit of the money. The movie ends in a way that doesn't explain or show what happens to the money. It literally disappears after Llewyn's takes it out of the tall grass from which he threw it to earlier; and is only hinted at being back in the picture when Tommy Lee Jones notices the air duct grate being open at the motel in El Paso.
  
  2) The entire movie is driven by the cat and mouse chase involving Llewyn and Chigurh, and then out of nowhere the viewer sees Llweyn dead on the sidewalk as if he were some worthless extra that had no relevance to the plot. Why was Llewyn killed? Who killed him? What happened to the money as a result of his death? In the book, these reasons are made clear, but in the movie, it's all up in the air. I understand that directors enjoy obscurity and leaving things to the imagination of the viewer, but things can still be resolved without Chigurh losing his ghost like presence. It worked quite well in the book, and the directors really dropped the ball at the most important point in the movie in my mind. As I was leaving the theater I was discussing the book with my dad and the people in the row before us turned around and said, "You are going to have to say that again so I can hear, because I have no idea what the hell just happened."

The movie was great, the ending was mediocre. I barely understood it, and I had the knowledge from the book to fall back on. And given the extent to which the movie paralleled the book in so many ways, I am curious if the directors changed up the ending just to be different/original at the expense of quality.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I thought it was very raw and genuine. For the most part, the movie followed the book, even down to the dialogue and ending, but there were omissions that I do consider to ultimately lessen the overall experience; and due to them being very easy to include, I can't help but suspect it was a directorial decision; especially given the extent to which the movie runs parallel to the novel minus the exceptions mentioned in my spoiler.

[TheLetterZ]

Re: No Country for Old Men

Spoiler

I thought it was pretty clear that Chigurh got the money. In addition to the scene with him in the motel room and the shot of the open air vent, he gives that kid a $100 bill for his shirt.

[Jimplication]

Re: No Country for Old Men

Spoiler

I thought it was pretty clear that Chigurh got the money. In addition to the scene with him in the motel room and the shot of the open air vent, he gives that kid a $100 bill for his shirt.

It fits, I just think it could have been much clearer. In my experience, viewers can be beaten over the head with explanations and still not get it, and in this case it just felt far too obscure, especially given its importance to the storyline throughout the length of the movie.

[TheLetterZ]

Re: No Country for Old Men

I can agree with that, but the way I see it, it was a fairly subtle movie overall so it kind of fit. There were a bunch of high school kids leaving the theater behind me who were bitching about they had no idea what was going on.

[Money99]

Re: No Country for Old Men

I read the book first, and after watching the movie today, and then checking the book again afterwards, I thought the movie was well done overall, but as soon as the characters headed to El Paso, things got a little too obscure for my liking.

Spoiler

In the book, there is a confrontation between the pool girl, a Mexican, and Llewyn, who gets involved and ultimately loses his life as a result. He puts the money into the vent in one of the two motel rooms he rented, and after the ambulances and initial police officers leave, Chigurh enters the motel room, takes the bag of money, and waits in his car for the sheriff to look over the motel himself.

In the movie, this entire process is a bit too obscure for my liking. It's not clear enough when Chigurh enters the motel, nor is it clear who has the money, and whether anyone has the money. Furthermore, the Mexicans that follow Llewyn to El Paso don't really fit, but they do provide the means for a shootout that ultimately brings on Lleywn's death.

In the book, Chigurh returns the money, minus a few hundred grand, to the person that hired him to get it back. In the movie, the money disappears, and there is no clear indication who has it, and what happens to it. There is a shot of the open air duct vent, and having read the book, I can safely assume/know that Chigurh took it before Tommy Lee Jones inspects the motel in El Paso, but after that there is no clear indication in regards to what happens to it between the time Chigurh leaves El Paso and gets into the car accident after killing Llewyn's wife.

Lastly, the movie is unfulfilling for two primary reasons:

• 1) The focus of the entire movie is the various characters and their pursuit of the money. The movie ends in a way that doesn't explain or show what happens to the money. It literally disappears after Llewyn's takes it out of the tall grass from which he threw it to earlier; and is only hinted at being back in the picture when Tommy Lee Jones notices the air duct grate being open at the motel in El Paso.
  
  2) The entire movie is driven by the cat and mouse chase involving Llewyn and Chigurh, and then out of nowhere the viewer sees Llweyn dead on the sidewalk as if he were some worthless extra that had no relevance to the plot. Why was Llewyn killed? Who killed him? What happened to the money as a result of his death? In the book, these reasons are made clear, but in the movie, it's all up in the air. I understand that directors enjoy obscurity and leaving things to the imagination of the viewer, but things can still be resolved without Chigurh losing his ghost like presence. It worked quite well in the book, and the directors really dropped the ball at the most important point in the movie in my mind. As I was leaving the theater I was discussing the book with my dad and the people in the row before us turned around and said, "You are going to have to say that again so I can hear, because I have no idea what the hell just happened."

The movie was great, the ending was mediocre. I barely understood it, and I had the knowledge from the book to fall back on. And given the extent to which the movie paralleled the book in so many ways, I am curious if the directors changed up the ending just to be different/original at the expense of quality.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I thought it was very raw and genuine. For the most part, the movie followed the book, even down to the dialogue and ending, but there were omissions that I do consider to ultimately lessen the overall experience; and due to them being very easy to include, I can't help but suspect it was a directorial decision; especially given the extent to which the movie runs parallel to the novel minus the exceptions mentioned in my spoiler.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!
You actually provided a much clearer picture of the ending than the movie did. And after reading how the book concluded things, I can say unequivocally that the Coens butchered it.
I was still scratching my head as to what purpose the 'pool girl' had to the story line. Thank you very much for sorting that out for me.

After reading your post I would have MUCH preferred the books ending as it gave some of the characters a very fitting conclusion. As well as the story line.

I still really, REALLY enjoyed 75% of the movie. It's just the last 25% that left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Spoiler

I'm not mad that Llewyn bit it in the end. I can take that. It's the unceremonious way in which they killed him off as well as the mystery that surrounded his demise and the money's wearabouts.
The last time we see Llewyn he's telling Chigurh that he's got a special project for him, indicating that we'll see a classic showdown. But then the next time we see him he's dead.
That was the worst thing about the film and it ruined it for me.

It fits, I just think it could have been much clearer. In my experience, viewers can be beaten over the head with explanations and still not get it, and in this case it just felt far too obscure, especially given its importance to the storyline throughout the length of the movie.

Or the fact that Llewyn is given so much time and energy (rightfully so) and then his storyline is thrown out the window like a used tissue.

[Money99]

Re: No Country for Old Men

Jimplication, one question about the book:

Spoiler

Did Chegher kill Llewyn's wife?

Thanks!

[JayBee74]

Re: No Country for Old Men

Thank you, thank you, thank you!
You actually provided a much clearer picture of the ending than the movie did. And after reading how the book concluded things, I can say unequivocally that the Coens butchered it.
I was still scratching my head as to what purpose the 'pool girl' had to the story line. Thank you very much for sorting that out for me.

I don't see how you can use the word "butchered" in this instance, because let's not ignore the 800 pound elephant in the room......

Spoiler

You were a lot more disappointed in Moss's (Brolin) fate than in how it was depicted. Ultimately Moss was brought down by his Achille's Heel, the lure of women and his own independence, at least that's what I got out of the movie. For all Moss's guts and cunning Anton would have more than likely won out anyway-take away Moss's focus and it's NO CONTEST. Money, would you been happier with the movie if you had seen Moss blown away?

[Money99]

Re: No Country for Old Men

I don't see how you can use the word "butchered" in this instance, because let's not ignore the 800 pound elephant in the room......

Spoiler

You were a lot more disappointed in Moss's (Brolin) fate than in how it was depicted. Ultimately Moss was brought down by his Achille's Heel, the lure of women and his own independence, at least that's what I got out of the movie. For all Moss's guts and cunning Anton would have more than likely won out anyway-take away Moss's focus and it's NO CONTEST. Money, would you been happier with the movie if you had seen Moss blown away?

I whole-heartedly disagree. First what happens to Lleweylnn isn't what upset me, it was how it was shown.
And the Coens did butcher it. In my opinion, the whole movie was a long setup to an inevitable showdown. But then the Coens don't bother to show it. Imagine watching Rocky IV without the fight with the Russian - only the aftermath. In my mind, that's a very good depiction of how this movie wrapped itself up.

Spoiler

I'm FAR more disappointed in how his death was shown in the movie. While I didn't want Llewelyn to die it was the 'matter of fact' presentation of his death that ruined the movie for me. I wanted a showdown and at the very least watching HOW he died would have made the movie far greater. They spent 1:45 setting up his character and then reveal his demise as if he's a bit player. I know I'll never change your mind, and I know mine won't be changed. But how they showed his death destroyed the fabric of the movie and it's the reason why I won't recommend this film to anyone.