No Country for Old Men

Raekwon

Is anybody else really looking forward to the Coen Brothers latest movie No Country for Old Men?

I am admittedly a huge Coen's fan but IMO they have fallen off some what recently with two lackluster efforts in The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty.

But according the film critics they are back on top form with their latest movie.

95% in Rotten Tomatoes + 5 out of 5 Stars in both Total Film & Empire.

Looking good so far

Otis Driftwood

Im so excited to see this I cant describe.
Been chatting with a few people on other sites and they have raved about it.

Some are saying its in their top 10 of all time its that damn good.

Cannot fuggin wait!

aurel

This film is so good that The Ladykillers is completely forgiven. Classic cinema.

Karl Hungus

I'm very much looking forward to it. Haven't bothered to see the Ladykillers mind you/

johnny_ultimate

Yeah really looking foward to it (although only a cautious amount of enthusiasm, as otherwise disapointment may be inevitable).

Will be nice to see the Coens back to something more serious, but with hopefully a couple of moments of their trademark pitch-black humour.

Kur4mA

I absolutely loved this and it is the superduper shiny spankin collectors edition of it will definintely be going into my collection. I think it's definitely deserving of Best Film if it does win it.

Drag00n79

There are already a few reviews for it in the erm... reviews section - from terrific to disappointing. I thought it was an exceptional movie. In fact as soon as I has watched it I watched again. I can't remember the last time I did that.

Driver 8

Masterpiece *nods*

Da Funky Munky

Possibly the most over-rated film Ive ever seen in my life!

Its a good film but the praise its receiving is bordering on mania!

That ending .......... hmmmmmmmm :rolleyes:

Venom

Da Funky Munky wrote: »

Possibly the most over-rated film Ive ever seen in my life!

Its a good film but the praise its receiving is bordering on mania!

That ending .......... hmmmmmmmm :rolleyes:

You perfectly summed up my feelings on this film. Great performance from the cast but I can see a lot of people having WTF looks on their faces afterwards.

Tusky

I just finished reading 'The Road' by Cormac McCarthy (who also wrote this) and it was excellent. Highly recommended and I bet it will be made into a film as well. It's about a man & his son trying to stay alive in post apocalyptic America.

Cant wait for this movie and would be interested in reading the book also.

pebbles21

seen this last week can someone explain that ending please ruined a great film!

Driver 8

see my review in the review thread. the ending is perfect, and suits the film and its themes perfectly.

aurel

Excellent review there Driver 8. Completely agree. The ending fits perfectly with the themes of the film. I thought also that it was an inspired move to

deprive the audience of Josh Brolins death scene and instead to experience with jones the still aftermath of the act that he is so often faced with.

5/5

aurel

del

Sajan

I agree with Driver 8. I think the movie was absolutely outstanding in every way. I can understand why some people would see the ending as a cop out but I believe thats where te true beauty of the movie lies. In its ambiguity. It will take something really really special for this movie to be bettered this year in my opinion.

gazzer

I was looking forward to this movie for so long and I really wanted it to be the masterpiece that some people where saying. The first 90 minutes is great but the last part of the movie was a real let down. I dont mind the fact that we didnt see

the death of Josh Brolins character

but the ending just felt arty for the sake of being arty.

Also. Who took the money??

Drag00n79

gazzer wrote: »

I was looking forward to this movie for so long and I really wanted it to be the masterpiece that some people where saying. The first 90 minutes is great but the last part of the movie was a real let down. I dont mind the fact that we didnt see the _____________________________ but the ending just felt arty for the sake of being arty.
Also. Who took the money??

People should use spoilers.

Maximilian

I have to say I loved this movie. One word: silencer!

I do like the end I have to say. Its not conventional that's for sure and I can see how some people will hate it.

gazzer

People should use spoilers.
__________________

@ Shamrok. When I posted my message I posted it in the reviews section not the film section. It was moved afterwards from reviews to films. When I posted in reviews I assumed that if people were reviewing the movie then they would have seen it.

Karl Hungus

gazzer wrote: »

People should use spoilers.
__________________

@ Shamrok. When I posted my message I posted it in the reviews section not the film section. It was moved afterwards from reviews to films. When I posted in reviews I assumed that if people were reviewing the movie then they would have seen it.

The rules of Film Reviews states to use spoiler tags, so that's no excuse.

c0rk3r

Dont believe the hype. Bitterly disappointing. With every film i watch i try to avoid discussion forums, trailers, just the general buzz about a movie. I like going into a cinema with no preconceptions or expecting much. A blank slate but somehow i managed to get sucked into the hype of this movie and it just didnt deliver. Its pitted to nab a few oscars etc

Take out tommy lee jones character and you have a 10/10

I just hope "There will be blood" lives up to its hype. Again got sucked into it. Probably from the "what are you looking forward to in 2008" thread. I shouldnt visit the film section here. Daniel Day-Lewis is one of my favourite actors and praise allah it wont disappoint.

c0rk3r

Driver 8 wrote: »

The ending is perfect, it's as far away from a cop out as I can imagine. You want closure? It's a film about fate, about the inevitabilty of death and violence. Josh Brolin is not, despite what you may think at the beginning, the protagonist. His character and his story is designed to show both the audience and Tommy Lee Jones' character the sadistic, violent nature of the world. The almost casual way in which we are shown his fate is indicative of this. Javier Bardem's character represents death incarnate, and death is *all those paying attention at the back*-inevitable, unstoppable (this is all stated directly in Lee Jones' conversation with the eldery man near the end). Bardem doesn't die because death is unstoppable, and killing him wouldn't end the violence any more than killing Brolin did. Bardem's character, as well as representing death, is also a man however, and his car crash near the end is a wake up call, we finally see him rattled, he seems to believe that fate, his weapon for so long, is catching up with him, as it did Brolin's character, as it did his wife. I can think of no better way to end our look at this character.

I love the snobby, pompous condensing *attention at the back* remark. This was exactly what i was getting at when i said, "accused of not having sufficient intellect to enable them to appreciate it". I understand the story, plot and the inevitability / fate of Brolins death. Thats what i expect in the real world, thats what happens. Why should i be awed because they didnt go down the hollywood, braindead route.

Thats not why i didnt enjoy the film. It was mainly down to tommy lee jones character and that tired monotone, dialogue at the end (and pretty much throughout) that had me zoned out and falling asleep. Something about his father... woah thats a nice tree in the background... a mention of firewood or something... jaysus tommy lee jones is getting old, wonder what age he is now... He says something else.... damn popcorn stuck in my tooth... talks about his father... im fvcking falling asleep, christ just go to the next scene.... over

ehh...

MisterAnarchy

Da Funky Munky wrote: »

Possibly the most over-rated film Ive ever seen in my life!

Its a good film but the praise its receiving is bordering on mania!

That ending .......... hmmmmmmmm :rolleyes:

+1

Driver 8

Ok, once more

Josh Brolin-Moss
Javier Bardem-Chigurh

Clear?

doonothing

I cannot wait to see this film...

Beelzebub

doonothing wrote: »

I cannot wait to see this film...

Ditto.

Raekwon

I'm going to see it tomorrow. I can't wait, although I have to admit that I'll slightly worried about it now after reading this thread. Should be interesting.

Btw for anybody that is interested, the IFI are running a Coen Brothers month at the moment.

Creature

Just watched it. Excellent film. Javier Bardem puts on one of the most chilling performances I've ever seen. I liked the ending too, thought it was completely in line with the rest of the film. This is one I shall be definitely adding to my DVD collection when it comes around.

I'm also going to track down the book. If it's half as good as The Road then it'll be great.

jayteecork

Best movie I've seen in 2008 so far (I know it's only 11 days old).

I loved Javier Bardem in it.

Tusky

You people should use spoiler tags. Seriously. I think it should be an instant ban from the film board for discussing endings to films without spoiler tags.

Just back from seeing the movie now and not really sure what I thought of it. All I know is that I really enjoyed it.

The cinematography was great, the casting was great, the acting was great, the script & dialog were great. The film is littered with classic scenes. Examples : Towards the start when he goes back to the jeep to give the dying guy some water and gets chased by the dog. Or the scene in the hotel when he jumps out the window and they shoot at each other. The scene with Chigurh in the petrol station when he flips the coin for the first time was great too, very intense.

For the first half of the film I was thinking 'this is going to go down as one of the greats' & I really was loving it. I'm still not sure what I thought of the second half and I may have to see it again before I make up my mind. I'm just glad I haven't been paid to review it. as it wouldnt be an easy job!

I wasn't necessarily expecting a happy ending. I was expecting some interesting twists and closure though. The film was following Moss and he seemed to be the main focus of the plot and then...bam, hes dead. It was as if there was a scene missing. It may be that I simply missed the point of this and I'm open to someone putting their ideas about it forward but I found it a bit annoying. It was as if The Coens did it just to be different. To be unusual.

I also didn't quite get Tommy Lee Jones character although the fact that he was no match for this killer and ended up retiring was interesting as it tied in really well with the title of the film 'No Country For Old Men'. Also, I found the sudden arrival and departure of Woody Harrelson's character a bit bemusing.

Plot wise, what actually happened ?

-guy stumbles on suitcase of money and takes it
-guy gets chased by pycho looking for suitcase
-guy gets killed ( I'm assuming that he had the money at this point and Chigurh ended up with it ? )

Also, the scene in which Chigurh is in the car crash. I took this as a symbol of fate...or chance, in the same way that he used the flip of a coin to decide peoples fates. Was that your views as well ?

Overall, I really enjoyed it and can see why its getting such praise. It did leave me slightly unsure of what I thought of it though.

Zippitydoo

Easily the best film I have seen in quite awhile, enjoyed it immensely and was even relatively happy with the ending.

Tommy Lee Jones' character shows us how if true evil exists there is very little we can do to stop it. Chigurh proved how dangerous a person with absolutely no conscience or morals can be, and I believed the sheriff was necessary to portray the uselessness of trying to catch this man.

I presumed Chigurh got the money due to the air duct being opened when Tommy Lee Jones entered the room.

You really had to pay close attention to detail which I loved ( my friend didn't even notice Josh Brolin's character had died!!).

I also presume Chigurh killed the wife due to him checking his shoes??

Raekwon

I saw this movie last night and I really enjoined it, although it did leave the cinema with a good few questions:

Spoiler:

Who was Anton Chigurh? Was he a just a psychopathic drifter or was he an actual hired killer or what?
There was no background on this guy at all. Also what happened to the money? The screws on the floor of the motel room indicate that the bag was taken but who took it? Chigurh or the Mexicans?
Also how did the Mexican's know where to fine Moss when he went to El Paso? Lastly when Sheriff Bell went to to the crime scene in the motel (and Chigurh was behind the door waiting for him) where did he go? Are we expected to believe that he opened the bathroom window, got out and closed it within a couple of seconds?

Apart from these plot loose end and an ending that will disappoint a few people it was an excellent movie, full of memorable dialogue, beautifully isolated locations & some gut wrenching tension. I think it was the Coen's best work since Fargo so I would definitely recommend it.

DeepBlue

Raekwon wrote: »

Who was Anton Chigurh? Was he a just a psychopathic drifter or was he an actual hired killer or what?
There was no background on this guy at all.

He seemed to be some sort of clean-up guy hired by the guy in the office (whom he later shot) to retrieve the money. He seemed to take offence at the professional discourtesy to hire another guy to also chase the money and also to give a second receiver to the Mexicans.

Raekwon wrote: »

Also what happened to the money? The screws on the floor of the motel room indicate that the bag was taken but who took it? Chigurh or the Mexicans?

Chigurh seems to have gotten the money. The Mexicans left the scene very quickly after the shootout and wouldn't have had time to unscrew the air vent. He still killed Moss' wife as, from his pov, Moss had not taken his deal.

Raekwon wrote: »

Also how did the Mexican's know where to fine Moss when he went to El Paso?

The Mexicans found him at the first motel because they also were given a receiver for the transponder.
They found him the second time because one of the gang helped Moss' wife's mother with her baggage and asked where she was she travelling to and what hotel she was going to stay at.

Raekwon wrote: »

Lastly when Sheriff Bell went to to the crime scene in the motel (and Chigurh was behind the door waiting for him) where did he go? Are we expected to believe that he opened the bathroom window, got out and closed it within a couple of seconds?

Not sure about that one. I thought Lee Jones character expected to be killed when he went into the room as he knew the kind of guy he was up against.

RAIN

Just saw this. WOW amazing in every single way. Very faithful to the book, and like the book had more to do with the motives and themes then the actual story. When these guys are on form they really are the best on the planet.

adonis

c0rk3r wrote: »

Dont believe the hype. Bitterly disappointing. With every film i watch i try to avoid discussion forums, trailers, just the general buzz about a movie. I like going into a cinema with no preconceptions or expecting much. A blank slate but somehow i managed to get sucked into the hype of this movie and it just didnt deliver. Its pitted to nab a few oscars etc

Take out tommy lee jones character and you have a 10/10

I just hope "There will be blood" lives up to its hype. Again got sucked into it. Probably from the "what are you looking forward to in 2008" thread. I shouldnt visit the film section here. Daniel Day-Lewis is one of my favourite actors and praise allah it wont disappoint.

how can removing a character make it a 10/10 movie?
anyway, i have read a couple of mccarthys books and i can see what people mean by weird endings and dragging in the middle - there are some things that keep you interested with the books - good language etc..
looking forward to this movie; i am 100% confident its going to be great.

alexkintner

c0rk3r wrote: »

I just hope "There will be blood" lives up to its hype. Again got sucked into it. Probably from the "what are you looking forward to in 2008" thread. I shouldnt visit the film section here. Daniel Day-Lewis is one of my favourite actors and praise allah it wont disappoint.

prepare to be disappointed. Just seen it. Simmers for about 40-50 minutes, then just ends up going nowhere. Pity.

sprinkles

c0rk3r wrote: »

Before i even watched this it was already predicted to be nominated and to recieve a number of oscars. With this in mind i was expecting something special. And man... was i wrong.This movie isn't so much as a movie as it is an anecdote. It's like watching some dismal abyss of a film, with no plot, no real ending, and just a depressing story that basically comes down to no discernible resolve.

No plot! That's a "unfair" statement. Not only is there a good plot - cat and mouse game of fate and death but the dialogue and cinematography compliment so well that I didn't even notice how long the movie was until the credits rolled and I was left in a state of shock.

The movie was slow and stale at times and some sense were brilliant but some were so pointless and random and the ending was very, very disappointing I'm not going to say what happens but take my word for it, it was just bad.

There were a number of scenes that would have normally found their way to the editing room floor had they made it into the movie in the first place. I'm not saying that the fact that they remained in the film makes them a good thing but it all serves a greater purpose - in explaining the characters to us, showing them in seemingly mundain situations where they give away a little about themselves.

For instance the scene with Anton and the shop keeper and tossing the coin may not have been in the movie had another director been sitting int he chair, but it's one of my favorite scenes. It shows Antons carefree take on death and murder and his methodical appraoch to it. He gets annoyed when the shopkeeper delays in making the call on the coin - not accepting his fate.

People are raving about Josh Brolin performance as the bad guy. Principled Psychotic killer with an air of intelligent. He was pretty intense,fearsome and meancing. And at the same time hollow. (no depth no insight)

Well considering his character was supposed to be (imo) a relatively hollow souless man doomed to a life in hell for his crimes (which he admits) I think he did a great job (and you even aluded to that yourself). I though he was excellent.

Of course anyone who expresses a dislike of this movie is automatically accused of not having sufficient intellect to enable them to appreciate it.

(ill bump this up to a 3.9/5, was being abit unfair in my marking. bumped up due to the performances)

I can see why you would think that and I have thought that in the past - that just becasue I don't "get" a film that everyone else is raving about (Punch Drunk Love springs to mind) that some people exert a somewhat Film-Snobbery over me and it is annoying. You just didn't get/like the film. Your opinion. I disagree however, the more I think about it he more I love it.

Saying that, I will not recommend it to anyone because there's a 50/50 chance that they may punch me the next day

5/5

dudara

s8n wrote: »

Agree 100%. Excellent first hour. Beautifully shot but lost it's way mid -way through and the ending was a mess.
Could have been a contender, but disappointing.

6/10

I wholeheartedly agree. Great first part in the film. A real sense of scary menacing tension with excellent story-telling. However the revealing of the true protagonist of the film did not sit easily with me and it really felt as if the film ran out of steam at the end. A very weak ending to what was initially a great film.

Jrad

Excellent film, best bad guy ever.

longshanks

a lot of folk complaining about the ending, calling it a cop out or whatever. the thing is, while the coen boyo's have produced and directed a shhithot movie they didnt write it. that honour goes to cormac mccarthy, and in the book the ending, while grim, does make sense. the coen chaps, being pretty good in their line of work, have remained totally faithful to the book. no bullshhit hollywood moral ending, just this is this. fair play to the coens. and a cast giving career best performances just adds to it all. so for once, do believe the hype. even if its not what you're expecting

imeddyhobbs

lots of good advice here,im not downloading this one,at last something worth going to the cinema for.

djkeogh

Just saw this yesterday and it is an amazing film. Really want to see it again as well. Some of the tension in the scenes with Bardem was amazing. Brolin was fantastic in it as well. Haven't been so immersed in a film and drawn into it in a long time. Great return to form for the coens

L31mr0d

excellent, excellent movie. wow. I personally loved that ending.

one question though

Ok I understand that the mexicans knew where to find Moss by talking to his mother inlaw, but how did Chigurh know where to find him?

Also in regard to the part where Sheriff Bell goes into the room next to the one where Moss was killed, when we see Chigurh waiting in the dark, I took this more as Sheriff Bell imagining him in there waiting for him, then he goes in, realises theres nobody there, and gives up the chase and retires, I don't believe Chigurh was actually in the room just before Sheriff Bell entered it

johnp

longshanks wrote: »

a lot of folk complaining about the ending, calling it a cop out or whatever. the thing is, while the coen boyo's have produced and directed a shhithot movie they didnt write it. that honour goes to cormac mccarthy, and in the book the ending, while grim, does make sense. the coen chaps, being pretty good in their line of work, have remained totally faithful to the book. no bullshhit hollywood moral ending, just this is this. fair play to the coens. and a cast giving career best performances just adds to it all. so for once, do believe the hype. even if its not what you're expecting

Ok, while the brothers didn't write the book and the movie (whilst I haven't read the book) stays true to the book, it doesn't mean I have to like the ending.
I just thought that it didn't go well with the rest of the movie. We had two main characters who we were following, then all of a sudden they are not part of it. It's almost like the characters were never the central theme.
I'm not looking for a Hollywood ending, some time the bad guy winning is great, but the movie didn't give a satisfactory finish on this front.
Just my personal opinion.

Creature

L31mr0d wrote: »

one question though

Ok I understand that the mexicans knew where to find Moss by talking to his mother inlaw, but how did Chigurh know where to find him?

My understanding was that Chigurh wasn't there at the time when the shootout took place and Llewelyn was killed. I assumed he appeared at some later stage and took the money from the vent (when Sherif Bell goes to the room you can see the marks in the vent implying the money was removed). I guess he just heard about the shootout over a police scanner or something.

L31mr0d wrote: »

Also in regard to the part where Sheriff Bell goes into the room next to the one where Moss was killed, when we see Chigurh waiting in the dark, I took this more as Sheriff Bell imagining him in there waiting for him, then he goes in, realises theres nobody there, and gives up the chase and retires, I don't believe Chigurh was actually in the room just before Sheriff Bell entered it

I initially came to the same conclusion as you. However after reading the FAQs over at imdb it does make a convincing enough case for him being in the room. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477348/faq

L31mr0d

thanks for the FAQ Creature, it confirms some of my opinions about the movie and irons out some others.

Full_Circle

I really enjoyed the film, but was let down by the ending. If felt it was a little abrupt.

While I have no problem with thinking a film over after having seen it, it really hadn’t occurred to me that

it was actually the Mexicans that had killed Moss, I just assumed that Chigurh had somehow found him again!

It makes more sense now, but I don’t think that was made obvious enough, especially since we never saw the event in question. And I really didn’t get

why Chigurh was hit by a car at the end, only to survive and continue on his way. A previous poster suggested this was the first time Chigurh was shook by his own mortality, but it didn’t come across that way to me! The accident seemed a bit random and without reason.

I thought the acting was terrific. Brolin and Bardem were brill. Even the smaller performances were a joy to watch. I loved the local turns of phrase that each of the characters used. The tension during some of the scenes (especially those with Bardem) was almost unbearable! And the odd bit of humour surprised me too.

Its made me wanna go back and have a look at some of the other Coen films (which I’ve so far avoided).

Otis Driftwood

Seen it last night and absolutely loved it.

Coen Brothers are back on top form which is great to see and Id imagine we will be seeing alot more of Mr's Bardem + Brolin.

stevejazzx

Spoiler:

I don't think anyone has quite nailed the ending. The point of the ending was simply to show how alike our two opposing 'forces of nature' are. Driver is right when he says that Josh Brolin is not the protagonist. The story attempts to blur the lines between good and evil. Brolins character is, in the beginning quite a decent chap. He has a pang of guilt about leaving the Mexican without water so he returns to the 'crime scene', the classic mistake in film noir. As the movie progresses however Brolins sense of right and wrong deteriorates as he is forced to endure Bardems onslaught. The money and the situation slowly corrupt Brolin until ultimately it (the corruption of his character) seals his fate when he accepts the offer to party with prostitute near the end. Now the character at the beginning of the movie would've never accepted such an offer.
When Bardems car gets hit at the very end he borrows a t-shirt from a kid to stop the bleeding repeating Brolins actions from the Mexican Border, this is how the story shows us their 'like mindedness'. There is of course an essential difference between the two, Bardem is final stage Homicidal maniac whereas Brolins had just begun on his path to corruption - but the blurring of good and evil is demonstrated in how a decent man can reflect an evil man given the circumstances. That is what Tommy Lee Jones little speech is about, the intangibility of Good and evil, the wilful corruption of evil men which can consume the hearts and minds of regular people but his real insinuation is about the potential for evil in us all. Bardems character represents it incarnatley, he has surrendered to it, Brolins character on the other hand was only starting to dabble in it when he is killed. On a philosophical level Bardem and Brolin represent two sides of the same character where one side is trying to corrupt the other. This is why there many encounters end in a kind of odd stalemate.

I thought it was very good movie, there are quite a few nods to the Getaway with Steve McQueen also; the sound was amazing given that there was no soudtrack! And Bardems performance was quite simply a tour de force which has to see him pick up best supporting actor.
The ending however, hmmm I found a bit too clever for this style of movie and although I liked it, it didn't seem fit with the rest of the film. Apparently they followed the books ending but perhaps that kind of thing reads better, for the message is quite complex and the viewer is left with far too many conclusions that can be drawn. That was only (mildly) criticism of it....

Steve

Creature

stevejazzx wrote: »

Spoiler:

I don't think anyone has quite nailed the ending. The point of the ending was simply to show how alike our two opposing 'forces of nature' are. Driver is right when he says that Josh Brolin is not the protagonist. The story attempts to blur the lines between good and evil. Brolins character is, in the beginning quite a decent chap. He has a pang of guilt about leaving the Mexican without water so he returns to the 'crime scene', the classic mistake in film noir. As the movie progresses however Brolins sense of right and wrong deteriorates as he is forced to endure Bardems onslaught. The money and the situation slowly corrupt Brolin until ultimately it (the corruption of his character) seals his fate when he accepts the offer to party with prostitute near the end. Now the character at the beginning of the movie would've never accepted such an offer.
When Bardems car gets hit at the very end he borrows a t-shirt from a kid to stop the bleeding repeating Brolins actions from the Mexican Border, this is how the story shows us their 'like mindedness'. There is of course an essential difference between the two, Bardem is final stage Homicidal maniac whereas Brolins had just begun on his path to corruption - but the blurring of good and evil is demonstrated in how a decent man can reflect an evil man given the circumstances. That is what Tommy Lee Jones little speech is about, the intangibility of Good and evil, the wilful corruption of evil men which can consume the hearts and minds of regular people but his real insinuation is about the potential for evil in us all. Bardems character represents it incarnatley, he has surrendered to it, Brolins character on the other hand was only starting to dabble in it when he is killed. On a philosophical level Bardem and Brolin represent two sides of the same character where one side is trying to corrupt the other. This is why there many encounters end in a kind of odd stalemate.

when did he accept the woman at the pools offer to 'party'? AFAIK he declined and indicates he's married? I see it much the way Driver 8 put it earlier in the thread. Bardem represents the violent force present in the world that the sherif is lamenting. It's totally unstoppable and inescapable just like Chigurh is in the film and eventually engulfs Moss. The ending reminds us that Chigurh is just a man also and he will eventually end up the same way. He works by his own set of principals based very much on fate and circumstance but is also a victim of that himself.

I do agree more or less with you though especially with the similarities between the characters.