No Country for old men - Ending

fryup

Finally got around to seeing NCFOM last night on DVD.

Maybe i'm a bit dim-witted, but did i miss something at the end??......cause i didn't get it

Was there some philological message in the ending that i was suppose to read into, well if there was.. it went over my head.

Please someone spoonfeed me:o

thermo66

fryup wrote: »

Finally got around to seeing NCFOM last night on DVD.

Maybe i'm a bit dim-witted, but did i miss something at the end??......cause i didn't get it

Was there some philological message in the ending that i was suppose to read into, well if there was.. it went over my head.

Please someone spoonfeed me:o

No your not the only one... it was such a let down for me. Made no sense whatsoever and the person who i saw it with agreed so we aren't the only thick ones.... Obviously some people got it it won Best film oscar if i'm not mistaken .... WTF!!!

GAAman

thermo66 wrote: »

Obviously some people got it it won Best film oscar if i'm not mistaken .... WTF!!!

Or the oscar committee didnt get it and didnt wanna look thick

thermo66

Yeah probably. They usually pick undeserving films for the oscar anyway.

Galvasean

I think the ending was the bad guy got away, tough luck on Tommy Lee Jones.

Ardscoil Ris

Why does every film have to have a closed ending where the good guy wins. Open your mind people.

Shacklebolt

The sherrifs use of the phrase 'then I woke up' could also be used by any person who watched the last few minutes of the film.

I suppose the point is that evil cant be truly defeated or something like that. Could have been better handled but still an excellent film.

PhiliousPhogg

I read the book because I was similarly baffled by the ending. Towards there are lengthly sililoquies/narratives by the sherriff on his personal honour and service in his job in the face of the ever emerging evils of narcotics crime. They also emphasise the importance of his personal relationships with his wife and family and the hope they offer. It seems he's struggling to cope and the personal anguish caused by the investigation he's persuing in the film, and there's a sense of futility in fighting an unforgiving and brutal drugs trade. I didn't get this impression with the film though. I was never a fan of Tommy Lee Jones but I don't think it was his fault. I intend to have a second look.

Whatever about the ending, I thought the guts of the film was tense and exciting, excellently filmed. It also gave a good snapshot of society in mid-west US, young couple living in trailer park struggling to make ends meet for example. Woody Harrelson played an excellent role. All the main actors played strong characters and were pretty engaging.

GAAman

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

Why does every film have to have a closed ending where the good guy wins. Open your mind people.

I happen to love anti-hero or twisted ending films, but when a film is shíte, a film is shíte

jf852003

I love the book and the film and the film follows the book very closely. I think the ending in the book is better explained though. The Sheriff finds the boy who gave his t shirt to Chigurh, i think to prove to himself thar he was real and not some phantom and that he is out there somewhere. He retires at the end because he realises that if he goes after him, he will only end up getting killed. He speaks endlessly of the old time sheriffs, when the country was different and in his mind less violent, he retires then because he think his time is past, America has become too violent. However he also mentions the story of his relative who was shot by bandits on his front porch in the previous century. I think this points to the idea that America was borne of violence and never really changed. You could say that the Sheriff and Chigurh represent opposing views of the nation. The old style family values against the dark heart of the modern world...
...just my opinion though

Lamper.sffc

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

Why does every film have to have a closed ending where the good guy wins. Open your mind people.

The film didnt end it just stopped.

Whether the good guy wins or the bad guy does is not the point. Its whether the story was brought to a satisfactory conclusion. No country for old men didnt come to a satisfactory conclusion IMO.

Take the movie, House of sand and fog. Now theres an ending that wasnt the nicest to put it mildly. No arguments with how it ended from me though. Those who seen it know what im talking about.

raze

I've a few problems with No Country - not least that Tommy Lee Jones' character is useless as a police officer, and he doesn't do anything to redeem himself. Just talks to someone who knew his dad, has a nap, and feels sorry for himself because he thinks he let his dad down.

He doesn't look too hard at crime scenes. He doesn't investigate on his own time. He's prepared to give up responsibility to other investigators. He promises safety to another character and her husband and both of them end up dead. All the while he's pitying himself and there's a scene when he talks with another aging sheriff about how the world has gone to hell in a handbasket - if I remember correctly the two even agree that teenagers with facial piercings and green hair are part of the problem.

I found the theme interesting - i.e. if you're a crap police officer, and your failings cost people their lives, how much responsibility do you bear?

Really wish the Coens had taken more liberties and diverted from the source material - because there is a really good story in there, but for me it's just not in how Cormac McCarthy wanted to tell it.

As is, it's the emperor's new clothes.

Lamper.sffc

raze wrote: »

I've a few problems with No Country - not least that Tommy Lee Jones' character is useless as a police officer, and he doesn't do anything to redeem himself. Just talks to someone who knew his dad, has a nap, and feels sorry for himself because he thinks he let his dad down.

He doesn't look too hard at crime scenes. He doesn't investigate on his own time. He's prepared to give up responsibility to other investigators. He promises safety to another character and her husband and both of them end up dead. All the while he's pitying himself and there's a scene when he talks with another aging sheriff about how the world has gone to hell in a handbasket - if I remember correctly the two even agree that teenagers with facial piercings and green hair are part of the problem.

I found the theme interesting - i.e. if you're a crap police officer, and your failings cost people their lives, how much responsibility do you bear?

Really wish the Coens had taken more liberties and diverted from the source material - because there is a really good story in there, but for me it's just not in how Cormac McCarthy wanted to tell it.

As is, it's the emeror's new clothes.

Cant agree more.
Not that the film is bad, it just didnt give a proper ending.
People think because the end is confusing that it must have a higher meaning and to admit you dont get it makes you stupid:rolleyes:
With this film its not the case.

rccaulfield

Bad guy gets away- old Sherriff struggles to cope with the changing world- nuff said!
As for jones character not being a good cop-try watching the film-the young fella is the dozy one-jones is quick and calculated and logical.

L31mr0d

what's so hard to understand about the ending?

The easiest way to understand it is to first ask yourself why is the movie called "No country for old men". Once you understand the title, you'll understand the ending.

It's like going to see a movie called "Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain" and then looking confused when it ends with a guy pointing at a plank of wood saying "it does exactly what it says on the tin"

lostexpectation

its what allowed them to give an best pic oscar to an action flic

Fringe

I didn't really like it. I also felt the film was very anti-climatic. I didn't like Tommy Lee Jone's character because he seemed too underdeveloped. He was such a cheesy and cliched character and you don't really grow attached to him in anyway. Chigurh's performance was brilliant though but the ending was too weak. Whatever message they did try to send was severely weakened by a poor closure to his character. It just wasn't powerful enough for me to call this a great movie.

Driver 8

As I've said in countless No Country threads, your issue is with Cormac McCarthy, that's how the book ends.

It makes perfect sense as an ending btw, but I've argued that point so often on here. Seems to be a love it/hate it thing.

L31mr0d

L31mr0d wrote: »

what's so hard to understand about the ending?

The easiest way to understand it is to first ask yourself why is the movie called "No country for old men". Once you understand the title, you'll understand the ending.

It's like going to see a movie called "Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain" and then looking confused when it ends with a guy pointing at a plank of wood saying "it does exactly what it says on the tin"

This is one of the best explanations I heard!:)

Lamper.sffc

Still doesnt mean you have to like the job it did on the plank of wood

Karl Hungus

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

Still doesnt mean you have to like the job it did on the plank of wood

Not liking something doesn't mean that it doesn't have a 'proper' ending.

Honestly, it's starting to get annoying at this stage, just because it's not a typical hollywood ending, people hate it. Oh it's the emperor's new clothes, or you're just trying to be clever by liking it. :rolleyes:

Galvasean

If Tommy Lee Jones' character had been more involved in the film his ending narrative might have been more satisfying. The way I see it he was always on the periphery of the film. So when he goes on his 'Poor me, my side of the story etc.' I was left thinking, enough about you, I want to hear from the main players.
That's my take anyhow.

Lamper.sffc

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Not liking something doesn't mean that it doesn't have a 'proper' ending.

Honestly, it's starting to get annoying at this stage, just because it's not a typical hollywood ending, people hate it. Oh it's the emperor's new clothes, or you're just trying to be clever by liking it. :rolleyes:

I love films that dont have the typical hollywood ending. I mentioned house of sand and fog as an example earlier.

But you cant say the ending to NCFOM. matched some of the quality the movie portrayed. As I said it didnt end it just stopped. The ending left you feeling cheated and not because I wanted a happy ending. Give me a bit more credit than that please. Its just an opinion no offence meant.

D.S.

L31mr0d wrote: »

what's so hard to understand about the ending?

The easiest way to understand it is to first ask yourself why is the movie called "No country for old men". Once you understand the title, you'll understand the ending.

It's like going to see a movie called "Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain" and then looking confused when it ends with a guy pointing at a plank of wood saying "it does exactly what it says on the tin"

If you haven't got it by now, reread this post again - twice!

It does exactly what it says on the tin.. tells the story of one mans feeling of distraught between the world he came from and understands and the changing society around him.. simple as..I thought the ending was brilliant...that being said I did have to replay the story at the end twice..

Pigman II

Ardscoil Ris wrote: »

Why does every film have to have a closed ending where the good guy wins.

Because films like that make more money.

thermo66

D.S. wrote: »

If you haven't got it by now, reread this post again - twice!

It does exactly what it says on the tin.. tells the story of one mans feeling of distraught between the world he came from and understands and the changing society around him.. simple as..I thought the ending was brilliant...that being said I did have to replay the story at the end twice..

The ending was crap regardless of it being a 'typical Hollywood ending'.

The best thing about it was Javier Bardem who i must admit played a great psycho but everything else was overhyped cos its a Coen's movie and their supposed to be feted for every movie !! I like some of their movies don't get me wrong. Fargo and Burn After Reading were great but their not without fault.

johnny_ultimate

thermo66 wrote: »

The ending was crap regardless of it being a 'typical Hollywood ending'.

The best thing about it was Javier Bardem who i must admit played a great psycho but everything else was overhyped cos its a Coen's movie and their supposed to be feted for every movie !! I like some of their movies don't get me wrong. Fargo and Burn After Reading were great but their not without fault.

No Country for Old Men wasn't applauded just because its a Coen Brothers film - hell, look at the reactions to their previous two films and you can see that they certainly can do wrong. No, this film was applauded because it was a wonderfully stylised, creepy and intelligent thriller, not because of some misguided ideology that "the Coens are great, just because".

I think L31mr0d summed up the ending perfectly. Yes, the switch between perspectives that occurs following

the murder of Brolin's character

is jarring, but works well given the non-sentimental attitude the story takes towards its characters. This is a bleak story, and the

murder of a pivotal character

should not be treated with some sort of over dramatic bravado just because conventions and expectations dictate it. And most importantly, as pointed out, the main protagonist of the story is Tommy Lee Jones despite others getting heavier amounts of screen time, and it is his part of the story - a sense of resigned hopelessness - that sums up what ultimately emerge as the central themes of the film. The actions of all the other characters are the events that lead up to the realisation of these themes, and as put eloquently by L31mr0d, you just have to look at the title to provide a pretty big hint at the ultimate message of the film.

Lamper.sffc

Look when all is said and done. It just comes down to a matter of opinion. The film for me was good right up until the ending. I get all the themes mentioned. The film didnt confuse me, the end just didnt do it for me, thats all. And its a bit condescending on some peoples part to assume that the people who didnt like the ending didnt get the movie.