No Country for Old Men

[Dristin]

Not sure if this has been discussed here but I just recently saw the movie and was wondering what others thought. I liked the movie except for the ending and the fact that many important events (or what I thought was important) happened off screen. I will not discuss if further as I am new to posting and do not know how to spoiler. Maybe I just missed some things but I thought this movie would be a lot better.

Discuss.

[Otto-Sieve]

I thought it was excellent. Anton Chigurh has established himself as one of the greastest villians in film.

[kamikasei]

To spoiler, wrap the text in {spoiler}blah blah{/spoiler} but with square brackets ( [ ] ) rather than curly. Alternatively, hit "quote" on this post and see how I do it.

Soylent green is people!

I thought the movie was excellent. There were a couple of points that I thought were less clear than they could have been. I also found the actual ending a bit odd:

What was the deal with the car crash? I didn't understand what its purpose in the story was. It didn't seem to affect Chigurh meaningfully - he got hurt, but still walked away with all the money. Was it just supposed to show that he could, in fact, interact with someone without having to then murder (or threaten to murder) them?

[Dallas-Dakota]

Never seen it, never heard of it.


When I saw this thread I thought : You've never been to Chirwa before then.

[Tyrant]

What was the deal with the car crash? I didn't understand what its purpose in the story was. It didn't seem to affect Chigurh meaningfully - he got hurt, but still walked away with all the money. Was it just supposed to show that he could, in fact, interact with someone without having to then murder (or threaten to murder) them?

I think the point was to show that will all of his talk of fate and destiny that even he was bound to the whims of the universe. Even he was subject to random chaotic events. Something like that.

[Rare Pink Leech]

Saw the film and I absolutely loved it. Completely deserved all the Oscars it won. Best movie of 2007 for sure, and I'm tempted to saw it's the best movie of the last five years and maybe even since 2000, although I can't say for sure since I know there's a lot of movies that have come out since then that I don't remember. No Country is definitely among the best if it isn't the best.

I'm reading the book right now, and I'm actually kind of disappointed. That doesn't make any sense - most of the dialogue from the film has been lifted verbatim from the book, and there have been only minor changes to the overall plot. I guess the film's left such an impression on me that it's like I'm reading a book adaptation of the film, instead of the other way around. Which is a shame, since I really can't offer anyone an opinion on the book itself.

[Guancyto]

Saw the film, haven't read the book. But since the one is supposed to be a very, very close adaptation of the other, good enough, right?

I liked most of it a lot, and I'm picky about movies. It really disappointed me, though, in one very important aspect. You can talk about narrator perspectives, allegory and greater meanings until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that they left out the frigging climax of the movie. A five-minute gunfight would've done the trick. They wouldn't even have had to change the ending! *whines*

Other than that, though, very well done.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I loved the ending.

Oh sure, everybody groaned at the end at the so-called "anti-climax." But the protagonist was a prick. He goes all action hero on the villain of the story and gets killed for his all-American bravado, at the expense of his wife's safety no less.

It's a subversion of action movies. Civilians who try to play the gunslinging hero in a crime-ridden environment are really just being *****. It's grim and pessimistic and a lot of fun.

What can the police do about any of it? Nothing. They can just look at the bits of mysterious flaming wreckage afterwards and only wonder at the state of society.

[Guancyto]

I would be more or less in agreement with that, if only they had, y'know, showed it. Or if the protagonist were fully a civilian (it's a pretty reasonable outcome anyway) or if the poh-leace were portrayed as legitimately helpless instead of comically incompetent.

It's effective, mind you, but blunted by a few things. For instance, the deputy at the very, very beginning. It's set in Texas. It's a given he was armed. Of course he's just a mook so he bites it but if you're going for dark and realistic, don't make a scene where your villain should be dead also be his first real action. Or perhaps I should say, don't make your action movie tropes only apply when they benefit the antagonist.

[Tyrant]

I would be more or less in agreement with that, if only they had, y'know, showed it. Or if the protagonist were fully a civilian (it's a pretty reasonable outcome anyway) or if the poh-leace were portrayed as legitimately helpless instead of comically incompetent.

It's effective, mind you, but blunted by a few things. For instance, the deputy at the very, very beginning. It's set in Texas. It's a given he was armed. Of course he's just a mook so he bites it but if you're going for dark and realistic, don't make a scene where your villain should be dead also be his first real action. Or perhaps I should say, don't make your action movie tropes only apply when they benefit the antagonist.

How are the police comically incompotent? Remember, this is taking place in the very early 80s. And why should he be dead exactly? I am going to go out on a limb and assume that part of Texas doesn't see much action (they kind of spell that out in the movie) so to believe he would be prepared to respond appropriately to what had to be a hell of a suprise is being picky. One of the main points is that this level of violence and destruction is a sign of the changing times and the real main character is concluding that he isn't cut out for it. Hence the title.

[Guancyto]

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that part of Texas doesn't see much action (they kind of spell that out in the movie)

Fair enough, but. Texas. Everybody's armed, and self-defense is a relatively pervasive cultural value. It's a hell of a surprise, sure, but he had a lot of time to gurgle and flail around, which was more than enough time to get his gun.

It's a nitpick, mind, but I'm picky. :smallyuk: It's the little things, like the bit with the milk. The sheriff may not have a CSI team on call, but "I arrive at my friend's trailer minutes after the guy hunting him leaves. I have a decent reason to believe the guy hunting him handled a very pristine, very clean glass that would hold fingerprints extremely well. I guess I should take it with my bare hands and, of all things, finish his drink. Maybe watch some TV."

I can see trying and coming up with nothing, since Chigurh is rightly described as a phantom, or the guy trying for his gun and failing, since Chigurh seems fairly strong and reasonably flexible. That helps make him even more threatening, too. The thing is, they don't even bother. That's comically incompetent. :smallbiggrin:

[LurkerInPlayground]

Mind you, the villain could have been anybody. It could have been any ol' shlub that jumped the deputy. The villain is really just a stand-in for any senseless crime that could have been commited by anybody. He's the mysterious boogey-man that the police only catch-up to too late. The criminal who kills with no apparent motive or cause and gets away.

He's a living principle clothed in flesh. That's why he's seemingly invincible and unstoppable. That's why he kills randomly, hence the quarter that he flips. He *is* the violence that crops around the cocaine smuggling and increase in criminal activity. The kind of violence that thinks nothing of strangling a deputy, killing random motorists or stealing drugs out of a pharmacy by blowing up a car. He walks back into the same hotel he just shot-up, where the police were just at, to shoot it up again.

He has no respect for the law and is not bound by them. Appealing to his better nature is a gamble. He might be polite or gracious, or he might simply kill you because he can. Any person you meet might simply be another psychotic killer or a person who will give you money for your shirt.

The violence that kills the protagonist is never seen pretty much because this isn't about high heroism. This is about an average Joe, an otherwise decent person, contributing to his part of the anarchy and destruction out of desperation. You don't see him die, because he's now a part of the inexplicable carnage that the police only arrive at too late.

[Guancyto]

I... actually like that interpretation.

For one, it makes Sugar's name amusingly appropriate. For two, it makes him individually more plausible, since over the course of the story "he" might've been killed, arrested, injured, executed etc. many, many times, but there are always more people to go after millions of dollars. The bit where he offs his boss isn't so much "oh for f's sake, where are the guards? You can't tell me his only bodyguard was an unarmed accountant" as the internal strife he's kicked up trying to reign this thing in coming in and blowing up in his face. Chigurh is a one-man army because, well, he's an army. It also makes the idea that the author is overly enamored with his villain into a situation where he's just a little heavy-handed about the brutality he's portraying, and I can live with that.

I did very much like the subversion of the usual "wow! That guy just beat up Worf/Wolverine/Wells/somebody much better than you like he was nothing! What chance do you have?" which is why I preferred the second half of the movie. Also, they didn't necessarily have to show the climax start to finish. Starting the scene inside (so the next one coming from outside and the police perspective is still fresh and a good contrast), giving Moss a decent fighting chance but in the end, he's off guard and soundly outmatched. Maybe a couple of lingering shots with Chigurh doing something to catch Moss by surprise, then pan up from floor level with the raising of the giant gun... and then cut to the aftermath. I just feel it would've done a lot better, at least on the literal level. You know. :smallwink:

There's this idea floating around that if you put an action hero in a survival horror movie, it becomes an action movie. If you put a normal person as the protagonist in an action movie, does it become survival horror?