[Battalion]

Just watched this film the other day and I thought it was awsome. If the ending had been a bit better, I think it would have been the best film I've ever watched.

Any of you guys seen it?

[Zanth13]

Movie was awesome...

Scariest bad guy,

I thought the ending was great, more realistic

I didnt like how the protagonist go wasted out of screen by nobodies...

[Yellow]

I hated the ending. It felt like they did it just for shock value.

[Zanth13]

Yellow;368272 said:

I hated the ending. It felt like they did it just for shock value.

Isnt it how the book ends?

in which case I would say they didnt just do for shock value

but then again maybe they did.

[tiam]

Yeh its how the book ends. I wasnt sure if he killed the woman simply because she refused to play hhis game but he does. I watched it and thought it was good. Havnt seen There will be blood yet with dan day lewis. his performance is supposed to be brilliant

[HoosierDaddy]

There Will Be Blood is fantastic.

I really enjoyed No Country For Old Men.

[Dr Trouble]

It was a pretty good film. Tommy Lee seems to be knocking back a few timeless roles over the last few years.

What I liked most was the long shots... it made the movie.

(There Will Be Blood is good, but in a different way)

[Morgoth]

Zanth13;368267 said:

Movie was awesome...

Scariest bad guy,

I thought the ending was great, more realistic

I didnt like how the protagonist go wasted out of screen by nobodies...

The protagonist isn't Llewelyn, it's Tommy Lee Jones, thus the off scene death is hardly that shocking

[frookenhauer]

I thought the movie was excellent most of the way through and was seriously let down by a weak ending.

The hero is killed offscreen, what? Why waste a perfectly good shootout. idiots

And Tommy lee at the end, I had this dream and...Can it old man, nobody cares.

Yep totally ruined it for me, couldn't give a crap for shock ending especially as it wasn't one. ruination, damnation and hellfire.

[amphibian]

I've read durn near the entirety of McCarthy's works and own several. I absolutely loved this movie adaptation and bought the DVD. It was faithful to the book and every scene was shot and performed at an extremely high level.

frookenhauer;368355 said:

I thought the movie was excellent most of the way through and was seriously let down by a weak ending. [...] And Tommy lee at the end, I had this dream and...Can it old man, nobody cares.

Yep totally ruined it for me, couldn't give a crap for shock ending especially as it wasn't one. ruination, damnation and hellfire.

I'm not surprised to see people say stuff like this. Cormac McCarthy is not someone who appeals mightily to everyone. I find that it's the younger crowd that hasn't read McCarthy or experienced anyone like him that hates this movie.

In the book, there are long asides as Sheriff Bell comments on his growing disconnect with the violence and different morality that Chigurh and the gangs are bringing to his area. They make the ending more conventional, but do slow down the book some.

The movie left out most of the asides, but watch it again. Almost every scene with Tommy involves him talking about an older time, about how things done changed (for the worse) and how he's not able or willing to change along with the criminals to keep doing his job.

Quote

The hero is killed offscreen, what? Why waste a perfectly good shootout. idiots

Was Llewellyn a hero? Did the movie need another shootout? Despite the bodies on the ground, nothing happened to the money, Bell or Chigurh, so why show it?

[frookenhauer]

amphibian;368357 said:

I'm not surprised to see people say stuff like this. Cormac McCarthy is not someone who appeals mightily to everyone. I find that it's the younger crowd that hasn't read McCarthy or experienced anyone like him that hates this movie.

I think hate is too hard a word for such a floppy ending. So what you're saying is that to appreciate the movie, you had to read the book, and be able to appreciate it for its lack of love for what modernisation brings us in terms of societies criminal element? It sounds like the movie cannot stand on its own merit, or am I just reading you wrong?

If I mistook Llewellyn to be the hero, my mistake, its just the whole movie pivots on his action/s and all the action follows him around the country. I must be getting slow in my youth . Its funny, I haven't been asked for ID in almost a decade, but thanks for the thought.

As an aside, I do appreciate some of the message. If all you do on a daily basis is deal with the dark side of what modernisation has brought us, then the moment you consider that you cannot / will not handle it, then its time to git.

And yes the movie could really have done with another firefight, just so we can see how the not-hero llewellyn meets his end and what the lady by the pool said to make those pesky Mexicans waste her.

And tommy, I say tommy my man, you don't have to change yourself to be able to deal with the new generation of criminals, just buy weaponry with a much higher rate of fire

[Christopher]

frookenhauer;368370 said:

I think hate is too hard a word for such a floppy ending. So what you're saying is that to appreciate the movie, you had to read the book, and be able to appreciate it for its lack of love for what modernisation brings us in terms of societies criminal element? It sounds like the movie cannot stand on its own merit, or am I just reading you wrong?

If I mistook Llewellyn to be the hero, my mistake, its just the whole movie pivots on his action/s and all the action follows him around the country. I must be getting slow in my youth . Its funny, I haven't been asked for ID in almost a decade, but thanks for the thought.

As an aside, I do appreciate some of the message. If all you do on a daily basis is deal with the dark side of what modernisation has brought us, then the moment you consider that you cannot / will not handle it, then its time to git.

And yes the movie could really have done with another firefight, just so we can see how the not-hero llewellyn meets his end and what the lady by the pool said to make those pesky Mexicans waste her.

And tommy, I say tommy my man, you don't have to change yourself to be able to deal with the new generation of criminals, just buy weaponry with a much higher rate of fire

It might be overstating things to imply that Lywellyn isn't a hero of the story, he has a huge part and naturally his story deserves an ending. And we get that, he dies in a motel room, on the run and far from his loved ones. I think that's what McCarthy (and as mentioned before this movie is very faithful to his work) was trying to say. That the violence just keeps going on and on. This shoot out was no more spectacular or noteworthy than any number of other shoot outs where other people died.

It may have added a sense of completeness to see Lywellyn's demise, in the standard conflict/resolution manner, but ultimately this was the sheriff's story. What made this particular case noteworthy to him was that it was the one that finally made him feel that things had passed him by. He tells stories of some law officers not even carrying guns, respect used to be enough. He laments that the world started changing when you stopped hearing sir and ma'am. But as the story his uncle tells him about the violent and callous death of his great-uncle, it wasn't so much that the world got so much worse, it was that he didn't know how to deal with it any longer.

Don't mean to pick on anyone in particular here, but in general most people complain about how there's never anything good out there anymore, never anything original. Then when something like this movie comes out and doesn't follow standard form, it gets knocked for being unsatisfactory. I remember when Copland first came out, some review noted that the ending in particular was great. I was expecting something at least a little out of the ordinary, if not extraordinary, but in the end it was just another shoot out. Same with other crime movies like Heat or State of Grace. Movies that I thought were great but ending with the same old shoot out. For me it seems like a cop out, the movie has to end some way so trot out the fire power. I'm not saying that this ending was genius or that if it doesn't appeal to someone that they just don't get it, but it's a different way. The fact that we don't see Llywellen die or find out what happens to Chigaurh makes us realize that sometimes those are just details in the wider scope. The effects of the violence are the real story.

And I don't think reading the book gives anymore details than the movie (besides making the woman Llywellyn is with at the end more relevant to the story) The story is basically the same, just a different medium. If the movie ending was unsatisfactory, the book ending wouldn't be anymore enlightening.

[Yellow]

Zanth13;368275 said:

Isnt it how the book ends?

in which case I would say they didnt just do for shock value

but then again maybe they did.

I didn't realise it was a book first. I guess it was the author that did it for shock value, then.

[Tapper]

There was, in my opinion, no need for showing the shootout. A guy gets finished by a couple of gangsters with automatic weapons - the sprays of blood, screaming and devastation would have had no place in this movie - in all the other scenes there was tension, cat-and-mouseplay and narrow escapes - there was none here, just slaughter.

I think the view of Llewellyn as a hero comes mainly out of the need to identify yourself with someone in the movie - same reason why everyone I know roots for Blondie in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, despite him being at best the best of the bunch, but by no means a flawless hero. Llewellyn finds a shitload of cash, knows it is drugsmoney and gambles with his life and that of his lady for it.
Hardly heroic, opportunistic is probably a better description.

[frookenhauer]

Christopher;368396 said:

It may have added a sense of completeness to see Lywellyn's demise, in the standard conflict/resolution manner, but ultimately this was the sheriff's story... But as the story his uncle tells him about the violent and callous death of his great-uncle, it wasn't so much that the world got so much worse, it was that he didn't know how to deal with it any longer.

Don't mean to pick on anyone in particular here, but in general most people complain about how there's never anything good out there anymore, never anything original. Then when something like this movie comes out and doesn't follow standard form, it gets knocked for being unsatisfactory... The fact that we don't see Llywellen die or find out what happens to Chigaurh makes us realize that sometimes those are just details in the wider scope. The effects of the violence are the real story...

Completeness is one reason, the need to be a part of Llewellyns last moments is another, I liked the Guy, spent the best part of two hours hoping he'd beat the odds, the end left me feeling cheated. I get the fact that the sherriff just doesn't know how to deal with things anymore, he's old and rapid fire machine guns would just make his arthritis play up, totally get it .

And while I am with you on the whole originality argument and the need for people to complain etc. No country for old men is an excellent character driven piece of work: The most Intense bad guy I've seen until the Joker. Llewellyns character is brilliant, everyones got a little piece of Llewellyn in them. And the sherriff, well Tommy played the part excellently and all... The key point to remember is that it is a character driven piece. Chigaurh and Llewellyn are not details in the wider scope of the story, they are the story. I felt that chigaurgh had a good sendoff, it looks like he made it out, for now, and Llewellyn - I've come full circle.

[Christopher]

frookenhauer;368439 said:

Completeness is one reason, the need to be a part of Llewellyns last moments is another, I liked the Guy, spent the best part of two hours hoping he'd beat the odds, the end left me feeling cheated. I get the fact that the sherriff just doesn't know how to deal with things anymore, he's old and rapid fire machine guns would just make his arthritis play up, totally get it .

And while I am with you on the whole originality argument and the need for people to complain etc. No country for old men is an excellent character driven piece of work: The most Intense bad guy I've seen until the Joker. Llewellyns character is brilliant, everyones got a little piece of Llewellyn in them. And the sherriff, well Tommy played the part excellently and all... The key point to remember is that it is a character driven piece. Chigaurh and Llewellyn are not details in the wider scope of the story, they are the story. I felt that chigaurgh had a good sendoff, it looks like he made it out, for now, and Llewellyn - I've come full circle.

Yeah, its definitely a stylist choice with McCarthy, very jarring, offering glimpses of action while denying stuff that other writers consider essential to the story. Its up to interpretation but IMO both McCarthy and the Coens wrote the endings to deny the fan the sense of completeness that seeing Llwellyn and Carla Jean's deaths would provide. Gratuitous violence shouldn't give closure. Instead they trail off with a sense of melancholy, no glorious endings just senseless death and destruction. Then the shock of the car crash, showing that those that cause misery aren't immune from it. And then Ed Tom trying and failing to find any meaning to it all.

[amphibian]

frookenhauer;368370 said:

I think hate is too hard a word for such a floppy ending. So what you're saying is that to appreciate the movie, you had to read the book, and be able to appreciate it for its lack of love for what modernisation brings us in terms of societies criminal element? It sounds like the movie cannot stand on its own merit, or am I just reading you wrong?

You do not have to read the book. Both have the same essence, but slightly different flavors, if you get what I mean. The characters of many McCarthy books deal constantly with the disjoint between what they're comfortable with or know and the changes that their visible future is going to force them to make.

frookenhauer;368439 said:

Completeness is one reason, the need to be a part of Llewellyns last moments is another, I liked the Guy, spent the best part of two hours hoping he'd beat the odds, the end left me feeling cheated.

This is what I was after. This is a solid reason for disliking an element of the movie (and the book too, 'cause it's left out there too). I chose to view it as a forceful reminder of why the story is called No Country For Old Men and as a sign of McCarthy's and the Coen brothers' talents that we care about Llewellyn enough to be pissed.

Quote

And while I am with you on the whole originality argument and the need for people to complain etc. No country for old men is an excellent character driven piece of work: The most Intense bad guy I've seen until the Joker. Llewellyns character is brilliant, everyones got a little piece of Llewellyn in them. And the sherriff, well Tommy played the part excellently and all... The key point to remember is that it is a character driven piece. Chigaurh and Llewellyn are not details in the wider scope of the story, they are the story. I felt that chigaurgh had a good sendoff, it looks like he made it out, for now, and Llewellyn - I've come full circle.

The book somehow depicts Chigurh as more than human: he's a force or an embodiment of violent change that lives by its own rules. I thought the movie did a pretty good job of making him super-intense, but purposely chose not to go that far.

If you thought Chigurh was interesting, read Blood Meridian and meet the Judge, who is one of the most vivid characters ever written. Ridley Scott is directing the film adaptation (due sometime in 2009), and due to the intense violence within, it's probably going to be NC-17 or a very, very hard R.

[Battalion]

I got to take 'sides' with Frookenhauer, here. His views on the movie are basically the same as mine. When you grow to like a person in a film, it isn't enough to say 'he was shot, and died, so you don't need to watch that scene,' because that is just outright wrong. It's like saying: we're going to film King Kong, but we're skipping the part at the end with the skyscraper, coz he's only going to end up falling off it. We'll show his corpse at the bottom instead, that'll give the audience greater enjoyment.'

My point is, Llewellyn was such a badass character, that I would of liked to see a confrontation between him, and the villian, Chiguarh. The scene when they speak on the phone, 'I've just made you my own special project ... you ain't got to worry about looking for me,' was wicked. I found myself picturing the forthcoming battle between these two bad boys, and then pow! He gets wacked by a bunch of nobodies because his dumbass mother-in-law couldn't stop jawing.

The fact is, I wanted to know would would of won if they had fought to the end. Somewhat childish, I guess, but there you go.

[amphibian]

Battalion;368691 said:

The fact is, I wanted to know would would of won if they had fought to the end. Somewhat childish, I guess, but there you go.

Chigurh would have killed Llewellyn. The whole point of the story was that nobody could stop him from doing what he wanted to do, and he wanted that money in his hands.

[frookenhauer]

Battalion;368691 said:

It's like saying: we're going to film King Kong, but we're skipping the part at the end with the skyscraper, coz he's only going to end up falling off it. We'll show his corpse at the bottom instead, that'll give the audience greater enjoyment.

This is essentially what I was driving at, but put far more poetically than my hard used brain cells could have managed . Cheers for backing me up here Bat, the enemy had me in a crossfire...BTW unless LLewellyn managed to set up a decent trap for Chiguarh, he'd be meat.

amphibian;368486 said:

You do not have to read the book. Both have the same essence, but slightly different flavors, if you get what I mean. The characters of many McCarthy books deal constantly with the disjoint between what they're comfortable with or know and the changes that their visible future is going to force them to make.

I was just yanking your chain with that one dude. My problem is that I am a pretty bloodthirsty dude, not gratuitous violence on its own, but in conjunction with a good storyline, I'm happyfied. Great movie until the marmite ending, I don't like marmite.

Christopher;368475 said:

Its up to interpretation but IMO both McCarthy and the Coens wrote the endings to deny the fan the sense of completeness that seeing Llwellyn and Carla Jean's deaths would provide. Gratuitous violence shouldn't give closure. Instead they trail off with a sense of melancholy, no glorious endings just senseless death and destruction. Then the shock of the car crash, showing that those that cause misery aren't immune from it. And then Ed Tom trying and failing to find any meaning to it all.

Failing to give completeness is not a good thing, no matter how you dress up the reasons...

I do not think I can come up with any new arguments without rehashing my old ones, my originality only stretches so far ...Can't wait for the next movie, I just hope they give it a fantabulous ending Cheers