I saw it w/ a few people who hadn't read the book, and they were asking me questions about what actually happened in a few crucial scenes, which isn't a good sign.
onetet, i got one too...
kind of spoiler:
at the end of the film, what was the deal when tommy lee went into the hotel room where bardem was hiding? seemed like bardem was in there at one moment, then gone the next... was he just hiding behind the door?
My take was that he escaped out the window.
My take--and I'll admit that I may be reaching:
The sheriff's car, headlights on, was directly in front of rooms 112 and 114, both of which were cordoned off with police tape. It's conceivable that the headlights were shining through both knocked-out locks (were both knocked out?) and that the sheriff was outside of 112 in one shot, and that Anton was in 114, lying on the bed.
I really loved this movie, but I'm a huge Coen Brothers fan. It's the little things in the dialog that always kill me. Those are also the things that make me wanna see their movies more than once--and I'm not a "watch this over and over" kinda guy.
The sheriff's car, headlights on, was directly in front of rooms 112 and 114, both of which were cordoned off with police tape. It's conceivable that the headlights were shining through both knocked-out locks (were both knocked out?) and that the sheriff was outside of 112 in one shot, and that Anton was in 114, lying on the bed.
I don't think it's a stretch at all, since it was my first thought once the scene was over, too. Either that or he slipped out the door while TLJ was checking the bathroom, but that wasn't really Anton's style - I think if he had been in the same room as TLJ he woud have confronted him, especially since he had the drop on him.
It didn't bother me so much, although open-ended films always are a shock to the system. sometimes i really like that though. the open-ending of that Sayles flick "Limbo" actually made me paranoid and gave me an anxiety dream that same night. that ending haunted me bad.
but No Country wasn't really a shock to my system, it just ended abruptly and had no bearing on me whatsoever. i think i almost expected that though because after the protagonist got offed, subsequently all these other folk were getting offed as well (wifey, moms). i think that first one (Llewelyn's) was a shock for sure - cause the mouse never gets caught in a cat-n-mouse plot. but it wasn't the cat that got him so that added to the shock as well. you either expect the cat to get the mouse or the mouse to get away, you don't expect a bunch of hidden thugs to come out of nowhere and snipe your dude. so once that happened, it was the exact moment i realized that anything can happen now including an open ending and a bunch of chaos and senseless deaths. that's kind of the point though? Anton's car accident scene after a senseless killing was a moment of chaos. after the Llewelyn death i figured this was not going to be a typical formulaic outcome. the overall jarring quality of this movie is probably one of the main reason why i love it. i also loved its meandering pace and the quiet moments of tension that weirdly also felt kind of serene. there's practically no music in this flick and i loved that silence. those shots of the desert horizon were breathtaking and then you see the shadows of some dudes who want to kill you far in the distance and it's like oh shit. this movie made me paranoid as fuck, like a good thriller should.
josh brolin turned out a great performance. i'm surprised. yeah, bardem is a badass and convincingly menacing, but i think brolin really killed it. it's so much easier to play villains anyway.
josh brolin turned out a great performance. i'm surprised. yeah, bardem is a badass and convincingly menacing, but i think brolin really killed it. it's so much easier to play villains anyway.
Yes, and he wins you over as the film progresses - his opening scenes are not the most endearing, as you see him ignore the dying man in the pickup and being fairly gruff to his wife ... but as the movie goes on and you see what he goes through and how he deals with it, you really come to sympathize with him - which all culminates in the phone scene where he declares that he is now the hunter and will take Anton out ... this is where they flip the conventional action film on it's head, because you get a rush when he says that, and you WANT him to get Anton, and if you don't know the story you are probably pretty sure he will ... and maybe he would have, who can say? But they masterfuly have you buy into that scene, expecting him to turn the tables and come out alive, making his death such a hard thing to accept.
At first I was irked by some of the scenes toward the end, especially the car wreck, which was so predictable it seemed almost silly. And the choppy nature of the final scenes of dialog seemed to be far too abstract, even for the Coens.
But, later, thinking about Bell's description of his dreams, and remembering that the film is set in the early 1980s, I realized that this was a film about Vietnam and its subtle repurcussions: what it did to men (those who fought and those who did not)??????how it transformed them, hardened them, desenstized them, aged them, and deprived them of God. Plus, the heroine trade, which fed a nation-wide epidemic born in the war.
So, I think the "country" in "No Country for Old Men" refers to America after Vietnam.
(But I haven't read the book. For those of you who have, what's your take?)
So, I think the "country" in "No Country for Old Men" refers to America after Vietnam.
(But I haven't read the book. For those of you who have, what's your take?)
It also shares a mood with a lot of late 70s movies that did just that, so I think you may be right.
That would also make since as McCarthy's next book The Road basically looks at a grim, post-apocalyptic America, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think he's suggesting that's where Bush, Cheney and co. are "leading" us.
So, I think the "country" in "No Country for Old Men" refers to America after Vietnam.
(But I haven't read the book. For those of you who have, what's your take?)
It also shares a mood with a lot of late 70s movies that did just that, so I think you may be right.
That would also make since as McCarthy's next book The Road basically looks at a grim, post-apocalyptic America, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think he's suggesting that's where Bush, Cheney and co. are "leading" us.
i think its probably a lot broader than that, this kind of OMG direct parallel to current events! stuff seems kind of heavy handed ... it seems a lot more about change in general (it was also at the beginnings of the drug trade really taking off and since drug money is what sets off the whole ordeal its easy to argue its more about that than vietnam) but broadly i think its just about issues of mortality/aging in the face of a changing same
So, I think the "country" in "No Country for Old Men" refers to America after Vietnam.
(But I haven't read the book. For those of you who have, what's your take?)
It also shares a mood with a lot of late 70s movies that did just that, so I think you may be right.
That would also make since as McCarthy's next book The Road basically looks at a grim, post-apocalyptic America, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think he's suggesting that's where Bush, Cheney and co. are "leading" us.
i think its probably a lot broader than that, this kind of OMG direct parallel to current events! stuff seems kind of heavy handed ... it seems a lot more about change in general (it was also at the beginnings of the drug trade really taking off and since drug money is what sets off the whole ordeal its easy to argue its more about that than vietnam) but broadly i think its just about issues of mortality/aging in the face of a changing same
I got something of the same feel. The sherrif was getting old and couldn't keep up with the changes. He faced evil and it got away, so he retired, hence no country for old men.
Right, both your points are well-taken, but not mutually exclusive with what the other poster was saying...
It's about aging and not fitting in as well in a changing world -- and it also casts a sad glance on particular ways in which that world was changing (post-Vietnam) that continue to haunt us today.
Right, both your points are well-taken, but not mutually exclusive with what the other poster was saying...
It's about aging and not fitting in as well in a changing world -- and it also casts a sad glance on particular ways in which that world was changing (post-Vietnam) that continue to haunt us today.
I agree. All these themes apply. But, yes, I do think that there are some deliberate references to this particular war, or at least the Cold War, as a watershed -- some obvious, and some subtle.
...but broadly i think its just about issues of mortality/aging in the face of a changing same
I got something of the same feel. The sherrif was getting old and couldn't keep up with the changes. He faced evil and it got away, so he retired, hence no country for old men.
I don't agree that it's just with age and experience that we become desensitized to human carnage ("That's a dead dog!" or "They even shot the dog"), or torture and mass murder (the story of the couple in California). It's more than that. That's why I like to think that the Coens (and McCarthy?) are making a comment on a specificly transformative period in American history. And maybe they know that we've begun to take that past for granted.
Right, both your points are well-taken, but not mutually exclusive with what the other poster was saying...
It's about aging and not fitting in as well in a changing world -- and it also casts a sad glance on particular ways in which that world was changing (post-Vietnam) that continue to haunt us today.
I agree. All these themes apply. But, yes, I do think that there are some deliberate references to this particular war, or at least the Cold War, as a watershed -- some obvious, and some subtle.
...but broadly i think its just about issues of mortality/aging in the face of a changing same
I got something of the same feel. The sherrif was getting old and couldn't keep up with the changes. He faced evil and it got away, so he retired, hence no country for old men.
I don't agree that it's just with age and experience that we become desensitized to human carnage ("That's a dead dog!" or "They even shot the dog"), or torture and mass murder (the story of the couple in California). It's more than that. That's why I like to think that the Coens (and McCarthy?) are making a comment on a specificly transformative period in American history. And maybe they know that we've begun to take that past for granted.
I agree with this. But yeah, there are certainly some refrences to what we would today consider more benign cultural shifts like when the one retired cop was talking about kids walking around with blue hair and bones through their noses. But I think indirectly the movie is trying to discern or ask if these characters are just just getting old and out of it, or if there are far more grim and significant changes coming.
yeah i don't agree, actually, about 'taking the past for granted.' The coens are careful not to spell anything out so easily, and imply as much when he talks to the older man who tells him the story of the men who watched a man die while his wife tried to stop the bleeding, then reveals that it happened in the early 20th century ... i don't think they're trying to simply say 'things were nicer way back when'
yeah i don't agree, actually, about 'taking the past for granted.' The coens are careful not to spell anything out so easily, and imply as much when he talks to the older man who tells him the story of the men who watched a man die while his wife tried to stop the bleeding, then reveals that it happened in the early 20th century ... i don't think they're trying to simply say 'things were nicer way back when'
Right, I'm less sure about the Coens because even having watched most of their movies more than once I don't really have much of a sense of what ideological/sociological perspective they might have. But if you read McCarthy's novel No Country and the follow-up, The Road, together, he seems to be trying to say that our society is headed to a very bleak place (if not outright apocalypse) where it's every man for himself -- and it's not even "survival of the fittest," but random, chaotic violence lurking around every corner.
I think he's also charting -- sometimes explicity, sometimes implicity -- the path that took us there -- illegitimate wars; the implications of heroin, crack, and the resultant drug war on our economy and our morality; etc etc.
yeah i don't agree, actually, about 'taking the past for granted.' The coens are careful not to spell anything out so easily, and imply as much when he talks to the older man who tells him the story of the men who watched a man die while his wife tried to stop the bleeding, then reveals that it happened in the early 20th century ... i don't think they're trying to simply say 'things were nicer way back when'
I did like it though I found "Fargo" more satisfying (if not equally dark). Bardiem and Brolin were both fantastic and while I liked Tommy Lee, I feel like this is a role I've seen him do about 1000 times so it's a bit overly familiar. That's not a knock but it was harder to feel brought in by his character. I just kept thinking, "oh, it's Tommy Lee Sherriff."
The wife dies. That's in the book but even without reading it, the fact that Bardiem checks his shoes is a - no pun intended - dead giveaway. The car crash - predictable as it might have been - was in the book so you can't necessarily lay that one on the Coen Bros.
I did like the changes they made to the script in regards to how the wife dies. In the book, the death is "on screen" so to say and she's a lot less stoic about it and basically, you feel a lot, lot worse for her. The movie, she's basically, "I don't want to die but you know what? Fuck you."
Overall, I don't know if I was blown the fuck away by this, in terms of filmmaking, but it was very well executed. I'm more interested in seeing "Devil Knows your Dead" now since someone, coming out of this film, was saying how that was a superior flick.
"Devil Knows your Dead" now since someone, coming out of this film, was saying how that was a superior flick.
I thought "Before The Devil Knows Your Dead" was the inferior film. If it had focused entirely on Philip Seymour Hoffmans character (he is incredible in the role) it could have been a truly great movie. Instead, largely because the ensemble cast and pulp fiction style structure (why?), it was really incohesive and almost felt pointless. Some really fuckin great moments (really really great), but it didnt feel like the work of a master director. It was shot terribly and several scenes felt straight from film school - from the photography to the acting.
No Country for Old Men on the otherhand, I thought was pretty great. A couple of weak points here and there, but the acting, diologue, and direction were pretty superb. Great tension, lots of "oh shit!" moments, and great humor. My eyes were glued to the screen.
That being said, the truly great scenes from BTDKYD have stuck with me more than NCFOM's.
yeah i don't agree, actually, about 'taking the past for granted.' The coens are careful not to spell anything out so easily, and imply as much when he talks to the older man who tells him the story of the men who watched a man die while his wife tried to stop the bleeding, then reveals that it happened in the early 20th century ... i don't think they're trying to simply say 'things were nicer way back when'
Right, this movie is not about any specific period or war, it's about the nature of man, good versus evil, the existence of God, and all that good stuff.
I thought the movie was brilliant. It was exactly what I thought it would be, which is rare.
The acting, cinematography and dialogue (and lack thereof) really made for an incredible film. I've avoided this thread for over a week and it's been interesting to see everyone's interpretations of the story.
It's only a MacGuffin and I don't think it's important, but it would be nice to know where it went.
We could only assume the Mexicans who killed llewelyn at the hotel took it? Were they the same Mexicans who met his wife and mother in law at the airport? Or a different bunch of guys? And what happened at the airport... one minute the Mexican man in the suit is taking grandma's bags and then.. what happened next?
Maybe it actually is crucial to know where the money went. The Sheriff does notice the screws loose on the floor in the hotel. Is it a similar air vent as the previous hotel room - it was unclear to me in the dark shot - but I assume the Sheriff knows the money was taken. He knows if the money was taken then the hit man will continue killing until he retrieves it and he'll either have to get involved to stop him or continuing avoiding the issue.
That's one thing that doesn't sit right for me... it seems to all come down to him and whether he is going to take a stand against evil or not. But he doesn't seem to be present enough throughout the film to give it the, how do you say, the gravitus that it should have. But it was rather confusing towards the end plus you have no idea it's going to end with him talking about his dream so you are completely thrown for a loop and left thinking about 5 different things all at once.
I think it will be a lot clearer on a second or third viewing. Although, I'm not sure Barton Fink was ever crystal for me.
Javier Bardem took it. Hence Tommy Lee Jones finding the open vent with a dime next to the screws.
Wha?! So are we to believe the Mexican gang came and killed llewelyn and took off but DIDN'T take the money? Why did they tear ass out of there so fast? Was Bardem there also? That does make sense he took it though, since he unscrewed the vent earlier, and, while finding nothing, he saw the drag marks and knew that's where the satchel had been not long before so he knew to look in the future.
Javier Bardem took it. Hence Tommy Lee Jones finding the open vent with a dime next to the screws.
Wha?! So are we to believe the Mexican gang came and killed llewelyn and took off but DIDN'T take the money? Why did they tear ass out of there so fast? Was Bardem there also? That does make sense he took it though, since he unscrewed the vent earlier, and, while finding nothing, he saw the drag marks and knew that's where the satchel had been not long before so he knew to look in the future.
I'm gonna have to get the book and read it ASAP.
The money was hidden in the vent. The bandits didn't know that but took off after being shot at. When Tommy Lee Jones came back the lock had been blown out. Javier (I guess) escaped out the back window with the money.
was anyone else kind of irked about woody harrelsons character spotting the money at the mexican/us border?
No, because, first off, he was supposed to be skilled. He would easily learn where the mariachis had found Llewelyn, and figure that he must have stashed the bag somewhere between the border and that spot, which wasn't far. They cut right to it, but another thing that was constantly reinforced throughout the film was that no matter how confident and shrewd Llewelyn was, he was ultimately incompetent and in way over his head, getting found immediately by everyone looking for him: Chigurh, Woody, and the Mexicans.
The other thing about the money being found was what I considered one of the better bits of cinematic trickery in the film - the way that the area Llewelyn threw the bag looked in the dark - to Llewelyn and the viewer - like thickly settled growth, and when he threw it down it seemed to disappear among trees. In the light of day, you could see it was just some light brush and the bag was completely exposed, a horrible place to stash it except that it was inaccesible. The fact that Woody didn't collect it and get out immediately was suspect, but I guess just spoke to his cocky attitude finally being his downfall. Chigurh even said the same when doubting Woody telling him that he had found the money: "if you had, you would have it with you."
I read the book and as expected it was enlightening as far as the somewhat economized last 1/4 of the movie where a lot of things happen and you have to deduce to some degree how and why they happened.
The money left in vent still might bug me some, I guess in the movie we assume there was a shootout and they kill Moss but they don't have time to look for the money because the cops are arriving. The cops don't find the money because they assume the bandits probably took off with it. In the book everyone is killed or injured so it might be kind of a plot hole that the cops wouldn't find the money in the vent if they knew there was not a 'last man standing' as they deduced at the start of the book.
Book / Movie (many spoilers for book and movie!) -
An amazingly good and economical adaption. They should get an oscar nom if not win for it I would think. They conveniently found ways to allow TLJ's to deliver the soliloquies in the book as regular dialog by putting him in various average every day situations and locations (talking to his deputy, etc). They also followed the ratio of scenes with Moss, Ed Bell, and Chigurh pretty closely as well even though they had to change it up here and there.
Not that many changes, but a few significant and non-significant ones:
Interesting they felt the need to explain the pneumatic cattle prod to the audience towards the end of the movie, which was probably a good move.
The coin flip refusal versus outright losing. That's a pretty big difference when coupled with the fact that she more likely believes she was given up on by Llewelyn since she thinks he died while shacked up with a teenage girl in the book. She gets to be brave and more dignified in the movie scene by refusing to even call it.
The sheriff going to the crime scene at the hotel. In the book the way he feels that Chiguhr is there but refuses to confront him directly reinforces the beginning and end of the book. That an old guy, and maybe just a scared guy, can't cut it against real evil. He slips out, calls for backup, and let's Chigurh slip away. Whereas in the movie we get the benefit of the doubt that he IS brave enough to confront him, but Chigurh allows him to live and slips away.
A question on the final dream: Are we to believe the dream means he thinks he's going to hell for not standing up? That seems to be what other parts of the book are leading up to. The imagery is somewhat ambigious.. on an actual cold Texas plain, seeing your dad carrying some fire and going to meet him might be comforting. But on a more metaphysical plain, the fire and the meeting with said fire probably means hell (?).
Enjoy the Road. I've been on a major McCarthy kick this fall...'Blood Meridian,' 'The Crossing,' and 'City of the Plain,' are all crossed off the list, and I'm reading, 'No Country...' right now before seeing the movie. (I have some thoughts on this one, by the way, for a book thread.)
Anyway, I seriously think that 'The Road,' might be my favorite McCarthy book. It is the book (save his early works, and I plan on reading at least 'Suttree,' before this jag is through...) that has the most emotional weight. Having read 'All the Pretty Horses,' and 'Cities of the Plain,' he is SOMEWHAT capable of investing John Grady Cole with some emotion, but nothing compares to the father-son love story of 'The Road,' for sheer emotional power.
Damn, that book was somethin' else.
As for, 'No Country...' As many book critics said, it is a lot more pulpy than his other efforts. But, damn, Moss' inner-monologue is fuckin' funny. It is readily apparent why the Coen bros. jumped on this one.
A question on the final dream: Are we to believe the dream means he thinks he's going to hell for not standing up? That seems to be what other parts of the book are leading up to. The imagery is somewhat ambigious.. on an actual cold Texas plain, seeing your dad carrying some fire and going to meet him might be comforting. But on a more metaphysical plain, the fire and the meeting with said fire probably means hell (?).
I didn't read the book so I don't now what the author's original intent was with the dream. But just my take from the movie was that the dream about his dad was another sign that he was aging and probably thought his time was running up and that he would soon be dying and seeing his dad. He was following the flame of his dead dad to the afterlife or something.
Comments
My take--and I'll admit that I may be reaching:
The sheriff's car, headlights on, was directly in front of rooms 112 and 114, both of which were cordoned off with police tape. It's conceivable that the headlights were shining through both knocked-out locks (were both knocked out?) and that the sheriff was outside of 112 in one shot, and that Anton was in 114, lying on the bed.
I really loved this movie, but I'm a huge Coen Brothers fan. It's the little things in the dialog that always kill me. Those are also the things that make me wanna see their movies more than once--and I'm not a "watch this over and over" kinda guy.
I don't think it's a stretch at all, since it was my first
thought once the scene was over, too. Either that or he slipped
out the door while TLJ was checking the bathroom, but that wasn't
really Anton's style - I think if he had been in the same room
as TLJ he woud have confronted him, especially since he had the
drop on him.
It didn't bother me so much, although open-ended
films always are a shock to the system.
sometimes i really like that though. the open-ending of that Sayles flick "Limbo" actually made me paranoid and gave me an anxiety dream that same night. that ending haunted me bad.
but No Country wasn't really a shock to my system, it just ended abruptly and had no bearing on me whatsoever. i think i almost expected that though because after the protagonist got offed, subsequently all these other folk were getting offed as well (wifey, moms). i think that first one (Llewelyn's) was a shock for sure - cause the mouse never gets caught in a cat-n-mouse plot. but it wasn't the cat that got him so that added to the shock as well. you either expect the cat to get the mouse or the mouse to get away, you don't expect a bunch of hidden thugs to come out of nowhere and snipe your dude. so once that happened, it was the exact moment i realized that anything can happen now including an open ending and a bunch of chaos and senseless deaths. that's kind of the point though? Anton's car accident scene after a senseless killing was a moment of chaos. after the Llewelyn death i figured this was not going to be a typical formulaic outcome. the overall jarring quality of this movie is probably one of the main reason why i love it. i also loved its meandering pace and the quiet moments of tension that weirdly also felt kind of serene. there's practically no music in this flick and i loved that silence. those shots of the desert horizon were breathtaking and then you see the shadows of some dudes who want to kill you far in the distance and it's like oh shit. this movie made me paranoid as fuck, like a good thriller should.
josh brolin turned out a great performance. i'm surprised. yeah, bardem is a badass and convincingly menacing, but i think brolin really killed it. it's so much easier to play villains anyway.
Yes, and he wins you over as the film progresses - his opening
scenes are not the most endearing, as you see him ignore the dying
man in the pickup and being fairly gruff to his wife ... but as the
movie goes on and you see what he goes through and how he deals with
it, you really come to sympathize with him - which all culminates in
the phone scene where he declares that he is now the hunter and will
take Anton out ... this is where they flip the conventional action film
on it's head, because you get a rush when he says that, and you WANT him
to get Anton, and if you don't know the story you are probably pretty
sure he will ... and maybe he would have, who can say? But they masterfuly
have you buy into that scene, expecting him to turn the tables and come
out alive, making his death such a hard thing to accept.
But, later, thinking about Bell's description of his dreams, and remembering that the film is set in the early 1980s, I realized that this was a film about Vietnam and its subtle repurcussions: what it did to men (those who fought and those who did not)??????how it transformed them, hardened them, desenstized them, aged them, and deprived them of God. Plus, the heroine trade, which fed a nation-wide epidemic born in the war.
So, I think the "country" in "No Country for Old Men" refers to America after Vietnam.
(But I haven't read the book. For those of you who have, what's your take?)
It also shares a mood with a lot of late 70s movies that did just that, so I think you may be right.
That would also make since as McCarthy's next book The Road basically looks at a grim, post-apocalyptic America, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think he's suggesting that's where Bush, Cheney and co. are "leading" us.
i think its probably a lot broader than that, this kind of OMG direct parallel to current events! stuff seems kind of heavy handed ... it seems a lot more about change in general (it was also at the beginnings of the drug trade really taking off and since drug money is what sets off the whole ordeal its easy to argue its more about that than vietnam) but broadly i think its just about issues of mortality/aging in the face of a changing same
I got something of the same feel. The sherrif was getting old and couldn't keep up with the changes. He faced evil and it got away, so he retired, hence no country for old men.
It's about aging and not fitting in as well in a changing world -- and it also casts a sad glance on particular ways in which that world was changing (post-Vietnam) that continue to haunt us today.
I agree. All these themes apply. But, yes, I do think that there are some deliberate references to this particular war, or at least the Cold War, as a watershed -- some obvious, and some subtle.
I don't agree that it's just with age and experience that we become desensitized to human carnage ("That's a dead dog!" or "They even shot the dog"), or torture and mass murder (the story of the couple in California). It's more than that. That's why I like to think that the Coens (and McCarthy?) are making a comment on a specificly transformative period in American history. And maybe they know that we've begun to take that past for granted.
I agree with this. But yeah, there are certainly some refrences to what we would today consider more benign cultural shifts like when the one retired cop was talking about kids walking around with blue hair and bones through their noses. But I think indirectly the movie is trying to discern or ask if these characters are just just getting old and out of it, or if there are far more grim and significant changes coming.
Right, I'm less sure about the Coens because even having watched most of their movies more than once I don't really have much of a sense of what ideological/sociological perspective they might have. But if you read McCarthy's novel No Country and the follow-up, The Road, together, he seems to be trying to say that our society is headed to a very bleak place (if not outright apocalypse) where it's every man for himself -- and it's not even "survival of the fittest," but random, chaotic violence lurking around every corner.
I think he's also charting -- sometimes explicity, sometimes implicity -- the path that took us there -- illegitimate wars; the implications of heroin, crack, and the resultant drug war on our economy and our morality; etc etc.
You've misinterpreted my point.
But you can interpret the film any way you like.
Finally had a chance to go see this.
SPOILERS
I did like it though I found "Fargo" more satisfying (if not equally dark). Bardiem and Brolin were both fantastic and while I liked Tommy Lee, I feel like this is a role I've seen him do about 1000 times so it's a bit overly familiar. That's not a knock but it was harder to feel brought in by his character. I just kept thinking, "oh, it's Tommy Lee Sherriff."
The wife dies. That's in the book but even without reading it, the fact that Bardiem checks his shoes is a - no pun intended - dead giveaway. The car crash - predictable as it might have been - was in the book so you can't necessarily lay that one on the Coen Bros.
I did like the changes they made to the script in regards to how the wife dies. In the book, the death is "on screen" so to say and she's a lot less stoic about it and basically, you feel a lot, lot worse for her. The movie, she's basically, "I don't want to die but you know what? Fuck you."
Overall, I don't know if I was blown the fuck away by this, in terms of filmmaking, but it was very well executed. I'm more interested in seeing "Devil Knows your Dead" now since someone, coming out of this film, was saying how that was a superior flick.
I thought "Before The Devil Knows Your Dead" was the inferior film. If it had focused entirely on Philip Seymour Hoffmans character (he is incredible in the role) it could have been a truly great movie. Instead, largely because the ensemble cast and pulp fiction style structure (why?), it was really incohesive and almost felt pointless. Some really fuckin great moments (really really great), but it didnt feel like the work of a master director. It was shot terribly and several scenes felt straight from film school - from the photography to the acting.
No Country for Old Men on the otherhand, I thought was pretty great. A couple of weak points here and there, but the acting, diologue, and direction were pretty superb. Great tension, lots of "oh shit!" moments, and great humor. My eyes were glued to the screen.
That being said, the truly great scenes from BTDKYD have stuck with me more than NCFOM's.
Right, this movie is not about any specific period or war, it's about the nature of man, good versus evil, the existence of God, and all that good stuff.
The acting, cinematography and dialogue (and lack thereof) really made for an incredible film. I've avoided this thread for over a week and it's been interesting to see everyone's interpretations of the story.
Where did the money go?
It's only a MacGuffin and I don't think it's important, but it would be nice to know where it went.
We could only assume the Mexicans who killed llewelyn at the hotel took it?
Were they the same Mexicans who met his wife and mother in law at the airport?
Or a different bunch of guys? And what happened at the airport... one minute the Mexican man in the suit is taking grandma's bags and then.. what happened next?
Maybe it actually is crucial to know where the money went. The Sheriff does notice the screws loose on the floor in the hotel. Is it a similar air vent as the previous hotel room - it was unclear to me in the dark shot - but I assume the Sheriff knows the money was taken. He knows if the money was taken then the hit man will continue killing until he retrieves it and he'll either have to get involved to stop him or continuing avoiding the issue.
That's one thing that doesn't sit right for me... it seems to all come down to him and whether he is going to take a stand against evil or not. But he doesn't seem to be present enough throughout the film to give it the, how do you say, the gravitus that it should have. But it was rather confusing towards the end plus you have no idea it's going to end with him talking about his dream so you are completely thrown for a loop and left thinking about 5 different things all at once.
I think it will be a lot clearer on a second or third viewing. Although, I'm not sure Barton Fink was ever crystal for me.
Javier Bardem took it. Hence Tommy Lee Jones finding the open vent with a dime next to the screws.
Wha?! So are we to believe the Mexican gang came and killed llewelyn and took off but DIDN'T take the money? Why did they tear ass out of there so fast? Was Bardem there also? That does make sense he took it though, since he unscrewed the vent earlier, and, while finding nothing, he saw the drag marks and knew that's where the satchel had been not long before so he knew to look in the future.
I'm gonna have to get the book and read it ASAP.
The money was hidden in the vent. The bandits didn't know that but took off after being shot at. When Tommy Lee Jones came back the lock had been blown out. Javier (I guess) escaped out the back window with the money.
Link plaese. I just bought The Road tonight. Can''t wait to read it.
the money at the mexican/us border?
No, because, first off, he was supposed to be skilled. He would
easily learn where the mariachis had found Llewelyn, and figure
that he must have stashed the bag somewhere between the border
and that spot, which wasn't far. They cut right to it, but another
thing that was constantly reinforced throughout the film was that
no matter how confident and shrewd Llewelyn was, he was ultimately
incompetent and in way over his head, getting found immediately by
everyone looking for him: Chigurh, Woody, and the Mexicans.
The other thing about the money being found was what I considered
one of the better bits of cinematic trickery in the film - the way
that the area Llewelyn threw the bag looked in the dark - to Llewelyn
and the viewer - like thickly settled growth, and when he threw
it down it seemed to disappear among trees. In the light of day, you could
see it was just some light brush and the bag was completely exposed, a
horrible place to stash it except that it was inaccesible. The fact that
Woody didn't collect it and get out immediately was suspect, but I guess
just spoke to his cocky attitude finally being his downfall. Chigurh even
said the same when doubting Woody telling him that he had found the money:
"if you had, you would have it with you."
-spoilers - and really long post -
I read the book and as expected it was enlightening as far as the somewhat economized last 1/4 of the movie where a lot of things happen and you have to deduce to some degree how and why they happened.
The money left in vent still might bug me some, I guess in the movie we assume there was a shootout and they kill Moss but they don't have time to look for the money because the cops are arriving. The cops don't find the money because they assume the bandits probably took off with it. In the book everyone is killed or injured so it might be kind of a plot hole that the cops wouldn't find the money in the vent if they knew there was not a 'last man standing' as they deduced at the start of the book.
Book / Movie (many spoilers for book and movie!) -
An amazingly good and economical adaption. They should get an oscar nom if not win for it I would think. They conveniently found ways to allow TLJ's to deliver the soliloquies in the book as regular dialog by putting him in various average every day situations and locations (talking to his deputy, etc). They also followed the ratio of scenes with Moss, Ed Bell, and Chigurh pretty closely as well even though they had to change it up here and there.
Not that many changes, but a few significant and non-significant ones:
Interesting they felt the need to explain the pneumatic cattle prod to the audience towards the end of the movie, which was probably a good move.
The coin flip refusal versus outright losing. That's a pretty big difference when coupled with the fact that she more likely believes she was given up on by Llewelyn since she thinks he died while shacked up with a teenage girl in the book. She gets to be brave and more dignified in the movie scene by refusing to even call it.
The sheriff going to the crime scene at the hotel. In the book the way he feels that Chiguhr is there but refuses to confront him directly reinforces the beginning and end of the book. That an old guy, and maybe just a scared guy, can't cut it against real evil. He slips out, calls for backup, and let's Chigurh slip away. Whereas in the movie we get the benefit of the doubt that he IS brave enough to confront him, but Chigurh allows him to live and slips away.
A question on the final dream: Are we to believe the dream means he thinks he's going to hell for not standing up? That seems to be what other parts of the book are leading up to. The imagery is somewhat ambigious.. on an actual cold Texas plain, seeing your dad carrying some fire and going to meet him might be comforting. But on a more metaphysical plain, the fire and the meeting with said fire probably means hell (?).
Enjoy the Road. I've been on a major McCarthy kick this fall...'Blood Meridian,' 'The Crossing,' and 'City of the Plain,' are all crossed off the list, and I'm reading, 'No Country...' right now before seeing the movie. (I have some thoughts on this one, by the way, for a book thread.)
Anyway, I seriously think that 'The Road,' might be my favorite McCarthy book. It is the book (save his early works, and I plan on reading at least 'Suttree,' before this jag is through...) that has the most emotional weight. Having read 'All the Pretty Horses,' and 'Cities of the Plain,' he is SOMEWHAT capable of investing John Grady Cole with some emotion, but nothing compares to the father-son love story of 'The Road,' for sheer emotional power.
Damn, that book was somethin' else.
As for, 'No Country...' As many book critics said, it is a lot more pulpy than his other efforts. But, damn, Moss' inner-monologue is fuckin' funny. It is readily apparent why the Coen bros. jumped on this one.
I didn't read the book so I don't now what the author's original intent was with the dream. But just my take from the movie was that the dream about his dad was another sign that he was aging and probably thought his time was running up and that he would soon be dying and seeing his dad. He was following the flame of his dead dad to the afterlife or something.