Regarding the end speech - I agree with Motown; I didn't read anything sinister about the dream though it hangs heavy with a certain melancholy that seems part and parcel to the sheriff's character and his resignation towards the changing world around him.
With a few days b/t me and when I saw it, I still have a very positive feel toward the film though it's still no "Fargo" and as far as pulpy films go, it's no "Miller's Crossing" either. But up until the last quarter of the film, the film's pace and intensity was fantastic. After Moss dies, it's a different film; the shift is quite dramatic and you begin to see and feel things different. It's no longer a thriller but becomes more meditative, certainly more dark.
I saw this yesterday and was really blown away. Best film I've seen in the past year, one of my favorites of all time. Best opening and ending monologues ever.
Some of the best moments of the book were the monologues by the sheriff that kind of broke up the story. In one chapter he talked about attending a pro choice conference where some lady was going on about how she didn't want to live in a world where her daughter couldn't have an abortion. He said something to the effect that pretty soon they'll be able to get rid of her. (He said it matter of factly without a left or right slant) There was one interlude where he compared the troubles of school children from yesteryear to those of today. It had a very disturbing contrast. He also spoke of mammon which pretty much summed up the story. I wish they would have included that in the movie along with his war experience he relayed to his uncle. Cormac McCarthy has a knack for juxtaposing ideas that set the tones.(The last chapter of The Road really hits home & it comes out of leftfield) By the way, best movie of the year.
After Moss dies, it's a different film; the shift is quite dramatic and you begin to see and feel things different. It's no longer a thriller but becomes more meditative, certainly more dark.
there is a major, and somewhat awkward, cut (black screen for at least a second or two) before we go back to the hotel and and begin to learn that moss has died. as noted earlier, the ostensible protagonist has left us, the viewers, at this point, which causes what had been a tight, parallel(ed) narrative up until this point to undo itself, unravel, demonstrating that the forces at work in this film and in this world are not just good and evil, cat and mouse, detective and criminal, law and disorder, etc. but rather, as if in a dream, these distincions, the relations between them, and our memories of them blur - cause and effect no longer correlate, if they ever did. while events lined up for a bit, this alignment was always tenuous at best: chance (or necessity, the coin) lined it up, just like chance breaks it apart. furthermore, no matter how hard all these men try to overcome the limits imposed on their power (on their own force in the world) through their own intellect, through their own recourse to reason, other forces are at work, too.
great movie!
(much like BLADE RUNNER, which i just saw in the theater a few weeks ago, NO COUNTRY remindS me of the short story, "death and the compass," by jorge luis borges.)
After Moss dies, it's a different film; the shift is quite dramatic and you begin to see and feel things different. It's no longer a thriller but becomes more meditative, certainly more dark.
there is a major, and somewhat awkward, cut (black screen for at least a second or two) before we go back to the hotel and and begin to learn that moss has died. as noted earlier, the ostensible protagonist has left us, the viewers, at this point, which causes what had been a tight, parallel(ed) narrative up until this point to undo itself, unravel, demonstrating that the forces at work in this film and in this world are not just good and evil, cat and mouse, detective and criminal, law and disorder, etc. but rather, as if in a dream, these distincions, the relations between them, and our memories of them blur - cause and effect no longer correlate, if they ever did. while events lined up for a bit, this alignment was always tenuous at best: chance (or necessity, the coin) lined it up, just like chance breaks it apart. furthermore, no matter how hard all these men try to overcome the limits imposed on their power (on their own force in the world) through their own intellect, through their own recourse to reason, other forces are at work, too.
great movie!
(much like BLADE RUNNER, which i just saw in the theater a few weeks ago, NO COUNTRY remindS me of the short story, "death and the compass," by jorge luis borges.)
Possible, likely spoilers.
I saw this and Blade Runner a few days apart. Interesting parallels in the stories, characters, and also some themes. Anton and Roy Batty are definitely both 'ultimate bad-asses'.
I had to go and see No Country again too. It was great a second time. I was impressed that all the little bits I thought maybe were not air tight, actually were, or at least within the realm of movie logic. The Coens even wrote in some things that helped the story be more concrete as far as film logic went.
I just saw In to the Wild. More like in to my ass for 3 hours and back out as a terd. It could have been worse but everything was so literal and the direction so over-reaching. And Eddie Vedder's crooning. I almost feel like I should read the book just to get to know the real man because from the movie he just seemed like a big jack ass, which, if he really was, I guess Sean Penn got it right on.
I wouldn't be surprised though if it gets nominated for multiple oscars. It's the kind of mediocre but well meaning and decently made movie that usually gets nominated for everything.
i'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the total lack of music throughout this film.
This was one of my favourite things about it.
I saw it this weekend and I am sure I'll repeat a lot of what has already been said in this thread...
It was a beautiful film. The cinematography and editing were incredible. For such an expansive film that takes it time, it was also amazingly tight. The violence was well-done - every body counted. Not as good as their first, Blood Simple, which anyone who is remotely interested in movies should see. In the No Country previews, I thought it was going to be a lot like Blood Simple (the highway shots, the landscape, the scene with him in bed with shadows, the violence) but am really glad it wasn't.
I am so happy there was no showdown between Moss and Anton - the shoot-out at night scratched that itch for me.
I loved the end and agree with Motown and O about what the dream meant. In the theatre a few people were super-pissed, but I can't think of a better closing of the loop for this movie.
There were only two things that seemed like inconsistencies, that I can't figure out: why Anton didn't kill the woman at the trailer park when she refused to tell him where Moss worked (but this can be from the book and better explained there?) and the fade to black at the end of the motel poolside scene. I guess it can be seen as a foreshadow to Moss' death, but that's a little heavy-handed and again, not consistent with the rest of the movie's style.
There were only two things that seemed like inconsistencies, that I can't figure out: why Anton didn't kill the woman at the trailer park when she refused to tell him where Moss worked (but this can be from the book and better explained there?) and the fade to black at the end of the motel poolside scene. I guess it can be seen as a foreshadow to Moss' death, but that's a little heavy-handed and again, not consistent with the rest of the movie's style.
Regarding the first issue: in the movie, Anton heard someone flushing a toilet, realized they weren't alone and made the calculation that it probably wasn't safe to off the trailer park lady.
As for the fade to black, I hear what you're saying but I didn't find it it that jarring.
I saw this and Blade Runner a few days apart. Interesting parallels in the stories, characters, and also some themes. Anton and Roy Batty are definitely both 'ultimate bad-asses'.
I can't see this at all. The replicants are a fairly literal allegory for rebelling slaves; therefore, even their immoral actions are cast against the larger immorality of their situation to begin with. Batty is relentless, in the way that you could say Chigurgh is, but Anton is a sociopath (one might say, an embodiment of evil), albeit one with a very specific personal code of behavior. Batty is acting out of necessity (evolve or die) but weighs his decisions in the moment (hence why he saves Deckard in the end).
There were only two things that seemed like inconsistencies, that I can't figure out: why Anton didn't kill the woman at the trailer park when she refused to tell him where Moss worked (but this can be from the book and better explained there?) and the fade to black at the end of the motel poolside scene. I guess it can be seen as a foreshadow to Moss' death, but that's a little heavy-handed and again, not consistent with the rest of the movie's style.
Regarding the first issue: in the movie, Anton heard someone flushing a toilet, realized they weren't alone and made the calculation that it probably wasn't safe to off the trailer park lady.
I heard the toilet flush, too, but given every other scene where bystanders and innocents and safety are of no consequence to Anton, it did not make sense to me. I thought it could be his principles that are refered to in the film, that he can respect that she is following a sensible rule and stands up for it. And that he didn't really need that information to get to Moss.
There were only two things that seemed like inconsistencies, that I can't figure out: why Anton didn't kill the woman at the trailer park when she refused to tell him where Moss worked (but this can be from the book and better explained there?) and the fade to black at the end of the motel poolside scene. I guess it can be seen as a foreshadow to Moss' death, but that's a little heavy-handed and again, not consistent with the rest of the movie's style.
Regarding the first issue: in the movie, Anton heard someone flushing a toilet, realized they weren't alone and made the calculation that it probably wasn't safe to off the trailer park lady.
I heard the toilet flush, too, but given every other scene where bystanders and innocents and safety are of no consequence to Anton, it did not make sense to me. I thought it could be his principles that are refered to in the film, that he can respect that she is following a sensible rule and stands up for it. And that he didn't really need that information to get to Moss.
The book might shed more light on it but within the logic of the scene, it just made sense to me that Anton calculated his odds and decided to just leave. Most of the innocent bystanders he kills throughout the rest of the film are usually alone; the only time he kills multiple people is when he busts into the motel room. Presumably, he leaves the accountant alive in the office building, which also suggests that he doesn't kill in every instance he could (example: the two boys on bikes at the end could be considered a liability too)
There were only two things that seemed like inconsistencies, that I can't figure out: why Anton didn't kill the woman at the trailer park when she refused to tell him where Moss worked (but this can be from the book and better explained there?) and the fade to black at the end of the motel poolside scene. I guess it can be seen as a foreshadow to Moss' death, but that's a little heavy-handed and again, not consistent with the rest of the movie's style.
Regarding the first issue: in the movie, Anton heard someone flushing a toilet, realized they weren't alone and made the calculation that it probably wasn't safe to off the trailer park lady.
I heard the toilet flush, too, but given every other scene where bystanders and innocents and safety are of no consequence to Anton, it did not make sense to me. I thought it could be his principles that are refered to in the film, that he can respect that she is following a sensible rule and stands up for it. And that he didn't really need that information to get to Moss.
The book might shed more light on it but within the logic of the scene, it just made sense to me that Anton calculated his odds and decided to just leave. Most of the innocent bystanders he kills throughout the rest of the film are usually alone; the only time he kills multiple people is when he busts into the motel room. Presumably, he leaves the accountant alive in the office building, which also suggests that he doesn't kill in every instance he could (example: the two boys on bikes at the end could be considered a liability too)
I think he shot the accountant. Anton's response when asked by the accountact if he was going to kill him was something to effect of it depending on whether the accountant could see him or not.
He also did not kill Bell in the El Paso hotel room.
It's funny what a thin line murder morality rides, isn't it? In terms of Anton's character and the story, it would have bothered me if he had shot the boys. They helped him, they were children and his being seen leaving the accident was relatively mild compared to the carnage he had waged. Also, he was being too careful up to that point (not shooting Bell, watching the green lights - but that could have been just a foreshadow to the accident). If he had shot the kids, Anton would have crossed the line into being some sort of killer robot as opposed to a man with a purpose imo.
just wanted to say that I found this movie to be far superior to Blood Simple. matter of fact BS is down near the bottom of my Coen Bros list; The Man Who Wasn't There may be the only Coen Bros joint I enjoy less. I know Blood Simple was their first joint, and as such it looms pretty large. But I think they've done far, far better work since.
Anton would have crossed the line into being some sort of killer robot as opposed to a man with a purpose imo.
Unlike all the other innocent people he killed for no "purpose" whatsoever?
Umm....
I felt like his character had crossed into killer robot space from jump. Killing the boys wouldn't have made a big different IMO...especially since they're witnesses.
One of the criticisms of his character I found pretty funny was by a LA critic who was noting (I'm paraphrasing): "how the fuck is he supposed to be this incredible stealth killer when his two main weapons is a cattle stunner with a massive air tank and a long ass rifle with a silencer?
I saw this and Blade Runner a few days apart. Interesting parallels in the stories, characters, and also some themes. Anton and Roy Batty are definitely both 'ultimate bad-asses'.
I can't see this at all. The replicants are a fairly literal allegory for rebelling slaves; therefore, even their immoral actions are cast against the larger immorality of their situation to begin with. Batty is relentless, in the way that you could say Chigurgh is, but Anton is a sociopath (one might say, an embodiment of evil), albeit one with a very specific personal code of behavior. Batty is acting out of necessity (evolve or die) but weighs his decisions in the moment (hence why he saves Deckard in the end).
for me the main similarities come from the labyrinthine nature of the plots and how the characters get caught up in detective games of cat and mouse, but come to find that other forces are at work in this game as well. this is why i referenced the borges story, "death and the compass." also, they're both moody and meditative, violent, lyrical, open-ended, etc.
Innocents as in they had nothing to do with the pursuit of the money (that purpose), but not innocent as far as what other criminal pies their thumbs might be in - for example the three guys in the motel room he thought the money was in but we found out later they were up to no-good in other ways. I am obviously not speaking in terms of everyday morality but that of the film and its characters!
I saw this and Blade Runner a few days apart. Interesting parallels in the stories, characters, and also some themes. Anton and Roy Batty are definitely both 'ultimate bad-asses'.
I can't see this at all. The replicants are a fairly literal allegory for rebelling slaves; therefore, even their immoral actions are cast against the larger immorality of their situation to begin with. Batty is relentless, in the way that you could say Chigurgh is, but Anton is a sociopath (one might say, an embodiment of evil), albeit one with a very specific personal code of behavior. Batty is acting out of necessity (evolve or die) but weighs his decisions in the moment (hence why he saves Deckard in the end).
for me the main similarities come from the labyrinthine nature of the plots and how the characters get caught up in detective games of cat and mouse, but come to find that other forces are at work in this game as well. this is why i referenced the borges story, "death and the compass." also, they're both moody and meditative, violent, lyrical, open-ended, etc.
But has Chigurgh seen attack ships burning off the shoulder of Orion?
Anton would have crossed the line into being some sort of killer robot as opposed to a man with a purpose imo.
Unlike all the other innocent people he killed for no "purpose" whatsoever?
Umm....
I felt like his character had crossed into killer robot space from jump. Killing the boys wouldn't have made a big different IMO...especially since they're witnesses.
One of the criticisms of his character I found pretty funny was by a LA critic who was noting (I'm paraphrasing): "how the fuck is he supposed to be this incredible stealth killer when his two main weapons is a cattle stunner with a massive air tank and a long ass rifle with a silencer?
I'm planning to go see this tonight or tomorrow, having finished the book yesterday.
To that end, I'll say this: There has been a lot of criticism of the Coens and the movie for the end of this movie. Well, damn...It seemed like McCarthy had a lot of problems finishing the book, as its first 2/3s were straight pulp- and, the last third killed people off, and got literary metaphysical.
As to how the book handled Anton- he was most definitely not a robot; and most definitely not stealth. He kills with deliberation and purpose; but, he does have some set of guiding principles- as I'm pretty sure Wells will explain in the movie, as I figure that is the Harrelson character we read about.
Minor aside: but I was confused by something...does Anton use a silenced rifle? Or a silenced shotgun? I thought it was the latter but when he was shooting at llewelyn in the car, it looked more like bullet holes vs. buckshot.
He kills with deliberation and purpose; but, he does have some set of guiding principles- as I'm pretty sure Wells will explain in the movie, as I figure that is the Harrelson character we read about.
The movie doesn't really explain his guiding principles to the same extent the book does. There's parts of it broken down but not nearly to the same degree as how McCarthy does it. I don't think the movie (or Anton's character) suffers for lack of it...he's an enigma and complex (and bad ass) in the movie enough already.
yeah his "principles" are hinted at but not really explained. there's still plenty of unnecessary killing (e.g. his offing the motorist at the beginning of the movie. I know he needed a non-cop car, but why didn't he just steal one at the stationhouse rather than going out on the road in the squad car to begin with?)
yeah his "principles" are hinted at but not really explained. there's still plenty of unnecessary killing (e.g. his offing the motorist at the beginning of the movie. I know he needed a non-cop car, but why didn't he just steal one at the stationhouse rather than going out on the road in the squad car to begin with?)
Yo - we needed to see the stunna in action, son! That's reason enough!
I don't want to oversell the 'principle,' part of his character; I don't want to make it seem like he's some 'killer with a heart of gold,' or something. But, there is a certain ethos and thought to what Anton does, that comes out in a SERIOUS Frickin' scene with Carla Jean in the book, or between Wells and Llewelyn to a lesser degree in their scene together.
This book felt like it was written to be a movie, I might add; ESPECIALLY the earlier sections.
I have only seen the actor who played Anton in two movies -- as a gay Cuban poet in Before Night Falls and the killer in this film -- but he was very convincing in both roles.
Presumably, he leaves the accountant alive in the office building
I am stunned that you thought this ... it could not have been more plain that he was going to kill him, with the exchange "are you going to kill me?" " - it depends ... do you see me?" He was reveling in his own reputation at that point, and there is no doubt whatsoever that he kills him - even though the killing takes place offscreen, like many of the deaths in the film.
Presumably, he leaves the accountant alive in the office building
I am stunned that you thought this ... it could not have been more plain that he was going to kill him, with the exchange "are you going to kill me?" " - it depends ... do you see me?" He was reveling in his own reputation at that point, and there is no doubt whatsoever that he kills him - even though the killing takes place offscreen, like many of the deaths in the film.
you're nuts! 'reveling in his own reputation'??? "do you see me" = if he says "no, you were never here" he gets to live.
Comments
With a few days b/t me and when I saw it, I still have a very positive feel toward the film though it's still no "Fargo" and as far as pulpy films go, it's no "Miller's Crossing" either. But up until the last quarter of the film, the film's pace and intensity was fantastic. After Moss dies, it's a different film; the shift is quite dramatic and you begin to see and feel things different. It's no longer a thriller but becomes more meditative, certainly more dark.
there is a major, and somewhat awkward, cut (black screen for at least a second or two) before we go back to the hotel and and begin to learn that moss has died. as noted earlier, the ostensible protagonist has left us, the viewers, at this point, which causes what had been a tight, parallel(ed) narrative up until this point to undo itself, unravel, demonstrating that the forces at work in this film and in this world are not just good and evil, cat and mouse, detective and criminal, law and disorder, etc. but rather, as if in a dream, these distincions, the relations between them, and our memories of them blur - cause and effect no longer correlate, if they ever did. while events lined up for a bit, this alignment was always tenuous at best: chance (or necessity, the coin) lined it up, just like chance breaks it apart. furthermore, no matter how hard all these men try to overcome the limits imposed on their power (on their own force in the world) through their own intellect, through their own recourse to reason, other forces are at work, too.
great movie!
(much like BLADE RUNNER, which i just saw in the theater a few weeks ago, NO COUNTRY remindS me of the short story, "death and the compass," by jorge luis borges.)
Possible, likely spoilers.
I saw this and Blade Runner a few days apart. Interesting parallels in the stories, characters, and also some themes. Anton and Roy Batty are definitely both 'ultimate bad-asses'.
I had to go and see No Country again too. It was great a second time. I was impressed that all the little bits I thought maybe were not air tight, actually were, or at least within the realm of movie logic. The Coens even wrote in some things that helped the story be more concrete as far as film logic went.
I just saw In to the Wild. More like in to my ass for 3 hours and back out as a terd. It could have been worse but everything was so literal and the direction so over-reaching. And Eddie Vedder's crooning. I almost feel like I should read the book just to get to know the real man because from the movie he just seemed like a big jack ass, which, if he really was, I guess Sean Penn got it right on.
I wouldn't be surprised though if it gets nominated for multiple oscars. It's the kind of mediocre but well meaning and decently made movie that usually gets nominated for everything.
This was one of my favourite things about it.
I saw it this weekend and I am sure I'll repeat a lot of what has already been said in this thread...
It was a beautiful film. The cinematography and editing were incredible. For such an expansive film that takes it time, it was also amazingly tight. The violence was well-done - every body counted. Not as good as their first, Blood Simple, which anyone who is remotely interested in movies should see. In the No Country previews, I thought it was going to be a lot like Blood Simple (the highway shots, the landscape, the scene with him in bed with shadows, the violence) but am really glad it wasn't.
I am so happy there was no showdown between Moss and Anton - the shoot-out at night scratched that itch for me.
I loved the end and agree with Motown and O about what the dream meant. In the theatre a few people were super-pissed, but I can't think of a better closing of the loop for this movie.
There were only two things that seemed like inconsistencies, that I can't figure out: why Anton didn't kill the woman at the trailer park when she refused to tell him where Moss worked (but this can be from the book and better explained there?) and the fade to black at the end of the motel poolside scene. I guess it can be seen as a foreshadow to Moss' death, but that's a little heavy-handed and again, not consistent with the rest of the movie's style.
Regarding the first issue: in the movie, Anton heard someone flushing a toilet, realized they weren't alone and made the calculation that it probably wasn't safe to off the trailer park lady.
As for the fade to black, I hear what you're saying but I didn't find it it that jarring.
I can't see this at all. The replicants are a fairly literal allegory for rebelling slaves; therefore, even their immoral actions are cast against the larger immorality of their situation to begin with. Batty is relentless, in the way that you could say Chigurgh is, but Anton is a sociopath (one might say, an embodiment of evil), albeit one with a very specific personal code of behavior. Batty is acting out of necessity (evolve or die) but weighs his decisions in the moment (hence why he saves Deckard in the end).
I heard the toilet flush, too, but given every other scene where bystanders and innocents and safety are of no consequence to Anton, it did not make sense to me. I thought it could be his principles that are refered to in the film, that he can respect that she is following a sensible rule and stands up for it. And that he didn't really need that information to get to Moss.
The book might shed more light on it but within the logic of the scene, it just made sense to me that Anton calculated his odds and decided to just leave. Most of the innocent bystanders he kills throughout the rest of the film are usually alone; the only time he kills multiple people is when he busts into the motel room. Presumably, he leaves the accountant alive in the office building, which also suggests that he doesn't kill in every instance he could (example: the two boys on bikes at the end could be considered a liability too)
I think he shot the accountant. Anton's response when asked by the accountact if he was going to kill him was something to effect of it depending on whether the accountant could see him or not.
He also did not kill Bell in the El Paso hotel room.
It's funny what a thin line murder morality rides, isn't it? In terms of Anton's character and the story, it would have bothered me if he had shot the boys. They helped him, they were children and his being seen leaving the accident was relatively mild compared to the carnage he had waged. Also, he was being too careful up to that point (not shooting Bell, watching the green lights - but that could have been just a foreshadow to the accident). If he had shot the kids, Anton would have crossed the line into being some sort of killer robot as opposed to a man with a purpose imo.
Here's an interview with the Cohen Bros., Bardem and Brolin on Charlie Rose:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=946437413257281867&hl=en
Unlike all the other innocent people he killed for no "purpose" whatsoever?
Umm....
I felt like his character had crossed into killer robot space from jump. Killing the boys wouldn't have made a big different IMO...especially since they're witnesses.
One of the criticisms of his character I found pretty funny was by a LA critic who was noting (I'm paraphrasing): "how the fuck is he supposed to be this incredible stealth killer when his two main weapons is a cattle stunner with a massive air tank and a long ass rifle with a silencer?
for me the main similarities come from the labyrinthine nature of the plots and how the characters get caught up in detective games of cat and mouse, but come to find that other forces are at work in this game as well. this is why i referenced the borges story, "death and the compass." also, they're both moody and meditative, violent, lyrical, open-ended, etc.
But has Chigurgh seen attack ships burning off the shoulder of Orion?
I think not.
I'm planning to go see this tonight or tomorrow, having finished the book yesterday.
To that end, I'll say this: There has been a lot of criticism of the Coens and the movie for the end of this movie. Well, damn...It seemed like McCarthy had a lot of problems finishing the book, as its first 2/3s were straight pulp- and, the last third killed people off, and got literary metaphysical.
As to how the book handled Anton- he was most definitely not a robot; and most definitely not stealth. He kills with deliberation and purpose; but, he does have some set of guiding principles- as I'm pretty sure Wells will explain in the movie, as I figure that is the Harrelson character we read about.
Either way, that gun is
The movie doesn't really explain his guiding principles to the same extent the book does. There's parts of it broken down but not nearly to the same degree as how McCarthy does it. I don't think the movie (or Anton's character) suffers for lack of it...he's an enigma and complex (and bad ass) in the movie enough already.
Yo - we needed to see the stunna in action, son! That's reason enough!
This book felt like it was written to be a movie, I might add; ESPECIALLY the earlier sections.
I am stunned that you thought this ... it could not have been more plain
that he was going to kill him, with the exchange "are you going to kill me?"
" - it depends ... do you see me?" He was reveling in his own reputation at
that point, and there is no doubt whatsoever that he kills him - even though
the killing takes place offscreen, like many of the deaths in the film.
you're nuts! 'reveling in his own reputation'??? "do you see me" = if he says "no, you were never here" he gets to live.
I'm nuts? uh, OK. And you're a spaz.
Maybe that is something from the book, but I find it hard to believe,
the way the scene was staged and played. The question was, IMO, rhetorical.
This is what I thought also.