No Country For Old Men

I find that the Coen's films are best viewed at least twice.

Click to expand...

+1 .... or would it be +2?

The first couple minutes of the movie were amazing, Jones' voice over with the desolate landscapes, really set the mood incredibly well. Anton's scene with the gas station attendant was fantastic. I thought the ending was perfect. I sure didn't see a better movie last year -- and I saw most of them -- this definitely deserved the Best Picture win.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Movies have become stagnant with repeating themes. This movie removed all preconceptions of movie "formats"

Well worth watching, not like that dog"There will be blood"

I call this movie "Plenty of Suck for Suck Suck."

Enough said.

I though it was an excellent movie.. but i would have taken all the guns that were scatterd around in that area , and i didnt really like the ending, such a great main characted dies and u dont even get to see it

I call this movie "Plenty of Suck for Suck Suck."

Enough said.

Click to expand...

To each his own.

Well worth watching, not like that dog"There will be blood"

Click to expand...

I thought "There Will Be Blood" was second only to "No Country" in last year's Best Picture crop. It blew me away not only as a movie lover, but even more as a photographer. The editing in "blood" was amazing, the story was unique (yes, I know it is from Sinclair's book "Oil!", I meant unique among today's generic movie fare), and even at 3 hours long it kept me glued to the screen for the duration.

What message did the film convey to me?




If i'm not running, i should be firing or reloading.




Didn't read into it too much. i'm sure the book would provide more insight/character development re the Sheriff and Chigurh, but i only watched it once, maybe missing something.

This thread has inspired me to watch it again. I thought it was really good the first time around. It felt like a roller coaster ride once the Moss character was on the run with the money. Everything was going bad in a hurry and he had no control over it. Unlike the "Die Harder" movies, where McCain takes on everything short of Godzilla and still comes out on top. There are some really good insights into the movie here, so thanks again. I will be renting this one again.

regards,

Luis Leon

Bendutro, have you seen "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"? I think some of the people on this board wouldn't have liked that ending, either!

C'mon, guys, you can't trash something just because it doesn't have a happy ending. Where does that leave "The Sound and the Fury," or pretty much any Southern Gothic, or Hamlet?

The Road is coming to theaters soon enough, with what's his name, Viggo Mortenson as the father.

Ridley Scott is making a film version of "Blood Meridian," which is going to be a disappointment that I'll nonetheless see on opening day. I don't really think of Scott as being a top-notch director (second-tier isn't bad, mind you), whereas that book is one of the best of the 20th century, quite likely. They better keep the Walkers, too!

It is almost impossible to believe people didn't like this movie.

I liked it. The movie is a sum of it's parts. It was an odd movie, but had interesting characters, lot's of action, great scenery, and outstanding photography. The ending left you feeling miserable, but that was the whole point.

The movie omits a final scene included in the novel in which Anton brings the money to the 'rightful' owner and turns it in as proof of his 'bona-fides'.

i thought the movie was fantastic,leoellan's lines like getting up outa bed saying "this ain't right"and finding the transponder to "if he's waiting to shoot me he'll be in the shade"he is not a genuis,but he is a thinker.sukgar using his own room to do practice runs before he smokes the mexicans,only looking slightly surprised when he is facing three armed men waiting instead of one man sleeping.films like resevoir dogs, blood simple(another coen great)are what im into.little or no special effects,solid acting and original plot/camera work.shootem up action movies where the hero spends the whole time killing people and then saying some dumb line boors me to sleep.but of course,to each his own.

I've been getting rather frustrated arguing with people who think there will be a sequel. Here's my best argument for no sequel or prequel. The movie follows the book well. The book has no sequel or prequel (yet). I don't imagine the directors trying to go off into their own direction without a book in place. Meanwhile, the story is perfect as is.

The HUGE irony in the movie is that if the main character been a better shot and killed his game without the need to track it, all of the drama may have been avoided.

Edited to say: One of the main characters...

Bigger irony, if you believe in irony,,,,,
The hunter wouldn't have been in the situation if he had forgot about the wounded man in the desert and had he dumped the money, found the tracking device, and moved to North Carolina immediately.

I read the book long before the movie came out and as always, the book is better than the movie every time.
Of course the movie IS quite good and keeps on track with the book for the most part.

By the way,,,,the main character isn't the hunter or the assassin,,,it is the sheriff.

Flopsy:that made me laugh out loud..
I didn't like the movie either..and all my shooting buddies give a haed time because of it too.
I like the Coen bros. films,but I just didnt get it.
Plus I had heard how violent it was...maybe I'm jaded,but it wasn't THAT violent.
For pure gun stuff I'll take The Way of the Gun anyday.
maybe I just need to re-watch it and give it another try.
and I hated the air gun thingy....

I didn't think it was a very good movie. It was different I will say that, and I appreciate a movie not following a typical Hollywood script, but the movie just didn't do much for me.

i saw it last week. not impressed at all. kinda wished i did not rent it. glad i did rent it and now waiste the money at a theatre.

What was the point?

Click to expand...

The kind of people who haul $2 million around in a suitcase are the kind of people who'll murder you to get it back. So if you're going to dance with the Devil, be prepared to face the consequences.

Tommy Lee Jones is one of my favorite actors even if Al Gore and he were room mates at college and are still friends. I was disapointed with his part in the movie and the movie in general. I read the book after seeing the movie which helped the story conclude but I still didn't really like the book that well either.

No one has mentioned the lousy shot Moss made on the antelope. When I saw it I thought "That wasn't very good" and then later found out he was a sniper in Vietnam. Just didn't work for me. If he had just killed the antolope none of the rest would have happened. Of course you couldn't have had a book or a movie then.

No one has mentioned the lousy shot Moss made on the antelope. When I saw it I thought "That wasn't very good" and then later found out he was a sniper in Vietnam. Just didn't work for me. If he had just killed the antolope none of the rest would have happened. Of course you couldn't have had a book or a movie then.

Click to expand...

Snipers never miss.....especially Army snipers.


Everyone misses. It's sets up the fact that the character isn't perfect.

I loved this movie, I thought the ending was odd, but it just shows how the sheriff got older and just couldn't handle today's problems, which is quite common.

And I like movies that don't have happy endings, sometimes. Most "American" movies have happy endings. It's nice seeing a more realistic movie every once and awhile.

Neo said:

The movie omits a final scene included in the novel in which Anton brings the money to the 'rightful' owner and turns it in as proof of his 'bona-fides'.

Click to expand...

***, dude, at least include a spoiler alert. I was planning on reading the book. Note that this thread is about the movie, not the book.

Alot of the dialog was to the country in the past. The history of other Deputies that got killed or wounded was covered to a great extent. The movie is about the border and how violent it has always been. They show you todays violence and talk about yesterdays violence.

The end just was another violent happening to go along with all the rest. The future of the border is more of the same and not only is it not for old men but not for anyone who isn't willing to protect themselves in a violent manner.

jj