Miramax has pooled together a nice selection of film critics and personalities from the Internet for a winding discussion over the ending to the studio’s acclaimed Cohen Brothers hit No Country for Old Men. It’s an enjoyable freestyle conversation featuring Premiere’s Glenn Kenny, Ain’t It Cool’s Harry Knowles, Rotten Tomatoes’ Jen Yamato, Jim Emerson of RogerEbert.com and moderator Elvis Mitchell. Next time, I hope they invite /Film, but I’m glad to listen this go around, because NCFOM is the perfect film to listen to others’ bat around broad ideas ranging from comparisons to The Seventh Seal to the symbolism of blood and feet in the film to, yes, the meaning of life (sorry, it proved elusive). You can listen to the chat here. And if you need a recap of the film’s ending, click here for an audio recording.
For those of you who have seen NCFOM, do you sense the film becoming greater and more important in your mind as time wedges itself between your first viewing? I’m still not sure if it deserves to win Best Picture, but I have found increasing appreciation for its interpretative nature and dead quiet yet muscularly stern messages about life and death. I’d almost compare my memory of the film to a memory of sitting alone on an empty beach just thinking and listening. The ending certainly plays into this sort of wrinkled, survival Zen.
In regards to the Miramax link above, I admit I rolled my eyes once. The surprise expressed by the roundtable at the sheer thought of many viewers being surprised at, with some even [gasp] disliking, the ending is ridiculous. C’mon. There is a reason why you guys and gal are together talking about it. The Cohens meant to provoke a transcendent resonance with its off-guard timing, and comparisons to a certain pay-cable show’s are not out of line (down to the modern outlook of men, nature and the unknown at large).
For those cautious of spoilers, beware the comments section below.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:52 am
the ending reminded me of how I felt after watching se7en: it was a disappointing downbeat…but it had to be that way in order to be true to the rest of the story.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:25 am
I remember as a child being wonderstruck by films like Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark.
As an adult No Country is one of the only others films to fill me with adult wonder at how a film so seemingly simple could without too much artifice, camera tricks or verbal meanderings involve me in an honest interpretation of life.
The Coen brothers and Cormac McCarthy deserve at least best picture.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:14 am
I agree with gordo whole heartedly. I don’t remember a movie that has had such a lasting impact on me. The ending of that movie weighed on my mind for a week afterwards and when I read things like this I’m taken back and still feel the same.
Regardless of the awards that this does or does not win, this is going to remain as one of my favorite movies of all time.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:47 am
I agree. I actually saw this again last night and I sat there thinking afterwards and again on the drive home, when I laid down to go to sleep - The movie had an impact on me to say the least.
I’m still not sure if it is the fact that there is seemingly an anti-climax, or the fact that the entire movie is just so surreal. I remember when I first saw Fargo. I hated it. Loathed it. So much so that I didn’t watch it again for years. When I finally did, I had a better understanding of the film. Life, it seems, is the ultimate teacher. I’m guessing that with “No country” I’ll see it the same way. While I am able to grasp the concept and appreciate the deeper meaning of the film, I am sure in a few years when I pop in the DVD on a Sunday afternoon, I’ll have a much greater appreciation for the story told between the lines.
I guess thats what truly makes a great film.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I think the film is overrated. Woody harrelson’s character was pointless. The ending was empty. The transponder was silly. There is no character except maybe the wife that you have any feelings for. What sherrif retires in the middle of a huge case like chasing the Anton character.
It was deep… really?
JedK
January 8th, 2008 at 8:09 am
JedK: You missed the entire point of the movie. You should stick with movies like “The Condemned.”
January 8th, 2008 at 9:06 am
What is the point of the movie?
Is it about drug trafficing? No.
Is it about mindless killing with now consequence. Maybe.
Is it about a dumb town with a dumb sherrif, dumb deputy, dumb guy who likes to hunt, a dumb wife, a dumb corporate head, and guy who is supposed to find and kill a mindless killer? Probably.
Yes that sherriff is a dumb guy too and he could have been killed just as easily when he went into that motel room alone.
It seemed like the sherrif was getting somewhere when he figured there was something in the vent but then he just quits.
Maybe I need to see it again. Maybe I missed something.
It seemed like the Coen brothers wanted you to believe Anton was going to die by the hand of either the Sheriff, Carson Wells (Harrelson) or Moss(Brolin) but then the Coens surprise you with a two bland deaths and a bland retirement. Then at the car accident you say, “finally he got what he deserves”, and you know what happens… Nothing.
JedK
January 8th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I think “dumb” is a pretty good word for you.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Hmm.
Getting personal.
Tell in your own words the “deep message” of the movie.
Help this “dumb” guy out.
You know any movie can be said to have a deeper meaning by the way. You can pick any movie and come up with an inner message.
Thanks,
JedK
January 8th, 2008 at 9:24 am
When someone calls something they don’t appreciate (for whatever reason) “dumb,” it usually speaks volumes about that person.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:31 am
1) That’s an interesting reply because I said it was about dumb people. I never called the movie dumb. There is a difference there. Tell me where any of them acted smart.
2) So are you going to tell me the deeprr message in the film? You can probably Google it if you don’t know.
Jed K
January 8th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Why would I waste the time? You’d probably just say the post was “dumb.”
January 8th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Krets,
I promise I won’t.
I just told you I didn’t call the movie dumb. If I said “Dumb and Dumber” was about dumb guys would you be offendde by that too?
You sound like a really smart person. I’m sure you can enlighten me. What’s the message. Please tell me.
Thanks,
JedK
January 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I thought the message was that you shouldn’t kill dogs, and if you did a merciless killer will hunt you down and wipe out your family with unrelenting murderous intent…
No?
January 8th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Listened to the podcast — what a bunch of b*llshit. Those reviewers strike me as the adults in ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ — feeling they should like the ending, but falling all over themselves and getting lost in their own pseudo-intelligent ramblings when they try to explain why.
The ending sucked! I wanted Llewelyn to be the hero and keep on kicking ass and taking names.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
The message was about choice and chance.
Chance is the coin. Chance is running into Anton.
Choice is everyone saying “You don’t have to do this” just before
Anton killed each of them. Choice is taking the money and not going to the police.
That is a simple and easy message. No big deal. Not worthy of an Oscar.
(this was for you Krets)
JedK
January 8th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Well I took a little bit more from it than choice/chance. The thing that makes this movie beautiful to me is that there are so many themes that can be drawn from it but they leave it to you to draw them for yourself. So you’re not wrong in what you say about choice/chance and I won’t disagree with that. But I took a lot more away from it than that.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I think there was also a sort of “shit happens and will continue to happen” vein running through it too. Just IMHO.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Thats what I took out of it - that evil going to happen, no matter how much you try to stop it, all you can do is manage how it affects you.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
i thought that the ending was perfect. it brought the coen brothers’ darkness back. i always liked the dark endings they had in their films and i love how the bad guy got away. tommy Lee Jones talking about his dream was a perfect way to show a kind of exxistential feel to the movie which gave it much more depth and left an impact on me personnally. i felt that the last lines show a lot in his character and the entire feel of the film.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
To me, here is exactly what this film is about:
“The crime you see now, it’s hard to even take its measure. It’s not that I’m afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job - not to be glorious. But I don’t want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don’t understand.
You can say it’s my job to fight it but I don’t know what it is anymore. …More than that, I don’t want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. … Ho would have to say, okay, I’ll be part of this world.”
The movie is the realization of this. At the end Bell realizes that he no longer wants to be a part of what is going on so he quits. Obviously he is troubled by the decision so he seeks the advice of an old friend. His dream is an extension of his own realization that he has made the right decision. He has not put his soul at hazard and his father will be waiting for him up ahead.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
That made me also think of the quote, ” the only thing necessary for the tiumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing.” Also pretty damn dark, if you consider it a possible indictmment of TLJ’s character. What if he was in fact, wrong? At the same time, can you blame him. He’s old and tired.
The problem of evil. That’s a big one. The movie is raging success in my mind, if for no other reason than we are discussing it now.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Good discussion everyone.
I’d like to bring two ideas into the fold here.
#1) Do you think the ending for No Country for Old Men shares any thematic/modern philosophical bond with the ending of the Sopranos?Of course, I don’t mean to say that David Chase and the Coen Brothers had conversations beforehand or that the Coens were inspired by Chase et al. But notice that the filmmakers chose endings that were purposely very sudden and unexpected. Are they making a comment that audiences should no longer expect film (and great television) to conclude tidily, but mirror (and thus reflect) the strange (non)finality seen in real life? Both NCFOM and the Sopranos also shared a grim, almost fatalistic outlook that a certain evil is pervading our society and there is nothing we can do but watch it happen, and in the case of the Sopranos, inevitably mesh with it.
#2) Do you think that NCFOM was specifically meant to be a statement about the dire direction the world is headed in right NOW, or is the film’s underlying message that our world/America was always filled with unstoppable and inexplicable evil? Notice how Jones’ sheriff likes to comment on the recent disappearance of manners and then there’s the “green hair and bones through their noses” comment. These aren’t there for jest. In the Miramax mp3, one of the critics comments that that green hair line shouldn’t be seen as a potshot at the “punk rock” generations et al and that old men have always railed against to paraphrase “those crazy kids and their crazy rock ‘n’ roll.” But I interpreted the outlook of Jones’ character and his comments, alongside the film’s recurring symbolism of blood and old men’s tight pact with nature, good conduct and respect of human life to mean that as a society we are getting away from reality itself, losing our survivalist roots because we find that life is often so “hard” and choose to delude ourselves with irony or coldness. In summation, does the title “No Country for Old Men” refer to America in its current/future state? [this is a little long-winded, I know]
Look forward to reading everyone’s comments on these topics and others. Cheers.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I think the character of Anton is more of a moving symbol throughout the film rather than a real life character, because he is seemingly unstoppable by the end of the film. He may be one of the scariest characters in the history of film, and it’s because he is uncontrollable. Jones giving up is really just him accepting that even though he catches this one man, violence, bad men, will continue to exist and will continue to elude police.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:25 am
when was the last time a film brought out intelligent discussion on the internet?
If it doesn’t win an Oscar for best film they should make a new category and make it the winner just for that.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Hunter,
Thanks, I appreciate the film a little more after reading your take on it That definitely makes sense to me.
While it is a good story, it’s still not best picture of the year. Sorry.
JedK
January 9th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Hunter: Personally I don’t think the title is an indictment of any particular period. I think it could be argued that at any point in time you could say that it is “no country for old men.” The world moves on as we get older and there will always be things that don’t appeal to us. This particular story looks in on the life of a man who has become weary of the evil that he sees in the world and this event is the final push.
JedK: You don’t have to apologize for not thinking this is the best film of the year. I don’t think there will ever be a film that is a clear cut winner in that aspect. Personally, this is my favorite film of this year but I realize there are a handful of quality films that anyone could argue were the best.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I’d say that the endings of both the Sopranos and No Country reflect the quest for new, fresh narrative techniques to employ in the cinematic format. In literature it seems experimentation is, in a way, easier. Or at least less costly. It has taken longer to creep into mainstream cinema because the cost of producing a film is so high, and the “risk” is greater. I think it strikes some as an affront because it new to the general movie going public who are used to more traditional narrative techniques. I suppose it could be called a paradigm shift. Or at least a paradigm nudge. There will always be personalities that are suited for ambiguity and those that are not.
I also happen to believe it to be a more timeless commentary than a critique/comment on contemporary times. Every generation seems to think, as they age, that the subsequent generations are going to hell in a handbasket. As a person in my mid-thirties I find myself already encountering those impulses to long for the “good ol’ days” which are in fact, a mythical construct that emerges from emotional-memory and longing for the “simpler” times that youth affords.
I am also reminded of Danny Glover’s character in the Lethal Weapon series who constantly complained of, “getting too old for this shit.”
January 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Okay, I’ve gotta get in on this. I’m not able to listen to the critics, since I’m at work, so please forgive any redundancy, but I wanted to comment in light of everyone else’s comments.
First off, to whoever said that intelligent discussion of film rarely takes place on the internet–it does. You just need to look for it sometimes.
So, on the “shit happens”/inevitability of evil theme–I somewhat agree with what has been said, but I’d just like to add to it. It seems that another thing at play here is the idea of relativism. In the film, there is no karma. At the end, as Anton drives away, we see shots of the stop lights, foreshadowing what we think of as the inevitable: we expect that he will be hit by a passing car. Not only do we think he will be hit and killed, but we think he *should* get killed in this “chance” fashion, because it would be fitting. When he doesn’t, our expectations of not only the events of the film, but also the morality of the film, are completely overturned. After all, it only “should” happen because we think it should. Who are we to have an opinion on what *should* happen, when we have taken no action? At the very least, Anton was proactive, even it it was for evil, and for that reason, his viewpoint is viable. When the sheriff gives up and the wife dies, the only semi-proactive voices in the name of good are gone. So, evil may not necessarily be ‘inevitable” per se, but if there are no proactive opposing forces, it can seem so.
Sorry if that was rambling; I hope it made sense.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
@ Robert,
I’d love to see a T-shirt with Danny Glover’s exhausted face on it a la the now ubiquitous Richard Pryor T-shirt from Superbad. No matter your age, I think we’re all feeling a little fatigued by ongoing world events and the accelerating Internet revolution.
As for the film being a comment on contemporary times…
One image that is repeated in the film that I feel supports the opinion that NCFOM is at least partially commenting on contemporary times has been overlooked by every critic I’ve read thus far. There is a scene in the film where Anton enters Llewelyn Moss’ empty trailer after blowing the door knob off. He enters and just sits on the couch, placing himself in the occupants’ life. And he stares blankly into an inactive, black TV screen. The Coens’ make sure to show his ominous, almost phantasm-like reflection in the blank screen, surrounded by the light from the window behind him. You can’t really see his face or make out his appearance. This is really one image that has stayed with me; it’s as if the Coens are making a statement about wasting our life on TV, and how we are becoming ghosts. That may be reaching, but a few minutes later Tommy Lee Jones’ Sheriff Ed Tom Bell enters the trailer, sits on the couch and the same type of ambiguous “man as undead ghost” image is shown.
I think what the Coens are saying is that even though one of these men is evil (or the Grim Reaper) personified, and the other is a reasonable and just man, they both share the increasingly rare characteristic that they are living life and dealing and confronting in their own way with the pains of life and death, while so many people are not. These two men are the last of a dying breed, but while Anton seems to grow in strength, Jones’ character weakens and gives in. And ultimately, who is going to step up and fight this pervasive evil after the old men like Jones are gone?
You’ll notice the recurring theme that some of these men were soldiers - which is a greater part of the book as the mp3 discusses. But the evil they encounter in the regular world trots on them and even kills them. I’d go so far as to say the film is an indictment on contemporary masculinity and its distance from the salt of the earth et al, but it can also be co-exist as a “that’s how it is” meditation about human nature since its nascent beginning. Like the critics in the mp3 say, we never see what happens to the money. Nor do we care. The money is a macguffin, and a well known one for the root of all evil. It’s like Piggy’s glasses in Lord of the Flies. The war between these men takes precedent over what they’re fighting over.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
That image stood out in my memory as well. Anton in front of the TV. Your interpretation reminds me of a single panel comic strip I saw that I thought was great. In a Far-Side derivative style, it showed a fat man in a recliner with a big soda in one hand and the remote in the other; and on the TV was the mirror image of the same guy staring back at himself. The caption just said “Reality Television.”
From what I have read and heard, the Coens are extremely deliberate. Nothing much is left to chance. So that image certainly was telling us something. It could be a comment on how reality is often experienced vicariously (nod to TOOL) in our current age, and that “real” men doing “real” things are a dying breed.
Now I am gonna read the book. No way around it.
January 12th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
This movie I think may be B rated, but I haven’t decided. I am going to ponder this for some time. I was pissed when Tommy Lee ended the movie with a dream, which made little sense. I am troubled to believe how someone could have nominated this for any awards; maybe I totally missed the entire meaning of the movie. A mindless, heartless killer probably wouldn’t have let the man in the gas station live. Now maybe a psychopath killer would have. But the motive for a psychopath killer would have been different; this one was out for the money. Who were the idiots that hired him in the first place? He killed them anyway, I don’t know how he would have gotten any references to do the job, and you can’t if you keep killing your boss. What the hell was with Woody, he served no purpose in the movie. I love watching his work, but there wasn’t much in this movie. I am surprised that both Woody and Tommy Lee would have taken on these roles. Like Fargo, what happened to the damn money.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am
there will be blood will when the oscar….
January 16th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Like all good poetry or work of art, NCFOM is subject to a universe of interpretations. It poses as many questions as answers, and leaves one wondering what Life and Death is all about. Naturally, I saw this very differently from most of the commentors and reviewers.
The movie is all about Tom Bell. Not Llewellyn, and only indirectly about Chigurh. It is about the decay of his own soul, and his failings as a lawman and human being. He talks about saving Moss, but spends most of the time just talking about it, sitting in a cafe, sipping coffee and lamenting society’s illness. Tommy Lee’s deadpan is intended to tell us he is going through the motions, but really doesn’t care anymore. Chigurh is his avatar and angel of Life and Death. Merciful, merciless, capricious, relentless, Anton is what’s coming, Fate and inevitable Destiny. He is God and Satan, Nature and Karma, Salvation and Retribution. He kills bad people and good people and innocent people with equal aplomb and is visible only to those worthy of punishment. Bell goes to the motel room looking for what’s coming, just as Moss did when he awoke in the middle of the night to seek his own Fate. Bell is disappointed not seeing Anton, because he was looking for God’s vengeance on his unworthy soul. No, he will not die at Chigurh’s hands, a heroic death worthy of a heroic lawman. He is condemned to retire, alone, with only his dreams left to make his life meaningful anymore. As he told his uncle, God abandoned him along ago.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
this movie is an extravagancy of filmmaking!
you know,the point that Mexicans(not Chigurh)killed Moss the time he put down his guard and went for “Beer Girl” is somehow interesting.if you have noticed the picture faded into darkness when moss accepted the invitation of that girl.
but the monolog bu TLJ at the end of the film was something deep!his father went into darkness with hope and always will be there,and whenever TLJ decides to go there he will be there,i think sheriff was feeling guilty about retiring.he even went to see that wheelchair man to find some approval but he didn’t get any.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
its not that i didnt like the movie i love it up to the end i mean i really dont like the no real resolution like in sopranos you get involved in these chracters and then with no conclusion u get a black screen and credits whats genious about not ending a movie? it seems like a really cheap trick to keep a movie on ur mind to me a really good movie has a ending that makes u think about something different then you may have before the movie but the only questions this leaves in my head is what the hell was that movie even about? people are getting so defensive about the ending like something wrong with me becuase i didnt get it instead of dong that will you please explain to me the meaning or purpose of this movie or the ending anything to give me clarity? I really feel like right now i wasted 2hours of my life for this movie to be considered genious i come away with no new outlook on anything no new understanding nothing. If you are reading this and your one of those people who see this as genius or great could u pls take a lil time out your date to enlightment me id greatly appreciate it im very open minded so ill def listen im just a lil clueless myself right now
January 24th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Well in short, the whole movie did stick with me (and I find myself weeks later still thinking about it). The ending was not the ending anyone “wanted,” we are used to the underdog winning and already pictured Llewellyn retiring nicely. The accident seen at the end took me back to the hunting scene at the beginning. The elk being stalked by Llewellyn doesn’t know he is being hunted until the shot is taken and wounded he runs off and escapes. The ending shows Anton (normally the hunter) the victim of a random accident (to the elk, the shot was also something unexpected, out of the blue). He also limps off wounded, but not dead. Did anyone else see this kind of a connection?
February 11th, 2008 at 8:11 am
I go to the movies to have fun. If I want to get depressed I’ll watch the news. If I want to be psychoanalyzed I’ll go to a shrink. This film had so much potential to be good, but the ending ruined it for me. It was fun right up to the end. Oh, it was well done and capitivating alright, and apparently true to the book, which I haven’t read, but that doesn’t mean it was good. Now I will have to research movies like this before I go, or read the damn book, and somehow avoid ruining the ending, to figure out whether I want to go see it. It was not fun. I don’t go to the movies to reminded of all the darker aspects of life.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:09 am
C’mon, people… NCFOM is a piece of movie making, not a college exercise in translating a novel to the screen. And as a film, it is definitely one of the finest examples of a ‘Naked Napoleon’ to be perpetrated on the unsuspecting audience. It is an embarassment for the brothers.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:24 am
shut up, its a freaking film stop posting and go watch another i made the film and the simple fact is that its based on a true story and im coming for you if u keep posting
love from anton
DO NOT REPLY
March 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
well i am a 16 year old kid and i found the movie to be totally frekin awsome. i didnt understand the ending but i dont think you really have to. The over all story is just one big metaphor. the dialog was the best i have ever heard. im out!!!!!
March 7th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Mullholland Drive part two…pointless….
March 10th, 2008 at 1:01 am
When I watched NCFOM awhile back and the film ended, a large man a few rows behind me stood up quickly and said, “What the F***?” I thought that his response to the ending was appropriate, given the fact that one of the more obvious themes of the film was Death, and Death, like the ending of NCFOM, often comes sooner than we’d like and awkwardly and when there’s probably something desperately more important we should be doing other than ending.
Anton’s morality, while darkly skewed, is solid: he paints within his lines. Tom Bell divorces his own sense of duty. Llewellyn Moss, the ordinary guy, excels unexpectedly. And Death stalks every corner of this film, taking men not because of their actions or inactions, but because Death takes men. The things you do before that moment count or don’t count. So the Coens leave us with real tragedy: Tom Bell loses his conviction.
I know I’m Johnny-come-lately with this comment and the film won the Oscar and all that, but still.
PS: Does anyone think that if instead of taking place in Texas that the film had taken place on top of a giant sandwich and the title had been No Sandwich For Old Men, would it still have won the Oscar?
March 12th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
the ending means: “this is how it is, and this is how it’s going to continue being.”
March 13th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I loved this movie right up until the ending, which was like “what the hell just happened?!” I think we get used to having a tidy ending handed to us when we watch a movie and it is rare for a movie to end like this. It ruined the movie for me at first, but after I thought about it…what really is the big deal? It is just a movie after all and it makes it even more interesting because you can interpret the ending however you like. I would like to think that Anton didn’t kill the wife and that she was the driver of the car who ran into him. The fact that he didn’t die is unfortunate, but oh well, it is just a movie. I think the movie is just a fun, cat and mouse type of movie entertwined with western, comedy, horror, and action themes which makes it fun to watch. It does also have deeper meanings if you want to think about it hard enough :)
Oh, and by the way….those weren’t elk, Jim, those were antelope.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Empathy kills.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
what happened to the 2 million? Llewellyn was waiting at Desert Sands for his wife. He was going to give it to her, but obviously he didn’t because by the time she got there, he was dead. Why didn’t they at least show the scene that killed him? That would have been relevant. Instead they show a completely boring scene where the Sheriff rambles to an old man with a ton of cats about Uncle Max and about the fact that he was retiring. Well, who cares? What happened to the money? Obviously Carla Jean didn’t have it. Did Anton kill her? She didn’t call the coin, so I am assuming he killed her. Did Anton have the money since he paid that boy $100 for his shirt after he had been in the car accident? The whole movie was awesome. But the ending sucked. At least with the Sopranos, even though the ending was just the family eating at a diner listening to “Don’t stop believing,” you know HBO can start another season if they wanted to and just pick up where they left off with Silvio in the hospital.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
This movie is highly overrated. The ending is a hopeless attempt at art. Furthermore, it’s amusing reading some of the previous posts from the various dilettantes feinging some deepr understanding of this film; implying that those who disliked it are simply not intellectual enough to get it. Yes, very amusing indeed.
Believe me, there’s nothing deep, clever or difficult to understand about this film. It simply bad, period.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Hi guys,
I just want to say thanks to the people who took the time to put up intelligent responses in this discussion.
I watched the movie last night… and the ending really thorugh me for a loop. I caught myself “seeing” the major points throughout the film (like the tv glaring of anton and the sherriff, the checking for blood on his shoes after leaving the wife, the money at the end for the shirt, the constant ‘you don’t have to do this’ references, etc)…. but in the moment.. i was unable to put them all together and felt kinda empty with the ending.
But after spending some time thinking through all these things … and tying it back to the title of the film… and reading through some of the discussions here… it has really helped clarify some of the deeper meanings of the movie for me and I can totally see why its best picture now.
I am going to rewatch it in the next couple days and continue to build on my understanding of it.
Thanks again to everyone…. this why i love the internet.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
One thing that just came to me regarding the whole “chance/choice” argument mentioned by many here is the idea of confidence and persistence when making a choice.
The sheriff never seems sure of himself in the movie. woody harrelson sees the money off the bridge but chooses to wait before getting it… which leads to his death…. the main character who found the money seems to be indecisive/worried/looking over his shoulder the whole movie with no clear plan…. and what he did get … it was by luck/chance (the guns he took at the scene, the money, etc)…and luck eventually runs out…. where as anton always was clear about what he intended to do and what he wanted…and was confident in himself…regardless of what he was faced with….he was a man of action (Anton) instead of a man of dreams/hopes (sherriff at the end) ….. so with choice comes actin… with action comes experience…and with experience comes confidence… and ultimately victory (whether evil or good).
Sorry .. was totally thinking out loud there..
March 29th, 2008 at 1:14 am
A Latin phrase comes to mind; Deus Ex Machina
March 30th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I watched the movie for 2 hours and thought it was very good. Near the last 1/2 hour of the film, I had to keep rewinding it just to see if I missed something. The part with the father really just seemed out of the ordinary and now that I know it was a dream, it made little impact on me.
Did it deserve to win for Best Picture? Maybe. It was well done and there were parts in there that could’ve been edited out, but Tommy Lee Jones was the sheriff and didn’t really do anything in the movie except for talking.
The ending made me think about it for a few minutes and then I just deleted it off my iPod. It wasn’t a waste of money for me, but I don’t really see myself watching it again to figure out the ending. The ending seemed like it was meant to foster a debate, which it has, but in the end, it’s not something that I really want to see again.
Did the ending bother me that it didn’t really close anything to many people? A little. Am I glad I only paid a few dollars to rent the movie? Yes.
I consider myself to be fairly intelligent, but if I have to sit and ponder an ending to a movie, it makes me feel that I’m doing the work that the director(s) should have done. Not to say that I don’t like movies that make me think, it’s just that I like movies that end in a way that I can justify my time in watching it.
The beginning and the middle were fairly good, and this is one of my first Coehn brothers’ movies. Maybe they do this all the time….. I don’t know and honestly, I’m not going to go out of my way to find out. It was a decent movie, but there were better movies I’ve seen last year that I would watch again and felt moved by more. And I watched about 200 movies last year while exercising or travelling on a train or bus. It’s not to say that I’m an expert at movies; it’s just that this movie was good, but I have no plans to make it part of my movie collection. Critics may have given this rave reviews because it’s their job to see movies, so they may have gotten more out of it than I did. All I know is that they’re not my favorite directors at this time.
I wanted to like it, but I felt that Zodiac was a better film.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I thought the ending sucked. I love the Coen brothers films but the best would have been if Chighur had been killed in the car wreck. He had gone through all what he did in the movie and then something stupid like getting t-boned by a woman in a station wagon and dying would have been better. IMO. Good movie but LAME ending.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
look you guys!!!! all i wannaknow is who got sho at the end when the mexicans drove away at the hotel… Was it the guy with four L’s in his name or the sherrifs friend? help a lost teen out
April 28th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I agree, this was a good movie but hardly Oscar worthy.
If this movie had a huge action shoot out at the end
and we could see how these characters ended up it
would eventually become forgettable, but would have
had closure. The most memorable thing about this
movie is when I was waiting for Tommy Lee Jones to
end his babbling so we could move on and get back
to the story, little did I know, the story had ended.
Lousy ending even if that is how the book concluded.
What I learned is everybody thinks the world will end
in a bang. They were wrong, it will end while Tommy
Lee Jones is rambling incoherently.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:31 am
The movie ending was fine but there was no orgy
June 14th, 2008 at 12:45 am
i think the title just refers to the beginning when TLJ’s character says that in the olden days the sheriffs didnt even carry guns, and that this is no country for them
but i dunno
July 1st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
The sheffif TLJ got the job when he was 25years old.I am sure that every decade of his tenor he saw more and more meaningless bloodsheed He is tired now.After 4O years of serving society has only gotten worse.His uncle warned him about vanity.He is only one man that has been fighting the same fight. As for Luelyn he wasn’t cut out for the game. Anton is all of the ignorant evil that we see plastered over the news every night but rolled into one body.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Well, I really did enjoy this movie, and reading all these interpretations of the movie’s obscure ending helps me a lot in my enjoyment. It was one big giant metaphor. Jones’ character said he wanted to find God in some way by this age, and he did when he retired. His dream was exactly what he wanted from God or from some higher being. That dream showed his conscious and metaphysical acceptance with retiring from killing evil. This is not a country for old men because old men can’t kill evil forever and God wanted him to see that and so did his father. It was only that one very last scene with the dream I didn’t understand but now do. But I must argue that this movie is not a drama, and it is not a crime drama as Yahoo! says it is. It is a horror flick. Plain and simple.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I think the film symbolizes death with Anton’s character, he is seemingly an unstoppable “grim reaper” that takes every life he comes in contact with unless chance tells him otherwise…sort of a “its your time” aspect. It even seemed that the victim in the car crash did not survive. It speaks of the randomness of death…the coin travelling from many different places in many different years, and the randomness of it landing on heads or tails. TLJ’s character realizes he is up against a force that is much to strong for him and intelligently elects to live (not a dumb character). The ending I believe is one of the greatest parts of the movie because it does not adapt the formulaic ending of the protagonist defeating the antogonist…and in the end its not about evil prevailing over good either…its simply about man’s inability to contain evil, and acting on a real human emotion of understanding its a fight he cannot win. This ending connects a tone of reality through an otherwise fantastical film. I challenge you to come up with an alternate ending that does not make the film more cheesy, or status quo. On another note, I absolutely adored the fact that lewellyn (sp?) was just all of the sudden gone, and didn’t go out in a “blaze of glory” for all of the same reasons (connection with reality, randomness of death, not status quo-protagonist glory). I feel these are some of the greatest characters ever created (especially Anton), and since the film is so much more character-based then plot-based (the plot is more symbolic and the characters are very straight forward) it makes it one of the best films ever created. I think a lot of people who enjoy films should embrace more of these non-status quo endings and not always expect a grand finale of fireworks or a heroic protagonist. Why does the protagonist have to be heroic? Why does this have to be a quality he/she posesses? In life the “good guy” doesn’t always win, nor go down in a blaze of glory. For the same reasons I enjoy endings of movies like “There Will Be Blood” in which a man achieves everything in life that he believed equalled happiness, only to find out he was chasing the wrong dream (Oil made him happy, and his dream was to live in a mansion…money). It has deep roots in reality, rather than sacraficing the qualities of a realistic character and the lessons that can be learned from that to live up to the demands of the history of cinema.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Its obvious what happened to the money. whats his face stowed it in the vent again, in his new room..before he was killed. Anton was gunna get it, but was interupted. so the sheriff guy showed up, saw the vent, and took the money. happy retirement. Then he gets all deep, because he is rich. rich people can sit and ponder those types of things.
September 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Loved it because…its about darn time…its got to be said. It was about the new, contemporary evil. At the end, when youth instantly sized up the situation and started dickering with the mangled man for a few extra bucks. Remember? for his shirt. Now here was someone with whom Anton could do business. They understood each other.
That chilled me right down all the way. Because i believe it.
To understand that bizzo, you’ve got to get so immersed in it you hazard your soul
September 21st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
You people (everyone who wrote before this post) put WAAAAY too much effort into trying to give this movie some sort of special meaning or message.
It’s a movie about a drug deal gone bad that leads to a guy stealing the money and getting chased by a hitman.
It’s just a vehicle for watching and enjoying a creepy bad guy. Duh.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
@Melly: It must not be as obvious as you think because actually Anton wound up with the money. He arrives after the El Paso shootout. After the police left, Chigurh went back into the room and got it. He knew where it was because he saw the track marks inside the vent of the Del Rio motel room where Moss orignially hid it. When TLJ arrived, he saw that the vent was opened.
Not only that but it is also implied in two ways:
One, the police, though they would have done a thorough investigation of the hotel, wouldn’t have thought to look in an air vent for the money, Anton is the only one who knows that’s where Moss had been hiding it.
Two, Anton offered the kid at the end a one hundred dollar bill which implies that he got the money.