No Country For Old Men

[CharlieDontSurf]

i think of all the films this year...in 20 years the ones that will be remembered and shown in film schools all over US will be No Country, Zodiac n maybe Michael Clayton

[andyfox]

Brolin was also terrific in American gangster, so a breakout year for him. With Love in the Time of Cholera coming out, it could also be so for Bardem.

[Blarg]

Good interview with the Coen Bros., Bardem, and Brolin on Charlie Rose last night. Rose shows usually repeat the next day at some point, so y'all might be able to still catch it.

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He hid behind the door that had swung open, and the door was never shown to be closed, so either he was there as long as Jones was there, he left while Jones had his back turned, or he was truly a ghost who could sneak out at will (that is, get out of the room w/out Jones noticing in the time it took Jones to get inside).

But I don't think he was really ghost-like, because Moss was able to detect him beforehand, as well as get the jump on him in the street. On a related subject, one of the things that interests me most and is never revealed is how/why they caught Chigurh at the beginning. That's the type of thing that always fascinates me about these stories.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're being too literal - Anton hiding behind the door is simply the Sheriff's projection of what COULD BE beyond the door and waiting for him. It's the Sheriff's own fear - an illusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was basing this at least in part on the fact that, in the book, there is the near miss in the motel (although it's a different situation). The book does have the Sheriff grappling with his fears (thinking to himself, "you know he's out there," "no, he isn't," etc.), but his fears were all well-founded. I'm not saying you're wrong, as your explanation makes a lot of sense and it's quite possible the Coens wanted to go in a different direction. I had just assumed that, since he was really there in the book, he was really there in the movie too.

[CharlieDontSurf]

Someone told me that when Jones sits down there is a shot of the floor and supposedly they thought they saw a quarter on the floor. as if Anton flipped it and that why he decided not to kill Jones

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone told me that when Jones sits down there is a shot of the floor and supposedly they thought they saw a quarter on the floor. as if Anton flipped it and that why he decided not to kill Jones

[/ QUOTE ]

no, I the coin he sees is a dime - it's on the floor with a few screws and the grate from the heating duct. He used the dime previously to get into the duct in Brolin's first room.

[andyfox]

The New Yorker, FWIW, didn't like Love in the Time of Cholera, and one major reason was that they felt Bardem was miscast and consequently weak in the movie.

[kafkaFan1]

[ QUOTE ]
Saw it this afternoon. It was Fargo redone in Texas without the novelty. Same story. I liked Fargo a lot. This was boring. Bardem was like watching a robot. Brolin was good, following up on another good performance in American Gangster. The last hour was just slow and dull. The only time there was any interest on screen, for me, was when Tommy Lee Jones was there. And I didn't understand the last scene, nor the next to last scene.

Maybe I just don't get it. And, I have to admit, I don't understand what the movie was about, what purpose there was for making it. Woody Harrelson was just plain awful, and I didn't understand why he was even in the movie.

What am I missing, guys?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow andy, it is impressive how similar our thoughts are in movies. i thought pretty much exact same thing. i do think the movie was very well done though, after reading the IMDB message board and hearing some people explain some more what they thought the movie was about i also enjoyed the movie more looking back on it.

question - what is the deal with the coin, specifically the evil guy says a line "this coin has traveled for 22 years always to be with me here" a couple of times, what does that mean?

[kafkaFan1]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the similarities to Fargo are there: the vicious psychopath, vast empty landscapes, a cop who can't fathom the depth of the ongoing depravity. I think the main difference is this is kind of a continuation of the theme; the crimes in Fargo were an anomaly, the type of things that just don't happen in those kinds of places. In NCFOM, however, the senseless crimes are more a harbinger of what's to come, of an area that's going to be riddled with violence because of the drug menace. The events of Fargo happened because of one man's greed, and they ended when the few agents responsible were stopped; the events of this movie will continue to happen because of the greed of many, most of whom will never be stopped, or even known.

I think Bardem was supposed to be robotic. He was a man who was so committed to his twisted principles that he couldn't allow any deviation from them. He was like Hannibal Lecter in that Hannibal had a very strange sense of etiquette that he followed religiously, and expected others to do the same. Anton Chigurh had his code, and he followed it even when there was no gain in it for him (example/spoiler: <font color="white">the scene where he went out of his way to murder the wife, for instance </font>).

And I agree that Woody was the weak link of the film, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to call him awful. He had more of a purpose in the book, as he revealed a little about Chigurh's character and placed the events of the story in a bigger picture.

When you say you didn't understand the last two scenes, are you speaking of the ones at Tommy Lee Jones's house and that of his uncle or whomever that was?

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree about the biolence being an anamoly in fargo. there was less actual violence, but a lot of the movie was about emptimeness, it was the cold snow lonliness in nebraska, there was very little of the opposite - the warm bedroom scenes about the love between the cop wife and husband.

as far as bardon being emotionless. i like the idea of looking upon him as a representative of violence or suffering not as an actual person. meainingless for some people (like the guy driving in the car at the beginning who got air gunned in the head), emotionless, hm and some other stuff.

[kafkaFan1]

"the book, at its core, is comparing the two characters (mainly what they are willing to risk to follow their "morals") chigurh represents someone without morals who therefore can follow his code without a problem. chigurh never has any decisions of his own,"

again, think it makes more sense to view this as bad things happening to people, instead of Chigurh happening to people. it makes sense as seeing bad stuff happen to people JUST BECAUSE IT HAPPENS, just because that is the way the world works. that was one of the main points of the movie i think, like the speech where the wheelchair guy talks about vanity and how these things can't be stopped, it is the natural course of events.

Re: Characters being stupid. I kind of agree with andy about them being dumb, but not to say they have low IQs or don't have "skill sets" which they obviously do. but they make bad choices and have bad priorities, like going for the money and the money gets everyone killed. same idea as in Fargo, think that was big in this movie too. Harrelson was in it for the money clearly, he dies, the main character money=death, mexicans/money=death. then the kids at the end of the movie give a sling to chirgough and get $100 for it (thoughts on that last scene and the money?)