No Country For Old Men

[andyfox]

"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?"

Yes. Was the uncle's talk supposed to show that violence was always a part of the local environment? I had trouble discerning exactly what Jones said about his dream, he sort of mumbled it a bit. What I did get I couldn't relate to the rest of the movie.

Woody always seems to me to be playing his character from Cheers.

[jester710]

I can't recall off the top of my head what exactly Jones said about the dream.

As for the other scene (warning: may be spoilers ahead), its significance is easier to understand in the book. Jones's uncle, like his father, was a sheriff; the uncle was wounded in the line of duty whereas the father was killed. Jones's character, like many people, tends to paint a rosier picture of the past than is accurate, and compares himself unfavorably to his heroes of that time. So yes, the uncle is saying that violent killers like Chigurh have always existed, and that Jones is not an inferior man for not catching him or dying trying. Jones's character spends the whole movie bemoaning the sorry state the world has come to be in, but the uncle basically tells him that people tend to compare the present unfavorably to the past, when in reality things are how they always have been, and people are people.

Also, there's a subplot in the book that's significant to this scene, and the sheriff's character as a whole, involving a commendation the sheriff won in Vietnam. I won't spoil it in case anyone intends to read the book, but it makes that scene much more significant.

[jester710]

Also, out of curiosity, how do you think you would've liked this movie if you'd never seen Fargo?

[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]

[ 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?

[Dominic]

I really liked this...however, I have long realized that my love for the Cohen Bros. movies is mostly because of their humor, story-telling ability and their exquisite craft. None of their movies ever really "moves" me beyond, "wow, that was a cool movie."

Their phenomenal filmmakers and I'm a huge fan. T But like Tarantino, it seems most of their movies are about other movies or movie making in general. nothing wrong with that, I guess, but it does leave me with a feeling that something's emotionally missing after I see one of their films.

No Country is great. I enjoyed it immensely. I loved the very bold choice of not having any music at all. The dialogue was so rich and perfect it created all the music needed.

Brolin, Bardem and Jones were all terrific. I actually liked Harrelson's role in this. And I've always had a crush on McDonald. It was cool seeing Barry Corbin and Stephen Root, too. really, Brolin was a revelation. Who knew he was so good?

I really liked Jones's last scene, too. Very moving.

But for some reason, it's not quite Once, Michael Clayton or Gone Baby Gone. Those three are still the best films of the year for me so, so far. I liked Zodiac and Breach a lot, but they aren't quite great films for me.

[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

[KungFuManchu]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so sure about Zodiac. Ive seen it 3 times through no will of my own, except for the 1st time, and I was suprised, intially, at how much I disliked it. The first little bit is good and then it just drags and drags, and really the end jumps around so much with the time cuts that it just comes up feeling empty.

The 2nd and 3rd time I watched it was also with huge David Fincher fans, and same thing, liked the first half, 2nd half just died out.

Anyway, opinions.

[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.