Ok, first things first. We loved “No Country For Old Men”, and if you recall we even listed it at #6 on our 10 best films of 2007 list. However, there were 3 things in the film that prevents it from being in the top 2 spots… and with all the awards consideration the film seems to be getting these days, I thought it would be interesting to open up the conversation about those flaws (as I saw them anyway). So for your consideration, and strictly for the purpose of conversation, here now are the 3 Things To Hate About No Country For Old Men.
BE WARNED!!! THIS VIDEO IS INTENDED FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MOVIE AND IS FILLED WITH SPOILERS
Comment with Facebook
Ooooh! So arty! …frankly, I wish that all of the characters in this film had just shot themselves in the head about 15 minutes before it began and saved us all the worthless trouble of watching it. We could have been mowing the lawn or cleaning out a closet or something useful.
I refuse to get into debating why the folks in this movie did what they did when they did it and all of that……it was an exercise in futility from the first beautifully shot frames.
Sad, that.
i agree with everything this man said..not showing how n why llewellyn died killed the movie 4 me..woody was a waste of time n to much stories..y is the movie so random?..wats with the car crash at then end.n i wanted to at least hear him shoot llewellyn’s wife at the end..good movie but got its major flaws..the endin was bad…..the mist had to have the best endin in movies i have seen in foreva
The Carson Well (Woody) character was important because without him there would have never been a conversation between Anton and Llewellyn…and Anton would of never made the promise to kill his wife…
Sara I soooo agree with your comments, ‘What a complete load of tosh!’ I watched this film with my son and neither of us had a clue what was suppose to be happening or why it had happened when it had!!
How on earth did that win Oscars?
I don’t know if anyone is still reading this thread but I just watched NCFOM at home after renting the blu-ray version. I’m not sure I am qualified to add my 2 cents after reading so much analysis of this film on this blog…but then again, last I checked, movies are for movie-goers and I do belong to that club. I’m in my 40’s and I watched the film with my husband and my 20 year old daughter…and all 3 of us were extremely disappointed in the film, and not just in the ending. I’m completely blown away by how many people say they loved it, and even more blown away by the academy awards. I understand that movies are not supposed to all be cookie cutters and perfect endings, and I have read everyone’s comments so I realize there was a book and apparently the film followed it closely…that means nothing to most movie goers since the majority does not read the book first. My daughter kept asking me questions about the movie and I had to keep reminding her that I was there at that moment for the first time with her so I was as clueless as she was every step of the way. She’s a smart girl, a movie buff, we all are. I guess it’s all about what people want from their movie experience and for me I personally don’t like paying to be left feeling confused, frustrated, pissed off, and depressed about the future of our society or left wondering why in the hell I just wasted 2 hours of my life. I know all too well what reality is and I’ve faced enough of that without having to pay two very rich brothers to give me more of it. Some times it feels like the Academy picks the same people over and over and doesn’t really care what the average movie goer would think and the critics only care about finding something strange and different that doesn’t bore them…what happened to feeling satisfied or having some sense of enjoyment or accomplishment as in, “Wow, I’m glad I saw that movie?”. I rarely feel that way anymore. Most people I know agree with me. It’s a fact already that Hollywood is struggling to get people to show up in the theaters so maybe they’ve stopped caring about us and only make films for the critics and academies now. .
It saddens me that there are so many new film makers out there who won’t be given a chance because the Academies are tied up in the revolving door of films done by previous award winners. I’m positive we’re all missing out. If NCFOM was made by a newbie it would not have been given any nods, it makes me ill how much it’s being fluffed up undeservedly.
As for the writer of the book, Cormac McCarthy, I’m bummed now that I hated this movie so much because I own a book by him that I was planning on reading soon and I’m not looking forward to it as much as I was before. Since all the comments on this board are so sure this film stuck closely to his writing then I don’t expect to be a fan of his books.
Re. my No Country for Old Men comment, sorry, didn’t know the ‘comment’ line stayed in the posts.
(Type your comment here. Make sure you’ve read the commenting rules before doing so)I loved this movie, and enjoy reading discussions about it (even when it gets a little heated). I liked the fact that Llew is shown to us dead on the pavement after the fact. It surprised me, sideswiped me, just like I’m sure he was sideswiped by the Mexican contingent (because he became so focused on Anton), and just as Anton, always in control, was sideswipped (by his very good friend ‘chance & luck) by that car at the intersection. Brilliant!
I have to agrre w/ you to some extent but… I fell that the superb acting and storline made up for the very Small flaws. I think the Coen brothers did a wonderful job of putting this movie together so give them a little credit
I agree with you for the most part, but i still have to say… This was one of the best movie’s of the year. Ya sure a few things are a little messed up but the amazing acting and storyline makes up for it. I Coen brothers did a MAGNIFICENT job putting this movie together so give them some credit.
Well if that your opinion than thats your opinion. I like the movie but yes I also had some things I didn’t like about I as well.
This was a statement film, a constant Cohen Bros theme, being that the cultural fringe of American society is inhabited by Godless invaders Texan cops and trailer trash, no better or no worse than the folks they encounter, underlining their belief that Americans are a victim of their own self imposed demons.
John, I can’t say that I am disappointed because I understand where you come from, but I completely disagree on all counts. I could go into a long-winded defense of the three things you hate, but I doubt anything I say will ever change your mind and I don’t have enought time to go that far. So here’s the gist of it:
1. While you could cut out all of Mr. Harrelson’s parts out of the movie (and they will most likely be taken out when it goes to TV), you are left with a gaping hole. First, Harrelson is the one who tells Lewellyn who he is dealing with in Chigurh. If you remember, Moss calls on Harrelson and gets Chigurh, where the final ultimatum is made. On top of that since we know that this character has worked with Chigurh before (and has lived to see another day), this adds a new wrinkle to Chigurh’s madness. Harrelson might not be important to the story, but he adds more mystery to Chigurh, making him more complex.
2. The film is entirely a meditation on violence. Sheriff Bell’s view from the beginning is how things are more violent now. That the past was rose-colored instead of blood-stained. These stories all add up to Barry Corbin’s best line “You can’t stop what’s coming.” The fact is, the Coens as well as novelist Cormac McCarthy are saying that malicious violence has always been around, that the law can’t stop it.
3. Your third point bleeds (pun not intended) into your second. If they show the death of Lewellyn Moss, then it means that his death was about something. The film makes the point in not showing his death that it was just another homicide. It was violence for violence sake since no one got the money. Moss doesn’t stop Chigurh from killing his wife. It’s a bookend to the botched drug deal (that we also only see in aftermath). A circle of violence is complete.
Well, that’s my take on the film. Maybe it will give you something to ponder over when you watch the movie again (and I hope you do watch it again). Anyways, I’m out. Check out filmscope.org, coming soon in March 2008.
The movie royally sucked ! It was like watching dislexic theater.It had a good start,went through a lot of boring un-needed dialogue, had a fairly followable plot line but went into convulsions midway to the end of the film which by the way was the worst ending since Son of Godzilla which the whole film met that criteria and about as entertaining.Putting it in a realm of 6 good films on a list should be reclassified as on of the 6 worst films made in that month that include one or two on their way out actors.A simple rewrite of the film couldve made it as a great classic but went south on us halfway through.I felt like we were in texas and mexico but weirdly ended up like a John from Cincinatti episode.The Coens maybe inhaled.
The sudden death of Llewelyn brings out the main aspect of the whole story.
The Coens create a character who we begin to wish good things for. We want him to be reunited with his wife, for Anton to be killed, for his life to return to normal. His death brings around the point that violence is uncontrollable and that it affects everyone.
Anyone who has lost a friend or family member through an act of violence will know how painful it is to get over it. However, Llewelyn is just a character (he isn’t real) and so we can’t feel too much love for him. In order to avoid this obstacle, he is killed off suddenly so that not only does the film feel empty and incomplete without him, but you also feel like hating the film because this man didn’t get his happy ending.
The three things I didn’t like about your review. Can you guess?
Whooops!
1.) You said Woody Harrelson’s character would’ve been better left out.
2.) You said the movie over used story telling.
3.) You said the unseen death of Llewellyn was something to hate.
Other than that it was a terrific review. I place it at number 666 this year.
– –
Okay,
Father Luke
Just finished watching the film. I can’t help but think that:
#1: the boss man wouldn’t have died , but then that wasn’t really integral to the story either…
#2: didn’t really notice, but then never truly got what most of the stories were pointing at as I generally zoned out after the first couple (sorry chaps I obviously need to watch it a few more times)
#3: agree with you.. I can see the other side of the fence, but did feel a little let down.. It reminded me very much of the end of the Sopranos (the last ever ep).. it just ends…..
All in all, it might have been the “best” film of 2007, it might have had the most compelling message, most unorthodox story-structure, blah blah blah.. But at the end of the day, i couldn’t help but feel it was writer by the coen brothers FOR the coen brothers, and ended up satisfying the broadsheet critics more than your average movie joe.
Hey Powerman,
Perhaps if you actually LISTENED to what I said. I never complained about the ending. I only complained that they didn’t SHOW us Llewelyn die.
I always hear people bitch and moan how directors never stay true to the original story, and go their own direction. So for the first time, in a long time, a director (directors) actually stay 100 % true to the book, and they get shit for it?? Jesus, you can’t win.
I’m sorry they didn’t make a happy ending for you joh, where the good guy kills the bad guy, and runs off into the sunset with the bride. But that’s life. Neither Moss or Sugar were the main characters. THe sherrif was. They got the most screen time, but that’s not the point.
BTw, I’m glad you had an easier time understanding the ending of 310 to Yuma, where Crow kills his entire crew for no god damn reason, after they risked their lives to save his ass. LOL
Think of it this way, bud. Nerds love BLADE RUNNER, right? Gives them a huge boner, moves their hearts, whatever. The official synopsis of the movie is gonna say that it’s about a retired “blade runner” hired to kill some escaped robots. But to the people who live and breathe for that movie and carry the plastic briefcase around, that’s not what it’s “about.” It’s about the difference between the humans and the robots, what makes one better or worse, what constitutes humanity or life. Does Deckard really have the right to take away their life just because they’re robots, when they clearly feel more passion for life than he does? How do we even know he is human? etc.
That’s all I’m saying about NO COUNTRY. Yes, it’s about a guy who finds money and tries to keep it. And it’s about the guy who tries to kill him, and the guy who tries to catch them. But ultimately the story ends with the guy who is trying to catch them, with his observations, with what this event did his life, which also happens to be the title of the movie and the running theme (and even narration) starting from the very beginning. And it’s when we see Llewelyn’s death solely from his perspective when we realize that this is really his movie. This is the deeper theme of the movie, the final thought, the most important part, that’s why I say the movie is “about” Bell.
In your view, all the things that add this deeper level to the movie are “flaws.” What I’m arguing is that those were intentionally put there by McCarthy and the Coens because to them that’s the main point of the story. They are not mistakes, they just don’t work for you because you for some reason cannot imagine a world where this story is more about Bell than about Llewelyn. (Although I think it was Ebert who argued it’s more about Chigurh. Maybe we’re both wrong.)
With BLADE RUNNER I don’t think you’d ask them to take out the musings about empathy and the value of life, even if you believe the movie is “about” a futuristic detective guy trying to kill robots.
Bell is basically the Greek Chorus of the film and the last bit about his dream is called a “denouement”. Sort of a summing up of the events or themes of the story.
Hey Vern,
Actually, that synopsis is from THE OFFICIAL NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN website, it was just quoted on Moviephone. Did they just not understand their own movie?
You asked:
Why do you think they don’t show this scene that, in your version of the movie where it’s about Llewlyn would be so important? Did they just forget? Are they just stupid?
Yes, it was stupid. They showed him finding the money. They showed him running from the mexican truck and running from the dog. They showed him shooting the dog. They showed his first gun fight with Anton. They showed him in the hospital. They showed him doing EVERYTHING… except die… which was stupid on their part.
You also asked:
Do you think those guys, as masterful as the rest of the movie obviously is, just fucked up and accidentally ended the movie sloppily?
Even Spielberg makes mistakes. So do the Cohen Bros. But I didn’t mind the ending (except for the fact that they already over used the stupid moralizing story telling that is took a lot of the power away from Jone’s brilliant last story about his dream). It’s ok for the movie to continue with a prologue once the essential story is over. That’s what the ending was… a prologue. But the story itself was over when Llewelyn died and Anton made away with the money.
And my thoughts on the title were already given:
”The title is a reflection of ONE ELEMENT of the movie, being Bell’s OBSERVATIONS about the story (he’s not the story… but his observations of the story) and it’s relevance to how the world has gone to hell)”
Sorry man, look up ANY synopsis and plot outline for this movie… INCLUDING THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE, and it’s clear… the story is about Llewelyn, Anton and the Money. Bell is an important character to the MOVIE… but not the STORY.
The STORY, and totally 100% nothing to do with Bell. Take Bell out, and the whole story still happens.
I can’t for the life of me understand how you’d think otherwise… but that is indeed the most beautiful thing about film… the pure subjectivity of it and how we can all see different things when looking at it
See, you’re talking about the Moviefone summary of the plot. I’m talking about the actual heart and substance of the movie, the things that McCarthy and the Coens are really trying to get at, the part that makes all these critics love it more than they would love a normal crime movie, the part that makes it a McCarthy novel, the part that will make it win best picture this year. Yes, if you look superficially at the surface of the movie, you are correct on most of these points. But if you want to actually respect movies as an artform with meaning and possibilities it’s pretty god damn easy to understand to understand “where I’m getting this from.”
Why do you think they don’t show this scene that, in your version of the movie where it’s about Llewlyn would be so important? Did they just forget? Are they just stupid?
At the end, when you say “the story is over,” why do you think the movie continues? Do the Coens just not know what they’re doing? Or is it possible that the real story is not over, that to them Bell’s struggle is the more important part?
Do you think those guys, as masterful as the rest of the movie obviously is, just fucked up and accidentally ended the movie sloppily?
Also, what is your interpretation of the title?
Hey Vern,
The Title?!?!
Is “Casino Royale” actually a movie about the Casino? No, it’s about James Bond hunting an international arms dealer
Is “Gone Baby Gone” about the drug dealer who said it? No, it’s about the PI searching for the little girl
Is “Atonement” about the little girl who cried wolf? No, it’s about Knightly and MacAvoy (though it’s told from the little girl’s perspective).
Is “National Treasure Book of Secrets” about the book of secrets? No, it’s about the search for the lost city of gold to redeem his grandfather’s name
Is “The Departed” actually about dead people? No, it’s about Damon and DiCaprio as double agents infiltrating the cops and the mob and the race to discover the identity of the other.
Sorry man, the title doesn’t dictate what the movie is about. It can be a reflection of an ELEMENT of the movie, but it’s not necessarily the factum of what it’s about.
And in reference to your list:
– The title is NOT about Bell. The title is a reflection of ONE ELEMENT of the movie, being Bell’s OBSERVATIONS about the story (he’s not the story… but his observations of the story) and it’s relevance to how the world has gone to hell)
– The end of the movie is NOT about Bell. It’s just his reflections on other events. Nothing happens at the end except his observation and reflection. The STORY was already over.
– The story’s Bell told were NOT about Bell. They were him re-telling stories ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE and his observations about possible meaning. But none of them were ABOUT him.
– The themes of the movie were NOT about Bell
I honestly don’t know where you got any of that.
The story is about (and this is taken right from the official Plot Outline of the movie):
“Violence and mayhem ensue after a hunter stumbles upon some dead bodies, a stash of heroin and more than $2 million in cash near the Rio Grande.”
Hmmm… the money is mentioned… Llewelyn is mentioned… but no Bell? How can the movie be ABOUT Bell if he’s not even mentioned in the plot outline?
Or how about the Movie Synopsis from Moviephone:
The story begins when Llewelyn Moss (BROLIN) finds a pickup truck surrounded by a sentry of dead men. A load of heroin and two million dollars in cash are still in the back. When Moss takes the money, he sets off a chain reaction of catastrophic violence that not even the law – in the person of aging, disillusioned Sheriff Bell (JONES) – can contain. As Moss tries to evade his pursuers – in particular a mysterious mastermind who flips coins for human lives (BARDEM) – the film simultaneously strips down the American crime drama and broadens its concerns to encompass themes as ancient as the Bible and as bloodily contemporary as this morning’s headlines.
Who does that sound like the movie is about?
The poster has a giant picture of Anton and Llewelyn. Where is Bell?
The bottom line here, is that the STORY is about Llewelyn and Anton. Bell is an observer of that story, but he NEVER ONCE actually intersects with the story. he never influences the story. He never effects any of the outcomes nor does he have anything to do with the STORY. Rather, the movie is a telling of the STORY from Bell’s perspective, but Bell himself is not the story.
To say that the story is about Bell is like saying 300 is about David Wenham’s character Dilios (the one who tells the story and survives at the end). The story is told through his eyes and from his perspective. He’s the one at the end of the movie leading the new spartan army to victory… but it’s NOT about him. It’s about the King. Just as NCFOM is not about Bell, it’s about Llewelyn and Anton.
Yep. I read that list when you wrote it before. He is a new list:
-the title is about Bell
-the end of the movie is about Bell
-the stories you want cut out of the movie are about Bell
-the themes of the movie are about Bell
-the shootout scene you want in the movie is not in the movie because the movie is about Bell
Now, leave Llewelyn in the movie, but take those things out.
-you have a movie, but it’s totally a different one that’s not as original
-it’s hard to market because it has no title
I don’t know bud, it seems to me like you’re working pretty hard to deny alot of what the movie is about just because it contradicts what you think it should’ve been about.
If you get a chance you should check out the podcast they put up on the nocountryforoldmen-themovie.com. I haven’t listened to the whole thing yet but at the beginning the panel of critics discuss “the ending” and they all seem to agree that the movie is ultimately about Bell.
Seriously though, what’s your interpretation of the title?
Hey Vern,
The “TITLE” of the film doesn’t establish who the movie is about. The MOVIE establishes who the movie is about.
The story is told from the PERSPECTIVE of Bell…
BUT…
The story is ABOUT Llewelyn
Let me repeat what I asked earliet:
Take Bell out of the movie and the following still happens:
– Lleweleyn still finds the money
– Llewelyn still takes the money
– Llewelyn still gets found by the Mexicans and runs
– Anton still goes looking for Llewelyn
– Llewelyn still hides money in Hotel
– Anton still tracks Llewelyn to the hotel
– Anton still kills Mexicans waiting in Hotel
– Llewelyn still goes to another hotel where Anton finds him
– Anton and Llewelyn still have their little shootout
– Anton still gets shot
– Llewelyn still goes into Mexico
– Anton still tracks him down again
Now, leave Bell in the movie, but take Llewelyn out.
– There is no movie
You see Vern, it’s NOT about screentime (although that has a lot to do with it too), it’s about who does the story revolve around and who drives it. Answer the above question and it becomes obviously clear who the movie is ABOUT. Llewelyn (or the money, either way it’s not ABOUT Bell)
Cheers man.
By the way John, since you are so sure that the movie is not about Bell, because he has less screen time, what is your interpretation of the title?
Where I see your point that Harrelson didn’t serve much of a purpose in adding to or advancing to the story. I am glad that they had him in there, personally my favourite part of the film was when Anton finally catches up to him. Suddenly all of the machismo and confidence that oozes from his character the entire film just evapourates and he turns into a pleading victim. That really rang true to me, I couldnt help but feel if that situation happened in real life, even the most cocky individual would break down like Harrelson did.
The most overrated movie of 2007. I liked the first hour and half of the movie but then when the main character dies and they didnt show it, I was done witht this movie. I would give it a good 6.
Not sure if anybody’s still reading this thread, but…
John, you ARE asking for them to Hollywood up that scene. In a typical Hollywood movie, of course you would show the shootout. The Coens don’t show it. You’re a literal guy so you have this idea that the shootout has to be shown no matter what or somebody’s gotta go to jail. But the fact is the Coens broke your rule and it worked, just not for you. It worked for about a hundred reasons already discussed here, including faithfulness to the way the story is told in the book, furthering the themes of fate and mortality, heightening the danger of the villain in a shocking and unorthodox way, reflecting the way Llewelyn discovered the drug money in the first place and, the one you are having the biggest problem with, revealing that the themes McCarthy (and by extension the Coens) are exploring are not the ones we initially thought they were. At this point in the movie you’re supposed to realize that the question is not who will shoot who or who will get the money, but how does a man like Bell deal with this situation that shows how much the world has changed around him?
Yes, Llewlyn is “the main character” because he has the most screen time. But the substance of the story, you learn at the end, is what Bell is talking about and dealing with. So the movie is ABOUT Bell. It also happens to have a hell of a good cat and mouse chase in the middle, but that’s not the main point of the book or the movie.
I don’t mean this in a judgmental “you don’t get it” kind of way, but the movie and book just weren’t made for you. They were made for people who can appreciate a little deeper themes and unorthodox storytelling in a tale like this. That’s not necessarily the mainstream audience but there are alot of us out there which is why this movie is so beloved.
That said, I love a good crime story and normally would be fine with a well told tale just about who gets away with the money. But in this case it would be a dirtbag thing to do because that’s not what the book is about, find some other book. There are plenty of other crime movies that you can enjoy that are a little more straight forward (including Blood Simple).
But if you tell me Blood Simple is flawed because Frances McDormand never knows it’s M. Emmett Walsh who’s trying to kill her then I’m gonna give up.
John,
Yes, very agreeable, I was just playing devil’s advocate. I did see this movie before I read the book, so as a moviegoer I was dissatisfied with how they handled his death, as I’m sure many many others were.
Anthony
Hey Anthony,
Sure, I would have LIKED to have seen another confrontation between Anton and Llewelyn… but I’m cool with him dying at the motel by the mexicans.
I just wanted to SEE it. He was the main character of the movie. The driving protagonist. Up to that point the whole story focused on Llewelyn… and to have him just die off screen felt really unsatisfying.
John,
Also, I was interested in what you would have liked to see concerning Llewelyn’s death. A show down with Chigurh? with the Mexicans? A huge gun fighting scene at the motel? I’m just wondering, thanks man.
Anthony
John,
I agree with your statement and I did feel cheated investing so much time into Llewelyn’s character with no closure on the means of his death, and I’m sure the Coen Brothers could have conjured up some brilliant confrontation between Chigurh and Llewelyn. However, the book stays so completely true (except for Llewelyn’s relationship with the 15 or 16 year old hitchhiker) that if to insert such a huge part missing from the book would be to stray too far away from how Cormac McCarthy wanted to portray his death (or lack of). The Coen Brothers did a fantastic job of adapting a novel that would not seem like screen material. They also did a great job staying so close to the exact storyline (for the most part) with the end result not only making it interesting, but making it an instant classic filling message boards with analyzation.
Anthony
Hey Cleric,
If you read through my previous comments, I basically address everything in there.
On some points, I’m not going to argue. I just disagree and think his points are incorrect, but that’s the beautiful thing about film… it’s all subjective and we each bring different points of view to the table.
I would like to see Johns response to WolfMarauder (post #40), because i happen to agree with him, and i would like you to see your counter arguments
Thanks
I would like to see Johns response to WolfMarauder (post #40), because i happen to agree with him, and i would like you to see your counter arguments
Hey Anthony,
You said:
“Most importantly, the death of Llewelyn Moss was not present in the book, therefore could not be shown to us in the film.”
I totally disagree. Just because something works in one medium doesn’t mean it works in another. You must ADAPT works from one medium to another in order for it to work properly.
A 30 page internal monologue can work just perfectly in a book… but would NEVER work well on the screen. Wolverine in tight yellow spandex works fine on the pages of a comic book, but would look ridiculous on a movie screen.
It’s all well and good that Llewelyn’s death happens “off page” in the book… but that certainly doesn’t mean it can (or did) work on the screen.
read the book, dude. coen bros stayed very true to the story. you think the monologues were long in the film, book….yawn. woody should not have been cut, he was part of the puzzle piece of anton.
Most importantly, the death of Llewelyn Moss was not present in the book, therefore could not be shown to us in the film.
I really hated this movie. I don’t mind fractured storytelling, and in fact sometimes love it, but I had no idea what was going on. And I’m smart fella. Really. Let’s cut off the end of the story and if you wanted to know more than too bad, dude. The world is filled with violence and that’s just the way it is. Suck it up.
I’m not buying it.
1 That last scene with Bell talking about the dreams. Can someone who is not stoned explain it to me? Is his life a waste because he couldn’t catch the bad guy? Why did this particular case stick in his craw so much? Why did Llewellyn’s death make him quit? Or was he already on the way out? I don’t sure. I guess it was some kind of poetry at the end that I just didn’t understand. But boy, wasn’t Tess Harper’s eyes absolutely beautiful. If I had a wife with eyes like that sitting across from me at age 64, I wonder if I would be that bitter.
2. Again, Woody. I’m still not buying his arch. If he’s the master bounty hunter who “understands” the bad guy true ways then why stay at the same hotel that he already murdered the bellboy the day before? Is he just a baffoon like the villians in “Oh Brother”, the kidnappers in Arizona, and WHM in “Fargo.” Was his boss in the skyscraper a baffoon too? I know he was the grumpy boss from that radio situation comedy so I sorta assumed he was supposed to be humorous. Did he know the bad guy? What was that plotline about?
3. What was that scene with Bell and the guy in the wheelchair about? Is it his father? It was lit profoundly with long loving closeups of TLJ so I’m guessing Bell took away some deep meaning on the nature of life. Maybe it’s as dead and lifeless as a Texas desert. I really don’t know.
4. Did anyone else think the mother was a bit of a cartoon character? Why did they bother to kill her off? We had no attachment to her and I don’t think the wife did either.
5. What happened to the money? And yeah, it is important to me. I had to follow this bag for an hour and a half. I want to know. Did the Mexicans get it? Did the bad guy? I sorta assume it was the bad guy as we found the coins at the crime scene.
6. So the bad guy was back at the crime scene, presumably to get the money and he sat with a shotgun watching Bell examine the crime scene hotel room where? It had to be close enough to view Bell’s reflection through the lock. And why wouldn’t he shoot Bell? If he indeed was in the room? Isn’t it completely out of character? The motel looks empty and he has a silencer on the gun. And Bell even puts his gun away. And I’m not going to even assume it was part of Bell’s paranoia because nothing else in the story gives out an dream sequence viability. And he couldn’t be dreaming about the bad guy because he never came face to face with him.
7. How can you be married to Frances McDormand and create so many lame females. An idiot wife, a cancer crone, and a whore at the poolside. C’mon Cohens. I did like the fat receptionist that managed Lewelyn’s trailer park but she was a cartoon too. I also wished the wife could have done more. Maybe helped force him quit policing. He nags to his bible quoting secretary that she wants him home but why? Once she get’s him home, she doesn’t want him to do anything and she’s completely complacent. “Do what you want, honey.” She’s ready to hear his stupid dream but not bother to even give him a rebuttle. Maybe if she challenged him, we’d have a drama. I think people discover who they are through conflict and struggle. Reflection is fine and good but it’s the stuff of novels not movies. We can’t get inside that head of his. And if these aren’t verbal characters than we have to figure out who they are by their choices and percieved emotions. I think about Brokeback Mountain and Ennis was a character with just a few words but man, we knew what he wanted, what he did, and what he was feeling.
8. If Bell is indeed the protagonist of the story, his entire story is all interior. We have to assume his life was one of violence and unsolved crimes. We have to assume that his life of a texas patrolman was not as fulfilling as it could be. And we have to assume that there was a cost on his soul living in a life of muck and moral choas. I get all this not because of the brilliant screenplay and craggy eyes of Tommy Lee Jones. I get this because I’ve seen this character a gabillion times and so have all of you! Boy, I’d love to see an actor over 50 play a cop that’s not grizzled and bitter (are ya listing Bruce, Morgan, Samuel, Hackman, Clint and yeah you too TLJ? And you can throw in Bogie, Alan Ladd, and the Duke.) We get it.
8. Okay so the film is about the cost of violence. Certainly a topic with no end of possibilities. However, I didn’t care about any of the characters. I don’t know what was lost? Tommy Lee Jones was bitter and cranky before the film began. That’s his thing. Check out every film he’s done since the Fugitive (except maybe Batman 3 and JFK). And that angered me. Why is he being praised to high heavens? Killing off Llewellen didn’t hurt. The only one who cared about him was his wife. His childlike bride’s life wasn’t over. Their love wasn’t profound or deep or saving in any way whatsoever. And yeah, a good story teller would have made us care about them more so it would hurt when violence takes them away. And even when the bad guy killed her, it was sort of inevitable as it was the end of the movie and the dark tone wasn’t going to allow any reprieve at this point. If anyone was surprised at her death. Shame on them. And man, why make Llewellyn a vietnam vet? So we can assume he’s “damaged” too?
So the movie is about vicious random violence taking away characters we don’t care that much about. (I did miss Woody.) And then a bit a chase/mystery that get’s nipped in the bud because it’s not about the plot, folks. It’s about the nature of violence. And then gives us two poetical monologues (maybe three – I still have no idea what was going on with the cat man) and a depressed Tommy Lee Jones and we’re supposed to find something profound?
That’s a lot. Thanks for listening.
You know, the fact that a film these days can provoke an actual intelligent debate other than “That SUX that ROX LOL OMG!” gives me hope for a brighter tomorrow. I like cinematic candy as much as the next person, but I like being able to have a real debate. Carry on!
Hey Mofo Toshio
Wrong. Anton already knew where Llewelyn was, so being in Woody’s hotel room ultimately meant nothing.
Alfie.
Agree to disagree I guess. The idea that it’s “good” solely because it’s not what other movies do isn’t enough.
The movie did show the first gun fight between Anton and Llewelyn… just like any other film would… does that make it bad?
john the fact they don’t show what happens to llewelyn is one of the many things that to me sets this film apart from every other film of this kind which doesn’t leave anything to the imagination….its part of why this film is so refreshing.
i thought it was an incredibly ballsy move and i loved it….the people i saw it with were slack jawed that his death happens the way it does. they were shocked. the film pulls the rug from underneath you repeatedly.
it is a fantastic decision.
and the last shot we see of llew is perfect….
reading your problems with the film make me realise again exactly how fucking amazing the film is…
and u know what…IF CHIGURH HADNT BEEN IN HARRELSON’S HOUSE WHEN LEWELLYN CALLED THE TWO NEVER WOULD HAVE MET AND CHIGURH’S “OFFER” WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE!
Hey Audio Out,
Well let’s see…
Take Bell out of the movie and the following still happens:
– Lleweleyn still finds the money
– Llewelyn still takes the money
– Llewelyn still gets found by the Mexicans and runs
– Anton still goes looking for Llewelyn
– Llewelyn still hides money in Hotel
– Anton still tracks Llewelyn to the hotel
– Anton still kills Mexicans waiting in Hotel
– Llewelyn still goes to another hotel where Anton finds him
– Anton and Llewelyn still have their little shootout
– Anton still gets shot
– Llewelyn still goes into Mexico
– Anton still tracks him down again
Now, leave Bell in the movie, but take Llewelyn out.
– There is no movie
So tell me again who the movie is about????
“You can say “It’s about Bell” all you want. But it’s not. Bell stands on the OUTSIDE of the story.”
You would probably even argue that point to the Coen brothers themselves who actually wrote the movie. More power to you. You can have that opinion…even if it’s wrong.
Hey Vern
You said:
“to Hollywood up the key scene in the book because John Campea wants to see what happened would be stupid”
Did you even listen to the video at all??? I didn’t say they should “Hollywood up” the ending. I didn’t say they should have CHANGED what happened to Llewelyn. All I said was they should have SHOWED us. That’s it.
You also said:
“Llewelyn is NOT the main character. In the book this is clear because Bell is “
That’s all well and good for the BOOK. But in the movie, the actual plot revolves around Llewelyn. Llewelyn has more screen time.
No, the movie is ABOUT Llewelyn. It’s told from Bell’s POV for sure, but Bell himself has very little to do with the story at all.
You can say “It’s about Bell” all you want. But it’s not. Bell stands on the OUTSIDE of the story.
very well put vern. my last post was an error riddled embarrassment but you really summed up exactly how i felt about the apparent “flaw” at the end there.
llewelyns death … the way it happens is completely within the walls of the fikms entire point.
I understand the offscreen death being frustrating, but it’s supposed to be. The thing is, you can’t make that movie without it being done that way. #1, because the Coens made a faithful adaptation of the book, and to Hollywood up the key scene in the book because John Campea wants to see what happened would be stupid.
As somebody already pointed out, Llewelyn is NOT the main character. In the book this is clear because Bell is narrating more of the story, but in the movie it’s sort of a surprise twist which you only realize at that point, when his death is offscreen. It also shows that his death really is the inevitable, fated consequence of his actions as Anton tells him, and it has a symmetry to it because at the beginning Llewelyn came across the scene of the massacre without seeing what happened, and Bell does the same at the scene of his death.
So no, it’s nothing like your comparison to Darth Vader, because Star Wars is not making any of those points. Showing Llewelyn’s death might be satisfying in a traditional way, but it wouldn’t be NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.
By the way, even the title tells you that the story is about Bell.
i love the fact the coens made the choice they made in not showing llews death. its a ballsy move and it completely works. it fits in perfectly with the tone and the themes of the film as a whole.
the woody harrelson thing….the character didn’t bother me…his purpose didn’t bother me but i do think it might have played better if the actor had been an unknown but again the fact they have a well known actor play what ultimately turns out to be a minor character throws you off the scent of his fate as well so it does work for me.
i especially little things like the hints that llew is a bad ass himself wqith his war experiance ands you are kind of lead to think he is going to turn the tables of chigurh and it never happens where as in a conventional mainstream film it would end with a roof top shoot out with llew against chigurh and his llews wife dangling off the top of the building with sherrif bell teaming up llew to bring chigurh down.
there are very few people who could predict what is going to happen next from scene to scene in this film and that is one of the reasons it is being singled out as one of the best if not the best film of the year..
now when do we get the 1000 things to hate lists about 300, beowulf, knocked up, i am legend etc etc etc
Wow. Glad to see such tempered and thoughtful opinions on this film.
I personally loved it and feel that it’s not a movie you can easily enjoy at face value. You have to accept it for what it is and not see it for the way you wish it were. Perhaps it will grow on you over the years John.
Like every other Coen Bros film I have ever seen I went to see this expecting a lot and was disappointed. I should know better as there has been only one Coen movie I could stomach (Fargo) and this one is no different. Like many other Coen Bros movies it’s lauded as a classic blah blah blah. It was boring, pointless, and while Bardem & Brolin characters were done well-I think it was the actors triumphing in spite of the film. I know this is a minority opinion but that’s what makes the world go round.
@44 – Ditto
I am so glad you explained reason #3 so well. I always said No Country for Old Men was a great film, but not a masterpiece because of the ending and the response I always get was “You didnt get it”. No I got it alright, it was just a horrible ending.
Hey Kristina,
I had no problem with how they handled the wife. She was a side character, and we clearly see and understand what happened to her. The movie had no dramatic tension built up for her or her possible fate. We know Anton did her in.
With Llew, it’s different. I’m ok that he died, I’m ok that Anton didn’t do it (even though the movie builds dramatic tension towards a Llew/Anton showdown), but for arguably the most significant character in the movie to just end up as a side thought… “Oh by the way… he’s dead” was pretty unsatisfying.
John, I have a question for you in regards to Llewelyn’s offscreen death: if that bothered you, what did you think of the way the film handles Llewelyn’s wife’s fate at the end? Did you want to actually see Anton paste her, or did you like it as is?
i think a few of the things you have mentioned might be traced to the cohen brother’s fairly strict adherence to the book – they actually have changed a few scenes, even a few lines of dialog, and have obviously cut out some of the material, but all in all, i think many of your problems can be traced back to the source material. llewelyn dies suddenly and shockingly in the book, and you don’t actually get to “see” it, your frustrations with woody’s character would most likely be the same, and i believe they had so many soliloquies in the movie because there’s one almost every other chapter in the book, and they’re all brilliant. only in a book, you can go back and reread them, and they don’t detract from each other like they did in the movie.
I haven’t commented in a while, but I had to join the discussion. No Country for Old Men is my third favorite film of the year (and I’ve seen 143 2007 releases, so that’s no small cookie). I believe it is the Coen’s best film. I have a different take on some of your flaws than the other posters, so I thought I’d chime in.
1. Woody Harrelson. The first thing I’d like to bring up is how much I DESPISE the public’s recent decision that every single thing in a film has to be necessary in order to work. Every single thing about Woody Harrelson’s character is technically true, John. The PLOT would have been unchanged. The film would have continued in the same direction, ended the same way, and had essentially the same effect on the viewer. But to me, this is NOT a flaw. Harrelson’s character doesn’t add plot, but he also doesn’t impede its progress. As a filmmaker, I feel sick to my stomach thinking about how harshly films are going to be criticized just because there are elements to them that aren’t necessary. It’s the details of a work of art that make it good. Take Crime and Punishment. 2/3rds of Crime and Punishment are completely inconsequential subplots that really have nothing to do with the “Crime and Punishment” storyline. But the novel works because these things do not impede the story, and instead alter the way you reflect on it. Or how about fancy architecture? Do structures really need all those carvings, textures, and tapestries inserted around them to serve as a perfectly decent building? No… but they’re added in order to fine tune the feeling of a particular building. Woody Harrelson’s character does not change the plot, but his presence does contribute to the audience’s mindset in the following ways:
– We learn a lot more about our Chigurh villain, as was already mentioned.
– We have a B story to follow for the brief period where Bell and Llewelyn’s wife are not taking up time.
– Most importantly, we have an extra piece of backstory to suggest Chigurh’s “morality” system is actually an illusion.
See, I think one of the reasons Chigurh is such an excellent character is because he is seriously flawed, made to seem less flawed, but then becomes even MORE flawed than you ever would have imagined. What makes him so scary is that it appears to us, and especially Woody Harrelson who knew him in the past, that Anton somehow has created this sick morality system for himself, because his super cold demeanor every once in a while does show even the hint of compassion (even if it is still cold). But… once you reach the end scene, where Anton lets the kids live, and even pays them for their assistance, you realize that his ethical system was fake the entire time. Anton isn’t really moral at all – his theatrics were mistaken for that. Anton still believes his system is fair. It’s not. It doesn’t actually make any sense at all, and this is yet another way that No Country for Old Men cheats the audience, and m,anages to get away with it because despite all this, the character of Anton Chigurh remains undamaged. Without Woody Harrelson’s presence an hour earlier in the film, the context of that final scene would have been entirely different. That is why his character is there. It may not be obvious, but his insights into the Chigurh character become so disguised after his death, that you take them for granted, even though he is the source.
2. Too Many Stories
The funny thing is… I didn’t even notice this until you mentioned it. I had totally forgotten that so much of Bell’s scenes were him telling random tales about police work and other things to the characters. But looking back on it (I’ve only seen the film one time thus far), it’s absolutely true. But the fact that I didn’t notice meant that it didn’t bother me in the slightest. I also feel that it kind of adds to exactly the kind of character Bell is. Despite being the sheriff investigating the central plotline, he is more of an observer than a player. He is the one giving the audience the important indication in the change of direction the world is going. People are changing, crime is changing, motivation is changing… everything is different. I was able to understand this element of the film without noticing the consistent storytelling from Bell, but this just hammers it home. I am kind of concerned that when I see the film again, it IS going to bother me.
3. Llewelyn Dying Offscreen
I HATED this decision…. for about thirty seconds. When I first saw his body laying there, and the van driving away, I thought to myself “there is NO WAY they just did that”. I scrambled through the parts of the movie that I’d already scene, trying to find an explanation for this decision, and couldn’t find one for the life of me. It wasn’t until Bell walked into that hotel room that I realized my logic was backwards. They weren’t trying to make the audience think back on the film to find an explanation for Llewlyn’s death, they instead used Llewlyn’s sudden death to make you think back on the rest of the film just for fuck’s sake. They wanted you to put everything that happened to Llewelyn in perspective before the REALY story resumed – Bell’s. This is the point where I realized that this unconventional move was incredibly clever on the Coen’s part (and if this same thing happened in the book, I haven’t read it, then kudos to the author as well). See, most films keep you locked in the here and now, and they really do need to, I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. Really, most films are just foreshadowing and context before a climax, the climax and resolution following it being the only really important parts of the story. Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not saying the majority of most films is a waste – not at all, simply that it is all BUILDING UP to the most high stakes, end all part of the story. No Country For Old Men pulled off a role reversal by actually using a real time moment (the exposition of Llewlyn’s death, then Bell going into the hotel room and being watched by Anton) to instead make you concentrate on what happened BEFORE, not later. This was a… “backshadowing”? The ultimate effect it had for me was that it got me back to what the first quarter of the film was like, before Llewelyn escaped with the satchel, because I had totally forgotten about it. After you find your groove back in that mentality, then Llewlyn’s story seems almost like an afterthought, which it should. His story in the middle is essentially filler, that complements the A-story of Bell. But what’s so cool about the relationship between the Llewelyn B-Story is that while his story is going on, it is the A-Story in your mind as it follows him for about 35 minutes straight. This is a very complex intertextual relationship, and I think it was handled masterfully.
I also really like what some of the earlier posters said about the Coen’s TRYING to frustrate the audience. While I do not believe it was their intention to sour the idea like it did for John, I do think that the frustration that is immediately felt by the event (the first reaction is DEFINITELY shock at how they could possibly have cheated us so badly). But that frustration wasn’t designed to linger. Just to give you the same frustration that Bell feels about how wasteful Llewelyn’s death was, and how tragically pointless it turned out to be.
Was anyone else bothered by how easy Anton killed Harrelson’s character? He’s supposed to be a professional. He found Llewelyn without issue but he’s not smart enough to cover his tracks or carry a gun? WTF???
By the way John, absolutely loved this little mini video discussion thing you did. I’d love to see more of them.
Great movie. Not the best of ’07 (3:10 to Yuma for me w/ Juno being seen tonight)…
#1- I see your point, although this didn’t ruin the movie for me. I look at this movie as a metaphor for good/evil. Obviously Anton is the Devil/evil. Llewelyn is the “mortal” who’s decisions and flaws move the story forward. And I guess I kind of see Woody’s character as the angel or “good” force that was trying to help Llewelyn (in a weird kind of way). He didn’t move the story forward but he didn’t bother me either.
#2- Totally agree. This was a deep movie that had many layers. I often found myself thinking about/processing what was happening and “tuning out” much of the monologuing.
#3- I liked this part of the film. However, it shocked me so much (which is a good thing) I will still trying to process it all when the Sheriff was giving his dream speech at the end. As stated previously, I kinda spaced this whole speech and then all of a sudden, the movie ended and I had missed the key diolgue. It kinda threw everything off for me.
I need to see this movie again, but I have a feeling that seeing it again will give me a better understanding of the events and therefore, give me a better appreciation of the movie.
Hey Mkfreak,
Word of advice, if you’re going to comment on something someone says… LISTEN to what they say first.
As soon as i heard you’re number 3, I stopped the video. I didn’t even want to hear yourt reasons behind it, because the film’s only logical ending was for Lewellyn to die.
Harrelson is a messenger. He gives some backstory(such as the name, and a few facts) of Anton, but he doesn’t give away everything. The things Harrelson says sets up the shocking ending. He’s there to let Lewellyn know that things will NOT end well. And he was right. He had a purpose- setup. He- and almost everything else- set up Lewellyn’s death.
Think about the message of the film that was perfectly- not overly- said through the monologues. The message is this; you can’t tell the future. You don’t know for sure anything that will happen to you in the future. You can’t plan for the future and you can’t stop the inevitable. Corruption and greed will always exist and you can’t beat yourself up over it. You can’t worry about the future. Take things as they come.
Lewellyn tries to beat the system. He doesn’t take the advice given him. He beleives he can outsmart Anton. He thinks he’s better than that. But he pays the price for his folly. I can’t beleive you didn’t pick up on this. I can’t beleive you felt this way. Well, at least you didn’t say: “this film was too long”.
I’m really glad to see that more than just a handful of people are conflicted about the film. If anyone is interested in reading some more thoughts, please check out my analysis – which admittedly targets the writing more than anything else.
http://www.thefuriousromantic.com/2007/12/21/no-country-for-old-men-disappoints/
Thanks John for bringing this up. I think the reason Llewelyn dying off camera is horrible is because it is a cheat and a lie to the viewer. The first two thirds of the film is in the film noir genre, then it veers off into an art film just because they wanted it too. If it started out as an “Art” film there would be no problem with the ending, because the viewer would be acclimated and accepting of it.
When I saw the movie, the audience stood up at the end and there was visible anger in their faces. Some even talked about demanding their money back. Now this wouldn’t have happened to a movie that sucked straight through. That happends all the time. They were angry because the first half of the film was a classic film and the last half was not.
No Country is my favorite movie of 2007, and I’ve gotta disagree with most of those flaws. A previous poster brought up the point that we wouldn’t even know Chigurh’s name if it weren’t for Woody’s character and, if nothing else, that makes him important. Also, his character inadvertently leads to the murder of Stephen Root’s character (the guy in the fancy office). As for the third flaw; we know who kills Llewelyn, we know how it goes down, and we see the immediate aftermath (the Mexicans running off while being shot at) so it didn’t bother me all that much and really made his death seem all the more frightening and unimaginable. As for the second flaw, it only started to bother me by the end of the film; the tension was waning and the main character was dead, so at that point it became a little agitating, but other than that I think it did a lot; it gave the movie allegorical relevancy and, if nothing else, offered viewers a greater understanding of Chigurh’s weaponry (which I did not understand at first).
In addition to providing backstory, Woody’s character upped the ante in demonstrating how dangerous Anton was. He was a very literal foreshadowing that no one could win against Anton.
As for L’s death off-screen, I spent the next 15 minutes expecting it to be a trick to trap Anton. It challenged my expectations and forced me to rethink the story. In that way, it was very effective and doubtless that’s what the Coens wanted.
I really love the way the Coens didn’t overstate major plot points (like whether or not Anton got the money or whether L’s wife was killed) but required you to figure them out. The answers are there if you’re paying attention. That’s challenging filmmaking.
In regards to Woody Harrelson… without his character’s presence we would never have gotten the phone call scene with Anton giving Llewelyn his “promise” in regards to handing over the money. As many others have already pointed out, he was also able to give us some back story on Anton.
The other two points you listed(and a few others have already said this as well) were actually things that I loved about the film.
I fucking love this film, but what I love even more is the amount of healthy debate that it has brought on.
In the theater I saw this movie, when the credits rolled alot of people were pissed. I kind of just sat there and let it soak in for a minute, because I wanted to be pissed, but I also eally liked what I had just seen.
This movie is so good because it keeps you interested while never showing the audience what they all are dying to see. Every climax is pretty much skipped over, and in the end you get kind of a ???
This movie was awesomely NON-traditional in everything it did. The characters were all people you felt like you knew, and the bad guy seemed to be the only one who knew exactly what he believes in.
It definitely had its flaws and there is still alot of this movie that just flies right over my head, but it is the kind of movie that you want to go see again and bring someone who has never seen it and then go talk about it. To me thats a great film.
“And why would the Coen’s just not show their protagonists murder? They just forgot to shoot it one day and then they realized it in the editing room? I’m just curious to know what you think their rationalization was.”
Actually I think the death occurs between chapters in the book. And they must have figured why not do the same.
Agreed on Woody Harrelson.
The storytelling didn’t bother me at all because they had an actor the caliber of Tommy Lee Jones delivering it. It felt natural, like the character’s use of stories is the main way that he communicates. Didn’t bug me one bit.
The Llewelyn offscreen death thing also didn’t bother me. I KNEW the guy was going to die, the whole audience knew that there was no way that he’d make it to the end credits, so having Anton show up and shoot him would have been anticlimatic.
Hey Rusty James,
I see what you’re saying… but just because the Cohen’s did certain things on purpose… doesn’t mean they were right.
I’m sure the directors of AVP-R PURPOSEFULLY has the Pizza Boy chasing the high school hottie with the evil Jock boyfriend.. but that doesn’t mean it worked, or that it was the right thing to do.
Just because a director has an intention, doesn’t mean it worked or that it was right.
Whatever their intention for the Woody Harrelson character was, it was wrong, and didn’t work.
98% of the movie is brilliant and does work… but these elements don’t… and just because they MEANT to do it that way, doesn’t make it ok.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Gio, here’ the thing about this film that makes people love it so much. It has a whole pile of overt flaws that are there to annoy you. They stick in your kraw and settle into your brain. And the more you think about them the more purposeful and eventually profound they seem.
Do you really think Woody is there for no reason. That the Coens just arbitrarily keep him in the film? Really?
And as for Tom Ed Bells stories. What about the one where he almost figures out Anton’s murder weapon… but then doesn’t.
And why would the Coen’s just not show their protagonists murder? They just forgot to shoot it one day and then they realized it in the editing room? I’m just curious to know what you think their rationalization was.
I really dig these video editorials (even if I totally disagreed with your last one). Great way to express different points of view and get people yacking.
No Country is a deadly movie. I’d still have to say The Assassination of Jesse James is the best one of the year though.
Holy shit Campea, you sure know how to get people talking! An hour ago there was like only 1 comment.
I fucking loved this movie. But yeah, it wasn’t perfect, and I can see where you’re coming from with the complaints. Glad to see you still give the movie props!
Llewelyn dies…..
I guess I can understand not liking how Llewelyn death happened, I don’t agree with the complaint though. But the other 2 seem like such minor gripes.
I think you’re slightly over-exaggerating the “stories” aspect of the film. From what I recall, the film had long passages where there was no dialog at all. The stories you describe are the only ones I remember clearly, and there all needed. This movie felt to me that it was an exercise in the economy of film-making. In my opinion there wasn’t a wasted scene, but like John says, it’s my opinion.
Just wanted to say I enjoy your take, John, take despite the fact that I disagree with you all the time. Keep up the good work, Campea!
GREAT DISCUSSION GUYS!
LOVE THESE VIDEOS!
Ok, the stories were over done. No doubt, can’t argue with you there. And yes, Woody had little to no relevance, but that’s not a big deal.
I personally loved Llewelyn’s death, but I’ll agree with Jarred above me that it still would have been just as effective if they allowed us to see him go down to the mexicans.
Yeah, have to agree with Jeff there John on all his points. I loved the unpredicatablity of this flick. Sure I wanted Llewelyn and Anton to face off, but at the end, and after much thought after the movie had wrapped up, I appreciated the way the whole film went down.
At the same time, I can understand how some people would take offense to this film, being so different and all. A lot of the conversations seemed somewhat random and off the grid. Which is why I enjoyed it so much. Well…to each their own…
#1 – Woody is wicked in all things!
#2 – The story telling. Yeah, I think that’s why so many people complained about the ending, because they tuned out the final dream story, and so the ending seemed random to them. Fewer stories would have made the important stories more effective.
#3 – For all the reasons the good folks in this thread are saying L’s death was good, you still would have had that if you showed his death.
I’ve seen it twice. Can’t wait for the DVD.
I had the same problems with the movie as John did but I still enjoyed it very much. Although I did like Woody’s character in the movie and I do wish he was given a bigger part.
I think some people are missing the point that you could have totally accomplished the sudden way Josh’s character died and still have satisfied the audience by allowing us to follow him through.
They should have shown us the gun fight where Llewelyn falls unexpectedly, even if it wasn’t by Anton’s hand. That way the point of Llewelyn’s random death is made, and it gives a more sensible conclusion to the character for the audience.
I only have a comment about the third: the sudden and unseen death of L. honest to goodness blew my mind because it was in that moment I realized that even though most of the action centered around him, he wasn’t the main character, the sheriff was all along. It’s sort of a brilliant story telling maneuver to have the role of “main character” be so counter-intuitive. I can’t wait until it comes out on DVD so I can see it again with this new perspective.
I really don’t see how any of those things were a problem. Jeff pretty much summed it up perfectly. But, I guess I can understand being pissed at not being shown Llewelyn death. But I think the Coens showed enough in the aftermath, to let the audience know what happened. And I wouldn’t call the death random either.
To add onto what others have said about Llewelyn’s death… at this point in the film, the audience sees things through the eyes of Sheriff Bell. He has been following Llewelyn throughout the film, trying to save him from Chigurh. In that sense, he cares about his survival as much as the audience does. When Bell arrives at the scene, we see things as he does. We don’t know who killed him or how it happened, just as Bell doesn’t.
Ultimately this film is about the prevalence of evil and Bell’s failure to stand against it. The opening and closing monologues belong to Bell. Although we follow Llewelyn throughout most of the film, his death serves as the turning point where we return to Bell’s story.
It’s unconventional storytelling, sure. But it demands more audience investment than most films. I felt the same as you when I was watching the movie, but I’ve been doing a looooot of reflection on this film, and I’ve come to accept some things.
The one thing that still confuses me somewhat is the scene in which Bell searches the motel where Llewelyn was killed. But that’s another topic of discussion. :)
Hey Jeff,
Have to disagree with you about #1.
With regards to #2, I totally agree with you that the FIRST and LAST stories are amazing! That’s what frustrates me about the over abundance of all the other ones. There were so many of them through the movie, that by the time you get to the last one (which was brilliant) it lost a lot of its potential effects, because we’ve already be bludgeoned with 12 other stories. They should have just had:
– The first one about the old Sheriffs
– The one in the coffee shop where the 2 sheriffs talk about the old days and how society has changed
– Tommy Lee’s last one about his dream
Throwing in so many above those 3 watered down the effect for me.
About the off screen death. Once again let me re-state that I’m ok that he didn’t die by Anton’s hand. That’s a strong twist. But the movie forces us to get invested in the character and throws him in our face so continuously (that’s not a bad thing) that to then off him without us at least being there to see and experience it felt really unsatisfying.
Good conversation folks!
I thought your three “flaws” were some of the most important themes in the movie. I almost wonder if you’re either completely missing the point, or if you got it and just spun it this way to set yourself apart among the critics. Whether or not Woody’s appearance affects the on-screen ending, the back story clearly affects the end mental state of the viewer, and surely that is a central goal of the director and producer. Anyone who has gone through real adversity will appreciate the reality of sudden, brutal, irrevocable, changes of fortune that defy explanation, and, too, those same folks will nurture the bonding ritual of storytelling so long as time allows it.
John,
Have to disagree with you again. Your three things are actually some of my favorite parts of the film.
1. Woody Harrelson’s character to me was to show that even the hardened killers of the world are also scared of him. While Harrelson is a pro in his own right, tracking down Llewelyn, he’s ultimately no match for Anton, who is a symbol for a number of things depending on your interpretation.
2. The monologues may have been long winded at times, but the first and especially the last were so significant. The first set up the film, which you kind of just labeled as “a bunch of old sheriffs” or something. The old sheriffs he’s talking about are the lawmen who didn’t even need guns to keep the peace. He’s talking about the way things used to be and how just generations before it didn’t use to be like this. Course that’s just a quick explanation.
3. The death of Llewelyn was pretty brilliant in my mind and the best part of the film. It was the turning point where his tale of greed is done with and now it’s time to focus it back on the true subject of the story, the old man we heard talking at the beginning and throughout. His discovery of the carnage and his decision to step through the threshold end up being the reasons why he finally decides to retire. He realizes that with that kind of violence and with that kind of person out there, he’s just too old to be a part of that world.
Plus, the brothers probably wanted you to feel that way. They wanted you to feel cold and uneasy about the way things ended up. It’s also the reason there wasn’t a soundtrack, etc.
Yes I see what you mean. I think the reason you hated it is the reason I loved it! :-) That’s the beauty of cinema I guess!
BAWWWW!!!!!
Hey there Ginger,
So glad you posted… and NEVER apologize for your opinions… without differing opinions there would never be conversation!
Ok, about the death of Llewelyn. As I tried to explain in the video, I was “ok” with the fact that he and Anton didn’t face off again… and that he died in some random way is something I can live with… but to not even allow us, the audience, be there when it happens… to just have him die off screen, felt really unsatisfying to me and left me rather cold to the movie at that point.
Cheers!
Consider this point about Llewelyn being killed off. I think that this is done because of the point that the movie was trying to make. The purpose of Tommy Lee Jones being in the movie was to stress that Old men don’t understand this “new country” or the “tide” of violence and unpredictibility that comes with the new generation. Anton believes in a warped sense of destiny and fate and Llewelyn follows acts based on his own instinct and choices. Yet the movie surpises you with shocks and unexpected violence. I think that the filmmakers tried to engage the audience as their characters are surprised by the turn of events. Like Tommy Lee Jones, the audience expects a confrontation at the end between Llewelyn and Anton. Before Llewelyn’s last scene the audience is made to expect disruppting violence throughout the movie until they are used to it. But the filmmakers don’t let you have the logical end to the movie. Instead they use the audience’s familiarity with the tradition of action/western movies to further push their point that the world is without logic or pattern. An audience expects a showdown but they don’t get that because like the world in no country for old men, you can’t predict what is going to happen. The movie tries to engage you on a personal level, one that disrupts the narrative to prove a point. Now whether this was effective or not is another story. Same with Woody.
I agree that it shouldn’t be number one, but I feel that some of the things you hated, while understandable, were a bit picky…
Firstly, Woody Harrelson was able to provide a bit of backstory for one of the greatest villains. Without him we would never have known his name or anything about him. I agree that he didn’t move the story forward in any particular way, but my one of my favourite scenes in the film is the confrontation between Carson and Anton (again, whose name we never would have known if it wasn’t for Woody).
I mostly agree with you about the monologues.
In regards to the death of Llewelyn, that is my favourite thing about the film. It came totally out of the blue, so unexpected! You’re right when you say it’s an anticlimax, and that’s what I love about that moment. For me, it made the story seem more real, and it totally changed the direction of the movie because now you knew there was not going to be some massive confrontation between the two main characters.
However, that’s only my opinion, which we’re all entitled to. At least you put the film in the top 10, and I can still understand your points.
p.s This was my first post, I hope it wasn’t too long or annoying
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! I liked NCFOM too, but it’s being talked about as if it was the second coming. Very good movie, but getting a little over-praised if you ask me.
I’m loving these commentary videos of yours! Keep em up.