Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Movie, Book, and Music Review No Country fof Old Men

I seen it last night, or more accurately I saw the last half, twice.

What happened was I was a few minutes late and walked into the movie after what I assumed must have been the opening credits. A bit of a puzzle that the local working-class stiff welder guy out hunting had already found the drug money at the shooting site, but I went with it.

This movie is unpredictable enough you can't tell that you got in late, I only fully realized it when the movie ended just ninety minutes later. Turns out there were TWO theaters in that hallway showing overlapping screenings, I walked into the wrong one. I got to watch the last half again anyhow.

Anyway a very well-crafted movie, by the same guys that made "Fargo". And a careful period piece set in the West Texas of twenty-five years ago.

This place has changed since then, but even back then I dunno you could stand on the retaining wall of even a sleepy International Bridge to toss a suitcase containing a million bucks over the railing and down onto the brushy banks of the Rio Grande and expect a) nobody official to notice and b) said new-looking suitcase would still be there even one day, let alone three days later as the plot suggests.

A fine turn by the actor who plays the welder, not at all awed by the criminal forces unleashed against him. Also a fine turn by Woody Harrelson as one hit man, and an equally fine one by whoever played the Mexican hit man, an accomplished psychopath who uses an air powered slaughterhouse bolt gun to efficiently take out door locks, and a silenced 12 gauge pump for reliable one-shot stops on his victims (I had never seen such a beast before, I guess its possible, maybe with low charges in the rounds).

I will call a possible blooper in that some shots he clearly uses buck, others what appear to be slugs.

Worth seeing though just for Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of a weary Sherrif, outgunned and overwhelmed by the evil pouring through his country (a minor detail; he carries his .45 in condition two).

It weren't actually shot in West Texas, but New Mexico serves as a pretty good stand-in.

Watching it, it called to mind a modern-day "Lonesome Dove" or "Street of Laredo", with Jones in that same territory up against a modern-day psychopath on the scale of Blue Duck or that blond Mexican kid with the Mauser from "Laredo".

The ending changes all that though.

Birdwatcher

Not particularly. The Coen brothers butchered Cormac McCarthy's book by adding dialogue and scenes of their own creation and leaving out key elements that explain each character's place in the story.

For instance, the "well-dressed Mexican" who assisted Carla Jean and her mother at the El Paso bus depot. The book identifies him as Pablo Acosta, the man who put Anton Chigurh on his mission. The Coen brothers instead have him in a totally incongruous scene that makes absolutely NO SENSE.

Steven Root's character, aka the "man who hires Wells," was supposedly in a completely secure office where he was supposed to be safe from everything. Yet Chigurh breaches the security and kills him. This was an important point in the book (as in death will find you no matter what) and explained in the dialogue that SHOULD have occurred between Steven Root and Woody Harrelson. Again, the Coen brothers chose to omit this for some unknown reason.

I'm a BIG Coen brothers fan and a BIG fan of the book on which this movie was SUPPOSED to be based, but I'm extremely disappointed in this "interpretation."

Made perfect sense to me when we see 2 Mexicans trying to hop into the running Bronco after shooting Lewellen in El Paso. How do you think they knew where to find him?

Here, let's include the ENTIRE quote you're referencing, not just the parts you like:
It only "makes sense" to you because you don't know any better. Let's spin your dogma some. How did the "well-dressed Mexican" find Carla Jean and her mother? Telepathy? Movie magic? The book makes reference to a Mexican hitman driving a Plymouth Barracuda and a telephone tap when Carla Jean called Sheriff Bell at his home to tell him where Lewellyn was. (Which -- by the way -- was Van Horn, Texas, not El Paso.) It also refers to Chigurh breaking into Carla Jean's mother's house in Odessa and finding the telephone bill. The hitman shoots a teenage runaway traveling with Lewellyn and then shoots Lewellyn. Chigurh shoots the hitman and takes the satchel of money.

Is the relationship of the "well-dressed Mexican" to Chigurh explained in the movie? Yes or no? If you actually SAW the movie -- and I mean you were paying attention and AWAKE -- you might understand.

The scene to which you refer NEVER occurred in the book.

Read the book, then come back and comment. Or maybe actually watch the movie.

Maybe you should learn that life isn't designed to make you [bleep] happy. If I wanted to read the book I would have. When have you EVER read a book, then seen the movie and have them line up EXACTLY one for one, line for line? (Adaptations of plays excluded)



The "relationship" is not explained - but it isn't necessary to entertain me for 2 hours 40 minutes at a whopping cost of 6 bucks. We never find out if he gets the antelope either but I am not going to cry like a little woman over that.

Does it flipping matter where exactly he gets the telephone bill? I think not. What would a teenage runaway have added to the movie?
Are you familiar with how movies are made from a book? Just how long a screenplay has to be compared to a book? The paperback book was 320 pages a screenplay is usually 120-135.



No it makes sense because I don't need to to be lead from scene to scene like a freshman in an American Lit class because I can't make inferences for myself.

I went and saw the movie and was entertained for a very reasonable price. I can enjoy things because I, apparently, am not as mad at the world as you are - because I didn't expect the Coen to write the screenplay to follow the book 100% exactly and because I have enough mental horsepower to realize things happen in stories that we aren't going to be shown, it is up to me to fill in the spots. If you can't handle that - I suggest you pull the shades down and try and keep the world out of your life because it all isn't going to go like a book where you are fed EVERYTHING.

ETA:

I went to watch a movie not a book and based on that this is easily the front runner for picture of the year. The Coen brothers built suspense in that movie like no other they have done. Anton outside the hotel door, the peanut wrapper in the little gas station, the way Anton is a total cold killer but not as detached as Gaear Grimsrud in Fargo.

1 NT Times best selling author (who has a movie in the works as we speak) put it this way:

This is essentially a movie about good and evil - not the triumph of one over the other but their existence. In the end Anton gives Moss' wife a chance out but she denies it - says it has nothing to do with the coin (we never see him kill her but you KNOW she is dead after). The only time Anton is ever showing any type of fear is as Tommy Lee Jones comes back into the room where Moss died - Anton is behind the door. You EXPECT TLJ to get smoked and it never happens. Coen brothers can create some tension for sure.

As I understand it from people who have read the book - Anton recovers the money in the book - I knew it from the movie even tho they don't say it outright - Anton pays the kid with a 100 for the shirt and we did see the HVAC vent off with the dime.

The sound editing of the flick was great too. No crappy background music trying to gin up suspense. Straight forward cinema.


Here is a link to the screenplay as it was written : NCFOM

In other words, someone with limited reading skills -- like you -- needs pictures. And popups.

Uh, "The Sand Pebbles," "Shane," "The Getaway," "Band of Brothers," etc. I realize you're a fairly young person without a range of experiences, but movies based on books should typically follow the narrative on which they're based. Perhaps you should choose to excercise your mind with a good book in the future.

In other words, you're now admitting that that part of the movie makes NO SENSE.

Uh, he found $2 million. Why in the hell would he give a damn about antelope hunting? Did you watch the movie? Or were you watching the kids' movie next door? It's okay, go ahead and admit it. The point of the money from Lewellyn's standpint was nothing else mattered anymore. Did you watch the movie? Do you remember when he told Carla Jean she was retired? Do you recall when he told her they were leaving everything they owned in the trailer, because they didn't need it anymore?

Yep. It's called KEEPING THE STORY IN CONTEXT.

Are you aware how SHORT this book was? Perhaps it's all beyond your reading level. (It all goes back to your need of picture books and popups.)

In other words, it doesn't take much to entertain someone of your ilk. You cannot accept the fact that I criticized your "favorite" movie. It happens. It's life. Get over it, little man. You took offense when I pointed out some obvious problems with the movie and you chose to respond with a rather angry and immature rant. Go back to your sandbox and stick to "Sponge Bob Square Pants."

Short book? - 320 pages is almost the equivalent of 3 screenplays - that is 3 complete movies and before the book was published it was turned in at around 600 pages. Wonder what was edited.

Hmmm - a person posted (Birdwatcher) that they enjoyed a movie and YOU posted your rant about how it wasn't exactly like the book.
Talk about juvenile.

I never admitted that the scene didn't make sense - I simply pointed out that I didn't need the director to think for me - I could infer that after Anton got Moss to basically admit his wife was in Odessa he called the Mexicans with his next quarter. Am guessing if the Mexicans can put guys with machine pistols in hotel rooms they can station a few at the bus stop and train station and any other reasonable place in Odessa. It was OBVIOUS that the "well dressed Mexican" was pumping the mother for information. (it is called social engineering - appearing to be something you are not to get information usually from people that have little consideration or understanding what persec or opsec is) I mean someone as old and well read as you shouldn't have to have their hand held to make that monster jump in deduction.

It does take quite a bit to entertain me - I actually use my mind instead of expecting things to be handed to me on a platter. I routinely read up to 4 books at a time and my tab at the local book store is usually over my truck payment each month. Yea - I can [bleep] read. And before you get all excited and accuse me of having no life experience or limited mental capacity - I have traveled communist countries, speak several languages (that is more than 2 - none of them Spanish) and yea for 30 (compared to many at my age) I have seen some things and done some things that most haven't.

You want to cast insults fine but what I find odd is your biggest complaints about the movie (voice here anyway) aren't the largest deviations from the book. We get almost ZERO information from the movie about the Sheriff being a WWII hero. Yet you leave that out - all you were really looking to do is piss and moan because you didn't have something exactly the way you wanted - it wasn't the movie was different than the book - just those scenes where things weren't as you decided they should be. Did you even read the screen play?

Those were the things I took the time to discuss. Pay attention. I realize from other nonsense you've posted that you're a very young person. And your "experiences" aren't particularly worldly. That's not meant to be an insult, it's just a statement of fact.

I liked the book. It's 309 pages of fairly large type. Since you're apparently not inclined to excercise your mind through reading, allow me to explain what that means: IT'S SHORT AND FAST READING.

The theme of the book is of good and evil, with greed being man's downfall. That's pretty simple, is it not? (Feel free to add a yes or no as you see fit.)

I also like the Coen brothers. "Blood Simple," "Miller's Crossing," "Raising Arizona," "The Big Lebowski," "The Ladykillers," and "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" are among my favorite movies. They each tell a story of morality cleverly wrapped in an entertaining movie.

I don't feel that way about "No Country For Old Men." It's disjointed and is only LOOSELY based on the parent novel. The Coen brothers actually ADDED a significant number of scenes to the movie that only make the story more difficult to follow. At the same time, they DELETED several key parts from Cormac McCarthy's novel that would have only aided in telling their usual morality tale. Get it?

That's called my OPINION. Savvy?

What you are not getting is while 320 pages is a light night of reading - it is NOT A MOVIE. Book does not = movie - when the Cohen brothers bought the option or rights to the book, they negotiated what they could and could not do regarding the story to make it fit a 120~ish page screenplay. That is why the movie isn't a replica of the book with pictures. I am not commenting on the reading aspect but on the way movies are made - and 320 paperback pages will not be a 320 page screenplay. Get it?

My point never was that I don't or wont read - but simply that you didn't have to read the book to enjoy the movie for what it was. Get it?

I agree on the theme of the movie/book - in fact I posted that before:


I am willing to stipulate based on not reading the book that the theme is good/evil - I also got the same exact story out of the movie. Get it?


Only because you are tied to the preconceived notions of what the story is from reading the book. The movie is easy to follow without reading the book for anyone who can understand tracking a person down, protagonist/antagonist relationships and a damn good modern western. (Tell me you didn't think Lee Van Cleef in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" when you saw Anton. A cold-blooded killer who sticks to his principles. Shooting Moss' wife because he gave his word? You even see the human side of Anton there by giving her the chance with the coin to live. The guy exudes this pervasive sense of unease in all of his scenes, and creates so much tension during his confrontations with the people he usually ends up killing.)

The movie on it's own (without reading the book or even people who aren't necessarily familiar with the Cohen brothers work) is an enjoyable movie - it is easy to follow and other than some initial issue with Anton's accent or manner of speaking - it took me several lines to get how he says things so I can easily understand his lines.

ETA: The cinematography was great - the use of soft focus and editing was good. The lack of music (esp considering how much music has played a role in other Cohen movies) and while the conversation doesn't have the zingy one-liners that most movies seem to have these days - it does have some very memorable lines:



Comes off as real people speak without sounding like "CB voice". There isn't a major star making bad jokes or comedy relief in the movie - it is played out very real. No CGI or any such crap either.



What's great about that is no Texan forgets his mother is dead - obviously Moss has a ton of stuff on his mind and serious misgivings about what he is about to do.



Anton says this to Woody's character - obviously there is a past between them (Woody knew what he looked like and lived) and Anton knew Woody by name - it's kind of like lingere - you know there is something back there but it's obfuscated.

What YOU don't seem to grasp is they ADDED scenes and dialogue, while DELETING the same from the book. This makes the story DISJOINTED. You've already admitted as much.

Yes, Javier Bardem was very menacing and was probably the best possible person to play Chigurh. But that point is moot.

Show me where I admitted the movie was disjointed.

Here you go, dude:

What you also don't seem to be able to handle is that someone liked something you feel they shouldn't based on some feeling of inflated self worth. After all someone who reads as much as you or likes the Cohen brothers as much as you and you don't like the movie - then it's crap.

And no I really don't care that you don't like it I really don't think much of you as a person.

No skin of my back - it's all just electrons over some cable and fiber optic lines. The only reason I got into the thread to begin with was your holier than thou attitude towards another poster's review of the movie.

You obviously spend too much time thinking you have the answers and that much has been obvious since your initial postings on the single shot forums. Nothing but criticism. Quite honestly you aren't worth the effort and I simply am not going to waste my time with your shortcomings as a person/man.

Good day.

That isn't disjointed - it didn't detract from my understanding of the movie - we never see everything that happens to everyone in every movie - are they all disjointed?

Don't go away mad. Just go away. And read the book while you're at it. You know, make the most of your time. I'll help: The Book.

Sure it is. A character pops out of nowhere, with no explanation and no introduction and diappears just as quickly. Read the book.

Talk about disjointed...

Argue, fuss & cuss all you want but, kindly quit changing the suject topic.

I ain't gonna argue about its fidelity to the book, because I didn't read it, but I liked whatever story was up there on the screen, mainly because it wasn't the usual, predictable Hollywood tripe. For that reason alone, I count it as probably the best movie I saw in '07, although I see fewer movies every year it seems.

Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem, an actor from Spain, not Mexico, in case anyone was confused, were EXCELLENT, and the rest of the cast did admirable jobs.

This is off topic, but I've heard good reviews about Cormac McCarthy's book "Blood Meridian," so it's on my short list to read within the next couple of months.
DAL357

P.S. I know a thing or two about Hollywood-butchered books. I can't watch either the old B&W or the newer Disney versions of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" because they completely urinate on everything Victor Hugo was trying to show with his novel, namely that life back then was short, nasty, and brutish. When those Hollywood rumphumpers put a happy ending on their versions, they ruined the entire story. I detest Hollywood and I hope it collectively strangles to death on its own vomit.

Wow fellas, sorry I looked at this thread. Maybe you should take it outside - or at least to the PM's so we don't have to see it.

Gosh, where have I been?

I saw nothing incongrous in the movie, except maybe the concept of a major shootout in downtown Eagle Pass with nobody noticing.

As for them finding the adress/phone bill, I do recall Chugarsh looking for and removing the VIN plate off of LLwellyn's truck, and then finding the phone bill on the floor of their trailer.

A bit unrealistic that Llwelyn could hunt so freely on so much open land, the movie must have been set in some other Texas, the Texas I know is all fenced off.

Anyone who doubts that folks would know that Llwelyn's wife had gone to visit her mother, and that her mother lived in Amarillo, ain't spent much time in Sanderson Tx, especially Sanderson of twenty years back (not that its changed all that much).

The only improbability I saw was that computer generated crow ay night on the bridge, that don't have crows anywhere between Del Rio and Eagle Pass, just Chihuahua Ravens, which look and sound different.

A bit of a stretch, given the limited range of the transponder,that Chugarsh could find Llwelyn in Eagle Pass after coming so close at the motel in Del Rio. OTOH, there ain't very many highways out of Del Rio and Eagle Pass would be a pretty good gamble..

Also, the Rio Grande and bridge in the movie were clearly not the river and bridge in Texas, turns out the scene was prob'y shot in Albuquerque, which makes a lot more sense.

Birdwatcher

That's why you really ought to take the time and read the book. The movie is a POOR adaptation at best. Anytime everyone starts to highlight the movie as being great based on the cinematography or a particular actor's performance, rather than the content of the story, it's a pretty good sign the movie's crap.

I can't imagine a movie version of you not being better than the read....

It would depend on getting Javier Bardem to portray me.

I haven't seen the movie.. I will wait for it on DVD. I am reading the book and already wish I had the time to sit and read it from cover to cover. It is a real page turner.

Just saw the movie, it was intense. The scenery really reminded me of where I roamed as a boy in Arizona.

Greatly enjoyed the movie but have to say I did not like the ending.

while i have no interest in the movie the book is a must read.... quick and a wicked page turner..... cant imagine having this stuff rolling around in your head.... must be a real hoot at a barbecue

woofer

They have brought the movie back to the theater and it will be out on DVD on Tuesday. I am tempted to go see it anyway, and if it is good as they say buy the DVD. I am now hooked on the books. I am reading "Blood Meridian" right now, and just read where Ridley Scott is making the movie. If anyone can do a book justiice it would be him. I read "The Road" before this one and it has to be the darkest page turner that I have ever read.

The Road ain't a patch on Blood Meridian when it comes to "dark".

Not having read the book myself, I would like to comment that does not mean I am illiterate or juvenile before being accused of such. That being said, movie making is storytelling also. I followed the story, was held in suspense as to where the story was going, did not find any gaping holes in the storyline. I found this movie very enjoyable as it certainly was not typical Hollywood fare and left me thinking when the story was told. Of course my perceptions of the movie were not clouded by my reading of the book. I could take the content as presented and enjoy it none the less.

You've made up your mind to set aside any objectivity and "like" the move because it's what happens to be popular at present.

Oh that was it...

I just saw the movie myself, I thought it was great! it wasn't trumped up in hollywood, it was as I could see happening at that time and by the manner of people. I found it riveting to say the least. lots of movies don't follow the books exactly, which is why I usually either only read or only watch a story. its meant for entertainment yes? it was entertaining. therefore its a success in my opinion. I'm buying it when it comes out on DVD.

I bet the book is good though too

You only liked it because it was popular, come on...

I never was one to follow the rest of the herd

The view never changes...

I liked it.Read the book about a year and a half ago.
Movies always leave some stuff out, nature of the beast.
Filmed around Marfa, fyi.
I would have taken the money too. Bob

Just saw this movie a couple of days ago on DVD. It was outstanding. At first I was a bit confused as I thought the nain plot line was that of Josh Brolin's character. When I realized the main plot line was that of Tommy Lee Jones' character, it all made sense. The best movie I've seen lately.

Expat

There have been crappy movies made of good books and good movies made of crappy books. Here we have a great movie made from a great book. So they are not exactly the same in storyline. That is typically the case when a movie is made from a book. Your insinuation of intellectual superiority based on your opinion of a movie is humorous at best and annoying and blatantly wrong at worst. Let it go.

Expat

WELL glad that's over--read the book twice--saw the movie once and I thought the brothers did a good classic comics version of another of McCarthy's broodings. I've read most of his work and while I love the stories and characters I think the guy is real gloomy--no good deed ever goes unpunished eh?

Great, now I know the ending thanks alot...sheesh.

The movie was just wierd, IMO. Of course I had a jaundiced eye from the start when Lewyellen "eyeballs" the distance to the antelope and then twists the ele. turret! Hollywood!

Do people in Texas really say "at the gettin' place." It is a line that was used in McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses also.

I know for a fact they say it in western Oklahoma.

I'm a BIG fan of the Brothers Coen - but I didn't think this one measured up to the level of a Fargo or a Raising Arizona

That's because it wasn't a comedy. Apples and oranges Ivan.

Who gives a [bleep] about the book, the movie kicked a$$.....

I haven't read the book but did see the movie on DVD a while back. I thought it was great, even with the ending some complain about. I'm sure the book is better, which why I always like to see the movie first...grin


Nail

In Mississippi it was always said "At the gettin place on gotten street"

I have not read the book but just finished watching the DVD.

I enjoyed the movie even if I at first felt cheated by the ending. After a few moments I realised the intention of the ending was to make one come to the conclusion by themselves.

Way back it was posted that Shane was an excellent film interpretation of the book. I strongly disagree. I have seen the movie several times and read the book at least a dozen times. I used the book in my 7th and 8th grade classes and would conclude the study with a viewing of the movie. All the kids, several hundred over the years, had the same view as I. The book was very much superior. No one had pictured Shane as dressed in buckskins when he arrives at the ranch and when he leaves. Also a great deal of the symbolism is missing. Without knowing what the author was expressing in several scenes leaves the movie a shadow of the book. If possible find the edition which contains study notes for junior college level, read it , see the movie and note what was missing. Incidentally it took very little guidance, mainly in the form of questioning for 12 and 13 year olds to see the reason for the stump scene or the biscuit sharing etc etc .

It takes awhile to understand the ending of "No Country For Old Men".The point of it is,there is no happy ending.No one came away unscathed.Moss is dead.So is his wife.The head honcho of the drug dealer is dead.Chigurh gets busted up bad in a car accident.Sheriff Bell retires due to feeling "outmatched" by the new breed of criminal he is facing.

WB.

This is no time for circumlocution.

The movie was good. The book was better. See how easy that was?

P.S. Not aimed at you WCB, quick reply and all.

Watched the movie,read the book,even listened to it on book tape.

This is one of the very,very few times that a movie comes close to doing justice to a good novel.The only other one I can think of immediatley is "The Shawshank Redemption".For instance,the character "Red" in the book is a red headed Irishman.In the movie,Red is played by Morgan Freeman.But there was no one else who could bring that character to life than Morgan Freeman.

Kind of the same way with Javier Bardem and Chigurh.When you read the book,Javier Bardem is about the last person you picture in your mind as Chigurh.But Bardem did it better than anyone else could have.

The scene with Bardem and the gas station attendant is without a doubt the finest acting I've ever seen.In the book,this scene doesn't really stand out.In the movie,you can't take your eyes away.

WB.

Perhaps "popup" books would more suit someone of your ilk, because literature certainly isn't your forte. Neither are movie critiques.

You might also like the new Indiana Jones flick or "The Love Guru." They share the common denominator of crap with "No Country for Old Men." Maybe you'll get the chance to watch all three at one sitting. It could be the special olympics of movie watching.

Uh, "Blood Simple," "Miller's Crossing," "Barton Fink," "The Hudsucker Proxy," "Fargo," and "The Man Who Wasn't There" weren't comedies either.

Research. Comprehend. Engage your brain to your typing finger. In that order.

Who gives a damn? I don't recall what happens in wind-blown-nowhere-Godforsaken western Oklahoma being the subject here. Start a new thread.

Perhaps you should take some time to ACTUALLY READ the book and WATCH the movie. Your recollection didn't quite happen.

Bricktop
Happy to see some things never change... You are still an azz.
art

Oh Great One,
I am but a poor dumb ignorant redneck.Would you be as so kind to explain what I missed?

WB.

You have such an exalted view of your own intelligence! How unfortunate that it seems no one else shares the opinion.

See ya'.

I reckon to you I will say what I want when I want from where ever I want and you can't do anything about it. I do however hope it annoys you.

Bricktop: Disjointed or not the film was absolutely enthralling, absolutely entertaining, mesmerizing, kept everyone on the edge of their seat and apparently way, way, way over your head!
If I recall correctly the film is making hundreds of millions of dollars AND won several Oscars!
I saw the movie on the west coast in a huge, sold out theater two weeks after its opening!
Not ONE person left that theater during the movie to make a phone call or take a leak!
NOT ONE!
I notice these type things.
The ending made me question my initial level of admiration for the movie. That questioning only lasted UNTIL I saw it in a theater for the second time!
Then, I bought the movie in disc form and have watched it 10 or 12 more times!
It is STILL, entertaining, exciting, enthralling and mesmerizing!
Nothing you have said diminishes MY enjoyment of the movie one bit!
ExpatFromOk - hits the nail EXACTLY on the head - the movie was not about the welder or the hired killers or the crooked lawyers or mans inhumanity to man - it was about the damage done to law enforcement types by the carnage and depravity they deal with and witness DAILY!
The only minor, and I mean minor flaw I took note of in the movie was the Remington 700 VLS (Varmint Laminated Stock) in 25/06 that Llewelyn was chasing Antelope with. This model Rifle had not yet been invented by Remington back then!
I absolutely loved the movie and it is the only DVD I have purchased to date.
It sits next to my copy of "The Wild Bunch", "Oh Brother Where Art Thou", "True Grit" and just a couple other top notch movies.
If Bricktop knows of any other "disjointed" movies that are as entertaining, exciting, enthralling and mesmerizing as "No Country For Old Men" please clue me in as I don't want to miss them!
WheelChairBandit is also absolutely right on with his appraisal of the scene between Javier Bardem and the long time actor who played the gas station attendant (Gene Jones)!
ALONE, that scene was worth the price of admission!
I can only recall one, more intense and well acted scene played by two actors - and that was the scene in the movie "Heat" where Al Pacino's character invites the character played by Robert Deniro to sit down in a cafe for a cup of coffee!
The intensity and perfection of that scene (especially the dialogue and facial expressions shared between those wonderful actors) is what movies are all about.
Scenes like the two I described above make it ALMOST worth putting up with the majority of crap that Hollywood burps up and tries to pass off as entertainment!
Roger Ebert of long time renown as a movie critic on TV and for the Chicago Sun-Times paper (nationally syndicated!) called the movie (No Country For Old Men) "FLAWLESS"!
And I agree with him.
Its simply one of the top ten movies of ALL TIME (disjointed or NOT!)!
Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of the son of a Sheriff and the nephew of a Sheriff in the personna of Ed Tom Bell was also world class acting!
Long live the Coen brothers!
"Call IT, Friend-o"!!!
Did I mention the full house of movie goers I sat through over 2 hours of movie with, simply sat in stunned silence, awe and incredulity at this movies ending!
I mean it took a full minute for anyone to speak or stand up!
Yeah I got my monies worth there at that screening - and I gladly paid to see it again! AND, then I bought the DVD!
The character of Anton Chigurh will be remembered for generations and has already become a movie classic himself!
Somehow I don't think Bricktop is gonna be making any movies nearly as entertaining as this one or any that will make well over a half a billion dollars (by the time its run its course of cable rentals and TV showings is over) or that WILL win Oscars for several categories INCLUDING "Best Picture Of The Year"!
And the fact that the movie WON the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay emphatically wipes out ANY credibility of anyones argument that the film may have been "disjointed"!
In addition to the 4 (four) Oscars the film won it also won 2 (two) Golden Globe Awards and 3 (three) BAFTA Awards!
Bricktop, for you to call this movie "crap" is far beyond stupidity its more like idiocy!
Long live good movies!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Well, I finally read the book, and as luck would have it, drove right through Sanderson on my way back from New Mexico a couple of weeks back.

Took some pics, I'll post 'em here shortly.

I liked the movie better than the book, mostly on account of the movie was done so well. Turns out I've been to most places mentioned, although from the descriptions in the book I wonder if Mc Carthy has, or if he did, how long he spent there.

The most glaring that jumped out at me was when one of the characters stays at a motel "just west of San Antonio", and then goes out back to try out a gun "out on the prairie"

Birdwatcher

All,
Dark movie.
I must be alone when I say the film scared the hell out of me ??????????????
Deleted the next 10 lines of Paranoid Rambling.
The good thing to come from my watching the movie......
A new SP101 3"
Tom

VarmintGuy and Ironbender, in the book Moss used a semi custom
.270. After he was dead we learned he had been a sniper in Vietnam. "Best rifle shot I ever saw", said his Dad.
Bob

BOBBALEE: I am going to have to look that book up and make an exception and read a fiction novel!
I spend SO much time reading real life reality/Hunting magazines and Hunting books that I don't get to spend much time in the fiction aisle!
I watched the movie last night, again, and enjoyed it nearly as much as the first time I watched it!
I wonder if a person can wear out a DVD?
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

TPearce: The film was a reminder to me of shocking lessons I learned as a rookie cop (and for the next 29 years!) in a major west coast crime ridden city!
I grew up in a home that was NEVER locked during the 1950's and early 1960's!
My, how things have changed!
Nowadays I lock my doors every time I go in and out of the house.
I have a sophisticated alarm system on my home and in some of my cars.
I have weaponery constantly available on an instants notice.
And I take hundreds of little precautions to try to insure my and my families safety!
It takes just such a minor effort to invoke these precautions and the rewards can be enormous!
I have seen so many people victimized in such horrific ways by sociopaths and ex-cons - people who just don't have any respect for lives (theirs or others!) or laws!
Having said that - there is a pretty small chance of any one person being murdered or in having an armed assault committed on them.
The best way to get ones self victimized in a life threatening manner is to live in or around a ghetto.
I don't live in a ghetto or near one, but my high-cap Glock is never far away!
Coming from the neighborhood that gave us Ted Bundy, the Green River Killer and the Wah Mee Massacre (13 innocent Asian folks executed by two young "Anton Chigurh" types, in Seattle 1980's era!) I am constantly wary!
On many ocassions I even walk around my home late at night with a 1,000,000 candle power spotlight shining it in every direction and checking every nook and cranny for anything amiss.
Call me paranoid if you want but the motto "better safe than sorry" comes into play these days.
And I feel my caution (paranoia?) is useful and beneficial.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I watched this movie twice this week, and have some questions,
hopefully not stupid:
I assume the hitman killed the wife, they dont show it, but
the movie does leave you hanging.

What happened to the hitman after he left the scene of the
car accident?

What happened to the suitcase of money? When Tommy Lee
enters the hotel room, Antone is definately inside the room
and does a good job of hiding.

Over all I enjoyed the movie, and will most likely buy
a copy to have at the house.

Just wanted to change the thread title back to the original to spite Crap-top!

Jericho: You ask some good questions - not great questions, but good ones, and I feel able to answer most of them as I have watched the movie many times - twice on the big screen and about 12 times from my DVD.

Question #1: Yes, the wife was killed by Anton Chigurh. She obviously would not allow the flip of a coin to determine her fate, she forced his hand in that - evidence of this was his checking for blood on his feet as he exited the front door of her house.
You weren't "left hanging" by the director of the movie by this - you were smashed with an overwhelming desire to know what happened to this innocent person!

Question #2: Anton Chigurh hobbled off into the oblivion that psycopathic killers live in. Think he was cold blooded - he does NOT hold a candle to real life killers like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacey, Jeffrey Dahmer etc etc etc.

Question #3: The suitcase of money had been "hidden" again by Llewelyn Moss in the air conditioning vent and had not been found by the Mexicans who found out where Llewelyn would be. They got in a shoot out with Llewelyn killing him and ran off "empty handed" as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell came driving into the motel! The initial investigation at that scene revealed no money being found.
Then Sheriff Ed Tom Bell went back to the scene maybe to look for the money again and Anton Chigurh had just recovered the money himself - witness the air vent on the floor NOW and the freshly removed screws laying there with the dust of the vent duct being disturbed like in the first motel incident.

Question #4: Anton Chigurh did probably hide himself under a bed or inside a curtain not knowing how many people may have been inside or outside the motel room. Anton Chigurh left with the money choosing for what ever reasons not to shoot it out with the Sheriff.
The great question that I only hear a few folks asking about this movie is - what was this movie about???
Its not a movie about the nice guy Llewelyn Moss finally getting a break in life and that break turning horribly wrong, its not a movie about good vs. evil (that was covered back in the 1920's and dozens of times every year since!), its not about trying to look into the heart of evil (Anton Chigurh), the "message" is about the final scene of the movie - its about the effects of evil that knows no bounds, on good men like Sheriff Ed Tom Bell and his wheelchair ridden and reclusive, ex-law enforcement Uncle Ellis (played splendidly though briefly by veteran actor Barry Corbin!).
You will get more out of the movie each time you see the movie.
I believe it was the early Roman Philospher Cicero who was quoted as saying "search, is the ultimate mystery"!
And this movie is about searching from beginning to end - following blood trails and following running people and following radio signals, and searching for good and the like. Even searching, of a sort in ones dreams, at the end of the movie where Ed Tom Bell relays to his wife how his dream had him following (searching for) his father in a blizzard.
Enthralling, mesmerizing and baffling at times this movie IS!
Fantastic entertainment to say the least.
Speaking of "questions" I tried to keep track of the number of people Anton Chigurh kills in the movie - I think its 14 or 15. It depends on, if Anton Chigurh does kill (offscreen) the aid to the crooked lawyer that Anton DOES kill - remember the aid asks Anton "are you going to kill me" and Anton looks at him with emotionless tone of voice and emotionless facial expression and answers him "it depends on if you can see me"?
And of course Anton can be seen by the aid and I am sure ended up dead right there!
15 is my total - count for yourself next time you see the movie.
Yes buy the movie and watch it at your convenience.
Hope this helps.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

It's about the realization that violence has not just come to the Border in particular or man in general, but that it has always been there and that age rather than an escalation in that violence, is what hampers the Sheriff's ability to deal with that violence.

Or maybe it's about something else entirely.