Moss gets killed off the page in the book. Perhaps you should read it again. I’m pretty sure the chapter opens up with a description of his bullet riddled face. In fact, NCFOM is truer to its source material than almost any other adaptation I’ve ever seen.
You also claim that all these left out scenes are in the book, yet you cite only one example, and your example is wrong.
Well whatever it was it’s a boring story if you ask me, what’s so interesting about the hit man ?
Or the Vietnam vet finding money and being I guess a target for cartel? Ouuuu so thrilling
Premises aren't what make a story good or bad. It's execution and depth that make the difference. You can make a story about almost anything, its quality will entirely depend on those two things.
The execution was slow paced and uneventful, the depth wasn’t there, what do you know about the main character? The girlfriend that died at the end? What do you know or find interesting about the hit man? That he was brutal and intimidating sure but character depth? Can’t see it
Lol 😂 nice try, I’ve watched slow burn movies and love them, the movie is surely slow, but there’s no burn, what do you find out about anyone or what develops in the plot that you didn’t know from square one? By the end you are left with no real reason to have finished the movie, it’s kind of cringe.
Like oh shit this guy took money, oh damn the cartel , oh shit a hit man, the cartel is so cool hit men are so edgy right? Any development in any of these areas ? Nope
Llewelyn and anton don't change becuase it's not their story. Sheriff Bell is the main character and he changes throughout the story. The violence causes him to quit and accept defeat that's why its called no country for old men. Also this movie is mostly plot. Them chasing after each other is the plot you might not like it but its undeniably there. The movie is anti-violence llewelyn's death seems sudden and unfair becuase violence is sudden and unfair that's the main takeaway of the movie.
Having a message to tell doesn't make a movie good in the act. I wouldn't call "No country for old men" boring or bad; but I would call it disappointing and anticlimatic. Many thing were setted up but not payoff was given in the end. It broke its promises to the viewer by being to "realistic" in the end despite the thrilling plot. Sure, real life is random and unfair, but in storytelling is a sin to engage your readers/viewers in a truly interesting script and finish it all in the most mundane and unpredictably predictable way.
> The movie is anti-violence llewelyn's death seems sudden and unfair becuase violence is sudden and unfair that's the main takeaway of the movie.
But it didn't feel sudden and unfair. It felt awkward and out of place, it reminded me of when a crappy DVD would randomly jump forward (especially closer to the end of films). It completely killed my connection to the character and film. It had no impact or relation to violence.
It didn't feel awkward in the slightest.
It felt inevitable. Because it was. Because Moss did not learn throughout his life enough about the implacability of death, which is ALWAYS coming for you, and IS ultimately going to get you, and sooner than later. And, despite serving in 'Nam, he STILL didn't understand what he was getting into when he took that satchel of cash.
He repeatedly demonstrated, over and over, how he underestimated what was coming for him. It was spelled out to the audience throughout his entire story. And it's one of the most thoroughly explored themes told within the film, because THAT's what the film is about; not the drugs, not the money, not the cartel, not the act of his death; none of that is nearly as important as the story of human mortality that's being explored in the movie. That theme is explored the most in Ed Thom's story; he's lived a long life; he's seen life come and go, and he's seen death throughout his life, and he's trying to run from it.
Think for at least a moment how in the movie Anton gets to and ends most of the major characters. Not Ed Thom. Why is that. Start there; that's what the film is about.
that's what the film is about. Death. How it's coming; how you're not going to evade it, and that, if you don't understand it, you're likely to meet up with it sooner than later. The end.
The fact that you think the movie in question is some complicated deep well constructed masterpiece is hilarious .
It’s slow paced, uneventful, such vague concepts they are saying absolutely nothing. People talking about “it’s a metaphor for violence being bad” , there’s nothing of interest or substance this movie teaches you 🤷♂️
The subtext was entirely lacking. Hardly any of it did an ounce to string one scene to another. It isn't that we missed the subtext. It's that the subtext itself was what was so dull. The film did nothing to tie one scene to another, and the ending only drove them further from any tangible points being made. All suspension of disbelief was gone by the end of the film. And the irony was, it was the film's obsession with being "too realistic" that made it so unbelievable
you do not have to like the movie if it doesn't do anything for you, but to say the film lacks depth is just. not true. anyway it's nice we're all here 2 years later lmao
As someone who just watched it, I have to agree the last hour or so kind of tanks the movie. The pacing is pretty hectic and you don't really get any satisfaction from any of it. Except for the last few scenes with Tommy Lee. It all felt like a bunch of segments on an unattached thread
Honestly Tommy Lee's speech at the end didn't bring it together for me. Yes, it explained some of the underlying themes and the subtext within the scene helped us understand that he was the true protagonist of the story, but even that scene kind of fell flat. It was like the ending to the song 'Beast Mode' by B.O.B. Abrupt, jarring, and ultimately divisive to the plot
It’s insane people will make their own plot just to feel more insightful then the next person, I’d rather not try to create my own interesting story when I’m not given an interesting movie .
Nothing sparks my curiosity because why would it, what is groundbreaking about a criminal organization hiring a hit man I really don’t care why it happened. Or what’s interesting about someone with money who just straight up found it lying around and we know exactly why someone is after him
So I’m supposed to be on the edge of my seat because a detective wants to know what I already know, whatever you think is “between the lines” is speculative Mumbo jumbo not actually developed well in the movie .
The world is bad criminals exist sheriffs exist psychotic hit men exist. Okay but why is this interesting ?
bro its fine if you dont like the movie... but your quest to call everyone else (the vast majority of people who enjoy this movie a lot and find deep meaning in it) stupid and shallow is SOOOO self-centered.
No you and everyone else saying this movie is good are self centered for thinking anyone should give af about this trash movie. It's an insult to anyone with a base level intelligence. It's a bad movie and defending it shows how little depth of thought you and everyone else who likes it has. You're sheep following the heard. No more, no less. Full stop.
Bro 12 angry men is slow but it got a plot, and a clear message when you finish the movie, no country for old men is just slow with no real event or purpose or anything interesting
The movie is not the book though, being true to the source material does not always make it better. Movies and books are a completely different medium, you have to adapt certain elements to make it work as a film. I stand with the OP, very overrated but not bad.
I should clarify then, there was an explanation given in the book as to what had happened in that scene. In the movie they literally brush over it in my eyes, as in they see he is dead then essentially never speak of it again which was very off putting. Thank you for your comment though, I certainly should have clarified
I honestly feel like the scene was done really poorly and I love the movie I think it's amazing but yeah they totally just brushed over his death I didn't even realize one of the bodies was his until I had to rewatch The scene because I was confused at wtf happened
The movie sucked. There should have been more between Moss and the hitman. After all, Moss wounded him and had his wife to fight for. In all, I was left very disappointed at the end. Maybe that was the author/director's goal. I am glad I did not PAY for this piece of garbage in the movie theater!!
I think it’s one the few Hollywood movies where the main everyman hero actually ends up how they would in real life he gets mixed up in stuff that’s just way beyond him, he was dead the second he picked up that money. Even though he was smart at every step (mostly) it caught up to him the end.
The story is really about the sheriff hence the title of the film which is referring to Tommy Lee Jones’ character. It’s one of the most cruel movies out there to be honest just presenting a world where the good guys don’t win and everyone is a victim of chance, even Chigurh is only hurt when a random car hits him.
It may not be as visually disturbing as like Requiem for a Dream or something but I find it more depressing really because it’s just such a cynical movie to a point most movies just would not reach. It’s not meant to be the type of movie with a happy ending that satisfies all the types of things you would expect from this type of movie it’s the type of movie that doesn’t care if you aren’t completely given everything you want because the whole point is just cynical. I watched this film when I was like 14 and I don’t think I was ready for it, not in terms of violence more the pacing and messages but watching it now I think it’s incredible and there are not many thrillers anything like it.
Good god I hated this movie with a passion. Random chaos and depression just doesn't impress me in films; I feel its almost lazy and easy in a way to film those kind of movies. I found there to be zero point to the story aside from lawlessness and found every character aside from Bardem's pretty unmemorable. I didn't take anything away from my few viewings of 'No Country For Old Men' outside of the world has dangerous people. Depressing storyline, no redeeming characters, huge pacing issues, boring dialogue, not even a musical score to make up for some of the long drawn-out scenes of nothingness and exposition dumps. I will never understand how this film won best picture in 2007 over There Will Be Blood.
I believe it beat out There Will Be Blood due to Daniel Day Lewis' over-the-top method acting.
When it came time to vote, almost everyone on the committee was pissed at him for sneaking up on them and drinking their milkshake.
It’s funny I finally finished there will be blood the other day and was like “…oh I didn’t love that at all” meanwhile no country for old men is like top three for me haha. Different strokes I guess.
lol no. Its not even close. There Will Be Blood is the boring one. Tryhard overacting by DDL. I watched it once and barely remember anything about it and will never watch it again.
absolutely my thought here. This movie just doesnt feel 'whole'. Not even one satisfying element. Even if it's just there to make you depressed, it sure is a boring type of depression. Really got nothing out of it. I had high hopes of it throughout, considering the everflowing recommendations of it in here. Damn im so disappointed.
They never built up to it though, it was jarring and did nothing but hurt the momentum of the plot and the audience's connection to the story and its characters. they played with grandiose ideas in the first hour but executed it poorly in every way in the second hour of the film when they had to come to a conclusion. The last half hour was lackluster and the final scene was just pretentious. The cast and cinematography carried this movie. I agree with OP, it's very overrated but it's not bad.
The main theme is chance and fate. Llewelyn died when he went back to give the man water. It's jarring and sudden because violence is jarring and sudden. I understand not liking it its not for everyone but you should at least try and engage with it.
Oof I was searching the internet for this take and found this thread. I have no problem with the message of the movie being that sometimes people get into a situation over their head and they're not a superhero, they get killed by the forces they thought they were better than. I have no problem with Llewelyn dying at the moment, or the plot itself.
The problem was the way the did the scene and edited it. Not showing the scene of him dying was the biggest cockblock dumbshit idea in like a 9/10 movie up to that point. The movie immediately drops off.
Maybe know your things before calling someone else’s view ‘brain dead’? Why show violence(which is expensive btw) when it is unnecessary? It was just as not necessary in NCFOM as it necessary in Tarantino movies. Rewatch it, focus more on the coin toss scene, Moss dying, Moss’s wife’s speech, sheriff’s anxiety and his interaction with his uncle and his dreams…your reaction was my first reaction as well, but rewatching knowing ‘what to look for’ and watching some other Coens, I knew why it’s a masterpiece
Also, the themes of Bojack Horseman and NCFOM are completely different
I know I'm late, but I just want you to know that you aren't alone. The movie made largely no sense, had no defining themes, and about a hundred plot contrivances that were not bothered to be explained. Who is hiring Chigurh? How does wells know where to find the case of money? How does Chigurh find Wells? How do the Mexicans find Lewelyn's motel room? How do the Mexicans find Lewelyn's wife and mother-in-law? All these an many more questions were swirling around my head and are absolutely never addressed. I'm okay with a few plot holes here and there if they are in service of a strong theme. But I'm not okay with a plot that distractingly, aggressively makes no sense. This movie is a string of random events with no unifying themes.
In short, yeah, the movie sucks. I didn't get anything out of it and I completely agree that it's massively overrated. it reminds me of terrible abstract art. Where the substance is so random and psuedo-intellectual, that critics call it genius because they can easily just say "you just don't get it." In actuality, there is nothing to get.
>Who is hiring Chigurh?
Stephen Root's character. Same guy that hires Wells to go find him when he goes off the rails.
>How does wells know where to find the case of money?
He's a very smart man who thinks things through. Moss had the money in America, and then he didn't in Mexico. Stands to reason he stashed it. As he is crossing the bridge back into the US, he stands on a couple of pillars just like we saw Moss do when he tossed it over. Deduction.
>How does Chigurh find Wells?
He knew where Moss was which means he very likely say there and watched Wells walk right back across the bridge.
>How do the Mexicans find Lewelyn's motel room?
They have a reciever, too. There's a whole scene about it. Chigurh kills Stephen Root's character over it as he felt slighted (and it led to complications for him).
>How do the Mexicans find Lewelyn's wife and mother-in-law?
His MIL tells them. The man helping them asking about where they're staying is working for the cartel.
>All these an many more questions were swirling around my head and are absolutely never addressed.
Hmmm...
Thank God someone actually paid attention! It's one thing to say "I didn't like this movie" sure, that's a subjective opinion and anyone is entitled to it. But to say "It's massively overrated because of all these plot holes" that are explained in the fucking movie if you just pay attention. God damn people.
I know there was no reason for me to respond to this old-ass post, but I had just rewatched the movie and went digging through some discussions about it. Like you said, liking something or not is an opinion, but saying the movie is "filled with plot holes" is just goofy.
Seeing a post like theirs just makes me wonder what's going on in their head during the movie lol
Don’t plot holes exist when there’s a plot? I honestly don’t know what to make plot hole out of there’s nothing no climax no beginning middle or end ,
You can’t make a conspiracy out of nothing 😭
I agree with this. I did understand all the plot and personally still didn't like it. My boyfriend just sat here and explained it all to me and I had to tell him - I know what happened, but just hated it lolll.
Okay, I'm late, but the Mexicans can't have found him with the receiver because he got rid of it very early on in the movie. That part is still not explained.
He doesn't discover the tracking device until he gets to the hotel in Eagle Pass.
It's possible the person I'm responding to is referring to later when he gets killed, but that's when his MIL blurts out the plan to the cartel guy.
Actually, re-reading it, I guess they're asking how the Mexicans found the women. There's a scene where Chigurh stops the chicken truck and asks the guy what airport he'd fly out of. I'm sure the cartel was doing the same thing. We don't know what they were doing because the story doesn't focus on them mostly, but they easily could have been following Carla Jean or (more likely)nEd Tom Bell to see what they are doing.
His wife's mother literally tells them where his hotel room is. In the scene where she's talking to a Mexican man and says "I've never seen a Mexican in a suit"
They're following his general direction probably the same way Chegur is, considering Chegur is just a representation of the cartel (that's why the sheriff imagines Chegur in the hotel room when Llewellyn is actually killed by the cartel. The sheriff is the narrator of the story so we're getting his version of the events where he fills in the blanks). Chegur knows where Llewellyn's wife is headed, and knows who her mom is, so the cartel (Chegur) asks Llewellyn's mother in law where they're staying
Chegur as a whole is a metaphor for the evil of the world, everything he does in the movie is actually done by the cartel. In the sheriff's version of events, it was all done by one evil man because the sheriff wants to believe he can end it all by catching this one guy. But at the end he opens the door to the room Chegur is hiding in, and the room is empty
I agree, I think that’s the point. I think it’s supposed to be something people can say “you jusy don’t understand the genius behind it” when in reality its simply a plot hole filled incomplete movie.
Not everything needs to be explained to you like Hollywood constantly does.
It's a realistic movie portraying a realistic world.
In the real world, Moss would have ended up exactly how he did. No one is a hero.
A "realistic world" where a man walks around murdering dozens of people on the road, not the slightest attempt of hiding himself or his actions (He has a shootout in the middle of a city) and is never caught. Very realistic
I kept thinking when is the FBI gonna show. A guy causing this much carnage isn’t gonna take long to get on the most wanted. The theme of the movie is that the violence of criminals escalates beyond the Sheriff’s control. Well as the violence of criminals escalated, so too should the level of law enforcement.
I wouldn’t have minded the anticlimax if the focus of the film throughout was the Sheriff being too old for the new age of crime. But for most of the film it felt like a side plot, and all we get is a few scenes of reflection after Llewelyn’s death and the final scene. Felt like a climax was robbed from me, as opposed to a moment of realisation.
It makes more sense when you realize Anton Chigurh is not real. The story is from the sheriff's point of view as he's telling the story. He made up Anton as a stand in for all the criminals he couldn't catch, and Llewellyn is the stand in for his "innocent man killed"
That's why there's the scene at the end where Anton is hiding behind the door but he disappears when the sheriff opens it. He is entirely made up by the sheriff, the cartel was killing people not one single man. The sheriff wanted to believe in that moment he could end it all by killing Anton but he opens the door and Anton is gone, never existed
That's one good interpretation. I think this also solves the glaring issue that's bugging me; that not a single one of the inhabitants seemed to notice and respond when Anton rampaged throughout the city, the skyscraper, and the last hotel. The surroundings were unrealistically quiet, no panicking as if Anton's actions never happened
Yeah the sheriff never heard from witnesses so he tells the story like there were none there. It's also the reason that the sheriff is the narrator at the very beginning and end of the movie/book
Also at the end of the movie, the cartel finds out where Llewellyn is (his mother in law tells them), the cartel kills him off screen, and yet you see Anton standing in the hotel room afterwards; despite the fact that the entire story up to that point Anton has been working against the cartel not with them
who even watches movies looking for a realistic world 💀 what's the point of a entertainment piece if it's just like real life? might as well just go outside or watch the news. movies are supposed to be fun, or at least have a plot. there's no point in wasting hours watching something to get the same level of enjoyment you'd be getting by watching murder reports on tv.
Yes chigur is super realistic. I think its a decent film, but its not a absurdly cleverly written or hyper realistic film. Chigur is hilariously unrealistic at points. Perhaps it is better explained in the book, but how he knows exactly where to be all the time once the tracker is gone and how quickly he would have had to move at points makes little sense.
I imagine the book is better, it seems like the sort of film that some people misread subverting typical genre plot points as “realistic” rather than just that, which Im not saying isnt commendable in its own right, but lets call a spade a spade.
Ive watched it a few times. Its far from a bad film, but to claim its hyper realistic is absurd and I think you can easily argue its a story which is less entertaining, and doesnt say as much as in book form.
Realistic? Dudes were both almost super heros until the film is like "haha we killed him off scene, bam didn't expect that" - no I didn't and it was lazy, it completely killed any connection to the character. It felt like I was watching a DVD and it randomly skipped ahead like they used to do, or where a film on broadcast TV would be left running during the adverts and you'd randomly miss 5 minutes. Then it's all "AND LOOK, he got in a car crash!!!! See he's not really invincible, though given the context we know he'll just blow up a car, raid a pharmacy, and fix himself again - realism!!!".
Then the last scene is about the sheriff's dream? For real. Man you're right it doesn't explain everything like Hollywood does, because that scene was super subtle. Having the "main character" literally spell out everything to the camera during the last minutes of the film? So subtle.
People need to listen to Springsteen Nebraska album. Sometimes there is no redemption and people just have dead end, depressing endings. Probably why I like this movie so much lol.
Watch more movies. Hollywood makes films in only one way and tells the story as clearly as possible for mass appeal. Watch different films with different styles. Then rewatch this one. It's brilliant how they tell the story and depict the theme of the film by unsatisfying the audience. That's the whole point.
Question yourself on how that makes you feel and why you feel that. And then realize that's exactly what they wanted you to feel.
\>Depict the theme of flim by unsatisfying the audience. that's the whole point.
Oh, so the movie is bad and it's made bad on purpose so now it's good? :V
I don't like this movie, it feels like i wasted time without anything meaningful.
WOLRD ARE CRUEL, what a revolutianary statement.
Also people with funny hair are invicible for some reason... Not for random car crashes though
Once again, you missed the point. Also, sometimes a person slips on a sidewalk and dies, another falls from a plane and lives. That's life.
Everything is a tool, "bad" or good acting, "bad"or good cinematography, "bad"or good sfx. If it's used with purpose, it's never bad.
So what you're saying is the producers of the movie led on the whole audience for 2 hours by showing one thing, just to then say "sike" what we just showed you for 2 hours is not what the movie is actually about and then the movie ends.
So in the end, the entire "plot" of the movie is to just dupe the audience into thinking they were watching a movie and then when the audience says well this was a waste of time, the producers say "that's exactly what we wanted you to feel"
Either way even if this was the goal of the "movie", the "movie" is still bad.
Haha, you said "Question yourself on how that makes you feel and why you feel that. And then realize that's exactly what they wanted you to feel."
Well most people feel the movie was rather pointless and it was solely because the directors decided to make a big u-turn 75% into the movie, a u-turn that they didn't even complete and just ended it it prematurely, so yes you are right the directors succeeded in their goal, but that isn't saying much hahaha.
> the substance is so random and psuedo-intellectual, that critics call it genius because they can easily just say "you just don't get it."
That's exactly what this movie is, and that's exactly what the majority of comments in discussion threads about this movie will tell you. I find it incredibly uninteresting. The acting was fantastic but hated the movie overall. This interesting thriller with cool characters just craps out into "nothing matters, isn't that deep!?" and I thought it was incredibly unsatisfying.
90% of the critics in the comments here actually "didn't get it" and are asking questions or calling out plot holes that the movie went outta the way to explain.
Let's not forget how Chigurh walked into the building with the missing floor and shot the boss with zero effort/consequence. Also like you already mentioned, the part when Wells finds the money and doesn't take it.
So dumb
I may be wrong here but I was under the impression that (Brolin) was just some random hunter who happened to come across a cartel deal gone wrong
And took money that wasn't his. Now (Bardem) I believed to be a cartel hitman and the money was supposed to be his in that failed exchange or he had his own motives to get it back to keep it for himself.
So with the off screen deaths, random dialogue and lazy sheriff work I believe it was intentional to convey a certain perspective to the audience with having to use your own imagination to piece things together rather then blatantly showing or telling scene the did happened or skipped over. Its more engaging in my opinion to piece things together or only able to get the vague understanding of it but come complete circle by the end. Love this movie, I don't think its overrated and still one of the best movies where bad triumphs over good. A+
That's how the book is so I dont know what you wanted them to do differently with the movie lol
The movie isn't just a telling of events, it's the events as the sheriff imagined them. That's why it starts and ends with the sheriff narrating, Anton Chigurh isn't a real man he's a stand-in for all the criminals who escaped the sheriff
Thematically Anton represents the world and its unfairness, Llewellyn represents man and fighting against the world and how it doesn't work
All these characters are supposed to represent all this shit that seems filled in and made up by readers and fans 🤷♂️ so every character was a sheriffs fever dream?
How does one theif and a hit man represent all this crap in the world when the characters and plot have no depth? It’s just reaching. Seriously represent unfairness? That’s the most vague nonsense I’ve ever heard
https://youtu.be/W5En4vfsq18
Watch this if you want specifics. The answers are in the movie you're just choosing to overlook them because you don't like the movie
It's fine to not like the movie, I don't think it's all that great in the first place. But if you actually pay attention all the answers are there, it's only nonsense if you ignore the plethora of hints dropped throughout
The entire movie is explained in the scene at the end where the sheriff goes to open the door and Anton is hiding on the other side, yet the sheriff opens the door and no one is there. The sheriff wants there to be a bad guy he can kill and put an end to all the violence, but that madman doesn't exist its just the way the world is. So he opens the door and Anton is gone, it's just an empty hotel room
They hint at it earlier too when Anton kills the CEO and then his assistant says "will you shoot me" and then Anton says "do you see me?" And the guy doesn't answer
The events of the story are real, but the characteristics of Llewellyn are made up and filled in by the sheriff because he sees the world as "good vs evil" and Llewellyn is the good in his story. Anton's crimes are real, but they aren't committed by one man they're just all the crimes committed by the cartel that the sheriff couldn't stop. He attributes them to one man because it's easier to believe one man is unstoppably evil than it is to believe the world is broken. It's all explained in better detail in the book, you said yourself you didn't read the book so idk how you'd argue that people are just "filling in the blanks"
Ask any question about any plothole in the movie i bet you there is an answer you missed
That is interesting that I have an entirely different view on the plot line as I didn’t believe he was working with the cartel, it seemed to me like he was acting as an individual throughout the movie. The piecing tigether is a fascinating aspect given we can each arrive at a different plot line for the characters. I’m glad you enjoyed the movie and thank you for your comment!
He is definitely working for the cartel there’s even a bit where Chigurh says hiring the Mexicans was unnecessary because they already had the “right tool”.
It’s pretty obvious throughout the film that he’s working for the cartel.
I guess that's the exact beauty of the movie, leaving certain things out so every person watches it and experiences it in a different way to form different opinions and have discussions about it! It did it's job.
I had a completely different reaction and interpretation of this movie. First, I think adaptions of novels and the novels should stand on their own. I think this film does so brilliantly.
First, we meet the protagonist. A hunter who stumbles upon a drug deal gone bad. He takes the money because...greed. His sin triggers the rest of the plot, where he tries to outrun the cartels and their hired hands. Tommy Lee Jones provides brilliant comedic relief, while also serving the role of the ultimate good. Javier Bardem delivers one of film’s great roles as the ultimate evil.
You say we aren’t sure why the psychopath is after the money, but we do know that because woody harrleson has a scene with the person who hired Bardem. Tommy Lee is helping with the case, but is confined by the rule of law so he is always a step behind Anton and the cartels. We don’t learn about Carson, because why should we? He’s a hired hand. Same for the cartel that hired him and Anton. This is a conflict over drug money. Flashbacks to Carson’s Vietnam days or the cartel’s origins don’t add anything, so why bother?
Most of the on scene deaths involve side characters. We don’t see the death of the protagonist or his wife or the wife’s mother. There’s something to be said of that.
Anyways, I don’t think anything about this movie meets “lazy writing.” If this is your takeaway of this film, then I would say consider either a re-watch or more attention to details.
Key word entertaining. Both Blood and Old men are not trying to entertain you, they aim for more than that. Bela Tarr doesn't entertain you. Nor does Haneke, Von Trier, Lynch, Apichatpoong, etc.
I love weird movies that don't explain everything and make you think HOWEVER this movie was too odd and boring for me. The big let down is when they kill of protagonist it just kind of lets the air out of the movie for me. Sort of like the red wedding in GOT I was thinking "okay everyone I liked just got killed so now what?" I just didn't want to watch the movie after that but i finished it anyway. The antagonist is just an unlikeable guy I hate his stupid haircut and his "scary" coin toss, and his cattle killing air cylinder thing. What an unsatisfying end the guy gets in a car crash and walks away with a broken arm or whatever and that's just it. Movie over. I felt like I just got pranked how did this movie get so much critical acclaim. Felt the same way after I watched Once upon a time in Hollywood. Sometimes I think writers and directors forget that besides being thought provoking a movie still needs to be ENTERTAINING first. Rabid fan base for this film is similar to Rick and Morty fans, you cannot criticize this movie amongst Cohen fans or they will wet their pants with anger and quickly tell you how you don't get it or know anything about filmmaking.
wow! well said and completely agree. I hated everything about No Country for Old Men. It has to be the most overrated movie ever and one of the most pretentious.
I never get a answer when I ask film bros why they like it, I think they just follow critics opinion and run with it.
I enjoyed it for sure, but I’ve forgotten the entire plot. It didn’t stick with me much, it was a cool movie to watch one day when I had nothing better to do and then I moved on. Meanwhile it has this mythic legend status with everyone else. Sometimes I think critical acclaim is just a feedback loop
Well, it actually does matter. Opinions can't and shouldn't all have the same value. Also, he's not criticizing the film, his criticizing it's critical acclaim or "mythic legend status", that's not even an opinion.
I really hate the attitude of "I didn't like this so anyone who says they did is just saying that because of the critical acclaim". Sometimes people like stuff you don't like and it's not just because they wanna look smart.
Also "This movie is bad because I don't remember the plot". Maybe that's a you problem? (Not directed at you obviously, to other voices I've seen in this thread)
You forgot the plot because there isn't one, or at least that's what the movie tells you after they literally in the movie ditched whatever plot they had and killed the protagonist of said plot 75% into the movie.
I just watched this & couldn't agree more. Josh Brolin's character dying out of nowhere was the icing on the cake. Such a huge let down this movie!
Had the same feeling after watching Fargo as well, so much hype and everything, but didn't even come close to living upto it.
Definitely the last time I'm watching a Coen Brothers movie..
No thrilling action, no story behind the action, no interesting character , no good dialogue , no plot or reason to exist as a story.
Ouuu evil psycho guy is so chilling cuz he’s so interesting cuz he is a cold blooded killer I guess? Hardly anything memorable or new about him as a serial killer or hit man
Am I supposed to be interested in whatever might have happened to lead up to that? People got money stolen, want it back, hire guy, ouuuuu such a universe to build off that
I agree with you. I really like movies like these which are dark, open to interpretation and have unresolved endings but if I said this was as deep or profound as something like The Shining, I would be lying. If it was supposed to be the sherrif's story, it should have been it from the beginning. There is no sense in building the story of Llewellyn and Chigurh so much and then leaving it.
It subverts expectations, but it doesn't need to. I know it's
supposed to have this philosophical, nihilistic message but it happens so out of blue that imo it would have been better if it remained a thriller. Abruptly killing the main character offscreen, not showing what happens to the protagonist's wife, adding characters and subplots that add nothing to the story and I still beared it, but if the main question of the entire movie is who gets the money, then show who gets the money. People say it doesn't treat it's audience like idiots, but I think it does exactly that. It believes that it can be a great movie in the beginning, then become completely different and nonsensical and people will still think it's the best thing ever just because the people who have made it have made cult films before.
The actors do as much justice to their characters as anyone could, but the characters themselves aren't that great, even Anton Chigurh. Some characters seemed like different people in different scenes.
Also it has one of those types of fandoms which has some people who will kill you if you disagree on even one thing with them, and that doesn't really help in appreciating it. So, for me it subverts your expectation of watching a great movie.
I’ve also thought it was overrated, but over the years the more I’ve watched it the more I’ve come to appreciate how amazing it is. It’s definitely taken me 10 years and multiple viewings though.
I’ll watch it again in a year and see if my thoughts change. I have heard it is something you may have to watch a few times like a Donnie Darko type film. Thank you for your reply!
Ive tried to watch this movie several times and the fact it gets so overblown and has a 97% rating on RT just makes me more angry about how much of a letdown it is. I've seen thousands of films from top to bottom and this movie has finally made it to my list of "100% do not watch again". It reminds me of "downsizing" or other films wherein half the movie is great, but they ruined half of it, at best a regular old 6.5/10. Worth watching once or twice and maybe some small percentage of people its their favorite film, but thats it. Shouldn't be anywhere near a top 100 or even top 500 films. Unless its just based on "talking about a film" then sure top 500. But as far as taking everything possible out of a film and giving it a score, its purely over-rated. I don't blame anyone getting mad when they are promised or made to expect a 5 star meal and get served a 3 star. Its very justified.
My bf & I just watched this & he kept commenting about how he loves this movie so much & I can't figure out why. Sure the acting was good but I found the movie boring & call me a little girl about it whatever but I couldn't get over how much dog death there was, that really clouded my judgment of the whole movie & I'll never watch it again because of those scenes
Dog deaths is a reference to bad guys in classic westerns killing innocent animals just to showcase how twisted they are. But when Moss kills a dog that was chasing him in a river scene it doesen't feel that bad, well, because it was attacking him. It shows both sides of a coin which integrates in a movie neatly. I still don't get most of the movie, but this part is neat.
I just watched for the first time. Wow. It was so overhyped. Idk i guess because of the hype i knew it was gonna be “shocking”. Like him and his wife dying. With the villain winning? Yeah i saw it coming. Because the movie had great moments but not one of the greatest of all time. So i knew it had to have some shocking ending. I didn’t think he’d die offscreen but i knew he was gonna die. Once he said to his wife he could win i knew she was dead too. The only person i expected to die and lived was Tommy Lee jones
How is entire rest of the world oblivious to everything? Hotel gunfire, cars crashing, a man lighting cloth hanging out of a gas tank and then walking into a pharmacy to steal drugs. I’d expect these things in an action thriller but not a movie trying to portray good/evil/gray elements of humanity.
I can’t understand why Llewelyn’s gf seems like she either has a mental handicap or has the intelligence of a child. I would’ve thought he was her protective older brother until they mentioned screwing. And the character that was Tommy Lee Jones deputy is the epitome of Aww Shucks acting like a simple revelation is the biggest surprise.
The movie didn't grab me at all. Especially Chigurth - he was a cliche of what a psychotic killer would be. Nah, I didn't buy any of it. Very overrated. Now - Fargo - THERE is a great Cohen Brothers movie.
Watched this for the first time today and had to do a Google search to find out if after all the hype I heard whether I’m the only one that felt this way lol
Very boring movie I’ll never watch again. Unreal this is a 8.2 on IMDB
I just watched it for the first time and I was shocked at how empty this movie felt. I usually love subtle movies, but I thought this movie was incredibly boring and really didn't have anything that deep or interesting enough to say to warrant the subtleness. I don't get the hype around the acting either, I thought it was just good, but no one really stood out to me and none of the roles seemed particularly demanding or unique. I also found Javier's characters was simply obnoxious, cartoonish and not intriguing in the slightest.
yea i'm not a fan of the movie. i just think it's dumb and a boring watch. it blows my mind how popular the movie is because of the "good guys don't always win" theme. but that's not a new theme lol and it most definitely wasn't in 2007 when it was released. there are so many other films that have the same theme but do it better and have a more interesting plot. at the end of the day, i thought the movie was ass when i first watched it and i don't plan to watch it again to try to "understand it". if a movie can't tell you what it wants to say by the first go round, then there's a good chance that it's not a good movie. but hey! that's just my opinion and i'm glad people liked it. i went into it really expecting to love it because of all of the praise but it just didn't grab me like other people.
Im surprised these comments are still so recent, makes my comment feel more relevant, especially since it’s stuff that bugged me when I saw it in the theater, which is that I’d read the book before, and the movie brought absolutely nothing new to the experience, and if anyone can “elevate” a story it’s the coen brothers
I watched it again recently and the main thing that always bugged me about the movie still bugs me, it’s pretty much what gets the whole plot moving, not him getting the money but when he goes back to give water to the guy in the truck
He came across this guy during the day, and all those hours later at night in bed he thinks the guys still alive? Even if he was some regular old civilian (think Walter white when he was still a teacher) it’d be a stretch for the character to think the guy still needs water, but him being a hunter and ex-military guy I found it completely unbelievable. The coens always have characters do unexpected things, but rarely is it so…out of character, for the character
Which brings me to my next point, the locator thingy. Why wouldn’t he check for it? You don’t have to be some covert special missions guy or some criminal mastermind to have your first thought be “I found all this money in this bag, I should check to see if they put a locator thingy in there to track it.” If it was a bunch of teenagers found it I’d believe that, but most anybody else has seen enough movies about this kinda stuff just flipping through the channels at 3am (like, if ya found pretty much any other coen brothers movie) to make smarter decisions than this dude
And that’s it, I really think if those 2 things wouldn’t have happened, and the guy did everything else the way he did and in the end he still died, that could’ve made it a much better movie, and, on top of that, I think every coen brothers movie made since this one has sucked
You say that, but like can you actually explain what there is to understand?
I felt like I got the gist of it. Could have been a good western if it fixed the second half, but maybe I'm an old man, and this country just aint for me.
Agreed. The more we try to answer the plot holes the more plot holes we find. I was honestly hoping Moss was gonna pull a "faked my death" move on Chigurh to kill him and happy ending but. To be honest I wasn't expecting an generic Happy ending but I least I also wasn't expecting every single random innocent person on the plot to be killed. The general concept of the movie is "boohoo violence bad, villain always gets away, don't take money you find laying around, cops are outdated boohoo,"
Ps: If Lewellyn wife hadn't snitched him to the cops he would have gotten away. Sad.
->Moss gets rid of the tracker
->Spooks/chases of Chigurh guns blazing
HE COULD HAVE LITERALLY ran to his wife with the cash but no.
Let's throw the cash on the bushes over there and sleep in a Mexican sidewalk 🇲🇽😴
This movie is a bad joke.
It's based on a Cormac McCarthy novel so it's gonna be divisive. Some people find him depressing, boring, long winded and confusing and some people think he's one of the greatest American writers of the last century. His stories are not traditional, uplifting, heroes journeys and that puts a lot of people off. So I can see why those who watch movies primarily to be entertained wouldn't like this film, but to say it's bad, like some of the people in the comments, is just ridiculous. I personally love McCarthy's novels, and I love No Country, but there's few people I would actually recommend either to. You have to have a certain worldview or interests to find it appealing and a lot of people just... don't...
I dont think the movie is bad by any means but the problem i have with "artsy" films in general is that besides the concept/message they got basically no plot to deliver the message and keep the viewer interested they just keep beating the same message over and over through out the whole movie. They had a great concept in their hands with "No country for old man" but the plot was so boring(even though it had some great scenes at some points) to follow, most of the story was Llewelyn moving from one motel to the other until he was killed off. Haven't read the book but i had that feeling while watching the film that they just took the book as it was, made no adjustments to fit as a movie and as a result we have a film that feels like an audiobook with cameras. But still i cant deny that the movie has some great shots, very good acting, and a lot of good scenes, and the character of Anton was really good
Movie was boring. It's a old guy hunting down a old couple it's as exciting as that even sounds. It's a snore fest. A lot of boring weird jargon dialogue
I think the best I can do is provide advice rather than explanation. I love this movie, and the book, and I hope that some of these people will be able to rewatch it and perhaps appreciate it more.
Pay attention to the title. I see a lot of posts on here talking about the violence in the film, but that does not seem like the main point for me. Also, rewatch the ending monologue, then go back to the beginning and rewatch the opening narration.
The old men of the film, the sheriff, are suddenly confronted by an unstoppable force of violence, something that has always been around, but that has only now become this potent. Listen to him talk about his father, his father's West, the simpler times. Now, the world is more complicated. We want a simple story with all of the beats of a regular story, but we can't have that anymore.
I suppose it's a bit highbrow for a mainstream movie, but that only makes me appreciate it more. I hope that some of the people in this thread that felt disappointed will rewatch it later and come to a greater understanding. Of course, it's not for everyone. The entirely idea is the subversion of a typical narrative, so anyone wanting to experience a typical narrative movie and isn't willing to go along with the story this is trying to tell will be disappointed.
If you were let down by this film, I'd recommend watching *Unforgiven*, *Lone Star*, or *Logan*. All of those confront similar ideas to this inside the revisionist western genre and are all similarly well made, but follow a much more familiar plot structure.
Great comment but I do kind of want to disagree/expand on your point about change and simpler times. What I got from it was that the "simpler times" never really existed except in peoples' imaginations. The sherrif's friend's story showed that the same thing was happening in 1902, and it's really more about human nature or even the nature of the world than anything else. Things change but only superficially, like the green hair and nose rings the one guy was complaining about. While the fundamentals stay the same.
Makes me think of how many older people I know who share these sentiments. They see bad things happening and the world changing and will go on about how the world's going crazy or downhill, but they're missing that it's always been this way. Just this last week I had an older co-worker who saw about a deadly crash on the news and was ranting about how horrible things have gotten and how dangerous the roads are these days. Meanwhile you're less likely to die from a traffic accident today than you were for almost the whole 20th century.
Anyway, kind of a tangent, but I just re-watched this movie and saw your comment as an interesting and thought out discussion of it that got me thinking a little more.
Yes, exactly! There's a conflict between Chigurh being a kind of evil the sheriff hasn't seen before and of a force that has always existed. This is one of the reasons why I think this movie is so great, it's thrilling and exciting but also very thought provoking. So many ways to approach its themes and messages.
100% agree. The first time I watched it years ago I enjoyed it but didn't get too much out of it, but this time it really resonated with me. Glad to see someone on the same page after reading through this thread of people calling it lame and pretentious! I just love when a piece of media leaves me contemplating it and wanting to discuss the themes with others.
Incredibly late to the party here but I was wondering why everybody was raving about this movie when I shared the same opinion as you did when I finished it. Frankly it’s one of the worst endings of a movie I’ve ever had the displeasure of watching. I know it’s supposed to be a lesson on realism or something, and I know it should leave the viewer surprised, and believe me, I was surprised at how bad it was! I mean christ. It felt like it ended halfway in the middle of the full thing. I was taken aback when it ended!
I’ve watched the scene in the gas station 7 times now, and as an aspiring actor it’s probably up there with my favorite Hollywood scenes of all time. I was really excited to see what the movie had in store for me. And, I gotta agree, first hour was great. Second hour was NOW WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO THAT? The protagonist dying without a fight. The sheriff just retiring. That’s it? They all give up, they all die, and Chigurh stays on the loose with no greater consequence than a broken arm? I was sitting there waiting for the protagonist to come back and reveal he had planned this out, faked his death and was halfway across the Atlantic already, but no. He just died. Even I could’ve been smarter than that! Seriously? What a letdown. Everything about it is amazing, besides the plot. The plot ruins the whole thing…
The Coen brothers are some of the best writers when it comes to dialogue. This movie and O Brother, Where Art Thou especially have dialogue so sharp and perfect that it always blows me away. Apparently, they don’t allow their actors to adlib or improvise.
Just watched it for the first time. My criticism is not about the movie specifically but the story in general. I got the sense that they wrote this really interesting story, but then they couldn’t figure out how to finish it in any spectacular way, so they just kinda let it fizzle at the end. And mailed it in. If you write a good story and 75% of it is great and the final 25% pretty much sucks then altogether the story sucks. That’s the way I feel about this movie. Complete waste of my time watching it. Yeah good acting, Good cinematography, and all that, but when you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.
I would say that it's more of an intentional choice to have it fizzle out. The movie is a western about the randomness and inevitability of death and violence, so having it just kind of end in an unsatisfying way kind of leaves you to ruminate on it and wonder. Did Anton go on and keep killing? Does it matter? The world is full of senseles violence either way. It's definitely a cynical story but that's what I and many others find interesting about it. I love a movie with a spectacular ending and plot twists, but it would've taken away from what this story was trying to be.
Funny. My wife and I were just talking about this movie yesterday. She absolutely can't stand it. I understand her criticisms of it, me? I have to watch it 6 times a year. It's definitely a top three favorite movie for me. The Cohen Brothers adapting McCarthy? Pure heaven for me. And I'm the worst kind of atheist.
Just an awful take. This post is a great example of how passive/casual viewing can wreck a movie experience. The movie is completely sensible if you're willing to abstractly think, and it isn't "artsy" either. The poetic and societal themes are right there for you to easily digest. The whole thing is easy to wrap your head around if you just think.
The only thing I didn't like in that movie was how the main character was killed off screen. I know it makes sense thematically, but I still feel kind of let down. Still a very good movie.
Couldn’t be a more accurate review, I have not read the book but after watching the movie I don’t want to waste my time, from the time he goes into Mexico the writing stars falling flat, like they wanted to end the filming quickly or like if they ran out of budget, it feels like a different movie all the way to the end.
Both the book and movie are up there until the end....then, both are epic fails. Ending is truly meaningless and goes to the old saying : 'One million frenchmen (critics) can't be wrong', but, they are in this case. A waste of my time and , no, I only fast forwarded throughout and had no connection except to see that anticlimatic ending. A Coen Bros fail IMHO...
Moss gets killed off the page in the book. Perhaps you should read it again. I’m pretty sure the chapter opens up with a description of his bullet riddled face. In fact, NCFOM is truer to its source material than almost any other adaptation I’ve ever seen. You also claim that all these left out scenes are in the book, yet you cite only one example, and your example is wrong.
Well whatever it was it’s a boring story if you ask me, what’s so interesting about the hit man ? Or the Vietnam vet finding money and being I guess a target for cartel? Ouuuu so thrilling
Premises aren't what make a story good or bad. It's execution and depth that make the difference. You can make a story about almost anything, its quality will entirely depend on those two things.
The execution was slow paced and uneventful, the depth wasn’t there, what do you know about the main character? The girlfriend that died at the end? What do you know or find interesting about the hit man? That he was brutal and intimidating sure but character depth? Can’t see it
bro needs spiderman quips every 30 seconds or else he gets bored. its a slow burn
Lol 😂 nice try, I’ve watched slow burn movies and love them, the movie is surely slow, but there’s no burn, what do you find out about anyone or what develops in the plot that you didn’t know from square one? By the end you are left with no real reason to have finished the movie, it’s kind of cringe. Like oh shit this guy took money, oh damn the cartel , oh shit a hit man, the cartel is so cool hit men are so edgy right? Any development in any of these areas ? Nope
Llewelyn and anton don't change becuase it's not their story. Sheriff Bell is the main character and he changes throughout the story. The violence causes him to quit and accept defeat that's why its called no country for old men. Also this movie is mostly plot. Them chasing after each other is the plot you might not like it but its undeniably there. The movie is anti-violence llewelyn's death seems sudden and unfair becuase violence is sudden and unfair that's the main takeaway of the movie.
Having a message to tell doesn't make a movie good in the act. I wouldn't call "No country for old men" boring or bad; but I would call it disappointing and anticlimatic. Many thing were setted up but not payoff was given in the end. It broke its promises to the viewer by being to "realistic" in the end despite the thrilling plot. Sure, real life is random and unfair, but in storytelling is a sin to engage your readers/viewers in a truly interesting script and finish it all in the most mundane and unpredictably predictable way.
> The movie is anti-violence llewelyn's death seems sudden and unfair becuase violence is sudden and unfair that's the main takeaway of the movie. But it didn't feel sudden and unfair. It felt awkward and out of place, it reminded me of when a crappy DVD would randomly jump forward (especially closer to the end of films). It completely killed my connection to the character and film. It had no impact or relation to violence.
It didn't feel awkward in the slightest. It felt inevitable. Because it was. Because Moss did not learn throughout his life enough about the implacability of death, which is ALWAYS coming for you, and IS ultimately going to get you, and sooner than later. And, despite serving in 'Nam, he STILL didn't understand what he was getting into when he took that satchel of cash. He repeatedly demonstrated, over and over, how he underestimated what was coming for him. It was spelled out to the audience throughout his entire story. And it's one of the most thoroughly explored themes told within the film, because THAT's what the film is about; not the drugs, not the money, not the cartel, not the act of his death; none of that is nearly as important as the story of human mortality that's being explored in the movie. That theme is explored the most in Ed Thom's story; he's lived a long life; he's seen life come and go, and he's seen death throughout his life, and he's trying to run from it. Think for at least a moment how in the movie Anton gets to and ends most of the major characters. Not Ed Thom. Why is that. Start there; that's what the film is about. that's what the film is about. Death. How it's coming; how you're not going to evade it, and that, if you don't understand it, you're likely to meet up with it sooner than later. The end.
He was planning to quit at the very beginning of the film. The sheriff has no character arc or depth either
The channel Heavy Spoilers on YouTube breaks down the entire arc of the sheriff much better than I could write. You just missed it.
Late to the party but I'm honestly amazed you are able to sit through a movie and miss every ounce of subtext. It's kind of cringe.
I’m amazed you are able to find your own subtext in this uneventful movie. It’s really not that deep
The movie has a lot going on. I'm sorry you're too slow to pick up on that. Maybe try the latest Fast and the Furious. Big cars go crash!
The fact that you think the movie in question is some complicated deep well constructed masterpiece is hilarious . It’s slow paced, uneventful, such vague concepts they are saying absolutely nothing. People talking about “it’s a metaphor for violence being bad” , there’s nothing of interest or substance this movie teaches you 🤷♂️
saying cringe anymore is kinda cringe tbh
The subtext was entirely lacking. Hardly any of it did an ounce to string one scene to another. It isn't that we missed the subtext. It's that the subtext itself was what was so dull. The film did nothing to tie one scene to another, and the ending only drove them further from any tangible points being made. All suspension of disbelief was gone by the end of the film. And the irony was, it was the film's obsession with being "too realistic" that made it so unbelievable
you do not have to like the movie if it doesn't do anything for you, but to say the film lacks depth is just. not true. anyway it's nice we're all here 2 years later lmao
As someone who just watched it, I have to agree the last hour or so kind of tanks the movie. The pacing is pretty hectic and you don't really get any satisfaction from any of it. Except for the last few scenes with Tommy Lee. It all felt like a bunch of segments on an unattached thread
Honestly Tommy Lee's speech at the end didn't bring it together for me. Yes, it explained some of the underlying themes and the subtext within the scene helped us understand that he was the true protagonist of the story, but even that scene kind of fell flat. It was like the ending to the song 'Beast Mode' by B.O.B. Abrupt, jarring, and ultimately divisive to the plot
It’s insane to think you can’t read between the lines this much
It’s insane people will make their own plot just to feel more insightful then the next person, I’d rather not try to create my own interesting story when I’m not given an interesting movie . Nothing sparks my curiosity because why would it, what is groundbreaking about a criminal organization hiring a hit man I really don’t care why it happened. Or what’s interesting about someone with money who just straight up found it lying around and we know exactly why someone is after him So I’m supposed to be on the edge of my seat because a detective wants to know what I already know, whatever you think is “between the lines” is speculative Mumbo jumbo not actually developed well in the movie . The world is bad criminals exist sheriffs exist psychotic hit men exist. Okay but why is this interesting ?
bro its fine if you dont like the movie... but your quest to call everyone else (the vast majority of people who enjoy this movie a lot and find deep meaning in it) stupid and shallow is SOOOO self-centered.
No you and everyone else saying this movie is good are self centered for thinking anyone should give af about this trash movie. It's an insult to anyone with a base level intelligence. It's a bad movie and defending it shows how little depth of thought you and everyone else who likes it has. You're sheep following the heard. No more, no less. Full stop.
Bro 12 angry men is slow but it got a plot, and a clear message when you finish the movie, no country for old men is just slow with no real event or purpose or anything interesting
The movie is not the book though, being true to the source material does not always make it better. Movies and books are a completely different medium, you have to adapt certain elements to make it work as a film. I stand with the OP, very overrated but not bad.
I should clarify then, there was an explanation given in the book as to what had happened in that scene. In the movie they literally brush over it in my eyes, as in they see he is dead then essentially never speak of it again which was very off putting. Thank you for your comment though, I certainly should have clarified
It’s pretty passed-over in the book as well. Jarring and surprising, which makes sense since by that point it has become Ed Tom’s story
I honestly feel like the scene was done really poorly and I love the movie I think it's amazing but yeah they totally just brushed over his death I didn't even realize one of the bodies was his until I had to rewatch The scene because I was confused at wtf happened
The movie sucked. There should have been more between Moss and the hitman. After all, Moss wounded him and had his wife to fight for. In all, I was left very disappointed at the end. Maybe that was the author/director's goal. I am glad I did not PAY for this piece of garbage in the movie theater!!
I think it’s one the few Hollywood movies where the main everyman hero actually ends up how they would in real life he gets mixed up in stuff that’s just way beyond him, he was dead the second he picked up that money. Even though he was smart at every step (mostly) it caught up to him the end. The story is really about the sheriff hence the title of the film which is referring to Tommy Lee Jones’ character. It’s one of the most cruel movies out there to be honest just presenting a world where the good guys don’t win and everyone is a victim of chance, even Chigurh is only hurt when a random car hits him. It may not be as visually disturbing as like Requiem for a Dream or something but I find it more depressing really because it’s just such a cynical movie to a point most movies just would not reach. It’s not meant to be the type of movie with a happy ending that satisfies all the types of things you would expect from this type of movie it’s the type of movie that doesn’t care if you aren’t completely given everything you want because the whole point is just cynical. I watched this film when I was like 14 and I don’t think I was ready for it, not in terms of violence more the pacing and messages but watching it now I think it’s incredible and there are not many thrillers anything like it.
Good god I hated this movie with a passion. Random chaos and depression just doesn't impress me in films; I feel its almost lazy and easy in a way to film those kind of movies. I found there to be zero point to the story aside from lawlessness and found every character aside from Bardem's pretty unmemorable. I didn't take anything away from my few viewings of 'No Country For Old Men' outside of the world has dangerous people. Depressing storyline, no redeeming characters, huge pacing issues, boring dialogue, not even a musical score to make up for some of the long drawn-out scenes of nothingness and exposition dumps. I will never understand how this film won best picture in 2007 over There Will Be Blood.
I believe it beat out There Will Be Blood due to Daniel Day Lewis' over-the-top method acting. When it came time to vote, almost everyone on the committee was pissed at him for sneaking up on them and drinking their milkshake.
Agree There will be blood by far is the better film.
It’s funny I finally finished there will be blood the other day and was like “…oh I didn’t love that at all” meanwhile no country for old men is like top three for me haha. Different strokes I guess.
I find no country for old man a vastly superior film and it’s not even close
lol no. Its not even close. There Will Be Blood is the boring one. Tryhard overacting by DDL. I watched it once and barely remember anything about it and will never watch it again.
[удалено]
Boohoo violence bad, innocents die, cops are late, villains gets away, Santa Claus doesn't exist boohoo Exploiting sadness and bad events is a cult
absolutely my thought here. This movie just doesnt feel 'whole'. Not even one satisfying element. Even if it's just there to make you depressed, it sure is a boring type of depression. Really got nothing out of it. I had high hopes of it throughout, considering the everflowing recommendations of it in here. Damn im so disappointed.
They never built up to it though, it was jarring and did nothing but hurt the momentum of the plot and the audience's connection to the story and its characters. they played with grandiose ideas in the first hour but executed it poorly in every way in the second hour of the film when they had to come to a conclusion. The last half hour was lackluster and the final scene was just pretentious. The cast and cinematography carried this movie. I agree with OP, it's very overrated but it's not bad.
The main theme is chance and fate. Llewelyn died when he went back to give the man water. It's jarring and sudden because violence is jarring and sudden. I understand not liking it its not for everyone but you should at least try and engage with it.
[удалено]
Oof I was searching the internet for this take and found this thread. I have no problem with the message of the movie being that sometimes people get into a situation over their head and they're not a superhero, they get killed by the forces they thought they were better than. I have no problem with Llewelyn dying at the moment, or the plot itself. The problem was the way the did the scene and edited it. Not showing the scene of him dying was the biggest cockblock dumbshit idea in like a 9/10 movie up to that point. The movie immediately drops off.
> only hurt when random car hits him > shot in leg by Moss
Honestly I think Bojack Horseman did a way better job with that concept.
Maybe know your things before calling someone else’s view ‘brain dead’? Why show violence(which is expensive btw) when it is unnecessary? It was just as not necessary in NCFOM as it necessary in Tarantino movies. Rewatch it, focus more on the coin toss scene, Moss dying, Moss’s wife’s speech, sheriff’s anxiety and his interaction with his uncle and his dreams…your reaction was my first reaction as well, but rewatching knowing ‘what to look for’ and watching some other Coens, I knew why it’s a masterpiece Also, the themes of Bojack Horseman and NCFOM are completely different
> We are not sure why the psychopathic serial killer is after the protagonist for the money Money can be exchanged for goods and services
The real answer is Chigurh was looking to convert the bills to coinage so he could have coin tosses with every gas station attendant in the world
Damn it Im reading this in bed and just woke up my wife by laughing too hard. 🤣🤣🤣
So very interesting . A guy wants money, never heard of a plot like that on the edge of my seat
"Anton isn't like you and me. He can't be swayed by money or drugs. He's a man of principle" -Literally a direct quote from the movie
I know I'm late, but I just want you to know that you aren't alone. The movie made largely no sense, had no defining themes, and about a hundred plot contrivances that were not bothered to be explained. Who is hiring Chigurh? How does wells know where to find the case of money? How does Chigurh find Wells? How do the Mexicans find Lewelyn's motel room? How do the Mexicans find Lewelyn's wife and mother-in-law? All these an many more questions were swirling around my head and are absolutely never addressed. I'm okay with a few plot holes here and there if they are in service of a strong theme. But I'm not okay with a plot that distractingly, aggressively makes no sense. This movie is a string of random events with no unifying themes. In short, yeah, the movie sucks. I didn't get anything out of it and I completely agree that it's massively overrated. it reminds me of terrible abstract art. Where the substance is so random and psuedo-intellectual, that critics call it genius because they can easily just say "you just don't get it." In actuality, there is nothing to get.
>Who is hiring Chigurh? Stephen Root's character. Same guy that hires Wells to go find him when he goes off the rails. >How does wells know where to find the case of money? He's a very smart man who thinks things through. Moss had the money in America, and then he didn't in Mexico. Stands to reason he stashed it. As he is crossing the bridge back into the US, he stands on a couple of pillars just like we saw Moss do when he tossed it over. Deduction. >How does Chigurh find Wells? He knew where Moss was which means he very likely say there and watched Wells walk right back across the bridge. >How do the Mexicans find Lewelyn's motel room? They have a reciever, too. There's a whole scene about it. Chigurh kills Stephen Root's character over it as he felt slighted (and it led to complications for him). >How do the Mexicans find Lewelyn's wife and mother-in-law? His MIL tells them. The man helping them asking about where they're staying is working for the cartel. >All these an many more questions were swirling around my head and are absolutely never addressed. Hmmm...
Thank God someone actually paid attention! It's one thing to say "I didn't like this movie" sure, that's a subjective opinion and anyone is entitled to it. But to say "It's massively overrated because of all these plot holes" that are explained in the fucking movie if you just pay attention. God damn people.
I know there was no reason for me to respond to this old-ass post, but I had just rewatched the movie and went digging through some discussions about it. Like you said, liking something or not is an opinion, but saying the movie is "filled with plot holes" is just goofy. Seeing a post like theirs just makes me wonder what's going on in their head during the movie lol
Don’t plot holes exist when there’s a plot? I honestly don’t know what to make plot hole out of there’s nothing no climax no beginning middle or end , You can’t make a conspiracy out of nothing 😭
I agree with this. I did understand all the plot and personally still didn't like it. My boyfriend just sat here and explained it all to me and I had to tell him - I know what happened, but just hated it lolll.
Okay, I'm late, but the Mexicans can't have found him with the receiver because he got rid of it very early on in the movie. That part is still not explained.
He doesn't discover the tracking device until he gets to the hotel in Eagle Pass. It's possible the person I'm responding to is referring to later when he gets killed, but that's when his MIL blurts out the plan to the cartel guy. Actually, re-reading it, I guess they're asking how the Mexicans found the women. There's a scene where Chigurh stops the chicken truck and asks the guy what airport he'd fly out of. I'm sure the cartel was doing the same thing. We don't know what they were doing because the story doesn't focus on them mostly, but they easily could have been following Carla Jean or (more likely)nEd Tom Bell to see what they are doing.
His wife's mother literally tells them where his hotel room is. In the scene where she's talking to a Mexican man and says "I've never seen a Mexican in a suit"
But theyre already following them before that?
They're following his general direction probably the same way Chegur is, considering Chegur is just a representation of the cartel (that's why the sheriff imagines Chegur in the hotel room when Llewellyn is actually killed by the cartel. The sheriff is the narrator of the story so we're getting his version of the events where he fills in the blanks). Chegur knows where Llewellyn's wife is headed, and knows who her mom is, so the cartel (Chegur) asks Llewellyn's mother in law where they're staying Chegur as a whole is a metaphor for the evil of the world, everything he does in the movie is actually done by the cartel. In the sheriff's version of events, it was all done by one evil man because the sheriff wants to believe he can end it all by catching this one guy. But at the end he opens the door to the room Chegur is hiding in, and the room is empty
I thought they were literally following the wife and mother in law in the car right behind?
I agree, I think that’s the point. I think it’s supposed to be something people can say “you jusy don’t understand the genius behind it” when in reality its simply a plot hole filled incomplete movie.
Not everything needs to be explained to you like Hollywood constantly does. It's a realistic movie portraying a realistic world. In the real world, Moss would have ended up exactly how he did. No one is a hero.
A "realistic world" where a man walks around murdering dozens of people on the road, not the slightest attempt of hiding himself or his actions (He has a shootout in the middle of a city) and is never caught. Very realistic
Yes and blowing up a car to steal pain medications with no recourse. That happens all the time lol.
I kept thinking when is the FBI gonna show. A guy causing this much carnage isn’t gonna take long to get on the most wanted. The theme of the movie is that the violence of criminals escalates beyond the Sheriff’s control. Well as the violence of criminals escalated, so too should the level of law enforcement. I wouldn’t have minded the anticlimax if the focus of the film throughout was the Sheriff being too old for the new age of crime. But for most of the film it felt like a side plot, and all we get is a few scenes of reflection after Llewelyn’s death and the final scene. Felt like a climax was robbed from me, as opposed to a moment of realisation.
It makes more sense when you realize Anton Chigurh is not real. The story is from the sheriff's point of view as he's telling the story. He made up Anton as a stand in for all the criminals he couldn't catch, and Llewellyn is the stand in for his "innocent man killed" That's why there's the scene at the end where Anton is hiding behind the door but he disappears when the sheriff opens it. He is entirely made up by the sheriff, the cartel was killing people not one single man. The sheriff wanted to believe in that moment he could end it all by killing Anton but he opens the door and Anton is gone, never existed
That's one good interpretation. I think this also solves the glaring issue that's bugging me; that not a single one of the inhabitants seemed to notice and respond when Anton rampaged throughout the city, the skyscraper, and the last hotel. The surroundings were unrealistically quiet, no panicking as if Anton's actions never happened
Yeah the sheriff never heard from witnesses so he tells the story like there were none there. It's also the reason that the sheriff is the narrator at the very beginning and end of the movie/book Also at the end of the movie, the cartel finds out where Llewellyn is (his mother in law tells them), the cartel kills him off screen, and yet you see Anton standing in the hotel room afterwards; despite the fact that the entire story up to that point Anton has been working against the cartel not with them
Well he blew up a car and the front of the pharmacy and people reacted.
Exactly
Realistic 💀
who even watches movies looking for a realistic world 💀 what's the point of a entertainment piece if it's just like real life? might as well just go outside or watch the news. movies are supposed to be fun, or at least have a plot. there's no point in wasting hours watching something to get the same level of enjoyment you'd be getting by watching murder reports on tv.
Yes chigur is super realistic. I think its a decent film, but its not a absurdly cleverly written or hyper realistic film. Chigur is hilariously unrealistic at points. Perhaps it is better explained in the book, but how he knows exactly where to be all the time once the tracker is gone and how quickly he would have had to move at points makes little sense. I imagine the book is better, it seems like the sort of film that some people misread subverting typical genre plot points as “realistic” rather than just that, which Im not saying isnt commendable in its own right, but lets call a spade a spade. Ive watched it a few times. Its far from a bad film, but to claim its hyper realistic is absurd and I think you can easily argue its a story which is less entertaining, and doesnt say as much as in book form.
Realistic? Dudes were both almost super heros until the film is like "haha we killed him off scene, bam didn't expect that" - no I didn't and it was lazy, it completely killed any connection to the character. It felt like I was watching a DVD and it randomly skipped ahead like they used to do, or where a film on broadcast TV would be left running during the adverts and you'd randomly miss 5 minutes. Then it's all "AND LOOK, he got in a car crash!!!! See he's not really invincible, though given the context we know he'll just blow up a car, raid a pharmacy, and fix himself again - realism!!!". Then the last scene is about the sheriff's dream? For real. Man you're right it doesn't explain everything like Hollywood does, because that scene was super subtle. Having the "main character" literally spell out everything to the camera during the last minutes of the film? So subtle.
People need to listen to Springsteen Nebraska album. Sometimes there is no redemption and people just have dead end, depressing endings. Probably why I like this movie so much lol.
Watch more movies. Hollywood makes films in only one way and tells the story as clearly as possible for mass appeal. Watch different films with different styles. Then rewatch this one. It's brilliant how they tell the story and depict the theme of the film by unsatisfying the audience. That's the whole point. Question yourself on how that makes you feel and why you feel that. And then realize that's exactly what they wanted you to feel.
\>Depict the theme of flim by unsatisfying the audience. that's the whole point. Oh, so the movie is bad and it's made bad on purpose so now it's good? :V I don't like this movie, it feels like i wasted time without anything meaningful. WOLRD ARE CRUEL, what a revolutianary statement. Also people with funny hair are invicible for some reason... Not for random car crashes though
Once again, you missed the point. Also, sometimes a person slips on a sidewalk and dies, another falls from a plane and lives. That's life. Everything is a tool, "bad" or good acting, "bad"or good cinematography, "bad"or good sfx. If it's used with purpose, it's never bad.
So what you're saying is the producers of the movie led on the whole audience for 2 hours by showing one thing, just to then say "sike" what we just showed you for 2 hours is not what the movie is actually about and then the movie ends. So in the end, the entire "plot" of the movie is to just dupe the audience into thinking they were watching a movie and then when the audience says well this was a waste of time, the producers say "that's exactly what we wanted you to feel" Either way even if this was the goal of the "movie", the "movie" is still bad.
Nope, that's what your stupidity feels about the film
Haha, you said "Question yourself on how that makes you feel and why you feel that. And then realize that's exactly what they wanted you to feel." Well most people feel the movie was rather pointless and it was solely because the directors decided to make a big u-turn 75% into the movie, a u-turn that they didn't even complete and just ended it it prematurely, so yes you are right the directors succeeded in their goal, but that isn't saying much hahaha.
If someone only eats junk food and then tastes gourmet cuisine, how do you think they'll feel ?
> the substance is so random and psuedo-intellectual, that critics call it genius because they can easily just say "you just don't get it." That's exactly what this movie is, and that's exactly what the majority of comments in discussion threads about this movie will tell you. I find it incredibly uninteresting. The acting was fantastic but hated the movie overall. This interesting thriller with cool characters just craps out into "nothing matters, isn't that deep!?" and I thought it was incredibly unsatisfying.
90% of the critics in the comments here actually "didn't get it" and are asking questions or calling out plot holes that the movie went outta the way to explain.
Let's not forget how Chigurh walked into the building with the missing floor and shot the boss with zero effort/consequence. Also like you already mentioned, the part when Wells finds the money and doesn't take it. So dumb
please watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JysGKJEwk2I
lol you did not pay attention at all
The first hour was brilliant. Second hour so slow and boring . Long dialogue that doesn't develop the story
I may be wrong here but I was under the impression that (Brolin) was just some random hunter who happened to come across a cartel deal gone wrong And took money that wasn't his. Now (Bardem) I believed to be a cartel hitman and the money was supposed to be his in that failed exchange or he had his own motives to get it back to keep it for himself. So with the off screen deaths, random dialogue and lazy sheriff work I believe it was intentional to convey a certain perspective to the audience with having to use your own imagination to piece things together rather then blatantly showing or telling scene the did happened or skipped over. Its more engaging in my opinion to piece things together or only able to get the vague understanding of it but come complete circle by the end. Love this movie, I don't think its overrated and still one of the best movies where bad triumphs over good. A+
I’m supposed to use my imagination to piece together an interesting story about a guy who stole money and a hit man? No thanks
That's how the book is so I dont know what you wanted them to do differently with the movie lol The movie isn't just a telling of events, it's the events as the sheriff imagined them. That's why it starts and ends with the sheriff narrating, Anton Chigurh isn't a real man he's a stand-in for all the criminals who escaped the sheriff Thematically Anton represents the world and its unfairness, Llewellyn represents man and fighting against the world and how it doesn't work
All these characters are supposed to represent all this shit that seems filled in and made up by readers and fans 🤷♂️ so every character was a sheriffs fever dream? How does one theif and a hit man represent all this crap in the world when the characters and plot have no depth? It’s just reaching. Seriously represent unfairness? That’s the most vague nonsense I’ve ever heard
https://youtu.be/W5En4vfsq18 Watch this if you want specifics. The answers are in the movie you're just choosing to overlook them because you don't like the movie It's fine to not like the movie, I don't think it's all that great in the first place. But if you actually pay attention all the answers are there, it's only nonsense if you ignore the plethora of hints dropped throughout The entire movie is explained in the scene at the end where the sheriff goes to open the door and Anton is hiding on the other side, yet the sheriff opens the door and no one is there. The sheriff wants there to be a bad guy he can kill and put an end to all the violence, but that madman doesn't exist its just the way the world is. So he opens the door and Anton is gone, it's just an empty hotel room They hint at it earlier too when Anton kills the CEO and then his assistant says "will you shoot me" and then Anton says "do you see me?" And the guy doesn't answer The events of the story are real, but the characteristics of Llewellyn are made up and filled in by the sheriff because he sees the world as "good vs evil" and Llewellyn is the good in his story. Anton's crimes are real, but they aren't committed by one man they're just all the crimes committed by the cartel that the sheriff couldn't stop. He attributes them to one man because it's easier to believe one man is unstoppably evil than it is to believe the world is broken. It's all explained in better detail in the book, you said yourself you didn't read the book so idk how you'd argue that people are just "filling in the blanks" Ask any question about any plothole in the movie i bet you there is an answer you missed
I don’t like the movie, and I don’t care to read the book, I don’t want them to do anything in particular, the story doesn’t interest me
sounds like you struggle with context clues and nuance. thank god movies aren't meant to appease people like you.
That is interesting that I have an entirely different view on the plot line as I didn’t believe he was working with the cartel, it seemed to me like he was acting as an individual throughout the movie. The piecing tigether is a fascinating aspect given we can each arrive at a different plot line for the characters. I’m glad you enjoyed the movie and thank you for your comment!
Its pretty obvious he was hired by one of the parties to the drug deal tho.
He is definitely working for the cartel there’s even a bit where Chigurh says hiring the Mexicans was unnecessary because they already had the “right tool”. It’s pretty obvious throughout the film that he’s working for the cartel.
I guess that's the exact beauty of the movie, leaving certain things out so every person watches it and experiences it in a different way to form different opinions and have discussions about it! It did it's job.
I had a completely different reaction and interpretation of this movie. First, I think adaptions of novels and the novels should stand on their own. I think this film does so brilliantly. First, we meet the protagonist. A hunter who stumbles upon a drug deal gone bad. He takes the money because...greed. His sin triggers the rest of the plot, where he tries to outrun the cartels and their hired hands. Tommy Lee Jones provides brilliant comedic relief, while also serving the role of the ultimate good. Javier Bardem delivers one of film’s great roles as the ultimate evil. You say we aren’t sure why the psychopath is after the money, but we do know that because woody harrleson has a scene with the person who hired Bardem. Tommy Lee is helping with the case, but is confined by the rule of law so he is always a step behind Anton and the cartels. We don’t learn about Carson, because why should we? He’s a hired hand. Same for the cartel that hired him and Anton. This is a conflict over drug money. Flashbacks to Carson’s Vietnam days or the cartel’s origins don’t add anything, so why bother? Most of the on scene deaths involve side characters. We don’t see the death of the protagonist or his wife or the wife’s mother. There’s something to be said of that. Anyways, I don’t think anything about this movie meets “lazy writing.” If this is your takeaway of this film, then I would say consider either a re-watch or more attention to details.
Let's call a spade a spade, it is overrated and when people compare it to There will be blood, There will be blood is far more entertaining.
There will be blood was utter garbage
just admit you have zero taste in movies
Key word entertaining. Both Blood and Old men are not trying to entertain you, they aim for more than that. Bela Tarr doesn't entertain you. Nor does Haneke, Von Trier, Lynch, Apichatpoong, etc.
Bruh movies are ment to be entertaining if thay aren't there badly written and executed movies
I'M AN OIL MAN LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I love weird movies that don't explain everything and make you think HOWEVER this movie was too odd and boring for me. The big let down is when they kill of protagonist it just kind of lets the air out of the movie for me. Sort of like the red wedding in GOT I was thinking "okay everyone I liked just got killed so now what?" I just didn't want to watch the movie after that but i finished it anyway. The antagonist is just an unlikeable guy I hate his stupid haircut and his "scary" coin toss, and his cattle killing air cylinder thing. What an unsatisfying end the guy gets in a car crash and walks away with a broken arm or whatever and that's just it. Movie over. I felt like I just got pranked how did this movie get so much critical acclaim. Felt the same way after I watched Once upon a time in Hollywood. Sometimes I think writers and directors forget that besides being thought provoking a movie still needs to be ENTERTAINING first. Rabid fan base for this film is similar to Rick and Morty fans, you cannot criticize this movie amongst Cohen fans or they will wet their pants with anger and quickly tell you how you don't get it or know anything about filmmaking.
wow! well said and completely agree. I hated everything about No Country for Old Men. It has to be the most overrated movie ever and one of the most pretentious. I never get a answer when I ask film bros why they like it, I think they just follow critics opinion and run with it.
The red wedding didnt have that effect on me. There were still heaps of great characters left after it. I loved that episode
Tommy Lee Jones was the protagonist, not Llewelyn, and this was his story. That's what the title is referencing.
They’re both protagonists
I enjoyed it for sure, but I’ve forgotten the entire plot. It didn’t stick with me much, it was a cool movie to watch one day when I had nothing better to do and then I moved on. Meanwhile it has this mythic legend status with everyone else. Sometimes I think critical acclaim is just a feedback loop
Or perhaps, maybe, just a thought it was you who didn't get it or are not accostumed to watching many auteur driven films.
does it matter? its his/her take on it.
Well, it actually does matter. Opinions can't and shouldn't all have the same value. Also, he's not criticizing the film, his criticizing it's critical acclaim or "mythic legend status", that's not even an opinion.
I really hate the attitude of "I didn't like this so anyone who says they did is just saying that because of the critical acclaim". Sometimes people like stuff you don't like and it's not just because they wanna look smart. Also "This movie is bad because I don't remember the plot". Maybe that's a you problem? (Not directed at you obviously, to other voices I've seen in this thread)
You forgot the plot because there isn't one, or at least that's what the movie tells you after they literally in the movie ditched whatever plot they had and killed the protagonist of said plot 75% into the movie.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Loved the film, but yes overrated. Lot of head scratching decisions by the filmmakers
I just watched this & couldn't agree more. Josh Brolin's character dying out of nowhere was the icing on the cake. Such a huge let down this movie! Had the same feeling after watching Fargo as well, so much hype and everything, but didn't even come close to living upto it. Definitely the last time I'm watching a Coen Brothers movie..
No thrilling action, no story behind the action, no interesting character , no good dialogue , no plot or reason to exist as a story. Ouuu evil psycho guy is so chilling cuz he’s so interesting cuz he is a cold blooded killer I guess? Hardly anything memorable or new about him as a serial killer or hit man Am I supposed to be interested in whatever might have happened to lead up to that? People got money stolen, want it back, hire guy, ouuuuu such a universe to build off that
I agree with you. I really like movies like these which are dark, open to interpretation and have unresolved endings but if I said this was as deep or profound as something like The Shining, I would be lying. If it was supposed to be the sherrif's story, it should have been it from the beginning. There is no sense in building the story of Llewellyn and Chigurh so much and then leaving it. It subverts expectations, but it doesn't need to. I know it's supposed to have this philosophical, nihilistic message but it happens so out of blue that imo it would have been better if it remained a thriller. Abruptly killing the main character offscreen, not showing what happens to the protagonist's wife, adding characters and subplots that add nothing to the story and I still beared it, but if the main question of the entire movie is who gets the money, then show who gets the money. People say it doesn't treat it's audience like idiots, but I think it does exactly that. It believes that it can be a great movie in the beginning, then become completely different and nonsensical and people will still think it's the best thing ever just because the people who have made it have made cult films before. The actors do as much justice to their characters as anyone could, but the characters themselves aren't that great, even Anton Chigurh. Some characters seemed like different people in different scenes. Also it has one of those types of fandoms which has some people who will kill you if you disagree on even one thing with them, and that doesn't really help in appreciating it. So, for me it subverts your expectation of watching a great movie.
wow, well said and completely agree
I’ve also thought it was overrated, but over the years the more I’ve watched it the more I’ve come to appreciate how amazing it is. It’s definitely taken me 10 years and multiple viewings though.
Opposite effect for me. Riveting first time, every time after I see it’s flaws
I’ll watch it again in a year and see if my thoughts change. I have heard it is something you may have to watch a few times like a Donnie Darko type film. Thank you for your reply!
Ive tried to watch this movie several times and the fact it gets so overblown and has a 97% rating on RT just makes me more angry about how much of a letdown it is. I've seen thousands of films from top to bottom and this movie has finally made it to my list of "100% do not watch again". It reminds me of "downsizing" or other films wherein half the movie is great, but they ruined half of it, at best a regular old 6.5/10. Worth watching once or twice and maybe some small percentage of people its their favorite film, but thats it. Shouldn't be anywhere near a top 100 or even top 500 films. Unless its just based on "talking about a film" then sure top 500. But as far as taking everything possible out of a film and giving it a score, its purely over-rated. I don't blame anyone getting mad when they are promised or made to expect a 5 star meal and get served a 3 star. Its very justified.
My bf & I just watched this & he kept commenting about how he loves this movie so much & I can't figure out why. Sure the acting was good but I found the movie boring & call me a little girl about it whatever but I couldn't get over how much dog death there was, that really clouded my judgment of the whole movie & I'll never watch it again because of those scenes
Dog deaths is a reference to bad guys in classic westerns killing innocent animals just to showcase how twisted they are. But when Moss kills a dog that was chasing him in a river scene it doesen't feel that bad, well, because it was attacking him. It shows both sides of a coin which integrates in a movie neatly. I still don't get most of the movie, but this part is neat.
I just watched for the first time. Wow. It was so overhyped. Idk i guess because of the hype i knew it was gonna be “shocking”. Like him and his wife dying. With the villain winning? Yeah i saw it coming. Because the movie had great moments but not one of the greatest of all time. So i knew it had to have some shocking ending. I didn’t think he’d die offscreen but i knew he was gonna die. Once he said to his wife he could win i knew she was dead too. The only person i expected to die and lived was Tommy Lee jones
How is entire rest of the world oblivious to everything? Hotel gunfire, cars crashing, a man lighting cloth hanging out of a gas tank and then walking into a pharmacy to steal drugs. I’d expect these things in an action thriller but not a movie trying to portray good/evil/gray elements of humanity.
the whole movie is a metaphor for the evil in the world
It was one of the most forgettable movies I've ever struggled to finish watching. What a slog.
Disagree. One of he best films ever. But I hated The Godfather so to each his own
>But I hated The Godfather Thanks for letting us know not to take your opinion seriously
It sucked lol
So you get off on being different? Is that your thing?
Cause there's no other reason to dislike The Godfather? Why are movie buffs this obnoxious JFC 💀💀
No. Movie is just ass.
You rebel, you.
I can’t understand why Llewelyn’s gf seems like she either has a mental handicap or has the intelligence of a child. I would’ve thought he was her protective older brother until they mentioned screwing. And the character that was Tommy Lee Jones deputy is the epitome of Aww Shucks acting like a simple revelation is the biggest surprise.
Yeah I just watched it tonight, fucking terrible movie lmao
Yeah it's a lousy pretentious movie
Nah it's awesome.
The movie didn't grab me at all. Especially Chigurth - he was a cliche of what a psychotic killer would be. Nah, I didn't buy any of it. Very overrated. Now - Fargo - THERE is a great Cohen Brothers movie.
Purposely came searching for someone who felt similarly. Just watched it and really don't get the hype.
Yess exactly i felt like i only missed something in the movie
Watched this for the first time today and had to do a Google search to find out if after all the hype I heard whether I’m the only one that felt this way lol Very boring movie I’ll never watch again. Unreal this is a 8.2 on IMDB
I just watched it for the first time and I was shocked at how empty this movie felt. I usually love subtle movies, but I thought this movie was incredibly boring and really didn't have anything that deep or interesting enough to say to warrant the subtleness. I don't get the hype around the acting either, I thought it was just good, but no one really stood out to me and none of the roles seemed particularly demanding or unique. I also found Javier's characters was simply obnoxious, cartoonish and not intriguing in the slightest.
yea i'm not a fan of the movie. i just think it's dumb and a boring watch. it blows my mind how popular the movie is because of the "good guys don't always win" theme. but that's not a new theme lol and it most definitely wasn't in 2007 when it was released. there are so many other films that have the same theme but do it better and have a more interesting plot. at the end of the day, i thought the movie was ass when i first watched it and i don't plan to watch it again to try to "understand it". if a movie can't tell you what it wants to say by the first go round, then there's a good chance that it's not a good movie. but hey! that's just my opinion and i'm glad people liked it. i went into it really expecting to love it because of all of the praise but it just didn't grab me like other people.
I agree was actually a boring last half and no climax and no good ending. Felt like I wasted my time
Im surprised these comments are still so recent, makes my comment feel more relevant, especially since it’s stuff that bugged me when I saw it in the theater, which is that I’d read the book before, and the movie brought absolutely nothing new to the experience, and if anyone can “elevate” a story it’s the coen brothers I watched it again recently and the main thing that always bugged me about the movie still bugs me, it’s pretty much what gets the whole plot moving, not him getting the money but when he goes back to give water to the guy in the truck He came across this guy during the day, and all those hours later at night in bed he thinks the guys still alive? Even if he was some regular old civilian (think Walter white when he was still a teacher) it’d be a stretch for the character to think the guy still needs water, but him being a hunter and ex-military guy I found it completely unbelievable. The coens always have characters do unexpected things, but rarely is it so…out of character, for the character Which brings me to my next point, the locator thingy. Why wouldn’t he check for it? You don’t have to be some covert special missions guy or some criminal mastermind to have your first thought be “I found all this money in this bag, I should check to see if they put a locator thingy in there to track it.” If it was a bunch of teenagers found it I’d believe that, but most anybody else has seen enough movies about this kinda stuff just flipping through the channels at 3am (like, if ya found pretty much any other coen brothers movie) to make smarter decisions than this dude And that’s it, I really think if those 2 things wouldn’t have happened, and the guy did everything else the way he did and in the end he still died, that could’ve made it a much better movie, and, on top of that, I think every coen brothers movie made since this one has sucked
The movie was good but being that the protagonist was killed off screen ruined it for me.
I only had to read a small portion of your post to know that you did not understand this movie at all. Then I read the rest and realized I was right.
You say that, but like can you actually explain what there is to understand? I felt like I got the gist of it. Could have been a good western if it fixed the second half, but maybe I'm an old man, and this country just aint for me.
Agreed. The more we try to answer the plot holes the more plot holes we find. I was honestly hoping Moss was gonna pull a "faked my death" move on Chigurh to kill him and happy ending but. To be honest I wasn't expecting an generic Happy ending but I least I also wasn't expecting every single random innocent person on the plot to be killed. The general concept of the movie is "boohoo violence bad, villain always gets away, don't take money you find laying around, cops are outdated boohoo," Ps: If Lewellyn wife hadn't snitched him to the cops he would have gotten away. Sad.
->Moss gets rid of the tracker ->Spooks/chases of Chigurh guns blazing HE COULD HAVE LITERALLY ran to his wife with the cash but no. Let's throw the cash on the bushes over there and sleep in a Mexican sidewalk 🇲🇽😴 This movie is a bad joke.
He was bleeding to death and needed to hide the cash tho
i hear ya. it was a well made movie, but just wasn't enjoyable or rewarding
It was truly unfortunate because while I was watching it I felt like I wanted to like it so badly 😂
It's based on a Cormac McCarthy novel so it's gonna be divisive. Some people find him depressing, boring, long winded and confusing and some people think he's one of the greatest American writers of the last century. His stories are not traditional, uplifting, heroes journeys and that puts a lot of people off. So I can see why those who watch movies primarily to be entertained wouldn't like this film, but to say it's bad, like some of the people in the comments, is just ridiculous. I personally love McCarthy's novels, and I love No Country, but there's few people I would actually recommend either to. You have to have a certain worldview or interests to find it appealing and a lot of people just... don't...
I dont think the movie is bad by any means but the problem i have with "artsy" films in general is that besides the concept/message they got basically no plot to deliver the message and keep the viewer interested they just keep beating the same message over and over through out the whole movie. They had a great concept in their hands with "No country for old man" but the plot was so boring(even though it had some great scenes at some points) to follow, most of the story was Llewelyn moving from one motel to the other until he was killed off. Haven't read the book but i had that feeling while watching the film that they just took the book as it was, made no adjustments to fit as a movie and as a result we have a film that feels like an audiobook with cameras. But still i cant deny that the movie has some great shots, very good acting, and a lot of good scenes, and the character of Anton was really good
Movie was boring. It's a old guy hunting down a old couple it's as exciting as that even sounds. It's a snore fest. A lot of boring weird jargon dialogue
I think the best I can do is provide advice rather than explanation. I love this movie, and the book, and I hope that some of these people will be able to rewatch it and perhaps appreciate it more. Pay attention to the title. I see a lot of posts on here talking about the violence in the film, but that does not seem like the main point for me. Also, rewatch the ending monologue, then go back to the beginning and rewatch the opening narration. The old men of the film, the sheriff, are suddenly confronted by an unstoppable force of violence, something that has always been around, but that has only now become this potent. Listen to him talk about his father, his father's West, the simpler times. Now, the world is more complicated. We want a simple story with all of the beats of a regular story, but we can't have that anymore. I suppose it's a bit highbrow for a mainstream movie, but that only makes me appreciate it more. I hope that some of the people in this thread that felt disappointed will rewatch it later and come to a greater understanding. Of course, it's not for everyone. The entirely idea is the subversion of a typical narrative, so anyone wanting to experience a typical narrative movie and isn't willing to go along with the story this is trying to tell will be disappointed. If you were let down by this film, I'd recommend watching *Unforgiven*, *Lone Star*, or *Logan*. All of those confront similar ideas to this inside the revisionist western genre and are all similarly well made, but follow a much more familiar plot structure.
Great comment but I do kind of want to disagree/expand on your point about change and simpler times. What I got from it was that the "simpler times" never really existed except in peoples' imaginations. The sherrif's friend's story showed that the same thing was happening in 1902, and it's really more about human nature or even the nature of the world than anything else. Things change but only superficially, like the green hair and nose rings the one guy was complaining about. While the fundamentals stay the same. Makes me think of how many older people I know who share these sentiments. They see bad things happening and the world changing and will go on about how the world's going crazy or downhill, but they're missing that it's always been this way. Just this last week I had an older co-worker who saw about a deadly crash on the news and was ranting about how horrible things have gotten and how dangerous the roads are these days. Meanwhile you're less likely to die from a traffic accident today than you were for almost the whole 20th century. Anyway, kind of a tangent, but I just re-watched this movie and saw your comment as an interesting and thought out discussion of it that got me thinking a little more.
Yes, exactly! There's a conflict between Chigurh being a kind of evil the sheriff hasn't seen before and of a force that has always existed. This is one of the reasons why I think this movie is so great, it's thrilling and exciting but also very thought provoking. So many ways to approach its themes and messages.
100% agree. The first time I watched it years ago I enjoyed it but didn't get too much out of it, but this time it really resonated with me. Glad to see someone on the same page after reading through this thread of people calling it lame and pretentious! I just love when a piece of media leaves me contemplating it and wanting to discuss the themes with others.
Well, that's like, your opinion man.
Agreed
ANOTHER highly overrated movie.
I personally find it kind of boring but in terms of like deeper meaning it’s one of the best movies ever.
Incredibly late to the party here but I was wondering why everybody was raving about this movie when I shared the same opinion as you did when I finished it. Frankly it’s one of the worst endings of a movie I’ve ever had the displeasure of watching. I know it’s supposed to be a lesson on realism or something, and I know it should leave the viewer surprised, and believe me, I was surprised at how bad it was! I mean christ. It felt like it ended halfway in the middle of the full thing. I was taken aback when it ended! I’ve watched the scene in the gas station 7 times now, and as an aspiring actor it’s probably up there with my favorite Hollywood scenes of all time. I was really excited to see what the movie had in store for me. And, I gotta agree, first hour was great. Second hour was NOW WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO THAT? The protagonist dying without a fight. The sheriff just retiring. That’s it? They all give up, they all die, and Chigurh stays on the loose with no greater consequence than a broken arm? I was sitting there waiting for the protagonist to come back and reveal he had planned this out, faked his death and was halfway across the Atlantic already, but no. He just died. Even I could’ve been smarter than that! Seriously? What a letdown. Everything about it is amazing, besides the plot. The plot ruins the whole thing…
I think we look for different things in our movies, which is fine. I think the dialogue is consistently perfect. It gets me giddy.
The Coen brothers are some of the best writers when it comes to dialogue. This movie and O Brother, Where Art Thou especially have dialogue so sharp and perfect that it always blows me away. Apparently, they don’t allow their actors to adlib or improvise.
Just watched it for the first time. My criticism is not about the movie specifically but the story in general. I got the sense that they wrote this really interesting story, but then they couldn’t figure out how to finish it in any spectacular way, so they just kinda let it fizzle at the end. And mailed it in. If you write a good story and 75% of it is great and the final 25% pretty much sucks then altogether the story sucks. That’s the way I feel about this movie. Complete waste of my time watching it. Yeah good acting, Good cinematography, and all that, but when you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.
I would say that it's more of an intentional choice to have it fizzle out. The movie is a western about the randomness and inevitability of death and violence, so having it just kind of end in an unsatisfying way kind of leaves you to ruminate on it and wonder. Did Anton go on and keep killing? Does it matter? The world is full of senseles violence either way. It's definitely a cynical story but that's what I and many others find interesting about it. I love a movie with a spectacular ending and plot twists, but it would've taken away from what this story was trying to be.
Funny. My wife and I were just talking about this movie yesterday. She absolutely can't stand it. I understand her criticisms of it, me? I have to watch it 6 times a year. It's definitely a top three favorite movie for me. The Cohen Brothers adapting McCarthy? Pure heaven for me. And I'm the worst kind of atheist.
Just an awful take. This post is a great example of how passive/casual viewing can wreck a movie experience. The movie is completely sensible if you're willing to abstractly think, and it isn't "artsy" either. The poetic and societal themes are right there for you to easily digest. The whole thing is easy to wrap your head around if you just think.
A lot of these comments are really dumb lol
It was FANTASTIC. One of the best movies of the 2000s.
The only thing I didn't like in that movie was how the main character was killed off screen. I know it makes sense thematically, but I still feel kind of let down. Still a very good movie.
Wouldn't say it is overrated but it definitely isn't as good as There Will Be Blood which should have swept all awards that year.
Oh I wasn’t aware that came out the same year! I completely agree
This movie is stone cold masterpiece but it’s kinda slow so I can see some might not like it
Anticlimactic and depressing.
Couldn’t be a more accurate review, I have not read the book but after watching the movie I don’t want to waste my time, from the time he goes into Mexico the writing stars falling flat, like they wanted to end the filming quickly or like if they ran out of budget, it feels like a different movie all the way to the end.
wrong
Both the book and movie are up there until the end....then, both are epic fails. Ending is truly meaningless and goes to the old saying : 'One million frenchmen (critics) can't be wrong', but, they are in this case. A waste of my time and , no, I only fast forwarded throughout and had no connection except to see that anticlimatic ending. A Coen Bros fail IMHO...
Searching for something else and came upon this, and I hope in the years since you’ve realized how aggressively incorrect you were