#1
Who went to see it?

A really incredible piece of film, in my honest opinion.

Tommy Lee Jones put's on a moving and spectacular performance, as ever.

So, what did people think?
#4
Quote by deathpidgeon
I want to see it...its worth the pretty-penny?

Yes, it is. Best film I've seen at the cinema in a long time.

What did people think to the strange ending of the film?
#5
i *ahem* caught it online for free-to-me.

i thought it was really great, the psycho was scary as hell. "whats the most you've ever lost on a coin toss?"

i thought the ending was a little weak, it was just kinda over, then it kept going. but i thought tommy was pretty good.

did he kill the "second coin toss person" in the end? -no spoiler.

EDIT: worth the money, for those of you with scruples.
.
..
...
I have no opinion on this matter.
#6
Yeah the ending confused me a bit, but still pretty cool, actually makes you think at the end. And I agree with the comment about Tommy Lee Jones, he was brilliant. And yes worth the pretty penny. Heck, it's worth 2!
Quote by Alter-Bridge
If I had sex as much as you said the word "shit" I would be paris hilton.


Quote by rworsl
I have never felt closer to either cheese or weasels


Quote by Vermintide

DURN THING DUN GONE MESS UP AGIYAN. MARGE, FETCH ME MAH BOOMSTIYAK
#8
Ive seen it twice, its wierd but its amazing. Not like any other film ive seen. And Javier Bardem is well good in it. However after watching it yesterday, i couldnt help but laugh at his hair hehe.
#9
confusing ending, yeah.

And the coin toss person was killed yup.

Thought the film was damn good mind.
Silenced shotgun anyone?
#10
Loved it!

The ending was one of the best bits in the film. And everyone was so good in it. Also, it looked spectacular.
On vacation from modding = don't pm me with your pish
#11
Quote by meh!
Loved it!

The ending was one of the best bits in the film. And everyone was so good in it. Also, it looked spectacular.

Yeah, the ending was simply fantastic.

I don't think a lot of people understood it though....
#13
Quote by redh0tchilip3pp
Yeah, the ending was simply fantastic.

I don't think a lot of people understood it though....



Don't know if I entirely "got it" so to speak. But I liked it anyway. What it said to me was...well, the first dream was a bit more personal and seemed to be just saying "i've let down my father" (In not stopping Bardiem?) the second seems more general. that things are bad, they've always been bad and they're not getting any better. That's what I think.

Anyway, the final lines had great impact wether you got them or not! it's like good poetry, you don't necessarily have to grasp the meaning. Just enjoy the words.

EDIT: In fact, I'm going to watch it again! It was excellent in the cinema, but I'll probably download it then buy it when it comes out.
On vacation from modding = don't pm me with your pish
Last edited by meh! at Feb 17, 2008,
#14
It was awesome. I loved the Coen brothers' direction, especially the way the characters always have time to pause and look around before speaking, they don't just rush their lines out. It really made the atmosphere so much better. It was beautifully shot as well. One of the only films that I've actually thought properly about.

And if Javier Bardem doesn't win the Best Supporting Acor Oscar then I'll be so pissed off. He was amazing and completely made the film what it was. Even when he wasn't on screen, you felt his presence and were just waiting for him to appear again.
#15
Quote by meh!
Don't know if I entirely "got it" so to speak. But I liked it anyway. What it said to me was...well, the first dream was a bit more personal and seemed to be just saying "i've let down my father" (In not stopping Bardiem?) the second seems more general. that things are bad, they've always been bad and they're not getting any better. That's what I think.

Anyway, the final lines had great impact wether you got them or not! it's like good poetry, you don't necessarily have to grasp the meaning. Just enjoy the words.

EDIT: In fact, I'm going to watch it again! It was excellent in the cinema, but I'll probably download it then buy it when it comes out.


After looking on the imdb forums, I have found comments that sum up the film, perfectly to me:

In No Country, Anton is not specifically a psychopathic hired killer, he is Death or our mortality at the cost of living- whichever way you want to put it. At the very beginning of the movie, when Anton pulls over the civilian using the stolen police cruiser, he holds the cattle killing device up to the man's forehead and says "Hold still", before he kills him. The scene cuts immediately to Llewelyn Moss hunting and he gets one of the antelope in the cross hairs of his rifle scope and says "Hold still", before he shoots it. There is no dialog at all in between those identical expressions from two different characters, in different locations, killing two different "animals". That is the establishment of the duality of Death being handed out to humans the same way its handed out to other living things. Another facet of the story aligning the condition of Death shared alike by humans and animals is the fact that Anton kills people with a device intended to kill cattle.
Another indication of this encompassing theme are the two trees Llewelyn comes across when he finds the money after walking away from the carnage of the drug shootout where, its important to note, he left a man to die. So as he's searching for the "ultimo hombre", the last man standing, he comes across the man slumped against a tree trunk. The tree that the man is sitting under is the tree of death and the other tree is the tree of life.
When Anton meets with the "management" at the shootout site at night, he kills them because they have seen him and they know his capacity as a hired killer. You can't see Death and return. (The only people that get to see Anton and live, are the people that don't know that he is a killer.)
When Carson Wells is answering questions from the business man about what Anton is like, Wells says , "Compared to what, the Black Plague?" also known as "the Black Death."
When Carson is talking to Llewelyn in the hospital about Anton, he offers to give him some of the money if he returns it and Llewelyn says that if he was going to cut a deal, he would just make the deal with Anton. Carson answers that Anton doesn't make deals, he says "he has principals that rise above money and drugs and all of that stuff." Of course, you can't make a deal with Death for all the money in the world.
Then, when Llewelyn calls Carson's hotel room just after Anton has killed Carson, Anton says that he is going to go to Odessa, implying that he is going to go kill Llewelyn's wife. Llewelyn says she's not there and Anton says he's still going. Llewelyn gets frustrated and says "If she's not there then why the hell are you going?" Anton says, "It doesn't matter where she is." At this point, Anton is embodying Carla Jeans mortality. He is her Death and he will find her whether she's in Odessa or not. (Just as Death will find all of us no matter where we go.) As he promised Llewelyn, and as we've all been promised, Anton finds Carla Jean to kill her. He asks her to flip the coin to save herself, which she refuses to do and she says that its not the coin, its him thats going to kill her. He says "I got here the same way the coin did." That is, as Death, he is as helpless and at the mercy of the nature of life as we are. He has to kill because we all have to die. The coin is, as he says, "the best I can do" to postpone the inevitable but he can't stop it. She also says to Anton the same thing that Wells said: "You don't have to do this." That's humanities' general lament about our ever pending mortality. Anybody who's old enough to know that they will die one day has had that thought in one form or another.
Our final indication of Anton's purpose, as well as his inculpability, is the car crash at the end when the driver that t-bones him is killed. Anton is hurt, he pays a price in his role as Death, but he walks away. When he says to the boys, "I was gone when you got here." That was true in a two-fold sense. He was gone because the other driver was killed on impact and, in a narrative sense, he was gone because he paid off the kids to say that they hadn't seen him.
Three ancillary points:
A telling piece of dialog between Bell and the other sheriff at the end after they leave the diner where they had coffee. The other sheriff makes reference to "your guy", meaning Chigurh, and says something about him being a "mindless lunatic" and Bell says that he doubts he's "mindless" (I don't think that's the exact word but Bell was negating the assertion that Chigurh was lacking intelligence) and then he says that he's beginning to suspect that Anton Chigurh might actually be "a ghost". This is another clue to Chigurh's status, not as a psychopathic murderer, but simply as humanities fate of mortality. This was already made clear with other clues I already mentioned.
The second minor, yet equally brilliant, piece of writing which portends to the broadest theme of the film is the conversation when Bell and his assistant deputy are sitting having coffee and Bell is reading the article about the couple that has been killing people and burying them in their backyard. His assistant deputy is talking about the Mexicans that were killed in Del Rio and he stumbles over his words when he starts to speak about them as Mexicans in the present tense and he shifts in mid-sentence and uses the past tense. Meaning, his mind gets hung up on whether, after Death, they remain of a particular nationality. Bell looks up over his paper and says "That's the question, isn't it?" i.e.; the question is, does Death level all distinctions that we, as humans, once had while we were among the living?
The third ancillary point I want to make concerns when Bell goes back to the hotel where Moss was killed. We see that Anton Chigurh is in one of the two rooms that is taped off with police tape. Bell steps into the other room. This is completely consistent with a flip of the coin that Chigurh employs a couple of times earlier in the story. The 2 sided coin = the 2 rooms. There is a standard of chance set up in the coin toss and then it is taken out of Chigurh's hands and placed in the decisive move of Bell. This is another indication that the call of the coin, the ultimate call that is, is never truly in the hands of Chigurh. Remember, he "got here the same way the coin did."

Then, in the only ending that there could be, Chigurh, as the personification of Death, walks away. Death can die nor can Death get caught. Finally, the title character, Bell is left to relate two dreams to his wife in his new life as a retiree. The first dream is very short and could be dismissed as irrelevant due to its brevity. But it is crucial, coupled with the second and longer dream, to the act of tying together the movie's universal theme of Death with its narrative constant of the struggle for money.
Bell relates that in his first dream, he's a boy and he goes into town with his father and his father gives him some money to buy something. But he doesn't buy anything and he can't remember what happened to the money, he says "maybe I lost it." This is directly relevant to the chase and all the killing surrounding the money and the fact that Bell never cared about nor tried to get a piece of the $2,000,000. Then, in his second dream, he is in the darkness of a valley and his father passes him with fire in a horn and his father is moving into the darkness ahead and Bell knows that when he gets there in the darkness there will be a fire waiting for him.
The only open ended question in the entire movie is if the light in the darkness is the sign that God has indeed come into Bell's life as he told his friend Ellis(the guy in the wheelchair) he had always expected would be the case as he aged. And did Anton not kill Bell in the literal sense because ,figuratively, Bell isn't going to die in that he's led the kind of life that will allow him the light of an afterlife? Anyhow, that's a question that nobody can answer because once you know the answer, you're already dead.
All this said, though, Bell staying alive is the bone that the Coen's threw to those people who just couldn't stomach such an unconventional story even though every little piece of the story was intricately constructed, works for and establishes a rare amount of cinematic depth, and entertains to the very highest degree while doing so, IMHO.
Everything is answered except that deliberate question of whether or not God stands in the face of Death. I don't think the story or its meaning is open ended or up for debate. It's too specific in too many places to not have a specific intent.

Credits to the original poster.
#17
Quote by SmarterChild
^ Some people have far too much time on their hands.

I suppose he was only contributing.

But read it. It's such an amazing summary.
#18
i smell an english major!
.
..
...
I have no opinion on this matter.
#19
excellent movie without a doubt, one of best i've ever seen.

yeh the ending confused me till my mate explained it then it hit me, then it was an awesome ending=]
Happy birthday Slash
Quote by Shred-Hed
What do you think the odds are that he'll read this...?

Quote by TJ1991
A lot higher than Chinese Democracy ever being released.
#20
Quote by Vintage_Axe
excellent movie without a doubt, one of best i've ever seen.

yeh the ending confused me till my mate explained it then it hit me, then it was an awesome ending=]

What was his interpretation of the ending?
#21
i just saw the movie and i thought it was amazing. anton chigurh, the killer, has got to be the best antagonist in a movie i have ever seen. he just looks like the perfect pyschopath; his hair, his eyes, his walk; everytime he was on screen the hair on my neck stood up. the ending was a little unexpected, but after reading the critique posted on here i'm going to watch it again and see how i view it.
hi everybody


Hookers do not like to snuggle
- Zach Galifinakis