Personally I’m a fan of the prequal: “Yes City for Young Women”.
If you’ve seen No Country for Old Men and didn’t like it, you didn’t understand it. If you understood it but didn’t like it, you have horrible taste; either way you’re a massive loser and should immediately take your own life along with any offspring you’ve produced.
Even though you’ve never seen or heard of Javier Bardem before this, his chilling portrayal of the embodiment of fates evil hand was an unmitigated display that can only be defined by Bardem’s personification of the concept of what his character represents; easily on par with Anthony Hopkins representation of Hannibal Lector.
Tommy Lee Jones plays the Yin to Javier’s Yang; “Ed Tom” and “Anton” (pronounced almost the same throughout the movie) was not a mistake my friends.
*Warning: The Read On section contains a synopsis spoiler
The Coen brothers masterfully executed a serene rendition of No Country for Old Men, a 2005 novel by American author Cormac McCarthy.
With brilliant acting and delicate attention to detail, every clip, word, and action has a specific meaning; so watch carefully.
With two hours of vivid detailed and exciting plot unfolding, the quick paced conclusion which seemed to elide over the typical cheesy climax, strongly emphasized the underlying significance of what these characters represent. From the beginning, this story seemed not so much a recounting of events as a representation of the hidden axiom that “evil” is a constant in the world. Watch for the use of animals, the number 13, and hidden metaphors to foreshadow the twisting rhyme of fate.
When the character you’ve been rooting for the entire film is without warning eliminated, you’re yanked right out of Hollywood and back to the cold hard inevitability that everyone is going to die, including you.
Llewelyn Moss, a cowboy welder (played by Josh Brolin) who is destitute from two tours in Nam and looking for a taste of a thrill falls into the ultimate dualistic struggle as evil begets evil when he chooses the almost irresistible temptation of 2.5 million dollars cash over the opportunity to save another mans life. With a new avenue presented after each chosen path, the winding road of life can be looked back on as a series of fateful turns leading to a specific destination. Llewelyn fell off the blood trail for his injured antelope and as the animal slowly bled to death alone in the vast country, Llewelyn followed the path of the last man standing, in doing this he inherited burdens which would eventually lead to his own trail of blood by a man not so easily distracted from his set course.
By the time Llewelyn attempted to balance his decision, his fate had already been sealed as he found his salvation lying dead next to a blown out window. He never seemed to learn that no matter where he ran, the indestructible consequence of that decision would catch-up with him. Broken and beaten his destitution became physical, but he was briefly given a second chance, and again squandered the opportunity of releasing his burden to Wells and thus hastened his demise while inviting more violence and horror into his life.
Though Llewelyn’s ultimate intentions were to provide his wife Carla Jean with the promise of a better life, she was by her own path an extension of his ego and thus subject to the emerging pattern of Llewelyn’s fateful choices that had already claimed her fate. Unfortunately for Carla Jean, she and not her loving husband understood that there are repercussions for every action; she later forces Chigurh to learn this lesson.
A darkly complicated and exotic Anton Chigurh is a finite projection of violence as it manifests itself as the operation of fate in the lives of individuals that are forced to confront it. From the beginning his bleeding wrists cast the character as a mortal who is completely reconciled with death, violence, and evil as forces binding the natural world. He finds purpose as he rationalizes existence through the application of these constants.
Though great care was taken to show Anton Chigurh’s mortality through physical wounds, he non-the-less represents a conduit for the dark forces of fate. We know little about him, he comes from nowhere, he appears as an allegory for the inevitability of death and potential for violence in all men. As Llewelyn reply’s to the lady by the pool “Just, uh, lookin’ for what’s comin’… as she unwittingly responds “Yeah, but no one ever sees that”, for if they did, their fate would already be sealed as Chigurh so humorously reveals to the nervy accountants inquiry as to whether he will be killed; “That depends. Do you see me?”.
Carson Wells (played by Woody Harrelson) knows all to well the forces at play. He recalls the exact date that he assuaged his own fate, and seems genuinely surprised if not impressed that a simpleton such as Llewelyn Moss had accomplished the same feat, “you’ve seen him and your not dead, hum.”.
This quasi-supernatural force masterfully incarnated by Javier Bardem is emblematic of the mystery of violence itself, where it comes from and how it spreads. Llewelyn “knows what beer leads to”, so he say’s, but according to the woman by the pool, “beer leads to more beer”, as violence leads to more violence. Even Chigurh must face the repercussions of his actions after Carla Jean forces him to choose a path of his own (opposed to purely enforcing the outcome of everyone else’s chosen route). She knew the coin held no weight for her already sealed fate, “I no’d exactly what was in store for me…I ain’t gonna call it…the coin don’t have no say, it’s just you”.
With Carla Jean refusing to wager on the coin, Chigurh is forced to kill by his own accord, and like Bell’s story of the steer that fought back, that fateful decision leaves Chigurh with a crippled arm. Fleeing the crash scene, Anton has now left his own trail of blood, but only after infecting two young boys with the seed of violence and greed in an almost exact recount of Llewelyn’s jacket purchase as he crossed the boarder in an effort to escape what was coming.
The cycle never ends, even when we spend our lives trying to stop it. There’s no use in dreaming otherwise or remembering false accounts as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell realizes in the powerful biting climatic monolog of Tommy Lee Jones.
Through the eyes of an aging small town Texas Sheriff, we are witness to an old mans perception of evil across time. Sheriff Ed Tom Bell’s perspective sets the stage for the entire meaning behind this film.
The insightful opening monolog, combined with the final recounting of a dream shows that Bells vision of the past was as unrealistic as his wishes for the future. We know from Ellis’s account of the gruesome murder in 1909 that there were no good old days, just different perceptions. “All you can do is try to endure and if your lucky, retire”, sputtered Ellis.
As Bell pointed out, corruption starts with the youth, “Anytime you quit hearin’ ‘sir’ and ‘ma’am,’ the end is pretty much in sight”, yet the psychopathic Chigurh addressed his elders with “sir” as he represents a new unfamiliar evil that embodies the kind of old-fashioned code that Bell inaccurately yet earnestly mourned the passing of. Ed Tom can’t stop reconstructing his idyllic past and comparing himself to the old-timers. His dream is far preferable to the reality he sees himself as unable to confront or escape even after he surrenders himself to it; in the hotel with Chigurh.
Chigurh had no need to kill Bell unless seen by him, and that in-itself is symbolically impossible. Ed Tom and Anton are polar opposites and thus are not meant to cross paths, as evil is not meant to recognize goodness and kindness cannot understand violence. As both characters stared into the TV, we saw for the first time that they are opposite sides of the same coin, or opposite sides of the same door. Both characters are very calm and collective, yet the first and only time you see fear in either character is when they’re shown on opposite sides of the hotel door; possibly about to confront each other.
“It’s not that I’m afraid of it, I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job” said Ed Tom at the opening. But he doesn’t want to sacrifice or “put his sole at hazard” in order to recognize the nature of Chigurh. If Ed Tom sacrificed his innate integrity in order to meet that sort of evil, it would be waiting for him, as Anton was waiting behind the door and as it was waiting for his grand daddy who was shot in his doorway (and “died in the night”).
Bell learned that no one could show him his path, he would have to carry his own light through the darkness of violence, just like his father did before him, anything else would be a dream.
I salute the Coen Brothers adaption of this story not only as a masterful representation of violence as it affects humanity, but their ability to create art targeted less towards the general populous of America and more towards the philosophical mind.
Hopefully this film will act less to desensitize youth in a complete juxtaposition as it’s intention, and rather help people realize that we live in a time like any other, in that we must continually reevaluate laws, customs, and trends in an effort to find new ways to be human.
**For those of you that don’t think No Country should have won “Best Picture”, look for my review of “There Will Be Blood” when it comes out on DVD.
I appreciate your insightful comments about the film and found this to be one of the best written reviews of the film. However, I must comment that there are several grammatical errors in your essay that need attention. As a writer, one should always endeavor for exactness in tense, spelling and punctuation as the alternative is distracting to the reader.
I went into this movie on the back of good reviews and was expecting to really enjoy it… nothing could be further from the truth! All the connections, comparisons, juxtaposition… need I mention all the amazing things mentioned above, must be on a level that is just beyond me.
To pick up on all the above from what is really such a simple, uneventful storyline, is really unbelievable. Granted the scenery shots were amazing, acting very good, but to compare the beer line to the violent theme of the movie reminds me of stoners watching movies. They can get the simpliest things, get on a roll and just join dots that are not there. *One big yawn later* – that is 2 hours that I will unfortunately never get back.
I thought this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It was a complete waste of time.
Since I understood the underlining meaning of the film but still it but hated it, I guess I am, “a massive loser and should immediately take your own life along with any offspring you might have produced.” Well, yes, I would kill myself if I had to sit through watching this awful movie again.
For those who responded to this insightful (albeit grammatically atrocious) review with a simple, “eh, it was boring” — may I suggest Rush Hour 2 or possibly, the latest action film from Duane ‘the Rock’ Johnson.
The movie and the above review relate in a way – HYPE.
A sick movie and the guy who wrote this review can very well interpret what happens in the phenomenon called ‘Black Hole’ . Scientists … make way we have a philosophical metaphor!!!!!
For those of you who didn’t like this movie, I need to know what movies you like and never, EVER go watch them. As for the review, thank you for enlightening me and helping me to understand somethings I had missed! It was an amazing movie and it is so easy to over look things when there is much underlined meaning in a movie like this. I learned alot more through your review and I am going to watch again with that knowledge. I think you definately need to see “There will be Bloode.” I have a feeling you will enjoy it just as much or even more so.
I was extremely dissapointed. How a film like this wins four Oscars, I can only imagine. A movie should be good without making me have to research it. If you are reading this, just read the book or the plot, dont see the movie.
I liked the bit with beer.
for all the people that didn’t like it because they didn’t understand it the first time…. how dare something make us think in this world anymore. it should be spelled out for us like we are in kindergarten for our entire lives.
this movie was excellent because of all of things mentioned in the review. whether reading a book or watching a movie, there are other levels of meaning that need to be explored to fully understand any of it.
Yea the first time I saw this movie I like it but I missed alot and did not think it was the best movie of the year…but after reading a bit more about it in reviews like this one and going back and wathcing it I really saw alot that I didn’t catch the first time and thought it was incredible..
It won the Oscar for Best Picture..not Best Straightforward Plot-Line.
Huge hint for the idiots; Would 4 academy awards coincidentally be given out?
It’s 2 am and i just finished watching this brilliant movie.
I truly feel sorry for the population of insipid personalities out there who are either unable to grasp the depth of this film or simply will not allow themselves to take some time out of their robotic lives to think for once. Thankfully, i exercise the powerful tool of analysis and love a mental challenge. BRAVO – Impeccable delivery of this eternal yin-yang warfare. I promise to be dedicated to perpetuating some Ed Tom in this world!
Cant wait to watch it again and THINK and LEARN some more!
I am surprised how many people thought this movie was a waste of time, but that after all is an opinion they are entitled to!
I found myself wringing hands and aquiver throughout the suspense…the only movies I remember making me do that in the past 4 years being Hotel Rwanda and Apocolypse Now…not comparable admittedly. The cold blooded killer who resembled a psychopathic Monkee’s fan was totally convincing in his performance.
I thought this film was brilliant in a chilling kind of way…it made me think a lot after the somewhat confusing ending…hence my reading these posts after hours of pondering, I came to see what others came up with!
I thought this review was really helpful and put into words a lot of the concepts I had been bandying in my head (lets not get pedantic about the grammar, it reads fine!)
Admittedly the film is loaded with symbolism, loopholes and those situations at which you wanna scream…’NO don’t do THAT’!!! Would you handcuff a guy that looked like that with his hands in front of him???
Would you go back to the crime scene you’d lifted the money from to aid a guy you surely knew was bleeding quickly to death? It has all the classic formulae but none of the heroic nonsense at the end.
This film left me rubbing my chin and pondering the cold realities of our capitalist society. The greed and violence that are spiraling out of control under our noses everyday, as well of the lack of respect we hold for simplicity and trust.
‘Tis all too true, but maybe not something all of us like to be reminded of in the entertainments arena. I appreciated it muchly!!
I just finished watching it for the first time and as such, I am without the benefit some of the posters had of watching it again to try and take it all in. I think I would watch it “differently” this time around..paying more attention to the symbolism than I did. But I still do have a hard time with what was left out, or rather what occured off camera. Who killed Moss? the mexicans or Chigurh? How did the mother die? Why is it we see his wife go to her mother’s funeral but nothing more about Moss? Now personally, this “artsy” move to have this occur offstage/offcamera, which I will attribute to the author of the book since all reviews seem to agree it , didn’t do anything to the plot except to snub its nose at it..maybe a sort of “check” in the movie to say, if the plot was all you were paying attention to, or all that mattered, then you don’t deserve to know?? or maybe it was to take our focus off the events and force us to focus on the meaning?? I just don’t know… Movies and books have one main thing in common though in my opinion, and that is they are storytelling mediums. It is all fine and good to push us to glean more from the movie than just following the main plotline. But I can’t get behind the decision to leave these events out. Could they not be used in an artful/skillfull way to further the message of the movie? You can call it opting for a non hollywood ending if you want, but just completely leaving out the climax and details of the protagonists death doesn’t impress me, nor does its absence do the rest of the story/film justice in my humble opinion. It’s as if the original author just couldn’t think of an acceptable way to tell that part of the story. As of now I consider it a flaw in the story, although I reserve the right to reverse that decision.
Other plot questions open to anyone, especially those who read the book…
Whose money was it? The guy that hired Woody Harrelson I figured, but then who hired Chigurh? And why in the hell did Chigurh kill the men that brought him to the scene? Maybe these 3 answer themselves if I decide Chigurh went ‘rogue’ and was just looking for the money for himself as perhaps I was supposed to. It would seem logical that the mexicans had the dope and the Texan mobster types had the money before the deal, but then why were the mexicans looking for the money too? The scene where they chased Moss after he returned to give the man water, and the scene later that showed the dope missing, would suggest to me that the mexicans got their dope back? So I don’t see why they would have the right to look for the money, or why the guy that hired Harrelsons character had, according to Chigurh, given the mexicans another transponder locator? And were there more than 1 group of Mexicans? Since all bodies at the original drug deal crime scene were Mexican it would appear so. Forgive my focus on the plotline, while I can appreciate that there was supposed to be much more to gain from the movie than than just the base plotline, that does not forgive loose ends. But then again, maybe I am just missing something which is why I humbly post here, hoping for answers
To post #12 Haeryfaery, he did not cuff him with his hands in front, in the background during the phone call he is working his cuffed hands over his boots and in front of him.
Read the book, saw the movie. Reading the pros and cons, I would just like to say…it didn’t need to be so hard for the average person to “get”. Man’s inhumanity to man is nothing new as a subject, it’s just all in how you package it and how many you want to reach. As a story for Everyman, “Country” isn’t that good as a messenger…not even close. As a moral observation for those who are already preached to and converted, a brilliant masterpiece of intellectual masterbation…an opportunity for Hollywood to say they can still make a movie that means something and pat themselves on the back. Frankly, I’d rather watch “Reservoir Dogs”, but “Country” was OK…after thinking, and thinking and thinking about it. Since it took me too long to get, guess I should be included on that Schindler’s List of people who should be gassed for not being an elitist literary lemming.
Brilliant review: thank you to the author.
We can deduce Anton Chigurh is ex-special forces. Carson Wells says he knows Anton Chigurh extremely well and, in the book, Carson Wells reveals to Llewellyn Moss, at his hospital bedside, that he is ex-special forces.
In addition, Anton Chigurh shows what a well trained professional he is.
An example of this is how he eliminates the Mexicans at the Motel. He rents a room with right handed shape, identical to Mexicans room, and practices a rapid forced entrance. He has assessed that there is an alcove to the left of the bathroom where someone could be hidden and that the wall of the alcove is thin enough to shoot right through it.
Another example is the way he is able to treat himself, after being shot in the leg by Moss, as professionally as any surgeon could.
Brian, if you are still looking in, I will attempt to answer your questions:
1. Who killed Moss? The Mexicans. They scammed the information out of Carla Jean’s mother (in the film). In the book they tap Ed Tom’s phone.
2. How did the mother die? Cancer, she was already terminally ill with the disease.
3. Why is it we see his wife go to her mother’s funeral but nothing more about Moss? Moss is dead at this point.
4. Whose money was it? There is a ‘Mr. Big’ in the book, (above the guy that hired Woody Harrelson) who Chigurh tracks down and returns the money to (so it is Chigurh who retrieved the money). Chigurh’s motivation is to work for ‘Mr. Big’’ (clearly an extremely wealthy man). Chigurh puts the proposal to Mr. Big’ that the deal went wrong because he employed incompetent associates. Whereas, he Chigurh, has proved himself to be professional and capable. He not only retrieved the money, he also tracked down ‘Mr. Big’. Therefore ‘Mr. Big’ should give him the job of setting up the next drug deal.
5. The guy that hired Woody Harrelson I figured, is the same one who hired Chigurh? The guy who hired Woody Harrelson is the same guy who hired Chigurh (he used the two shot in the desert by Chigurh as intermediaries), and this is why Chigurh kills him. It’s just that Chigurh’s reasons for killing him are different in the film, than in the book. In the film, the reason for killing him, is for also giving a transponder to the Mexicans (I can only assume these are not the same Mexicans who were selling the drugs).This act implied he did not put his complete trust in Chigurh to recover the money. In the book, the reason he killed him is because he hired Carson Wells to come after him.
6. And why in the hell did Chigurh kill the men that brought him to the scene? Chigurh (who is a very perceptive person) realised, when he first saw the scene of the drug deal gone wrong, that amateurs had set this up, and the two he shot in the desert, were ignorant minnows, middle men, only there to act as a cut-out for the guy who hired Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson). In the book Chigurh examines the scene of the drug deal gone wrong for a much longer period.
7. Maybe these 3 answer themselves if I decide Chigurh went ‘rogue’ and was just looking for the money for himself as perhaps I was supposed to. It would seem logical that the mexicans had the dope and the Texan mobster types had the money before the deal, but then why were the mexicans looking for the money too? The scene where they chased Moss after he returned to give the man water, and the scene later that showed the dope missing, would suggest to me that the mexicans got their dope back? So I don’t see why they would have the right to look for the money, or why the guy that hired Harrelsons character had, according to Chigurh, given the mexicans another transponder locator? And were there more than 1 group of Mexicans?
8. Chigurh did go rogue, but not to keep the money himself. See No4,
9. Why were the mexicans looking for the money too? Different Mexicans. See No5.
10. The scene where they chased Moss would suggest to me that the mexicans got their dope back? Yes they did.
11. So I don’t see why they would according to Chigurh, given the mexicans another transponder locator? These were different Mexicans. See No5.
12. And were there more than 1 group of Mexicans? I can only assume that there are two groups of Mexicans. It would make no sense to give a transponder (by this was a film plot device only. This does not happen in the book) to the group of Mexicans who were selling the drugs, as they had already reprocessed their drugs, and this would mean that they would have both the money and their drugs.
Hint: the Academy’s views are not necessarily to be shared by all comers.
This movie was an utter bore.
Now that some folks are done reading, let’s dig in. Spoilers, although really, this far down the page that shouldn’t be an issue.
Javier Bardem’s Chigurh is a stereotypical psychopath, from his predictable, catlike “toying” with his victims and ill-kempt appearance to his rogue android demeanor. Bardem’s portrayal is disturbing only in its dullness, though I suppose that was intentional. The “symbolism” of his injury and ultimate survival was little more than a crude run at inducing in the audience a longing for a (nonexistent) cathartic release, an implementation barely worthy of a b-grade horror movie (how many dozen are out there where the small, desperate circle of heroes ultimately become lunch meat before the zombies/aliens/robots/thought police? Didn’t see too many Academy award winners in there, though…). Tommy Lee Jones’s Sheriff Bell and Josh Brolin’s Llewelyn Moss, put on point thanks largely to the 80′s setting of the movie (leave your disbelief next to your decade, please), are the perfect low-hanging fruit to fall victim to Chigurh’s tendencies. Yes, the audience is largely aware that small-town cops and skilled welders aren’t set up to handle big crime and dastardly deeds, thank you. Excitement and surprise would lie in seeing common folks NOT die to a well-armed murder machine. But, then, that kind of ending would make this movie a perfect clone of about every OTHER lame cop “drama,” rather than a dim mirror image of such. But I digress.
What greater message is this movie supposed to bear? “Life sucks, then you die?” Philosophical nihilism wasn’t invented in this decade, in the 1980′s, or even by the baby boomers, nor is this framed as some sort of cautionary tale. “Ordinary folks and their home-cooked remedies often prove impotent when faced with severe threats?” Again, old news. So MacGyver and Andy Griffith weren’t on the set. Give me something new to work with here. “The ’80′s/rural America/Texas/town cops suck?” I lived through or with approximations of each of those. They weren’t great, but the asinine desperation here is at best a bad caricature of any of them. “We’re all gonna die?” True, but it’s more likely to be to lightning or a bathtub than to a serial killer.
Essentially, it seemed like this movie was really a lot about blame. Or rather, a lack of it. Chigurh may have been portrayed as a mortal, but he was hardly a character to remember. If you lock it down to movie psychopaths, Norman Bates, Hannibal Lecter, or heck, even Johnathan Kramer had definite, disturbed personalities that blow Chigurh’s dull languor away. Through the relationships they built up with those they met repeatedly, those characters came to become distinct individuals with full histories, not just a couple throwaway quirks and a recurrent modus operandi apiece. In each of those shows, the blame for the “evil” went straight to the internal nastiness of the killer. Chigurh, on the other hand, has a lot in common with Jason Voorhees. Aside from a couple underwhelming “you can dance better than that” sequences, he’s essentially a soulless, roaming boogeyman. As he drifts around doing his thing, the movie frames him more as a force of nature than as a vile human needing to be put down. If the greater Texas’s law enforcement obviously aren’t interested in collaring a roaming cop-killer; what’s the point, right? Leave it to a bounty hunter, a small-town fossil, and a ‘Nam-vet welder with delusions of grandeur to stop him — if they feel like it at the moment and they aren’t too busy being angsty or making crap out of coathangers and tent poles.
Drama, without fail, is either about bringing the unjustly elevated to the ground or bringing the unfairly oppressed into the light. Even “Death of a Salesman” had to push Willy Loman to the top before dragging him through the gutter; “No Country for Old Men” doesn’t even bother to do that much. It’s not a whole lot more than two hours of nihilistic bloodshed in a dusty wrapper. Revel in the unbelievable fact that they didn’t kill the bad guy, or even root for the stone-cold killer, but don’t push this flick as some great introspective tour of American ethos or the human condition, because this movie is way out at the shallow end of the pool.
Maybe the underlying message of this movie was “read more”. If so many people didn’t dislike it, they wouldn’t have searched for why it was said to be so good, and they would never know it was originally a book. Brilliant!
I enjoyed the review, and the movie very much. I have one comment though, When Carla Jean is given the chance to call it, she refuses at first but does end up making a guess. Granted this is in the book and the movie cuts away before this, but it does make you rethink the philosophical outlook of the review of that part.
@ the reviewer… for your words “If you’ve seen No Country for Old Men and didn’t like it, you didn’t understand it. If you understood it but didn’t like it, you have horrible taste; either way you’re a massive loser and should immediately take your own life along with any offspring you’ve produced.” You should never be allowed to write another article, ever again — disgusting.
@ Kyle (#4 above)… I watched “the latest action film from Duane ‘the Rock’ Johnson” based upon your recommendation and didn’t care for it at all. So what do you know?
I’ve just finished watching it and didn’t thoroughly understand it so I’m off to shoot my offspring and then myself…..
Would watch it again….but I promise if I do understand it I won’t write any pretentious comments like posters #4/6/9/11.
Loved your review. I’m interested to find out if anyone thought that when Sheriff Bell went back to the hotel in the middle of the night, that he was doing so to try and retrieve the money for himself. I came to this conclusion because of the following reasons..
1. Sheriff Bell states earlier in the film that there is no reason for him to return to a crime scene.
2. During his conversation in the diner he states that he thinks that they left in an awful hurry and doesn’t seem like they got a hold of the money.
3. He’s is the one person throughout the film that you see as untainted by the money and is truly moral. After that night he returned to the hotel room he retires and has a dream in which his father is dissapointed in him.
I felt that this was his motive and they were trying to show that even Sheriff Bell had been lured by illconceived money. That this is no longer a country for old men and everyone has a weakness when it comes to their own selfish actions.
I loved the movie beyond belief, but holy crap do I hate you pompous jerks calling people idiots for not liking it. Art is subjective. Period.
Get over yourselves. You’re not nearly as brilliant as you think you are. If you were, you’d be McCarthy or the Coen Bro’s.
I agree that this was a great movie, very deep in its moral underpinnings or lack thereof. Archetypes abound. Disturbing portrayal of nihilism… but the dream sequence Bell relays at the end gives great hope. My favorite character was the fat lady in the trailer. When approached by Chigurh to reveal where Moss worked she stood her ground. “Did you not hear me?”, she says looking him straight in the eye. Now SHE was a true believer. Chigurh could not touch her.
“No Country for Old Men” was one of the deepest most thought provoking movies I’ve ever seen. It haunted me for days.
Netterbahn: First viewing, I absolutely thought Tommie Lee Jones went back for the money. But then I took the writers into consideration: McCarthy/Coens, not Elmore Leonard.
The story was engaging, but a failure in the end because the “climax” scene, where the sheriff comes as close as he’ll ever get to Chigur, was a failure. For one thing it was so dark, you had to strain to see what was happening. For another, it was totally unbelievable.
A veteran lawman returns to a crime scene, sees signs of unauthorized entry, sits on the bed for a minute, presumably figures out the murderer has returned for the money, then walks away and forgets about it? And the bad guy is right there hiding behind a door? Yeh, sure.
OK watched it the first time and was thoroughly entertained and engaged, but let down by the end. The darkness of the ending left me with no payoff. Evil wins, or life sucks and then you die as someone said earlier. This is a rather hopeless and materialistic worldview that one can speculate is shared by the filmmakers and/or author (I didn’t read the book so I don’t know) – nihilistic as some said. One can think of other films with unhappy endings like Italian neo-realism but, unlike this film, they leave the viewer with something human – an emotional or spiritual payoff or insight.
So I watched it a second time paying more attention to the symbolism and film language. Now I’ve gained some insight. As I happened to watch the film with a Nam vet, he immediately said “these guys are black ops.” After reading this review and comments about the book, I see that my friend was right. The film is a great portrayal of the murky dark side of modern civilization. Guys that were trained by the state for war (the controversial Vietnam War) now apply their skills back home. They’ve merged with organized crime, corrupt business and government, drug gangs, into an evil ugly mess that to this day erodes civilization (the one that the Texas Sheriffs hold so dear). For political reasons perhaps, the film does not clearly state that Chigurh was special forces – though this can certainly be deduced by his skilled behavior. For me this is essential information to gain insight into the story. However the story seems to offer a hopeless world view in the SEd Tom’s response and the victory of evil.
But, as mentioned above, there is a gleam of hope in Carla Jean’s challenge to Chigurh, essentially to examine his ego. Distracted by the thought he get’s a career threatening injury in the car wreck – and we can speculate he retires like his opposite Ed Tom or even faces being the hunter who get’s hunted, like Mos. Karma.
The ego theme is further addressed by Ed Tom’s uncle who calls out his vanity and faithlessness. In the end he is a restless soul lost in his dreams not knowing what to do with himself. On the other hand, since he cannot catch Chigurh anyway, perhaps he’s done all he could, and is lucky enough to retire (Karma) and with the help of his wife gain understanding, letting go of his ego identity.
The struggle is passed onto the next generation as symbolized by the youths who sell their shirts to the two hunters in two scenes. In any case there’s some good stuff in this film which is not so clear and perhaps comes out better in the book.
***My one question is what is Chigurh doing at the very beginning? Was he just hanging out on the road looking for a car? Was he involved in the bad drug deal? Was he already contracted? If so, what was he doing getting picked up by the deputy?***
I loved the movie, but like many others I was left with many questions. Im goiing to read the book and then watch the movie again. I thought it was brilliantly acted and directed, but I think its definitely one of those movies you need to watch a few times to completely understand, like O’ Brother Where Art Thou, another Cohen production.
The plot is weak. The story is confusing (if I need to read the source book to understand the movie, then the script is not good). When Moss finds the transmitter, why didn’t he throw it away, thru the window, so the bad guy Chigurh would not find his room? If Chigurh already knew his room because eventually he got the number from the register in the hotel office, why did he carry the receiver, bleeping, to find the door where Moss where? Why the transmitter was located right in the second row of dollar bills and not at the bottom? Who was the idiot that would place it so near the top of the satchel? Why Moss never took the money from the original case, at least to take a look better at all that money? I could go on and on and on. The story has too many holes, it’s weak, boring, and no matter how many meanings you smart guys can tell are buried in it, I don’t buy it. This movie was a waste of my time.
Brilliant Movie!
Liked it the first time, but still had many questions like the above poster Andy (who seems to be better of renting the hollywood blockbusters). Further research on Imdb and reading brilliant reviews like the one above (but indeed, grammatical errors and spelling mistakes are a no in a review) made me appreciate this film even more.
I have seen it four times already and am about to see it a fitfth in an hour or so in the movie theather as part of a minor in film. Even better, next week we’ll get an entire lecture dedicated only to this movie, followed by discussion and interpretation.
I must admit I was surprised and even shocked by some of the posters above who had the opinion a movie should be plain simple. I couldn’t agree more with the sarcastic comment of another poster who said something like ‘excuse movies for asking to take a moment of reflection out of your robotic life’.
No country for old men is definitely one of the best and meaningfull movies of the last decade. Anyway, for people who like their films served with a little depth instead of a fastfoodflick.
- how come can Chigurh know so easily where to find Wells and Wells knows nothing about Chigurh? how did Chigurh find Wells after all?
- what is Wells for in the story? Is he there just to be the fool that will tell us a little bit more about Chigurh and then die like an idiot?
- Why Wells didn’t take the money, once he found it? Well, Wells was the stupid guy…
- The last scene with Chigur was so predictable, I was just thinking, while watching it, what better than a sudden crash could the author think of, but it seems he think of none.
The more I think about this movie, the angrier I get for having wasted my time with it but now I found this forum where I can find some relief by writing about it
When I watch Hollywood blockbusters I do expect a lot of nonsense in the story line, so they don’t bother me. When I watch a movie that won 4 or 5 Oscars, I expect a REAL GOOD story line, not one full of holes. Forget all the hidden moral points and meanings of this movie, it is just a very mediocre movie.
@Natalie: I hope you will not start killing people with an air gun… this is a good movie but nothing more. BTW, Kafka’s Der Prozess and Das Schloß covered a similar topic near 100 years ago.
I just wonder. Out of 1.000.000.000 people, how many will be tempted to “bad things” after watching this? One? Isn’t it too much?
So… who got the money?
(I figured tl hid it at his daddy’s place out in the desert)
Some of my favorite movie’s are American Psycho, Shawshank Redemption, Interview With The Vampire, Vanilla Sky etc. For the reviewer to know, so please never watch any of these movie’s because apparently I’m retarded.
The movie couldn’t have been more boring or make less sense, even with all this underlying purpose they could have at least made sense of the rest of the movie.
No country for old men, the key to the films’ whole message is the title.
We are losing our way with the bad decisions we make toward evil.
“It’s not the one thing, it’s a dismal tide” of a slipping society that manifests itself in the battle of good and evil as represented by the protagonist, (Ed Tom not Llewelyn Moss) and Anton the antagonist.
The yin/yang analogy is dead on. (whether you have seen it enough to realize it or not, this is not subjective) If you need a huge hint look at all the uses of the coin, it’s duality and the involvement of fate vs choice.
As for the bashing between “I get it” & “this movie was a waste of time”
If you don’t understand by now that the Coen brothers are not capable of making film that is “a waste of time” & that the many awards are not a coincidence but a reflection of their brilliance, then I am sorry to tell you that perhaps you are the one wasting others time sharing your views.
Author: Great Synopsis, however your preface begged for the unintelligible comments by the posters that still have not figured it out.
For those in the know: If you have not yet seen this film, enjoy!
Go See “Primer” by Shane Carruth
If anyone is still interested a year after the fact, here’s my take on this:
Everyone hated this movie for precisely what was good about it: its challenge to the conventions of the genres it is a part of. The good guy does not always get the bad guy. And there is so much power in evil–money and drugs here–that good seems to have too much going against it. Yet in both of the relevant genres–horror and westerns–the hero always takes out the bad dude. Interesting that in this movie the bad dude is taken out–if he is taken out at all–by the very force that he seems intriqued with: chance or fate or Providence. We keep expecting the hero to show–Llewellen, Ed Tom, Carson, Carla Jean–but in the end the only hero left is getting old and retires. It’s not nihilism; it’s realism. Sometimes evil is pretty darn powerful–but eventually death catches up with everybody. I’m amazed that people will call a movie that challenges the easy plots plotless, boring, and nihilistic.
This is an excellently written review. It defines the themes of the movie and explicates them well. Well done.
I was absolutely fascinated by this movie. I had NO IDEA what this movie was about, and just decided one night earlier this week to check out a mild western, just before bedtime. Whew, this movie blew my mind. I was pulled into the plot—holes and all—and could not have turned the channel, even if I wanted to. Great acting. Tommy Lee Jones’ voice overs were genius. The minor characters were powerful. The landscapes carried the story well. I like how the story unfolded and left me guessing and questioning at every turn. The moral dilemmas that cropped up tugged at the heartstrings. This movie cut so close to the bone that I was constantly on edge. I woke up with it the next morning and the morning after that. I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me this movie was a brilliant, abstract, dark, artful masterpiece.
Michelle, you could have been speaking for me. I watched this on Netflix the other night and couldn’t stop. I LOVED the review, it really helped me put together the holes I couldn’t figure out on my own. I haven’t thought this much about a movie and the meaning of life in a loooong time… Just amazing.
First time I saw this movie didnt like it at all paying too much attention to the plot I guess and didnt like/understand the ending. Although I did appreciate the acting by Jones and Bordem. Didnt know after watching this movie I would have to go back and disect it to figure out the true meaning of the film. There were many loopholes as was mentioned before, but maybe this was done on purpose. So you would have to go back and watch it again and see if it really was as bad as you thought. I dont think it is the kind of movie the average person will put on his/her alltime best movies ever regardless of what the academy seems to think. All that said it will be on encore tonight and I will watch it again but a different way and I guarantee you it will still not be a dvr saver.