November
27
No Country for Old Men: That Pesky Ending
I'm having big debates about No Country for Old Men, especially the ending. If you've read the Cormac McCarthy book, you know that the Coens have done a very faithful adaptation, which McCarthy admires. [SPOILER ALERT] The duo was attracted to the very things that make the movie unconventional: a major character dies, and the forces of good don't triumph over the forces of evil at the end.
At my book group Tuesday night (where we had a spirited discussion about Flaubert's Sentimental Education) we agreed that the Coens' No Country for Old Men will persevere and endure and may even land an Oscar best picture nom because it is about where we are now. The point of the movie is that the good sheriff played by Tommy Lee Jones with sad weariness has never seen so much implacable evil and does not know if it is possible to conquer it. Is Javier Bardem's Chigurh real, or a ghost? I think he is very real. And he represents all the evil in the world that will not stop, will not rest.
Alec Baldwin blogs about the movie and Javier Bardem at The Huffington Post. Nora Ephron hilariously debates the movie with her partner in The New Yorker.
Glenn Kenny lays out the movie's issues with the ending at Premiere.com. Now I'm really confused.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Argue all you like about the weak ending but my summary word is simply "Disappointing". Don't be a sheep and claim to appreciate the introspective 'masterpiece' so as too look cool and deeply thoughtful - If you walked out feeling robbed of time and money - you probably were !
Posted by: stephen | January 29, 2008 at 03:53 PM
"Argue all you like about the weak ending but my summary word is simply "Disappointing"."
Because you did not understand it.
As an existentialist, I loved it - the ending was exhilarating.
"The world will not end with a bang, but instead, a whimper" - TS Eliot.
The message was spot on.
Posted by: shrike | January 29, 2008 at 05:08 PM
The Emperor has no clothes people! Admit it the scriptwriters of America are bankrupt .. period
Posted by: Rolloff deBunk | January 29, 2008 at 09:40 PM
I'll be damned if a simpleton movie like this wins the Best Picture award. There's not much of a plot in this movie, and I don't even understand what the fuck the ending's about. Movie standards have certainly dropped these days - I long for the good old days of Coppola movies & war movies like Bridge on River Kwai, Schindler's List, Das Boot, Lawrence of Arabia and Letters from Iwo Jima. Even Clint Eastwood's Dollars Trilogy are much better. There's a world of difference in quality between No Country for Old Men and the aforementioned movies - no way is the Coen brothers movies on par with the Best Picture movies of yesteryears. I wished Quentin Tarantino had made this movie instead, then we'll all get to see a classic ending!
Posted by: Chrixgan | January 30, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Let me rephrase myself - it is a simpleton movie because the beginning and the middle parts of the movie are actually simple - there's not much of a plot - baddest guy chasing after the not-so-bad guy, while the good guys are left chasing shadows - except until the ending makes an ass of the whole movie and tries to muddle up an otherwise simpleton movie. If this movie is attempting the artsy, mysterious or thought provoking type shit ending, it is definitely not in the same league / class as 2001: Space Oddyssey's or Apocalypse Now's ending.
Posted by: chrixgan | January 31, 2008 at 12:37 AM
The major theme is GREED and its consequences (”there are no clean getaways”) and fighting with our conscience. It is NOT about death finding us. This is the point of the movie - move away from obsessing about death and instead look at the real root of all evil: GREED. Are you greedy? Do you fight with greed (Anton) in your mind?
Read the reasons below, rewatch the movie and everything will become clear!!! This is the one and only explanation of the movie.
There are two layers to this movie, the real part and the sub-conscious part:
Real Layer/Story: Moss finds some money beside dead Mexican drug dealers. He goes back to bring a dying Mexican some water but other Mexicans spot him (see his face/car) but lose him. However, they now know who he is via his rego plates – they go to his trailer park but he is not there so they track his wife around via the phone number of her mother (there is no tracking device (see below)). They find out where he is staying via his mother in law (helping her with her bags). When they do eventually find him they kill him in the hotel but do not find the money. Bell finds the money at the crime scene by checking the vents but he turns it in to the authorities (not shown but implied – see below). Carla Moss kills herself in grief after her husband’s funeral. Bell retires because he cannot make sense of all the greed and evil in the world (a good man like Moss dies because of it), he cannot seem to stop it (“There are no laws left”). In the dream he and his father try to bring ‘light to the darkness’ but in the end he ‘wakes up’ to reality.
Conscience Layer (see below for more explanation): Moss does not meet Anton for awhile into the movie. He initially has a cleanish conscience (i.e. going back to give the dying Mexican water). When Moss decides to run from the Mexicans instead of just leaving the money in his trailer for them to find and leave him alone, Anton (greed) focuses his attention on Moss and begins tracking him. There is no tracking device. The tracking device in Anton’s possession symbolizes Anton (greed) getting closer and closer from Moss’ sub-conscience to Moss’ conscience. Moss begins to understand that his wife will be in danger , he sees/realizes Anton/his greed, finding the phone list (which is actually the Mexicans finding the list in reality). He then discovers the tracking device at which point he meets Anton (greed) in his conscience. The next scenes are him fighting with greed in his conscience. He wounds greed (Anton) but does not kill him. Since greed is wounded you then see him talking to Carson Wells (his reasoning conscience) who says he might be able to help him and his wife if he just hands over the money (give up his greed). The hotel room across the street is Moss’ mind. There Anton (greed) kills Wells (his reasoning conscience). We then see Moss having a direct argument with his greed (Anton) and Anton says that it is Moss’ fault that his wife will now die – it was his choice (in his sub-conscious he thinks that the Mexicans will find her). Moss is then killed by the Mexicans but they do not find the money. Bell is not possessed by greed (you see him mirrored by Anton(greed) in the tv). Bell goes into the hotel room where greed (Anton) is potentially ‘waiting’ as the $2 million has not been found. He goes in there and sees the vent, he knows there is $2 million in there but he knows he won’t take it (the heads on the coin symbolizes he made the right choice) so he does not see greed (Anton) – presumably he turns the money in. Carla kills herself (meeting Anton (death/greed) was her husband’s fault). With his work done Anton finds some new ‘victims’ for greed when spots the kids on the bikes. He is wounded by the car crash so greed is wounded but then as he heals himself they begin fighting over the $100 bill (which in reality they probably found on the street – the cycle of greed begins again). Bell retires because he cannot make sense of the greed and death (we know he does not know greed), him and his father tried to shed light in the evil of the world but he ‘wakes up’ to reality that it will always be there (You can’t stop what’s coming).
Who is Anton?:
Anton is greed conscience. He is a ghost. He is not real. “Can you see me?” We have a choice to succome to greed (coin toss). He wears black/dark clothes.
Movie Poster Titles:
“You can’t stop what’s coming” (Anton). He survives the car accident and bullets but you can wound/slow him down.
“There are no laws left” (greed/Anton can’t be controlled by laws/by Bell it is up to the person).
“There are no clean Getaways” (greed/Anton eventually wins – greed has dire consequences)
Who is Carson Wells and what is the Business Office?
Carson Wells is the good/reasoning conscience of Moss. The meeting in the office is the reasoning part of Moss’ mind (the high rise office symbolizes his mind – the top of the building). The man behind the desk is Moss’ sub-conscience saying that he wants his good conscience (Wells) to stop his bad conscience (Anton). Wells (good conscience) names a date, 28th November last year, when he last met Anton (bad conscience) – possibly this was a time that Moss had conflict in his conscious before. Wells says he knows Anton “every which way”.
Moss talks to Carla on the phone and could end everything but instead insists on keeping the money. He says he has to find ‘him’ and she says “Find who?” She asks about the safety of her mother and Moss says she’ll be alright (he knows the Mexicans will find his Mother in Law). At this point Anton (greed) bursts into the office (Moss’ mind) and kills Moss’ reasoning part of his mind. The other character, accounting, is just another part of Moss’ mind probably accounting for his money. Moss knows in his mind that the Mexicans will find his wife (says the Mexicans were given a tracking device).
And there are many many more parts in the movie that support all this. Now watch the movie again and you’ll be going “Of course!” “Oh, that line makes sense!”
THE DEBATE ENDS HERE!
Posted by: Matty Bede | February 01, 2008 at 03:52 AM
It exists only as you see that it does. I could say karma exists too if I looked at all the evidence. But what is that evidence of? it is just of something you want to believe. What I see here is symbolism in the movie, not subconsciences and ghosts and so on. How about the idea that the bad guy had a complex and believed he was some kind of death man or something? This is just as speculative as the last post. Nothing here but interpretations. good and bad. but all for the good of the movie really, the movie makes more money the more people talk shit about it.
Posted by: mike | February 03, 2008 at 06:27 AM
The ending of the movie is certainly puzzling since it doesn't seem to either tie in or reconcile the previous scenes. For example, why did the director invest a huge amount of time building up the story line of Llewelyn and Anton, with Llewelyn always one step ahead of Anton and at one point, even vowing to take care of Anton. The viewer, who has invested himself emotionally for 3/4's of the movie, must then swallow the idea that Llewelyn has been killed off by some unknown Mexican. We aren't even given the courtesy of watching him die; we only see a shot of his cowboy boot clad feet as he lies dead on the floor of a motel. This makes absolutely no sense.
Another puzzle is Woody Harrelson's character, Carson Wells, who is hired to track down the money. The director goes to great length to set up the hospital scene involving him and Llewelyn, only to have him dead a moment later in his hotel room. Is the director trying to show us how evil Anton is? If so, this scene is completely unnecessary. We already know Anton is an evil badass.
Finally, the scene involving Anton's car accident. This makes no sense in the grand scheme of things, other than to use up movie time. If Anton had been killed in that accident, the viewer might then have marvelled at the irony of such an evil man being killed in this simplistic, unlucky way. But he simply gets out of the car and walks away, leaving the viewer shaking his head.
The viewer who is now expecting some resolution or reconciliation is denied this as the movie ends abruptly when Tommy Lee Jones's character, Ed Bell, recounts his dream, which seems to have nothing to do with the movie plot. Bell, who has rarely been seen in the movie is now the be all, end all, the final summation of the movie's entirety.
In watching this movie, I feel the viewer is emotionally raped. I've heard the arguments, "not every story has a happy ending," and "things don't always go the way you think they should," and "the author ends the book in the same way." Any good writer knows that a story has a beginning, middle, and ending. Since this story lacked both continuity and any semblance of a meaningful ending, I am left wondering if the writer simply ran out of steam and had all the main characters killed off quickly with no regard for transitions and dovetailing. Missing these essential elements, it's incomplete, and not a story.
The critics have it wrong when they bill this movie as the best of the year. It's an emotional rip off, pure and simple, violence and gore for the sake of it, and perfectly meaningless. I recommend people stay away from this movie.
Posted by: Sophie | February 05, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Just a random thought, isn't it ironic that people have reacted to the ending of this film much like the final episode of The Sopranos. Both cut to black with little explanation, leaving both open to everyone's expectations. While I wanted more from the ending of the Sopranos, I have thought long and hard about the ending of this movie and think it oddly works. Don't know how one worked and the other didn't, but ironic none the less.
Posted by: Chris | February 05, 2008 at 11:27 PM
For me, the most telling part of the film was the two little boys arguing over the $100 bill that the killer gives them to keep quiet about his walking cleanly away. Here we have two innocents instantly turned to man's baser instinct of greed. That was great moment. Did the ending bother me? Well, I was a little surprised when the black screen came up and Tommy Lee Jone's speech was a bit obtuse, but I think it all sank in on some subconcious level. Nilism, fate, failure. Something we're all likely to hit in the end. The accident suggested that even a brute force like Chigurh is susceptible to fate/failure. He's whistfully thinking back on his murders and BLAM, he too pays the price for his lack of concentration -- focus. I have to say, I wish more people here had concentrated a little more on the film. Sometimes you have to work a little to draw meaning from art. Having someone interpret everything for you makes you a bit blind, doesnt it?
Posted by: Brad Cheng | February 06, 2008 at 01:52 AM
I just had to add a little more, since I enjoyed this film so much and wanted to come to it's ending's defense.
I'd heard about this movie months ago and completely forgot it was directed by the Coen brothers while watching it (a download). It's not like any other highly-stylized Coen movies - its so smooth and subtle its amazing. Not a single wasted frame, IMO. So well told visually and dramatically conceived in cinematic terms - for the first time I'm really impressed with the Coens as true auteurs. Their restraint on this film really makes it shine. It really more Hitchcockian than any recent film I've seen - without resorting cinematic Hitchcockian cliches. Really brilliant and clean filmmaking. Perfect performances. The ending has baffled some, but it's more about art (as it should be for such a wonderfully conceived film) than payoff in the traditional sense. It raises questions and makes you do the interpreting - and isn't that what art is about? Picasso doesn't stand behind "Guernica" tell you "this is how it ends" - I think you find your own meaning in real works of art - and that's what makes the resonate. This film certainly resonated with me. Just wonderful. Checking the shoes for blood... heheheh... just wonderful filmmaking. Laconic filmmaking. My favorite kind.
Posted by: brad cheng | February 06, 2008 at 02:17 AM
A follow-up:
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/no-country-for-old-men-a-follow-up/
Posted by: Louis Proyect | February 06, 2008 at 03:00 PM
Wow, this is a great thread going on right under my nose. I don't have the time to repeat my shpiel about NCfOM's ending but here's the gist of it. I watched the screener again last weekend with a friend and I found myself saying every few minutes, oooh, this is such a great scene coming up. And there's no doubt that it is a great movie. But the ending prevents it from being a true masterpiece. It just doesn't come together. I hear what it's saying, I just don't care, and even the most thoughtful analysis will never be able to convince me otherwise. It's a big, giant, major problem and the fact is that it keeps the film from, in my mind, being worthy of Best Picture. It strives for this meta-importance but overreaches and undercuts the story it has spent the last 2 hours telling. I consider myself a Coen Bros. fan but I don't care about remaining faithful to the book. Give me a satisfying ending. I don't need things spelled out for me. I'm able to draw my own conclusions. But that ending just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's a remarkable effort that should be an inside the park home run but unfortunately it gets tagged out at the plate. If I was Mr. Oscar, I'd wish I could've gone home with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, but since that's not possible (amazingly), I'd be hoping to ride home in the TWBB limo. TWBB is clearly the superior film of the five nominees and it'll be a shame if PTA is robbed if the ultimate accolade, because he really did make the most daring, original American production of the year.
Posted by: MiraJeffAICN | February 07, 2008 at 07:56 PM
I feel that No Country was too slow moving and could have been better. I was hardly intrigued during the first two thirds of the movie, and then when it ended i thought that i was missing something. It turns out it wasn't me the fact is that there is just no ending. This movie will leave you thinking for all the wrong reasons. I understand that the point of the film is that evil sometimes, and normally does defeat good, however it disturbed me that the movie was not "summed up."
Posted by: James | February 09, 2008 at 09:49 PM
The very point of the film, which is driven home by the ending, belies the pointlessness of trying to make sense of it in terms of a rationalistic view of good and evil (as the comments in this thread seem to be trying to do). I take this story as first and foremost a statement on the fact that we live increasingly in a post-modern culture, in which values are no longer rooted in objective standards. Such a world is certainly "No Country for Old Men" — that is, it is alienating to those who still hold to the "old" objectively-based value system; because in a truly post-modern world-scenario (as is depicted in the film), the very concepts of "good" and "evil" have lost all meaning. So the sheriff bails out not just because the evil is "too strong" — he bails because all the rules of the game have been changed and he can't figure out how to play by the new rules.
I take the film (and especially its ending) as a warning about the implications of the post-modern trend: as we abandon a rational, moralistic view of life, we lose all sense of purpose and meaning in the process, and evil wins by default.
Now THAT is a meaningful ending!
Posted by: Paul Johnson | February 09, 2008 at 11:25 PM
response on david chute's blog.
Posted by: cdrake | February 10, 2008 at 01:35 PM
the movie was great, and the ending was very symbolic. i thought it was perfect.
Posted by: Dmoney | February 11, 2008 at 08:55 PM
Ok guys this is how it goes: have you ever went into a relationship to find out if you were dead the girl would've moved on anyways and the important you had no value: Well here in this movie the unimportant you is the ' good guy' all alone in the world by himself dead or alive (if he was that lucky) to be just as unimportant.
as for the ending yes it is an open-ended question but i think life is. the ' good guy' died, the villain escaped but remember he bought a coat..meaning security in life can always be bought. tommy lee's role is senseless though..just a character who as far as im concerned could've mumbled like a vagrant in the road by himself???
all in all in the end death, life and money describes this movie..no friends in this one 'oh no' ..no pals no buddies just good old death..great ending to a scribbled up and odd picture :}
Posted by: steve mark | February 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM
The whole movie was great from beginning to end. For everyone that didn't like the ending (most people didn't like it at all the group behind me in the theater stood up and said "worst movie ever"), what i said to them was you know AvP2 is playing maybe you would have been more comfortable there and they said they had already seen it and it was better (so you may want to take their advise on that one). But one you can't blame the Cohen brothers for the ending that is how the book ended so don't sit here and rip into them. And also the author of that book is known for doing that type of thing at the end of his books. And for all of you that bitch about it, no one said anything about the book being bad and most of the reviews say the ending is amazing, but it's just a bunch of AvP,Bourne Identity douches that are complaining about it, Yes i am a film major but I am not a art prick yes i did see both AvP and the Bourne series but i know there is more to movies than the classic happy ending there has been more, sad endings to plays and movies and books since the Greeks (they called them tragedies), and probably even before that. So how about maybe seeing the movie again and paying attention to it and it really does make sense it buts everything that you just spent 2 hours and 8$ dollars, and it raps it up real well thats all i will say the movie would have been crap if it ended any other way.
Posted by: Yaotzin | February 15, 2008 at 07:19 AM
Seems as if the entire movie was narrated by the sheriff and he's always lamenting the present day (circa early 80's)
the title "No Country for Old Men" is exemplified by EVERY male character Anton speaks to before he Kills ... Even Woody (who's somewhat miscast as a Vietnam Vet Colonel) is an 'old man' by definition of life experiences.
Anton is like an irresistible force of evil but he's also almost elemental in that he's not vengeful but implacable and everyone who he comes in contact with (verbally) feels not only uncomfortable but intimidated like he's not really human (do you know just how crazy you are?!)
the ending is 'disarming' and although 'artsy' does play consistently with the rest of the film in that it's dry and factual and very much set in the placed it was supposed to be (just like Fargo was SET in N Dakota so NCFOM was definitely SET in south Texas.
Those that were looking for a payoff of some sort ...go watch a Rocky or Indiana Jones film ...This one was a slice of real-life Messy, not pretty and definitely not neatly packaged.
An no I'm not a Fucking Film Snob
Woody Allen films (cept for a very few) leave me cold
and BTW Atonement(cept for the cinematography and settings)... BLOWS!
The second coming of The English Patient YAWN!!
NCFOM was a narrative from and by The Sheriff about how good men don't always win and bad men usually end up dead or killing others good or bad
Posted by: Chicogator | February 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM
who took the money????
Posted by: aga | February 17, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Try this:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2008/02/25/080225crat_atlarge_denby
Posted by: David C. | February 18, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Specifically:
"The spooky-chic way the Coens use Bardem has excited audiences with a tingling sense of the uncanny. But, in the end, the movie’s despair is unearned—it’s far too dependent on an arbitrarily manipulated plot and some very old-fashioned junk mechanics. “No Country” is the Coens’ most accomplished achievement in craft, with many stunning sequences, but there are absences in it that hollow out the movie’s attempt at greatness. If you consider how little the sheriff bestirs himself, his philosophical resignation, however beautifully spoken by Tommy Lee Jones, feels self-pitying, even fake. And the Coens, however faithful to the book, cannot be forgiven for disposing of Llewelyn so casually. After watching this foolhardy but physically gifted and decent guy escape so many traps, we have a great deal invested in him emotionally, and yet he’s eliminated, off-camera, by some unknown Mexicans. He doesn’t get the dignity of a death scene. The Coens have suppressed their natural jauntiness. They have become orderly, disciplined masters of chaos, but one still has the feeling that, out there on the road from nowhere to nowhere, they are rooting for it rather than against it."
Posted by: David C. | February 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I'll make it short and simple. Great movie, suck-ass ending. Makes me angry I spent time watching it.
Posted by: John | February 23, 2008 at 09:41 PM
I have no opinion on the end, it was fine....but people who love the end sort of have a reputation for being a bit pretentious and calling yourself an existentialist doesn't help.
Posted by: Gary Smith | February 24, 2008 at 01:32 AM
I totally agree with the post by chrixgan saying that Anton is greed and does not really exist - viewing the film like that adds so much more complexity. Most things seem to fit so well - however there is one part of the movie that I can't explain and therefore it ruins the theory. When Anton kills the guy just after he has stolen the police car, he has no real reason, if he is greed to do this. Then Tommy Lee Jones finds this car that he has stolen and the man he has killed. If Anton didn't actually exist then who did this?
Posted by: Luke | February 25, 2008 at 04:53 AM
Sorry, it was posted by Matty Bede
Posted by: Luke | February 25, 2008 at 04:55 AM
Silly flame wars going on up there.
My take: The ending was glorious and perfect and good. It was the only way the movie could end to give the film the unity its creators seemed to have been seeking.
Most stories do indeed tend to follow a set structure, but the decision to obey (or not)a traditional structure is a decision that is open to filmmakers and authors alike. It's tempting for those with a passion for film analysis to relish the film's non-traditional structure and to look down on folks who don't seem to "get it." As much as I loved the film, that's silly a silly way to react to a difference of opinion. This is fiction, and we are just talking about some surprising authorial decisions made by the film's directors. As with any such debate, there will be two sides, and surprising aesthetic decisions may just rub some viewers the wrong way. No reason to get pissy about it.
Posted by: Justin | February 25, 2008 at 07:09 AM
I need some help with the motel scene (Llewelyn's death) where Tommy Lee goes back, at night. Anton is there. Tommy walks out.
How did that happen? Everyone else got shot, no thought involved. What stayed Anton's hand in this scene?
Posted by: tom | February 25, 2008 at 05:07 PM
I have never searched on the internet about a movie's ending no matter how vague it turned out to be. I'm sure that out of all these people posting here and elsewhere on the web, there has to be more people in a similar situation. This alone indicates to me that this movie did an excellent job at making us interested, and let face it. We like interesting. Ending or no ending, hate it, love it. At the very least, we won't forget it anytime soon, and that in my mind, is worth the $8.
Posted by: andy | February 25, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Anton... Ed Tom. Is the similarity in the name coincidental? Who the hell is named Ed Tom??
I still haven't solidified my understanding of the ending, but to me it seems like the movie is about Evil (Anton) not being fair. It is pure, however, and it cannot be eliminated from existence. You cannot negotiate or reason with Evil. It's almost as if your best option is to avoid crossing paths with it all together.... I'll stop here because I'm just thinking out loud.
Posted by: KQ | February 26, 2008 at 08:12 PM
U guys got it all wrong. Quantum physics rules our reality, though to us it seems illogical. Is Anton in the motel room or not? The answer is both, until observed, as Quantum Physics says. Does he kill the accountant or the wife? What side does the coin land on for the wife? Both. Healso dies in the car crash, at the sme time that he walked away. Stupid but it's the reality in which u actually live
Posted by: Agimemnun | February 27, 2008 at 08:13 PM
To me it was simple...the Sheriff has the money...as he sat on the bed in the motel the bad guy asked him to flip for it...it was worth everything and the sheriff won the toss and either all the money or half...the sheriff himself was more evil as he was the one that provided information to first the Mexican's at the bus station who asked the mother-in-law where they were going and staying, Lewellin gets knocked off...part of the coin flip the Sheriff tells the bad haircut guy where the girl from Nanny Mcphee is...she is a loose end...she goes as i dont think she won the coin flip...and he gets hit by the car and gives the kid a bloodied $100 bill from the case...the Sheriff is "retired" just like lewellin wanted for his wife also known as girl from nanny mcphee...simple but its all in the foreshadowing...I personally was hoping for the movie to be about an hour longer and have Harelson involved in a truly epic The Good The Bad and The ugly kind of ending...one part that was similar was the dying guy wanted water...lewellin didnt have any, Clint Eastwood did...tata
Posted by: coldblue | February 27, 2008 at 08:20 PM
Josh Brolin was excellent and totally convincing in his part. I thought Tommy Lee Jones was far less so, and Woody Harrelson was plain misscast. But for three-quarters of the movie I was totally gripped and was thinking this is going to be amongst my top ten movies ever.... then all of a sudden it just fell apart. At the end people around me in the movie house were just shaking their heads in puzzlement. Because of last quarter and the ending I can't see how they voted this the best picture at the Oscars. Maybe it did contain some sort of deep message or meaning, but whatever that was it's lost on me. In my book the all around best picture last year was Michael Clayton.
Posted by: David Grinter | February 28, 2008 at 02:53 AM
"Does he kill the accountant or the wife?"
He kills the wife, he checked his shoes for blood leaving the house. The accountant? I think the answer there is the same as 'why didn't he kill Ed Tom?'. He asked the accountant, 'did you see me?' Anyone who actually saw him, died. Ed didn't see him in the motel room.
That's the best I've got.
Posted by: Tom | February 29, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Can someone please explain the ending. I dont mean to offend or sound stupid but I just dont get it. Anton escapes just wonders off. What is the bit with the sheriff about?
Posted by: Chris | March 01, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I think the movie is about the 7 deadly sins.
Posted by: Kevin | March 01, 2008 at 07:09 PM
The kids at the end saw him- they didn't die. Neither did the gas attendant.
Posted by: nicole | March 02, 2008 at 12:55 AM
If you actually try to figure this stuff out you will be falling into the brothers' trap. The pose of the movie (and presumably the novel) is that it is ABOUT the senselessness of the universe. Bullshit. Read the Denby piece. He's got their number.
Posted by: David C. | March 02, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I left this theatre performance with the comment "there are no redeeming qualities in this movie" and another person committed "I agree".
Posted by: Joan Bush | March 02, 2008 at 05:54 PM
The movie's redeeming quality is its quality.
However, if what you're seeking is some sort of moral position that offers hope, then, no, you chose the wrong movie to spend $11 on. $11 bought you a bit of truth. If you want hope, go listen to a speech by Obama or something.
Posted by: Edward Wilson | March 02, 2008 at 06:07 PM
I read the book more than a year or so ago, so maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I think I recall the book ending with Chigurh, completely recovered after the car crash, returning the case of money to the offices of the drug king-pin, and saying something like "I have gone to great pains to recover your $2 million for you, and I am returning it all except a small percentage which I am keeping as my fee." (I'm paraphrasing here. He makes a big deal about how honest he is in returning the bulk of the money to its rightful owners when he could easily have kept it and walked away, (demonstrating that perhaps he does have some rudimentary system of "professional ethics" in spite of his complete lack of morals and well, that whole homicidal maniac thing...
...and then proceeds to negotiate a very lucrative contract for future business providing "recovery services" for the drug lords. So in the book, not only does Chigurh walk away from the car wreck, but he ends up being the big winner in the end.
It was like saying, you think the mayhem you just witnessed was bad, well, you ain't seen nothin' yet, this was just he beginning.
Anyone else read the book and recall that ending or am I hallucinating?
Posted by: jobaby57 | March 03, 2008 at 02:37 AM
This movie was like fucking a beautiful woman for hours and never getting a nut.
Posted by: Tom W | March 03, 2008 at 11:20 PM
A story has to have an end (I dont care if its neutral, good or bad) or it has to go on.
So either they were planning for more parts or they simply thought it would be "cool" to do something completely unconventional.
I guess they did the latter and failed miserably.
Yes, the movie was awesome until Moss was killed. But then went downhill. I was thinking all the time "wtf does that movie want to tell us".
If this movie really wants you to think about our world, about bad and good, then it failed miserably too, since its total gore and action, and you dont think much about movies like that. And even if so, that movie only told things that every human being already knows.
All in all it was still a good movie, but nothing groundbreaking. I am actually pretty surprised it got 4 oscars....
Posted by: Lamer01 | March 04, 2008 at 01:59 PM
I still don't understand what was the point of the final speech of tommy lee jones.How is it relevant to the story???.I also do not understand that anton chiguer would let her go so easily that unstoppable thoughtless maniac is it mercy or shattering of the ego or pure confusion
Posted by: srikant | March 06, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Tommy Lee Jones character has absolutely no point in this movie. If he had not been in it, it would not have changed the movie for better or worse.
Anton obviously kills the girl at the end, as he looks for blood on the bottom of his shoes, but what is the point of him getting T-boned going 25 mph and then walking away? And he obviously does not have the money as he would not have left the case in the car while still having one good arm to carry $2 Million with. Who the hell would leave without taking 5 seconds to grab the case.
Really liked the movie, just the ending had no real point to it. Who cares about Lee Jones dreams. There is no flashbacks as I've seen some people write, because all characters are locked together in the same story time frame, so those conclusions don't work either.
No one cares about evil winning... just don't know what #1- A car crash that doesn't really do anything to the main bad character (just a broken arm) and #2- An old retired cop, that had no interaction with the main characters or any real movie purpose, talking about a dream of his dad who also is of no consequence to the movie, has to do with ending a movie.
Do either of these scenes change anything about the movie? NO. And that's the major problem with the ending.
Posted by: Brandon | March 06, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I feel that Old Country was somewhat confusing at the end, but the instensity of the actors and the continous flow of the story was strong enough to support such an ending. Evil seems to have prevailed...however, what evil? Although clear of any part in the "evil" the question remains, why did the killer let the sheriff live in the hotel room? The sheriff suddenly retires after this scene? The killer was real evil, but the hidden evil was the sheriff. The scene in the beginnign with the milk in the trailer foreshadowed the evil relationship between the sheriff and the killer. It is no coincidince that the killer killed the Mexican hitmen sent to kill the main character. Which way is up?
Posted by: Rubenstud | March 07, 2008 at 09:34 PM
What happened to the case filled with money?
Posted by: Specialkay | March 09, 2008 at 07:15 PM
I think everyone here who is trashing the movie and whining about what a horrible ending it had should spend some time actually reading the book. Cormac McCarthy is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and considered by many of his peers to be the greatest living writer in American fiction. I think he knows how to write a story. And the Coens have directed some very noteworthy movies in the past and won the Oscar for No Country. I think they know how to direct a movie. There are different takes on the book and the ending. I, and a few others, think that Chigurh is a metaphor or perhaps a ghost - evil incarnate, if you will. Of course he wasn't caught. I think a lot of the clues, a lot of the backdrop, and all of the feeling is found in the sherrif's monologues. People who want simply to be visually entertained without any intellectual involvement of their own are going to hate this movie. They'd really hate the book. There's nothing wrong with either. The story is just done in a different style than what most people are used to.
Posted by: JonBoy | March 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I mainly read books, and I'm certainly not one to want to stare at Turner prize entries to 'understand what it could mean'. Neither do I expect to have to envisage so many possible endings for a movie. I actually wish I had read the book instead, as I think many people who claim 'intellect' regarding the ending have actually read the book first, and are attempting to show more intellect than they perhaps possess. The film was a story until near the end. The build up towards the end was fine, but those who like to think themselves as 'arty' types should remember that the Coen's do not make movies just for an elite few. They want to entertain the masses just like everybody else.
There are probably 95 percent of movies that could be left hung 15 minutes before the end, and those frustrated wannabe film-makers would still comment on how deep and complex the directors were in producing such a masterpiece. Ouch - such angst there must be amongst those that haven't been invited to sit round a table, drinking champagne, whilst patting him/herself on the back for a job (not) so well done.
Posted by: Ste | March 11, 2008 at 03:02 AM