No Country for Old Men

[ultramandingo]

........dang !!!!! i got the same feeling i got the first time i saw Blood Simple on the big screen . my vote for the picture thats gonna get robbed at the oscars. the Coens make texas look like mad max's out back . and if you ever see Javier Bardem walking your way - run

[Tobias March]

Met him once actually. Nice guy :)

[ultramandingo]

........ you must have guessed corectly on the coin toss . other wise you get the hydrolic bolt to the forhead

[Tobias March]

Maybe he was all killed out that day.

[the_coldest_sun]

I want to see this. The Coen brothers have never let me down (of course, I've never seen the Ladykillers).

[Hatut Zeraze]

I don't think it is playing in my town yet. I can't wait to see it.

[ultramandingo]

(of course, I've never seen the Ladykillers).

.....yeah , i pretend that one never happened - just watch the briliant original

[literally exaggerated]

the book was incredible. the movie is even better. wow wow wow. Javier Bardem is gonna haunt my nightmares- Chigurh makes Hannibal Lecter look like a poor man's Gargamel.

[The Zapper]

........ you must have guessed corectly on the coin toss . other wise you get the hydrolic bolt to the forhead
Harvey Dent is in this movie?

[ultramandingo]

Harvey Dent is in this movie?

..........yup . the amazing Tommy Lee Jones is in it

Wendell: It's a mess, ain't it, sheriff?
Ed Tom Bell: If it ain't, it'll do till the mess gets here.

[Ontir]

I loved this film! The Coen Brothers are back in Blood Simple form!

[Shade]

I've come to expect great thing from Bardeem...but Brolin was just.....wow. What a amazing surprise he was.

[ultramandingo]

the book was incredible. the movie is even better. wow wow wow. Javier Bardem is gonna haunt my nightmares- Chigurh makes Hannibal Lecter look like a poor man's Gargamel.

.......did the book have the same ending? and did the money end up where i think it did ?

[literally exaggerated]

yep, same ending. in fact, the movie was among the most faithful adaptations I've ever seen. Which is not surprising, considering the novel is written in a style that makes Hemingway look wordy. Just dialogue (unclarified by any verbs) and sparse prose (aside from a few monologues by the sheriff). It was about as close to a screenplay as a damn good novel could be.

Which is why I think that, as good as the novel was (and I'm one who really enjoyed it, unlike many of McCarthy's fans), the film is even better. Because anything that mattered in the slightest is in there, plus all perfection of craft and execution of the brothers.

This is the best picture of the year. Whether the Academy will agree isn't particularly important to me, but I suspect they will. The Coen Brothers are among the greatest American filmmakers working today, and just when they seemed to be losing it all under the weight of their undeniable but occasionally excessive cleverness, they come back and just deliver a fucking epic gutpunch. This is up there with Fargo, it might even be better. Its better even than Blood Simple. In sheer perfection of craft it rivals the Big Lebowski while being far more ambitious. It deals with myth in a way that goes toe to toe with Barton Fink and outright kicks the crap out of Oh Brother Where Art Thou.

Its a masterpiece. And much more impressively, its a masterpiece of reinvention. Scorcese proved with the Departed that he could still make a great movie. But he also proved that the only type of great movie he can make is dark, cutting and tense, filled with angry, profane men with personality disorders and bizarre contradictions, with just the most tantalizing glimpse of humanity.

The Coens were eclectic to begin with, bouncing happily between genres, from paranoid noir to offbeat comedy to bizarre mishmashes. But still, after many years, everyone thought they'd figured them out. Perfection in craft, meticulous attention detail focused on genuinely interesting, but invariably weird, subject matter, but shot through with irony, with sheer cleverness. It could be really good, then it got really bad, but still, thats what they did.

No Country For Old Men is like nothing they have done before. It isn't just dark- Blood Simple and Miller's Crossing were that too. Its sparse. It doesn't care about being clever. It just wants to make you hurt.

[Jared_Humpherys]

Good to know it doesn't dissapoint. As soon as it comes to KC, I'm there.

[Ilash]

Cannot wait for this movie to get here. It'll probably hit sometime in 2012.

[Jamal]

Harvey Dent is in this movie?

Wow I didn't even make the connection till you said that Zapper ( Plus I stopped watching those Batman movies after the first two ). What a great tip of the hat, I can't wait till this starts it wide release.

[Nikita]

I can not wait...to see this movie. Not since Kill Bill came out, have I looked forward to a thriller/crime movie more. I plan on seeing it this weekend.

[Nikita]

So did anyone see this? I really enjoyed it. I hadn't read the book it was based on, but I liked the twist ending. Although some in the audience didn't care for it from the grumbling I heard.


Anton is one scary mo fo.

[jesse_custer]

The integrity of this film was refreshing. It was also refreshing to see the Coens prove themselves after a couple of severely shitty efforts.

[GRANT!]

"No Country For Old Men" is the best movie they made in years and I won't defend "The Lady Killers" or "Intolerable Cruelty" but "The Man Who Wasn't There" was pretty underrated I thought.

[GRANT!]

So did anyone see this? I really enjoyed it. I hadn't read the book it was based on, but I liked the twist ending. Although some in the audience didn't care for it from the grumbling I heard.

It just kind of hits you out of nowhere. I liked it more when I digested the movie afterwards but it was a bit of a shock.


Anton is one scary mo fo.

If they do another remake of Frankenstein they should cast Javier bardem as the monster.

[ultramandingo]

"No Country For Old Men" is the best movie they made in years and I won't defend "The Lady Killers" or "Intolerable Cruelty" but "The Man Who Wasn't There" was pretty underrated I thought.

........i liked Intolerable Cruelty - Wheezy Joe rules - plus Bad Santa gots the Coens touch all over it

[GRANT!]

........i liked Intolerable Cruelty - Wheezy Joe rules - plus Bad Santa gots the Coens touch all over it

Honestly never saw it or Lady Killers. Which is why I won't defend them.

[jesse_custer]

"The Man Who Wasn't There" might be underrated, but it doesn't stand up to so many of the other Coen brothers' films:

Blood Simple
Raising Arizona
Miller's Crossing
Barton Fink
Fargo
The Big Lebowski
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
No Country for Old Men

I'd say all of these are better than "The Man Who Wasn't There." Specifically, "The Man" is somewhere between "The Hudsucker Proxy" and "Raising Arizona" in terms of overall quality. Not bad, overlooked, but nothing incredible.

[JohnPopa]

'Intolerable Cruelty' was a very funny movie.

I'm not sure it was a great 'Coen Bros.' movie but it was a very smart, very funny dark comedy.

[GRANT!]

I'd say all of these are better than "The Man Who Wasn't There." Specifically, "The Man" is somewhere between "The Hudsucker Proxy" and "Raising Arizona" in terms of overall quality. Not bad, overlooked, but nothing incredible.

It's no Fargo or No Country For Old Men. But Billy Bob Thornton has a great performance. The story is pretty tight and it's got some hilarious and eerie moments. And the black and white photography is amazing. It kind of tackles familar territory for the Coens (but then again so does "No Country For Old Men") but I'd say it's a strong effort that works on it's own terms. I just rewatched it recently and liked it even more.

I'd rank it over Raising Arizona (which hasn't aged that well it's still really funny and has some cool moments but it's still an above average 80s comedy) and Hudsucker Proxy (which is all flash and no substance). But like I said I look at movies based on their own merits and not how they hold up next to directors filmography. It's like saying King of Comedy isn't good because it doesn't hold up next to Taxi Driver or Raging Bull. But judged on it's own merits King of Comedy is still really good.

But if we're doing the ranking game here's Grants Favorite Coen movies

Fargo
No Country For Old Men (this might change when I see it again)
Millers Crossing
Big Lebowski
Barton Fink
Blood Simple
The Man Who Wasn't There
O' Brother Art Thou
Raising Arizona
Hudsucker Proxy

And I never saw Lady Killers and Intolerable Cruelty.

Actually looking at that list the Coens have a pretty solid track record of movies. The ones I've seen ranged from pretty good to fucking amazing. So even if Lady Killers and Intolerable Cruelty are completely unwatchable I'd say that's still a pretty strong filmography.

[jesse_custer]

Yes, their filmography is wonderfully consistent for the most part. Here's how I would rank them:

Miller's Crossing
No Country for Old Men
Fargo
The Big Lebowski
Barton Fink
Blood Simple
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Raising Arizona
The Man Who Wasn't There
The Hudsucker Proxy
Intolerable Cruelty
The Ladykillers

My favorite parts in "The Man" were when Jon Polito tried to hit on Billy Bob and when Billy Bob and Scarlett Johannson have their weird sensual car ride.

[EZMOHR]

Raising Arizona
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
The Big Lebowski
Miller's Crossing
Barton Fink
Blood Simple
The Hudsucker Proxy
The Man Who Wan't There
The Ladykillers
Intolerable Cruelty
Fargo


Haven't seen No Country for Old Men

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

So, uh, I haven't read the book but what was the twist ending? I thought the ending that was there was inevitable based on the characters ... or maybe I've seen so many Coen brothers films that I didn't think how things ended could be a twist for them.

[ultramandingo]

Miller's Crossing
Raising Arizona
Fargo
No Country For Old Men
The Hudsucker Proxy
Blood Simple
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
The Big Lebowski
Barton Fink
The Man Who Wan't There
Intolerable Cruelty
The Ladykillers

plus special mention for Crime Wave - better than The Ladykillers

[Jared]

Finally saw this the other night. All key players were great, and Anton is indeed an instant classic among screen villains. But I'm not sure how I feel about the end. It's not the way things end up that bother me so much as the fact that some of it feels superfluous. What was the point of the car accident? It'd be the same result if he'd just kept driving away, wouldn't it? Unless we're meant to think that the briefcase was in the car, but that seems unlikely to me.

[jesse_custer]

The car wreck is there to highlight another part--a more human trait--of Javier Bardem's character. We have seen him kill and kill and kill but after the wreck he enlists the help of two boys in an almost charismatic way. A lot of Cormac McCarthy's characters are defined by whether or not they kill someone at a particular point, as bleak as that sounds.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

Agreed, it wasn't surprising to me that he did that either, especially after his little speech about how it's necessary to use the right tool and only that tool for accomplishing a particular task. In a way what makes Anton such an effective and creepy villain is that he's really the most principled of the characters, principled to a fault, even. The characters around him think they are more principled but as the story moves along they buckle under pragmatic concerns that Anton doesn't exactly shrug off but sort of stares down.

I should mention I haven't read the book but I liked the ending and enjoyed the movie. Haven't seen a ton of films this year but this is one of my favorites from this year.

[berk]

The car wreck is there to highlight another part--a more human trait--of Javier Bardem's character. We have seen him kill and kill and kill but after the wreck he enlists the help of two boys in an almost charismatic way. A lot of Cormac McCarthy's characters are defined by whether or not they kill someone at a particular point, as bleak as that sounds.I didn't think that was the point at all. The way I read the movie, it was all about the despair-inducing meaninglessness of existence, which we try to disguise from ourselves culturally in various ways. What's unique about Bardem's character in the movie is that he recognises this meaninglessness and reacts by imposing a totally arbitrary set of meanings - his "personal code" - on this randomness. What's unique about that is that his code is so bizarre that its arbitrary nature is all too apparent, which is what makes him so terrifying a figure: he forces everyone to face up to something we spend our whole lives trying to avoid, not only the universe's utterly cold indifference to human values, but the arbitrary character of the value-systems we try to impose on reality in order to give it meaning in human terms.

So the point of the accident in that last scene is to show up the random, meaningless nature of existence, how oblivious reality is to all human systemns of meaning, including Bardem's own personal code. He's in the same boat with the rest of us, and is as helpless in the face of the universe's indifference as any other human being. His self-created value-system doesn't protect him from that indifference any more than do our shared cultural value-systems - hence his injury in this completely random accident. His only advantage, if you can call it that, over us is his lack of illusion on that score.

All just IMHO, of course. But this is how I saw the movie.

[jesse_custer]

Your first paragraph is well done and I agree with some of it. But I take issue with the second paragraph. That is, given what we had seen from the character in the previous hour and a half, there was no reason for us to believe he wouldn't kill those kids at that moment or at least treat them more harshly than he did.

Your theory that this scene was solely for the purpose of showing the inevitability of human injury--which represents helplessness to the random nature of the world--is slightly flawed. Remember, that wasn't the first scene in which he was injured or taken advantage of. He was arrested at the beginning of the film and he had to medicate himself in the middle of the film. I really think McCarthy--and by following his example, the Coens--was trying to show a different side of the character in that scene. The main reason why I say this is because McCarthy's books feature many instances of violent characters not enacting violence during tense moments. It adds depth to the character in question to do something like this, it adds irony to the story, and in this case it was also kind of funny.

Lastly, I also don't think that scene shows that the character's code wasn't able to hold up. Perhaps he just doesn't kill children, and perhaps it's not always an arbitrary decision-making process for him. In other words, he's still human.

Edit: Just thought of this, I don't think the movie was pointing out the meaningless of life or anything like that. McCarthy is more concerned with the dynamic between life and death and how murder is often used to simply stay alive. The film also deals with the natural human wish of wanting purer and longer lives, best illustrated by Tommy Lee Jones' dream of his father still being alive. I think the sad reality of "No Country for Old Men" is that there is an order to things, and unfortunately that order involves dying.

[berk]

Your first paragraph is well done and I agree with some of it. But I take issue with the second paragraph. That is, given what we had seen from the character in the previous hour and a half, there was no reason for us to believe he wouldn't kill those kids at that moment or at least treat them more harshly than he did.I don't know - my impression was that none of his killings were random or performed out of simple malevolence. They all made sense - to him - within his own personal system of meaning, admittedly a system the inner workings of which the viewer is not entirely privy to. But I don't see that he'd kill the kids unless there was some reason for him to do so. And I don't see his sparing of them as an act of mercy. He just had no reason to do otherwise.

Your theory that this scene was solely for the purpose of showing the inevitability of human injury--which represents helplessness to the random nature of the world--is slightly flawed. Remember, that wasn't the first scene in which he was injured or taken advantage of. He was arrested at the beginning of the film and he had to medicate himself in the middle of the film. I wouldn't dignify my comments with the title of 'theory'. Just my reaction to the movie. But anyway, I don't see the relevance of the earlier scenes you mention to what I was saying. His earlier injuries and mishaps, arrests, etc, occurred in the course of his violent activities. They were all the sort of thing you'd expect to run the risk of happening, given his lifestyle.

Lastly, I also don't think that scene shows that the character's code wasn't able to hold up. Perhaps he just doesn't kill children, and perhaps it's not always an arbitrary decision-making process for him. In other words, he's still human.Not sure what you mean by hoding up in this context. There's nothing to show that he abandons his code. But if you mean that his code doesn't provide him with any protection from the random, literally accidental nature of reality, yeah that's how I see it.

Edit: Just thought of this, I don't think the movie was pointing out the meaningless of life or anything like that. McCarthy is more concerned with the dynamic between life and death and how murder is often used to simply stay alive. The film also deals with the natural human wish of wanting purer and longer lives, best illustrated by Tommy Lee Jones' dream of his father still being alive. I think the sad reality of "No Country for Old Men" is that there is an order to things, and unfortunately that order involves dying.Heh. See, I read the dream as Jones's glimpse into the abyss. It was a pretty cold, bleak vision, not so much of what awaits us after death, but of what lurks behind the scenes of life, of everyday reality.

[stealthwise]

Just saw this flick. Wow, great stuff.

What do you guys make of Brolin's character's decision to go back and bring the Mexican some water? I mean, besides the necessity to the plot, it seemed to highlight something in his character that made him stand out from all of Chigurh's other victims. In fact, the off-screen death carries quite a bit of impact because of that relatability.

[Chiasm]

I saw this the other day and for all the hype I was underwhelmed. The main villian, whatever his name was, is easily one of the coolest and creepiest villians to ever be on screen. He's easily the best villain to come along in years.

However the rest of the movie was a lot of missed potential for me. I wanted to see the cowboy die on screen, not off. I wanted some real closure in the movie, not some arbitrary cut off point like they did. I wanted Tommy Lee Jones character to actually have a reason for being in the movie but as is he was just in throwaway scene after throwaway scene seeing as how he never caught up to the bad guy. I wanted other characters who didn't feel like caricatures. The bumbling deputy was just too far over the top. Every old woman who talked in those creepy just slightly loud voices was redundant. The slightly dull wife was stereotypical.

Then again I'm the guy who didn't like Fargo or Oh Brother either so maybe I'm just not into the Coen brothers style although I did like Raising Arizona.

[cactusmaac]

I quite liked this. Very well done although there's about four or five other Coen Bros movies I enjoyed more.

[jesse_custer]

I wanted Tommy Lee Jones character to actually have a reason for being in the movie but as is he was just in throwaway scene after throwaway scene seeing as how he never caught up to the bad guy.

He has a very specific reason for being in the film. He is the voice of reason as he watches grown men kill each other for profit, he is the human in all of us as he shares a dream about his dead father, he epitomizes the common human condition of longing for more life and less death.

This film is less about heroics and plot and more about characters and ideas.

[DLFerguson]

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN


Miramax Films/Paramount Vantage
2007

Directed and Written by Joel and Ethan Coen
Produced by Joel and Ethan Coen and Scott Rudin
Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy





I don’t know about the rest of you reading this but I’ve come by my love of The Coen Brothers honestly. I’ve been a fan of theirs ever since I saw 1984’s “Blood Simple” during its original theatrical run. I had even seen 1985’s “Crimewave” in a 42end Street grindhouse. But most people didn’t notice them until 1987’s “Raising Arizona” which probably was their first major mainstream hit. And rightfully so. Even today in TV series like “My Name Is Earl” you can see the influence of “Raising Arizona”. They continued their amazing career with one of the best crime/gangster movies ever made: “Miller’s Crossing” which I think is a masterpiece. 1991’s “Barton Fink” is probably the best movie ever made about a writer and writing. I don’t hold “Fargo” or “The Hudsucker Proxy” as highly. Especially “Fargo” which outside of the performances of Frances McDormand, William H. Macy and the always wonderful Steve Buscemi is actually kinda dull. I like 2000’s “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” much better but right now we’re talking about a movie that I think brings The Coen Brothers right back to the pulp/noir roots they started out with in “Blood Simple”: NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is hunting deer in the 1980 West Texas outlands when he stumbles across a collection of cars and dead men. After an inspection of the horrifying scene he finds that one truck is loaded down with drugs. The driver of the truck is still alive even though he’s been shot to splinters. Moss leaves him and follows a set of tracks to another man who died while trying to get away with a satchel filled with two million dollars. Moss takes the money and if he had never had an attack of conscience later on that night he would have gotten clean away with it. He goes back to the massacre site with water for the last guy left alive and there he’s jumped by a gang of Mexicans looking to get back both the drugs and the money. Moss barely escapes. But only for the time being. Moss has to leave his truck and he knows that anybody coming across it will be able to find him. He sends his wife Carla Jean (Kelly McDonald) away to her mother’s house while he goes on the run with the money. Pursued by not only the Mexican mob but by the terrifying hitman Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) whose preferred weapons of choice are a silenced shotgun and a captive bolt pistol (which is normally used for killing cattle) as well as by Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) whose only concern is to save Moss’s life.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a terrific example of the noir/pulp genre of movie that just doesn’t get made much anymore and even if it does, unless you’ve got guys like The Coen Brothers who know the genre like a monkey knows coconuts just isn’t done right. Right from the first scene where we see shots of the country while Tommy Lee Jones voiceover describes how things have changed. Tommy Lee Jones goes a helluva long way to selling the reality of the movie. Mr. Jones was born and raised in Texas so his every word and action reeks of authenticity. It’s always a pleasure watching Mr. Jones work and he does amazing work here.

Josh Brolin has had a remarkable run lately. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is the third movie in a row I’ve seen him in and in those three movies he’s become one of my favorite actors. In “Planet Terror” he did a great impression of the 1980’s Nick Nolte and in “American Gangster” he held his own on the screen alongside heavyweights Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe with style and professionalism. He does the same here in this movie. His Llewellyn Moss isn’t a bad or evil man. He’s not even a particularly bright one. But he sees an opportunity that comes along and he wants to take it. When you see this movie ask yourself if in the same position you wouldn’t do the same. Moss lives in a trailer with a wife who plainly loves him but is about as bright a Brillo pad. But Moss loves her to death and sees this money as a way to make a better life for both of them. Josh Brolin really impresses me because in all three movies I’ve seen him in, all three characters are separate and different. He’s not just running the same ticks and quirks. In all three movies he’s actually playing three totally different characters. And his performance here is great.

I don’t have to tell you about Javier Bardem’s performance in this movie because you’ve probably heard and read enough about it. It’s enough for me to say that I think his Anton Chigurh is going to go down in movie history as one of the greatest villains on screen. It’s kind of amusing that his last name is pronounced ‘sugar’ which has to be explained several times during the story, providing a bit of black humor such as the scene where a rival bounty hunter looking for the money (Woody Harrelson) tries to explain to Moss the nature of Anton Chigurh. I will say that Bardem has a fantastic scene with a storekeeper where he flips a coin and bets the man’s fate on the toss of that coin. Bardem would make a terrific Harvey Dent/Two-Face based on just that scene as he explains to the bewildered storekeeper exactly how that coin traveled from 1958 to get to that moment where it would decide his fate.

The dialog in this movie is among the best I’ve ever heard in recent movies and I’m really glad we have filmmakers like The Coen Brothers who appreciate well written dialog and how it can do what it’s supposed to do: advance the plot. Reveal and enhance character. Provide vital information we as the audience need to know. The dialog in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN does all that and due to the skill of the actors does even more than that.

Like all great crime/noir thrillers NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN just isn’t about violence. It’s about the choices we make that lead us to our fates. It’s about what we make of our lives. It’s about why people do the things they do, for bad or for good. And how they don’t think what they do is bad or good. They simply do what they have to do and they live or die by what they do. It’s an extraordinary film on all counts: acting, directing, writing, cinematography. And it ends in a way that some people might find frustrating but I found extremely fitting. And if you’re in the right frame of mind I think that when you get to the end credits you’ll discover as I did that NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN isn’t about the money at all. It never was.


Rated:R
122 minutes

[Tobias March]

I didn't think that was the point at all. The way I read the movie, it was all about the despair-inducing meaninglessness of existence, which we try to disguise from ourselves culturally in various ways. What's unique about Bardem's character in the movie is that he recognises this meaninglessness and reacts by imposing a totally arbitrary set of meanings - his "personal code" - on this randomness. What's unique about that is that his code is so bizarre that its arbitrary nature is all too apparent, which is what makes him so terrifying a figure: he forces everyone to face up to something we spend our whole lives trying to avoid, not only the universe's utterly cold indifference to human values, but the arbitrary character of the value-systems we try to impose on reality in order to give it meaning in human terms.

So the point of the accident in that last scene is to show up the random, meaningless nature of existence, how oblivious reality is to all human systemns of meaning, including Bardem's own personal code. He's in the same boat with the rest of us, and is as helpless in the face of the universe's indifference as any other human being. His self-created value-system doesn't protect him from that indifference any more than do our shared cultural value-systems - hence his injury in this completely random accident. His only advantage, if you can call it that, over us is his lack of illusion on that score.

All just IMHO, of course. But this is how I saw the movie.

Beautifully put berk

I really enjoyed this, not only as a return to form for the Coens, but as an unflinching treatment of the material.

Course we also had that cute Scottish actress from Trainspotting doing a spot on Texan accent.

I love how tangential Tommy Lee Jones is to the violence on display. There's this whole world of criminality he cannot touch, yet Anton can wade through it without difficulty, from killing fellow hitmen hiding in a shower to the man who put out the hit in the first place. Anton embraces his inhumanity - his weird smile to Woody Harrelson is only an approximation of a smile. I'm not sure he remembers how to.

So when Tommy Lee Jones is outside that room, that is the one moment where they'll finally intersect. Maybe the sheriff can put an end to this creature of violence. And he hesitates, so the cycle continues.

Christ that was good.

[berk]

Beautifully put berk

I really enjoyed this, not only as a return to form for the Coens, but as an unflinching treatment of the material.

Course we also had that cute Scottish actress from Trainspotting doing a spot on Texan accent.

I love how tangential Tommy Lee Jones is to the violence on display. There's this whole world of criminality he cannot touch, yet Anton can wade through it without difficulty, from killing fellow hitmen hiding in a shower to the man who put out the hit in the first place. Anton embraces his inhumanity - his weird smile to Woody Harrelson is only an approximation of a smile. I'm not sure he remembers how to.

So when Tommy Lee Jones is outside that room, that is the one moment where they'll finally intersect. Maybe the sheriff can put an end to this creature of violence. And he hesitates, so the cycle continues.

Christ that was good.Yeah. In keeping with the above, I thought the significance of the Jones character was that, as a cop his job is to figure things out, often very violent "things" - acts, occurences, incidents. IOW, to deduce meaning from seemingly chaotic events. So in that sense he's a good stand-in for the viewer trying to extract meaning from the movie-narrative and for people in general trying to extract meaning from life, from reality. And he seesm to be pretty good at his job (e.g. how expertly he & his deputy interpret the crime scene in the desert), has had a long career, etc, but we can see doubt has already begun to creep in even before his encounter with the Sigur (sp?) case. He's begun to suspect that there is no ultimate meaning to discover, and of course the Sigur case brings those doubts to the forefront of consciousness and he ends up retiring, giving up, not to Sigur but to what he represents - the despair resulting from the loss of the illusion of meaning.

I think hints of this along the way include the little anecdote he relates to Brolin's wife about the guy who lost his arm in a random accident. Randomness again; the older cop he talks to who expresses all the doubt and despair that Jones is trying to repress throughout the film. And of course the dream-narrative in which the afterlife (IOW ultimate reality) is pictured as a cold, bleak desert, with a couple lone human beings surrounded by a dark abyss of nothingness.

I think the point of having the Brolin character killed off-screen and by assailants other than Sigur was to pull thr rug from underneath one obvious meaning the viewer would naturally tend to try to impose on this narrative: the mano-a-mano struggle between two tough guys as seen in countless movies and read in countless stories. The world might be a stark, violent place, but there is meaning in strength, in courage, in winning, in being a tougher SOB than the other guy. The Frank Miller philosophy of life, or at least narrative, you might say, which is really just another comforting illusion of meaning, all the more insidious because it helps us fool ourselves into thinking we're tough-minded cynics free of comforting illusions. The movie dangles that in front of the viewer for a while and then snatches it away with Brolin's off-screen death. There is no resolution to the personal contest between Brolin & Bardem, because that contest was just another illusory system of meaning to a story whose only meaning is that there is no ultimate meaning to existence, or at least none we can reliably discern.

[berk]

While I think of it, another thing about the ending to me was that it should prevent us from falling into a variation of the Frank Miller trap, the one in which the viewer begins to idolize the villain on the grounds that, if nothing else, he's at least proven that he's the toughest, meanest, most ruthless SOB around. (the kind of feeling that underlies much of the popularity of comic book characters like Batman, Wolverine, Lobo, Rorshach in Watchmen, etc, etc). The ending pulls that rug from underneath the viewer's feet by demonstrating that being tough, mean and ruthless doesn't save you from the indifference of a random universe to any human values, including toughness, etc. In the end, Anton is just as helpless in the face of that randomness as the rest of us. Predictably, I think this point was lost on a lot of viewers, many of whom I suspect do come away from the movie with a sneaking admiration for Anton. Similar thing happened with Watchmen, of course.

BTW, it hasn't escaped my notice that the ultimate irony is probably me blathering on and on about my interpretation of a movie whose "message" I claim to be that there is no message, no meaning to reality imposed from without or above that reality. But there's a little more to it than that. To experience that kind of Pascalian terror of the abyss, you have to be coming from where Pascal did: a tradition in which we're taught as second nature that there is that sort of transcendental meaning to existence, as we all are taught, at least in Western culture. So there's a cultural element to all this as well. It's that sense of loss that makes this experience, this negative revelation so over-powering for Jones in the film.

[Tobias March]

BTW, it hasn't escaped my notice that the ultimate irony is probably me blathering on and on about my interpretation of a movie whose "message" I claim to be that there is no message, no meaning to reality imposed from without or above that reality. But there's a little more to it than that. To experience that kind of Pascalian terror of the abyss, you have to be coming from where Pascal did: a tradition in which we're taught as second nature that there is that sort of transcendental meaning to existence, as we all are taught, at least in Western culture. So there's a cultural element to all this as well. It's that sense of loss that makes this experience, this negative revelation so over-powering for Jones in the film.

Another point is I think this counts toward the film's wicked black humour. A lot of Jones' wit is demonstrated in the face of this horror, as a defence mechanism. It collapses before the end.

Actually the crying deputy reminded me of Deputy Andy breaking down crying in Twin Peaks, which also dealt with horror at the 'bad things', in this world, then drew humour from it.

[Brian Cronin]

I liked the film, but I was honestly surprised at how much better There Will Be Blood was than No Country. I had kept reading how close they were in quality, but boy, they didn't seem like that to me.

I still liked No Country, though! And it probably WILL win the Best Picture Oscar.

-Brian

[Trey]

I liked it too. And the ending worked for me. So who got the briefcase? Does it matter?

[Omega Alpha]

I liked it too. And the ending worked for me. So who got the briefcase? Does it matter?

I read that in the book was Chigurh. But it doesn't matter, tbe briefcase is the McGuffin.

And, yeah, There Will Be Blood is a superior film, but No Country For Old Men is fantastic too.

While I think of it, another thing about the ending to me was that it should prevent us from falling into a variation of the Frank Miller trap, the one in which the viewer begins to idolize the villain on the grounds that, if nothing else, he's at least proven that he's the toughest, meanest, most ruthless SOB around. (the kind of feeling that underlies much of the popularity of comic book characters like Batman, Wolverine, Lobo, Rorshach in Watchmen, etc, etc). The ending pulls that rug from underneath the viewer's feet by demonstrating that being tough, mean and ruthless doesn't save you from the indifference of a random universe to any human values, including toughness, etc. In the end, Anton is just as helpless in the face of that randomness as the rest of us. Predictably, I think this point was lost on a lot of viewers, many of whom I suspect do come away from the movie with a sneaking admiration for Anton. Similar thing happened with Watchmen, of course.

BTW, it hasn't escaped my notice that the ultimate irony is probably me blathering on and on about my interpretation of a movie whose "message" I claim to be that there is no message, no meaning to reality imposed from without or above that reality. But there's a little more to it than that. To experience that kind of Pascalian terror of the abyss, you have to be coming from where Pascal did: a tradition in which we're taught as second nature that there is that sort of transcendental meaning to existence, as we all are taught, at least in Western culture. So there's a cultural element to all this as well. It's that sense of loss that makes this experience, this negative revelation so over-powering for Jones in the film.

I think your analysis is the best one I've ever read about the movie.

I wanted Tommy Lee Jones character to actually have a reason for being in the movie but as is he was just in throwaway scene after throwaway scene seeing as how he never caught up to the bad guy.

He is as important as Chigurh or Moss in his own way. He's the conscience of the film, the one that sees this whole story and is not involved, doesn't care about money, twisted codes of honor, killing, doesn't have both the connections to the other characters we have and also the detachment because is not our world. He only sees as it is: a world filled with horror, pointless death and people doing sick things without ever realizing how stupid and twisted they are. And he can't take it anymore.


I wanted other characters who didn't feel like caricatures. The bumbling deputy was just too far over the top. Every old woman who talked in those creepy just slightly loud voices was redundant. The slightly dull wife was stereotypical


Caricatures are not necessarily a bad thing at all. Kubrick's characters, for example, were often caricatural and were among the most interesting cinema ever had.

[Jared]

I assumed Chigurh had gotten the case, since we saw the sheriff found that the vent had been unscrewed. Chigurh would have known to check there this time, and there's no way the mexicans had time to do that during what must have been a pretty brief and hectic shootout.

I think part of the reason the ending doesn't quite work for me is that, as riveting as it was, this case just doesn't seem dark enough to have such an effect on a man like Jones. It's not like he's tracking Hannibal Lecter. There's no rape or torture or child-victims. Surely, after all his years, he's seen much worse, and more senseless, than grown men shooting each other over large sums of money.

[Tobias March]

Javier's creepy psychopathic clown monster Chigurh won the Oscar.

Well of course he did! :D

[Omega Alpha]

4 Oscars. I prefer TWBB, but is nice to see the Coens finally getting theirs. Polanski, Peter Jackson, Eastwood, Ang Lee, Scorsese, Coens. After the Ron Howards and Anthony Minghellas of the world, that's not so bad.

[The Mutt]

Oscar winner! And a worthy one at that.

I think folks who are confused about the movie just need to look again at its title. The movie is not about its plot.

[kingdom2000]

Saw the movie. Piece of crap. About 45 minutes of pointless material and several characters (including Tommy Lee's) that served no purpose other then the chew scenary. And sorry, but a guy with a bad haircut doing a Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers impression with a deep voice is not good acting in my book.

[Tobias March]

Saw the movie. Piece of crap. About 45 minutes of pointless material and several characters (including Tommy Lee's) that served no purpose other then the chew scenary. And sorry, but a guy with a bad haircut doing a Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers impression with a deep voice is not good acting in my book.

Thanks for that.

[stealthwise]

Thanks for that.

Really? That's the opposite of what I was thinking.

[The Mutt]

Saw the movie. Piece of crap. About 45 minutes of pointless material and several characters (including Tommy Lee's) that served no purpose other then the chew scenary. And sorry, but a guy with a bad haircut doing a Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers impression with a deep voice is not good acting in my book.

Doing an impression of two characters that don't speak, and doing it with a deep voice? I'm confused.

And how exactly is standing still and speaking softly "chewing scenery"?

I suggest you watch more movies that don't have machetes in them before you start commenting on acting.

[Tobias March]

Really? That's the opposite of what I was thinking.

Can't imagine why, I found that comment lucid and informative. The very apogee of wit.

[stealthwise]

Can't imagine why, I found that comment lucid and informative. The very apogee of wit.

Huh? Why would you boil wit and then stuff it with cheese and bac... oh, you meant apoGEE, not Perogie.

[kingdom2000]

I am always curious...do people decide they like a movie before or after all the critics support it?

I saw the movie because everyone said it was good....and its not. Its slow, its boring. There is alot of irrelvant sequences that serve no purpose. I like Tommy Lee Jones, but his character's only purpose was to show a reaction to events. He was completely unneccesary. He could have been completely edited out of the movie (along with the wife, woody harrelson, and the office space guy) and it would have had no impact on the overall story (they only proved how ruthless and relentless Jason...er the killer is, but that was done early in the story already).

As for that story, its a pretty damn simple one of a bad guy relentlessly and emotionlessly chasing down his target (who stole money from drug dealers) while moving slowly but deliberatley to that goal (ie the horror references). The only difference is he had actual lines but the acting required (no emotion) is about the same as is required to play those same characters or Terminiator or any other non-emotional character in cinema history. Its not exactly a stretch or amazing. The chase was interesting, it was all that needless padding around that chase that made the movie boring and poorly paced.

Oh and an additional blaspehmy - Ellen Page, while cute, was just playing herself, only pregnant, in Juno. I think that will be proven true with next film when its suddnely "juno not preggers" and later "juno with dad problems" and so forth. I wouldn't call that acting nor Oscar nom worthy. And the writer, wearing that ugly dress, should have just worn a t-shirt that said "i was a stripper." The outfit was just so a stereotypical choice that I can't decide if it was a serious choice or not. A leopard dress that almost shows off her crotch? Really? She had no friends to tell her what a bad idea that was?

Anycase, I just can't figure what people found so great about that movie. I saw it a month ago and still completely confounded. Some of you see greatness (yay you) but I am not one of them but I think it was an inferior film and it shouldn't have won best picture (or even been nominated).

[Sean Walsh]

Doing an impression of two characters that don't speak, and doing it with a deep voice? I'm confused.

This is why Javier Bardem won. Playing mutes who could speak.

Only, like, a god could make that happen.

[Mike Pothier]

I honestly don't see whats so great about the coin toss scene.

Edit: click the link before responding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhyg-YrLqx0

[Mac Danny]

He is as important as Chigurh or Moss in his own way. He's the conscience of the film, the one that sees this whole story and is not involved, doesn't care about money, twisted codes of honor, killing, doesn't have both the connections to the other characters we have and also the detachment because is not our world. He only sees as it is: a world filled with horror, pointless death and people doing sick things without ever realizing how stupid and twisted they are. And he can't take it anymore.

I felt he was the old man in the title. The events between Chugurh and Moss were out of his depth. If he were a younger man, he would probably get involved more. Now that he is older he sees the world has gotten darker and uglier around him. The world has moved on without him. Getting involved would only get him killed.

Sure he is involved to a point, doesn't like to see people die, but you can see the conflict in him when he goes to the motel. He knows Chigurh has been there and hesitates about going in.

That is how I saw him in the film anyway.

[HomerJay]

Kingdom, I'm really sorry that no giant robots won Oscars this year.

[Mac Danny]

I honestly don't see whats so great about the coin toss scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhyg-YrLqx0

There was so much tension in it. Seeing it on screen in the theater it immediately created this baseline for the character. There was so much tension and fear in that scene. The way he contemplated killing this guy who did nothing more than ask about the weather.

It was a very tense scene, at any moment you are waiting for Chugurh to explode with violence like you have seen him do in previous scenes. It was wonderfully done, edge of your seat kind of scene since you didn't know which way it was going to play out.

[Mike Pothier]

There was so much tension in it. Seeing it on screen in the theater it immediately created this baseline for the character. There was so much tension and fear in that scene. The way he contemplated killing this guy who did nothing more than ask about the weather.

It was a very tense scene, at any moment you are waiting for Chugurh to explode with violence like you have seen him do in previous scenes. It was wonderfully done, edge of your seat kind of scene since you didn't know which way it was going to play out.

hehe, you didn't click the link did ya?

[stealthwise]

hehe, you didn't click the link did ya?

I just did, it was pretty funny.

[Mac Danny]

hehe, you didn't click the link did ya?

No I just did. That was funny.

[jesse_custer]

I honestly don't see whats so great about the coin toss scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhyg-YrLqx0

Well, it's only reasonable to assume that you might not see what's great about a scene if you lack the context of the rest of the film.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

Maybe he saw the whole film and just didn't like it, then? I saw the whole film and thought it was pretty good, and the coin toss scene was great.

[Jared]

That really was an incredible scene in the movie. Every scene was good up until the last 10 or 15 minutes. Some say the last 20, but I was okay with what happened to one the principle characters.

How awesome would it have been if they'd ad-libbed the result of the coin toss? "Okay, Javier, if you win, you start strangling the guy. If you lose, you just leave."

I know that the title refers to the realization that Tommy Lee Jones comes to in the movie. But despite that, it's hard to many viewers (this one included) to accept that the film is actually about him, when we spend so much time with Lewehlyn and Chigurh.

That said, Jone's performance was exceptional, and probably helped him get the nomination for In the Valley of Elah, which nobody saw.

[Mike Pothier]

Okay, just so people know, I thought the coin-toss scene was great. Click the link and you will see Conan O'Brien's version.

[Jared]

Okay, just so people know, I thought the coin-toss scene was great. Click the link and you will see Conan O'Brien's version.

I'm glad you clarified that. It's pretty funny.

[ultramandingo]

........ yikes , miramax spent 55 million on prints and ads alone for " no country" - so far its made 64 million . paramont spent 40 million on just the prints and ads for " there will be blood " - it made 35 million - looks like its gunna be all pregnant teens and giant robots from now on

[Jared]

........ yikes , miramax spent 55 million on prints and ads alone for " no country" - so far its made 64 million . paramont spent 40 million on just the prints and ads for " there will be blood " - it made 35 million - looks like its gunna be all pregnant teens and giant robots from now on

How many of those ads were only done as part of the Oscar campaign? Studios will gladly throw cash around to get the prestige of a big win.

Neither film has a whole lot of commercial viability, though No Country probably has more so. Hell, if it weren't for the way it ends, it's probably be a big hit as a thriller/crime drama. I recall reading that Juno has made more money than all the other Best Picture nominees combined. So I expect next year we'll see more feel-good quirky dramatic comedies.

[Omega Alpha]

Those "55 million" in ads numbers seem VERY exaggerated. That would be twice more than the actual production and filming costs.

[ultramandingo]

......plus it was only on about 2000 screens . i do remember lots of tv ads though . at least miramax tried . wonder what the ad costs for that frikin Bee Movie where ?

[Ilash]

Well, I finally saw it and I liked it definitely, I'm just not entirely sure how much I liked it. My main problem to be honest was the ending of the film. It's not so much that I had a problem with the ending as much as I had a problem understanding it. The cinema I saw it in didn't have the best sound and I found myself struggling to properly understand the thick southern accents so while I think I got what the Coens were going for, I think I'm going to need to see it on DVD with the subtitles on to know for sure.

I do know this though: No Country for Old Men is a brilliantly put together piece of filmmaking. The acting was top notch throughout and the dialog was sharp enough to cut yourself on. For all the talk of the movie being a "dark masterpiece", I think people overlook how shockingly funny it is at times. The cinematography from Roger Deakins is typically excellent and the film managed to keep an almost palpable sense of tension and menace throughout.

So yeah, it's clearly a GOOD film but until I really "get it", I'm not sure just how good it really is.

[LtMarvel]

I loved Lady Killers. I loved No Country for Old Men. Heck I liked the one that miscast George Clooney as a divorce attourny.

These guys can do no wrong.

[HulkSmash666]

Did anyone else get the sense that anyone Anton met and DIDN'T kill were extremelly lucky to escape with their lives.

They didn't realise how close to death they actually were.

[berk]

... Heck I liked the one that miscast George Clooney as a divorce attourny....You thought he was miscast there? I thought that was a well-suited role for him, and that he did a great job with it.

[Omega Alpha]

Did anyone else get the sense that anyone Anton met and DIDN'T kill were extremelly lucky to escape with their lives.

They didn't realise how close to death they actually were.

I think most do. The accountant (who I believe was left alive) certainly did, and the guy at the gas station probably noticed eventually. Everyone else died (though not all by Chigurh's hands).

[jesse_custer]

Well, don't forget the big lady at the trailer park office. She didn't give a shit about Chigurh's mission or presentation.

[HulkSmash666]

Well, don't forget the big lady at the trailer park office. She didn't give a shit about Chigurh's mission or presentation.

She was completely oblivious to the fact Chigurh is a psychotic murderer and could've killed her in a heartbeat.

I remember thinking "That bitch doesn't know how close she is to death right now."

I was waiting for it. Any second and he's gonna blow her fat head off.

When it didn't happen, I thought "Your bloody lucky, woman. You were this close to getting your fat arse cattle-gunned."


The guy in the service station got off lucky too. How friggin intimidating was Chigurh to that old man? He was a heart attack waiting to happen!

The motel lady didn't really interact much with him later on, but she was probably the one who had to clean the motel room after Anton wasted those Mexicans in there.

At least he killed one in the shower/bathtub. That's easy to clean.

And the kids at the end? Well, Anton just had a car accident and his bone was sticking out of his arm. Killing two kids in broad day light, right after a car accident is just not that professional, and quite risky since he didn't want to be caught.

[ultramandingo]

........plus - one of them - got some money out of it and got to live . how many people could say that

[kmeyers]

She was completely oblivious to the fact Chigurh is a psychotic murderer and could've killed her in a heartbeat.

I remember thinking "That bitch doesn't know how close she is to death right now."

I was waiting for it. Any second and he's gonna blow her fat head off.

When it didn't happen, I thought "Your bloody lucky, woman. You were this close to getting your fat arse cattle-gunned."


The guy in the service station got off lucky too. How friggin intimidating was Chigurh to that old man? He was a heart attack waiting to happen!

The motel lady didn't really interact much with him later on, but she was probably the one who had to clean the motel room after Anton wasted those Mexicans in there.

At least he killed one in the shower/bathtub. That's easy to clean.

And the kids at the end? Well, Anton just had a car accident and his bone was sticking out of his arm. Killing two kids in broad day light, right after a car accident is just not that professional, and quite risky since he didn't want to be caught.
I thought it showed that he had some kind of twisted morality code, like Harrellson's character said.

He seemed to want to kill the guy for marrying into his situation, but decided to let fate/the coin decide instead.

Same with Llewelyn's wife. He made a promise that he was going to kill her if Llewelyn didn't bring him the briefcase, but he still gave her the benefit of the coin toss, which she refused.

He didn't kill everyone who saw him, just the ones he needed to kill. The ones that got in his way.

[Omega Alpha]

Yeah, he didn't killed the kids because they were not on his way. And the lady in the trailer park because he heard the flush and she wasn't alone there (so he would have to kill someone that did nothing too).

[HulkSmash666]

Yeah, he didn't killed the kids because they were not on his way. And the lady in the trailer park because he heard the flush and she wasn't alone there (so he would have to kill someone that did nothing too).

I didn't notice the toilet flush in that scene. That kind of explains it a bit better as to why he let her live, even though he didn't really have a reason to kill her.

Then again, she was withholding information from him, so that's actually a pretty good reason to kill her. She was extremelly lucky, and she didn't even know it.

[PamGrierOverdrive]

It was a great film, but a bit of a let down in terms of Coen Bros. films. Most of their work stands up to repeat viewing, but given this movie's sparse quality, I can't see myself watching it repeatedly the way I have with most of their films made prior to this decade. Masterfully crafted and a very intense viewing experience, but I'm not sure it's entirely worthy of all the hype, particularly given the quality of the epic left in its shadow: There Will Be Blood.

And no, there is nothing wrong with enjoying a film like Transformers. I've seen some snobbish comments in this thread about giant robots, but in terms of what it set out to accomplish, Transformers was one of the most successful films of 2007.

[Omega Alpha]

I've seen this twice, and read the book, and it gets better with each viewing.

[stealthwise]

And no, there is nothing wrong with enjoying a film like Transformers. I've seen some snobbish comments in this thread about giant robots, but in terms of what it set out to accomplish, Transformers was one of the most successful films of 2007.

What Transformers set out to accomplish:

- create a spectacula... no, no, wait

- function as a faithful adap... no, no, wait

- provide a solid viewing expe... no, no, wait

- make a $@*&-load of money - CHECK


Yeah, you're right.

[PamGrierOverdrive]

You won't find a more hardedned cynic than me when it comes to cinema, but in terms of reaction I've seen and heard from people (particularly those in the audience with me), it was a very successful Summer popcorn crowd pleaser that was respectful of what's come before (Optimus Prime's voice) as well as delivering a script with very funny moments (Bernie Mac & Anthony Anderson) and the best climactic action sequences I've seen since Terminator 2. Now mind you I didn't watch it with a group of internet-dwelling snobs, but the "normal" people across the country seemed to enjoy it.

[jesse_custer]

Can we take the talk about shitty and soulless CGI wankfests to another thread?

I've seen this twice, and read the book, and it gets better with each viewing.

Haven't read the book yet, but I've watched the film three times, and I think it stands up well to repeated viewings.

[PamGrierOverdrive]

PM your address and I'll send you a cookie.

[jesse_custer]

We don't have addresses where I'm from.

[the_coldest_sun]

I thought it showed that he had some kind of twisted morality code, like Harrellson's character said.

He seemed to want to kill the guy for marrying into his situation, but decided to let fate/the coin decide instead.

Same with Llewelyn's wife. He made a promise that he was going to kill her if Llewelyn didn't bring him the briefcase, but he still gave her the benefit of the coin toss, which she refused.

Actually, he seemed to want to kill the gas station owner 'cus he was a witness and said too much. He tells Anton: "You getting any rain up where you're from? I seen you was up from Dallas." Anton replies: "What business is it of yours where I'm from?" At that point, Anton was on the run from the law and if any sheriffs came by, the gas station owner could verify that he's seen him and give them an idea of where he was headed.

He didn't kill everyone who saw him, just the ones he needed to kill. The ones that got in his way.

Exactly. Anton covers his tracks by murdering witnesses. Woody even mentions that anyone who's seen Anton should be dead. I think he decided to let the coin decide the gas station owner's fate because he wasn't as much of a witness/threat as the guy who's car he stole or the chicken truck driver. Probably because he wanted to mess with him too. He seemed to enjoy the intimidation.

Also, I don't think he let the accountant live. That would be too sloppy for a guy like Anton.

[kmeyers]

Actually, he seemed to want to kill the gas station owner 'cus he was a witness and said too much. He tells Anton: "You getting any rain up where you're from? I seen you was up from Dallas." Anton replies: "What business is it of yours where I'm from?" At that point, Anton was on the run from the law and if any sheriffs came by, the gas station owner could verify that he's seen him and give them an idea of where he was headed.
Yeah, that's true. The guy questioning him is probably what started his, "I'm going to kill this guy" thoughts. But he did seem even more annoyed by the fact that the gas station guy married into it.


Exactly. Anton covers his tracks by murdering witnesses. Woody even mentions that anyone who's seen Anton should be dead. I think he decided to let the coin decide the gas station owner's fate because he wasn't as much of a witness/threat as the guy who's car he stole or the chicken truck driver. Probably because he wanted to mess with him too. He seemed to enjoy the intimidation.

Also, I don't think he let the accountant live. That would be too sloppy for a guy like Anton.
I don't know about the accountant. The accountant asks if he's going to kill him, and Anton says, "That depends. Do you see me?" I'm sure the accountant said "no I don't." Plus, that was in a building full of people, a lot of people would have seen him walking out..and Anton is not an inconspicuous looking guy.

[Omega Alpha]

The accountant lived. Anton only went to jail because he wanted to prove himself that he could escape, at least in the book (and look at his face while killing the cop; he didn't had it when killing anyone else). He simply doesn't think he can ever be caught (and can escape anyway if he is), so he wouldn't kill normally someone only because they saw him.


Haven't read the book yet, but I've watched the film three times, and I think it stands up well to repeated viewings.

The book is fantastic, and the movie is very faithful to it, but I would say the Coen's version is even better. Chigurh is more interesting under Bardem and the Coen's direction, I feel, and Carla Jean is MUCH more in the filme; one of the few major changes the Coens made transformed her drastically and the movie quite a bit, and opened room to a lot more interpretations.

[Slappy san]

The movie was ok. I wasn't blown away.

I hated The Big Lebowski btw.

[stealthwise]

I hated The Big Lebowski btw.

I CAST THEE OUT!

[EZMOHR]

The movie was ok. I wasn't blown away.

I hated The Big Lebowski btw.

My review of both movies as well.

I still think Raising Arizona is my favorite Coens movie...and Miller's Crossing is their best.

[ultramandingo]

.........dear santa

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3884/4891qq8.jpg (http://img224.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4891qq8.jpg)

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4595/4901eu9.jpg (http://img214.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4901eu9.jpg)

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/8770/95681ck0.jpg (http://img224.imageshack.us/my.php?image=95681ck0.jpg)

.....you fat old elf toucher

[Bruce Wayne Jr.]

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3884/4891qq8.jpg (http://img224.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4891qq8.jpg)


Holy crap, I want two. Where did this come from?

For the record, love Raising Arizona, No Country, Burn After Reading (which I didn't expect much of), and The Ladykillers (yeah, that's right!), didn't care for Big Lebowski.

[ultramandingo]

.......12" For Old Men I will Kill You Later

http://www.toytokyo.com/shopping/index.php/page/product/product_id/9568

dont think its an official licenced product - wish they would make a " lone biker of the apocalypse" one