Hi all.

OK we watched "No Country for old men" last night with Mrs R and we want to know what it was all about.

Please help us to understand/explain it to us.

Not sure myself. To me it meant that sometimes sh1t just happens and there is nothing you can do but roll with events. I think the bemused, mundane ending just highlighted the difference in everyday life and the rollercoaster mess up that went before it.

Also think that there was something in there about an honourable man giving up on trying to control an anarchic world he no longer understood the rules of.

This may be completley wrong though.

It was not about anything really, just a series of events that occur as a result of a bag of money being found.

Its brilliant

Watch it again.

Watch it again.

"Hello friendo"

Fantastic film

Do you try to follow a moral code (policeman), or do you submit to chance (coin-tossing assassin)? Is it worth trying to follow a code when no-one else is (or you can't understand it).

For me, I liked the way he felt compelled to return to the scene of the gunfight to give water to a dying man (who was going to die whatever he did), and if he hadn't returned, he'd have got away with the money. His morals got him into bother.

Stick to Disney.

It's about lots of people trying to read lots of deep stuff into the film because they read reviews telling them how great it was.

Most over-rated film of modern times imo – and I normally love Coen brothers stuff.

There is also the very strong theme of hunting I was struck by how all the characters were either hunters or being hunted.

Every time I get to the end of a Cohen Bros film I end up asking myself wtf was that all about?

Really don't understand why they're rated so highly. I suspect grumm is onto something

My take on it that Llewellyn Moss finds a bag of money and even after finding what is after him still thinks he can deal with it, this gets him and his wife killed. Stubborness, greed, stupidity take your pick but he is dealing in a world he doesnt understand.

Same for Ed Tom the sherriff, he just cant come to terms with the crime he is seeing and that he is getting older. Two men journeying towards their own ends.

Then you have a true psycopath in Chigurh.

Some of the dialogue is timeless, the hotel scene where Chigurh kills Carson Wells is class.

Or it could be just a load of bobbins

read the book then

i loved the film and book

why do you have to understand something to make it good?

Thought it was a great film. One thing to maybe understand is that the film is really about Ed Tom, or at least he is the most important character. This is not as obvious as it might be, given that he's off screen a lot. So the ending appears puzzling if you just focus on the pyscho-killer / stolen money events etc. But really it's the conclusion of Ed Tom's journey of realisation that it literally is no country for old men, anymore.

That being said, it still might be a load of old bobbins. It's my least favourite McCarthy book and was originally written as a screenplay, then transformed into a novel, which was shortened considerably for publication. The result is a mess, on the page, albeit one that works nicely on screen.

I saw it a second time recently and you do notice some lovely touches – Chigurh lifting his feet up to avoid the seeping blood after he shoots Wells, or Ed Tom drawing his gun (for the first and only time I think) when he goes into the hotel room at the end.

What kimbers said – read the book. It's a better ending as you're left not knowing whether or not he kills the girl – she won't call the coin toss, so you're left clinging to the hope that the slightly naughty chappy with the dead bolt gun won't be able to kill her. In the film he wipes blood from his shoe as he leaves 🙁

grumm – it's an opinion, but it's wrong.

grumm – it's an opinion, but it's wrong.

It's not. The main bad guy is incredibly unconvincing, he's like a cartoon character – not at all scary. I bet if you hadn't all read loads of reviews **** on about how great it is none of you would be either.

The important scene is Tom talking to his father, he's realizing that life has moved passed him, that crime (his life) isn't what he thinks it is /was anymore. Here's a man he can't understand (Chigurh), wreaking terrible violence seemingly for the sake of not very much money (in the great scheme of things) He seems unstoppable, or Tom is incapable of stopping him, like life. He's become his father, like his father before him.

Sorry Grum I think it is a great film, nothing to do with reviews.

I bet if you hadn't all read loads of reviews **** on about how great it is none of you would be either.

I never read reviews. Why does he have to be scary?
I read the book probably 2 yrs before the film came out and it's as good as McCarthy's best. I think the film's about the sheriff anyway and him realising how his country has changed for ever and he's struggling to come to terms with it.
Read 'The Road' before the film comes out – they'll do well to catch that on the silver screen.

Grum,I hadn't read,or heard a single review of this film before seeing it.Always the best way. Top notch film.

Why does he have to be scary?

Stone cold psychopath murderers should be fairly scary don't you think? His acting is seriously awful – totally unconvincing, no gravitas whatsoever.

So you all just happaned to see this film and weren't at all influenced by the ridiculous levels of hype about it? Riiiiiiight… 😆

The book is very good.
The film is very true to the book.
Worth maybe getting the book for clarification.

Man sees aftermath of drug related killings. Takes the money. Hunted down by brilliantly played psychopath. Some cracking dialogue and moments. Man is killed. The End

His acting is seriously awful – totally unconvincing, no gravitas whatsoever.

Changed my mind, you've convinced me.
Why did I waste my time?

😕

nobody read yeats then?

Grumm the way he looks is partly the point, it's supposed to make you laugh, he's so ridiculous, that's your first reaction; to laugh out loud. Then you realise what he's like, what the character is capable of and it's not in the least bit funny…whilst he's not an traditional "Baddie" he's no less scary for that

It's a mess.

Or at least, if it ain't, it'll do 'til – you know…

Chigurh's haircut is simply incredible.

I don't think you need to understand the film, or to disect it afterwards to enjoy it – when I first watched it, it was about the mood, the dialogue, the intensity and Chigurh's incredible character

it's a modern-day western
it's a western that the old hick cop Ed Tom can't understand because it's not about horse rustlin or bank robbin or worryin chickens
it's about boundless wrongdoing, crime without cause

I watched it twice in one night, brilliant film

So you all just happaned to see this film and weren't at all influenced by the ridiculous levels of hype about it? Riiiiiiight…

I'm sure everyone's got different reasons why they watched it, I'd heard it had won Oscars/Globes/whatevers and a few mates had said it was good, so I watched it. I enjoyed it, but second time round I enjoyed it even more, I think it's a cracking film.

As a previous respondent said; read the book – see the films.
Next up: The Road.

That's the ideal way of doing things, in an ideal world.

As a baddie, he cuts an unorthodox figure, but how many of will ever meet a contact killer? Our idea of a film baddie is what we've been fed in celluloid by directors, screen writers and actors over the years.

So on first appearances you'd not be intimidated by him, but once you realise his awful propensity for killing and no compassion, you know he is beyond your own knowledge about what a film baddie is. He is a chilling baddie for the simple reason that he looks nothing like a baddie as we might expect to see.

He and the cop are two stories intertwined, two strands of an-raveled rope, seemingly never to be whole and complete again, going their own ways in small-ville, USA. It's a multi layer story and one worth watching again.

Grumm do you review films for The Sun 😀

So on first appearances you'd not be intimidated by him, but once you realise his awful propensity for killing and no compassion, you know he is beyond your own knowledge about what a film baddie is. He is a chilling baddie for the simple reason that he looks nothing like a baddie as we might expect to see.

No, he's exactly like the baddies in lots of third rate action films, except he's less convincing.

Grumm do you review films for The Sun

I was wondering when someone was going to suggest I must be thick if I don't rate it. 🙂

Its very hard trying to help someone "get it" when its obviously gone right over there head.But lets try.The films essentially about compassion and the juxtaposition the two main protagonists present as they approach it from differing ages and vocations

Nice patronising there, bravo. I wrote my dissertation on film at uni, but obviously some people paraphrasing what they read about a film in a review know much better.

Here's a tip though, when attempting to patronise people, try and use correct English.

right over there head

🙂

I could see what the film was trying to do, but I thought it did it very badly indeed, which was a surprise, as I normally love Coen brothers stuff.

Started off ok, but got more tedious and self-important as it went along. Felt like a film made solely to win oscars, at which task it succeeded I suppose, not in any hurry to waste more of my life by watching it again though.

So you all just happaned to see this film and weren't at all influenced by the ridiculous levels of hype about it? Riiiiiiight…

How come you think yourself immune to hype but are so convinced that everyone else is a sucker for it?

I don't think your reaction is because you're thick. More to do with conceit perhaps?

I thought it yet another very enjoyable and suitably quirky Coen Bros film. Sometimes the quirks are in the way of a sort of knowing over-egging of characters, or deliberate over-drawing of scenes and stories to make an effect – a little in the manner of a comic book story.

You didn't like it – never mind.

It comes into a class of films which I personally enjoyed a great deal both to watch and to mull over afterwards. But that I can't really be bothered to line up with their most enthusiastic fans to defend against people who don't enjoy them for whatever reason.

Withnail & I is an obvious one in the same category. 🙂

Going back to Rochey's question, and the initial response from CHB and then from Jamie, may I suggest you watch the Coen brothers' Burn After Reading if you want further experiences of "WTF?" at the end credits.

I would imagine that what the directors were trying to say in these films is that sometimes in life bad stuff happens and events unfold as we'd least expect them to due to chance/fate/whatever, and the closure we have come to expect as viewers of movies with formulaic narratives is not to be relied upon in the real world.

Personally I found this approach to the storytelling quite refreshing and rather amusing.

Its a great film but the book is even better. Suggest you read the book to give you a better understanding of what its all about.

Interesting that some people above seem to think its the Coen brothers who have created these characters and the quirks of the film. These are all in the book, although its a good film its base material is where it draws all its ideas and inspiration.

I would strongly recommend reading The Road (also by Cormac McCarthy who wrote No Country) before seeing it at the flicks. The Road is by far one of the most thought provoking books I have ever read and as a father it resonates deeply with me. Some of the imagery from the book has stayed with me for a long time. I hear the film is meant to be good but I'm sure won't be a patch on the book.

You'll be pleased to hear it has no quirky ending either so shouldn't confuse you too much.

Lighten up Grumm I never said you were thick I was being light hearted not trying to put you down.