No Country for Old Men -
 "Click to view larger image")
Based on the Novel by Cormac McCarthy.
No Country for Old Men is a noir thriller set in West Texas, telling the blood-soaked tale of a man on the run with a suitcase full of money being pursued by a number of individuals.
Movie information
| Release Date (USA): | 2007-11-09 |
| Rating (USA): | NA |
| Release Date (UK): | 2008-01-18 |
| Rating (UK) : | 15 |
| Director: | - |
| Producer: | Scott Rudin |
| Studio: | Miramax Films |
| Writer/s: | Cormac McCarthy (novel) |
Cast
| Tommy Lee Jones | |
| Javier Bardem | |
| Josh Brolin | |
| Woody Harrelson | |
| Kelly Macdonald |
Merchandise
 |
 |
Related Items
No Country for Old Men (Books)Talkback
page: 1
This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The amount and the graphic violence was completely unnecessary. The only message the movie left me with was...don't trust strangers and don't help anyone in need. It is sad that people (especially the critics) are so numb to how violent our society is that they think this is a good movie. Nothing is good about glorifying violence. It was sickening.
My wife and I went to see this movie last night. And although it had its moments, the film left us wanting more. Not as good as expected. When the credits rolled at the end most in the theater shook their heads and let out a laugh. Not that it was funny, but after two hours of blood and gore the ending was such a let down.
Apparently, the Coen brothers had no familiarity with the writings of Aristotle. A 'tragedy' should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. This story had a middle, but no beginning and no end. It was just a series of weird events, quite interesting, well acted, well directed, but not well tied together. No catharsis. I guess I am old fashioned.
I enjoyed the movie, but after getting the money why did the guy go back. The ending was bad. I thought they forgot to show the last reel.
KenP: he went back to bring the guy water.
Movie is a parable of the good/evil dichotomy in our lives. The good is represented by the sheriff who is disillusioned by the present and resigned to making do rather than fighting anymore. As such, he allows the plot ( our existence) to continue without recourse to any good-- simply follows the action (evil) as a passive, withdrawn person who can only make wry comments about what has become of the world he once knew. The main actor, Josh Brolin, is like most of us-- a mixture of good and evil, he takes the money but returns, foolishly, to take water to a dying man; he tries to protect his wife but sacrifices her in the end to his over wrought sense of self and avarice. He must realize in the end that a little goodness cannot overcome a monstrous evil in the form of Anton, the relentless force who grinds down each and everyone. The ending for some may disappoint those who believe that good should overcome and justice will prevail--no doubt hoping for a Gunsmoke ending when the good sheriff bags the badman, however, the movie shows us that evil is never truly overcome, it just leaves us alone for awhile.
While I get the way good, evil, and apathetic characters play over this thin story line I still think it sucked. There is no ending, just a building climax that ends abruptly. Its like the movie skips the conflict resolution straight to the epilouge. No one says it has to have a happy ending, but some ending would be nice. Pure Crap.
To me, the movie was about Islamic Terrorists. There was no end because the battle is ongoing. All of the hints were there if you look. The cattle prod = the ritual slaughter by cutting the throat, the role chance plays in terrorism, the crazy code of ethics by Chugarh, returning to the crime scene to repeat the crime (world trade canter), the tired apathetic west, they year 1980, was the beginning of Islamic terror, embassy hostages shortly before, marines blown up in lebanon shortly after, etc...
Why did the killer not kill the sheriff when he went back to the crime scene at the hotel? Wasn't the killer behind the door?
Just came back from seeing the movie. I sat there for 2 hours really thinking the end would be great. Problem was---there was no ending!!! Talk about weird. I have loved every movie Tommie Lee Jones has starred in, but this one really disappointed me. His acting was great, but the movie lead me down a path to nowhere. I wouldn't recommend it to my friends.
I did not enjoy the movie mainly cos I could not hear or understand a lot of the talk....what the heck was it all about? Some nice photography but!
Yep, this movie sucked. I felt so strongly afterwards that I yelled about it for about an hour, but now my feelings are just as apathetic as many of the characters in this gloomy pointless almost-story that really went nowhere. What really got me is the erudite elitism that makes people think that something like this is good. Why? Because you 'get it' and other people don't? Because it is by the Cohen brothers? Because it is new? Nope, been there, done that. Because it is good acting? How hard is it to be expressionless, unemotional, and pathetic? Because it is a picture of the violence and evil in our society? What are they really doing but adding to that very same violence? Stand up and just admit that it is crap.
Just watched this film and I thought I'd better post a review. Good start, good middle and utterly crap end! Do waste your money or your time.
Great cinematography! crap story. crap ending. a bit cynical.
watch Koyanisqatsi for great cinematography instead. and its without all the inaudible blabberish
I was captivated by the audio book. It was interesting, moving and I couldn't wait to hear more. Why did they have to mess up such a great story that ended with no ending, just left you hanging, wondering what happened.
From what I see in the reviews the movie is the same thing.
After reading many reviews, it seems nearly everyone missed the boat on this one. Tommy Lee IS the killer. There. Even his wife calls him 'Anton' in the final conversation of the film. Watch it again. It all adds up. The main hint is when the Sherriff goes back to the hotel room that 'Anton' is in. When he searches it 'he's' gone (but not really of course) and the window is magically locked from the inside? Nuff said. Just watched it again and picked up on many ticks and tack and nuances that are all too convenient for our killer, or our Sherriff for that matter.
I hate to break it to you JD, but you got it wrong. If you read the novel you would realize the many reasons that what you are proposing is simply not the case. In the book, Chigurh is watching Sheriff Bell enter the motel room from the parking lot. Also,in the film Bell's wife doesn't call him 'Anton', she calls him 'Ed Tom'. The Sheriff's name is Ed Tom Bell.
C.M.
MLeafer is a useful idiot.
page: 1
Related Articles
- No Country For Old Men dominates Oscars
- No Country for Old Men dominates SAG Awards
- Critics honour No Country for Old Men as best film
- Movie Review 3: No Country for Old Men
- Movie Review 2: No Country for Old Men
- Movie Review: No Country for Old Men
- Coen brothers new movie marks out end of American West
- Paramount Hire Scott Rudin to Produce No Country for Old Men for
CherylNov 23rd, 2007 - 06:08:14
One of the worse movies I have ever seen. I am sorry that I wasted my money. I sure do not know how this can be a metaphor for anything but a bad script. I sure do not know how the critics can say this is potentially one of the best movies of all times. They are all misguided. It strikes me as 'The Emporer's New Clothes'.
Report this comment