I Like Soup Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 That's why I have to watvh it again! As I said, it was a good movie, and all the replies support that. Maybe I'm just getting old.....OK TOO FREAKIN' OLD! And I don't want to THINK/HYPOTHESIZE about endings to movies anymore. Hell....I'm still trying to figger out the meaning of the Obelisque in "2001....Space Odyssey". Jeebus, I could never make it through "2001" anyway...that was horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 When Tommy Lee Jones is in the hotel room, he looks at the open vent and sees a coin on the ground. I took that to mean that Chigurh opened it and took the cash, since he used a coin at the first hotel. Then why bother going to the woman's house? I saw the movie in December, so my memory may be a little fuzzy. Maybe I'll bump this up on the queue to watch this week again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 Then why bother going to the woman's house? I saw the movie in December, so my memory may be a little fuzzy. Maybe I'll bump this up on the queue to watch this week again. Why did Chigurh kill the wife? He told Moss over the phone that he would hold her accountable as well if he didn't give him the money. These are my assumptions from what I saw in the movie, but I'm sure other people have differing opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 That's why I have to watvh it again! As I said, it was a good movie, and all the replies support that. Maybe I'm just getting old.....OK TOO FREAKIN' OLD! And I don't want to THINK/HYPOTHESIZE about endings to movies anymore. Hell....I'm still trying to figger out the meaning of the Obelisque in "2001....Space Odyssey". I never got the ending of that movie nor the meaning of the obelisquw either. i always thought the obelisk (or monolith) was an alien life form that inspired man to the next stage of evolution (i.e. cavemen learning to use tools). the "star child" at the end was man's next evolutionary phase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 (edited) My problem isn't that the filmmakers' point didn't get across, it's that they cheated the audience out of a rightful conclusion between the conflict of 2 main characters that we were so into watching. I believe they could have achieved everything that they wanted to and satisfied the audience more if they had just shown us how the final showdown went down. Sometimes it's okay to not follow the source material 100%. An absolutely great movie made only good by the last 20 minutes. Edited April 14, 2008 by TDFFFreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I never got the ending of that movie nor the meaning of the obelisquw either. Read the book. The explanations were there. It had to do with ET's inspiring various species on this planet. For instance they gave our ancestors tools and weapons. They did this with many different species and whoever advanced to the point of space travel would be taught more. They were kind of our guardians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 Hell....I'm still trying to figger out the meaning of the Obelisque in "2001....Space Odyssey". My favorite movie EVER! I never got the ending of that movie nor the meaning of the obelisquw either. Read the book. The explanations were there. It had to do with ET's inspiring various species on this planet. For instance they gave our ancestors tools and weapons. They did this with many different species and whoever advanced to the point of space travel would be taught more. They were kind of our guardians. Correct. If you read the book, everything is so much more apparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 My problem isn't that the filmmakers' point didn't get across, it's that they cheated the audience out of a rightful conclusion between the conflict of 2 main characters that we were so into watching. They made it the way the book was written. Your beef ain't with the Coens. It's with McCarthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I think that sometimes filmmakers feel like they have to explain everything that happened at the end of movies so the audience doesn't leave confused, but the Coen brothers made you think a little bit about what happened, yet at the same time they tie up all the loose ends. Exactly! If they tie up all the ends this thread is much shorter. Wow, that Javier guy was awesome. Yep, great movie. Discussion over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I watched the movie again last night just to refresh my memory on everything. I only have one problem with the movie and it goes along with why most people didn't enjoy the ending. It didn't seem like Tommy Lee Jones' character was developed enough compared to how it was in the book. You tend to get caught up in the action/thriller part of the movie with Moss being chased by Chigurh and the sheriff's role becomes an afterthought. The ending takes a different tone from the rest of the film. Most people expect closure, while the Coens leave a lot to interpretation and delve into the deeper meaning of evil in the world with TLJ's ending monologue (as it was written in the book). When the sheriff heads home and starts talking about his father, dreams, darkness, etc. with a ton of imagery, it catches everyone off guard. It's hard for viewers to take it all in, since most were probably still trying to figure out what happened with the money, Moss, Chirgurh, etc. What I'm really trying to say is that I am obviously a more observant and deeper person than most of you other Huddlers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I thought it was a very good movie, almost a really great movie. I couldn't help being just a tad disappointed with it though. I guess I just set my expectations too high because I was expecting something as good as Fargo, which, in my estimation, there are really only a handful of movies ever made as good as Fargo. didn't have any problem with the ending, thought it was very appropriate actually. chigurh is really just the allegorical personification of something nameless and faceless, mccarthy/the cohens are just reemphasizing that by bringing it back to the nameless and faceless for the ending. and come on now, does every movie HAVE to have a spoon-fed hollywood ending? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 (edited) it sucked +1, and if I had known it was based on a book by Upton Sinclair, I never would have let someone drag me to see it. Opps, wrong movie.......Never mind Edited April 14, 2008 by rbmcdonald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Loved it except for one part. Now I know most of you guys can't relate to this but Moss was hardcore oldschool oil field trash from West Texas. I can promise you that if the scene where he shot the bad guy in the dark in the street would have happened in real life Moss would have ran over and put a blast into his skull. He might have teabagged his fractal skull but I can't swear to it. Otherwise I loved it, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 (edited) Spoiler stuff..... See....this is where I have a problem with the movie/ending. HE....didn't kill the guy. You've got this great movie flowing along, building up to a confrontation between the two main characters and all off the sudden....nothin.! They show the hired thugs running away from the scene and then they show the "guy" dead. At least they showed some body wearing the same clothes. I wasn't sure who it was other then the clothes. So I'm sitting there trying to figure out... what the heck was that? And then they go to the sheriff sitting at the table rambling about what the hell, I have no idea. The way they went about the ending made a good movie into stupid movie. I finally saw this this weekend too and this was my problem with it as well To have a main Charector killed off screen when the build up was a showdown between the 2 pissed me off. Bardem was awesome in the movie though. I enjoyed it but the ending fell flat for me I have one question though. Did Brolin go back to the scene of the crime to give that guy a drink of water ? Why else would he go back ? Edited May 12, 2008 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missoula Griz Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Watched it Saturday night. When the credits rolled my wife and I just looked at each other like, "where is the last 20 minutes of this movie?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Whomp, to answer your question: Yes. It's been a while since I saw the movie but that was the sad part of it. He went back to do a good deed and he paid for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Whomp, to answer your question: Yes. It's been a while since I saw the movie but that was the sad part of it. He went back to do a good deed and he paid for it. A common thread throughout the Coen's films. Or more accurately, a character does something that they think is a good deed or the right thing to do, but they're making a mistake. When I was watching that scene, I thought "I can't believe they didn't write that themselves. That's exactly what a Coen written character would do." I also love that Moss (and his wife) are both killed off camera. I was listening to a podcast interview with Joel and Ethan and they were talking about the amount of gore in the film, and they decided that after the amount of carnage already shown, it would be better balanced to have them both die offscreen. "Enough is enough" was kinda their philosophy, and I think the amount of onscreen and offscreen violence is handled perfectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 I also love that Moss (and his wife) are both killed off camera. I was listening to a podcast interview with Joel and Ethan and they were talking about the amount of gore in the film, and they decided that they were just tired of making this film and decided it didn't need a decent ending. "Enough is enough" was kinda their philosophy. fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 fixed Anyone else want to hurl their criticisms at the wrong person? McCarthy wrote the book, the Coens were faithful to it. Don't like the ending? Blame the author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Anyone else want to hurl their criticisms at the wrong person? McCarthy wrote the book, the Coens were faithful to it. Don't like the ending? Blame the author. We will blame whoever we damn well please.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 We will blame whoever we damn well please.. You, sir, would make an excellent politician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 You, sir, would make an excellent politician. My last post was taken out of context Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 My last post was taken out of context Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 for those who have seen the movie, this is very funny. http://fourthgradegladiators.com/awesome/?p=7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 I just saw "There Will Be Blood" for the first time this week, and found the ending to that TWICE as problematic as the ending of No Country. Maybe it's just me. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.