Has anyone posted about No Country for Old Men? (possible spoilers)

I went to see that last night and, admittedly, I had imbibed during dinner but I'm utterly confused as to what the hell was actually going on. Some very good performances (Josh Brolin in particular) but very hard for me to follow the plot. The psycho guy was an assassin? Who was he originally there to assassinate? Was it him that killed Llewellyn or was it the Mexican guys with the pickup truck? I'm probably going to have to see it again when it comes out on video. I know a whole bunch of symbolism whooshed right over my head.

Did the thread get locked because there was no spoiler alert? I wanted to reply to the final question about why Chigur didn't kill the sheriff -- it seemed to be part of his weird code of honor that he didn't kill people who didn't see him. At least twice in the movie there was reference made to no one alive having seen him and then also he himself told the boys at the end "you didn't see me." I'm going to have to definitely read those books.

look in the upper right hand corner and you will see...

This topic is archived.

Amazing how much stuff I don't know considering how long I've been coming around here

;)

about the story itself. We saw it with a large crowd the Saturday after it opened.

One woman sitting to my right had come with her husband. She said was a HUGE Coen brothers fan.

The review I gave it was essentially her words after the credits started to roll.

"It sucks..."

I agree.

Seems like there is the theory that Chigur is a ghost.

If it doesn't stand on its own as a movie, change the script (or fire the scriptwriter).

In essence, that's like telling an audience, "Well, if you don't understand what happened in this film, you'll just HAVE to read the book." Wrong. OK, at one screening I remember the author put a copy of his book under each seat. That was years ago and the movie was a comedy.

IMHO, film directors have an obligation to tell the story pretty much as written, if at all possible. If they don't, then it's THEIR fault.

PS. I have no idea why this movie received such great reviews.

and that's not a bad thing.

I haven't read the book, and don't know if I ever will, but I put it on my long list of books to read after seeing the movie, which I loved.

IMHO, film directors have an obligation to tell the story pretty much as written, if at all possible. If they don't, then it's THEIR fault.
I think filmmakers have an obligation to tell the story such that it works independently as a film (i.e., so that people don't have to read the book to understand), but they certainly have no obligation to tell the story as written.

I want to read "All The Pretty Horses" which Cormac also wrote. It was a movie, too.

I remember being a bit underwhelmed when I watched it the last time, but after seeing No Country (twice) I thought it might be worth checking out again.

Alas, I'll probably have to wait until the summer (if then) to read either of the books, b/c my reading schedule during the semester is always already filled :)

Truly, the movie's story arc made little or no sense to me or my husband. The audience on the day we saw it was clearly confused and some people were upset -- enough so that they wanted their money back! It was brutal and violent and a couple of people even walked out. That's never a good sign.

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion about a film. However, I do not plan to recommend or see this film again and I certainly don't feel the need to read the original story.

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon


http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0477348/

It sucks.

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon

:rofl:


I can see where it would not be to everyone's tastes :hi:

Other than that, I walked out on "Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia" and "Under the Volcano."

:rofl:

search and see, it is true :P (not)

I am a bad DUer, I check the 10 most recent posts so I don't dupe but I've never done a search before. One thing I have to say about this movie, while it was confusing to me I still found enough of interest in it that I'm curious to discuss it and poke around to see if I can figure it out. I didn't hate it, it wasn't what I was expecting, that's for sure. I figure that if a story is memorable enough to make you think about the characters after you leave the movie, if it makes you want to talk to people about it with people afterwards, well hell, I think that alone elevates it above a lot of other stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love fluffy movies where I enjoy every minute of watching and then promptly forget the entire story the minute I leave the theater but there's something to be said about a movie leaves a mark and makes you think. I reserved the books in that series from the library and I plan on watching the movie again when it comes out on DVD. I guess I'd have to say that even though it confused me I'm very intrigued.

anymore.

about some things in order to gain clarity on some important plot points.

Its sheer ugliness may have caused me to retreat into my shell enough to have missed a couple of things, but then again, perhaps not.

I especially liked the near-total lack of music. It made the entire thing even more barren and ugly.