I think that Llewelyn died off-screen because the movie wasn't really about him. It wasn't about the money or his death or his wife. It was about Anton and Sheriff Bell. That's why they're followed to the end. The theme of the movie is that evil can be a relentless, slightly-human force without obvious reason or resolution. People can try to oppose that kind of evil or remain good in the face of it. But more often than not that doesn't matter. Whether they live or die ends up being more chance than logic.
The movie was about ed tom and his quest to find his place in the world while beginning his self inception. In the book his self inception is talked about more. Llewelyn died off screen because the event that was happening with him was the deciding factor for ed tom and what he was going to do. As ed tom states in the beginning "The crime we see now is hard to even take its major". Ed tom has no place in the world and that was the significance of his dream with his father.
That's an interesting interpretation. I felt it was an interesting move, mostly as part of the movie's deconstruction of Westerns, while essentially being a neo-noir movie. The epic showdown between the hero and villain is taken away and basically every death after this point is off-screen. We have no real resolution or justice done.
@@errwhattheflip i agree with OP and this. The whole point is that every character means nothing against the arbitrary, inexplicable "motives" of evil. They're throwaway puppets in the devil's mere game
They killed him off off-chapter in the book as well.....and it really pissed me off. At first I thought I'd put my bookmark in the wrong place the night before. I was annoyed when that wasn't "fixed" in the film. I haven't read a cormac McCarthy book since, and won't again, just incase he employed that technique in other books.
I see what you’re saying about Anton Chigurh not fitting in with the theme of the movie and the other performances seem to have more fleshed-out characters than him. However, there are people like him in the world who have sociopathy, a lack of emotion. If we had a huge backstory of Chigurh, would we be as scared of him? Also, the film justifies his lack of emotion, the man that Ed Tom Bell describes in the opening narration about the “crime of passion” compares nicely to Anton. One kills out of a strong feeling of rage and love, while the other is simply doing his job with no feelings attached, thus saving himself from any punishment. His only true enemy was karma in the form of the car crash, which happened by chance. He had no control over it. Basically, events by chance are the only true enemies and every man makes his own mistakes sooner rather than later, creating “a country without old men”.
He's been considered by various psychiatrists as the most realistic psychopath ever portrayed in movies, so his role does make a lot of sense in the movie
Lack of good reviewers brought me here. I watched The Witch because of your review and I enjoyed it very much so thank you for that. My theory for why Llewellyns' death scene wasn't filmed was, in a way, to highlight the exchange he had with the female by the pool in a previous scene where he responds to her nosey questions on why he keeps looking out of the window by saying, "just lookin' for what's coming". Then she replied with, "you never see that". Film makers metaphor for death maybe? In other words, he didn't see it coming and neither did we. Idk, that's what I got. I dig your approach with the reviews and I look forward to watching more so keep 'em coming.
Honestly, Maggie we don't get a climax because life doesn't get a climax, violence can touch and destroy in a moment... that was my take .... love your channel
No Country for Old Men is by far the best Cohen Brothers movie - Chigurh is a fully developed character in that his code and philosophy are constantly on display. You know exactly who he is and what motivates him - his personality is beautifully described by Woody Harrelson's character first in the office with his "boss" and in then in the hospital in his brilliant scene with Moss - "Oh no, you don't understand, you can't make a deal with him. Even if you gave him the money he'd still kill you for inconveniencing him. He's a peculiar man, you might even say he has principles; principles that transcend money or drugs or anything. He's not like you, hell, he's not even like me". Chigurh is relentless, he does not stop, he is death personified driven by his bizarre moral code for the work he does. The more I have watched No Country, the more convinced I am of it's absolute greatness.
The dream at the end, with someone carrying 'fire' or 'light', is a common theme in Cormac McCarthy's works. The Road also touches on this theme. The reason 'the boy' goes with the man at the end is because the man answers his question correctly: 'Are you carrying the fire?' To which the man answers yes, convincing the boy to go with him. To carry the fire in The Road seems to mean to resist death and despair, and to bring light and life to humankind. The idea of resisting death is pivotal in No Country for Old Men. Anton Chigur, in the opening monologue from the book, is described by Tom Bell as a prophet of destruction. It's kind of fitting that the final chapter, also from Bell's point of view, recounts a dream that perhaps meant to not give-in to despair, and to light the way for future generations. That the Coens adapted the book so closely is kind of a miracle. The epilogue of McCarthy's Blood Meridian has something similar, if more nebulous, with a man digging holes and striking fire in each hole, and people following in his wake, possibly symbolizing the taming of the American west. One scene I prefer in the film (in comparison to the book) is when Carla Jean refuses to call the coin toss. In the book, she relents and calls the coin incorrectly, then regrets her decision. I preferred the Coens version, as she was the only character in the film to throw a kink into Chigur's philosophy of fate, showing him that it wasn't 'fate' that did the killing, but Chigur. You can see Chigur's facade--portrayed excellently by Bardem--start to crack. It's really just a brilliant scene, and I prefer that version of events to the book. Chigur has been compared to Death from Bergman's (brilliant) Seventh Seal. In this respect, I feel like it makes sense to leave his character as an enigma--unknowable. He's closer to a horror movie villain in that respect... and everyone knows horror villains are more frightening when they are not understood.
I always took the off screen death to be a commentary on the meaningless of it all (life in general). That we’re promised this big payoff, and then robbed of it. It’s supposed to make you frustrated and angry. It’s supposed to rob you, because it’s nihilistic. Because life is just a slow teeter towards death, and having it happen off screen reinforces that.
I stumbled across your channel looking for Northman reviews and I largely agreed with your take on that new Eggars film. I appreciated The Northman but can’t say I enjoyed it. I watched a few more of your reviews and then this came up. No Country is my favorite movie of all time. I love it so much I cannot talk about it. Your review gave me a couple of new things to think about as per There Will Be Blood. And you’re dead wrong about Llewelyn’s death, lol. I happily subscribed today.
Inside Llewyn Davis is my favourite Coen Brothers movie. I feel it represents a perfect harmony of all of their famous hallmarks as directors, while still feeling distinctive and thoroughly entertaining in its own right. No Country for Old Men is pretty darn sweet though. The tension is excruciating and handled with so much patience and craft. Not to mention a very astute exercise in silent suspense over music bolstered by three rock-solid lead performances.
I am not sure it is fair to compare the character development of Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood and Bardem in No Country. Bardem is not an antihero nor even the main character of the film. Josh Brolin is the main character and I actually think Bardem may be more of a metaphor for the eventuality of death and the futility of trying to resist. Just my two cents, love the vid!
I love that scene where Tommy Lee's character sits in the restaurant with a colleague talking about the times. "All the money and the drugs, where's it all leading to? ... It's the tide, the dismal tide. It is not the one thing." Probably one of my favourite lines from a movie!
It's the whole point of the movie that there is evil in this world that has no meaning and remains somehow beyond comprehension to us. Bardem's character is not supposed to be comprehended. Daniel Day-Lewis' character in There Will Be Blood is the main character and the movie wants us to understand how he became this sociopath. Bardem's character on the other hand is supposed to be a mystery and a psychopath that feels almost nothing. Both of those men (and both pathologies) unfortunatly exist in this world. Comparing the characters doesn't make much sense to me because the two movies are quite different in their meaning and the function of the two characters in the movie are also very different.
hey. I guess the beginning of an argument pro The Llewelyn death approach would Be that it’s NOT the climax. I think the pint of how they handled it is to make sure you feel that ty ours looking for the main arc in the wrong place. I’m gonna have to go back and see it again to identify where the peak might be, though I have some vague ideas right now that can wait.
Hey, first of all, great review. I really liked a lot of what you said about the Cohens' style with the comparisons with his other movies. I'm not gonna pretend I know anything about cinema, I'm really just an enthusiast and movie lover. But since you showed yourself opened to arguments about the meaning of all the off screen killing and anti-climax moments, here's my opinion. I believe the the intentional anti-climax moments in the movie is part of what the Cohens were trying to accomplish, which is to depict how frustrating can be the real world. By killing our hero and letting the villain go, they frustrate our expectations on the characters' closure. By not showing us any of the climax moments, they frustrate our expectations of the viewing experience itself, which for me is far more efficient. The editing of this film is meticulously done to cause that cold impression of unforgiveness. Either way, I also agree with what you pointed out about the lack of an emotional connection with the movie, but I believe this is all intentionally done to give us that cruel feeling of hopelessness and frustration, which along with the great technical qualities that this film has to offer, it sums up for an amazing experience.
You reviewed both No Country for old Men and There Will Be Blood, two of the best films of 2007. love to hear your thoughts of arguably the best film of that year, Cristian Mungiu's Palm D'or winning Romanian art film, "4 months, 3 days and 2 weeks"
I think part of the reason Llewelyn Moss dies off screen is because his death doesn't come at the hands of Chirguh.but rather at the hands of the Mexican Mob. The audience's expectation is that their will be a finally stand off between the two which never happens. Even in the earlier hotel shootout neither character really sees each other face to face.
While I completely understand your point regarding Llewelyn's offscreen death, it worked for me cinematically in that it is so unexpected and so out of left field that it serves to add more dread towards Anton, who at this point had more to offer the story moving forward in the narrative. By not showing him killing Llewelyn, I remember thinking he was like no other movie killer. He got his man, he was always going to get his man, so confident in fact that showing him carrying out the act wasn't necessary. In an extremely sudden moment our main character is gone, we have an even higher sense of terror towards our villain (who at this point still has to serve as the villain in the narrative), and we are left mindfucked by the sheer fact that a major character in a film died and we didn't even get to see it. That for was more effective storytelling, however I could see it being emotionally unsatisfying. For me, I felt that I gained more from the added development to a character who still had a purpose in the story, Anton, than I would have from seeing Llewelyn's death. Hope this makes sense! Would love to hear your thoughts. Another fantastic review
This is my favourite Cohen Brothers film... The three windmills at the start of the movie are important.... Chigurh to me is the personification of the random chaos of the universe, the unknown, the unknowable, the maelstrom... The Sheriff to me represents the fragility of our personal and collective existence, the incomprehensibility of the universe, the fear we all have of the madness of others and of our own. He also represents the purposelessness of everything we believe and hold dear when faced with death... Llewelyn’s off screen death punctuates the lack of importance he or any of us have in the grand scheme of things with all of our confidence, pride, plans, goals and dreams, and that we are not watching a regular movie with heroes and villains... This is not a tale of everything happens for a reason. This is a tale of the rules that we follow being no good if this is where they lead us. This is a story of assuming that one day faith in God will come, but it never does. This a tale of coin flips and choices made. This is a tale not of those who might be giants but of the hapless folk who tilt at them... The wife’s dead. Chigurh checks his boots for blood. Thanks for making videos.
Well...if you read comments on 5-year-old reviews, here goes: Llewelyn Moss dies offscreen, I think, for two reasons - first, it's a gut-punch for the audience. Totally unexpected. Second, it's a culmination of the theme of futility for the _actual_ main character, Sherrif Ed Tom Bell. The cherry on top is when his brother later tells him "You can't stop what's coming." And he couldn't. It was all over by the time he got to the hotel. Moss was already dead. I believe killing off Moss in that manner was a crucial narrative decision, and a correct one. This ties into the meta-narrative, which is about the cold, inscrutable logic of the universe. The universe, were it a man, would be Chigurh. A man in black. Implacable. Calm. Enforcing the rules without passion. Whether he kills you or lets you live has nothing to do with right or wrong, or indeed how he feels about you. Often it's just a toss of a coin. A random event. The lightning strike, the missed plane that crashes, or the tree that has stood for a hundred years, but just happens to fall as you pass by. A moment's delay or a little more haste and you would still be alive Ed Tom's dream is so profound because it represents the one, feeble thing that can oppose the vast darkness - the human capacity for kindness and reason. His father, in the dream, carries the fire. The fire is civilization. It is light, heat, and hope. It needs to be protected; kept alive. It needs to be passed on through the generations if humanity is to stand even the slightest chance of surviving the cold indifference of the universe into which it was born.
Been waiting for you to review this :) I'll give you that, as a Coen Bros. film, it doesn't really fit...the quirkiness is totally absent. I don't see it as a "Coen Brothers" film really at all, it stands apart and is one of my all time favorite films. The film is almost flawless, technically, and that is certainly admirable...but the real kicker here is the total subversion of every potential presented. It's set in Texas, where the American West is still romanticized, but the standoff between good and evil is muted. There is no confrontation between anthropomorphized ideologies. It happens offscreen, where it would in real life. There is no glorious showdown. Moss isn't even killed by Chigurh, but by the cartel members by happenstance. Hell, even Chigurh, who fancies himself an agent of chaos, is subject to the same perversion of serendipity when he gets hit by the car. Every second he took talking with Carla Jean or checking his boots drew him closer to getting hit at the intersection. The film says no one is safe from that. Even the character who seems to be the terrifying embodiment of it. The Old Timers are out, there is no Good vs Evil, it's all gray area. When Ed Tom Bell talks about his dream at the end, where the old time warrior goes off to fight in the darkness...it's just a dream, where romanticized ideals flourish, but we're left out here to wonder if the choices we make day to day will end up leading us to our doom. Personally, that's the sweet spot in a film to me. When you're given a rich story, but ambiguity leaves you pondering it forever after, and even effective tropes are beautifully subverted. I think that's why this film transcends. That, and it's absolutely stunning on an aesthetic level.
Yay! More reviews! You're one of my favorite reviewers and I love it whenever there's a new video to watch! Also, this is one of my all time favorite films, I think it's a masterpiece. Keep up the great work!
I thing it's interesting not showing the main characters death. Knowing what the killer is cabable of and how he operates leaves us to imagine what the climactic death scene would have been like. That continues on in the back of our minds as the film draws to an end. It's unsettling. Also we have seen them go toe to toe already. Starting with when he finds him in the motel or whatever. The eerie shoot out etc... Amazing sequence and I think if we saw them fight again it would have the same format as a Batman film or something. I think it's series 4 of Dexter where we know what the killer (the dad from Bigfoot and the Henderson's lol) does to his victims... we then find Dexters (wife is it?) dead in the bath... we know what's happened to her and it's a very powerful scene even though we don't see her actually get killed. It's also very unsettling. It makes imagine something for ourselves.
I recently watched this again and found myself laughing so hard at a couple of scenes with Anton. The gas station scene and the scene with the trailer park manager lady are hilarious.
Great review, I’ve always felt similar about a lot of things with this film. Since the year they came out, I’ve had issues keeping “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood” strictly separate in my mind, although there are obvious differences between them. Agree that Anthony Chigur served more as a force or a vibe than a real character, yet still was a career-defining acting masterclass for Javier Bardem for portraying him how he did. On a technical level, this film was top-notch, and a good deal darker and more serious than most Coen Brothers films, and yet I still prefer “The Big Lebowski” over it when compared.
Thank you for the wonderfully eloquent review. You are the first person to express the unnecessary frustration that I too felt with this movie. The Coen Brothers are always masteful at directing, yet some of the reasoning they conjured up while writing/shooting this film remains an unsatisfactory mystery in my book. On a side note, the more I watch your videos, the more I admire the hard work you put into your reviews! They transcend the expected RUclipsr "vocabulary" and delve into the essence of the matter. Marvelllous stuff, I hope you continue sharing your thoughts :-)
Hi, Maggie. Here are my personal opinions about the movie. ***Spoilers*** I see Anton almost like a presence, an incarnation of Death itself. As you said it, the case is just a mcguffin, he doesn't want the case for greediness, he wants it because it's his (at least from his perspective). It's not te "what", it's the "why" and the answer is "just because...". About Josh Brolin's death, it really caught me out f guard. Watching him being shot by the Mexicans would have never gave me that impact than watching him floating in that pool. I was shocked. It gave that frustration of "not being there for a goodbye"
I think that "The Man Who Wasn't There" from 2001 is a good Coen Brothers movie which is really underrated. I really like that there is no music in "No Country For Old Men". Too many films today have too much music, too loud or too bombastic. I've seen NCFOM many times and the only score I remember is a subtle sound when Chigurh asks the gas station owner to call his coin flip. It builds up more and more as an eerie resonance and abruptly ends when the man calls the coin toss. Had nightmares about being chased by Anton Chigurh - to this date the only movie villain I've ever encountered in my dreams. I like Chigurh as a villain. He is a psychopath driven completely by his own rigid principles. This is why his question to Carson Well about "The rule that he followed was obviously of no use since it brought him to this." is simply retored with "Do you have any idea how crazy you are?" It's seemingly impossible for Chigurh to understand that people don't live by the same absolute rules as he does. Interestingly enough he seems to have respect for those equally strict and principe-driven as he is, which explains why he simply left when Llewelyn Moss's land lady refused to give Chigurh Moss's working place three times in a row. Later he decides to kill Carla Jean simply because he promised Llewelyn Moss to do so if he didn't give him the money. Carla unwittingly gave herself a zero percent survival odds when she refused to call Chigurh's coin toss. "I got here the same way the coin did." It appears as if Chigurh sees himself and his entire life as a long-line of "coin tosses" in which he's a grim reaper for people in his way and those becoming a liability to him (the gas station owner noticing his stolen car had Dallas plates). Chigurh questions the gas station owner about his life and concludes that he really *is* a clueless fool who worked at a gas station in the middle of nowhere all his life and who actually "married into it". Since he is seemingle harmless and not fully aware how dangerous Chigurh actually is he decides to let the coin toss decide his ultimate fate. He also urges the man to call it because if he himself would call it "it wouldn't be fair". While many may see Chigurh as fate personified as an actual grim reaper it's revealed that he himself is equally bound to the very "fate" or "coin toss" when he is t-boned by another car in an accident that most likely ended his career as a hitman for hire. What Chigurh thinks of this is never revealed. Chigurh is one of the greatest villains ever but I must admit that I find it strange that the people who hired him did so knowing he's not your regular hitman who does things according to a contract and keeps an extremely low profile. I find Chigurh to be very real. He's a psychopath with his own rules and principles he follows to the letter and never once has a "change of mind. In the novel he (strangely) explains to Carla Jean why he is the way he is. In the film they wisely didn't include that. One nice detail. Carson Wells discovered that "one floor is missing". He would be right because many high rise buildings don't have a 13th floor. At least not in Texas. :) I like that Llewelyn Moss's death scene is never shown. We have been following sherif Ed Tom Bell and his search up to this point and we as an audience identify with him failing to find Llewelyn Moss in time before he is killed by the Mexicans. In fact he reaches the shooting merely a minute too late. The scene is played from the sherif's point of view. The "unexpected" sudden death is also a good twist because while Moss focused on trying to avoid Chigurh he ironically got killed by the Mexicans who also had been searching for him and the money. Everybody expected Chigurh to get him, him to triumph over Chigurg or sherif Ed Tom finding him before Chigurh. It's a perfectly plausible ending but bold because it's not the one the audience expected for Moss. Great film making. Personally I believe that NCFOM is the best Academy Awards Best Picture winner in many years. Probably since Unforgiven. 2007 was a fine year too with really good nominees - save for Juno which I still can't stand. Well, you sure a reviewing some great movies lately. Always a joy to watch.
Dissagree about Anton Chigurh part ,i think that's what a character actually should be. Not just in terms of actor's talent on that role but the theme is just amazingly put in to the words and actions that he does. Might not seem realistic but its more realistic than the real ppl to me. I know it sound stupid. English is not my strongest suit :D
Suspense, no music, you know who's hunting who the acting is amazing and you dont need a character to explain how dangerous anton is they show it its amazingggg
Amazing review. There was something missing in this film aside from the obvious mistreatment of the audience wrt extorting our concern for Llewelyn then killing him offscreen. No arc for Llewelyn means no arc for us.
I disagree. This movie was not so focused on him, it was focused on the plot and the consequences that ensue following after Llewellyn found the money that belonged to one of the drug cartels and took it for himself.
If you still look at new comments on older videos, what was your interpretation of the scene toward the end when the sheriff returns to the crime scene of Llewelyn's hotel room and we are meant to believe that Anton is inside? We see the sheriff on one side of the door, Anton on the other... door opens, empty room. What do you think we are meant to take away from that?
Are we watching the same movie? Bardem personifies death with all the surprise, enigma, terror and so on that death produces. In his acting Bardem takes it to another level. It is a brilliant film with suspense, unpredictable turns, creepy situations, comic moments. As a European saddens me that in the USA mediocrity it is really taking over and the real talent in acting, directing and even singing it is totally unappreciated.
Oh boy! You couldn't say any better. I sometimes have the feeling that humanity is loosing the touch of its artistic impressions. We are becoming comfortably numb and we praise the light way of thinking as an excuse to hide our own ignorance. Thank you so much for your honest opinion and forgive me if I offended, in some way, your country.@Wytchfinde
Excellent review. Just saw your video review for A Serious Man from over a decade ago. One of my personal faves. Was unable to find a review for Barton Fink. Have to assume you've seen it. Gratitude.
I like how the violence gets more tame the longer the movie goes on. The first person Anton kills is Brutal. Shows every bit but by the end you don't see the violence
Good honest review. I waited to watch the movie. I really liked how it ended and all the turns it had. It didn't leave me happy but it left me satisfied nonetheless since it was different from a lot of mainstream movies. BTW, I am not a huge fan of Fargo, but I do love The Big Lebowski, though I think it would be unfair to compare that movie to No Country.
As far as Chigurh goes, I think that's a very valid criticism as far why the film can seem a bit underwhelming or lacking for some people. (Among a host of other reasons. It's a great film but it's also very dry and not a crowd pleaser.) My only counter to that idea you put forward about him being a little flat would be is that when you're trying illustrate evil as something that is a metaphysical inevitability (as Chigurh seems to be a representation of) as opposed to something merely accidental or circumstantial or as a 'mistake' of nature or a byproduct of society's wrongs that can be fixed (which can all be seen as a copout depending on your philosophical leanings), it is a bit harder to explain or flesh out or get too causal about any character who represents this bold idea. It undermines the whole idea of what you're trying to illustrate about the world. This was actually my issue with the whole concept of the Joker film with Joaquin Phoenix. I think the power of the Joker as a character is that he is just this unexplainable and inevitable force of nature as Heath Ledger portrayed him. We really know nothing about Ledger's Joker at the end of the day as entertaining as his Joker was. And because Batman is less grounded in reality than No Country For Old Men, this "force of nature" that the Joker represents can be more flamboyant and outrageous and provide character flourishes that make us forget about how thin his "anarchic" motivation all seems to be. But the idea is still powerful nonetheless because encountering 'evil' seems pretty inevitable to the human experience. The Joaquin Phoenix Joker film, in trying explain the Joker's origin, sapped the power of the character in my opinion. It made something large and terrifying small and pathetic. I don't care how much zoomers meme that film, that's what I ultimately think about it even if Phoenix did a good job. It degraded the character. It brought him down to 'our' level. So back to No Country For Old Men; I think the idea was to keep Chigurh large and vague and mysterious like Ledger's Joker and let human imagination fill in the blanks. But it all has to be more restrained because Chigurh can really exist whereas the Joker requires some suspension of disbelief. So attempts to flesh Chigurh out or make him more tangible or explainable would have undermined a very real picture they were trying to paint and the philosophical concepts they were trying to instill or get people to contemplate. And then also too many loud quirky character flourishes to add interest would have 'ungrounded' everything. Strangely, it's all kind of a zero sum game the way I see it. I honestly don't know what the Coens could have done from a screenplay standpoint to improve the idea they were trying show through Chigurh without compromising something else. But perhaps I lack imagination. Anyways, I have mixed feelings about the lack of a climax but I do think it fits thematically and can maybe appreciated more on repeat viewings. It's definitely a willful subversion that is going to disappoint the vast majority of viewers the first time through. All this said, I too would rather watch The Big Lebowski.
Great review. I saw this in theaters and loved it but for whatever reason I haven't seen it since. Your review made me want to go back and watch it again. Lucky me, it's on Netflix.
It's a crying shame that you never once mentioned the extended "Uncle Ellis" scene toward the end of the film. It was 5-6 minutes of pure cinematic perfection, carrying every nuance of the human condition in this vale of tears ... "That's vanity!"
I feel that we have three perspectives throughout the film, Bell, Moss and Anton. They all represent different goals. Moss is good hearted in nature but decides to make risky decisions for his own self gain. Anton is evil in nature and has motivations that are beyond our understanding. Sheriff Bell is also good hearted but also tries to avoid violence. We hear stories that in his fathers days they didn’t even carry guns. We never see a murder from his perspective, only the aftermath of violence. He witnesses and surrounds the fates of others but never meets his own. I believe it’s fitting that he only witnesses the aftermath of Llewelyn’s death seeing as it’s something he’s not ready to come to terms with. He hangs up his badge at the end of the film reminiscing how easy times were with his father and how this country has outgrown him. Bwam
Appreciated your earnest and in depth look at a film that is, for me, one of the five best since the year 2000. Unlike you, I think No Country is basically everything good that Fargo is, but then something much more. Or to put it another way, whereas Fargo, which I regard very highly, is principally a compelling crime drama, NCFOM takes that aspect (at least as well) as a springboard to the real theme, which I would describe with adjectives such as probing, deep, and (ultimately) edifying. I am very with you in recognizing the centrality of Sheriff Bell, which other analyses have under-represented or even missed altogether.
This is exactly what I thought! Great movie, but when you compare it to fargo, a Serious Man and Big Lebowski, it seems to be missing something that makes the coen brothers so amazing and unique
Miller’s Crossing is a near perfect film. I love the Big Lebowski and No Country for Old Men and Fargo. All films I have watched dozens of times and will do so for a long time.
Great review! I agree with you for the most part, even I found something missing and hollow in the film that I couldn't explain, but you explained it nicely. I too overall find the movie good, but can't understand the hype. Also, the fact that any one who says one critical thing about it is said they can't understand film-making doesn't help.
Hey, just watched your 2049 review and loved it, so i was like "ill go see of she reviewed my other two favorite movies. This and Sicario. I havent found if youve done Sicario yet, but im glad you reviewed this. Loved your perspective. I grew up dirt poor in the middle Texas and in central north PA. And this film resonated with me in every aspect. From the insanity of the bad guy, to the off screen deaths that left you feeling hallow. Its totally cool that you didnt care for those, too each their own, but i think they are what made this film stand out. (Also the film is similar to the book, but that may have been said already but i dont read comments lol) thanks for reviewing it! Im off too see if you reviewed Sicario.
Thanks for your review. I have to like anyone with a copy of Watchmen on their bookshelf... and McKee's Story! Nice. A few points: Anton is an odd character because he is a twist in a deconstruction. Think of the Man With No Name character in Eastwood westerns. The Byronic hero. Anton is the Byronic villain. No Country for Old Men requires a deep dive. There is so much more here. I challenge you to watch it again with a mind toward shirts. Watch for shirts.
I thought the Tommy Lee Jones character was the worst character and Javier Bardem's, Anton Chigurh is one of my favorite characters of all time. It's ok for us all to like different movies.
I sort of have the exact opposite feeling about There Will Be Blood / No Country For Old Men. TWBB is a great film. But it didn't resonate with me on a deeper level. To be honest, I don't actually find Daniel Plainview to be a very compelling character. He just seems to me like a heartless psychopath. Whatever motives are established for him, they just aren't all that interesting to me. Regarding NCFOM, I agree that Anton Chigur is meant to be kind of an empty, enigmatic character (like you said). And I can see why some people would find that boring. But to me, that strange, phantom-like quality is what makes the character and the film so chilling and fascinating. Anyways, this is the great thing about movies. I cannot really account for my own responses to films. I don't know why I love some and don't love others, even if they are objectively great. That is the beauty. How unbearable it would be if we all had the same opinions about every film or work of art.
The offscreen death of a major character didn't bother me...once I figured out what the hell happened. If I'd recognized the shirt of the person lying on the floor, it wouldn't been a problem. In any case, I think it's in keeping with the films M.O. of denying the viewer a conventional "thriller movie" climax--the lawman can't catch the villain, retires instead; the villain never gets what he wants, disappears to parts unknown. We're left hanging with all three major storylines. What really bothered me about this movie when I first saw it were the elements that seemed stolen directly from previous Coen films. Chigurh shooting at the bird for no reason as he drives by (Raising Arizona), the apparently empty large hotel (Barton Fink), etc. One moment almost made me laugh out loud, which ruined the tension. Years later, I read that it was producer Scott Rudin who read the book and sought the Coen brothers to make the film...I'm guessing he was reminded of those earlier movies, which is why he wanted them to do it. It doesn't bother me as much now, as I'm able to look past those sore-thumb moments and appreciate the film's virtues.
This movie is like a nightmare. I didn't need to understand Chigurh, just fear him. I was dragged from the begginig till The end, and like Tommy Lee Jones caracther it left me wondering what all this mean, but sometimes, Even if we don't like it, tragedies has no sense. Love this film so much.
Great review. My main problem with the movie: too many things happening. Too many shootings, pistols, too many shirts used to stop the bleeding. And also with the moments when the villain spares lives. It happens too often. It' s like a showboating of "HEY YOU THOUGHT THAT NOW HE SHOOTS HER AS WELL? NO NO THAT WOULD BE TOO OBVIOUS, OUR CHARACTER IS INTERESTING. HE IS NOT A TRIVIAL VILLAIN. HE IS SPECIAL!". It works once. But the trick is repeated at least 3 times in the movie.
You can say anything you want about the character of Anton Chigurh played by Javier Bardem but according to various psychiatrists he is the most realistic psychopath ever depicted in movies. Props to him as an actor for achieving such a result as well to the Coen brothers's writing
Good point on not really finding extra meanings in this film. I also enjoyed No county so much, but don't feel it offers all that much then its great story en filmmaking.
Funny, I had the opposite opinion. I never felt any connection with There Will Be Blood despite thinking it was a great film, while No Country did affect me. It's been a long time since I've seen either though.
This movie was really good. Great tension throughout the movie, great visual story telling, great acting performances etc. However my only flaw with this film is that I did not care for Tommy Lee Jones's scenes.
The thing you are kinda picking up on is that the story is not about the people in it as much as it is about the world, and more specifically humanity's place in nature. How our existence doesn't follow our hopes / expectations, and often even defy our very understanding of it, BUT that we ought not to be deterred by that. The sheriff is us, trying to piece together what we are experiencing. Moss is the futility of fighting the world, and Anton IS the world. Moss has great intentions, resilience and competency, yet gets punished for every moral choice he makes. Anton is odd/ugly, cold, calculated, deterministic. Just a force of entropy. Uncaring, inevitable. And that's why the dream of the sheriff is really the showdown of the story. His father carrying the fire, to dispel the frost and darkness, even tho it will not end the winter night. ... and after that you directly begin with "The Road", for actual thematic continuation..! So cool that both books became films.
Anton in the end with car accident limping off is the comic realisation to the viewer that nothing will cure him of his grim reaper god complex love the film one for the boys
I enjoy your reviews and I understand what you're saying here, but I don't think the film, or the book, are interested in 'humanising' or 'understanding' Chigurh. Rather Chigurh (and before him 'The Judge' in Blood Meridian), is a representation and a personification of certain kinds of dark and destructive forces that exist in the world. And the books examine the deforming and debilitating effects of those forces on otherwise decent and innocent people. Both Chigurh and The Judge are better understood as elemental figures rather than attempts to realistically understand evil -- and the book is really the Sheriff's story (who I think is the Old Man of the title). Of course, you may not like that kind of film (although, given that you like Lynch and his work too includes figures which are representations of darkness and pain, I think you do!), but I think that, by mentally comparing this to "There Will Be Blood", you're looking for the wrong things in *this* film. IMO, There Will be Blood is actually a very different film, one which does offer a compelling portrait of a complex and horribly flawed human being.
Love your channel. Love your reviews. I have some significant disagreements with this one, however. But that's part of the fun! 1. Llewelyn's off screen death is awesome. The world of the film is an increasingly dangerous and inexplicable COUNTY unsafe for old men (and anyone else!). In this world the lovably opportunistic Llewelyn pays for his moral lapse NOT in a FINAL SHOWDOWN with the VILLAIN, but unceremoniously by a faceless band of middle management thugs. Also, rather sneakily, Llewelyn is NOT the protagonist, Sheriff Bell is. (This is ab it clearer in the book, which surprising goes unmentioned in your review) He is the representative of the titular Old Men. He is the one grappling with the shifting tides of Ethics and Reason in this COUNTRY. 2. Chigur is a great and fully realized character. He has a code. He is extremely disciplined and resilient. And relentless. Yes, he is mysterious and symbolic, REPRESENTATIVE of the EXTREME UNFATHOMABLE DANGER at the heart of this unsafe COUNTRY, and even more generally could be seen as representative of The BOOGIEMAN, or DEATH itself, but he is quirky and real, in my opinion, a full embodiment of the mysterious DARKNESS that renders this country unfit for old men. 3. There Will Be Blood is great, a near miss masterpiece, but it is distinctly INFERIOR to NCFOM. It's fatal flaw as a film for me is the casting of Dano as the foil for Lewis' Plaintree. Dano is a good actor, but he is a hopelessly lightweight opponent for Lewis. The movie could have been a real look at the war for the soul of America between two forks of our founding ethos: FREEDOM OF RELIGION and FREE ENTERPRISE. But the writing and directing of Dano's character, the decision to have him play both twins (unsuccessful and needlessly confusing), and just his WEAK PRESENCE, make the BATTLE of these two ideas FORGONE, and laughable. NCFOM has no such flaw, in my opinion.
Off screen death of lewellen is to reinforce tommy lees (the moral center of film) complaints through out, that times are changing. Tongue in cheek...cohens themselves get in on the act and deprive us of what an older person would expect which is shoot out at the oke coral or some kind of commom christian theme where "good" or some kind of moral meaning triumphs. In fact in this movie the bad guy "wins" . I would say this movie is about the complete lack of morals, and most important to shagure, integrity that resides in folks when it comes to money. Shagure only respects older woman managing lewellens mobile park. Notice how instead of killing witness who noticed his license plate, shagure 1st interrogates gas station attendant,for weather or not he stood for something or just went along... before giving coin choice. Even young boys take money to be quiet in the end scene. Shagure is our inner moral concious that we sometimes flip the coin and ignore at our own peril...or we get away with one.
I like the movie very much but I thought the ending was a little weak...It came to a screeching halt when he gets hit by a car , buys the shirt from the kid and hobbles away..I thought it needed to be more dramatic..good review , your easy on the eyes too !
I like NCFOM, but it's not my favorite. I agree. Inside Llewen Davis, Fargo are also great. I really liked "The Man Who wasn't there", which seems to get no mention. It's like the Forgotten Coen Bros movie. Did you like that one? I liked Hail Caeser more after the 2nd viewing and reading some analysis. It's not for everyone though. I think it paralells The Man who wasn't there or burn after reading more than TWBB(masterpiece)...but certainly on a vague level it does...but nowhere near as deep.
As well as this young lady articulates her views and opinions openly and truthfully The villain character the Tommy lee Jones character they're not characters that you can Want to see what motivates them et cetera there more conceptional she even said that their representations there symbolic of aspects of the human condition and the villain that bar dam plays is literally or metaphorically the darkness of the human condition that she wanted to be
Thank you! Sheriff bell is the representative Old Man. Bell is the protagonist, the one really grappling with all this shit. This is a bit clearer in the book.
To me having Llewelyn's death off screen was a way of de-romanticizing him as a leading man. It fits with the nihilistic message of the movie. Not only does he fail and get killed, his death isn't particularly special, just another fleeting victim of the whole mess. With that said, I agree this isn't my favorite Coen Brothers movie and that lack of humanity/emotion is both a strength of the film and what keeps it from being something I 100% connect with and get excited about. I like Blood Simple, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, A Serious Man and maybe even O Brother Where art Thou more. Still a great movie overall
Hmmmm, I don't feel a real emotional connection with the characters in those other movies either. Or, at least, no stronger than the ones I have for, say, Sheriff Bell and Carla Jean.
@@fewwiggle you're right, I didn't word that part quite right. There are definitely characters to identify and empathize with. It's more the nihilistic message and cold way it treats the characters that I was getting at (not that the filmmakers are uncaring or nihilistic, it's the intention and point of the movie). This is a strength of the film, but also part of why I watch it less than the others I listed (though A Serious Man has a similar outlook and themes)
I hate to be "that guy" who says that he hates to be "that guy" right before he makes an extremely nitpicky comment, but his name is Josh Brolin. 2:11. Awesome video though.
The film left out Sheriff Ed Tom Bel's World War Two military story, which would have made his character in the film more purposeful. This was a huge disservice.
Love both films to death . No country for old men is probably more accessible to audiences than there will be blood , but I always thought there will be blood was the better of the two, more intimate far more memorable for me anyway.
I agree with you about Llewelyn's death. I was confused as to who killed him the way they did it. At first I thought Anton got him, but I guess it was the Mexican drug guys, right? Also, I was not happy that Anton gets off unpunished, but I guess that is the point of the movie. Still they tease you with the car wreck, making you think he is getting his comeuppance, so that was frustrating. Still love the movie. Cohen brothers' films are very hit and miss with me. Love some of them, and hate some others.
The point is it’s pointless. It’s the anticlimax just like life. Just like the mother who pathetically dies of cancer. Shit happens. We don’t get our showdown and nothing means anything.
I have just watched There Will Be Blood and No Country the last 2 nights, TWBB is far superior and is still a very good movie (but i found the first hour a bit too skow), whereas NCFOM just felt really empty and uninteresting with a cartoon baddie. TWBB 8.5/10 NCFOM 6/10.
Here's my analysis: 2 men on the outside come into a situation where there's money at stake. Nobody truely has a claim to the blood money and the 2 main characters are centered around the money while everyone else is centered around them. But in a twist of irony the most villainous wins the money but he still loses over all at the end of the day being wounded both physically and mentally. Was he anton evil? Or was he actually the righteous man? In other words did evil win or is does it just seem that way?
It is very simple to argue for Lewellen's death being off camera. All the build up of this dark story that "plays" like a "western" , has been focusing in this "duel" of wits and resourcefulness, between Lewellen and Anton. And AS WESTERNS GO, it should end up in a duel... But we're not in a western..., theres no "good" and "evil", just caos and violence, without any rules. Thats why Lewellen gets killed rather randomly and pathetically, not by his nemesis, but by a small group of mexican-cartel guys hes not expecting.
Some good observations for sure. I have always speculated to what extent the woman he met at the pool may have served as a distraction for him. "Beer leads to more beer".
I think that Llewelyn died off-screen because the movie wasn't really about him. It wasn't about the money or his death or his wife. It was about Anton and Sheriff Bell. That's why they're followed to the end. The theme of the movie is that evil can be a relentless, slightly-human force without obvious reason or resolution. People can try to oppose that kind of evil or remain good in the face of it. But more often than not that doesn't matter. Whether they live or die ends up being more chance than logic.
The movie was about ed tom and his quest to find his place in the world while beginning his self inception. In the book his self inception is talked about more. Llewelyn died off screen because the event that was happening with him was the deciding factor for ed tom and what he was going to do. As ed tom states in the beginning "The crime we see now is hard to even take its major". Ed tom has no place in the world and that was the significance of his dream with his father.
Burton Brother Productions yeah what you said is bang on point.
That's an interesting interpretation. I felt it was an interesting move, mostly as part of the movie's deconstruction of Westerns, while essentially being a neo-noir movie. The epic showdown between the hero and villain is taken away and basically every death after this point is off-screen. We have no real resolution or justice done.
@@errwhattheflip i agree with OP and this. The whole point is that every character means nothing against the arbitrary, inexplicable "motives" of evil. They're throwaway puppets in the devil's mere game
They killed him off off-chapter in the book as well.....and it really pissed me off. At first I thought I'd put my bookmark in the wrong place the night before.
I was annoyed when that wasn't "fixed" in the film.
I haven't read a cormac McCarthy book since, and won't again, just incase he employed that technique in other books.
Anton Chigur is one of the Greatest villains of all time.
I should say of my time*
Oh yeah? Wanna flip for it? 🤣🤣🤣
This movie also worked because it was void of a soundtrack , amplifying the sparse dialogue . Brilliant .
My autistic ears LOVED that it had no music.
it has at least 5 songs. three am8ient tracks, the mariachi 8and and the credits song.
I see what you’re saying about Anton Chigurh not fitting in with the theme of the movie and the other performances seem to have more fleshed-out characters than him. However, there are people like him in the world who have sociopathy, a lack of emotion. If we had a huge backstory of Chigurh, would we be as scared of him? Also, the film justifies his lack of emotion, the man that Ed Tom Bell describes in the opening narration about the “crime of passion” compares nicely to Anton. One kills out of a strong feeling of rage and love, while the other is simply doing his job with no feelings attached, thus saving himself from any punishment. His only true enemy was karma in the form of the car crash, which happened by chance. He had no control over it.
Basically, events by chance are the only true enemies and every man makes his own mistakes sooner rather than later, creating “a country without old men”.
He's been considered by various psychiatrists as the most realistic psychopath ever portrayed in movies, so his role does make a lot of sense in the movie
Lack of good reviewers brought me here. I watched The Witch because of your review and I enjoyed it very much so thank you for that. My theory for why Llewellyns' death scene wasn't filmed was, in a way, to highlight the exchange he had with the female by the pool in a previous scene where he responds to her nosey questions on why he keeps looking out of the window by saying, "just lookin' for what's coming". Then she replied with, "you never see that". Film makers metaphor for death maybe? In other words, he didn't see it coming and neither did we. Idk, that's what I got.
I dig your approach with the reviews and I look forward to watching more so keep 'em coming.
Honestly, Maggie we don't get a climax because life doesn't get a climax, violence can touch and destroy in a moment... that was my take .... love your channel
No Country for Old Men is by far the best Cohen Brothers movie - Chigurh is a fully developed character in that his code and philosophy are constantly on display. You know exactly who he is and what motivates him - his personality is beautifully described by Woody Harrelson's character first in the office with his "boss" and in then in the hospital in his brilliant scene with Moss - "Oh no, you don't understand, you can't make a deal with him. Even if you gave him the money he'd still kill you for inconveniencing him. He's a peculiar man, you might even say he has principles; principles that transcend money or drugs or anything. He's not like you, hell, he's not even like me". Chigurh is relentless, he does not stop, he is death personified driven by his bizarre moral code for the work he does. The more I have watched No Country, the more convinced I am of it's absolute greatness.
The dream at the end, with someone carrying 'fire' or 'light', is a common theme in Cormac McCarthy's works. The Road also touches on this theme. The reason 'the boy' goes with the man at the end is because the man answers his question correctly: 'Are you carrying the fire?' To which the man answers yes, convincing the boy to go with him.
To carry the fire in The Road seems to mean to resist death and despair, and to bring light and life to humankind. The idea of resisting death is pivotal in No Country for Old Men. Anton Chigur, in the opening monologue from the book, is described by Tom Bell as a prophet of destruction. It's kind of fitting that the final chapter, also from Bell's point of view, recounts a dream that perhaps meant to not give-in to despair, and to light the way for future generations. That the Coens adapted the book so closely is kind of a miracle.
The epilogue of McCarthy's Blood Meridian has something similar, if more nebulous, with a man digging holes and striking fire in each hole, and people following in his wake, possibly symbolizing the taming of the American west.
One scene I prefer in the film (in comparison to the book) is when Carla Jean refuses to call the coin toss. In the book, she relents and calls the coin incorrectly, then regrets her decision. I preferred the Coens version, as she was the only character in the film to throw a kink into Chigur's philosophy of fate, showing him that it wasn't 'fate' that did the killing, but Chigur. You can see Chigur's facade--portrayed excellently by Bardem--start to crack. It's really just a brilliant scene, and I prefer that version of events to the book.
Chigur has been compared to Death from Bergman's (brilliant) Seventh Seal. In this respect, I feel like it makes sense to leave his character as an enigma--unknowable. He's closer to a horror movie villain in that respect... and everyone knows horror villains are more frightening when they are not understood.
Yeah you nailed it. Maggie should read the book.
I always took the off screen death to be a commentary on the meaningless of it all (life in general). That we’re promised this big payoff, and then robbed of it. It’s supposed to make you frustrated and angry. It’s supposed to rob you, because it’s nihilistic. Because life is just a slow teeter towards death, and having it happen off screen reinforces that.
I stumbled across your channel looking for Northman reviews and I largely agreed with your take on that new Eggars film. I appreciated The Northman but can’t say I enjoyed it. I watched a few more of your reviews and then this came up. No Country is my favorite movie of all time. I love it so much I cannot talk about it. Your review gave me a couple of new things to think about as per There Will Be Blood. And you’re dead wrong about Llewelyn’s death, lol. I happily subscribed today.
Inside Llewyn Davis is my favourite Coen Brothers movie. I feel it represents a perfect harmony of all of their famous hallmarks as directors, while still feeling distinctive and thoroughly entertaining in its own right.
No Country for Old Men is pretty darn sweet though. The tension is excruciating and handled with so much patience and craft. Not to mention a very astute exercise in silent suspense over music bolstered by three rock-solid lead performances.
I am not sure it is fair to compare the character development of Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood and Bardem in No Country. Bardem is not an antihero nor even the main character of the film. Josh Brolin is the main character and I actually think Bardem may be more of a metaphor for the eventuality of death and the futility of trying to resist. Just my two cents, love the vid!
I'd say Llewelyn isn't the main character either. Maybe it's three characters: Time, Evil, and Fate . . . .
I love that scene where Tommy Lee's character sits in the restaurant with a colleague talking about the times.
"All the money and the drugs, where's it all leading to? ...
It's the tide, the dismal tide. It is not the one thing."
Probably one of my favourite lines from a movie!
It's the whole point of the movie that there is evil in this world that has no meaning and remains somehow beyond comprehension to us. Bardem's character is not supposed to be comprehended. Daniel Day-Lewis' character in There Will Be Blood is the main character and the movie wants us to understand how he became this sociopath. Bardem's character on the other hand is supposed to be a mystery and a psychopath that feels almost nothing. Both of those men (and both pathologies) unfortunatly exist in this world. Comparing the characters doesn't make much sense to me because the two movies are quite different in their meaning and the function of the two characters in the movie are also very different.
hey. I guess the beginning of an argument pro The Llewelyn death approach would
Be that it’s NOT the climax. I think the pint of how they handled it is to make sure you feel that ty ours looking for the main arc in the wrong place.
I’m gonna have to go back and see it again to identify where the peak might be, though I have some vague ideas right now that can wait.
Hey, first of all, great review. I really liked a lot of what you said about the Cohens' style with the comparisons with his other movies. I'm not gonna pretend I know anything about cinema, I'm really just an enthusiast and movie lover. But since you showed yourself opened to arguments about the meaning of all the off screen killing and anti-climax moments, here's my opinion. I believe the the intentional anti-climax moments in the movie is part of what the Cohens were trying to accomplish, which is to depict how frustrating can be the real world. By killing our hero and letting the villain go, they frustrate our expectations on the characters' closure. By not showing us any of the climax moments, they frustrate our expectations of the viewing experience itself, which for me is far more efficient. The editing of this film is meticulously done to cause that cold impression of unforgiveness. Either way, I also agree with what you pointed out about the lack of an emotional connection with the movie, but I believe this is all intentionally done to give us that cruel feeling of hopelessness and frustration, which along with the great technical qualities that this film has to offer, it sums up for an amazing experience.
You reviewed both No Country for old Men and There Will Be Blood, two of the best films of 2007. love to hear your thoughts of arguably the best film of that year, Cristian Mungiu's Palm D'or winning Romanian art film, "4 months, 3 days and 2 weeks"
"Anton Chigurh is more a concept (an emblem of corruption) than a character" is an interesting point of view. As always an excelllent analysis.
I think part of the reason Llewelyn Moss dies off screen is because his death doesn't come at the hands of Chirguh.but rather at the hands of the Mexican Mob. The audience's expectation is that their will be a finally stand off between the two which never happens. Even in the earlier hotel shootout neither character really sees each other face to face.
While I completely understand your point regarding Llewelyn's offscreen death, it worked for me cinematically in that it is so unexpected and so out of left field that it serves to add more dread towards Anton, who at this point had more to offer the story moving forward in the narrative. By not showing him killing Llewelyn, I remember thinking he was like no other movie killer. He got his man, he was always going to get his man, so confident in fact that showing him carrying out the act wasn't necessary. In an extremely sudden moment our main character is gone, we have an even higher sense of terror towards our villain (who at this point still has to serve as the villain in the narrative), and we are left mindfucked by the sheer fact that a major character in a film died and we didn't even get to see it. That for was more effective storytelling, however I could see it being emotionally unsatisfying. For me, I felt that I gained more from the added development to a character who still had a purpose in the story, Anton, than I would have from seeing Llewelyn's death. Hope this makes sense! Would love to hear your thoughts. Another fantastic review
He wasn’t killed by Anton. He was killed by random Mexican bandits.
This is my favourite Cohen Brothers film...
The three windmills at the start of the movie are important.... Chigurh to me is the personification of the random chaos of the universe, the unknown, the unknowable, the maelstrom... The Sheriff to me represents the fragility of our personal and collective existence, the incomprehensibility of the universe, the fear we all have of the madness of others and of our own. He also represents the purposelessness of everything we believe and hold dear when faced with death... Llewelyn’s off screen death punctuates the lack of importance he or any of us have in the grand scheme of things with all of our confidence, pride, plans, goals and dreams, and that we are not watching a regular movie with heroes and villains...
This is not a tale of everything happens for a reason. This is a tale of the rules that we follow being no good if this is where they lead us. This is a story of assuming that one day faith in God will come, but it never does. This a tale of coin flips and choices made. This is a tale not of those who might be giants but of the hapless folk who tilt at them... The wife’s dead. Chigurh checks his boots for blood. Thanks for making videos.
Well...if you read comments on 5-year-old reviews, here goes: Llewelyn Moss dies offscreen, I think, for two reasons - first, it's a gut-punch for the audience. Totally unexpected. Second, it's a culmination of the theme of futility for the _actual_ main character, Sherrif Ed Tom Bell. The cherry on top is when his brother later tells him "You can't stop what's coming." And he couldn't. It was all over by the time he got to the hotel. Moss was already dead. I believe killing off Moss in that manner was a crucial narrative decision, and a correct one.
This ties into the meta-narrative, which is about the cold, inscrutable logic of the universe. The universe, were it a man, would be Chigurh. A man in black. Implacable. Calm. Enforcing the rules without passion. Whether he kills you or lets you live has nothing to do with right or wrong, or indeed how he feels about you. Often it's just a toss of a coin. A random event. The lightning strike, the missed plane that crashes, or the tree that has stood for a hundred years, but just happens to fall as you pass by. A moment's delay or a little more haste and you would still be alive
Ed Tom's dream is so profound because it represents the one, feeble thing that can oppose the vast darkness - the human capacity for kindness and reason. His father, in the dream, carries the fire. The fire is civilization. It is light, heat, and hope. It needs to be protected; kept alive. It needs to be passed on through the generations if humanity is to stand even the slightest chance of surviving the cold indifference of the universe into which it was born.
Been waiting for you to review this :) I'll give you that, as a Coen Bros. film, it doesn't really fit...the quirkiness is totally absent. I don't see it as a "Coen Brothers" film really at all, it stands apart and is one of my all time favorite films. The film is almost flawless, technically, and that is certainly admirable...but the real kicker here is the total subversion of every potential presented.
It's set in Texas, where the American West is still romanticized, but the standoff between good and evil is muted. There is no confrontation between anthropomorphized ideologies. It happens offscreen, where it would in real life. There is no glorious showdown. Moss isn't even killed by Chigurh, but by the cartel members by happenstance. Hell, even Chigurh, who fancies himself an agent of chaos, is subject to the same perversion of serendipity when he gets hit by the car. Every second he took talking with Carla Jean or checking his boots drew him closer to getting hit at the intersection. The film says no one is safe from that. Even the character who seems to be the terrifying embodiment of it. The Old Timers are out, there is no Good vs Evil, it's all gray area. When Ed Tom Bell talks about his dream at the end, where the old time warrior goes off to fight in the darkness...it's just a dream, where romanticized ideals flourish, but we're left out here to wonder if the choices we make day to day will end up leading us to our doom.
Personally, that's the sweet spot in a film to me. When you're given a rich story, but ambiguity leaves you pondering it forever after, and even effective tropes are beautifully subverted. I think that's why this film transcends. That, and it's absolutely stunning on an aesthetic level.
The point of the anticlimax is to feel as hopeless and cheated like Sheriff Bell and it does it very well
Yes, the point is that there is no point. Did McCormack say that?
I empathize with Sheriff Bell’s hopelessness
Yay! More reviews! You're one of my favorite reviewers and I love it whenever there's a new video to watch! Also, this is one of my all time favorite films, I think it's a masterpiece. Keep up the great work!
I thing it's interesting not showing the main characters death. Knowing what the killer is cabable of and how he operates leaves us to imagine what the climactic death scene would have been like. That continues on in the back of our minds as the film draws to an end. It's unsettling. Also we have seen them go toe to toe already. Starting with when he finds him in the motel or whatever. The eerie shoot out etc... Amazing sequence and I think if we saw them fight again it would have the same format as a Batman film or something.
I think it's series 4 of Dexter where we know what the killer (the dad from Bigfoot and the Henderson's lol) does to his victims... we then find Dexters (wife is it?) dead in the bath... we know what's happened to her and it's a very powerful scene even though we don't see her actually get killed.
It's also very unsettling. It makes imagine something for ourselves.
I recently watched this again and found myself laughing so hard at a couple of scenes with Anton. The gas station scene and the scene with the trailer park manager lady are hilarious.
Great review, I’ve always felt similar about a lot of things with this film. Since the year they came out, I’ve had issues keeping “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood” strictly separate in my mind, although there are obvious differences between them. Agree that Anthony Chigur served more as a force or a vibe than a real character, yet still was a career-defining acting masterclass for Javier Bardem for portraying him how he did.
On a technical level, this film was top-notch, and a good deal darker and more serious than most Coen Brothers films, and yet I still prefer “The Big Lebowski” over it when compared.
Thank you for the wonderfully eloquent review. You are the first person to express the unnecessary frustration that I too felt with this movie. The Coen Brothers are always masteful at directing, yet some of the reasoning they conjured up while writing/shooting this film remains an unsatisfactory mystery in my book.
On a side note, the more I watch your videos, the more I admire the hard work you put into your reviews! They transcend the expected RUclipsr "vocabulary" and delve into the essence of the matter. Marvelllous stuff, I hope you continue sharing your thoughts :-)
I disagree. I found nothing frustrating about this movie. This movie was not meant to have some climactic ending.
Hi, Maggie. Here are my personal opinions about the movie.
***Spoilers***
I see Anton almost like a presence, an incarnation of Death itself. As you said it, the case is just a mcguffin, he doesn't want the case for greediness, he wants it because it's his (at least from his perspective). It's not te "what", it's the "why" and the answer is "just because...".
About Josh Brolin's death, it really caught me out f guard. Watching him being shot by the Mexicans would have never gave me that impact than watching him floating in that pool. I was shocked. It gave that frustration of "not being there for a goodbye"
"watching him floating in that pool"
That's definitely NOT a spoiler . . . .
I think that "The Man Who Wasn't There" from 2001 is a good Coen Brothers movie which is really underrated.
I really like that there is no music in "No Country For Old Men". Too many films today have too much music, too loud or too bombastic. I've seen NCFOM many times and the only score I remember is a subtle sound when Chigurh asks the gas station owner to call his coin flip. It builds up more and more as an eerie resonance and abruptly ends when the man calls the coin toss.
Had nightmares about being chased by Anton Chigurh - to this date the only movie villain I've ever encountered in my dreams.
I like Chigurh as a villain. He is a psychopath driven completely by his own rigid principles. This is why his question to Carson Well about "The rule that he followed was obviously of no use since it brought him to this." is simply retored with "Do you have any idea how crazy you are?" It's seemingly impossible for Chigurh to understand that people don't live by the same absolute rules as he does. Interestingly enough he seems to have respect for those equally strict and principe-driven as he is, which explains why he simply left when Llewelyn Moss's land lady refused to give Chigurh Moss's working place three times in a row.
Later he decides to kill Carla Jean simply because he promised Llewelyn Moss to do so if he didn't give him the money. Carla unwittingly gave herself a zero percent survival odds when she refused to call Chigurh's coin toss. "I got here the same way the coin did." It appears as if Chigurh sees himself and his entire life as a long-line of "coin tosses" in which he's a grim reaper for people in his way and those becoming a liability to him (the gas station owner noticing his stolen car had Dallas plates).
Chigurh questions the gas station owner about his life and concludes that he really *is* a clueless fool who worked at a gas station in the middle of nowhere all his life and who actually "married into it". Since he is seemingle harmless and not fully aware how dangerous Chigurh actually is he decides to let the coin toss decide his ultimate fate. He also urges the man to call it because if he himself would call it "it wouldn't be fair".
While many may see Chigurh as fate personified as an actual grim reaper it's revealed that he himself is equally bound to the very "fate" or "coin toss" when he is t-boned by another car in an accident that most likely ended his career as a hitman for hire. What Chigurh thinks of this is never revealed.
Chigurh is one of the greatest villains ever but I must admit that I find it strange that the people who hired him did so knowing he's not your regular hitman who does things according to a contract and keeps an extremely low profile.
I find Chigurh to be very real. He's a psychopath with his own rules and principles he follows to the letter and never once has a "change of mind. In the novel he (strangely) explains to Carla Jean why he is the way he is. In the film they wisely didn't include that.
One nice detail. Carson Wells discovered that "one floor is missing". He would be right because many high rise buildings don't have a 13th floor. At least not in Texas. :)
I like that Llewelyn Moss's death scene is never shown. We have been following sherif Ed Tom Bell and his search up to this point and we as an audience identify with him failing to find Llewelyn Moss in time before he is killed by the Mexicans. In fact he reaches the shooting merely a minute too late. The scene is played from the sherif's point of view.
The "unexpected" sudden death is also a good twist because while Moss focused on trying to avoid Chigurh he ironically got killed by the Mexicans who also had been searching for him and the money. Everybody expected Chigurh to get him, him to triumph over Chigurg or sherif Ed Tom finding him before Chigurh. It's a perfectly plausible ending but bold because it's not the one the audience expected for Moss. Great film making.
Personally I believe that NCFOM is the best Academy Awards Best Picture winner in many years. Probably since Unforgiven. 2007 was a fine year too with really good nominees - save for Juno which I still can't stand.
Well, you sure a reviewing some great movies lately. Always a joy to watch.
I agree about The Man Who Wasn't There. Underrated.
Dissagree about Anton Chigurh part ,i think that's what a character actually should be. Not just in terms of actor's talent on that role but the theme is just amazingly put in to the words and actions that he does. Might not seem realistic but its more realistic than the real ppl to me. I know it sound stupid. English is not my strongest suit :D
Suspense, no music, you know who's hunting who the acting is amazing and you dont need a character to explain how dangerous anton is they show it its amazingggg
You should review The Departed
Amazing review. There was something missing in this film aside from the obvious mistreatment of the audience wrt extorting our concern for Llewelyn then killing him offscreen. No arc for Llewelyn means no arc for us.
I disagree. This movie was not so focused on him, it was focused on the plot and the consequences that ensue following after Llewellyn found the money that belonged to one of the drug cartels and took it for himself.
If you still look at new comments on older videos, what was your interpretation of the scene toward the end when the sheriff returns to the crime scene of Llewelyn's hotel room and we are meant to believe that Anton is inside? We see the sheriff on one side of the door, Anton on the other... door opens, empty room. What do you think we are meant to take away from that?
Are we watching the same movie? Bardem personifies death with all the surprise, enigma, terror and so on that death produces. In his acting Bardem takes it to another level. It is a brilliant film with suspense, unpredictable turns, creepy situations, comic moments. As a European saddens me that in the USA mediocrity it is really taking over and the real talent in acting, directing and even singing it is totally unappreciated.
Oh boy! You couldn't say any better. I sometimes have the feeling that humanity is loosing the touch of its artistic impressions. We are becoming comfortably numb and we praise the light way of thinking as an excuse to hide our own ignorance. Thank you so much for your honest opinion and forgive me if I offended, in some way, your country.@Wytchfinde
I'd definitely recommend reading the book. Great review. Somehow missed this one. You are really on fire. Feels like one take.
Excellent review. Just saw your video review for A Serious Man from over a decade ago. One of my personal faves. Was unable to find a review for Barton Fink. Have to assume you've seen it. Gratitude.
I like how the violence gets more tame the longer the movie goes on. The first person Anton kills is Brutal. Shows every bit but by the end you don't see the violence
Good honest review. I waited to watch the movie. I really liked how it ended and all the turns it had. It didn't leave me happy but it left me satisfied nonetheless since it was different from a lot of mainstream movies. BTW, I am not a huge fan of Fargo, but I do love The Big Lebowski, though I think it would be unfair to compare that movie to No Country.
As far as Chigurh goes, I think that's a very valid criticism as far why the film can seem a bit underwhelming or lacking for some people. (Among a host of other reasons. It's a great film but it's also very dry and not a crowd pleaser.)
My only counter to that idea you put forward about him being a little flat would be is that when you're trying illustrate evil as something that is a metaphysical inevitability (as Chigurh seems to be a representation of) as opposed to something merely accidental or circumstantial or as a 'mistake' of nature or a byproduct of society's wrongs that can be fixed (which can all be seen as a copout depending on your philosophical leanings), it is a bit harder to explain or flesh out or get too causal about any character who represents this bold idea. It undermines the whole idea of what you're trying to illustrate about the world.
This was actually my issue with the whole concept of the Joker film with Joaquin Phoenix. I think the power of the Joker as a character is that he is just this unexplainable and inevitable force of nature as Heath Ledger portrayed him. We really know nothing about Ledger's Joker at the end of the day as entertaining as his Joker was. And because Batman is less grounded in reality than No Country For Old Men, this "force of nature" that the Joker represents can be more flamboyant and outrageous and provide character flourishes that make us forget about how thin his "anarchic" motivation all seems to be. But the idea is still powerful nonetheless because encountering 'evil' seems pretty inevitable to the human experience.
The Joaquin Phoenix Joker film, in trying explain the Joker's origin, sapped the power of the character in my opinion. It made something large and terrifying small and pathetic. I don't care how much zoomers meme that film, that's what I ultimately think about it even if Phoenix did a good job. It degraded the character. It brought him down to 'our' level.
So back to No Country For Old Men; I think the idea was to keep Chigurh large and vague and mysterious like Ledger's Joker and let human imagination fill in the blanks. But it all has to be more restrained because Chigurh can really exist whereas the Joker requires some suspension of disbelief. So attempts to flesh Chigurh out or make him more tangible or explainable would have undermined a very real picture they were trying to paint and the philosophical concepts they were trying to instill or get people to contemplate. And then also too many loud quirky character flourishes to add interest would have 'ungrounded' everything. Strangely, it's all kind of a zero sum game the way I see it. I honestly don't know what the Coens could have done from a screenplay standpoint to improve the idea they were trying show through Chigurh without compromising something else. But perhaps I lack imagination.
Anyways, I have mixed feelings about the lack of a climax but I do think it fits thematically and can maybe appreciated more on repeat viewings. It's definitely a willful subversion that is going to disappoint the vast majority of viewers the first time through.
All this said, I too would rather watch The Big Lebowski.
Great review. I saw this in theaters and loved it but for whatever reason I haven't seen it since. Your review made me want to go back and watch it again. Lucky me, it's on Netflix.
It's a crying shame that you never once mentioned the extended "Uncle Ellis" scene toward the end of the film. It was 5-6 minutes of pure cinematic perfection, carrying every nuance of the human condition in this vale of tears ... "That's vanity!"
I feel that we have three perspectives throughout the film, Bell, Moss and Anton. They all represent different goals. Moss is good hearted in nature but decides to make risky decisions for his own self gain. Anton is evil in nature and has motivations that are beyond our understanding. Sheriff Bell is also good hearted but also tries to avoid violence. We hear stories that in his fathers days they didn’t even carry guns. We never see a murder from his perspective, only the aftermath of violence. He witnesses and surrounds the fates of others but never meets his own.
I believe it’s fitting that he only witnesses the aftermath of Llewelyn’s death seeing as it’s something he’s not ready to come to terms with. He hangs up his badge at the end of the film reminiscing how easy times were with his father and how this country has outgrown him. Bwam
Appreciated your earnest and in depth look at a film that is, for me, one of the five best since the year 2000. Unlike you, I think No Country is basically everything good that Fargo is, but then something much more. Or to put it another way, whereas Fargo, which I regard very highly, is principally a compelling crime drama, NCFOM takes that aspect (at least as well) as a springboard to the real theme, which I would describe with adjectives such as probing, deep, and (ultimately) edifying. I am very with you in recognizing the centrality of Sheriff Bell, which other analyses have under-represented or even missed altogether.
I like your reviews. Keep on keeping on!
This is exactly what I thought! Great movie, but when you compare it to fargo, a Serious Man and Big Lebowski, it seems to be missing something that makes the coen brothers so amazing and unique
Miller’s Crossing is a near perfect film. I love the Big Lebowski and No Country for Old Men and Fargo. All films I have watched dozens of times and will do so for a long time.
Yay! I've been waiting for you to review this gem!
Great review! I agree with you for the most part, even I found something missing and hollow in the film that I couldn't explain, but you explained it nicely. I too overall find the movie good, but can't understand the hype. Also, the fact that any one who says one critical thing about it is said they can't understand film-making doesn't help.
I dony love this movie,but I will aknoledge that this is one of the best films ever made.
Hey, just watched your 2049 review and loved it, so i was like "ill go see of she reviewed my other two favorite movies. This and Sicario. I havent found if youve done Sicario yet, but im glad you reviewed this. Loved your perspective. I grew up dirt poor in the middle Texas and in central north PA. And this film resonated with me in every aspect. From the insanity of the bad guy, to the off screen deaths that left you feeling hallow. Its totally cool that you didnt care for those, too each their own, but i think they are what made this film stand out. (Also the film is similar to the book, but that may have been said already but i dont read comments lol) thanks for reviewing it! Im off too see if you reviewed Sicario.
Thanks for your review. I have to like anyone with a copy of Watchmen on their bookshelf... and McKee's Story! Nice.
A few points: Anton is an odd character because he is a twist in a deconstruction. Think of the Man With No Name character in Eastwood westerns. The Byronic hero. Anton is the Byronic villain.
No Country for Old Men requires a deep dive. There is so much more here. I challenge you to watch it again with a mind toward shirts. Watch for shirts.
I really like the films that you pick to watch and review. Congrats.
I thought the Tommy Lee Jones character was the worst character and Javier Bardem's, Anton Chigurh is one of my favorite characters of all time. It's ok for us all to like different movies.
I sort of have the exact opposite feeling about There Will Be Blood / No Country For Old Men. TWBB is a great film. But it didn't resonate with me on a deeper level. To be honest, I don't actually find Daniel Plainview to be a very compelling character. He just seems to me like a heartless psychopath. Whatever motives are established for him, they just aren't all that interesting to me. Regarding NCFOM, I agree that Anton Chigur is meant to be kind of an empty, enigmatic character (like you said). And I can see why some people would find that boring. But to me, that strange, phantom-like quality is what makes the character and the film so chilling and fascinating. Anyways, this is the great thing about movies. I cannot really account for my own responses to films. I don't know why I love some and don't love others, even if they are objectively great. That is the beauty. How unbearable it would be if we all had the same opinions about every film or work of art.
The offscreen death of a major character didn't bother me...once I figured out what the hell happened. If I'd recognized the shirt of the person lying on the floor, it wouldn't been a problem. In any case, I think it's in keeping with the films M.O. of denying the viewer a conventional "thriller movie" climax--the lawman can't catch the villain, retires instead; the villain never gets what he wants, disappears to parts unknown. We're left hanging with all three major storylines.
What really bothered me about this movie when I first saw it were the elements that seemed stolen directly from previous Coen films. Chigurh shooting at the bird for no reason as he drives by (Raising Arizona), the apparently empty large hotel (Barton Fink), etc. One moment almost made me laugh out loud, which ruined the tension. Years later, I read that it was producer Scott Rudin who read the book and sought the Coen brothers to make the film...I'm guessing he was reminded of those earlier movies, which is why he wanted them to do it. It doesn't bother me as much now, as I'm able to look past those sore-thumb moments and appreciate the film's virtues.
This movie is like a nightmare. I didn't need to understand Chigurh, just fear him. I was dragged from the begginig till The end, and like Tommy Lee Jones caracther it left me wondering what all this mean, but sometimes, Even if we don't like it, tragedies has no sense.
Love this film so much.
We have no idea who Sugar is. Llewelyn is very believable. So this one and “There Will Be Blood” filmed in Marfa, TX. Also “Giant.”
Chgur is a stand-in for inevitable consequences. Expecting it to be different and not liking it is the problem. It is supposed to be a problem.
Great review. My main problem with the movie: too many things happening. Too many shootings, pistols, too many shirts used to stop the bleeding. And also with the moments when the villain spares lives. It happens too often. It' s like a showboating of "HEY YOU THOUGHT THAT NOW HE SHOOTS HER AS WELL? NO NO THAT WOULD BE TOO OBVIOUS, OUR CHARACTER IS INTERESTING. HE IS NOT A TRIVIAL VILLAIN. HE IS SPECIAL!". It works once. But the trick is repeated at least 3 times in the movie.
"Too many shootings"
"when the villain spares lives. It happens too often"
hmmmmm . . . .
Psycho and no country are the same movie. Both make a decision that can't be undone and both encounter evil. And they are my number 1 and 2 favs.
I love the fact that Llewelyn dies like that, because, just like him, we as viewers are unprepared for the forces of fate.
You can say anything you want about the character of Anton Chigurh played by Javier Bardem but according to various psychiatrists he is the most realistic psychopath ever depicted in movies. Props to him as an actor for achieving such a result as well to the Coen brothers's writing
Good point on not really finding extra meanings in this film. I also enjoyed No county so much, but don't feel it offers all that much then its great story en filmmaking.
I love this review, I subbed because u gave an honest and open opinion, thank u for such a great video. 🙂
Agreed.. Would have liked to seen a more developed Anton. Regardless, this is still a classic. Nice review!
Funny, I had the opposite opinion. I never felt any connection with There Will Be Blood despite thinking it was a great film, while No Country did affect me. It's been a long time since I've seen either though.
This movie was really good. Great tension throughout the movie, great visual story telling, great acting performances etc. However my only flaw with this film is that I did not care for Tommy Lee Jones's scenes.
The thing you are kinda picking up on is that the story is not about the people in it as much as it is about the world, and more specifically humanity's place in nature. How our existence doesn't follow our hopes / expectations, and often even defy our very understanding of it, BUT that we ought not to be deterred by that.
The sheriff is us, trying to piece together what we are experiencing. Moss is the futility of fighting the world, and Anton IS the world. Moss has great intentions, resilience and competency, yet gets punished for every moral choice he makes. Anton is odd/ugly, cold, calculated, deterministic. Just a force of entropy. Uncaring, inevitable.
And that's why the dream of the sheriff is really the showdown of the story. His father carrying the fire, to dispel the frost and darkness, even tho it will not end the winter night.
... and after that you directly begin with "The Road", for actual thematic continuation..! So cool that both books became films.
Anton in the end with car accident limping off is the comic realisation to the viewer that nothing will cure him of his grim reaper god complex love the film one for the boys
They were a bit limited in what they could change about Chigurh for example - you don't change Cormac McCarthy's story.
I enjoy your reviews and I understand what you're saying here, but I don't think the film, or the book, are interested in 'humanising' or 'understanding' Chigurh. Rather Chigurh (and before him 'The Judge' in Blood Meridian), is a representation and a personification of certain kinds of dark and destructive forces that exist in the world. And the books examine the deforming and debilitating effects of those forces on otherwise decent and innocent people. Both Chigurh and The Judge are better understood as elemental figures rather than attempts to realistically understand evil -- and the book is really the Sheriff's story (who I think is the Old Man of the title). Of course, you may not like that kind of film (although, given that you like Lynch and his work too includes figures which are representations of darkness and pain, I think you do!), but I think that, by mentally comparing this to "There Will Be Blood", you're looking for the wrong things in *this* film. IMO, There Will be Blood is actually a very different film, one which does offer a compelling portrait of a complex and horribly flawed human being.
Love your channel. Love your reviews. I have some significant disagreements with this one, however. But that's part of the fun! 1. Llewelyn's off screen death is awesome. The world of the film is an increasingly dangerous and inexplicable COUNTY unsafe for old men (and anyone else!). In this world the lovably opportunistic Llewelyn pays for his moral lapse NOT in a FINAL SHOWDOWN with the VILLAIN, but unceremoniously by a faceless band of middle management thugs. Also, rather sneakily, Llewelyn is NOT the protagonist, Sheriff Bell is. (This is ab it clearer in the book, which surprising goes unmentioned in your review) He is the representative of the titular Old Men. He is the one grappling with the shifting tides of Ethics and Reason in this COUNTRY. 2. Chigur is a great and fully realized character. He has a code. He is extremely disciplined and resilient. And relentless. Yes, he is mysterious and symbolic, REPRESENTATIVE of the EXTREME UNFATHOMABLE DANGER at the heart of this unsafe COUNTRY, and even more generally could be seen as representative of The BOOGIEMAN, or DEATH itself, but he is quirky and real, in my opinion, a full embodiment of the mysterious DARKNESS that renders this country unfit for old men. 3. There Will Be Blood is great, a near miss masterpiece, but it is distinctly INFERIOR to NCFOM. It's fatal flaw as a film for me is the casting of Dano as the foil for Lewis' Plaintree. Dano is a good actor, but he is a hopelessly lightweight opponent for Lewis. The movie could have been a real look at the war for the soul of America between two forks of our founding ethos: FREEDOM OF RELIGION and FREE ENTERPRISE. But the writing and directing of Dano's character, the decision to have him play both twins (unsuccessful and needlessly confusing), and just his WEAK PRESENCE, make the BATTLE of these two ideas FORGONE, and laughable. NCFOM has no such flaw, in my opinion.
Off screen death of lewellen is to reinforce tommy lees (the moral center of film) complaints through out, that times are changing. Tongue in cheek...cohens themselves get in on the act and deprive us of what an older person would expect which is shoot out at the oke coral or some kind of commom christian theme where "good" or some kind of moral meaning triumphs. In fact in this movie the bad guy "wins" .
I would say this movie is about the complete lack of morals, and most important to shagure, integrity that resides in folks when it comes to money. Shagure only respects older woman managing lewellens mobile park.
Notice how instead of killing witness who noticed his license plate, shagure 1st interrogates gas station attendant,for weather or not he stood for something or just went along... before giving coin choice. Even young boys take money to be quiet in the end scene.
Shagure is our inner moral concious that we sometimes flip the coin and ignore at our own peril...or we get away with one.
I like the movie very much but I thought the ending was a little weak...It came to a screeching halt when he gets hit by a car , buys the shirt from the kid and hobbles away..I thought it needed to be more dramatic..good review , your easy on the eyes too !
Couldn't agree more with your review. Always had reservations about this film. 11:09 Oct
3rd, 2023
I like NCFOM, but it's not my favorite. I agree. Inside Llewen Davis, Fargo are also great. I really liked "The Man Who wasn't there", which seems to get no mention. It's like the Forgotten Coen Bros movie. Did you like that one? I liked Hail Caeser more after the 2nd viewing and reading some analysis. It's not for everyone though.
I think it paralells The Man who wasn't there or burn after reading more than TWBB(masterpiece)...but certainly on a vague level it does...but nowhere near as deep.
Great review.
Read the book. The film is great. One of my top 5 films. But you gotta read the book.
As well as this young lady articulates her views and opinions openly and truthfully The villain character the Tommy lee Jones character they're not characters that you can Want to see what motivates them et cetera there more conceptional she even said that their representations there symbolic of aspects of the human condition and the villain that bar dam plays is literally or metaphorically the darkness of the human condition that she wanted to be
Best Coen brothers' films: 1) Fargo, 2) The Big Lebowski, 3) No Country for Old Men
It is not about Llewelyn Moss. It is about Sheriff Tom Bell, and his futile struggle to make sense of an uncaring and chaotic universe.
Thank you! Sheriff bell is the representative Old Man. Bell is the protagonist, the one really grappling with all this shit. This is a bit clearer in the book.
@@ehissify Yes, Bell is an eponymous old man. He is a godly man, trying to rationalize a nihilistic world. At the end, he says he woke up.
NCFOM is a masterpiece. Also you've mostly used a reverse shot in your vids didn't you?
no country for old memes.
I think it's the Coen brothers best movie.
To me having Llewelyn's death off screen was a way of de-romanticizing him as a leading man. It fits with the nihilistic message of the movie. Not only does he fail and get killed, his death isn't particularly special, just another fleeting victim of the whole mess. With that said, I agree this isn't my favorite Coen Brothers movie and that lack of humanity/emotion is both a strength of the film and what keeps it from being something I 100% connect with and get excited about. I like Blood Simple, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, A Serious Man and maybe even O Brother Where art Thou more. Still a great movie overall
Hmmmm, I don't feel a real emotional connection with the characters in those other movies either. Or, at least, no stronger than the ones I have for, say, Sheriff Bell and Carla Jean.
@@fewwiggle you're right, I didn't word that part quite right. There are definitely characters to identify and empathize with. It's more the nihilistic message and cold way it treats the characters that I was getting at (not that the filmmakers are uncaring or nihilistic, it's the intention and point of the movie). This is a strength of the film, but also part of why I watch it less than the others I listed (though A Serious Man has a similar outlook and themes)
I hate to be "that guy" who says that he hates to be "that guy" right before he makes an extremely nitpicky comment, but his name is Josh Brolin. 2:11. Awesome video though.
Shit, I was thinking of his dad. Thanks for catching that!
Also what do you think of O Brother Where Art Thou?
Haven't seen it.
Jesus, youre missing out. :P
The film left out Sheriff Ed Tom Bel's World War Two military story, which would have made his character in the film more purposeful. This was a huge disservice.
Love both films to death . No country for old men is probably more accessible to audiences than there will be blood , but I always thought there will be blood was the better of the two, more intimate far more memorable for me anyway.
I agree with you about Llewelyn's death. I was confused as to who killed him the way they did it. At first I thought Anton got him, but I guess it was the Mexican drug guys, right? Also, I was not happy that Anton gets off unpunished, but I guess that is the point of the movie. Still they tease you with the car wreck, making you think he is getting his comeuppance, so that was frustrating. Still love the movie. Cohen brothers' films are very hit and miss with me. Love some of them, and hate some others.
The point is it’s pointless. It’s the anticlimax just like life. Just like the mother who pathetically dies of cancer. Shit happens. We don’t get our showdown and nothing means anything.
Book that it is based off of is quite good.
I have just watched There Will Be Blood and No Country the last 2 nights,
TWBB is far superior and is still a very good movie (but i found the first hour a bit too skow), whereas NCFOM just felt really empty and uninteresting with a cartoon baddie.
TWBB 8.5/10
NCFOM 6/10.
Here's my analysis: 2 men on the outside come into a situation where there's money at stake. Nobody truely has a claim to the blood money and the 2 main characters are centered around the money while everyone else is centered around them. But in a twist of irony the most villainous wins the money but he still loses over all at the end of the day being wounded both physically and mentally. Was he anton evil? Or was he actually the righteous man? In other words did evil win or is does it just seem that way?
AS USUAL I AGREE WITH YOU EXCEPT FOR THE CONCEPT OF HUMOR, I SEE NONE.
It is very simple to argue for Lewellen's death being off camera.
All the build up of this dark story that "plays" like a "western" , has been focusing in this "duel" of wits and resourcefulness, between Lewellen and Anton. And AS WESTERNS GO, it should end up in a duel...
But we're not in a western..., theres no "good" and "evil", just caos and violence, without any rules. Thats why Lewellen gets killed rather randomly and pathetically, not by his nemesis, but by a small group of mexican-cartel guys hes not expecting.
Some good observations for sure. I have always speculated to what extent the woman he met at the pool may have served as a distraction for him. "Beer leads to more beer".
"Miller's Cross" is also excellent.
Cohen Bros never fail.
Fargo was much too casually demented for me.