Charlie Rose

Nick Fennessy  09/30/2008 08:22 PM Report

Am I the only one who believes Tommy Lee Jones dies in this movie?

Think about this...Chigurh is a ruthless killer. He kills everyone who needs to die throughout the entire movie. Tommy Lee Jones is the sherrif tracking Chigurh. They face off at the hotel and Tommy Lee Jones walks away...alive! That doesn't make any sense. I believe Chigurh kills the sherrif and the rest of the movie is a dream sequence where Tommy Lee is talking about "retirement" and finding God.

any believers out there?

dwain  09/25/2008 05:38 AM Report

I thought the movie had inconsistencies also. But, I kind of could see a different view, besided the gliches, like, a bunch of older guys chasing money, and in tommy lee's situation a bit different, he is chasing the killer, the cowboy and the money, but could care less about the money,( but, what if?) I think he is just an older cop getting ready to retire and just doing his job. The killer I see as an older guy just wanting the money, hey he isn't getting any younger either. So, I see it from a different view and the title fits well, with what i see.

Christopher DeVol  09/13/2008 03:38 PM Report

Bardem's character is Death. Death is the only constant, though you're more likely to encounter it when you are greedy. However, Death might just come along as you are minding your own business. Sometimes, you face death unexpectedly, and walk away unscathed. When you are old, and expecting Death, knowing it's right around the corner, it leaves you alone. And so on, and so on.

flipnflop  08/20/2008 02:06 AM Report

I think the brilliance of the movie is its subtlety, the fact that it is not entirely obvious and predictable. The sheriff's dream I think is foreshadowing his own future. First he talks about meeting his dad in town and getting money from him, since apparently Chigurh never found the money. Then he follows his dad into the darkness and his dad lights a fire ahead for him...i.e. he ends up dead.

Lance Kennedy  08/11/2008 08:27 AM Report

I had the same feeling, like I missed something. The way it jumped to Moss being alive and kicking to just plain dead shortly after, and just the brief glimpse we got, I thought it was a trick. Like, 'Oh that looks like him but it really isn't, I'll bet he surfaces later.' So then I guessed that the grieving of the wife was really because the mom got bumped off. Turns out it really was Moss, and the mom dies later, presumably of 'the cancer'? I thought we could have at least witnessed Moss' last stand w/the Mexicans. But the fact this was left out is extremely significant, and I can't believe I haven't seen more discussions on this. You're vested in this character, then he's just dead. Very interesting move on the Coens' part. I think they just wanted to pull the rug out from under you.

Vaughan  08/04/2008 02:08 PM Report

I went back to the video store three times to exchange what I thought were faulty dvd's, but all three had the same glitch. After Brolin's interaction w/ the chic by the pool, all three copies "jumped" to TLJ driving down the street and the pickup comes blasting out in front of him and there are gunshots from the hotel. I missed the mom and Brolin getting killed. Has anyone else had this issue or do they really not have a scene showing those events?

josh  06/08/2008 07:39 AM Report

Did the ending of No Country feel reminiscent to that of Waiting for Godot or was it just me?

emma f  06/07/2008 09:04 PM Report

After watching this film I was left with a feeling that I had missed something. !! Yes the final scene was brilliantly acted and I do agree that we do not have to have the endings of films "gift wrapped with a Bow" however, the scene leaves me some what mystified and frustrated.I believe Certain important scenes, in my humble opinion were skipt over, the death of Josh, an integral part of the film, the significance of chigura returning to the office , why??. All in all, while I do think the film was good, I do not think it deserved the 4 oscars that it got!!!!! Another classic example of hype and arty fart critics fueling it.

I object  05/20/2008 10:27 PM Report

How in the world did Javier Bardem get an Oscar for this? He is a great actor, no doubt, but was this to make up for passing over for his real Oscar deserving role? Sorry, no sale.

Richard L. Pangburn  05/15/2008 12:39 PM Report

Well, no, the novel is more than that, Peter, and seen by many as a parable rather than a thriller. Woody Harrelson's cameo was a nice touch, especially considering the Harrelson connection to the real Chigurh of that drug era. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamiel_Chagra

David A.  05/02/2008 09:26 AM Report

Comment by Don Nuzzo on Thursday, Apr 24 at 04:56 AM

"At the end of the film, Chigurh walks out of the house and stops on the front porch, and he reaches down to each foot or heel, and makes some type of motion, one at a time. Anybody care to hazard a guess at that meaning?"

I think he's making sure there's no blood on his boots. He propped them up on the bed after killing Carson Wells.

Comment by Tara L. Paronto on Thursday, Mar 27 at 10:21 AM

"The wife states, she just buried her mother, but there was no word on what happened to her husband. Yes, it showed the scene that he was "supposibly" murdered, but then nothing after that. Am I missing Something?"

Yes. It was hard to tell, but the husband was killed in the shootout at the motel in El Paso. Tommy Lee Jones gets to the motel a moment too late and Llewelyn is dead on the floor in the doorway. I must admit I had to rewind the film and review this scene in order to see what had happened to him. From that angle they chose it was hard to tell that it was Llewelyn. Very poorly shot crucial moment.

Comment by sjh on Tuesday, Feb 12 at 10:14 AM

"There were too many inconsistancies ie: if you find that kind of money, you don't go back, and other times. It did get the other viewers and myself talking, as to why this and why that. I think the coen bros were "trying" to make another Fargo. Unfortunately that only worked once, then again some people think it worked for this movie."

I think this film was more of a fairy tale in the Raising Arizona genre. Multi-protagonists, one seemingly unstoppable major antagonist of mythic proporotions. Fargo was more human, really, more plausible. We may empathize with Llewelyn's character because he needs to go back and give that dying man water, but this behavior contradicts his behavior at the scene of the shootout where he originally finds the money. Anton Chigurh's killing spree that starts off the movie, seems at odds with his alliance with the two men he's with (and then kills) later at the shootout scene. We don't know for sure until much later that he was hired for this mission. Inconsistencies or unclear moments, yes.

I think the film is made, or perhaps the book is written to leave you asking yourself a question. Well, I asked myself: does the sherriff decide to hunt down Chigurh or does he accept his fading, powerless existence? This was an effective, suspenseful, horror film with some meaning but not a whole lot. The line that sticks with me goes something like "Once 'Sir' and 'Ma'am' have left the vocabulary, it's inevitable what follows." That's good comedy - the idea that nose rings and green hair are to blame for this bloodbath.

More than Daniel Plainview, (and frightening in a different way) there's a profound emptiness of McCarthy's barely-human psychopath Chigurh. Same emptiness as the landscape. There lies the meaning. That's Coen brothers: painting a deeper, effective picture of the landscape using characters and story.

Don Nuzzo  04/29/2008 09:55 AM Report

At the end of the film, Chigurh walks out of the house and stops on the front porch, and he reaches down to each foot or heel, and makes some type of motion, one at a time. Anybody care to hazard a guess at that meaning?

I object  04/11/2008 10:43 PM Report

Other than the interestingly played and moving speech ending the movie, it was a pretty lame film and utterly forgettable. Certainly not the best of the year by a long shot.

Tara L. Paronto  04/02/2008 01:50 AM Report

I found this movie to be uterly invigirating! Granted, I didn't read the book (I'm not much of a reader) but I do believe that great books make great movies. I was a little puzzled towards the end when Chigurh shows up at the home of the elderly mother. The wife states, she just buried her mother, but there was no word on what happened to her husband. Yes, it showed the scene that he was "supposibly" murdered, but then nothing after that. Am I missing Something?

t-max  03/31/2008 09:50 PM Report

"No worries, my original critique of the film has apparently been removed." Hmmmmmmm. I came late to the discussion so now I'm wondering what you said that stirred up so much controversey, peter. What could you have possibly said that caused it to be removed????? Anybody? Bueller...Bueller...Bueller

Brian David  03/29/2008 11:30 AM Report

I was sitting on the fence until the final act, when the raw, desolate vernacular of Cormac McCarthy, to me, was most poignantly represented. I walked out of the theater feeling a sense of community with whoever else recognized the ways in which the film transcended or, if you prefer, rescinded its conventional trajectory and became instead nearly nonpareil.

Charlie: You're the best. Next time you have folks who have used the tools of their medium to create something as affecting and resonant as No Country For Old Men (please) ask them what cumulative effect they'd like their art to have as a means of routing their motivations, which, by my hypothesis, will be only secondarily devoted to the construction of something peerless and thrilling and, though in-admissibly so, primarily devoted to tempering and helping their fellow humans. Just an idea.

ron surovec  03/21/2008 07:58 PM Report

During the scene between Chigurh and the gas station attendant, there is a line by Chigurh which doesn't seem discernable on the DVD I bought? I played the conversation several times at higher volumes, but one sentence by Chigurh makes no sense, it's as if it's an editing mistake or my DVD is faulty...has anyone else noticed this???

Tangerine Dream  03/16/2008 11:22 AM Report

Anyone actually read the book ? Yes, it is a good movie compared to all the drivel out there these days, however, why would the Coen brothers leave out/change important facts that were crucial to Antons' character ?

Case in point..in the flick he kills the CEO (drug boss) and is referred to constantly as ' a loose cannon', when in fact the book version shows him to have made very calculated moves. He does not kill the CEO, but brings him the money as he wants to impress him and be in his employ.....everything he did brought him to this place....by having him kill this dude, it turns the flick into another cowboy movie.....I was greatly disappointd...

sjh  02/12/2008 10:14 AM Report

While I can see how this movie would be viewed as a "classic", I disagree. (would like to see Peter's comments) There were too many inconsistancies ie: if you find that kind of money, you don't go back, and other times. It did get the other viewers and myself talking, as to why this and why that. I think the coen bros were "trying" to make another Fargo. Unfortunately that only worked once, then again some people think it worked for this movie. NOT

David Ballmer  02/11/2008 11:31 AM Report

The ending dovetails perfectly with the V.O. at the beginning, and all of the character's conversations early on. Brian David, please, we see enough pretentious prattle from mainstream critics.

joha  01/22/2008 03:04 PM Report

I believe the movie was meant to leave the viewer as frustrated as the sheriff.

joha  01/22/2008 03:04 PM Report

I believe the movie was meant to leave the viewer as frustrated as the sheriff.

Emlyn Addison  12/11/2007 01:55 PM Report

Utterly captivating. Bardem's heartless facade is more than just the bizarre gaze of a psychopath; it is the embodiment of evil.

Close to perfect, I agree.

Wowed  11/29/2007 06:31 PM Report

Loved it. Left momentarily dumbstruck, then slowly agreed it was perfect - and maybe the only 'true' way to 'stop.' CLASSIC! And the dialgue and acting were stellar as well.

Mikhail Goberman  11/26/2007 01:01 PM Report

Why does a film need to have a clear story or "plot" that gets all wrapped up with a bow in the end? Are we so conditioned to the "normal" mode of storytelling that we cannot even appreciate a movie that uses novelestic techniques and digressions? Personally, the last fifteen minutes of the film is exactly what transforms it from a well-made, run-of-the-mill thriller into a modern classic.

peter wintz  11/23/2007 02:43 PM Report

everybody has commented on what I wrote rather than give much support to this pulp with veneer of philosophy (if hoplessness qualifies as a philosophy) permitting you to indulge in the usual shoot 'em up chase,

No worries, my original critique of the film has apparently been removed

Ju-osh  11/21/2007 01:11 PM Report

Hey, Peter -- I winced...at your writing!

Dr Rosen  11/21/2007 10:33 AM Report

peter wintz, you could not be more wrong. But I do not have the time to elaborate. How's the view up there on that high horse?