Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

No Country For Old Men

MASTERBAKER

MASTERBAKER

DEMOTED MOD
BGOL Investor
No Country For Old Men

tumblr_lmsy4aHEWI1qhjv44.gif

The brilliant Coen Brothers 2007 film No Country For Old Men.

Some scenes I like, in order, from this masterpiece.

Stars Tommy-Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Woody Harrelson and Josh Brolin.

Movie's page at Internet Movie Database.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477348/
<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/d27_1327136464"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/d27_1327136464" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>
Click to expand...

no-country-for-old-men-no-country-for-old-men-23-01-2008-21-11-2007-1-g.jpg


653_max.jpg
 

***possible spoiler***


I still dont get why the climatic shootout between llewellyn and the mexicans was absent; and the random car accident at the end. and i still dont see the significance of the story beyond the "times are becoming more violent for tommy lee jones' character" metaphor; and i guess a superficial discussion about fate.
 
Most of my homie say this is not a better film than New Jack City.. Is it as important to our culture? Hell no.. Is it a better overall film :yes::yes::yes::yes:
 
Naraku said:
One of my favorite scenes





classic
Click to expand...

that scene had me like :eek::eek: , thats 1 crazy muthafucka
snark9 said:

***possible spoiler***


I still dont get why the climatic shootout between llewellyn and the mexicans was absent; and the random car accident at the end. and i still dont see the significance of the story beyond the "times are becoming more violent for tommy lee jones' character" metaphor; and i guess a superficial discussion about fate.
Click to expand...

yeah i enjoyed this movie for what it was but i didn't like those aspects u mentioned, the majority of ppl didn't like the ending, they jus those ppl who wanna fit in and call the ppl who didn't get the ending stupid
 
mathtest said:
yeah i enjoyed this movie for what it was but i didn't like those aspects u mentioned, the majority of ppl didn't like the ending, they jus those ppl who wanna fit in and call the ppl who didn't get the ending stupid
Click to expand...

The problem is, people don't like to think. Thy want things laid on a platter for them..



The ending of the film was a metaphor for the title of the film. Sheriff Bell feels like Anton keeps passing him by (his dream reflected this), and he's too old to keep up; hence the title of the film.




But, If you want to see what the real ending was, read the book...


mccarthy-No-Country-for-Old-Men.jpg
 
Manhattan said:
The problem is, people don't like to think. Thy want things laid on a platter for them..



The ending of the film was a metaphor for the title of the film. Sheriff Bell feels like Anton keeps passing him by (his dream reflected this), and he's too old to keep up; hence the title of the film.




But, If you want to see what the real ending was, read the book...


mccarthy-No-Country-for-Old-Men.jpg
Click to expand...

a few points:

i think the coen bros just wanted to make waves, by leaving the movie with an ambiguous resolution, and an 'avant garde' missing climax.

they just got lucky that the rest of it was as decent as it was, such that their experiment didnt ruin the film.

the correlation between the metaphorical subject matter of the film and the title, is apparently more obvious than you realize [the sheriff ed tom literally describes the theme in the move] both thinking and non thinking people should get it.

the point you raise about the book i think is a testament to something the film lacks. the film adaptation, no country for old men, should be able to stand on it's own as a film, without supplemental reading.
 
Just saw it for the first time a couple months ago on AMC. Good ass movie, cant beleive I never saw it before.
 
snark9 said:
a few points:

i think the coen bros just wanted to make waves, by leaving the movie with an ambiguous resolution, and an 'avant garde' missing climax.

they just got lucky that the rest of it was as decent as it was, such that their experiment didnt ruin the film.

the correlation between the metaphorical subject matter of the film and the title, is apparently more obvious than you realize [the sheriff ed tom literally describes the theme in the move] both thinking and non thinking people should get it.

the point you raise about the book i think is a testament to something the film lacks. the film adaptation, no country for old men, should be able to stand on it's own as a film, without supplemental reading.
Click to expand...

There is NOTHING ambiguous about the ending. What I just explained to you was the intention of the directors as stated in an interview they did.. It verified what I had already grasped from it.


As far as both thinking and non thinking individuals getting the metaphors, do a Google search. You'll find 100's of topics from the non thinkers asking people to explain this movie to them..

 
snark9 said:

***possible spoiler***


I still dont get why the climatic shootout between llewellyn and the mexicans was absent; and the random car accident at the end. and i still dont see the significance of the story beyond the "times are becoming more violent for tommy lee jones' character" metaphor; and i guess a superficial discussion about fate.
Click to expand...


Here's my partial take:
The 'Tommy Lee' angle is about how perceived levels of violence change over generations. Things always get worse as one gets older. The level of worldly violence seems to increase, but the story of the elder lawman in the family shows that there was always violence within their chosen profession; whether or not it's worse is open to debate. What Tommy's character seems to have gathered from this is that, as he got older, the level of societal violence increased and he was not comfortable with it.
(hence the movies' title)
The car crash was a way of indicating how random violence really is and also that bad guys often DO get away with their crimes. The only medium in which the bad guy always gets caught is the alternate reality that most movies create for us. We suspend belief because we want/expect the bad guy to get his comeuppance.
It's not real, but it's what we're used to as moviegoers.
 
Manhattan said:
There is NOTHING ambiguous about the ending. What I just explained to you was the intention of the directors as stated in an interview they did.. It verified what I had already grasped from it.


As far as both thinking and non thinking individuals getting the metaphors, do a Google search. You'll find 100's of topics from the non thinkers asking people to explain this movie to them..
Click to expand...

the metaphor that you were talking about is not the same as the ending.

the metaphor throughout the movie follows the title theme, which is well understood.

what i'm describing as the 'ambiguous resolutions' are events. questions like; what happened in the shootout with the mexicans? did anton kill llywellyn's wife [which is implied but not explored]? or what was the significance of the car accident? regardless of what is in the book, these were never fully resolved in the film [which should be able to stand on its own without supplemental reading].

im not saying that things like this were wrong per se, i dont mind ambiguity, but it felt forced and gimmicky.



twillz1 said:
Here's my partial take:
The 'Tommy Lee' angle is about how perceived levels of violence change over generations. Things always get worse as one gets older. The level of worldly violence seems to increase, but the story of the elder lawman in the family shows that there was always violence within their chosen profession; whether or not it's worse is open to debate. What Tommy's character seems to have gathered from this is that, as he got older, the level of societal violence increased and he was not comfortable with it.
(hence the movies' title)
The car crash was a way of indicating how random violence really is and also that bad guys often DO get away with their crimes. The only medium in which the bad guy always gets caught is the alternate reality that most movies create for us. We suspend belief because we want/expect the bad guy to get his comeuppance.
It's not real, but it's what we're used to as moviegoers.
Click to expand...

yeah, i think everybody gets it.
it is not as hard to understand as people seem to think.
even for american audiences.

yes there is a discussion in the movie that matches the title; and yes there is a discussion about the randomness of fate, as i mentioned earlier.

my problem isnt about interpretation; but one perhaps of editing and use of non sequitur in the story.
 
Last edited:
I've seen the movie before. I want to see it again. Do you guys recommend watching the movie (iPad) or reading (nook)?
 
snark9 said:
the metaphor that you were talking about is not the same as the ending.

the metaphor throughout the movie follows the title theme, which is well understood.

what i'm describing as the 'ambiguous resolutions' are events. questions like; what happened in the shootout with the mexicans? did anton kill llywellyn's wife [which is implied but not explored]? or what was the significance of the car accident? regardless of what is in the book, these were never fully resolved in the film [which should be able to stand on its own without supplemental reading].

im not saying that things like this were wrong per se, i dont mind ambiguity, but it felt forced and gimmicky.
Click to expand...

He wiped blood from the bottom of his shoe; of course he killed Llywellyn's wife... We're talking about a highly principled individual here. He says what he means, and means what he says. No one is talking him out of shit. They went to great lengths to show that in his personality.

I think where we differ is I can live with something being implied, without having to see it. It didn't feel forced to me neither. The only way it would feel that way is if we didn't see massive blood shed throughout this film.


My question to you is: What does seeing Llywellyn get shot by the Mexicans, or seeing his wife killed by Anton add to the film?
 
TEN said:
you know i've never seen this movie.
Click to expand...

You got to see it man. This fucking dude is a psychopathic, cold blooded bastard. His coin toss was like Two Face from Batman. I still don't understand who was telling the story though. Op?
 
that film was an ass kicking one, the one factor that did it for me was how unpredictable this character was, he kept me on the edge of my seat for the whole movie.

Not to mention how the hell he was able to pull his part, since his english is not that good, but in an interview he did a while back, they put him through a lot of training to get him ready for this one. Love this joint.
 
Manhattan said:
He wiped blood from the bottom of his shoe; of course he killed Llywellyn's wife... We're talking about a highly principled individual here. He says what he means, and means what he says. No one is talking him out of shit. They went to great lengths to show that in his personality.

I think where we differ is I can live with something being implied, without having to see it. It didn't feel forced to me neither. The only way it would feel that way is if we didn't see massive blood shed throughout this film.


My question to you is: What does seeing Llywellyn get shot by the Mexicans, or seeing his wife killed by Anton add to the film?
Click to expand...

that's not where we differ.

As ive already stated i dont think that the ambiguity was wrong, just cheaply done. it didnt seem authentic to the storytelling arc, and it was executed in such a way that didnt add to the story.

it was almost as though the coen bros said to themselves; "hey we're the coen brothers, people are expecting to be made uncomfortable, and see something innovative in our movie, so lets give them a coen brothers styled movie."

innovative editing, and unconventional storytelling beats work, like in pulp fiction for example,
but here it wasnt as well done as it could have been.

in this movie, unconventional beats felt like non sequiturs and
characters we followed for half the film, returned in new scenes as dead corpses.
 
snark9 said:
that's not where we differ.

As ive already stated i dont think that the ambiguity was wrong, just cheaply done. it didnt seem authentic to the storytelling arc, and it was executed in such a way that didnt add to the story.

it was almost as though the coen bros said to themselves; "hey we're the coen brothers, people are expecting to be made uncomfortable, and see something innovative in our movie, so lets give them a coen brothers styled movie."

innovative editing, and unconventional storytelling beats work, like in pulp fiction for example,
but here it wasnt as well done as it could have been.

in this movie, unconventional beats felt like non sequiturs and
characters we followed for half the film, returned in new scenes as dead corpses.
Click to expand...

What you're not understanding is this is a movie with multiple perspectives. If we see Llewellyn get shot from his perspective, it kills the surprise and suspense for Sheriff Bell's perspective. You're trying to read too deep when it's simple. They had to make a choice.
 
Soul On Ice said:
fave scene from the movie
Click to expand...
Devilstrider said:
Great movie.
Click to expand...
snark9 said:
that's not where we differ.

As ive already stated i dont think that the ambiguity was wrong, just cheaply done. it didnt seem authentic to the storytelling arc, and it was executed in such a way that didnt add to the story.

it was almost as though the coen bros said to themselves; "hey we're the coen brothers, people are expecting to be made uncomfortable, and see something innovative in our movie, so lets give them a coen brothers styled movie."

innovative editing, and unconventional storytelling beats work, like in pulp fiction for example,
but here it wasnt as well done as it could have been.

in this movie, unconventional beats felt like non sequiturs and
characters we followed for half the film, returned in new scenes as dead corpses.
Click to expand...


Damn this was a good movie. One of my faves for the realistic cinematography.

Was this the scene posted by the OP. I can’t imagine a more self descriptive and telling scene.

Trying to remember a more realistic villain. I guess both Buffalo Bill and Hannibal had me going to.

Here’s the study w the list of all the movies if interested


Carry on…..
 
Last edited:

Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

playahaitian
Forgotten History: The Jezebel Stereotype
Replies
0
Views
295
playahaitian
playahaitian
mailboxpimp
Forbes Top Creators for 2023
Replies
0
Views
413
mailboxpimp
mailboxpimp
darth frosty
Donald Trump’s Plan to be the Central Banker to the World
Replies
28
Views
1K
D24OHA
D24OHA
mailboxpimp
Side Hustle Helper: ChatGpt - Prompts for Content Creators & Researchers - on-going
2 3 4
Replies
125
Views
10K
MYSTIC
MYSTIC
Louis Koo
The secret economics of a VIP party
Replies
6
Views
626
JungleBros
J
Back
Top