No Country For Old Men

[Spoonless]

Just saw a preview for this, the new Coen brothers film. I don't think I've disliked any of their movies that I've seen, and it's getting good reviews. So far on Rotten Tomatoes, it's at 93%.

There are a couple trailers on their official site here (http://www.nocountryforoldmen.com/).

[NewMarketSean]

It does look like a return to the Coen Bros. roots of Blood Simple and Fargo. I like the positive reviews, but I've also read some mediocre ones too. I will be seeing this film no less.

[orangedive]

I read the book twice and the screenplay and I just have to say: if the movie is half as good as the book, it will one of the best movies of the decade.

I'm not prone to exaggeration, and I rarely get overly excited for films. This is going to be a special film.

McCarthy + the Coens = Total Awesomeness.

[Spoonless]

McCarthy + the Coens + Tommy Lee Jones = Total Awesomeness.

FTFY ;) :D

[MP]

I've been a big fan of the Coen brothers myself, and I'm excited about this one. Javier Bardem looks freaking psychotic.

[rolliefingers]

Going to see this tonight. Report forthcoming. If I feel like it.:)

[orangedive]

Going to see this tonight. Report forthcoming. If I feel like it.:)


Please report. Where are you watching it? I'm dying to see this but it's not playing anywhere near me.

[rolliefingers]

Please report. Where are you watching it? I'm dying to see this but it's not playing anywhere near me.

Oh, but it is!

http://movies.aol.com/showtimes/baltimore-md/21211/theaters#5767

Oh my sweet, sweet lord. Absolutely in my top-5 movies of all time. I hesitate to say that any Coen Bros. movie is better than Lebowski, but...wow.

Just make sure that you walk out of the theater in a group. Otherwise, you're going to be freaked out and think Javier Bardem is hiding behind every dark corner.

I cannot stress this enough: See this movie. Now.

[twoBshorty]

Question: is it an advantage or a disadvantage to see it without reading the book? Or does it even matter? I haven't read any of Cormac McCarthy's stuff, but this movie is getting great reviews, and this is a genre I generally enjoy (I'm not your typical female viewer), so I'm tempted to forgo the book and just see it. Will my experience be diminished?

[frankpembleton]

This movie was fantastic.

[tennOsfan]

I want to see this movie, but the closest it's playing to me is Asheville. What's up with that?

[NewMarketSean]

Excellent film. From beginning to end the film is dripping with tension. I was a little dissatisfied with the ending initially, but now that I think about it, it's very fitting. Highly recommended.

[mikeygale]

Not much to add - I just wanted to give an additional nod to what is one of the best movies I've seen.

[BaltiJo]

Just saw the film this evening.

It is easily one of the finest Coen brothers films.

It kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time.

It never fails to impress me how they create these characters that happen upon fantastic circumstances (good or bad).

[rolliefingers]

Just saw the film this evening.

It is easily one of the finest Coen brothers films.

It kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time.

It never fails to impress me how they create these characters that happen upon fantastic circumstances (good or bad).

Well, Cormac McCarthy created these characters. ;)

[BaltiJo]

Well, Cormac McCarthy created these characters. ;)

Heh, ok.

They present these characters.

[DoobyDoo]

I saw it a few days ago. The first thing I'll say is that I didn't really like the ending. I had a problem with when the movie ended, not with what happened. I'm not really sure what his dream was supposed to mean, but I'll be more prepared for it once it comes out on DVD. I loved everything that came before it, though.

There were a couple of little touches that I found darkly funny. The scene where he tries to shoot a bird while driving cracked me up for some reason. The motel murder scene where he closes the shower curtain to prevent getting blood on himself was also a nice little touch.

Anyways, I would agree that it's probably the best movie of the year so far, at least from what I've seen. I'd say Eastern Promises is close, though. I think There Will Be Blood will enter into the competition as well.

[rolliefingers]

I saw it a few days ago. The first thing I'll say is that I didn't really like the ending. I had a problem with when the movie ended, not with what happened. I'm not really sure what his dream was supposed to mean, but I'll be more prepared for it once it comes out on DVD. I loved everything that came before it, though.

There were a couple of little touches that I found darkly funny. The scene where he tries to shoot a bird while driving cracked me up for some reason. The motel murder scene where he closes the shower curtain to prevent getting blood on himself was also a nice little touch.

Anyways, I would agree that it's probably the best movie of the year so far, at least from what I've seen. I'd say Eastern Promises is close, though. I think There Will Be Blood will enter into the competition as well.

I thought that was a bit of overkill. OK, we get it, he likes killing stuff. Jesus.

[PeteCanes]

I saw it a few days ago. The first thing I'll say is that I didn't really like the ending. I had a problem with when the movie ended, not with what happened. I'm not really sure what his dream was supposed to mean, but I'll be more prepared for it once it comes out on DVD. I loved everything that came before it, though.

There were a couple of little touches that I found darkly funny. The scene where he tries to shoot a bird while driving cracked me up for some reason. The motel murder scene where he closes the shower curtain to prevent getting blood on himself was also a nice little touch.

Anyways, I would agree that it's probably the best movie of the year so far, at least from what I've seen. I'd say Eastern Promises is close, though. I think There Will Be Blood will enter into the competition as well.

I thought that part was hilarious as well. His interaction with the convenience store clerk was unbelievably funny.

[Lt Melmo]

Question for anyone who's read the book: does it end similarly? Is everything the same?

The rest of the audience I saw it with was visibly pissed about it. And I feel it's one of those things that works perfectly well in literature, but the kind of thing that most screenwriters choose to change in their adaptations because it doesn't seem to make sense for the screen, and people aren't used to it.

[orangedive]

Question for anyone who's read the book: does it end similarly? Is everything the same?

The rest of the audience I saw it with was visibly pissed about it. And I feel it's one of those things that works perfectly well in literature, but the kind of thing that most screenwriters choose to change in their adaptations because it doesn't seem to make sense for the screen, and people aren't used to it.

In the book, the discussion with Ellis was much more in depth and (I feel) very necessary to the final development of Bell as a character. I'm quite puzzled why they left that part out. As for Bell's "dream" speech at the end: that was pretty much how it ended in the book.

Overall, they kept it pretty much like the book. A lot of the dialogue was verbatim. They left a few scenes out, but I guess that's just the way it goes when you do a book into a movie.

[tennOsfan]

The film finally hit the backwoods of home.

I really liked it for the most part. I didn't get the ending at all - perhaps when I see it again, it'll make more sense. That's the thing with good art: Sometimes you don't get it the first time.

There were a few things I'd have changed: I'd have shown the death of the guy who found the money. What a letdown to follow him around and then you just see his body. And the part of shooting the bird was a bit much.

But, you can't complain when someone makes a movie for those of us with IQs over 80.

[longflyball]

I saw this the other night, mainly as a result of reading this thread; I knew absolutely nothing about the movie's backstory and context. I didn't even know Tommy Lee Jones was in it until I saw his face. I loved it. The story and the acting were both superb. The ending didn't bother me at all.

I noticed there was little if any music/external sound. Is this a signature of the Coen brothers?

[ChaosLex]

I saw it this evening. I wouldn't put it in the same tier as O Brother Where Art Thou?, The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona or Miller's Crossing, but it's still an exceptional film.

Also, a little pee came out whenever Anton Chigurh was on screen. Haha.

Just kidding! :D

[Tank]

I really liked it for the most part. I didn't get the ending at all - perhaps when I see it again, it'll make more sense. That's the thing with good art: Sometimes you don't get it the first time.

There were a few things I'd have changed: I'd have shown the death of the guy who found the money. What a letdown to follow him around and then you just see his body.

But, you can't complain when someone makes a movie for those of us with IQs over 80.

I agree with this review. If anyone understood the ending, could you maybe explain it to me? I don't think I was paying as much attention to the last part as I should have because I expected more movie to be coming.

I was more upset about them not showing Josh Brolin's character's death (and his wife's) than the ending, but the ending still threw me for a loop. Great movie though.

8.75/10

[sakata_catching]

Best use of an air tank by a psychopath since Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet? Quite possibly.

Their best since Lebowski, and in truth, probably better than that.

I thought the ending was pretty scrutable and unambiguous, as did my wife. But when we compared notes over beers later on, it turns out we had pretty divergent reads on how things wound up.

[frankpembleton]

Best use of an air tank by a psychopath since Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet?

Dennis Hopper's character in Blue Velvet still gives me nightmares. I'm not sure I've seen a more bizarre movie. Except for all of Lynch's other movies...

[bobmc]

Dennis Hopper's character in Blue Velvet still gives me nightmares. I'm not sure I've seen a more bizarre movie. Except for all of Lynch's other movies...

I was reminded of Blue Velvet (one of my faves) and other Lynch films also while viewing this. Tommy Lee was outstanding as was Javier but he has (or had) Penelope (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20151921,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines) so he doesn't need my accolades!

[boogidownoriole]

I saw this movie last night with my wide. until the end I thought it was one of the best movies I had seen in a long time. When it ended, I just turned to my wife and said "I have no idea what just happened, but lets go home"

This morning I thought to myself "surely the OH fine people will be able to explain this ending" as I am usually not a guy who understand complicated films. To my surprise many of you feel the same about the ending.

Someone, please explain and positive rep points your way....:D

[Baltimoron]

I saw this movie last night with my wide. until the end I thought it was one of the best movies I had seen in a long time. When it ended, I just turned to my wife and said "I have no idea what just happened, but lets go home"

This morning I thought to myself "surely the OH fine people will be able to explain this ending" as I am usually not a guy who understand complicated films. To my surprise many of you feel the same about the ending.

Someone, please explain and positive rep points your way....:D

This movie was so good, as are all there movies (except Barton Fink). The Coen's don't feed you the answer, so much as pieces of the formula.

Chance, free will, determination, i.e. Chigurh flipping the coin in the gas station. Bell not get killed when he sneaks into the hotel room at night even though he enters while likely knowing Anton is near.

Anton, who is so cooly in control in his hunt the whole movie, is really like us all- subject to the whims of fate. Bell thinks he is a "ghost" but the end humanizes him. Life gets us all at some point,a nd we are never in control- and as close as we ecer get to control, it will fleet away with age and the change of time. Sometimes we have a choice (bell, woody harrelson's charcter, josh brolin's characters), sometimes we don't (Anton, the uncle who got hurt being in law enforcement, the wife of Brolin):

"You know what date is on this coin? 1958. It's been traveling 22 years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails, and you have to say. Call it."

Life is rough, and crazy stuff happens- it ain't no place for old men.

Brolin is just a plot device, the movie is driven by Bell and Chigurh and the juxtaposition of their characters:

Classic contrast in their quotes which epitomizes their roles and divergent pperspectives. Sherriff Bell says:


I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job .... But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. You can say it's my job to fight it but I don't know what it is anymore. More than that, I don't want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard.

and


I think once you stop hearing sir and madam the rest is soon to follow.

Chigurh says it all in one line, to someone on the wrong end of his gun:


If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

The classic western, from which this move arises, is good v bad, white hat v black cap, the sheriff hunting the outlaw. But this is a whole new world, which presents a whole new moral dilemma: Bell hearkens back to the old age at the start of the movie, referencing old sheriffs who didn't even carry guns. But Chirgurh is nuts, a dispassionate and ruthless killer, a psyschopath who doesn't fit the traditional formula of a villain. Similar themes evolve when one sees all the elements of the classic crime drama, and contrast Bell with that of the classic Sam Spade or to that of the more modern evolution of the crime drama formula (e.g. silence of the lambs), and then see how No Country progress to the next step, i.e. the "super" cop can't get the new breed of bad guy, because he is too bad, too evil. perhaps only life can.

Should Bell even try, or is Anton something he can't even handle, an evil beyond him. Bell can't even understand Anton and this newer brand of drug criminal, and this is part of a broader theme espoused by the mams and sirs and the growing generational divides in American culture



This country is hard on people. Hard and crazy. Got the devil in it, yet folks never seem to hold it to account. ... You can't stop what's coming. Ain't all waiting on you.

It's the grief of a man for a land his fathers tamed and in which he now walks as a stranger.

[Mashed Potatoes]

Lot of good stuff here Bmoron, lots of stuff I disagree with.


Anton, who is so cooly in control in his hunt the whole movie, is really like us all- subject to the whims of fate. Bell thinks he is a "ghost" but the end humanizes him. Life gets us all at some point,a nd we are never in control- and as close as we ecer get to control, it will fleet away with age and the change of time. Sometimes we have a choice (bell, woody harrelson's charcter, josh brolin's characters), sometimes we don't (Anton, the uncle who got hurt being in law enforcement, the wife of Brolin):

I thought the end did the opposite. Anton was an unstoppable force, besting a savvy vietnam vet, a seasoned sheriff, a drug dealing gang, an evil businessman, and even a professional mercenary. In the scene with Carla Jean she doesn't play his coin flip game, telling Chigurh her life or death has nothing to do with fate and the capriciousness of the coin. It has everything to do with a decision which Anton has the free will to control, "you choose." This proves that in addition to trained killers he cannot be stopped by clear logic either. Getting hit by the car proves that he is subject to bad luck like everyone else, but even a terrible moment of luck could not stop him. He takes a moment to collect himself, sufficiently hide the injury, and escape before having to deal with authorities despite a bone protruding out of his arm and a likely concussion. Dangerous enemies, severe injuries, perfect logic, horrendous luck, Anton inhumanly transcends these things for he is an unstoppable force.


Should Bell even try, or is Anton something he can't even handle, an evil beyond him. Bell can't even understand Anton and this newer brand of drug criminal, and this is part of a broader theme espoused by the mams and sirs and the growing generational divides in American culture

It's the grief of a man for a land his fathers tamed and in which he now walks as a stranger.

I think you're leaving out a vital scene, Bell's conversation with Ellis. The opening monologue Bell makes a promise to himself to get out of the sherrifin' business if...


I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job - not to be glorious. But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet some-thing I don't understand.

You can say it's my job to fight it but I don't know what it is anymore...More than that, I don't want to know.

Obviously he encounters his greatest fear in Chigurh, so he decides he's going to retire, but having heard this Ellis puts him in his place.


...What you got ain't nothin new. This country is hard on people. Hard and crazy. Got the devil in it yet folks never seem to hold it to account.

You can't stop what's comin. Ain't all waitin on you...that's vanity.

Ellis is saying screw your promise to yourself, yea this world is hard but you're still a good sheriff and people need you. I agree with Ellis. Bell may be over matched by Chigurh but he is an aberration. Bell was smarter than the Mexican drug dealers and went back to the hotel room looking for Chigurh. While he didn't succeed he was right about Anton being back in the hotel room with the money, getting closer to the truth than the Mexicans or other law enforcement.

What I gather from this is Bell made the wrong decision to retire. He believes this is no country for old men and he now walks a stranger, but while things change (like politeness) the real stranger is Chigurh. Bell still has value and can contribute in this newer country. His decision to retire wasn't a necessary submission to greater external forces, it was a personal decision of vanity, "more than that I don't want to know."

[Baltimoron]

Lot of good stuff here Bmoron, lots of stuff I disagree with.



I thought the end did the opposite. Anton was an unstoppable force, besting a savvy vietnam vet, a seasoned sheriff, a drug dealing gang, an evil businessman, and even a professional mercenary. In the scene with Carla Jean she doesn't play his coin flip game, telling Chigurh her life or death has nothing to do with fate and the capriciousness of the coin. It has everything to do with a decision which Anton has the free will to control, "you choose." This proves that in addition to trained killers he cannot be stopped by clear logic either. Getting hit by the car proves that he is subject to bad luck like everyone else, but even a terrible moment of luck could not stop him. He takes a moment to collect himself, sufficiently hide the injury, and escape before having to deal with authorities despite a bone protruding out of his arm and a likely concussion. Dangerous enemies, severe injuries, perfect logic, horrendous luck, Anton inhumanly transcends these things for he is an unstoppable force.


Anton choses to "relinquish" his "free will" to the coin. That said, I agree with what you say about Carla, but I also think that Carla misses the point: Of course Anton is always in control, and the employment of a coin is simply the exercise of that control. The coin flip is not fair, its about psychological torture; and it only gives the appearance of randomness. IMO he was always going to kill her (unlike the store clerk, who I kinda think he just wanted to F with. IMO Anton had no "good" reason to kill him, but would have).

The coin in the Carla situation was a ruse, and her pleas fell on deaf ears. Bell recognized the evil Anton was, Carla didn't know and erroneously made entreaties to his humanity/heart/etc, to no avail (I don't think she knows and is pitifully making irrational pleas, but maybe). Carla appeared I think to be a very innocent, pure character, which is a nice juxtaposition with Anton.

-----------------------

That Anton immediately survived the car crash does not mean he is not subject to fate, IMO it means exactly that he is. That he survived does not change this.

If he dies it all falls into a neat Karmic "what goes around comes around" kinda crap. IMO its much more powerful to show his vulnerability, but not to cheese out and at the same time make it his demise.

Vulnerability is the key. My recall is that the end of the movie is our first exposure to Anton's vulnerability. And while we are left to believe he might survive, we are also left to wonder whether how much longer he can continue to tempt fate - his bone is out of his arm. But I also see Anton and the injury and his cool acceptance and quick reaction to it and contrast that with Jones and his fears. But then again, Anton had no choice- the accident simply happened, unlike Bell he had no choice to confront it

----

Its too late for me to intelligently comment on the rest, but, read the book. Basically, Bell was a WWII hero who had remorse about his valor, about whether the sacrifices necessary to be held as a hero are worth the cost. IMO a very pertinent theme.

Ellis represents societal ideals - do it because it is right for the good of society, because you are a sheriff and that is your job, the idea your are a lawmen and lawmen don't run scared and your daddy didn't etc... (but all this is in the context of Ellis not knowing what Anton represents, and Ellis not having any other choice- could he live with the consequences of his actions if he didn't believe in valor and moral obligations, etc?)


Originally Posted by Bell
I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job - not to be glorious. But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet some-thing I don't understand.

You can say it's my job to fight it but I don't know what it is anymore...More than that, I don't want to know.

But like the WWII stuff, what benefits society is not always the best things for us personally. Look at Ellis and the personal costs he has paid, he isn't portrayed as a very enviable character, although he is clearly a character of strong morals - do we wanna be the guiltless cripple, or the guilted able bodied person.

Maybe Bell had an ethical obligation to try to protect Carla, (as he had promised) but could he? Wasn't it inevitable Carla would be killed. Would his efforts have been in vain (i.e. evil is too great), or would they have materially mattered? There is the what can he do, and the does anything he does matter or really change things?

---

Of course Bell was smart, but its not all about smarts. Brolin's character knew who was standing outside his hotel door after he had found the homing device, heard the footsteps and saw the light go out- but Moss didn't fire first and kill Anton when he had the chance.

Its about heart, courage, and fear of the unknown and how this fear can control us and become our "fate". (The unknown is also largely coextensive with the broader theme of chance)

This is the scene in the hotel when Bell is exploring- IMO Bell knows he is there, but is to scared (?) to confront Anton.

And the appearance is Bell got lucky Anton did not kill him, i.e chance. but we know this is not true- Anton had an easy opportunity to kill Bell, and made a choice, as did Bell. That said, I need to reaffirm Anton is in the room- a friend suggests it appeared he was not even in the same room, i dunno.

Anyway, what is kinda cool is what is a choice to one is but fate or random chance to another.

Whether you are store clerk guessing heads or tails or the guy Anton stops while in the cop car or Bell in the Hotel or Carla near the end, its out of your control, but not Anton's.

----

The reality is we have some control but a lot is out of our control. But at least in some respects, we make decisions to confront or run from these risks, from the uncertain and unknown. So it is with this movie.

IMO a good movie provides no answers, only multiple levels of interpretation. Its all mental masturbation, and a good movie really gets you going.

____

I need to go watch this again, the more I think about it the less certain I am of anything but this is where I am now. Go editing. Who knows where I will be after another viewing, other than being pretty secure in the knowledge I will probably like this move a whole lot more.

---

BTW, there is no right or wrong in terms of the conclusions, because there is no intended conclusion - there is only opening up another to a perspective they may not have adopted or embraced or confronted or envisioned.

[Baltimoron]

RE: the ending and my thoughts:

2 dreams recounted by Bell at home, reflecting on his choices.

1) dad gave Bell money, and Bell lost it.

IMO dad gave Bell the courage/character/moral fiber/ethos of subjugation to the societal good (whatever word or concept is rigfht, I sux a vocab), and he blew that gift or disavowed those principles in the instant case

--

2) dad of bell passes in a snowy dream, carrying fire in the horn with his head down.

daddy still has the spirit of the lawmen/courage/commitment/etc, the promise implied, which IMO Bell "sorta" agreed to many years ago when took the lawmen job. He, like his father had, wanted to tame the bad guys, to outsmart and own them. But perhaps the story has changed, as the relentless evil Anton represents is a new dynamic.

But as Bell then relates that his father was "going on ahead, and fixin' to make a fire" in the surrounding dark and cold, and that when Bell got there, his father would be waiting.

But would Bell find (IMO he had already forsaken this) the requisite courage to venture put into the "dark and cold"? IMO there is an element of bereavement the final scene.
IMO the sweet warmth of the fire is only felt by those who have ventured from their safe comfort into the cold and dark world of the unknown, and its not clear that you can embrace fear of this and recover.

[Baltimoron]

smart writes of words I think I am inline with are here:



But there's much more to the movie than an old man coming to terms with his retirement. To me, the movie felt like it was more about the unpredictable, unfair, and arbitrary nature of our lives, a theme that is both played out repeatedly, and even explicitly discussed. For instance, while Llewelyn hides out at a hotel in El Paso, a girl by the pool notices that he keeps looking out his window. She later has the opportunity to flirt with him, and asks him what he's looking for. He tells her he's just watching for what's coming, at which point she casually responds that you never see what's coming.

In another scene, the Sheriff is talking with Llewelyn's wife in a diner, and tells her a story about a rancher who failed to kill a cow cleanly on his first attempt. He decides to put a bullet in the cows head to end it quickly, but since the cow is thrashing about, the rancher misses and the bullet glances the cows head, ricochets around the metal room, and lodges itself in the rancher's arm. The Sheriff solemnly tells Llewelyn's wife that even between man and cattle, nothing is certain.

Interestingly, during the same conversation, the Sheriff mentions that cattle are killed with a pneumatic rod now which is much more predictable. One of Chigurh favorite tools is a pneumatic cattle gun which he uses both for killing people, and for blowing locks. The Sheriff never makes the connection between his own story, and a recent murder caused by a deep head wound which was assumed to be from a gun until no bullet was found. It was as though the possibility of something so inhuman wouldn't even register with him.

The hit man Carson Wells is another device the movie uses to demonstrate unpredictability. Carson comes across as a hotshot who isn't the least bit intimidated by Chigurh, and manages to track down Llewelyn in a matter of hours. Just when it looks like the dynamic of the hunt is about to change, Chigurh happens to get the drop on Carson, and removes him from the story as suddenly as he was introduced. The audience is sure that Carson can't be killed so quickly, and that his impact on the story can't possibly be so minimal, yet he is instantly and unapologetically executed as Chigurh casually reaches for a ringing phone.

And then as if to demonstrate the point literally, there's Chigurh's technique of sometimes deciding whether to let someone live based solely on a coin toss. A gas station owner, who is unaware of the extent to which he is in danger, wins the toss after which Chigurh tells him keep the quarter. He tells the man who has narrowly escaped being brutally murdered to put his lucky quarter someplace special. Don't mix it in with the rest of the change in his pocket, Chigurh warns, even though in reality, it's just another quarter. From this scene comes one of the eeriest lines of the entire movie: "What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss."

Throughout the entire movie, Chigurh seems to be the only one who is in control. In fact, he comes across as the master of everyone's fate. He is eerily calm and in control whether he is strangling a deputy with handcuffs, stitching up his own gun wounds, or slaughtering people with his cattle gun or silenced twelve gauge. But in one final demonstration of the randomness of the universe, while driving down a completely calm and quiet suburban street, Chigurh is T-boned at an intersection and sustains serious injuries, including a compound fracture of his arm. He tries to gather the strength to flee the scene, but as the sirens rapidly close in, you get the distinct feeling that even the one man who seemed to control everything couldn't see what was coming.

link (http://www.livingdigitally.net/2007/12/review-of-no-co.html)

[sakata_catching]

I just watched Gimme Shelter for the first time in a long, long time last night and was struck immediately by the uncanny resemblance between Charlie Watts circa 1969 (http://www.stevemandich.com/uploaded_images/blogcharlie-760772.jpg) and one Anton Chigurh (http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0477348/0348_3131.jpg.html?path=gallery&path_key=0477348&seq=8).

Just an observation. Carry on.

[mikeygale]

I just watched Gimme Shelter for the first time in a long, long time last night and was struck immediately by the uncanny resemblance between Charlie Watts circa 1969 (http://www.stevemandich.com/uploaded_images/blogcharlie-760772.jpg) and one Anton Chigurh (http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0477348/0348_3131.jpg.html?path=gallery&path_key=0477348&seq=8).

Just an observation. Carry on.
I'm growing my hair out.

[Moose Milligan]

Finally saw it last night, really liked it. Just wish I hadn't spaced out during Tommy Lee Jones' final little monologue there.

I think I looked at the movie wrong all along, more focused on Josh Brolin's character and wondering/hoping that he'd catch up with Chigurh and get the last laugh...but looking back on it, I now realize that would have been too simple for a movie that wasn't that simple.

I should have cared more about Tommy Lee Joneses' character.

IMO, Coen brothers movies require two viewings, really. Lebowski is my all time most favorite movie, yet I didn't really get it until the second time I watched it.

Still, I liked it...all the actors turned in great jobs. Anton Chigurh scared the crap out of me. Getting into my car after the movie, I looked in the back seat to make sure that creepy bastard wasn't there.

LOVED the scene in the gas station with the coin flip, totally thought he was going to kill that dude outright.

I'll pick it up on DVD to add to my collection and definitely watch it again.

[blakesta]

Finally saw it last night, really liked it. Just wish I hadn't spaced out during Tommy Lee Jones' final little monologue there.

I think I looked at the movie wrong all along, more focused on Josh Brolin's character and wondering/hoping that he'd catch up with Chigurh and get the last laugh...but looking back on it, I now realize that would have been too simple for a movie that wasn't that simple.

I should have cared more about Tommy Lee Joneses' character.

IMO, Coen brothers movies require two viewings, really. Lebowski is my all time most favorite movie, yet I didn't really get it until the second time I watched it.

Still, I liked it...all the actors turned in great jobs. Anton Chigurh scared the crap out of me. Getting into my car after the movie, I looked in the back seat to make sure that creepy bastard wasn't there.
LOVED the scene in the gas station with the coin flip, totally thought he was going to kill that dude outright.

I'll pick it up on DVD to add to my collection and definitely watch it again.


Haha....I don't know about you, but there is definately something very creepy about his voice. It was very monotonous throughout the entire movie and just all in all very weird.

[Bosibus]

Just saw the movie last night and liked it a lot. But was Anton in the hotel room where Moss was killed with Bell near the end of the movie? I could not tell where they were trying to place him at that scene.

[Mackus]

Just saw the movie last night and liked it a lot. But was Anton in the hotel room where Moss was killed with Bell near the end of the movie? I could not tell where they were trying to place him at that scene.I saw it this week as well (on Blu-Ray, sweet Jesus it looks good) and really liked it as well. I definitely need to go back and watch it again. Its a tough movie to watch the first time.

I know that you're supposed to focus a lot and pay attention to Tommy Lee Jones' scenes, but I found myself using those scenes to catch my breath. The scenes with Brolin and Bardem were so intense I had to basically use the TLJ scenes to breathe.

The scene in the hotel room after Brolin discovers the bug in the satchel and realizes that Bardem is right outside the door was just crazy.

[ledzepp8]

Just saw the movie last night and liked it a lot. But was Anton in the hotel room where Moss was killed with Bell near the end of the movie? I could not tell where they were trying to place him at that scene.

I think he is imagining him hiding behind the door. I think he was expecting him to be in the room and was relieved that he wasn't.

[Mashed Potatoes]

I think he is imagining him hiding behind the door. I think he was expecting him to be in the room and was relieved that he wasn't.

No no no my friend, he was hiding behind the door, the door to the adjacent room. Thats how he pulled the money bag, through the air ducts, knowing the way Brolin hid it last time.

[BAM]

Not a bad movie! I'd give it 7/10. Maybe 7.5.

[ledzepp8]

No no no my friend, he was hiding behind the door, the door to the adjacent room. Thats how he pulled the money bag, through the air ducts, knowing the way Brolin hid it last time.

I don't know though...it's rather ambiguous. Why would he be hiding behind that door when Tommy Lee Jones' character is going in the other room?

[JourneyFan]

I don't know though...it's rather ambiguous. Why would he be hiding behind that door when Tommy Lee Jones' character is going in the other room?

There is no "right" answer; the Coens deliberately left it ambiguous and open for interpretation.

[TonySoprano]

"Original" dialogue recorded for the gas station scene (http://fourthgradegladiators.com/awesome/?p=7)

[ledzepp8]

"Original" dialogue recorded for the gas station scene (http://fourthgradegladiators.com/awesome/?p=7)

Haha, that's pretty funny.

[Mashed Potatoes]

I don't know though...it's rather ambiguous. Why would he be hiding behind that door when Tommy Lee Jones' character is going in the other room?

I finally rewatched the movie and how to interpret that scene is dependent on whether the window lock was undone or not. I believe that it was undone, meaning that he was in the room, but he escaped out of the window.

I just erased a page long response about the central theme of free will in this movie because it would've required another page to finish and I'm tired. Basically though, we are all subject to fate, even the unstoppable force and fate-deliverer Chigurh. At the same time I would say we still exercise a measure of control over our own lives, free will. Chigurh at times leaves one's fate up to the omnipresent force of fate (trailer park woman), to a coin flip (gas station guy), and to himself (Carson Wells). The coin and himself are mere deliverers of the larger force. However, by giving Carly Jean the option of a coin flip, he is deciding fate's vehicle. Which is an act of free will.

So ultimately our existence is marked by a sort of limited free will.