If you're going to serve up a Hollywood story (average joe discovers bag of $, cat and mouse chase sequences ensue) don't be suprised if people get pissed when they don't get the Hollywood ending too. This was a genre exercise with a bookend that felt incongruous. And having to educate myself and learn to appreciate the ending doesn't mean my initial resistance to the film's narrative nosedive was wrong. I think our sense of storytelling is primal, especially our need to experience the ending we expect.

The ending didn't really hit me until about a day after seeing it, but when it did, it did with a vengeance. It makes sense why it's as effective as it is, though.

Because we didn't see the Big Event of the film in a going-out-in-a-blaze-of-glory stylized montage, we felt robbed; we weren't allowed the usual release you get whenever a Main Character kicks the bucket. Instead we had to deal with it on our own.

Although I haven't experienced it yet, it seems a lot like the reaction people have when they witness someone close to them dying (in a hospice-type situation at least). Usually they say something along the lines of "Well, at least I was there to see them at the end". Because of their presence, they're allowed a certain closure that humans emotionally need. But the end of "No Country" happened so suddenly and without us around to witness it, the experience is heightened; the emotional impact is more intense.

It was interesting to see "No Country" a week after "Lions for Lambs", a (horrible) movie that had the paint-by-numbers stylized Main Character Death ending. As opposed to "No Country", the only effect that ending had on me was laughter at the other people crying in the theater.

Also: I just noticed that both of my comments in this post and the Spielberg manifesto include the phrase "paint-by-numbers" and a quick, hateful reference to "Lions for Lambs". The repetition of the "paint-by-numbers" phrase means I've run out of words to use; the "Lions for Lambs" reference means I really, really hate that movie.

I love this movie. The scene with the dog in the river was so great I was giggling. One of my favorite visual moments was when Moss first starts to run from the Mexicans, in the desert at night, and they are shooting it all crazy and handheld I think, and you see a bolt of lightening on the horizon. It was so beautiful and so terrifying. I'm sure they must have addedd the lightening in post, subtle as it was, because it was just too cool. And as usual in Coen Bros. movies, but even moreso in this one, all the little character actors who have one scene are these totally brilliant, perfect actors, half of whom you've never seen before.

Nice summary NDH, but I disagree that it's not a matter of people "getting" the ending or not. It's a matter of what people are willing to accept from their entertainment, and most are not willing to accept entertainment that willfully leaves the story unresolved -- especially when it's a crime movie like this one. They cannot stand to be deprived of closure and resolution, and no matter how good the rest of the movie is they'll complain and complain until the cows come home about the fact that all the threads were not tied up in a neat little bow for them.

If it were a matter of "getting it" a bit of digestion would bring a lot of folks around on a second or third viewing, but that hasn't been the case, and we're going to be hearing about this for ages. No Country is doomed just like the Sopranos has been, and it's because of human nature. The door just can't be left open for %90 of the moviegoing public.

I've been working on a piece about the film and its ending for my own blog, thanks, but I just wanna say that whatever the ending is, a narrative nosedive it's not. The elision of the putatively big climactic action scene aside, it actually parses beautifully. The issue of whether one has to "educate" oneself in order to get it is an open one, I suppose; in my book, the only thing you have to do to get it is PAY ATTENTION. Why this is a problem for some moviegoers is...well, not my problem.

i think NO COUNTRY is a rotten movie.

I think the people saying that the audience doesn't "get" the ending need to get off your high horses. Most everyone I've talked to "gets" the ending, they just don't particularly like it. I respect the film a ton, and while I don't want it to chew my food for me, I found myself falling in love with the Kelly MacDonald character every time she was on screen. So when Javier killed her, I wasn't going to be happy until I saw him dead. The ending isn't meant to leave me happy, and I "get" that and respect it, and I think this is the best film I've seen this year, but that doesn't mean that I can't still be pissed off about it.

I have seen this movie twice now and I know that I will see it at least one more time in theaters before I buy the DVD. This is a great movie ending and all. Is it the best Coen Bro. film? No. Being that it is a faithful adaptation with scenes and dialog lifted verbatim how can it be their best? It does rank right up there though. That said... my take on the ending is this...

Almost perfect. Almost in the sense that you never really quite understand who Anton works for. Perfect because the ending is like life... it happens. Like the ending of The Sopranos... it's life... it goes on.

There need not be a final battle between Moss and Anton... the way Moss dies is perfect... he was ready for Anton... mentally prepared for it... yet he dies by what he didn't see coming just as the Pool side lady points out. That's life... coming at you on it's own terms.

Funny thing about this movie and book... it is in no way about Moss, Anton and the missing money. It's about Ed Tom Bell. While he is just a character circling around the peripheral as law enforcement usually does since their job is more reactionary than anything... the story is about Ed Tom knowing his time has come to step down. He no longer has the stones for what ever evil is coming down the pike... He's given his whole life to this way... he admires those who came before him wearing the badge... but he comes to the conclusion with everything that has stirred up that this is no country for old men.

While I completely agree with Kent's defense and feelings about the end of the film, his argument that the ending EITHER had to be what it is, OR strictly Hollywood-conventional is a weak one.

Great films often end in unconventional ways that do satisfy everyone. For Kent to spend paragraphs assuming the only other way to end the film was in a HALLOWEEN-type fashion is nonsense.

The reasonable question is: Could the ending have been done better?

I don't know if it could be done better, and like Kent I'll need to see it again to determine that, but I haven't heard anyone criticize the film because it didn't end like Scorsese's CAPE FEAR.

I've been engaged in a hearty discussion a few posts back...it's a lively debate, but one where we all seem to respect each other's difference of opinion...

...what's with the contempt for anyone disappointed by the ending?? While it is intellectually stimulating it IS emotionally unfulfilling...

I suppose complaining about message board acrimony is like going to England and complaining about the weather (or the local food). But, christ, why get so rankled over dissenting opinions? That big blue ribbon on Jeff's page is a fucking joke. Born "blue" die "blue" blah blah. Doesn't being "blue" imply tolerance? We're not debating the Brooklyn Museum of Art display of the elephant dung Virgin Mary, it's a deliberately and PURPOSEFULLY ambiguous ending intended to inspire debate...

I truly pity anyone whose happiness hinges on a a false sense of moral or intellectual superiority.

I've been engaged in a hearty discussion a few posts back...it's a lively debate, but one where we all seem to respect each other's difference of opinion...

Yeah, I have to say I find it mildly annoying when there is a good discussion going on, and rather than participate, Jeff starts a new one, usually with a single comment which is designed to make everyone who disagrees with him in the other thread look like a mouthbreathing low-thread-counter... frankly, there's a good discussion there which is MUCH more thoughtful than that. You might want to check it out.

What Atticusrex said. Also, "Me," I don't mean to be on a high horse and maybe I'm overgeneralizing as far as this particular post is concerned, but I have heard as many, if not more, complaints about "getting" as about "liking." Also, if an ending doesn't meet your expectations, does that make it by definition "bad"?

Good point also by Atticusrex about Anton. My memory sucks, but when I read the book I thought he was a sort of gun for hire that was hired to get the money back. In the film it seemed like he was higher up, like maybe he was an actual drug trafficker.

If only Moss hadn't felt bad and brought the guy water...like Denzel wearing that pimp costume that one time...ahhh, the irony...

Glenn, I'm sorry - I never meant to imply that the ending was bad, only that it pissed me off (was I not supposed to have an emotional reaction to it?). To be honest, I can't decide whether the ending was good or bad, and I don't really want to get into the game of how it could have ended - as my favorite coach would say, "It is what it is." All I can say is that it left me unfullfilled.

My problem is that there's this film snob superiority tone on these boards that if you don't love the ending, you just don't get it.

Me - while I agree that it's not neccessarily fair to say that nobody who doesn't like the ending gets it, I would certainly say that all of the people complaining because it's not climactic, or even more bizarrely that it has no "resolution" (I don't understand how much more resolution the ending could have; every story point is covered and concluded), those people absolutely positively do NOT get it.

"While it is intellectually stimulating it IS emotionally unfulfilling..."

Please don't presume to speak for everybody. I was personally quite emotionally moved by the ending. But, then, I "got" it.

We don't know where Anton fits in, we don't know where the Mexicans fit in. The Coens (and McCarthy presumably) make some effort to avoid playing the standard thriller game at key spots-- I'm surprised no one has commented on how lame it is (in conventional thriller terms) that Harrelson gets surprised by Anton on the stairs at his hotel. Great job of going undercover, slick! (And frankly, at that point why didn't he launch himself backwards down the stairs at Anton? It would give him the advantage and the worst that could happen isn't any worse than what's obviously going to happen anyway, and does.)

Anyway, my point is, there were a lot of ways I didn't take it as a conventional thriller long before the endings, so my problem was never with the primary endings, it was ending this movie with a bunch of talk.

Anton's motivations are irrelevant. He is a metaphor for the boogieman waiting for us all. The less we know, the scarier he gets. Still hate the 'do.

Speaking of Anton's 'do, catch this photo of a certain someone at Glenn Erickson's site:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant

the film is a masterpiece and the ending is a major reason why. I just posted my review at my blog if anyone wants a read, but I feel that the ending is perfectly understandable if you're paying attention, and the resistance of the Coens to become formulaic and easy towards the end is beyond refreshing and quite exciting. I haven't had a visceral reaction to a movie (in a good way) like the way I felt at the end of No Country in a long time.

"so my problem was never with the primary endings, it was ending this movie with a bunch of talk."

You make it sound like 'Vanilla sky', where it ends with 20 minutes of every explanation being spoon-fed to you. The speech at the end is extremely relevant to the characters and the theme of the entire movie. Not to be too reductive, but on some level the movie is about a man who can talk and spin a yarn observing the conflict and confrontation between two non-talkers who are men of action from the next generation after his.

no one wants to give credit where credit is due when it comes to the ending of this awesome and enjoyable movie-- go read the last few pages of the book. the movie pays homage to cormac mccarthy's choice of ending and does justice to the story, not the hollywood story, but the allegory and the beauty of mccarthy's book.

I strongly disagree with, "And let's face it, we're never really happy with that."

The ending of L.A. Confidential, when there's finally a big showdown, is simply awesome... and that film could not have ended any other way. So never say never.

On the other hand, I think there's a bit of a disconnect when people say they didn't like the "ending." First, I read the book, so I knew what to expect, but I was still disappointed by the VERY end. Not the offscreen death, not the carla jean death, not the car crash, but when Bell visits his father and philosophizes. In the book, he's been there before so it's been setup, but in the movie at the beginning of the last scene most of the audience is thinking, "Who the fuck is this?" In the other thread, someone suggested having Bell say his monologue in a voice over while showing something else (perhaps Anton driving into the night). That would have been so much better. The end was a VISUAL letdown of a film that had been visually brilliant up until then.

One more thing about this film that has nothing to do with the end. There are two scenes that parallel each other and are really quite a brilliant contrast. Compare when Moss needs help from a stranger at the border to when Anton needs help after his accident.

Moss - a good man - offers to buy the guy's jacket while bleeding and in obvious pain. The guy gives it to him for $500, and then when Moss asks for the beer the other kid tries to get more money out of him at first.

Anton - a bad man - offers to buy the kid's shirt while in obvious pain, and the kid wants to give it to him for free and only takes the money when Anton insists (and asks him to keep quiet).

Great stuff.

The look on Moss' face when the kid with the beer asks for more money is priceless.

Goddamn, this film is filled with great little moments.

great analysis at the top of this thread. thanks for sharing it, these things help me put the film into perspective because i know that if you don't spend some time discussing and analyzing it, it can remain sketchy.

I don't take issue with anyone who didn't like the movie or didn't like the ending, but I reject statements that it was a bad film or that it was pretentious. The discussion about it a few threads back was one of the best pure movie discussions that I've seen on HE in a long long time. It was nice and it got me to thinking about a lot of 'new shit' I hadn't considered before.

Right now I'm still thinking about the beauty of Carla Jean's defiance. Good stuff.

Anyway, random tangent, one of my favorite moments is when Moss has failed to kill the deer and he's looking through his binoculars and he sees the black dog that appears to be wounded and it kind of stops and looks mournfully over its shoulder then continues on. I don't know why, but it was haunting.

Didn't any one notice the first glaring omission, near the film's beginning (and I'm not talking about those omissions, love 'em or not, at the ending)? A bunch of dead bodies lying in the desert sun for more than a day, and, not a single vulture or carrion loving creature in sight.

As for the ending, I didn't and don't see how the sheriff's philosophic ramblings connect with whatever the film is supposed to be about: a monster with an ethic all his own? Oh yes, at the outset, the sheriff lets you know that he's getting too old for all this so, presumably he's seen some bad things in his time, so what was worse at tale's end?

There are an increasing number of plot loopholes as the film fritters away its last third. Fascinating first two-thirds, oh lordy yes, beautifully assembled, and more frightening than any horror movie of recent vintage (even The Descent). The best 2.40 widescreen photography since the heyday of Vilmos Zsigmond. And wonderful acting and character action, from the major to the minor.

But a wimp-out is a wimp-out and not the stuffing that makes for a masterpiece.

"A bunch of dead bodies lying in the desert sun for more than a day, and, not a single vulture or carrion loving creature in sight."

This bothered me too. Also -- and the same flaw is in the book as well -- Moss returning to the scene to give the guy water is just inexplicable. He acknowledges that he's being stupid, but c'mon... I just didn't buy that for one second. Sometimes these things are even more glaring on film than on the page.

Well, as I pointed out a few days ago, if you want a BIG glaring loophole, it's the fact that a mad killer is on the loose who killed a Texas law enforcement officer, and the total number of guys after him seems to be about two, and their hearts aren't really in it.. Anyone want to take a guess how seriously Texas police officers would take the murder of one of their own? I thought about that early on, but it never bothered me. It's not a realistic movie (though ironically, it turns out to bear more relation to reality than the Coens' supposed docudrama Fargo), it's a game of chess with Death set in Texas in 1980.

"so my problem was never with the primary endings, it was ending this movie with a bunch of talk."

You make it sound like 'Vanilla sky', where it ends with 20 minutes of every explanation being spoon-fed to you. The speech at the end is extremely relevant to the characters and the theme of the entire movie.

Well, compare it to last year's modern western, Brokeback Mountain. There's some talk at a kitchen table, but then something visual happens that puts the whole movie together and makes you cry. I ended NCFOM waiting for that moment that realized what he was talking about in visual terms, and instead I got an actor's monologue at the end of a one-act play.

Oops, the graf started "You make it sound" was supposed to be a quote, my response starts with "Well, compare..."

Couple things... first, the old man Bell visits isn't his father. Doesn't he say "I'm older now than he ever was" during his final monologue?

Also, Llewelyn bringing back the water didn't really seal his fate. He already had the cash with the transponder in his trailer. If anything, being chased by the Mexicans might have increased his sense of urgency. It also got Bell on his track, which was a good thing (though not good enough, ultimately).

"Not the offscreen death, not the carla jean death, not the car crash, but when Bell visits his father and philosophizes. In the book, he's been there before so it's been setup, but in the movie at the beginning of the last scene most of the audience is thinking, "Who the fuck is this?""

This is a great point by Jay T, and a very valid criticism of the movie's conclusion, especially if you're watching for the first time and haven't read the book. While you're taking in the full import of what happened to Carla Jean, you get an accident out of nowhere, then not much later Ed Bell visits a character you've never seen before for an extended talk. Then you get to a scene with Bell talking with his wife (who we've barely seen) about a dream with his father (who we've barely heard about). And while the audience is still trying to sort out all these new elements: BAM! Credits.

Now, I love "No Country". But I can definitely see how those last set of scenes could be a slap in the face to first time viewers.

(And BTW, also agree with the cool symmetry of the strangers helping Moss and Chigurh. I like how Moss looked much more like a deranged bloody killer in his scene than Chigurh did!)

Hey again... I feel that I want to add more to my post above after reading some of the new posts below mine...

There is a line in the movie about why the bloated, smelly bodies haven't been picked at by scavengers... Bell makes a Mexican joke about it... so at least for movie logic this issue was dealt with.

Moss going back with water is shown to be a heavy guilt trip weighing on Moss coupled with a gotta know curiosity which of course ends up killing the cat.

As for going out and visiting his Dad's deputy, Uncle or what ever his character is in the book earlier. But I see how it fits in as the Coens use it.

As for the trail of Cops after Anton for killing that officer... well one can scratch their heads over that yet remember that at least twice if not three times it is brought up that there are FBI agents, DEA Agents and Texas Rangers involved mostly though with the shoot-out scene in the desert. It's just our story (Movie) isn't about that or the investigation. Bell even keeps avoiding meeting up with these other law agencies... so again in movie logic terms these issues are addressed.

I know it seems that I am defending this film... I can just see what the Coens were getting after and trust me this movie is a whole lot easier to swallow than reading the book. That is not to say the book is bad... But Corman McCarthy has a very unique way of writing I have never come across before. It makes for an interesting albeit tough read.

One last note: Someone above remarked on how they liked Moss's look, I picked up on Brolin's performance from the get-go... it was pitch-perfect... like when he finds the money. Just some sighs and grunts and body english but he conveys volumes. When the movie opens and you see him track the blood to the killing site... He even asks questions of the wounded Mexican he already knows the answers too...

I hope Josh Brolin receives a Golden Globe and Oscar nomination. I would hope one for Tommy Lee Jones as well... But he gave as good in In the Valley of Elah and Three Burials. But Josh is a revelation. Sure he's great in American Gangster and fun in Planet Terror but he owns in this movie.

"Couple things... first, the old man Bell visits isn't his father. Doesn't he say "I'm older now than he ever was" during his final monologue?"

Yes, my mistake... I meant to say his father's former deputy. None-the-less, the audience does not know who this is, and the final scene is a horrible time to introduce a character. The book doesn't make this mistake.

Also, I agree that the performances are top-notch. I hope both Brolin and Bardem get nominated.

"I meant to say his father's former deputy. None-the-less, the audience does not know who this is, and the final scene is a horrible time to introduce a character. The book doesn't make this mistake."

Your right... it is clearer in the book... but that is why I love the movie so much... it makes you think... pay attention... discuss it.

We do not get enough movies of this caliber. Now sure I like a lot of my movies to tie things up at then end... but this story and the movie's plotting deals with Life in general and life is unpredictable, messy and comes at you from every which way.

If the story needed a final showdown it would have been there... but the theme of this story wasn't about that conflict in particular. It was in someways how our society is changing and none for the worse and Evil and how it's rearing it's ugly head even in remote places like West Texas. And who has the stomach to face it dead on.

I also liked the poster above who said the movie was a chess game with death. Very nice.

Hopefully my last word on this is that No Country For Old Men is about the inevitability of life and how we never see it coming.

I also liked the poster above who said the movie was a chess game with death. Very nice.

Interestingly, I went back to the earlier post after writing that-- and somebody there (DarthCorleone, I think) made the same comparison to The Seventh Seal.

Well, wouldn't be the first time the Coens worked an allusion like that into a movie. Check out this pair of comparisons...

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2051735442

I had no problem with the late introduction of Bell's old friend. We were following Bell, so it didn't really matter who that guy was or that we hadn't seen him before. He was another "old man" passed over by the changing times.

That would be sort of like criticizing that scene in Thelma & Louise when Sarandon trades her jewelery to an old man for his hat because we hadn't met the old man before. The scenes weren't about the old men, they were about Bell/Louise.

I had no problem with the late introduction of Bell's old friend.

Yeah, I don't understand the problem with that. Other things, but not that.

MGMax, over in the other thread, it's me and DC that brought up The Seventh Seal. A beautiful discussion over there, by the way.

I just wanted to chime in and say i totally agree about the cop thing. Although I think that also points to the figurative interpretation of Chigurh as a specter of death that I discuss over there as well.

I'm on a different page than you over there, but I really enjoyed reading your views on it and feel enriched by them.