No Country for Old Men - Oh, there be spoilers

[be leaves]

i guess you just have lower standards than me.

[Junior]

Or better standards.

[andsoitgoes]

Originally Posted by Junior

Or better standards.

heh - I wasn't going to say it, but thank you for going there

[Junior]

It all comes down to expectations. Usually, if the ending is different from what you expect/want, you won't like it. Unless you can learn to disconnect your desires from the film you will often be disappointed. The same criticisms have been said against There Will Be Blood, Sunshine, and Atonement. I think they all have the only ending that could work for them.

[ihatethesooners]

Originally Posted by be leaves

i guess you just have lower standards than me.

Goddamnit.

I already talked about this on another thread, but I'll say it again here.

There is nothing more obnoxious than someone who, when discussing anything artistic (books, movies, paintings, whatever) takes the stance of, "If you don't agree with me, then you're dumb. Because I get it."

Bullshit. Fuck you. Art is subjective. Always has been, always will be. You don't agree with my opinion, fine. That's your right and feel free to discuss it with me and try and change my mind. But don't try and tell me that my opinions are wrong because they don't fall in line with yours. That's pretentious hippie bullshit.

Why do you think awards like the Oscars, SAG Awards, etc. are decided on by the votes of thousands of people? Because if it was just one asshole going, "Good, good, bad, so-so, poor lighting, lame, Great!" then nobody would pay them any mind because they were just the opinion of one dude. You take a vote, the consensus wins. And even then they are debated endlessly afterwards (See: Goodfellas). But everyone respects the fact that, just because you don't agree, doesn't change the fact that a lot of other people did.

You want to state your opinion here? Cool. You don't agree with someone else's opinion? Even better. But don't be a child and say things like, "I didn't like it so neither should anyone else."

[be leaves]

Originally Posted by ihatethesooners

Goddamnit.

I already talked about this on another thread, but I'll say it again here.

There is nothing more obnoxious than someone who, when discussing anything artistic (books, movies, paintings, whatever) takes the stance of, "If you don't agree with me, then you're dumb. Because I get it."

Bullshit. Fuck you. Art is subjective. Always has been, always will be. You don't agree with my opinion, fine. That's your right and feel free to discuss it with me and try and change my mind. But don't try and tell me that my opinions are wrong because they don't fall in line with yours. That's pretentious hippie bullshit.

Why do you think awards like the Oscars, SAG Awards, etc. are decided on by the votes of thousands of people? Because if it was just one asshole going, "Good, good, bad, so-so, poor lighting, lame, Great!" then nobody would pay them any mind because they were just the opinion of one dude. You take a vote, the consensus wins. And even then they are debated endlessly afterwards (See: Goodfellas). But everyone respects the fact that, just because you don't agree, doesn't change the fact that a lot of other people did.

You want to state your opinion here? Cool. You don't agree with someone else's opinion? Even better. But don't be a child and say things like, "I didn't like it so neither should anyone else."

did you ever consider that i don't want to waste my time explaining how they're wrong because i see through their pretentious interpretation and based on their non-response to the points i've already made have no reason to expect they'll even try to comprehend my explanation or respond rationally?

i liked the movie. to pretend like it had no problems just because it was good enough for you is ludicrous.

[ihatethesooners]

Originally Posted by be leaves

granted, the cinematography, editing, acting, and much of the dialog were top-notch, but you have to admit that ending was balls.

No, I don't have to admit that. I thought the ending was perfect. What you meant was "I didn't care for the ending. In my opinion, it was somewhat vague and I would have liked to see some of the loose ends tied up." Instead you tried to tell us what we should think.

Originally Posted by be leaves

the whole experience of a movie is taking a character from a beginning to an end.. like keith said, the end is the hardest part.. it's easy to just stop telling a story. it's making it end at the right moment, where the audience feels they get your point that's the difficult part.

Not true at all. The IDEA of a movie (or a book or a television show) is to tell an entertaining story. I can be argued that any movie which you left wondering to yourself, "What happened next?" is more compelling and interesting than a neatly packaged ending. (See: The Sopranos finale)

Originally Posted by be leaves

if javier is the main character, you can't just show him running down the street with a broken arm..

Actually, they can. They're the fucking directors.

Originally Posted by be leaves

if your point is that he lives on, show him dying at 80 or something.. for all i know, someone kills him when he gets down the block.

And god forbid you should have to do a little wondering after the credits.

[Bebe]

I loved the ending. It fitted the story.

[spooky]

Originally Posted by Bebe

I loved the ending. It fitted the story.

yep.

[andsoitgoes]

okay - I'm having a frustrating time with something about this movie. Has nothing to do with the beginning or ending, it's the scene in room 114 after Bell comes back to investigate.

I talked with Spooky about this last night and IIRC, he was under the clear belief that yes, Chighur was behind the door.

However I watched it over, and over, and over again - probably about 5 times now - just to see... Was he really behind the door?

Looking at the scene, it's OBVIOUS he couldn't be behind the door, it opens slap against the wall, there are no signs through that anyone was standing there, and if there were, the door would never have closed. I wish I could share a video, but I don't want to put it up on YouTube... and I also suck at editing video. It's clear when the door opens, that no one is behind it.

They also focus on the window, locked from the inside. He's not gone out that way, he also wouldn't - just as he wouldn't hide under the bed. It's not in his character.

At the same time though, the "figment of Bell's imagination" seems out of place in the entire feel of the film. No where did it cause that kind of suspension of belief. It may have been insane, but there was nothing of OBVIOUS trickery - why would they start there? Eh....

There are a few posts that discuss this a bit, too:

Chigurh - Was he there... really? For Rizzle?

and then debunking the "Oh, he was behind the other door":

I'll take door number 2 - let's see what's behind door number 2? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! STUPID! You're so STU-PIIIIIIIIIIID!

So - that aside, then comes "who got the money"

*I* believe no one got the money, Chigurh doesn't have it when he limps from the accident, and wouldn't at all leave it behind. He tried to find it in the hotel room, through the grate - it wasn't there, couldn't have fit...

I thought that the Mexicans might have gotten the money, but that doesn't strike me as likely, at all. But then what does? I'm confused. People seem to think Bell took the money, but I don't agree there either - He's not that kind of person, his morals are too firm - he feels guilty enough as it is, he's not going to take the money and run.

So where's the money? Someone would have it. Is it the Mexicans? Who who who.