can someone explain the ending of "no country for old men"

NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
edited April 2008 in All Encompassing Trip
or are we not supposed to understand it?
the coen brothers said we made a great movie with no ending???

p.s that dude was badass
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • RygarRygar Posts: 8,689
    In the movie, the Patriots won.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    you should try and read the book sometime... its brilliant.. :)
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    dunkman wrote:
    you should try and read the book sometime... its brilliant.. :)


    i actually want to now

    cause that was some sick ass shit
  • NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    Rygar wrote:
    In the movie, the Patriots won.


    nah the movie wasn't about dogs :)

    look at u trying to start alittle fire!!
  • RygarRygar Posts: 8,689
    NY PJ1 wrote:
    nah the movie wasn't about dogs :)

    look at u trying to start alittle fire!!
    hahaha, you don't need any help!
  • BinFrogBinFrog MA Posts: 7,309
    Which part about the ending are you not understanding? The motel scene? The final monologue?
    Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
    Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
  • NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    BinFrog wrote:
    Which part about the ending are you not understanding? The motel scene? The final monologue?


    actually i just read up on it,,and it makes more sense now lol

    he paid the kid with a $100 ,, that explains it all
  • in_hiding79in_hiding79 Posts: 4,315
    I think I will go and watch it again!!
    And so the lion fell in love with the lamb...,"
    "What a stupid lamb."
    "What a sick, masochistic lion."
  • NY PJ1 wrote:
    actually i just read up on it,,and it makes more sense now lol

    he paid the kid with a $100 ,, that explains it all


    what? WHAT?!!! The end lost me as well.

    Are you saying Javier had the money?

    The ending monologue confused the hell out of me. It was like the last 10 minutes were written and directed by someone completely different. Can someone tell me what that had to do with anything?
  • NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    what? WHAT?!!! The end lost me as well.

    Are you saying Javier had the money?

    The ending monologue confused the hell out of me. It was like the last 10 minutes were written and directed by someone completely different. Can someone tell me what that had to do with anything?


    instead of me trying to explain it let me google and paste what i read
  • NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    In this piece, I’m going to talk about the ending of the Coen Brothers Film, No Country for Old Men, which seems to baffle some people. This bafflement was the subject of an article in last Friday’s LA Times as well as a section of the movie’s official website which links to various film forums. When Cal and I saw the film at a matinee, many people said ‘What the fuck? That’s it?’ loudly as the credits started to roll and we all shuffled out of the dark.

    Since I’m going to be talking about the ending of No Country for Old Men, I highly recommend that you stop reading now if you haven’t seen the film and don’t want to know the ending. Yes, I’m going to be writing spoilers. If you don’t want to read spoilers, you can go and play checkers or pac man.

    No Country For Old Men, based on the Cormac McCarthy novel, follows three characters. First, one day, while out hunting, Moss discovers a lot of dead bodies and a bag full of money out in the middle of the desert. Naturally, he takes the money and leaves the bodies. Also, (always thinking this one), he makes his young wife visit her mother, and he takes off on the road. Meanwhile, Chigurh, the villain with the bad hair cut, chases him. Meanwhile, old Sheriff Bell also finds the dead bodies and the trail of dead bodies left by Chigurh and tries to put it all together.

    At this point, the movie (and the book it is based on) feels like an old fashion gun toting thrill ride. Likeable and smart good guy with a few flaws. Check. Crazy unpredictable villain. Check. And the sheriff played by Tommy Lee Jones. Check. Modified guns. Check. Lots of blood. Check. Gross out bullet removal scene. Check. Bad ass (played by Woody Harrelson) who shows up to let us know that the villain is a super bad ass and not just a normal bad ass. Check. Woman sent to her mother’s. Check.

    So we’re moving along comfortably, safe in the predictability of the genre. Will Moss kill Chigurh and get away with the money? Will Chigurh kill Moss and get the money back? Will Sheriff Bell figure it all out in time to save Moss? Will there be one of those cool scenes where all three guys have guns drawn on each other like City on Fire and Reservoir Dogs? Will old Sheriff Bell be taken out because he’s old---hence the title? What will happen? My Gosh, the suspense! The action! The drama!

    Then, the film (and the book) starts to shift. Moss gets killed---not by Chigurh but by some other bad guys we haven’t seen before. The Sheriff shows up too late to save Moss or to find the money which Chigurh gets to before him. Okay, it all could end there, but it doesn’t. It shifts into something deeper.

    Chigurh shows up at the house where Moss’s widow had just come back from her mother’s funeral. He’s there to kill her because Moss wouldn’t turn himself over to him. It’s a scene of great restraint and no blood, but we know what’s happening. And at that moment, I realized that Chigurh was not just a killer. He’s not just the personification of violence (as it says in the press kit). He’s death himself. Not since Bergman’s The Seventh Seal has Death been so much fun. A character might be able to sit down and place chess with him, but in the end, death wins. Chigurh doesn’t need a chess board. He just uses a coin toss.

    As he leaves the house of Moss’s widow, his car is sideswiped in an intersection. He limps away from the wreckage and down the quiet suburban street. Death lives another day. There’s a strange joke in that.

    Meanwhile, old Sheriff Bell visits an old relative, a sort of blind seer figure in a shack in the middle of nowhere, and the two of them sit and tell each other old stories. For the first time in the film, old Sheriff Bell doesn’t seem so old, and I realized that his quest was not justice but understanding. He wants to understand all that is around him, but there is no understanding for it. There just is the happening.

    Finally, in the last scene of the movie and the book, Sheriff Bell sits at the breakfast table and tells his wife about a dream he had. He talks about his old man, long dead, riding past but able to fix up a fire for him when it got too dark. In a way, it comes back to death. Sheriff Bell, when his time comes, he’ll know the way to go. He’ll go the way of his father and the world will keep spinning. And the credits roll.

    And all the people, who think they know exactly how the film should end, leave disappointed wondering what the fuss was all about. And me, with my modern drama background, saw it as a statement that men live, men die, and the world keeps turning. And Cal, well Cal is jumping up and down with joy while shouting ‘It’s Yeats! It’s Yeats!’ as if everything he would need to go out from this world is Yeats.

    His Yeats makes sense. The title, No Country for Old Men, is from the Yeats poem, Sailing to Byzantinium. The first line is: That is no country for old men. To me, the poem is about the process of dying, the journey into death, in which the old tattered coat of a body is given up for a sort of golden immortality.

    We trod upon this earth, we grow old, we die. And when we are too old in the country of the young, where is our place? Where is the place for the old Sheriff? For a few minutes on film, the Coen Brothers achieved something very unlikely and very moving. Yep, them boys did all right.
  • holy crap. I never in a million years would have thought that. This makes me want to see the movie all over again.

    Thanks so much for that. :)
  • NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    holy crap. I never in a million years would have thought that. This makes me want to see the movie all over again.

    Thanks so much for that. :)


    good fricking flick
  • I think it was confusing and upsetting (a non-ending) to those that didn't read the book first, or didn't know the referencing of Yeats.

    It was a good film, but not a great one (IMO) I think it would have been very difficult to not make a good film from that novel.

    and Bardiem was wonderful, but i still question his stupidly distracting hairdo. it was unnecessary.
    IF YOU WANT A PLATE OF MY BEEF SWELLINGTON, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE COVERCHARGE.
  • I read an interview with Bardiem he said that he did the hairdo intentionally because he felt it was un-nerving. I guess he showed up the first time with it and everyone was like "what the fuck?", so they kept it.
  • NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    I read an interview with Bardiem he said that he did the hairdo intentionally because he felt it was un-nerving. I guess he showed up the first time with it and everyone was like "what the fuck?", so they kept it.


    it was perfect ...sick and scary looking
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    NY PJ1 wrote:
    Then, the film (and the book) starts to shift. Moss gets killed---not by Chigurh but by some other bad guys we haven’t seen before. The Sheriff shows up too late to save Moss or to find the money which Chigurh gets to before him. Okay, it all could end there, but it doesn’t. It shifts into something deeper.
    That's the part that lost me. They never showed or clarified that Moss was killed at the hotel at the end. The last time we saw him was standing by the pool talking to the girl offering him a beer....right?

    Wen Bell showed up to the hotel and all the gun fire was happening and that truck with those guys were screeching away, that's when we as the audience was supposed to assume Lewelyn died?

    And yeah, putting together that Chigurh had the cash after he was t-boned, I guess that does imply that he finally had the money.


    Good fucking film!!!
  • justamjustam Posts: 21,412
    I watched the movie twice to try to figure it out.

    The coin toss is about choices made that have consequences that we can't necessarily see ahead of time.

    The murderer is death or fate.

    The mother of the wife kills the guy when the person helps her with her luggage by giving away their plans...another way of saying that the wife's "baggage" (her mother, her upbringing) killed the husband. :p (Wow.) :eek:

    It was an interesting movie I thought. :)
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
  • patrickredeyespatrickredeyes Posts: 8,834
    Great movie and great ending. :)
  • westsidepiewestsidepie Posts: 627
    aNiMaL wrote:
    That's the part that lost me. They never showed or clarified that Moss was killed at the hotel at the end. The last time we saw him was standing by the pool talking to the girl offering him a beer....right?

    Wen Bell showed up to the hotel and all the gun fire was happening and that truck with those guys were screeching away, that's when we as the audience was supposed to assume Lewelyn died?

    And yeah, putting together that Chigurh had the cash after he was t-boned, I guess that does imply that he finally had the money.


    Good fucking film!!!

    You actually see Moss laid out on the floor in the doorway of the hotel. The Mexicans knew where to find him, because they approached his girlfriend's mother to help her with her bags. They asked the mother where she was going, and she gave them the name of the hotel.
    To pie I will reply
    But mr. justam
    is who I am

    "That's a repulsive combination of horrible information and bad breath."-Pickles

    "Remember, death is a natural part of the workplace. So, when you see a dead body at work, don't freak out, just ring your death bell." "ting"-Toki Wartooth
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 28,061
    I think it was confusing and upsetting (a non-ending) to those that didn't read the book first, or didn't know the referencing of Yeats.

    It was a good film, but not a great one (IMO) I think it would have been very difficult to not make a good film from that novel.

    and Bardiem was wonderful, but i still question his stupidly distracting hairdo. it was unnecessary.

    I thought it was the 80's.
    I miss igotid88
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 30,173
    so does the killer end up with the money?? ,and i wish it could of ended with the sheriff killing him at the house of the wife at the end still a great movie just the end sucked in my opinion .....
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    so does the killer end up with the money?? ,and i wish it could of ended with the sheriff killing him at the house of the wife at the end still a great movie just the end sucked in my opinion .....


    yea after he gets into the car accident he hands the kid $100 bill for his shirt
    that meant to show u he had the cash
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 30,173
    NY PJ1 wrote:
    yea after he gets into the car accident he hands the kid $100 bill for his shirt
    that meant to show u he had the cash

    yeah that makes sense still wish the fucker would of gotten killed damm he was like the terminator ....
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • LONGRDLONGRD Posts: 6,036
    so does the killer end up with the money?? ,and i wish it could of ended with the sheriff killing him at the house of the wife at the end still a great movie just the end sucked in my opinion .....
    I'm OK with the ending but I totally thought it would end with a duel between Bell and Chigur. Great film overall.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • G-forceG-force Posts: 218
    justam wrote:
    I watched the movie twice to try to figure it out.

    The coin toss is about choices made that have consequences that we can't necessarily see ahead of time.

    The murderer is death or fate.

    The mother of the wife kills the guy when the person helps her with her luggage by giving away their plans...another way of saying that the wife's "baggage" (her mother, her upbringing) killed the husband. :p (Wow.) :eek:

    It was an interesting movie I thought. :)

    Excellent!! i love that baggage metaphor, awesome.

    Also NYPJ1 had a great interpretation of the film, I had a very similar take on the outcome (this world is not user friendly for the old folks, and at the end of the day...whats it all for?) however I would not have been able to eloquently describe it as he did. Not bad for a Rangers fan. LMAO
  • NY PJ1NY PJ1 Posts: 9,533
    G-force wrote:
    Excellent!! i love that baggage metaphor, awesome.

    Also NYPJ1 had a great interpretation of the film, I had a very similar take on the outcome (this world is not user friendly for the old folks, and at the end of the day...whats it all for?) however I would not have been able to eloquently describe it as he did. Not bad for a Rangers fan. LMAO


    i copied and pasted that lol

    but thanx :)
  • Hitch-HikerHitch-Hiker Posts: 2,873
    I think it was confusing and upsetting (a non-ending) to those that didn't read the book first, or didn't know the referencing of Yeats.

    It was a good film, but not a great one (IMO) I think it would have been very difficult to not make a good film from that novel.

    and Bardiem was wonderful, but i still question his stupidly distracting hairdo. it was unnecessary.
    I don't think you need to know the book, or the poem to grasp the meaning of the film. the final monologue pretty much says it all.
    That said however, I have found with a lot of coen brothers movies, including lighter affairs like the big lebowski or Oh Brother where art thou, they take two or three viewings for everything to REALLY sink in. No country is no exception.
    I'll Ride The Wave Where It Takes Me
  • TrixieCatTrixieCat Posts: 5,756
    I don't think you need to know the book, or the poem to grasp the meaning of the film. the final monologue pretty much says it all.
    That said however, I have found with a lot of coen brothers movies, including lighter affairs like the big lebowski or Oh Brother where art thou, they take two or three viewings for everything to REALLY sink in. No country is no exception.
    I agree that it takes more than one viewing.
    I just saw No Country this past weekend. Awesome.
    Thanks nypj for posting the story you found. It definitely filled in alot of details.
    Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
    And I don't feel right when you're gone away
  • toddiet123toddiet123 Posts: 271
    The thing with his hair...

    i guess the Cohens found a picture of some person that frequented brothles in the early 1900's with that hair..they just used it.

    It is on the trivia of IMBD.
Sign In or Register to comment.