no country for old men

The info I had obviously was incorrect regarding Stone producing, not directing the movie. I guess filming starting in January 08 was incorrect as well.

Some would argue that Stone's non-involvement with the film is a good thing. Regardless, it should be pretty good.
 
The Coen brothers on the Charlie Rose show said that it was deliberately ambiguous as to where Chigurh is, or even the exact chronology in that sequence. In the novel, Bell inadvertently goes into the motel room almost immediately after Chigurh has left it. Bell quickly realizes this and is scared. Chigurh is in fact getting ready to leave when he recognizes the Terrell County sheriff's car pull in, and watches Bell while seated in his vehicle in the parking lot, ready to kill Bell if necessary. I think the Coen brothers were trying to give the sense of danger that the scene in the novel has, without going into as much detail. But if you think the end result is pretty confusing without being all that scary, I'd agree. Oh well. No one's perfect.
 
Just finished this on blu-ray. Awesome, awesome movie. Easily one of my top five ever.
bow.gif
 
I didn't read every page of this post, but any ideas on how Chigurgh was arrested at the very beginning? He was a badass for sure but some country deputy picks him up? Love the movie.
 
Finally saw this. Came away with a lot of questions so I'll need to see it again... but ******* great flick. One that makes you glad you saw it. Coen's for the win!
 
You better shut your mouth before I take you in the back and screw ya.

I try to say that to my wife on a daily basis now.
 
Here is my interpretation of the Dessert Sands Motel scene.

Anton is in the room, at the Dessert Sands, when we see Luellyn talking to the whooah by the pool. He's already got the money and is waiting to kill him. Then the Mexican's show up and a shootout begins and Luellyn is killed. I think Anton kills the mexicans we see dead while he's leaving.

When TLJ shows up, Anton is long gone. When we see Anton behind the door it is just a figment of TLJ's immagination....He's afraid.....he's picturing his worst nightmare behind the door.

Excellent movie no matter how we spin it.
 
Did anyone else get the feeling that Chigurh seemed like he was from another time? I mean, more than being a fish out of water in west texas/mexico. Even beyond the all black. He just seemed so strikingly different in his appearance at all times that it was like watching a movie with a character from the future.
i thought the movie was fantastic, and i either completely misread it or perhaps some artistic explanation.

And sorry if this has been addressed in the previous pages - no time to read the whole thing...
 
Someone could write a pretty good term paper about whether or not Chigurh is, in fact, Death/the Grim Reaper.

My interpretation of the hotel room scene is that Chigurh was not in the room. He is show standing behind the door, but when Ed Tom opens the door, it swings all the way open and hits the wall.

I think Ed Tom imagined him there and was terrified. He had just finished describing him as a "ghost" to the other sheriff.
 
drew,
if you were reponding to me, you are picking up on what i was talking about, though i hadn't thought of that.
that really satisfies my curiosity. i was talking with a friend and said that he seemed like an alien or something, but the whole grim reaper date with destiny coin flip, etc... nice read, drew.
 
Well howdyshucks, the six month anniversary of this thread was this past Wednesday.

IMDB has the release date of Burn After Reading as September 12. Wait, did I already mention that on page 14 or something?
 
just saw it last night.

one question i had was why did moss go out before dawn to bring the gutshot mexican water. he thought it was important for the mexican to be properly hydrated while he died of a gunshot wound? why not bring him a lollipop too like they give kids at the doctor's office?

"Here you go. All better?"
 
I saw this movie for the first time over the weekend. I know...I don't get out much. I'm the father of 4 young children, work way too many hours, and I simply don't get out much, so give me a break
smile.gif


I read about half of these posts trying to figure out some of the things I missed from the movie, having at least two of my kids running in and out of the den while my wife and I were watching. I think you guys have answered most of my questions, but I do have one about the setting - why 1980? Was that just the year the writer picked, or is there something significant about it? Maybe it was a peak in drug activity in that part of the state? Maybe Anton's hairdo really wouldn't have worked if it was circa 2000? Just curious.

Regarding the acting, I thought Brolin was outstanding. Being born and raised in Texas, I felt many times during the movie that "hey, I know a guy like that."
 
I think the choice in year was picked as something of a turning point in the nature of law enforcement and criminality. The sort of "Old West" law enforcement where things made more sense are gone, and the "old men' of law enforcement are out of step and somewhat archaic.

When Tommy Lee Jones appears at the hotel near the end of the movie, you expect a classic confrontation of law man and bad guy. You are somewhat relieved that Tommy Lee Jones does not meet him because you are not confident he will win or even have much of a chance.

The following scene with Barry Corbin reinforces the theme. Their days are gone.
 
Agree with Roma. After having seen this a second time (and actually thinking about the title) I see it as a time of change for the old time lawmen. As cocaine tool off in the late 70s and early 80s, the game changed significantly.
 
I just pulled this out today to watch it again.

In re the issue of the time frame (1980):

I agree that the coming of cocaine money and the resultant firepower makes 1980 the author's choice, but I also see that as a point in time when moral ambiguity and a shaken confidence in the good guys had really settled into the nation's psyche. The opposite of the old men (TLJ) are the young guys, legit business guys trying to make big cash illicitly, and, more to the point, young guys back from the fracas in Nam. The subtext is that we trained killers but provided no moral compass, and these sociopaths roaming the west slaughtering people for cash, tracking the injured, etc., for money constitutes the blow back from a war that itself lost its moral bearings. NCfOM is first and foremost about world views and the things men do based on those world views, what they think is possible, and how fate, so to speak, effects that. The primary issue is the change that the bottom line was taking. The old boys are so confused and baffled that they don't see what is in the room with them (Chigurh) and can't make heads or tails of what they do see (pneumatic bolt guns to green hair and the death of 'yes ma'am and no ma'am'). The whole country was undergoing a crisis in faith at the time resulting from the Iran Hostage affair, the helplessness felt in the face of OPEC and the energy crunch, etc. There was a longing for simpler, more clear-eyed times.

It is important to keep in mind that the various world views and their connection to the concepts of 'old' or 'young' need not correspond to the actual age of the characters in the film. There are simply those that operate according to the old ways and those that operate according to the new.
 
Buckhorn,

I was really leaning toward the theory of 1980 being a better era to showcase Anton's hairdo, but I'll accept your explanation.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top