opinions?

Just watched it again the other day and only the Tommy Lee Jones scenes held up desu

>>83650896
his scenes are the most important. only normies care about autism chigurh

Essential redditcore.

>>83650981
I wish he had more screen time. He was great.

I cried at his last scene desu fan

>>83651004
it's a good fucking film, god forbid reddit also likes it

It was scary.

>>83651502
anon pls

agua

my favorite movie desu

Best Hollywood movie in the last 10 years.

Maybe The Master is on par.

>>83650779
I like it and the book but both of them have beyond anticlimactic endings, which is a staple of the "style" McCarthy claims to have.

I rewatch this movie so frequently. About once a month or so. I can't even say why I enjoy watching it so much, but I just find it captivating. It's not really in the genre of media I normally consume. I'm big into fantasy and sci-fi stuff, I love animated TV shows and movies the most, yet this movie is spellbinding to me. There's some scenes I just watch over and over again.

Who here can tell me why this movie is absolute kino?

I'll give you three guesses.

I don't think I understand the theme or the significance of the implied parallel I think I see between Tommy Lee Jones and Chigurh

I know complaining about the ending makes me look stupid but it seemed to be trying to make something hat happened before that scene look significant but I don't know what it is

>>83653666
Bell is led on by Chigurh into a world of sickness and darkness
the key is that in the ending he realizes Chigurh is not a cause but a symptom
There are other things I'm too drunk and lazy to get into

>>83653666

It's a simple as the title.

The world is far too violent and chaotic for a man like Tommy Lee's character to be an effective cop.

His dream represents his death, if he keeps on in the world as a cop he's gonna end up dead. His father will be there waiting to comfort him with fire.

>>83650779
The ending is a little weak but the rest is great

call it

>>83653666
I can't really tell either, and that plays into the common complaint of the ending being nicely done and emotional, but shit storywise. It leaves nearly every question unanswered, Tommy's character ends up having accomplished nothing at all, and our protag is suddenly killed off screen in a confusing and rushed manner.

The book isn't too much better in this regard but at least it gives us more time throughout with each character.

Some call it a writing motif but I honestly think McCarthy just doesn't know how to write endings. Nearly everything by him usually ends in a very underwhelming way and leaves most of the story unanswered. The Road is especially terrible about that, but IMO The Road was a pretty terrible book.

I think the general message is that the old ways are dead and it's futile to try to go back, or that evil always exists but pays a price - Sugar getting fucked up in both book and movie endings but not even being evil in the book - or that it's just Occam's razor and McCarthy nor the people adapting him know how to fittingly end his stories.

/shrugurh

>>83650779
I have to watch it anytime its on tv. Its like I'm compelled.

>>83650779
Tommy Lee Jones scenes sometimes made me think of my dad. And sometimes they made me think ed tom was a weenie

>>83653741
This is mostly accurate. A key point of the book is that it is implied that throughout the story Bell is coming to terms with his own age and that he is simply becoming too old to keep up. In this way the title "No Country for Old Men" represents the march of time, not referencing a specific country or period specifically.
>>83653789
Stop trying to apply traditional literary structures to the story and you might get a little more out of it.

>>83653502
>>83653502
that is refreshing to me though. I like being able to come out of a movie and it not be some big high. it brings you down to reality.
>>83653755
newfag
>>83653666
they both follow rules but are obviously different people. chigurh outmatches bell and bell toils with accepting that and retiring, almost "giving up" even though he has no choice in modern day crime.
>>83653789
that's the point. he didn't end up accomplishing anything. he is outmatched. he can't compete with chigurh, yet chigurh becomes vulnerable at the end by getting injured in the car accident, so you see that he isn't some unstoppable evil incarnate "ultimate bad ass" as moss supposed he was.

moss is a guy in the middle who has no true rules that he follows. he fucks over his wife, steals the suitcase of cash, yet he goes to get water for the dying mexican at the deal site and doesn't fuck the girl flirting with him at the pool.

why'd we see him get hit by a car? Dude, your bone is sticking out of your arm

wtf?? main guy dies offscreen must be a pretty shit movie amiright

>>83650779
The ultimate kino of our time

>>83653665
It was made by the Coen bros.

One of the few movies that all of /tv/ likes. It is more contentious than movies like The Thing but 95% anons genuinely like this movie.

>>83653789
You don't understand the genre McCarthy writes in so don't bother trying to analyse it

>>83650779

numbers are very important, esp. from 11-15 or so.

boring and tedious

Related to one of the guys who did the sound editing/design who got nominated for a statue.

>>83653353
same

>>83653639
Everything about it is just so smart and detailed. Like it's the kind of thing where I could expect that everything in it could have happened in real life, except for the pharmacy scene. Not only that, but everything in the movie is pretty clever and well thought out.

>>83653999
He wasn't really fucking over his girlfriend though, and I'd argue that Moss wasn't completely outmatched by Chigurh. He held his own in the firefight they had, and he was smart too. He's well trained and Chigurh repeatedly underestimates him. The only reason he even died was because the mexicans found his location through the girlfriend's mother. Other than that I agree with most everything else about your post.

>>83655469
I didn't know it was possible to have such shit taste

>>83653665
no sound

>>83653665
Characters actually act intelligently. When they make mistakes, they are understandable mistakes.

>>83655469
your post is boring

Is Chirguh more detailed in the book? Who the fuck is he supposed to be? He's a hitman who uses a cattle gun and is obsessed with coins, don't know how he's supposed to be some otherwordly incarnation of evil or something

>>83653665
>3 guesses
>3 windmills
Whoa
No this movie should never be anyone's absolute favorite ever. It has a lot of dogshit and a few good moments. I haven't read the book but I'm it follows the same story? But I imagine that story is told through McCarthy writing, which is amazingly high-content per paragraph. Blood Meridian is a "short read" but you're lying to yourself if you say you got it all in one go. And that, of course, is a major problem when converting books to movies. That, and the idea of making a McCarthy book, which are all "people are shit, get over it, life sucks" into a movie isn't a great idea. Movie-goers want a story with a point, book readers are able to understand the deeper concepts/allegories.

>don't know how he's supposed to be some otherwordly incarnation of evil or something
he kills almost everyone that sees/engages him and he treats people like nothing more than cattle. he uses flipping a coin and telling them to call it to act as if he is fate.

>>83657781
an agent of fate...or something. No, he's not obsessed with coins

>>83657893
>>83657926
He sure didn't look like an "agent of fate" when he almost got btfo by Brolin and escaped like a bitch

File: 20170606_191351.png (30KB, 329x292px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 329x292px

>mfw the cowboy dies offscreen

>>83655469
I've seen better opinions on reddit, you should go there and take notes.

>>83657781
He carries himself as some unstoppable, otherworldly monster but is really just a normal human being, who does in fact come close to dying several times. He spends the entire film lecturing people on fate before getting in a car crash

>>83658144
>He carries himself as some unstoppable, otherworldly monster
No he doesn't

>>83657972
yeah, that's the point dude.

bell thinks he's outmatched, and sees chigurh as this unstoppable killer, yet he gets shot and hit by a car

moss thinks he can take on chigurh but in reality is just some vietnam vet trying to take on a contract killer and throughout the story doesn't realize what he's getting into and dies

chigurh himself tries to be an agent of fate, that's all. he has rules and doesn't even want the money for himself. it's just another job to him to get the
money to who hired him to get it. when he gest hit by the car at the end, that's supposed to show that he isn't really anything other than a psychopath, and not any ominous mystical unstoppable agent of fate or symbol of death or any of that.

>>83653789
>the road
>terrible
Not his best work by far but holy shit get some taste. I'd recommend Outter Dark or Child of God but it'd be a waste on you.

File: dusk.gif (70KB, 192x224px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 192x224px

>>83658029
>tfw the underdog is unceremoniously swept away in anticlimactic fashion
>tfw the righteous knight must now retire without closure
>tfw even the villain will vnow spend the rest of his life on the run, whittling his fortune away just trying to avoid capture
Nobody wins.

>>83650779
It's aesthetic as fuck desu.

>>83650779
It is criminally overrated

>>83653666
Throughout the movie Tommy Lee Jones thinks that crime is getting worse and reaching an evil beyond his ability to even comprehend. Chigurh is portrayed as this ultimate evil and sees himself as an objective moral authority that can't be stopped, yet we last see him humiliated begging children for help. Almost like an act of God struck him down and humbled him. Tommy Lee Jones visits his dad(?) who tells him that these kind of men have always committed this kind of evil and Tommy Lee Jones doesn't have a say in whether or not it appears, but he has to fight it back anyway. The dream is basically Jones coming to terms with having lived a good life even though he didn't feel like he's defeated evil

>>83658513
tfw

The Coen Bros were unstoppable from 2007-2008. This and Burn After Reading were really good.

Why does Bardem try to shoot the crow on the bridge?

>>83659533
For all his talk of following a code and his coin flip bs deep down he's really just a violent sociopath

File: test.jpg (104KB, 700x1015px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 700x1015px

>>83653331
agua por dios

>>83650779
Did yify just rerelease this or something?

My issue is with people's analyses and how they can vary. The writer of the book was one man who wrote all that's contained in it with his one set of intentions and their expression (in every choice made). The film was directed by 2 men who presumably guided all elements to suit their intentions, which presumably they shared or combined.
So when you guys go on about how this is that and that is this, what are you doing? Are you attempting to divine the intentions of the artists that created the work, decoding the themes and ideas that you believe the artists encoded in things like metaphors? Or are you just sharing your own personal interpretation of what you see, your ideas that are inspired by the stimuli, the book or film.
What would McCarthy say if he was deconstructing his work? What would the Coen brothers say? That's the only definitive interpretation of the art, that which was intended by them. Everything beyond that isn't worth arguing because it's a matter of opinion, subjective connections of stimuli to meaning dependent on the viewer/interpreter.
This of course extends to many other pieces of art and many other discussions of them, but No Country seems to be less obvious/defined in its connection of metaphor to meaning, but I like the No Country discussions in particular for the disparity between the simple series of events shown and the much broader and greater themes that people believe the events to imply. The plot is simple, linear, easy to follow, but that which it is believed to convey is the opposite.
So why do you say "it is this, not that" in regard to interpretation? Do you see the original intentions for sure, or are you just promoting your own interpretation without realizing that it has no higher objective value in a discussion?

>No main character
>Villain is cliche from a slasher film
>Killing prominent characters offscreen
>Sherrif doesn't give a fuck, sit around reading the paper
>Plot holes everywhere
>Villain returns to multiple crime scenes with highly visible weapons
>Story just ends

classic