No country for old men......has anyone seen this movie ?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Its awesome, but you better actually follow the story and pay attention to what is being said as opposed to just watching a "chase movie".
Even so, you'll probably have to watch it at least twice to fully appreciate and understand it.
I seen it this movie was underratedkemar7856
High praise, considering it got universally positive review. :)
I enjoyed everything about the movie until the end :( Won't spoil it, but to me it just feels like there's no conclusion, no finishing of anything really.
jamejame
well thats kinda the point
Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...jamejame
Agreed. The ending was terrible.
Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...jamejame
like Fargo the movie is supposed to show [spoiler] that after all that trouble thats what it ends up being, everyone dead or hurt. The Coens already mentioned that did care who if anyone got the money. The only character that seemed incomplete is yes the sheriff, but I have to watch it again because know the Coens his story is there. I didnt mind the ending [/spoiler]
I really liked the movie, but it's a bit of a turn off to some people. One, it's slower paced that most films and two, you might not like the ending.ernie1989
yea, i was one of those people that was a little turned off. i thought it was a decent movie, but not as good as the critics said.
[QUOTE="jamejame"]Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...trix5817
Agreed. The ending was terrible.
I don't think you guys understand the ending *Mini Spoiler* The ending was ment as a philosophical conclusion that basically wrapped everything up, I suggest going back and watching it again or reading some forums to get a grasp on the ending. It may not seem it but the ending pretty much explained everything (not just his speech but the car crash and everything like that).
Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...jamejame
uh everything was resolved. You know that Tommy Lee Jones and Anton weren't going to have a showdown because they missed each other at the hotel.
The point of the story is that while Anton escapes "justice", he really doesn't. The car accident signifies that he will get his as well, because thats life, its "karma" if you will. At the point in the movie he should be home free. Everyone that knew about the money is dead. He even got revenge by killing the thief's wife. The only thing they don't show you is Anton really dying. But a ton of the violence in the movie isn't shown, its just understood. You don't see Anton killing the wife, for example, just him leaving the house and cleaning his shoe.
You have to watch the movie again to understand what is going on. This movie wouldn't be getting the high praise it has been if it had a poor story or a bad ending.
[QUOTE="jamejame"]Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...Weapons_Free
uh everything was resolved. You know that Tommy Lee Jones and Anton weren't going to have a showdown because they missed each other at the hotel.
The point of the story is that while Anton escapes "justice", he really doesn't. The car accident signifies that he will get his as well, because thats life, its "karma" if you will. At the point in the movie he should be home free. Everyone that knew about the money is dead. He even got revenge by killing the thief's wife. The only thing they don't show you is Anton really dying. But a ton of the violence in the movie isn't shown, its just understood. You don't see Anton killing the wife, for example, just him leaving the house and cleaning his shoe.
You have to watch the movie again to understand what is going on. This movie wouldn't be getting the high praise it has been if it had a poor story or a bad ending.
finally, somebody understands the damn movie.one of the best parts of the movie is that they didnt show the audience everything. they let the audience interpret what was shown. for instance, you came to the conclusion that the car crash was a sign thatanton will get whats coming to him. iinterpreted that1)anton got the money(he bribed the kid with a benjamin) and 2) that he will never get caught. the sheriff said that you cant account for chance andnobody can really see whats coming just before the hunter(i forget his name) gets killed at the hotel. the car crash was chance. and for all we know, anton escaped. nobody really has an answerforsheer unremorsed violence. its a darker world than that of previous generations.
buts the point. its open ended so 2 people could both draw their own conclusions. too many movies just spoon feed everything to you.
[QUOTE="Weapons_Free"][QUOTE="jamejame"]Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...LoG-Sacrament
uh everything was resolved. You know that Tommy Lee Jones and Anton weren't going to have a showdown because they missed each other at the hotel.
The point of the story is that while Anton escapes "justice", he really doesn't. The car accident signifies that he will get his as well, because thats life, its "karma" if you will. At the point in the movie he should be home free. Everyone that knew about the money is dead. He even got revenge by killing the thief's wife. The only thing they don't show you is Anton really dying. But a ton of the violence in the movie isn't shown, its just understood. You don't see Anton killing the wife, for example, just him leaving the house and cleaning his shoe.
You have to watch the movie again to understand what is going on. This movie wouldn't be getting the high praise it has been if it had a poor story or a bad ending.
finally, somebody understands the damn movie.one of the best parts of the movie is that they didnt show the audience everything. they let the audience interpret what was shown. for instance, you came to the conclusion that the car crash was a sign thatanton will get whats coming to him. iinterpreted that1)anton got the money(he bribed the kid with a benjamin) and 2) that he will never get caught. the sheriff said that you cant account for chance andnobody can really see whats coming just before the hunter(i forget his name) gets killed at the hotel. the car crash was chance. and for all we know, anton escaped. nobody really has an answerforsheer unremorsed violence. its a darker world than that of previous generations.
buts the point. its open ended so 2 people could both draw their own conclusions. too many movies just spoon feed everything to you.
I hate when people say that. It's the same concept of ending a movie/book with "he awakes and it was all a dream!". It's just an excuse because they couldn't think of a good ending that would work with the movie.
No Country for Old Men had plot holes which just ruined the movie for me. How did Javier Bardem end up getting the money after Josh Brolin threw it over the fence? How did he know where to find it or where it was?
[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="Weapons_Free"][QUOTE="jamejame"]Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...trix5817
uh everything was resolved. You know that Tommy Lee Jones and Anton weren't going to have a showdown because they missed each other at the hotel.
The point of the story is that while Anton escapes "justice", he really doesn't. The car accident signifies that he will get his as well, because thats life, its "karma" if you will. At the point in the movie he should be home free. Everyone that knew about the money is dead. He even got revenge by killing the thief's wife. The only thing they don't show you is Anton really dying. But a ton of the violence in the movie isn't shown, its just understood. You don't see Anton killing the wife, for example, just him leaving the house and cleaning his shoe.
You have to watch the movie again to understand what is going on. This movie wouldn't be getting the high praise it has been if it had a poor story or a bad ending.
finally, somebody understands the damn movie.one of the best parts of the movie is that they didnt show the audience everything. they let the audience interpret what was shown. for instance, you came to the conclusion that the car crash was a sign thatanton will get whats coming to him. iinterpreted that1)anton got the money(he bribed the kid with a benjamin) and 2) that he will never get caught. the sheriff said that you cant account for chance andnobody can really see whats coming just before the hunter(i forget his name) gets killed at the hotel. the car crash was chance. and for all we know, anton escaped. nobody really has an answerforsheer unremorsed violence. its a darker world than that of previous generations.
buts the point. its open ended so 2 people could both draw their own conclusions. too many movies just spoon feed everything to you.
I hate when people say that. It's the same concept of ending a movie/book with "he awakes and it was all a dream!". It's just an excuse because they couldn't think of a good ending that would work with the movie.
No Country for Old Men had plot holes which just ruined the movie for me. How did Javier Bardem end up getting the money after Josh Brolin threw it over the fence? How did he know where to find it or where it was?
Moss got he money after he left the hospital and took it with him to the motel, he then hid it in the vent. After he is killed the sheriff comes and sees the vent open and a coin "hint""hint" that was there. i think anton found the money hidden there. For all we now he didnt get it.
[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="Weapons_Free"][QUOTE="jamejame"]Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...trix5817
uh everything was resolved. You know that Tommy Lee Jones and Anton weren't going to have a showdown because they missed each other at the hotel.
The point of the story is that while Anton escapes "justice", he really doesn't. The car accident signifies that he will get his as well, because thats life, its "karma" if you will. At the point in the movie he should be home free. Everyone that knew about the money is dead. He even got revenge by killing the thief's wife. The only thing they don't show you is Anton really dying. But a ton of the violence in the movie isn't shown, its just understood. You don't see Anton killing the wife, for example, just him leaving the house and cleaning his shoe.
You have to watch the movie again to understand what is going on. This movie wouldn't be getting the high praise it has been if it had a poor story or a bad ending.
finally, somebody understands the damn movie.one of the best parts of the movie is that they didnt show the audience everything. they let the audience interpret what was shown. for instance, you came to the conclusion that the car crash was a sign thatanton will get whats coming to him. iinterpreted that1)anton got the money(he bribed the kid with a benjamin) and 2) that he will never get caught. the sheriff said that you cant account for chance andnobody can really see whats coming just before the hunter(i forget his name) gets killed at the hotel. the car crash was chance. and for all we know, anton escaped. nobody really has an answerforsheer unremorsed violence. its a darker world than that of previous generations.
buts the point. its open ended so 2 people could both draw their own conclusions. too many movies just spoon feed everything to you.
I hate when people say that. It's the same concept of ending a movie/book with "he awakes and it was all a dream!". It's just an excuse because they couldn't think of a good ending that would work with the movie.
No Country for Old Men had plot holes which just ruined the movie for me. How did Javier Bardem end up getting the money after Josh Brolin threw it over the fence? How did he know where to find it or where it was?
He retraced the steps. He knew that Brolin had crossed over the border. They would have checked his luggage if he was carrying anything. So he knew he must have dumped it. I know what part you are talking about but I saw the movie awhile ago.
And leaving something up for interpretation is one of the reasons why books are written, why movies are made, and its part of the reason why they are entertaining. Its not so much that they leave the ending open but that they tell you what happened without actually blatantly explaining it. They can convey the message without hitting you in the face is the point. And its not the same thing as having the whole story be a dream sequence that didn't happen. Not even close.
[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="Weapons_Free"][QUOTE="jamejame"]Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...SaintLeonidas
uh everything was resolved. You know that Tommy Lee Jones and Anton weren't going to have a showdown because they missed each other at the hotel.
The point of the story is that while Anton escapes "justice", he really doesn't. The car accident signifies that he will get his as well, because thats life, its "karma" if you will. At the point in the movie he should be home free. Everyone that knew about the money is dead. He even got revenge by killing the thief's wife. The only thing they don't show you is Anton really dying. But a ton of the violence in the movie isn't shown, its just understood. You don't see Anton killing the wife, for example, just him leaving the house and cleaning his shoe.
You have to watch the movie again to understand what is going on. This movie wouldn't be getting the high praise it has been if it had a poor story or a bad ending.
finally, somebody understands the damn movie.one of the best parts of the movie is that they didnt show the audience everything. they let the audience interpret what was shown. for instance, you came to the conclusion that the car crash was a sign thatanton will get whats coming to him. iinterpreted that1)anton got the money(he bribed the kid with a benjamin) and 2) that he will never get caught. the sheriff said that you cant account for chance andnobody can really see whats coming just before the hunter(i forget his name) gets killed at the hotel. the car crash was chance. and for all we know, anton escaped. nobody really has an answerforsheer unremorsed violence. its a darker world than that of previous generations.
buts the point. its open ended so 2 people could both draw their own conclusions. too many movies just spoon feed everything to you.
I hate when people say that. It's the same concept of ending a movie/book with "he awakes and it was all a dream!". It's just an excuse because they couldn't think of a good ending that would work with the movie.
No Country for Old Men had plot holes which just ruined the movie for me. How did Javier Bardem end up getting the money after Josh Brolin threw it over the fence? How did he know where to find it or where it was?
Moss got he money after he left the hospital and took it with him to the motel, he then hid it in the vent. After he is killed the sheriff comes and sees the vent open and a coin "hint""hint" that was there. i think anton found the money hidden there. For all we now he didnt get it.
I thought Moss threw it over the fence whe he was by the border? If not, then what did he throw?
[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="Weapons_Free"][QUOTE="jamejame"]Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...trix5817
uh everything was resolved. You know that Tommy Lee Jones and Anton weren't going to have a showdown because they missed each other at the hotel.
The point of the story is that while Anton escapes "justice", he really doesn't. The car accident signifies that he will get his as well, because thats life, its "karma" if you will. At the point in the movie he should be home free. Everyone that knew about the money is dead. He even got revenge by killing the thief's wife. The only thing they don't show you is Anton really dying. But a ton of the violence in the movie isn't shown, its just understood. You don't see Anton killing the wife, for example, just him leaving the house and cleaning his shoe.
You have to watch the movie again to understand what is going on. This movie wouldn't be getting the high praise it has been if it had a poor story or a bad ending.
finally, somebody understands the damn movie.one of the best parts of the movie is that they didnt show the audience everything. they let the audience interpret what was shown. for instance, you came to the conclusion that the car crash was a sign thatanton will get whats coming to him. iinterpreted that1)anton got the money(he bribed the kid with a benjamin) and 2) that he will never get caught. the sheriff said that you cant account for chance andnobody can really see whats coming just before the hunter(i forget his name) gets killed at the hotel. the car crash was chance. and for all we know, anton escaped. nobody really has an answerforsheer unremorsed violence. its a darker world than that of previous generations.
buts the point. its open ended so 2 people could both draw their own conclusions. too many movies just spoon feed everything to you.
I hate when people say that. It's the same concept of ending a movie/book with "he awakes and it was all a dream!". It's just an excuse because they couldn't think of a good ending that would work with the movie.
No Country for Old Men had plot holes which just ruined the movie for me. How did Javier Bardem end up getting the money after Josh Brolin threw it over the fence? How did he know where to find it or where it was?
Moss got he money after he left the hospital and took it with him to the motel, he then hid it in the vent. After he is killed the sheriff comes and sees the vent open and a coin "hint""hint" that was there. i think anton found the money hidden there. For all we now he didnt get it.
I thought Moss threw it over the fence whe he was by the border? If not, then what did he throw?
he did, but that doesnt mean he cant go get it back. The only other person who knew the exact location was Woody's character and we know what happens to him.
I found the movie to be very boring and did not like the story at all. I had great hope to the movie, but I ended up very disappointed. Note, I did not read the book beforehand so I did not know what the story what about until I got into the movie theather. I expected to see a showdown with the assassin and one of the main characters, but it never happened. Also the ending was very unfulfilling. I didn't really understand the point of Woody Harrelson character. When I saw it, most ppl who left the movie seem disappointed. My friend who saw it said I would enjoyed the movie better if I read the book, but If that the case I probably wouldn't like the book as well.
The only thing I liked was I thought all the main characters were very well acted.
Hmm...never heard of it >_>
Shows how much I know about movies or watch TV.
[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="Weapons_Free"][QUOTE="jamejame"]Why is that the point? I mean, they spend the whole movie building up some of the most amazing characters I've ever seen only to end the film when the developement cycle (on the sheriff for the most part) wasn't complete. It's just the fact that you expect something to justify *SPOILERS* the main character dying *END SPOILERS*, but nothing really does. You get a little backstory on the Sheriff and that's it. Feels like the film could have been cut off at the part mentioned in my spoilers instead of being dragged out for what seemed a pointless cause...SaintLeonidas
uh everything was resolved. You know that Tommy Lee Jones and Anton weren't going to have a showdown because they missed each other at the hotel.
The point of the story is that while Anton escapes "justice", he really doesn't. The car accident signifies that he will get his as well, because thats life, its "karma" if you will. At the point in the movie he should be home free. Everyone that knew about the money is dead. He even got revenge by killing the thief's wife. The only thing they don't show you is Anton really dying. But a ton of the violence in the movie isn't shown, its just understood. You don't see Anton killing the wife, for example, just him leaving the house and cleaning his shoe.
You have to watch the movie again to understand what is going on. This movie wouldn't be getting the high praise it has been if it had a poor story or a bad ending.
finally, somebody understands the damn movie.one of the best parts of the movie is that they didnt show the audience everything. they let the audience interpret what was shown. for instance, you came to the conclusion that the car crash was a sign thatanton will get whats coming to him. iinterpreted that1)anton got the money(he bribed the kid with a benjamin) and 2) that he will never get caught. the sheriff said that you cant account for chance andnobody can really see whats coming just before the hunter(i forget his name) gets killed at the hotel. the car crash was chance. and for all we know, anton escaped. nobody really has an answerforsheer unremorsed violence. its a darker world than that of previous generations.
buts the point. its open ended so 2 people could both draw their own conclusions. too many movies just spoon feed everything to you.
I hate when people say that. It's the same concept of ending a movie/book with "he awakes and it was all a dream!". It's just an excuse because they couldn't think of a good ending that would work with the movie.
No Country for Old Men had plot holes which just ruined the movie for me. How did Javier Bardem end up getting the money after Josh Brolin threw it over the fence? How did he know where to find it or where it was?
Moss got he money after he left the hospital and took it with him to the motel, he then hid it in the vent. After he is killed the sheriff comes and sees the vent open and a coin "hint""hint" that was there. i think anton found the money hidden there. For all we now he didnt get it.
I thought Moss threw it over the fence whe he was by the border? If not, then what did he throw?
he did, but that doesnt mean he cant go get it back. The only other person who knew the exact location was Woody's character and we know what happens to him.
Correct me if I'm wrong (saw it a while ago) but didn't Bodem end up with the money?
I found the movie to be very boring and did not like the story at all. I had great hope to the movie, but I ended up very disappointed. Note, I did not read the book beforehand so I did not know what the story what about until I got into the movie theather. I expected to see a showdown with the assassin and one of the main characters, but it never happened. Also the ending was very unfulfilling. I didn't really understand the point of Woody Harrelson character. When I saw it, most ppl who left the movie seem disappointed. My friend who saw it said I would enjoyed the movie better if I read the book, but If that the case I probably wouldn't like the book as well.
The only thing I liked was I thought all the main characters were very well acted.
cnlst8
This is pretty much what I always see. Only the people who didn't undertstand the movie thought that it sucked. I thought it was great and definately now one of my all-time favorites.
I'm tired of this. I thought the ending was poorly done, but it was not for the reasons all of you are stating. I posted this a while back in another NCFOM thread as to the reason I disliked the ending:
MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!
.
.
The abrupt ending of Moss. Just out of the blue, no lead up whatsoever. They focused on Bardem pursing Moss and the sheriff pursuing both of them, then all of a sudden they had these anonymous Mexican drug runners whose characters were not at all developed come out of the blue and kill one of the main characters, who was then subsequently forgotten. To do that seemed to invalidate the majority of what was previously shown. The movie lost momentum and a bit of direction after this point, and it just felt very lopsided. If they had followed what the Mexicans were doing and intertwined them into the story more, I would not nearly have such an issue with the ending.
Now I haven't read the book, so I can't compare nor comment on the fine details or major elements like character development (which is always better in any book), but what I do know is the ending of Moss in the movie was abrupt, confusing, and not at all well done. They followed three main characters throughout the movie, yet failed to even pay the slightest attention to a crucial fourth party up unitl they were deemed necessary to come in and kill Moss. It came off horribly. Like I said: I haven't read the book, but if it holds the same blatent disregard towards such an important element (The Mexicans) in the movie that affects the plotline so drasticallly, yet fails to pay attention to it, I would not want to read it.
It's not the message that was the problem, but the process of getting there that was.
This is EXACTLY how I feel about it.I'm tired of this. I thought the ending was poorly done, but it was not for the reasons all of you are stating. I posted this a while back in another NCFOM thread as to the reason I disliked the ending:
MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!
.
.
The abrupt ending of Moss. Just out of the blue, no lead up whatsoever. They focused on Bardem pursing Moss and the sheriff pursuing both of them, then all of a sudden they had these anonymous Mexican drug runners whose characters were not at all developed come out of the blue and kill one of the main characters, who was then subsequently forgotten. To do that seemed to invalidate the majority of what was previously shown. The movie lost momentum and a bit of direction after this point, and it just felt very lopsided. If they had followed what the Mexicans were doing and intertwined them into the story more, I would not nearly have such an issue with the ending.
Now I haven't read the book, so I can't compare nor comment on the fine details or major elements like character development (which is always better in any book), but what I do know is the ending of Moss in the movie was abrupt, confusing, and not at all well done. They followed three main characters throughout the movie, yet failed to even pay the slightest attention to a crucial fourth party up unitl they were deemed necessary to come in and kill Moss. It came off horribly. Like I said: I haven't read the book, but if it holds the same blatent disregard towards such an important element (The Mexicans) in the movie that affects the plotline so drasticallly, yet fails to pay attention to it, I would not want to read it.
It's not the message that was the problem, but the process of getting there that was.
Rekunta
I'm tired of this. I thought the ending was poorly done, but it was not for the reasons all of you are stating. I posted this a while back in another NCFOM thread as to the reason I disliked the ending:
MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!
.
.
The abrupt ending of Moss. Just out of the blue, no lead up whatsoever. They focused on Bardem pursing Moss and the sheriff pursuing both of them, then all of a sudden they had these anonymous Mexican drug runners whose characters were not at all developed come out of the blue and kill one of the main characters, who was then subsequently forgotten. To do that seemed to invalidate the majority of what was previously shown. The movie lost momentum and a bit of direction after this point, and it just felt very lopsided. If they had followed what the Mexicans were doing and intertwined them into the story more, I would not nearly have such an issue with the ending.
Now I haven't read the book, so I can't compare nor comment on the fine details or major elements like character development (which is always better in any book), but what I do know is the ending of Moss in the movie was abrupt, confusing, and not at all well done. They followed three main characters throughout the movie, yet failed to even pay the slightest attention to a crucial fourth party up unitl they were deemed necessary to come in and kill Moss. It came off horribly. Like I said: I haven't read the book, but if it holds the same blatent disregard towards such an important element (The Mexicans) in the movie that affects the plotline so drasticallly, yet fails to pay attention to it, I would not want to read it.
It's not the message that was the problem, but the process of getting there that was.
Rekunta
Him getting killed abruptly is the point. Its similar to how Anton gets in the car accident. Its what you can't plan for that is going to end up getting you.
Wow people who dont like this movie really dont have a good reason to. if they didnt understand it thats their fault, its not supposed to be an action movie. Also I thought the ending was great, some of you guys jsut dont understand it. Also I thought it was good that they didnt show what happened to moss, Im getting tired of the main character always having a last man standing moment then dieing in a over the top hollywoo way. Film-Guyuhh....or maybe it's just not their type of movie?
The one thing that really bothered me is [spoiler] how he supposedly killed the wife yet you don't see his weapon when he is in the house, leaving the house, or even in the car. It has me questioning whether or not he actually killed her, as the only hint is his checking his boots.... [/spoiler]
I also thought it got a little stuck on the philosophy at the end and I definitely felt it should have ended differently. They just end right after the sheriff speaks. Just some sort of landscape shot or zoom out could have made it better and not so abrupt.....
Still a great movie that had me in suspense throughout the whole movie.
I also thought it got a little stuck on the philosophy at the end and I definitely felt it should have ended differently. They just end right after the sheriff speaks. Just some sort of landscape shot or zoom out could have made it better and not so abrupt.....
Still a great movie that had me in suspense throughout the whole movie.
Thechaninator
uh, a lot of the violence in this movie wasn't explicitly shown. Why? Because it creates a dichotomy with the skirmishes between Anton and Moss. You watch those scenes and they are shooting away at each other and there's a lot of blood and open wounds and stuff. Its in your face violent.
But then compare that to the violence between Anton and the wife or the guy at the front desk of the hotel or the gas station attendant. You aren't shown what Anton did to those people, you are only left to wonder. In some ways that makes it worse. People are desensitized to violence nowadays, seeing blood and guts all over the place isn't always as impactful as the director wants it to be.
[QUOTE="Thechaninator"]I also thought it got a little stuck on the philosophy at the end and I definitely felt it should have ended differently. They just end right after the sheriff speaks. Just some sort of landscape shot or zoom out could have made it better and not so abrupt.....
Still a great movie that had me in suspense throughout the whole movie.
NavigatorsGhost
uh, a lot of the violence in this movie wasn't explicitly shown. Why? Because it creates a dichotomy with the skirmishes between Anton and Moss. You watch those scenes and they are shooting away at each other and there's a lot of blood and open wounds and stuff. Its in your face violent.
But then compare that to the violence between Anton and the wife or the guy at the front desk of the hotel or the gas station attendant. You aren't shown what Anton did to those people, you are only left to wonder. In some ways that makes it worse. People are desensitized to violence nowadays, seeing blood and guts all over the place isn't always as impactful as the director wants it to be.
I never complained about violence not being explicitly shown. The thing that bothers me is supposedly Anton kills the wife but you see no blood, see no weapon, but his checking of his shoes suggests he killed her. It leaves me totally confused as to what actually happened in the house and I think it is incredibly important to know as it weighs heavily on Antons character.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment