this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
102 points (100.0% liked)
movies
3192 readers
187 users here now
Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No Country For Old Men.
I was actually really enjoying the whole cat and mouse thing until the main fucking character died off-screen.
How does nobody ever talk about how shitty that "plot twist" is? It's not clever. It's not entertaining. It's just bad storytelling. They don't even show you a good shot of him to convey what actually happened. My girlfriend and I had to rewind it twice because it was so fucking stupid and made so little sense.
That's actually how I feel about most of the Coen Brothers' movies. The classical narrative structure exists for a reason. It's a good framework for telling a story that makes sense.
Sometimes there's a good artistic reason for diverting from that and telling the story in an unconventional way. Other times it's just pretentious auteur garbage.
This might come off as pretensions, but you should trust the writers more. The movie, and book, are very well written, and if something doesn't make sense, you should consider that you missed something.
I'll say this, Llewelyn Moss is not the main character. The movie doesn't start or end on him. He doesn't change or evolve as a character. How he died isn't the point.
It helps to focus on what Anton Chigurh said about rules, and what the Sheriff says about what he is willing to die for.
If you want me to just spell out the theme, I can do that to, but I think you would enjoy it more if you trust the movie.
Yeah, I've heard that before, about how Llewelyn isn't the main character. Not trying to be rude to you, but that sounds like bullshit. He's the character I'm rooting for. If the main character isn't the character I'm rooting for, then that doesn't sound like an enjoyable movie.
If you're saying Chigurh is the main character: he doesn't grow either.
If you're saying Tommy Lee Jones is the main character (which I've heard before), then I'm going to strain my eyes from rolling them so hard. He doesn't at any point interact with the plot. That's not good writing.
I get the Coens are doing it differently. They're not following the rules for how stories should be told. But different isn't the same as good, and the way they told the story was needlessly confusing and pretentious.
I always find it useful to use food as a metaphor to describe how I feel about movies. If No Country For Old Men were a meal, it would be expertly seasoned and cooked, with one extra ingredient that doesn't belong there and detracts from the whole thing, like if you made a perfect steak and drenched it in liquorice sauce.
And it would be served on a scrap of driftwood, or in a fishbowl, or on literally anything other than a plate. Everyone around me would be raving about the side dishes while I'm wondering why my meat tastes like shit.
You can include themes in a movie and still tell a coherent story. Try this: remove the theme. Is the movie any good? Is the plot entertaining, and does it make sense? No, it'd be really awful, and the inclusion of a theme doesn't excuse that.
It is obvious that the themes of the movie were lost on you, and that is ok. It takes time to understand a movie, then you might not get it completely. I had to watch the film 3 times before I got it. You are far to confident in your judgement. If you did understand the film, you wouldn't be say the Sheriff was disconnected from the plot. Everything in the movie was done with intent, and you didn't pick up on that, which, again is ok. Just please DO NOT say that it wasn't without purpose. You just failed to get it, and that happens all the time, especially to me. I hate to think about all the times I complain about a book or movie only for friends and colleagues to point out the obvious details I missed.
In film, you can tell who the driving character is by seeing which character believes a lie and how they are forced change because of it. The Sheriff is the only character with an arc.
I believe that this movie's theme attacks you personally, and is having the intended effect. Once he dies, that should tip you off to the movie was about something else, and give you more context to the events of the film.
The Sheriff is the only character who changes.
They DO follow the standard story structure.
It was confusing, because they challenge your assumptions and established predictable cliche. They do follow a normal story structure, just not normal cliche.
I don't know what you're trying to say here, but theme is the most important element.
In short, you should be more open minded. You didn't get the movie, that's ok. I don't think most video essays on youtube or reviewers get it either. But frankly, it's extremely well written, and it would be a measure of bad judgement if you dismissed it as senseless. I'll be clear, you didn't get it. The movie is amazing, and it will take thought to understand it, and not everyone is in a position in their life to get it. But some day, I hope you will, and the first step is to believe it is possible that you didn't get it, and to have trust in other people.
So often I hate mainstream movies, but this isn't it. This movie doesn't waste a single shot.
If it follows a standard story structure, then what was the climax?
I think I'm very open-minded about movies. For example in the mid-aughts I dragged my girlfriend to like five different Coen Brothers movies before I decided that I really just don't like them. For another example, I even like mainstream movies.
Isn't it possible I do understand it, and I just don't like it? I've put enough thought into it. I see the themes. I don't think those things outweigh the poor plot structure.
You can say No Country has a coherent plot, but it doesn't in the sense I'm talking about.
Skimming through the movie, I would say about 1 hour 39 minutes into the movie is the climax. The Sheriff enters the hotel Llewelyn was murdered in, not knowing if Anton is there. In the previous scene the local cop told him that Anton showed up two nights in a row to the scene of the crime, and the Sheriff went in knowing this. Every choice comes with risk. He took his final chance and survived, but not in tact.
When the movie starts, the Sheriff talks admirably of old cop stories, before saying; "I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job, but I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, ok. I'll be part of this world."
By the end, everyone told him times have changed, except Uncle Ellis who says it has always been this way. People die, the world is chaos. Everyone is one coin flip away from death, even Anton who suffers a car accident no fault of his own. People frequently mischaracterize Anton as the manifestation of death, but he's not; he manifestation of chance. I picked up on this on a rewatched when he missed a shot on a still bird.
The Sheriff tells of the dream he had of his father going ahead, to prepare a fire for when he got there, before then waking up. To me, he has awoken to the truth; there is no justice, no happy endings, every has their time, and it's a fools work to worry about it, but he's now a lost man.
Rewatch the movie with this in mind, and I think you'll enjoy it far more.
That's the worst climax ever.
A climax is supposed to be the turning point of the story, where the conflict is resolved.
You're saying the actual story is this old man who's barely in the movie realizing that life sucks. And this point in the story, where literally nothing happens on screen, is the resolution of the conflict of him not exactly realizing that life sucks.
Ugh. That's not complex or deep. It's oblique and pretentious.
The definition of a climax is "the most intense, exciting, or important point of something; a culmination or apex."
That scene is obviously not intense or exciting. It's only the most important part of this hidden plotline that's even more off-screen than Llewelyn's death since it only takes place in the mind of a character who's barely in the movie, who has no agency and no part of the actual events shown on screen.
It's insufferable. The things you're saying (which I was already aware of, to be clear) make the movie worse, not better.
Even if I was super into this extremely boring theme, it doesn't preclude the rest of the movie from containing a well-told story. And even if I went into the movie convinced that the Coens are geniuses and ready to forgive every other thing, voiceover exposition talking about symbolism-laden dreams is always going to be lazy writing.
I won't watch it again. I'm not trying to reevaluate it. I didn't miss anything. I just don't think it's any good.
You still don't get it lol. In 5 years you're going to feel silly about this whole thing when it clicks.
All scenes built up to that moment. You didn't notice it.
All themes are boring if you write them down. Movies justify themes.
I rewatched the movie last night, and every scene is critical. It is an very focused script. Each scene creates the next.
If you started watching that scene without the context of the rest of the film, you would say nothing happens.
I went water skiing with some friends a few months ago. One of their sons couldn't figure it out. He blamed the waves to the speed of the boat or the skis. He wouldn't admit he was wrong and would get angry at us for trying to help.
My impression is that you continue to not understand the movie. If you did understand it, even if you disliked it, you would still appreciate how tight the script is, or how realistic the action is at least, or to understand how a character with less screen time could be the focus of the story. I meant it when I said in 5 years something will click and you'll get it.
It is extremely clear to me that you're the one who isn't getting it. Nice discussing it with you though.