I guess it was one of those movies that didn't really appeal to me. I see it getting rave reviews everywhere and don't get me wrong it wasn't a horrible movie ...until the end...
Was I the only one who didn't like the ending of No Country for Old Men?
- Thread starter Josh
- Start date
It did not have a Hollywood ending did it, kind of like real life in general where the innocent dies and the guilty gets away with loot.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,614
- 30,890
- 146
same here. I practically worship the Coen Bros, (well...excluding the Lady Killers...), but I think this one went on about 30 minutes too long. The sojourn with Tommy Lee Jone's character would have been better served earlier in the film; not to mention that introducing another character (his father) at the end of Act 3 is a very bad thing to do.
To me the better ending spot was pretty obvious...but it kept going on suggesting that unnecessary resolutions would occur, but they never did.
Loved the rest of the film, though.
To me the better ending spot was pretty obvious...but it kept going on suggesting that unnecessary resolutions would occur, but they never did.
Loved the rest of the film, though.
No. I liked it myself but there are at least two other threads on ATOT with posters who didn't like it.
MikeyIs4Dcats
Lifer
- Nov 5, 2001
- 18,366
- 3
- 0
you don't pay much attention....it wasn't his father. His father died when he was young.
Don't like the ending? Tough...such is life. Not everything is wrapped up with a pretty little bow.
I learned from this movie to never give a dying man water if he asks for it..... just walk away and never return. 
The ending was kinda dumb, just because it was so anti-climatic. The movie was good, but it just fell flat.
i dont think people understood the ending, and therefore they didn't like it. also, why would you want to see an ending you've seen before in another movie? i'm glad it didn't end with a shootout and chigurh getting killed. im glad they stuck with the book.
the point of the movie wasn't catching anton.
the point of the movie wasn't catching anton.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,614
- 30,890
- 146
it was several weeks ago, so I was spotty on the connection to who that character was. Either way, it was a new character introduced after falling action. bad move.
anyhoo, you don't understand my point. the ending made an attempt to connect loose points that IMO, never needed connecting. it started to, but then never did. there simply is no point to doing this.
I don't give a shit if a movie isn't wrapped up in a pretty little bow. I've got a pretty diverse taste in film, and from what I've read, a keener eye towards film structure and plotting than many in these forums. I will never comment that "I like it" or "don't like it." I will always mention why something doesn't work for me, and why it does or does not work in terms of general film theory. If you have a problem with that, fine. But don't simply tell my that my assessment is crap without attempting to offer a valid reason as to why yours is superior.
"Tough...such is life" is a rather pedestrian comment, and I doubt you really even understand how the ending seriously weakens the strengths of the rest of the film. As I mentioned, I'm a huge Coen Brothers fan, and this is their best output since The Man Who Wasn't There. I loved this movie, but the ending was entirely unnecessary. Try watching the original version of "Cinema Paradiso" and then watching the director's cut of the same. Then you might understand how too much can seriously weaken a solid flick.
MikeyIs4Dcats
Lifer
- Nov 5, 2001
- 18,366
- 3
- 0
too each his own. I loved the book and the movie. The movie did excise a minor storyline that did carry through to the end IIRC, but IMHO the movie still works. It could be said that the essence of the movie's point and theme WAS the third act.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,614
- 30,890
- 146
interesting. I haven't read the book though. i suppose that the essence of my argument would be that while the film was honest to the book, it sacrificed its own integrity. still a good film, but made weaker for the sake of remaining true to the book.
most adaptations "fail" when they try to stick too close to the source. Books are meant to be read; Film is meant to be seen. each draws their meaning from different brain centers. Blade Runner has been re-released several times b/c it was such a difficult book to adapt (Ridley Scott, more than capable IMO, realized this and felt that the original theatrical cut cheapened his interpretation by treating the audience as dolts, force-feeding them source-based narration over a story that is meant to be loosely interpreted on that source).
Also the reason that Kubrick would require that his actors never read the original sources from which his films were based. Seriously, "The Shining" would have sucked if it remained true to Stephen King (and it did...a few decades later when he took control of a made-for-TV release of his little story. God, that was dreadful)
If the third act is meant to consist of this extended plot development, then this should be an unprecedented 4-act film. or, they should have cut out the first two acts entirely...why devote so much time to some rather direct character development, leave a finalizing note, then extend it on...and on...and on...? this kind of thing works well in a book (I'm a huge fan of Ulysses
), but not so well in mainstream film. (As unique as they are, the Coen brothers are certainly mainstream)TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter