No Country for old men

even though i probably didn't understand everything... i loved this movie,
it gave me weird feels

what is the meaning of this scene then?

>le "everything's supposed to have a meaning" meme

That Anton is not a god and can be killed by a mere car accident

That and he's subject to the same rules of random chance that he has been imposing on others throughout the film with coin tosses. The universe is cruel and indifferent.

love this shit but now i feel empty
what should i watch now?

Have you seen Fargo?

>"meaning"
Don't be like that. This isn't a puzzle. Unless it's shitty stuff like Von Trier or Jodorowsky, individual scenes don't have "deeper" meaning by themselves, instead they work together to define the film thematically.

Some of the main themes of the movie are fate, chance, and the idea of drifting randomly and aimlessly through life, with(out) a purpose or predestination. Both Llewellyn and Chigurh try to tempt/escape fate but ultimately aren't exempt from it. Llewellyn finds the money by chance, and he would have gotten away with it if he didn't go back to try and save the dying mexican from his fate. Just like Llewellyn, Chigurh, who appears as a harbinger of disorder, also tries to control fate with his coin tosses, but eventually falls prey to it himself. The kids ripping off Llewellyn for the shirt compared to when they want to give it for free to Chigurh emphasizes the nihilism of the world. There's a lot more going on with the duality between the 2 characters, but look into that yourself if you're interested.
The sheriff too realizes he also drifts randomly through life at the hands of fate/chance, but he doesn't understand the absurd, chaotic nature of life and people, hence the title of the film.

Why was there no hot hitchhiker?

>/television & film/
>the book actually said that _____ happened

: /

>Movie: Fuck you
>Audience: t-thanks

An indifferent universe can't be cruel. We just perceive it that way.

Well, it's more about appreciating transgressiveness, originality and provocativeness, but I guess that's also a way of looking at it.

t.retard

we don't get to see moss's death because the scene before it that foreshadows his death
"I'm just looking for whats coming"
drunk girl at pool - "yeah but you never see that"

And how is that relevant to what I said?

why did his wife not call the coin toss in the movie when she does in the book?

>The main character gets killed off offscreen by secondary bad guys whom you don't see or even care about, without giving you the satisfaction of seeing a cool shootout

You caught up now dumb dumb?
You didn't get the movie at all

You're missing the point. Why does the foreshadowing matter at all? It's just a simple detail that goes nowhere and contributes with nothing to the whole. In most films or tv shows foreshadowing elements basically serve as jokes or easter eggs. It has no relevance to what I said in Also I can't take you seriously if you keep acting like a massive moron and don't explain your arguments.

Why did he spare her?

Is it because she represents some pure form of order?

someone else was there

pay attention dingus

also she stood up for herself, maybe sugar's weird moral code meant that she was spared

the counselor

it happens the same way in the book

I think it's because the story really isn't about Moss

try Blood Simple

he hears a toilet flush off-screen and knows somebody else is there

am i getting memed on

but he literally gets away

Like she's flushing her life down the toliet by refusing Anton's (God's) demands? Interesting...

She didn't break the rules for him, she didn't care who she was. She had a job, a duty, and a code. Sugar respected that. Everyone else just keeps giving each other up, always trying to make a deal or get away on their own. She didn't. She sat right where she was and politely told him that she wasn't revealing dick, and that he could fuck off.

.....but it did have a meaning you spaz

Anton is this perfect hitman the entire story not making any mistakes and cool as a cucumber then he's almost killed by a random event he couldn't have foreseen or prepared for and its bewildering to him.

He does but the damage to his ego has been done. I think the book has another scene with him after that though

not really, he gives her a "you'd be dead if there wasn't someone else here" look before he leaves

yeah, GOAT movie, how is the tv show?
thanks for the reccs

An excuse to show a shirtless twink.

>it happens the same way in the book
So? Again, how is that relevant?
On top of that, we're talking about the movie, not the book. They should be criticized separately, even though the film is an adaptation. That's how it works.

And yeah, the book is focused more on the sheriff, and Moss is more like a plot device, but that still doesn't do anything to what you said. Llewellyn still appears in most of the movie so his death shouldn't be accepted as if he was a minor character. That's the point of his death. It plays with your expectations and it fucks with the usual tropes. He's supposed to look like a main character, but in reality he's pretty much nothing and he's got no substance.

worth it

You could argue Lewellyn stood up for himself by attempting to kill sugar, so why he try and kill him
Also unironically what was sugar's endgame
Btw read the book everyone in this thread it's basically the literary equivalent of kino

>Finally, after all that had happened to my dear friend Llewellyn, I realized it had been No Country For Old Men all along
What did he mean by this?

>but in reality he's pretty much nothing and he's got no substance.
dide i agree with you but com on

plot twist: the sheriff was the father of the psycho killer

This
Llewellyn is not nobody, maybe he's not supposed to be the main character but he's undeniably a character of much substance

What? I already explained it. He's got no personality or character and for the entire movie all he does is run away from Chigurh and tries to beat his own inevitable fate. He's just there to set the plot going. Obviously, there's a lot going on ABOUT him, and what his character means, especially in relation to the world, Chigurh and the sheriff, but Moss' character by himself is nothing.

calm down a little bit, he has a very defined personality and charisma, he's not only runing away, he wants to defeat the antagonist

This
As someone who grew up in the south and knows a lot of people like him he is a great character who gets you invested in what happens to him, which is why the third act anticlimax is so hitting

>Btw read the book everyone in this thread it's basically the literary equivalent of kino
is it more bookkino than say, blood meridian?

>very defined personality
And what is that, exactly?

>he wants to defeat the antagonist
aka exactly what I said, by "trying to fight his fate and/or chance"

Don't get me wrong, I love the movie, and I don't think Moss is a bad character because he works well with the whole, but to say that he's a well defined character on his own, outside of the context of his situation is clearly wrong, because it's obvious that he was never meant to be a proper character in the first place, and instead a somewhat mirror image of Chigurh. They're both two sides of the same coin, if you will.

Plus, the movie isn't like a character study of any character in particular, but rather of all 3, and on a level where they're all connected, or at they deal with similar things.

>a character study wherein apparently no one has any character

All of McCarthy's novels are bookkino

you know its a book adaptation

Maybe read what I said more carefully and then reply with another hilarious reaction image.

See Criticizing movies by how close they accompany the book they're based on is a retarded idea that needs to stop. They each stand by their own.
The movie version of a book should have, if wanted, the liberty to make any changes to the original. We're talking about art here, not "let's make a watered down and more visual version of this book so the mainstream audience can enjoy it too" bullshit.

Does his wife die in the end, he checks his shoe before leaving the house so I assume yes

except in this case the movie is a very faithful adaptation of the book so it's fair to reference it

for instance
in the book she dies

>but he literally gets away
Does he?

>broad daylight
>two witnesses at least who can describe exactly what he looks like
>probably more witnesses than even he can account for (who isn't going to gawk at an accident in the middle of the suburbs? who isn't going to notice a man limping down the street with a broken arm in a shirt-sling)
>clear injury that gives him away
>officers will be looking for the guy who did a hit-and-run
>possibly weapons left in the vehicle he had
>no longer has a vehicle
>no longer has his weapons, except maybe any pistols he might have had on him

I'm not saying he definitely got caught. But if he did, it wouldn't be hard to imagine.

i actally... kid of..., i feel sad for him in that scene

Yeah I wish the movie had a gay as shit final shootout, the people who make epic trash like that respect their audience so much

The beer was poisoned.

>so it's fair to reference it
No it's not. It's a completely different medium.
If the director or screenwriter wants or feels the need to make any change to the original, they should be allowed to, whether it makes no difference at all or it changes everything around.
Of course you can compare the book to the movie, but criticizing the movie for being different is wrong. It's its own thing now and it should be judged so.

>the two retards arguing about nothing ITT

Hey idiots it's Cred Forums, give up already

but nobody is criticizing the movie, just using the book to better make sense of the movie

In the book he met a slutty girl and he was trying to save her and he refused to have sex with her.

One of his phone calls was intercepted by Mexicans and they went after him.

Another really interesting thing is that all the characters believed that he ran away with the girl because everybody thought she was his lover and the wife never forgived him after he died.

The movie would still have been better if they didn't miss that part.

Same thing. If for example a movie adaptation is badly written, you shouldn't turn to the book to make sense of it. The movie is bad because it's badly made/written/whatever within itself, and not because it's a bad adaptation.

Obviously this movie isn't bad, but that same thing applies here. There shouldn't be any "making better sense" of it by reading the book, because the movie exists by itself and the story and everything in it is contained within itself only. Basically, everything is like the director intended. They didn't mean for people to have to read the book to understand it, they deliberately left things ambiguous or hard to put together.

cutting that was fine, I'm sick of ever movie being 150+ minutes

>hey please watch this
>fuck you for expecting a something entertaining
This is an elitist mindset and the only thing worse are the fags who defend it.

that would have been even sadder
i'm ok with the cut

He died because he couldn't resist getting some quick pussy and forgot to keep moving.

>American audience
fuck this shit is boring i'll go watch transformer isntead

What did McCarthy mean by this? Women are the downfall of man?

How to fix No Country for Old Men

>instead of dyng off screen, Moss gets into a 15 minute bloody shoot-off with Chigurh
>It has explosions, machine guns, and a car chase
>Shoot off ends with a hand-to-hand fight scene with Moss and Chigurh at a meat packing plant
>Chigurh dies by falling in a giant meat grinder
>before Chigurh falls in, Moss says "It's time to MEAT your maker, bitch!"
>Moss runs away with his bitch and lives happier after ever
>No ending scene with the sheriff with his nonsensical pretentious dream

GOAT to be honest with you

>not "Nice to MEAT you, have a nice TRIP and see you next FALL you fucking roach nigger"

you are just annoying for the sake of it aren't you

Llewellyn wouldn't have gotten away with it if he hadn't gone back to give the Mexican water. The money still had the transmitter in it.

Is it weird that I still remember that kid's puffy nipples?

Add in a long single take of Moss going through the hotel in a shootout with the cartel and its "keeno" as the kids say

But the movie could've had some qt3.14 young actress that probably would've won a gorillion best support actress awards for just being in the movie.

that's the problem i had with this movie. it was ruined by philosophical bullshit. should've ended with anton and moss killing eachother.

The hacker Cred Forums used nerve gas to kill him.

it's unclear

"Well Llewellyn got killed. I guess this is no country for old men like me."

BRAVO

That's the point, he's just as ultimately helpless despite being the most proactive proficient character.

i thought it was spose to have some sortve mirror to the scene with josh brolins character being injured and paying the kids for their shirt.

they both needed the assistance of younger people when they got hurt.

also i thought it was pretty clear after anton walked away after the crash, he looks out in the distance and says
>I guess this is no country for old men

So i think that tied everything together pretty well

That was hot, I had to pause the movie to fap the first time I watched it.

This film had such a shit ending. The whole thing really goes to shit during the last third of the movie.

>he doesnt realize he's the old man, who want movies to be like they used to be
>he doesn't know the third act is a metaphor for pomo film

embarassing t b h

Is it written in the same style as The Road? I tried reading that but he doesn't like using commas or quotations or anything and it makes it very fucking annoying to read. Call me a casual pleb if you want but it was so off putting to me I didn't even make it through one chapter of The Road before I dropped it forever.

Hence why its a shit movie.