jason smith wrote:

Wheely wrote:Ah-ha! I missed that both rooms had their locks punched out. But why was he in the other room? He retrieved the cash from room #1, so why go into room #2? Anyway, thanks for the info. I need to see this movie again.

I don't know... part of it was just structurally necessary (in terms of plot) so that Tommy Lee Jones would have to choose between door#1 or #2, it's the form of coin toss the bad guy chose for Tommy Lee Jones I guess. Since the mexicans are the ones that shot the hero down, and the bad guy gets the money, the money retrieval didn't happen until after the police were gone. Maybe the bad guy started with the room next door to try and find the money first since that's how the hero initially hid it, then had to run back in when he heard Tommy Lee Jones coming..??

Beats the hell out of me. In the book he is back in the truck by the time Ed Tom pulls up. No choice needed, eh. I was little disappointed in the movie because they had to leave some stuff out that is in the book. For every great part in the film, there is a little bit more great in the book. Ed's conversation with his... uncle?, father in law? is my favorite. And its longer and better in the book. I don't know why I'm saying this as if it would be surprising in any way... NC.

Wheely wrote:

Tom wrote:If I remember correctly, in the book Chigur returned it to the fancy man in the Dallas skyscraper.

If I remember correctly, in the movie Chigur killed the shit outta the fancy man in the Dallas skyscraper.

yeah. sorry, more book bullshit here: the bit from Woody: "I counted the floors from the ground. One's missing." refers to, in the book the head-dude has to enter a code into his phone so that the elevator stops there. That floor isn't on the elevator buttons.

garble wrote:

Wheely wrote:

Tom wrote:If I remember correctly, in the book Chigur returned it to the fancy man in the Dallas skyscraper.

If I remember correctly, in the movie Chigur killed the shit outta the fancy man in the Dallas skyscraper.

There's an extra "fancy man" in the book. One is killed, the other receives the money from Chigurh.

Just saw it.

Damn good. Reminded me of why I go see movies.

As the film endined, I was left feeling discouraged and hopeless about the inexorable onslaught of the darkness of life.

Not by the dream speech, but by the teenagers who shouted "Bullshit!" as the credits appeared, deprived of their gift-wrapped easily-understood ending.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the resemblance?



chilling.

I saw this at a slightly posh theater in Houston. The guy behind us did a predictable 'heh heh heh' chuckle every time somebody did/said something 'badass'. Towards the end everyone was laughing a bit every time someone got shot. And there was a very telling roar of laughter at that annoying grandma's 'mexicans don't wear suits' quip...

This film was outstanding, but i was in a theater with an audience that a) talked the whole time, b) left in the middle of the film, and c) loudly hated the ending after the movie was over.

As if that wasn't enough, my entire family was disappointed because it didn't have that trademark Coen Bros.' "quirkiness." Those little quirky bits were the part of the movie i couldn't stand, but aside from those i really don't know what more you could look for in a movie. It was wonderful.

Finally got to it in a theater last night. Fucking wicked.

Jesus but those guys can make movies. The chase scenes, their touch with the landscape, the long near-silent stretches when characters track and plot and think -- if they don't end up doing Blood Meridian instead of Ridley Fucking Scott I will start slaughtering producers.

Spoilers.

Since leaving the theater annoyed with this movie's ending several weeks ago, I've come to like it for the "it's an examination of how different people deal with unfathomable evil" type reasons offered by a couple reviews, which I think y'all here who liked it might share.

No film is obligated to have a suspenseful ending and obvious plot resolution. However, I still understand why I was pissed when I walked out of the theater. Godfrey Cheshire wrote correctly in the Independent here that the makers' interest in making allegorical points in the last third of the film "overwhelms dramatic sense." In particular, the Josh Brolin character - the main protagonist of most of the film - should have met an on-screen death, not an implied one. It doesn't make any sense to depict his struggle with the Bardem character in painstaking detail and then gloss over his death. Besides, he's the only person, among everyone that Anton comes across, that puts up any kind of a fight and even injures him. How Brolin eventually loses is of interest. It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, a tae-bo match in the Astrodome at high noon, but some believable demonstration that even he couldn't take Anton would be dramatically satisfying and support (what I assume to be) the subtext.

As it is, it comes across as either lazy because they couldn't come up with an appropriate death scene, or that they just weren't sure what kind of movie they were trying to make.

NC