Few Questions about No Country For Old Men?!
Question: 1.Was the bad guy insane or was he killing for a reason?
2.Does he really get away at the end?
3.WTF! was up with the cattle gun?
4.Really can someone give a brief summary about what the whole movies about im still confused.
It was a awesome movie it better when tons of oscars.
Answers: 1.Was the bad guy insane or was he killing for a reason?
2.Does he really get away at the end?
3.WTF! was up with the cattle gun?
4.Really can someone give a brief summary about what the whole movies about im still confused.
It was a awesome movie it better when tons of oscars.
1. He wasn't insane, nor was he necessarily killing for a reason. Anton Chigurh lived by a code outside of what is taken as normal for society. To him, killing wasn't bad, or good, it was just a normal part of life like wiping your shoes on a doormat.
2. Yes, he really gets away at the end.
3. The cattle gun was the second most awesome gun in movie history, beaten only by the awesomest gun in movie history, also wielded by Chigurh, the shotgun with the silencer.
4. There are a whole lot of deep themes in the movie, none of which can justifiably be summed up briefly. The title, No Country for Old Men, echoes Tommy Lee Jones' character's feeling that the world is getting worse and more depraved. However, he finds out at the end from whoever that old guy in the wheelchair was that the world has always had its share of bad people and feeling of hopelessness. Another theme is moral relativism. Who, ultimately, is the more "evil" person? Is it really Chigurh, who murders without remorse but does so as a part of his moral code, or is it the drug dealers, whose only interest is drugs and money, which Chigurh isn't interested in, and who kill as a side effect of these desires, or is it the corporate men in the big office building, who order these atrocities but keep their hands intentionally clean, and whose only interest is also money? The movie also had strong western themes, sweeping vistas, high stakes, strong characters, but unlike a western, which always ends in a magnificent shootout, this ended somewhat more realistically, with the main character being snuffed out offscreen, no final confrontation in the end, and the "bad" guy winning.
These are just a few brief themes which ran through the movie. All in all, I absolutely loved it, and have already seen it twice in theaters. People criticize it for not having an ending, but these are the people who have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the Hollywood expectation of a big flashy shoot-em-up good guy wins and gets the girl type ending that they can't see beyond this normally ridiculous conclusion to something deeper and, ultimately, more satisfying. The most important part of the movie, Tommy Lee Jones' speech at the end about his dreams, is also normally ignored by these same people. You don't have to necessarily love it, but appreciate it for what it is. I am sure that a second watching will shed far more light on what is going on. You have to pay very close attention, because many important things happen off-screen that you can only draw conclusions about from the things that do appear.
1. he was really crazy, no real motive. he didn't live by the law, yet he gave himself his own rules (like the coin toss). he killed because he knew that he could get away with it
2. yea he really does get away...in the book, Tommy Lee Jones' character goes to the school and interviews the kids who saw him when he got into that car crash, but its just another dead end
3. its pressurized oxygen are that they really use to kill cattle, the killer used as a weapon because he could and because it is a lot harder to identify because it looks like a gun shot wound
4. Okay here's a brief summary..
A local hunter gets more than he bargains for when he stumbles upon a massacre of drug trafficers in the desert. He find a suitcase with roughly $2 million in it and decides to keep it. The Americans who help promote the drug trafficing want the money back so they decide to hire the killer, Anton Chigurh, who has recently escaped incarceration. Anton kills the two men and decides to pursue Llewelyn (hunter) himself in order to obtain the $2 million. Tommy Lee Jones is the local sherrif in charge of investigating the massacre and becomes involved with the hunt between Anton and Llewelyn. After a long game of cat and mouse, Anton offers Llewelyn the chance to save his wife and her mother, but Llewelyn decides that he will try to save himself instead. Anton of course kills him and takes the money. He then kills the wife and afterwards he is in a car accident and he gets a compound fracture on his arm. In the end, Tommy Lee Jones retires because he realizes that it is impossible to catch Anton.
I agree, I thought it was an excellent movie. Javier Bardem, who played Anton, is nominated for a Golden Globe. Its also nominated for best picture (drama), best director, and best screenplay. If you're still a little confused I would read the book by Cormac McCarthy. The Coen brothers wrote and directed this movie, so if you liked that you should check out Fargo and The Big Lebowski.
1. He is killing for a reason. His reason is he has been sent.
2. Yes he gets away at the end.
3. The cattle gun is meant to scare the living crap out of you and I see it must have worked.
4. What the person said ealier about the moral relatism was correct although he forgot to add the question of is Lweyln really a good guy. He brings innocent people in to his situation and gets them killed that would make him just as evil as Chirrguh, plus he it is his greed that gets him in the end. But then another question you have to really ask yourself is Churirh really evil. He is almost supernatural in his approach to finding people and enterminating them. To me he seemed less an embodiment of evil and more of an avenging angel kind of like the old testament. Repaying the evils of the world on the unrighteous. Nobody else seems to get that though. I guess it comes from having read the book and others like it by Cormac McCarthy. It is one of his themes to visit that kind of violence and offer no easy answers.