Why do people not like the ending to "No Country For Old Men"?!
Question: I hate to beat a dead horse here with this question but I just don't realize why people are complaining about it. For one it's the Coen brothers and they are known for being different at their films. Secondly there will not be a sequel to this movie folks. Sorry to burst your bubble but it's just not going to happen because the Coen's don't do sequels. They created this unforgettable film and the ending to it was just like the movie, fascinating.
Answers: I hate to beat a dead horse here with this question but I just don't realize why people are complaining about it. For one it's the Coen brothers and they are known for being different at their films. Secondly there will not be a sequel to this movie folks. Sorry to burst your bubble but it's just not going to happen because the Coen's don't do sequels. They created this unforgettable film and the ending to it was just like the movie, fascinating.
Because people are not willing to invest their imagination into films that they watch. This is why so many main stream movies put the good guy right out front and have him win. Or just make silly comedies that involve little more than a fecal joke.
This is what I did for "No Country" I made the sheriff the embodiment of a Just Fate. Then I made Javier the embodiment of a Unjust Fate.
Using this, re-watch the movie and then wonder why Javier gets hit by the car. I think it's because, while you cannot destroy Unjust Fate, the Coen's wanted to at least give him a good limp, to strike an avenging blow for all us hapless humans.
At first, i hated it...but then i grew to love it. Besides...i have a little crush on Javier Bardem anyhow so i really like it.
Mainly, people hate it because there really is no resolution. Everything is left up to the viewers own interpretation. Some people don't like that. Besides, the "hero" and /or main character dies. 2/3 of the movie is centered on a charter and in a flash., he's dead...then his death isn't even shown.
The problem with the ending for me were the two final scenes with Tommy Lee Jones...one where he visited the guy with the cats...I didn't get it. The other where he was describing his dream about his father with the horn of fire. It was all a bit vague for a movie that started out going gangbusters. I didn't mind so much that "Sugar" got away but I did mind that I have no idea how Moss was ambushed or even if he was killed by Anton. It seemed like he could've been done by the Mexicans.
Anyway, I did like most of this movie but if the conclusion was the way the book went then IMO it was a poor choice to translate it exactly to the film in that fashion.
I agree with the comment "they have no imagination" & can't think for themselves (which is what The Coen Brother's wanted you to do with the ending). I saw it at the theater & you could hear just about everyone talking about the ending & trying to figure it out. I think it means not even Anton is invinsible to "fate" & allthough he's Mr. badass sociopath killer, he is still human, not imortal. So many people just want to watch a "happy ending" romantic comedy or big budget "Will Smith" movies that they don't have to use any imagination. Well, guess what? Sometimes life aint happy! So get over it & try watching some challenging movies for once.
I watched this DVD last night.
Left me very unsatisfied and angry that I wasted my time.
Glorification of violence, no resolution in the end.
I know we were all supposed to glean some deep meaning from all the underlying themes, but there were so many unanswered questions and such ambiguity to the plot ...
they surely don't make movies like they did in the past.
I had the feeling they should have worried a little less about special effects and a little more about developing the plot.
The only reason I will remember this movie is that it made me angry at myself for believing all the hype about it.
I certainly hope this was a case where the book was MUCH better than the movie! It HAD to be!
I want my 122 minutes back.