It doesn't matter what happened to Chigur. Whether he wound up bleeding out in an alley or retired to live in Tahiti has no bearing on the story. Life doesn't have neat, clean, wrap-it-up endings. It had everything to do with the story. One of the key underlying themes of the movie was how things had been changing, and not necessarily for the better. He had the conversation with the other sheriff about a criminal who had just walked right back into his own crime scene -- "how do fight that?" He had that conversation with his friend who said when "sirs" and "ma'ams" left the vocabulary, it was all downhill. TL Jones' father had been a lawman at a time when lawmen didn't have to carry guns. Times were simpler. His father had gone on ahead of him, and (now retired) TLJ was on his way to follow him. You can't stop the tide.
axe-but many people thought he was talking about the story about josh brolin and the money and anton. people were confused. and yes times were changing and that's why bc of how evil and twisted anton was - he was quitting bc he can't be a lawman against that kind of criminal/murderer.
I get that there was confusion -- Cormac McCarthy does leave things open to interpretation or ambiguous. But again -- that's life. There aren't always fairy tale endings where the bad guy gets what's coming to him, and the good guy keeps the money and lives happily ever after with his pretty wife. I don't know why people would think TLJ was talking about the money and Josh and Chigur when he was relating his dreams. The dreams referred to the underlying theme of things snowballing, society becoming more and more vicious, and even the law incapable of stemming the tide.
I think the last movie I saw was, "The Millers". My husband is crazy about Jennifer Anton (is that her name?) so we went with some friends. It was kind of funny actually, I was surprised. My husband went home totally disappointed even though I told him that she wouldn't take her clothes off ...
she needs to take her clothes off bc her movies blow. even horrible bosses was bad and that had better actors in it like kevin spacey, jason bateman, jason sudakis, jamie foxx, donald sutherland, colin farrell and charlie day. axe--i don't know. there was a movie thread on cbs and people talk about the ending a lot?
what bothers me the most about no country is chigur's weapon. i just don't buy it. yes, i know it can do what it did - that's not the problem. the problem is that it's an awkward thing to lug around and doesn't do anything a conventional gun with a silencer wouldn't do. best i can figure, that rig's gonna weigh 30 pounds, and possibly significantly more. it strikes me as something included on a "hey, how cool would this be?" basis. the only person i could see using such a weapon on anything but a one time basis would be a lunatic - and unless my memory of the film is flawed, chigur struck me as a sociopath, but not a lunatic who'd put himself at risk for the sake of having a cool weapon.
Interesting point about the weapon. Wondering if, since that weapon is principally used on livestock, whether McCarthy/Chigur was making a symbolic statement that he was treating the people he killed just like animals.
ok, here goes. the story is clever. the direction is mediocre in its good moments, and annoying and distracting in its bad ones. the cast is excellent. now comes the touchy part i am a gun owner who, for the most part, wants nothing to do with the NRA. i disagree with them far too often. but (and i hate to admit this) i actually agreed somewhat with wayne lapierre after sandy hook. the entertainment industry in general (it's not just hollywood) glorifies violence to an absurd degree, imo. i absolutely believe the prevalence of violence in movies and on television breeds an atmosphere which desensitizes people to it, and as a result, leads to more violence in real life. and that's overwhelmingly what this movie is about. i am not completely adverse to violence, but i don't care for it when it's excessive and/or gratuitous. and no, i haven't seen the other, either. i never get tired of quoting this line from This Film is not yet Rated: You can blow a guy's head off, but you can't blow a guy.
i think video game violence is far worse for kids than tv shows. hey have hand held game devices now. blood and guts everywhere and not in a john wayne type way.
Interesting thing is, they said the same thing about the Three Stooges and Bugs Bunny back in the 30's, 40's, 50's, that they were too violent and kids were gonna copy-cat what they saw.
i never bought the argument about the stooges and cartoons. i think kids are intelligent enough to realize that they're intended to be funny, and that u can't actually drop safes on people, or hit them in the face with a hammer, and expect nothing more than a "why, i oughta..." i think video games are simply another symptom of the same issue, and i'm more talking about adults than kids.
i watched Get Low last night, starring robert duvall, sissy spacek and bill murray. directv described it as a comedy, and i have no idea why. it is not even a little funny. it's a very serious movie about a guy who decides to throw a funeral party for himself while he's still living. damn good film. i figured it was a good sign when i recognized jerry douglas playing in the soundtrack. it was.
At first I was incredibly disappointed about them making the movie at all - Harrison Ford just looked disinterested and hammy in the previews. But after seeing some of the special effects, I'm interested. I think I'll watch it if just to see how they go about it all, especially the early time in the academy.
just watched the documentary BLACK=FISH on netflix I recomend it....kinda sad , but a story that needs to be told 8)
Just finished watching Kick-Ass 2. What a ridiculously amazing franchise. I had 0 expectations when I watched the first one and thought it would suck. Now, I wish they just made Hit Girl movies because she might be one of the most badass heroes out there.
