User Reviews (1,582)

  • Navaros11 March 2008
    1/10
    Better titles could have been: "No story"; "No Point"; "No Ending".
    Warning: Spoilers
    No Country for Old Men is a very bad movie that is chockful of basic structural errors of storytelling & film-making, and common sense. But, hold on a minute. What I just said might be all wrong! An outmoded way of thinking. A viewpoint that simply does not have enough "intelligence" to appreciate the deep brilliant art that *is* "No Country".

    It seems that these days if you make a movie that has no story, no point, and no ending --- that that is automatically a *masterpiece* that is worthy of universal critical and consumer acclaim, and a Best Picture Oscar. That in a nutshell, is *exactly* what No Country for Old Men is.

    Now that "No Country" has paved the way for such "brilliant innovations", I can't wait to see what other "innovations" await films to come in the future. Maybe next in addition to masterpiece movies requiring there to be no story, no point, and no ending, they will also eventually further innovate by doing away with other things like actors and dialogue. Maybe mankind will eventually *evolve* to such a point of perfect enlightenment that films consisting entirely of slideshows of some kindergarten students' fingerpainting artwork will eventually be the recipient of Best Picture Oscar awards and universal acclaim.

    "No Country" has taken a lot of flack for having a "controversial ending" --- but that is inaccurate phrasing. "No Country " has *no ending* at all. For it to have a "controversial ending" carries the prerequisite that it first *has* an ending. It doesn't! "No Country" is just a bunch of random scenes of a repressed homosexual, turned psychopath, who goes around shooting people with a weapon powered by a giant tank of compressed air. This random formula is even further randomized by not *bothering* to show many of his kills on-screen. Including the death of the main character, who is suddenly, inexplicably, shown as a corpse in the middle of the movie. Even though the movie had previously spent gratuitous amounts of screen-time showing him prepare for, evade, and engage in firefights with the psychopath. Yet no *zero* time is devoted to showing how he died. The randomness of showing trivial moments like the main character staring thoughtfully at a wall, and buying tent-poles from a camping store, are crafted with meticulous detail and given tons of screen-time. But the film's utter genius shines through *most of all* by not spending one second showing him die or struggle to survive in his final moments before he died. Just a random fade-in, and he's suddenly a corpse! The sheer *brilliance* of such artistic unconventional storytelling has never been seen in any film or book *ever* made before in the *history* of mankind. I wonder why? Why did it take until the year 2007 for man to finally reach this high watermark of storytelling utopia? Ah heck, I need to stop wondering, and be content to wallow in the fact that since I "don't get it", I'm simply an idiot.

    The main character is an extremely banal hick so I had no emotional reaction whatsoever to him at any point in the movie, or to him magically fading-in as a corpse, but I'm sure the lack of any reason to care one iota about the main character is yet another of this film's amazing innovations. Layers upon layers, my friend! In several other cases, the movie makes it totally unclear if the psychopath killed his victim or not, because after trapping the victim, the scenes simply fades to black and then he is shown again outside the building later and the victims' fates are never revealed; they are never seen or mentioned in the movie again, as corpses or otherwise. One cannot assume he killed them, because in an early scene he spares a gas station attendant.

    "No Country" also innovates the art of film-making by making it's psychopath killer, "the deepest film villain since Hannibal Lecter" (or, the universal acclaimists allege...and who wants to argue with *them*!). No Country's killer shows his compelling deepness by repeatedly shouting things like "CALL IT!" after he flips a coin. In another scene, he further shows his deepness by making such deeply thought-provoking statements as: "I won't tell you you can save yourself. You can't." *Clearly*, this is Pulitzer Prize-worthy dialogue and one of the great cinematic villains of all-time. Thanks, universal acclaimists, for being honest about this and giving this character all the credit he so richly deserves! Maybe in the sequel he can play Blackjack or Poker to determine if he will shoot someone with his airgun or not? There I go again with my bad ideas, he's *already* *soooooooo freakin' unbelievably complex!!!* that to add a further level of complexity to him, like Blackjack-playing on top of coin-flipping, would be too much to even *try *to comprehend without bursting a gasket in one's brain wiring.

    Tommy Lee Jones plays a hick sheriff in this movie. He is a great actor, but he seems very bored in this role and it's like he's phoning in his performance. Perhaps he was disappointed when he read the script and realized the movie has no ending, and this made him not wanna put any energy or effort into the role. The other actors in No Country are all third-rate unknowns (other than Woody Harrelson who has a nonsensical, pointless cameo); maybe Tommy Lee was simply trying to dumb-down his acting down to their level. Whatever the case may be, it's definitely Tommy Lee Jones' worst performance ever. On second thought, I am probably wrong with everything I've just said in this paragraph. Really, Tommy Lee Jones' seemingly uninspired performance is probably just him tapping into the higher plane of existence upon which this whole enigmatic masterpiece of a movie so-good that normal human beings are barely fit to watch it, much less understand it, occupies.
  • Andariel Halo2 March 2008
    1/10
    Wasn't that good
    Warning: Spoilers
    I was not biased against the film when I saw it. I loved "The Big Lebowski", and was even amused by the similar theme in the two: both involve a suitcase full of money which the main character carts around, for events to get the suitcase lost, and inevitably leave the audience in the dark as to the eventual fate of the money.

    Unfortunately, as great as the movie started out, it devolved into pretentious art-film-like movie-making and a muddled ending with no clear ending. Not defined ending or happy ending, but CLEAR ending. The whole thing came to an abrupt end like a train that hits an invisible wall at low speed.

    The cinematography was something worth an Oscar in itself, and I especially loved the way it was shot when Llewellyn discovered the botched drug deal and eventually the money. It was so realistic, you could almost feel the mucky grime of blood drying in the sand or the greasiness of an overused dump-truck, the plainness of the brand-less milk, all the homey settings of a western border-city.

    The character Llewellyn isn't very likable. He reminds me something of The Dude in that he's very much aloof to the horrors of seeing the shot-up drug dealers, and casually takes their money and goes home, suddenly remembering one of the dying men asked him for water, and deciding to go back with a gallon of tap water for him, until Anton Shigurh comes after him and he panics, and is forced to become resolute.

    In the beginning, Anton Shigurh, played by Javier Bardem, seemed the ideal villain; quiet, utterly irredeemable, seeming the kind of person who would kill someone at any moment without any sort of honor. Even the scene where he makes a shopkeep gamble on his life with the flip of his coin, you fully expect Anton to kill him at any moment, even when he lets the man live.

    At about the mid-way point of the movie, it starts to unravel. Perhaps I need to see the movie again, but for the life of me, I cannot begin to wonder what Tommy Lee Jones's character's purpose in the movie is. He promises Llewellyn's wife that he'll make sure Llewellyn lives, and goes about doing nothing but reading the newspaper and lounging about in the office or at a diner. Only once does he visit the crime scene, and towards the end does he come close to the killer.

    Next come the nameless character played by Woody Harrelson, and the oh-so-elegantly named "Man in the Office" played by Stephen Root. Woody Harrelson's character describes Anton for us, and then wanders off to meet with Llewellyn, and then get killed by Anton for some reason. Anton then randomly appears in the Office man's office and kills him in the middle of interviewing some guy for a job. Anton doesn't say anything of worth to the other man, and is then back to the western area chasing Llewellyn. I have no idea what that was supposed to be about.

    The thing is a mess, as the movie skips ahead slightly with Llewellyn dead, and Anton flustered that he lost the money. In a moment that completely changes my opinion of Anton from cold, calculating, assassin of pure evil, to a pitiful, pathetic, stubborn childish creature that kills Llewellyn's wife just because Llewellyn didn't let Anton kill him.

    For some random reason, as Anton is driving off from her house, he gets hit by a car, staggers out with a broken arm, and walks away.

    For another random reason, Tommy Lee Jones's character has some retrospect, then gives a long, rambling soliloquy about a dream he had. I have heard many accents, and I have very sharp hearing. I can understand some of the most rambling of mumblings and mutterings, but for the life of me, I could not understand more than a few words of Tommy Lee Jones's heavily accented, mumbling, rambling speech about dreaming about his father.

    And it suddenly ended with "And then I woke up."
  • Chilangojoe12 November 2007
    5/10
    Beneath the eye-catching photography and violence, and the good acting, there lies an empty plot
    Warning: Spoilers
    Beneath the eye-catching photography and violence, and the good acting, there lies an empty plot

    To call this "film of the year" is to ignore that the world is a big place, and full of films that are a lot better.

    This film simply didn't live up to the critical acclaim it garnered prior to release. Yes, Tommy Lee Jones does a good turn, as does Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem is somewhat unusual. The bleak countryside is well filmed and one of the reasons I cannot forswear multiplexes, and the violence also grabs the viewer's attention, but even that artifice wears off as the violence simply becomes monotonous.

    The critics have uncovered nuances that separate this film from the classic Hollywood blood-and-guts formula, the most notable of which is that the lawman doesn't get the bad guy in the end. The trouble is that beyond critics counting angels on heads of pins, the Coens have retained hackneyed Hollywood clichés aplenty, the most egregious of which is the psycho who comes from nowhere, a plot device that dates back to the devil featuring in mediaeval morality plays and was debunked by the time Shakespeare was a lad. Hitchcock famously explained why Norman Bates became a psycho, and his suspense was all the more masterful as Anthony Perkins didn't look like a killer, just the Mummy's boy he really was.

    With Hitchcock, you know something very bad is going to happen; but the suspense lies in not knowing what, by whom or when. After the first few minutes with Bardem's character, however, you know he will do the killing, you know how and you know it will be sooner rather than later. The only time the evil Chigurgh acquires more than one dimension is when people tell him he has a screw loose, but he just doesn't get it. Otherwise, he's as predictable as Terminator. We also have no idea where he learned his Rambo or Jason Bourne tricks, or how he gets to be better informed than the cops, and that is just one of many plot holes.

    Bardem has acted much better before, as when he diversified from tongue-in-cheek macho roles years ago in films like "Carne Trémula" or "Segunda Piel". He successfully masks his native accent, but ends up sounding a bit too machine-like.

    We can see Chigurh is after a pot of drug money, but just who the hell is he? Who are the "managerial" guys who put him in the picture? We are left to guess that Woody Harrelson is a hired man, but told nothing about his background, who does the hiring, or why. And why is Woody's character stunningly efficient one minute, in tracking down Moss, while allowing Chigurh to sneak up on him the next?

    We are also meant to believe that a full-blown drug war can break out with just a lone sheriff on the case, without the feds getting involved. Yes, there is a lot of disbelief to be suspended in seeing this picture.

    And then there is the foray across the border, which is corny and stereotypical to any one who has ever lived for a while in Mexico. Since when do norteño bands dress like mariachis? Since when do they serenade blood-stained gringo vagrants, for nothing, and in the morning? Since when do foreigners with bullet wounds get admitted to hospital, no questions asked? This has as much to do with the real Mexico as nachos and chile con carne. Could the Coens find not one Mexican adviser?

    OK, so maybe this is beside the point, that the film is really all about a man getting too old for his job, as the very title suggests, but even here the plot is full of holes. It is all very well for the sheriff's uncle to wistfully say that a lot of nasty stuff has always happened on the border, but that ignores the fact that drug trafficking entails a dangerous mix of grinding poverty and instant fortunes which has made things nastier, all along the supply and distribution routes; Mexican towns once known for little more than growing avocadoes now have severed heads rolled across dance floors, and the country's equivalent of David Letterman was wasted in broad daylight.

    Even that hollow and superficial take on drugs violence fails to grasp the nettle of centuries of brutality, of slavery and killing Indians, in making the U.S. what it is. And yes, it is possible to cover all these bases in a two-hour film. I will certainly look for them, and for answers to all the plot holes, should I ever read Cormac McCarthy's original novel.

    For a sense of just how disturbingly omnipresent drug-fuelled violence is, and how it ends up breeding more violence, "La Vírgen de los Sicarios" did the job far better, but with Spanish dialogue and being made in Colombia, it never came to the attention of the critics who heap undeserving praise on the Coen brothers.
  • MovieFanGuyy14 February 2008
    1/10
    I absolutely hated No Country For Old Men, and I am serious about it.
    Warning: Spoilers
    The Coen Brothers, one of America's most talented directors, with a string of terrific films behind them have changed Cormac McCarthy's controversial novel into the front runner at this year's Oscar ceremonies.

    Unforuantely, as in year's past, this film, is going to purely divide moviegoers. Critics and Academy members are going to reward the Coen brothers for their adaptation of McCarthy's novel. Moviegoers, on the other hand, seem to have a divided opinion of this film.

    I saw this film with a completely divided audience. The storyline, concerns a drug deal gone badly in the Texas outback. A retired welder and Vietnam veteran, played by Josh Brolin comes across a case full of thousands of dollars in the pick up truck of a Mexican drug dealer. Unforuantely he doesn't realize the case has a homing device, which hired killer, Anton Chigurh, played to complete chilling effect, by Javier Bardem who easily steals the movie from the rest of the cast, uses to track him down.

    Chigurh, has deadly ways of killing off those who stand in his way, including a contraption used to kill off livestock, which he uses to blow open door locks and people's heads off with ease. Chigurh, pursues Llewelyn Moss, played by Brolin and his wife, who he sent off to Odessa, in hopes of outrunning the cunning Chigurh, with only local sheriff, Bell, (Tommy Lee Jones) who has a chance of protecting them.

    I won't give much more details except to say that this film felt like half a movie, the two main characters' and their stories felt completely unfinished, and that was the key problem with McCarthy's novel. I am a huge fan of the Coen Brothers and their films, Fargo, one of the best films of the 1990s, The Big Lebowski, one of the funniest films I have ever seen, and a film that I watch on a regular basis, heck, I even enjoyed The Hucksucker Proxy, but, like last year, with the overrated, Martin Scorsese film The Departed, I think that critics and academy members are looking to reward the Coen Brother's work, rather than their film.

    I'm not going to say it's overrated, just that the ending felt completely unfinished. The film doesn't state what happens to either Chigurh, or Moss. The audience and many people who I have spoken with felt the film was completely unfinished, and felt like half a movie. I agree with them. Unfortunately, I think the academy will reward the Coen brothers for this film, rather than they did with their far superior Fargo in 1996 which covered similar territory as No Country For Old Men.
  • motta80-216 May 2007
    10/10
    Coens firing on all cylinders. Brilliant.
    Warning: Spoilers
    If this doesn't end my year in the top two films of the year then we are in for one hell of an awesome year of movies.

    The new film from two of the best filmmakers working today No Country For Old Men shows the talents of the Coen Brothers on top form. After a couple of disappointments (Intolerable Cruelty had flashes of Coen genius but felt more of a Coen imitation than the real thing; Ladykillers had the odd funny moment but was the blandest film the brothers ever made, and there's just no excusing Marlon Wayans!) they knock this violent western drama out of the park.

    More in the vein of their superb early mostly-serious efforts Blood Simple and Miller's Crossing (my personal favourite of the Coen back catalogue) No Country For Old Men is a slow-moving, character-driven masterpiece about uncompromising and uncompromised characters. It is very violent and bloody and not always for the squeamish.

    Shot through with moments of humour these come, as in life, from real situations and observations so don't be fooled into thinking this will be the serious film with goofy-characters Coens of Fargo. No Country For Old Men is a tough, gritty story.

    The unrelenting pace may take its time but you are gripped every moment. This is a thriller that genuinely thrills.

    Javier Bardem gives the best performance of his career. And, yes, I have seen The Sea Inside and he in superb in that but here he is simply extraordinary. It is a portrayal of unrelenting evil, of true derangement, of a human being with no shreds of humanity that ranks at the very top of studied film psychopaths. And I say film not movie because this is not a clichéd character. This is not a character whose lunacy you enjoy over popcorn. This is one of the most frightening performances ever committed to celluloid. I felt truly nervous of what was going to happen every time he walked on screen.

    Josh Brolin essentially carries the bulk of the movie and he is excellent in a role that challenges him. I have never seen him perform to this level and if Bardem didn't steal the film you'd be talking about Brolin all the way home. As it is this gives him a showcase for his talents that should see him get a lot more attention.

    Tommy Lee Jones is used sparingly but to great effect. Sounding more like Michael Parks than ever before his scenes pepper the movie with a wearied view on a world he doesn't really like or understand to great effect.

    I did find Stephen Root a little distracting as i have never seen him in a serious role before and he just looks amusing but he is in very little.

    Roger Deakins' cinematography is breathtaking as usual and the Coens' script is superbly crafted. There are moments, almost asides from the main plot, that would be superfluous in most scripts and excised in most studio films but which work perfectly in the overall context of the movie as only the Coens can achieve. One scene featuring Bardem in a gas station is up there with the best scenes i have ever seen on film.

    I have not gone into the plot here because I saw this film having not read Cormac McCarthy novel and knowing little other than the basic log-line - a man out hunting comes upon a scene of dead bodies, guns, drugs and money on the Mexican border and comes to the attention of both those behind the scene and a local world-wearied sheriff - and i think that's the way to see this film.

    Go in knowing as little as you can but knowing at least this: this is a serious, violent, slow-paced character piece from the Coens. This is not a Fargo. If you are squeamish don't see it. If you have a short-attention span don't see it. If you only love the Coens for their fantastic comedies like O Brother and Big Lebowski and the comedy/thriller Fargo don't see it. But if you want to see an intelligent, superbly acted, powerful, beautiful cinematic treat that will remind you of the true power of cinema see it, see it, see it. It's a masterpiece. Bravo Ethan and Joel.
  • johnsone-519 March 2008
    1/10
    I screamed with pain
    Warning: Spoilers
    I literally screamed with pain at the end of this movie. It was that terrible. Throughout the whole thing I tried my best to like it. But no amount of effort could have prepared for its agonizing non-end.

    I only wish someone had warned me that this was essentially a revision of "Waiting for Godot" set in west Texas—except without the action or pathos of Beckett's original play.

    What were the Coen brothers trying to communicate by this movie? Perhaps they were trying to provide the Taliban with yet another reason to hate America. Or perhaps it was a cry for help: "Stop us before we write and direct again!" Regardless of their motives, "No Country for Old Men" is to movies what chitterlings are to food. Only the very strongest can stomach it.
  • volhome22 March 2008
    1/10
    Critics and Previews Failed Miserably
    Warning: Spoilers
    When the trailers for Old Country came along, I must say I was mesmerized. The introduction of a wanton killer that seemingly strode his own path in a place and time yet to be determined. Along for the ride, the critics' glowing praise of the movie and especially the glow from Oscar winning performance of Javier Bardem sold me. I had missed the movie in the theatre, but seeing it on the big screen at home would make up for it. The anticipation began high, as the storyline was laid out. Heck, Josh Brolin was doing an excellent job with his little mentioned role. Tommy Lee Jones was giving another workmanlike laid-back performance as well. An there was, of course, Javier, plodding along. Okay, stick with this, it will grow and develop. Hour number two starts, and the foundation is well laid. Javier is playing a less than remorseful toad. Everyone else is playing their roles in a deadpan manner. Lord, is this what the people in Texas are really like? Don't worry, though. The critics have assured that Javier's performance is well worth it. Then the second hour ends. And so does the movie. Wait, is that the credits? You're kidding. Right? I just watch two hours of everyone playing like they were under Karloff's make-up from Frankenstein? Folks, Boris made that character believable and sympathetic. This drivel made me hate everyone associated with the movie. We didn't get a decent bad guy. We didn't get a story with a morality play. We didn't get decent ending or hope for the future. We got a stinking pile of manure and Oscar noted efforts. Well if this is what the Academy Awards have come to, then I'll make sure I never see another Award winning movie again. They passed on Kevin Costner as Mr. Brooks for this? Of, for God's sake, Please, someone tell me where I go to get a refund for the two hours of my life spent on this. I'm there in a heartbeat.
  • modline15 December 2007
    1/10
    A frustrating film that goes nowhere
    Warning: Spoilers
    The Coen Brothers have succeeded in making what is possibly the most nihilistic film in the history of cinema, and in doing so they have divided the audience like Moses parting the Red Sea. A lot of people love this film and feel it is one of the greatest ever made, while I'm on the opposite side, thinking the film is too frustrating to be enjoyed.

    The story, as you may know, revolves around Lleweleyn Moss (Josh Brolin) and, upon his discovery of a crime scene (a drug sale gone horribly wrong), the theft of two million dollars. From the moment he steals the money, Moss is followed by Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a menacing figure who kills anyone who gets in his way. Along the way, we meet Sheriff Ed Thom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), who really does nothing to advance the story any, since his character does little to stop the events which unload on screen. In his soliloquies, we learn that he has seen better times than the horror unraveling around him, and that this is no country for old men (thus the title).

    And that's basically the story in a nutshell. There is virtually no development of characters, no backdrop to show us why Chigurh is involved and so evil, and no involvement of Bell's character. There is a brief appearance of Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson), who is hired to track down Moss and Chigurh by someone who obviously was behind the whole drug deal, yet we know nothing about who hired him (even the credits list the character as "Man who hires Wells"). After Wells fails, the "Man who hires Wells" then involves a band of Mexicans to track down Moss, and the story goes off the rails from there.

    What is even more frustrating is the final quarter of the film, where not only do we not get any further development of character, we get the lead character killed off camera, a scene involving Chigurh and Moss' wife that is not fully realized, an out-of-the-blue car accident which doesn't do anything of any importance, and, yet, another meaningless soliloquy from Jones.

    I truly do not understand the hype and love surrounding this film. When I saw the film, several people walked out, and there was a groan at the end of the movie and multiple apologies to loved ones from people had brought them to see what was to be the "movie of the year." Sure, the movie had great cinematography, great sound, and decent acting (it's a Coen Brother's film, would you expect less?) - the problem lies in the script and the lack of character development. There were some great scenes of tension, especially one involving Chigurh and a gas station owner and the toss of a coin, scenes which truly deserved to be in a better movie.

    If you're looking for entertainment, the best advice here is to stay far away from this film.
  • Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman)26 January 2008
    1/10
    Gallons and gallons of blood
    Warning: Spoilers
    Not to mention bloated dead bodies of dogs and humans and a "man who wouldn't die".

    "No Country for Old Men" has Javier Bardem playing Anton Chigurh, a monstrous motive-less killer (unless you count the money, but how does he know about it?) He slides in and out of scenes, you are always chilled but like the clichéd train-wreck victims you see reeling on the side of the road, he never engages you, you never speculate on what made him this way, he is simply a nerveless, passionless cypher.

    Actually the clichés were too many to count in this truly, truly disappointing effort from the Coen brothers. A police officer turns his back on the monster and is promptly dispatched and of course the monster manages to squeeze bloodily out of his own handcuffs. H'mm. The instrument used to kill by Chigurh is some kind of stun gun with an oxygen tank. Surely to God he could get hands on a gun with a silencer and not have to lug this tank around like some deranged Fred Munster? There is so much blood, the only conclusion I could make was that this was the whole point, raise the barf meter with everyone, show acres of gratuitous violence to draw in the desirable adbash demographic and forget any kind of plot. A slasher film for the pseudo-sophisticated.

    The movie grabs you early and you think, as you survey a field full of fallen felons (they were involved in a drug heist) discovered by an officer played by Josh Brolin, that this movie is going to unwind a great mystery. You settle in for the denouement.

    Poor you. You are sidetracked by an absolutely meaningless sub-plot involving Woody Harrelson (another grisly ending) and by Tommy Lee Jones who was left without any relevant script and wanders cynically in and out of scenes, delivering tired old witticisms as a sheriff. We can count the ways and days of tired old cynical sheriffs. I was waiting for "life is just a box of chocolates and Chigurh the hardboiled candy". It would have improved things.

    I was baffled as to the narrative. Was there one? Why didn't I get it? Was this movie, in spite of the barrels of blood, too deep for me? I was asking myself these questions long before it was over.

    Was this movie reaching for pretension or was it truly in the stratum of the intellectual elite? Coin toss answer.

    For me, it seemed fitting that there was no ending to this. No plot should equal a no ending. The beast didn't die and went on his stumbling way. All the good guys died, apart from aforementioned slow-drawl sheriff, who is now retired.

    Zero artistic merit, zero plot. I gave it a 1 to bring down the over-rating. I still like Tommy, Josh gave a great perforance but I'm going to be really leery of future Coen efforts.
  • littlegoldwoman12 December 2007
    1/10
    Wish I loved it (Spoilers)
    Warning: Spoilers
    I have a plea out on the message boards for someone to please explain this movie to me. I love movies and I am not one of those who insist on only being hand fed obvious characters and plots. I enjoy movies that make you think and use symbolism.

    But I honestly did not understand this film. Im not saying its horrible but I will say I don't think it deserves the ratings it is getting. I personally rated it a 1 because I feel compelled to balance out the absurd over ratings it is getting.

    What I saw was two men fighting over the same two million dollars. One who is somewhat good and obviously poor and the other who is this maniac psycho killer. Im not even sure its his money, how he knows about it or why he even wants it. None of that was clarified.

    The good guy is running with the money the bad guy is chasing him the sheriff seems like he is supposed to be chasing them but doesn't really want to and would rather be some sort of hillbilly philosopher about the whole thing.

    Then the good guy suddenly dies. The bad guy escapes death by the skin of his teeth AGAIN the money disappears and the sheriff retires but not becoming so philosophical that the whole movie just ends right there at his dinner table with him rambling on about some dreams he had.

    Again I would love to figure out this movie.

    I am a 40 year old movie buff Academy Award trivia expert I own over 700 movies I've been a member here for 6 years And I have a college degree.

    Maybe I ate too many milk duds or something but it went right over my head.

    If you are looking for a Donnie Darko, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind MUST SEE A SECOND OR THIRD TIME TO FULLY UNDERSTAND kind of movie then go for it!

    If you think you are going to see a Titanic, The Green Mile or Silence Of the Lambs kind of movie where the plot unfolds at a normal pace and doesn't make you search for answers and meaning then don't go see this thing.

    Again, not a bad movie. Great acting, cinematography, pace.... the works... just incredibly difficult to understand after the first half.

    In fact the first half is very good, suspenseful.. second half does not fulfill. Leaves you hanging and wanting more.

    OK Im done. Thanks for reading.
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.