i watched the movie again last night, and now that whole scene makes more sense. here's the time line as far as i can tell.

- ed (tommy lee jones) looks inside and sees something suspicious through the door.
- anton is clearly shown standing against the wall behind the same door.
- ed prepares to enter the room. he gets his gun, ***** it, and steps up to the door. *
- he begins to open the door slowly, and then swings it hard to open it all the way. the door knob hits the wall loudly (which would be impossible with anton behind it).
- he walks through the room, notices the open latch, then the dime, and then he leaves.

* this is when anton escapes through the window. there is a realistic amount of time for him to get out.

Somebody tell me this is just a crazy coincidence and not at all meta:

There seems to be some confusion about this so I went back and checked the screenplay linked above:

ROOM INSIDE


The door finishes creaking open. Sheriff Bell is a silhouette in the
doorway.

A still beat.

At length Sheriff Bell ducks under the chest-high police tape to enter.

The worn carpet has a large stain that glistens near the door. Sheriff
Bell steps over it, advancing slowly. The room is dimly lit shapes.

There is a bathroom door in the depth of the room. Sheriff Bell advan-
ced toward it. He stops in front of it.

He toes the door. It creaks slowly open.

The bathroom, with no spill light from outside, is pitch black.

Sheriff Bell reaches slowly up with one hand. He gropes at the inside
wall.

The light goes on: bright. White tile. Sheriff Bell squints. A beat.

He takes a step in.

He looks at the small window.

He looks at the window's swivel-catch, locked.

well i can guarantee you the door swings all the way open and the door knob hits the wall. so are we to assume he's hiding under a bed, or what? and really, i did just assume the window latch was open since it seemed like the only plausible explanation. i don't have any windows like that - i think i've seen one like that once in my life.

so i can now say

WTF ?

chigurh is not in the room when bell goes in. you can assume that there is no where to hide inside that hotel room. in my opinion, chigurh isn't in the room because bell doesn't want to face him. he is afraid, and is not willing to go up against chigurh like Moss was.

in the book, you never "see" chigurh in the room, you just know he was in there and got the money. i think they did it this way in the movie to add suspense.

An interesting response from a reader to Andrew Sarris's review of the movie:

"There is no need to call McCarthy a nihilist. That discredited school of philosophy has produced nothing of value, whereas McCarthy will last as long as there are American readers.

The project of every McCarthy novel can be summed up as a question: Every declining generation thinks the ascendant one is laying ruin to the previous' legacy, and in their vain desire to live forever, concludes that the new kids are leading the world to hell in a handbasket -- but what if sooner or later, one declining generation is right?"

i wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. in many of McCarthy's books, the reader, or characters realize that previous generations who were idolized were just as terrible as present generations. but this isn't a bad thing, it's gives you hope. you realize that all the people you idolize had flaws just like you.

my take on the Bell's dream fits in with this. it's earlier in the thread and i'm too lazy to quote it.

Seems like a probable oscar winner for best adapted screenplay. Should get other nominations.

Funny bit of dialog:

Llewelyn: If you don't shut up I'm gonna have to take you in the back and screw ya
Carla Jean: Big talker

Finally saw this film, and I'll probably watch it again this weekend. The sound was AMAZING. Not just how it had little to no music, but how that added the tension by allowing every small noise to signal something to the viewer just as it did for the characters.

Everybody is raving about Bardem and Brolin, who were
phenominal, but Jones came out on top, IMO. He seems similar to Eastwood, in that he's not very multi-faceted in the realm of Brando or Depp, but when he settles into his kind of roles he sinks deep. There was so much expression in his performance while he physically did very little. Just looking at his face when he was talking with Brolin's wife was remarkable.

One of the best Coen movies. Right below Lebowski and tied with Fargo.

What do you all think the movie was 'about'? There were some great themes floating around: self-determination, destiny, etc.

The ending was a perfect fit, with the fateful tidal storm of Bardem moving on, even after chance hits him, like he is the inevitability that nobody can have any control over.


I think my interpretation was heavily influenced by missing pieces of dialogue through mutter and accent, but I was left with completely different feeling. Looking back at the actual dialogue, what you and others say fits perfectly. I still think that there is a darkness to it. Maybe I'm reading too much into the words, but Jones seems shaken with the dream when he re-tells it, and coupled with the scene directly before it (Chigur [Bardem] continuing on), I walked away thinking the dream was symbolic of death, and our inability to determine our own. Will have to watch again to really dig into this, because I like the duality between wanting/hoping for the better times against the cold present. That interpretation lifts up the ending quite a bit.

Here is the final few lines:

"...and when he rode past I seen he
was carryin fire in a horn the way
people used to do and I could see the
horn from the light inside of it.
About the color of the moon. And in
the dream I knew that he was goin on
ahead and that he was fixin to make a
fire somewhere out there in allthat
dark and all that cold, and I knew
that whenever I got there he would be
there. Out there up ahead. "

Checking out some reviews, I decided to look into the select few who didn't like the film. Most seem to say it's just to dark for their tastes, but this Washington Post review maanged to explain why they didn't like it structurally and thematically. Oddly enough, I agree with every grievance he has with the film. However, I simply liked these things he didn't.

For example, he seems to think it's a generic thriller, with no character development, and while accepting that and being happy with a well put-together chase film he felt cheated when they didn't show the pay-off (the Anton/Moss showdown). I completely understand his annoyance, but simply like that very choice. No real explanation. I just liked it where he didn't.

I thought it was one of the few negative reviews that was acceptable.

Robert Bresson said that one should feel a movie before thinking about it.

Having watched No Country for Old Men, I felt left out in the cold and emotionally disattached in the end. The film is technically brilliant, and has some great moments of tension and characterization in the first half, but becomes convoluted in the second half. And since McCarthy has praised the film as being faithful to the book, I will have to blame the original story for the film's flaws.

I'm on board with Andrew Sarris, Andyfox, and Dominic on this one.

That was a very good review. His note about the gun's action not working properly definitely sounds like it will irritate me when I see the movie.

the fact that the reviewer is making fun of the gun's in the movie is very ironic. McCarthy is a gun nut who probably thinks about the weapons more than some of the minor characters. the guns in the movie seemed to be fairly close to the book. i'm certain the coen's didn't insert any "gimmicky" firearms.

It might now that you know about it in advance...I don't know why you would read a review before seeing the movie, who cares what someone else thinks about it?. I didn't notice the gun thing though. And I disagree with part of his analysis, which I guess we'll talk about once you've seen it.

Just saw this movie last night, and while I enjoyed it, I think it is one of the weaker Coen brothers movies. Maybe this is because I really love and admire virtually all of their movies. I just didn't find it as compelling and riveting as Fargo or many of their others.

One minor point I'd like clarified. My wife and I couldn't agree what happened to the wife's mother. Was she killed at the hotel?

edit: NM. I read the script and found the answer.

I find the question of why one would read a review of a movie before seeing it really strange. You read a review to see if you want to see the movie. The more you've read a particular reviewer, the better feel you have whether his reviews are likely to fit with the way you think and be of value to you.

A gun action not working properly seems at least as fair to note as not to note. Things that disrupt the feeling that things in the movie are really happening within that world can be jarring.

the complaint about the shotgun action is uber nitty. when you watch the movie you'll see what i mean. the gun doesn't seem fake at all.

I'll just add two things. First, I think there were substantial problems with the logic and details of the action that go beyond mere "nittiness," and are far greater than stuff about the shotgun action. But that has nothing to do with my personal disappointment.

Reading this thread, I realize that the movie did not bring to life the full characterizations that were evidently present in the book. As a result, I just wasn't as interested in the people as I usually am in the Coen brother films. I suspect that the Tommy Lee Jones character was much richer in the book.

On the positive side, the Coens continue to be amazing in capturing local atmosphere and jargon. I can't think of any one else who is so at ease in creating such a diversity of worlds. The acting, staging and cinematography were all great as well. Yet, when you put it all together, it was less than compelling for me.

Sorry if this has already been posted...didn't see it anywhere.

The October 2007 issue of Esquire had a neat little article written by the Coen brothers. Apparently, when Josh Brolin showed up on the first day of shooting to play the part of Llewelyn Moss, the Coen Brothers realized someone made a huge casting mistake... they had intended to cast Jim Brolin, Josh's dad.

In order to fix this at the last minute, the Coen Brothers were forced to change the entire time period of the movie since Josh couldn't realistically play a Vietnam vet in the present day. So what was originally intended to be a movie set in present day, No Country For Old Men suddenly became a period piece. pretty crazy eh?

not to mention the mother's grave said 1903 - 1980 (or whatever year she was born)

I'm pretty sure the book is set in 1980, and they were pretty faithful to the book, so that story has to be BS.

Definitely hard to believe. Jim Brolin is a very wooden actor of little appeal now that he isn't young enough to be a superhunk anymore.

Plus the Coen brothers are very specific about their movies. I doubt they'd just go "wutevah" about something as important as a mistakenly cast lead. If it's true, it's quite a turn of luck for Brolin (Josh, not Jim).

I don't know, I don't read reviews for this exact reason. Now, when you go to see it, you'll be looking for all the problems the reviewer said, "zomg, gun doesn't pop out shells." When I saw the movie, I thought, "omfg that gun is INSANE, TAKE COVER!!!!"

Best way to decide if you want to see a movie, in my opinion, go to IMDB, look at the rating it got there. Then, look at the director (Coen) look at the writers (Coen brothers) and look at the cast (Jones, Bardem, Rollin) and if you like Coen brother movies, you'll want to see it. Start figuring out which directors do "it" for you, see what other movies the writers have done, and if there are any good actors in it. I know after seeing Children of Men, I'm anxiously awaiting the next Alfonso Cuaron American film.

Already done. I check reviews for particular movies. I don't assume that because I like a director, I will find his movies worth going to. But there are reviewers I've gotten enough of a feeling for that I feel fine getting their input before making a decision. A good example is Scorcese. I'm a lifelong fan, and I'm not as optimistic as I used to be that his movies will always be worth seeing on the big screen, or at all. Same with Ridley Scott, etc.

Perhaps some people forbid themselves from reading movie reviews before seeing a flick, but to me that's one of the whole points of having them. I wonder, contrarily, what is the point of reading a review after seeing a film. At that point I might want to see a detailed analysis, but not some five or ten paragraph lite discussion that is careful not to address anything that could turn into a spoiler.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic.