I just found the article: http://www.esquire.com/features/esqu...joshbrolin1007

This doesn't prove it's true or anything, of course. But I can't see the Coen brothers or Esquire just making it up, so I'm not sure what the deal is.

I am not sure the article in esquire is real, but it contains two of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. The coen brothers wanted to cast shia lebeauf in NCFOM and shia turned them down. Nothing against shia lebeauf as an actor, but are you really going to drop the former star of "Even Stevens" into this kind of movie. And as far as Shia Lebeauf turning down this role, does he even know who the coen brothers are? Does he not want to help his career enormously?

They did an extended commentary on their DVD of Blood Simple that was basically an unfunny joke too. It seems these guys have a love of doing stuff that's perverse and almost funny.

My favorite movie of the year.

About the quarter in the gas station:

Anton protested when the guy was about to put it in his pocket. This is because the quarter was minted in 1958 and had traveled 22 years (yes, the movie was set in 1980 exactly) to determine the fate of this man's life on this particular date. How dare he put the quarter that allowed him to live in a pocket of change that had no effect on his life.

Also, when Tommy Lee went into the bathroom, the window was definitely locked, which means Anton could not have escaped from it.

Also, I felt "destiny" and "what is destiny" was a major theme of the movie. Anton "had" top go see Carla Jean because he "had" to. And he "had" to flip that coin with the clerk and kill everyone he did because he "had" to. Then to slap Anton's idea of destiny in his face, they ran a car into the side of him at the end.
This seemed to me to be the point of Tommy Lee's dream at the end. There is a destination (destiny) for everyone. Tommy Lee's Dad is waiting ahead for him in the final destination.

johnny, that's a very cool interpretation. When I go to see it again, I will definitly see it while thinking about that.

yeah, it is very clear the article is a joke now. I didn't know who Shia Lebeauf was but after looking it up there's no way they're serious. Pretty funny.

Guys, the Coen's do this stuff all the time. It's a joke. If you don't believe me, try and find a photo of the film's editor for NCFOM, Roderick Jaynes.

When I read the book I thought Hollywood would never touch it, basically because of the ending. Obviously I was wrong but it does appear that many people don't like the ending. I personally thought the movie was better than the book. I liked both very much.

As far as character development, all of the characters in McCarthy's books are defined for the most part by their actions and not their thoughts. And part of McCarthy's genius is his ability to reveal "character" or "personality" or "strength of will" or whatever you want to call it, through the actions of his characters. Stunted dialogue is a trademark of McCarthy's writing because quite frankly what people say is of very little importance. It is their actions that are important. Whenever there is extended dialogue it is usually a long winded soliloquy on the meaning of the universe, or the lack thereof.

One comment in this thread mentioned that the movie was about destiny, that some things in life are inexorable. Take the example of the gas station attendant. I would have to disagree that he was destined to become a victim of a coin flip. In McCarthy's world, there is an inverse correlation between the part of your life that is pre-determined (luck or destiny, whatever you want to call it) and your strength of will in adhering to your personal code of ethics/behavior. The weak have lots of destiny in their life. The strong have very little destiny. However, even the strong can occasionally fall victim to bad luck simply because the world is a very harsh place. The Weak in NCFOM is exemplified by the gas station attendant. He married in to owning a crappy little gas station in the middle of nowhere. He tried to run and hide like a little biatch when he got scared. Who has "run and hide like a little bitch" in our personal code of conduct? The Strong is obviously Chigurh. Moss is also pretty strong, as evidence by his dumb ass decision to bring water back to the dying drug runner. Unfortunately Moss ended up locking horns with a total badass.

Here is the Charlie Rose interview with the brothers, Bardem and Brolin.

I just saw this last night. What do you think it will get nominations for at the Oscars?

I'm thinking best picture, best cinematography, sound editing, Bardem for best supporting actor. It will probably get nominated for lots of less publicized technical awards as well.

I thought this movie was much more of a great version of 3:10 To Yuma than it was a bad version of Fargo. It is interesting that a few people in this thread seem to think it was the opposite- same 2 movies come up as a comparison, but in different ways apparently.

Jones rips the movie up, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a supporting nod to him. I'd like to see Brolin win one, but that may be a long shot in light of Bardem's role and performance.

boris, i can't agree with you on the dialogue being unimportant in McCarthy's books. The countless stories that are told and the dialogue in Blood Meridian are a huge part of the book. I love McCarthy's dialogue and don't understand why you would think it is unimportant.

The National Board of Review said this is the Best Film of 2007.

http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/

One thing I haven't seen mentioned:

what does everyone make of the fact that Carla Jean is watching what I took to be The Third Man when Llewellyn walks in from his hunting trip?

also some interesting points here re: Anton and the sheriff and that scene at the motel. I think I should've just watched the film again but that interpretation (it was a different room) was my first impression but I was talked out of it convincingly.

interesting... there's a long thread on imbd proposing a theory that Ed Tom and Anton are the same character. Not sure how solid it is but there are some decent points. The Third Man might thematically fit into that a little, although it's been a long time since I've seen it.

here's the thread: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477348/...t/90860251?p=1

It's an interesting theory, but Llewelen and Carla Jean both knew Ed Tom, and never mentioned it to each other, or to Carson Wells. So, that's enough to kill it. The idea that they are two sides of the same coin is interesting, though.

fwiw, the book does a lot of comparison between Moss and Bell. I never really thought of anton and ed-tom being related. i always thought that Moss and Bell were similar with a few big differences that led to their different lives.

I just saw this movie and DID NOT GET IT?
The gun fight scenes were intense and vv good.
But wtf at the last 45 mins?!

Please explain the movie to me (unless you thought Syriana or Momento were good movies, then please don't breed).

TY in advance.

It might help if you explain what you didn't understand.

Or read the rest of the thread since a lot of the last 45 minutes has been covered extensively.

I don't think you understand. He wants us to explain it to him now. Again. Like we did before to other people. Only, again, now, and for him. See? I can't do it, though, because I liked Syrianna AND Memento. I'll be busy with my pair of scissors.

Are you going to read the book, or has the movie completely disinterested you?

SALAZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR

Breed stuff was a joke...put down the scissors!

I read the thread. Perhaps, I need to rewatch the movie to and use the 'fate' theory to put everything in context. But really, for a movie that blended thrilling action, pacing, period ambiance so well, the ending did not fit.

I love the loungers here, but many people tend to be a bit snobbish about movies where the craft (direction/acting) was good, but the story wasn't.