I'm watching it tomorrow, because I love violence ;)

Wow, i'm sorry, if people didn't like the ending there's a strong possibility they didn't understand the whole point to the movie and the significance of the dream.

****SPOILERS BELOW****

It's a movie about the inevitable and, as the title says, being an old man in a country that has no place for you anymore and all you can do is wait it out, nothing to look forward to but death.

I feel that "And then I woke up." is one of the best film endings ever. The dream could represent the ability to stop evil in the world, Bell's hope to follow in his father's footsteps, the existence of an afterlife or any good in the world, etc. (all themes touched on in the film) But then he woke up. BAM

This was NOT a story about Moss, this was a story about Tommy Lee Jones' character (Bell). He opened the movie and closed the movie. He was an old sheriff in a new world. He couldn't solve the crime. He was always one step behind. He was dead in a fast paced world. That last dialogue was essential to the story.

And on a final spoiler, when Chigurh gets in a wreck at the end, he walks away from it to show that evil is unstoppable; Chigurh being the personification of evil.

This movie touched on a multitude of themes and the violence was absolutely necessary to show just how evil Chigurh is, representing fate, death, whatever you want, he was pure evil. The violence was needed to show the viewers what people do for money and how society is these days in a very raw and real way. It's no country for old men, it was a genius movie, shot and acted perfect, the ending was supposed to be extremely pessimistic, and they hit it perfectly. A masterpiece in my book, not a poor ending at all.

If this was a story about Tommy Lee Jones character and not Josh Brolin's then they shouldn't have concentrated on him and made him the central character throughout.

Sure he topped and tailed the film, but the audience are pulled into the good and bad characters and their journey, and then suddenly dropped.

I know what the film was trying to do, but it didn't do it effectively enough. It sold the violent story over that of the Sheriff and I was so caught up in just being dumped with the story ending behind closed curtains that it fumbled the closing message.

I suspect you've read the book and gotten a lot more out of the story from that.

Richard, I love ya man, but I think you're just missing it. I'm not sure if you just can't relate, if it's just not your cup of tea, or if some people's minds just work different, but from those I've seen that haven't liked it for the same reasons you state, it's just as thought they CAN'T connect with it. But those who do, like myself, find themselves completely blown away. I'm not going to go into a huge discussion and dissection on the meaning of the ending, the significance of it all, the meaning of all of the characters and actions, because I've said it before plenty of times and it's been said better anyway... but as for the "plot dropping" you talk about:

SPOILERS

The movie could have ended with the death of Llewellyn, then Chigurh killing his wife, walking out the door and then fading to black - credits. I think some people might have accepted that more actually, but then the car wreck is SO significant, and more important, the speech that Ed Tom gives at the end wraps it up entirely, wraps up everything the movie was trying to convey. And whether or not you think Ed Tom was the central character, it wraps up his storyline: he retired, but finally realized that it really didn't make a difference. He was going to die anyway sooner or later, whether he retired or not.

k, that's all for now.

No, don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing about that section, as I said in my last comment I do understand those parts after the hotel scene with the Sheriff, I think those are really well done.

When he arrives back at the scene, when we return to the wife, the car wreck...and that's the point Brolin is missing about me, I don't want to see all gore and killing here, I want to scoot the film back to before we see the sheriff at the hotel, I want to see a dramatic conclusion between the two characters who I've invested so much in to that point.

The story has been building me up to that point and building up those characters, I don't believe it handled the closure of their journey away from, and then to, each other properly.

After that the story is great, although as I said, I was finding myself struggling with the dropping of the plot rather than diving into the thoughts of the sheriff.

Again, you have to realise I gave it a four out of five, although a weak four. I believe if they'd handled the closure of the the two characters plot lines better then it would be a nigh on perfect film - in fact I think I remember saying that in the review.

It's that hotel scene aftermath that really did hurt it for me, and I'm rather angry at the Brolin comments that all I'm after is the violence when actually it's a better dramatic conclusion - conclusion of those characters, not the ultimate ending of the film.

Oh - and I love you too! Don't be concerned that we all might disagree from time to time, if you knew how much I argue and debate with friends in real life away from a keyboard you'd be amazed how diplomatic and easy going I am here! I love a good debate...as long as everyone walks out the other side!!

One thing I noticed about No Country:

The less Moss knows about a person directly, the more visual their death is. Anyone that Moss actually has spoken to directly dies off camera.

Seriously? (spoiler warning) There are very good reasons, that follow the logic of the film, for why you do not see Lewellyn Moss' death. The whole way through the movie, Anton's killings are highlighted, right up through his murder of his wife. You do not see Lewellyn die because the Mexicans kill him and make-off with the cash. Anton's too late, never gets another chance to kill Moss, and, mercifully for the audience, does not kill Bell in the roped-off hotel room. What extra resolution there could be, given this, is beyond me.

I'm not talking about seeing people killed, I'm talking about a proper dramatic conclusion between the two characters.

If I may quote Sgt. Murtaugh from Lethal Weapon, I suppose it's like saying the Sheriff is too old for this s***.

I saw the film tonight and was totally blown away. Not having read the book or knowing much about it, I have been wondering why call it No Country for Old Men, Brolin's character, though retired is not THAT old so to whom that does it allude to? That's when it hits you!

Oh and Jonathan, great point you made there too.

Beautiful cinematography and acting but undermined by a poor ending. The story makes an interesting point about the fragility of life and the lack of control that even resourceful characters like Moss have over their fate. However, subverting expectations can't add to a story past the point where this removes the very things the story relies on for its interest. The focus of the film was on Moss and Chigura's cat and mouse game which was building to a climax. A climax that happens off stage may help make a philosophical point but doesn't work dramatically, and stories should satisfy drama first and philosophy second.

Cheers Tim, excellently said and just what I felt. You've put it much better than I did.

Loved this movie, as for the ending, even though I hadnt read this full article but read enough to know that people dont think the ending was good, I went in with the expectation that the last 20 mins or so wasnt going to be good but sitting in the cinema I didnt think the ending was that bad and having read peoples comments now I think the ending wasnt as bad as I would have been lead to believe. Ill agree that it probably wasnt the best way to end the movie but Im sure there could have been worse ways to end it.

The major theme is GREED and its consequences (”there are no clean getaways”) and fighting with our conscience. It is NOT about death finding us. This is the point of the movie - move away from obsessing about death and instead look at the real root of all evil: GREED. Are you greedy? Do you fight with greed (Anton) in your mind?

Read the reasons below, rewatch the movie and everything will become clear!!! This is the one and only explanation of the movie.

There are two layers to this movie, the real part and the sub-conscious part:

Real Layer/Story: Moss finds some money beside dead Mexican drug dealers. He goes back to bring a dying Mexican some water but other Mexicans spot him (see his face/car) but lose him. However, they now know who he is via his rego plates – they go to his trailer park but he is not there so they track his wife around via the phone number of her mother (there is no tracking device (see below)). They find out where he is staying via his mother in law (helping her with her bags). When they do eventually find him they kill him in the hotel but do not find the money. Bell finds the money at the crime scene by checking the vents but he turns it in to the authorities (not shown but implied – see below). Carla Moss kills herself in grief after her husband’s funeral. Bell retires because he cannot make sense of all the greed and evil in the world (a good man like Moss dies because of it), he cannot seem to stop it (“There are no laws left”). In the dream he and his father try to bring ‘light to the darkness’ but in the end he ‘wakes up’ to reality.

Conscience Layer (see below for more explanation): Moss does not meet Anton for awhile into the movie. He initially has a cleanish conscience (i.e. going back to give the dying Mexican water). When Moss decides to run from the Mexicans instead of just leaving the money in his trailer for them to find and leave him alone, Anton (greed) focuses his attention on Moss and begins tracking him. There is no tracking device. The tracking device in Anton’s possession symbolizes Anton (greed) getting closer and closer from Moss’ sub-conscience to Moss’ conscience. Moss begins to understand that his wife will be in danger , he sees/realizes Anton/his greed, finding the phone list (which is actually the Mexicans finding the list in reality). He then discovers the tracking device at which point he meets Anton (greed) in his conscience. The next scenes are him fighting with greed in his conscience. He wounds greed (Anton) but does not kill him. Since greed is wounded you then see him talking to Carson Wells (his reasoning conscience) who says he might be able to help him and his wife if he just hands over the money (give up his greed). The hotel room across the street is Moss’ mind. There Anton (greed) kills Wells (his reasoning conscience). We then see Moss having a direct argument with his greed (Anton) and Anton says that it is Moss’ fault that his wife will now die – it was his choice (in his sub-conscious he thinks that the Mexicans will find her). Moss is then killed by the Mexicans but they do not find the money. Bell is not possessed by greed (you see him mirrored by Anton(greed) in the tv). Bell goes into the hotel room where greed (Anton) is potentially ‘waiting’ as the $2 million has not been found. He goes in there and sees the vent, he knows there is $2 million in there but he knows he won’t take it (the heads on the coin symbolizes he made the right choice) so he does not see greed (Anton) – presumably he turns the money in. Carla kills herself (meeting Anton (death/greed) was her husband’s fault). With his work done Anton finds some new ‘victims’ for greed when spots the kids on the bikes. He is wounded by the car crash so greed is wounded but then as he heals himself they begin fighting over the $100 bill (which in reality they probably found on the street – the cycle of greed begins again). Bell retires because he cannot make sense of the greed and death (we know he does not know greed), him and his father tried to shed light in the evil of the world but he ‘wakes up’ to reality that it will always be there (You can’t stop what’s coming).

Who is Anton?:
Anton is greed conscience. He is a ghost. He is not real. “Can you see me?” We have a choice to succome to greed (coin toss). He wears black/dark clothes.
Movie Poster Titles:
“You can’t stop what’s coming” (Anton). He survives the car accident and bullets but you can wound/slow him down.
“There are no laws left” (greed/Anton can’t be controlled by laws/by Bell it is up to the person).
“There are no clean Getaways” (greed/Anton eventually wins – greed has dire consequences)

Who is Carson Wells and what is the Business Office?
Carson Wells is the good/reasoning conscience of Moss. The meeting in the office is the reasoning part of Moss’ mind (the high rise office symbolizes his mind – the top of the building). The man behind the desk is Moss’ sub-conscience saying that he wants his good conscience (Wells) to stop his bad conscience (Anton). Wells (good conscience) names a date, 28th November last year, when he last met Anton (bad conscience) – possibly this was a time that Moss had conflict in his conscious before. Wells says he knows Anton “every which way”.
Moss talks to Carla on the phone and could end everything but instead insists on keeping the money. He says he has to find ‘him’ and she says “Find who?” She asks about the safety of her mother and Moss says she’ll be alright (he knows the Mexicans will find his Mother in Law). At this point Anton (greed) bursts into the office (Moss’ mind) and kills Moss’ reasoning part of his mind. The other character, accounting, is just another part of Moss’ mind probably accounting for his money. Moss knows in his mind that the Mexicans will find his wife (says the Mexicans were given a tracking device).

And there are many many more parts in the movie that support all this. Now watch the movie again and you’ll be going “Of course!” “Oh, that line makes sense!”
THE DEBATE ENDS HERE!

Matty, I haven't yet read your comment in full, but I will, and thanks for such lengthy and all encompassing input. However I have to pick up on one point straight away.

This is not the end of the debate, that's not only very closed minded to say so but the debates never end on Filmstalker and they are open to all, so everything feel free to carry on.

I'll read your comments and maybe come back with something to address them.

Yeah we love a good debate at Filmstalker, so thanks for joining in Matty!

I have to say what you just said there does make a lot of sense. I wouldnt mind watching this film again either.

Ive just been reading Mattys comment as well as reading other peoples comments about what the movie means. People are saying that other people are reading far too much into this movie and I agree, Matty Bedes comment being one of those people reading far too much into it. I believe that this is a movie about a guy (Moss) who sees a way to get out of his everyday rut, even if it is an immensly stupid way to do so ("Im about to do something dumber than hell"), gets chased by a bunch of guys both good and bad and eventually gets killed for taking the money. Yes there is symbolism in the movie and for that I think the bext explanation is on this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477348/board/nest/96299901

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Matty's comment there, it makes total sense, I'm totally in awe that all this has been lying ahead & with myself at least - unnoticed.

However as an everyday viewer, it is expecting a lot to see all that in a film, especially on first viewing .. & so though it's fascinating & will make me watch the film again, I'm also agreeing with Tim, they should have had some dramatic closure for those not seeking to look deeper - then, it would have been perfect.

Hmmm, interesting comments gents, but I don't think that the desire for a dramatic ending means that I don't wish to look deeper into a films possible metaphors. As a slightly (ok much..) younger bloke I tended to just enjoy shoot 'em up action movies. I still think that Leon, Die Hard and Aliens are copper bottomed classics, however one of the nicer surprises that I had as I got older was that I could enjoy the more cerebral fare too. With a little (but not too much) effort, an Ingmar Bergman movie's just as good a way to spend a couple of hours in the cinema as watching Bruce Willis kill off a skyscraper full of bad guys. Two of his best are Persona and Wild Strawberries. Persona's a tale of the clash between a charismatic and a weaker personality and what happens when the barriers between them start to break down. You actually have a sense that you're getting a deeper understanding of what it is to be conscious when you see this film. Wild Strawberries is a gentle road movie dwelling on the simple pleasures and sadness's of human life. Here's the thing though: the first film builds dramatic tension and then delivers a climax; no one gets shot but it's a climax nonetheless. The second film doesn't have a climax because the form of the story doesn't require it; the journey's more important than the destination. So intellectual meaning isn't incompatible with a dramatic climax and you don't need to have a dramatic climax to every film. However, what all films need in some way or other is a type of coherence and by using the form of the thriller to engage the audience but then abandoning it at the end, the Cohen brothers lost that coherence and 'No Country' is a lesser film because of it. Still, I can't argue with Mr Brolin that it's sparked some good discussions.

Tim, I had to read your last comment twice to make sure I got what you meant. ;) How young are you exactly? (You dont have to answer that question btw.)

Only 38. Not quite ready for my bus pass yet. The last comment might have laid it on a bit thick; I was really just trying to say that it's always possible to read a lot of meanings into a movie or any story for that matter. They may just be in the mind of the viewer or might have been intended by the film maker, but it's all besides the point in a way. The quality of the movie's story is mostly down to the core elements of characterisation and plot structure. Symbolism and metaphors , if they're there, are just icing on the cake, not the real substance.

You're older than me Tim! I'm 37. ;)

I must say that the new filmstalkers (like Tim here) are getting a little bit heavy for me, I love all these sharing, keep them going I am learning a lot from all of you guys!

I dont care about all the crying bitches who wanted the typical hollywood ending, i thought it was great, leaves something to the imagination, something most people dont have anymore.

Todd, park the aggressive writing at the keyboard please.

I don't believe anyone here wrote that they wanted the typical Hollywood ending, talking for myself I thought the ending was strong, it was the finale of the two characters in the hotel room that wasn't to my liking. If they had just spent a little more time and brought them face to face before ending it I think we'd have had more of a power and conclusion to it.

They wouldn't even have had to say anything, just sitting there and the camera fading out. After all they spent the time for the following meeting, why not that one? Why does not seeing any of it when the whole film has been building to it make it better?

I think that point is that you want someone to neatly tie the story together for you instead of having to figure it out for yourself.

Wrong Jesse, and it shows you haven't read the comments here correctly.

Let me repeat it again. The ending is strong, but the dramatic conclusion between the two characters played by Brolin and Bardem ends far too quickly and isn't resolved properly.

Now I don't mean I want them meeting, talking out the ending and then getting killed, but even a face to face as with Bardem and Harrelson would have been enough. Just sitting down together, a look and a line would have been enough.

The ending hospital scene with the phone call was not.