Talk:No Country for Old Men/Archive 1

Who will distribute this movie here?

This site says Vantage will distribute it here but imdb says that Miramax will distribute it here. Who is right? User:Oscar 22|Oscar 22 22:10 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Will this movie go to HDDVD or Blue Ray? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.245.234 (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not an issue anymore... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.15.169 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

It spoils the film and is the most poorly written garbage I've seen in my entire life. Can someone fix it? Tony Starks-Ironman 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not well written but I've reverted your edit. The earlier version was complete and accurate - we should rewrite the plot, rather than replace it a teaser. If you wish to revert my edit, go for it - but just consider that the plot section is meant for a plot outline, not a teaser. --Vince | Talk 18:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a {{spoiler}} template, but it may be deleted because it was listed for deletion and is currently under discussion. --Pixelface 20:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the template more appropriate here than any other film article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It cites a reliable source. --Pixelface 05:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. I've removed it in accordance with our guideline and current practice. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers???? to what? whoever wrote the 'plot synopsis' must have been on some kinda hallucinogenic, either that, or they're just plain full of $#@!. I've seen the film twice in two different cities and Brolin's character(Moss) never dies.... he in fact kills Bardem's character (Chigurh). So to whomever you are; what f'n movie were you watching???????? 66.178.151.9 13:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User 66.178.151.9 is absolutely right, the plot outline makes no sense. It implied that L. Moss is killed by the hit-man, when in fact its the other way around. I tried to remove and change the entire plot portion of the article, but someone keeps putting it back. I would strongly encourage people who have obviously NOT watched the film, to please refrain from adding anything else. Exiled421 (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This plot information is correct in regards to the film. I'm not sure if the novel is different.--Dynayellow (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Screenplay. Note page 104:

Sheriff Bell arrives. Moss is face-up, mostly inside the room. The new gunbag is next to him. The gun is in hand. He is (s)till.--Dynayellow (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

???? They must have made some last minute changes during the final editing. So I'm sorry Dynayellow, unless there are two versions of the film(which I doubt), then the plot summary in this article is false. Moss ends up besting Chigurh(which involves a very clever plot twist). The film opens in wide release on wed. nov. 21, so once again; I encourage all to go see this magnificent film. Exiled421 (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How strange. Perhaps you're right and there were changes, because in the version I saw (the opening Friday matinee of the limited release), the film ends with Chiguhr limping off after visiting Carla, right into the bit about Ed in retirement.--Dynayellow (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw the film at the Leeds film festival on Saturday 17 November and the ending is exactly as Dynayellow describes with Moss dead and Chiguhr disappearing after the car crash.Yorkshiresky (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I Concur. Exiled421, you don't need to worry about spoilers here, could you please describe the version that you saw? Because while the end was slightly confusing, the version in the screenplay is the one I saw, with Moss dying at the hotel. Perhaps you missed that and thought that the man in the car who hit Chigurh was Moss? ---Hemisemidemiquaver (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

FTA: "Chigurgh and the money are both in the room but he feels too old to confront him, hence the name of the movie." This is an interpretation, not specified in the movie. I did not get the impression that Sheriff Bell found Chigurh in the room; moreover in all other cases Chigurh made the decision on whether or not to start a confrontation. But I don't want to edit the article if I'm just dense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.212.175 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Part drama, part action adventure, the film more than studies evil, it meditates on it." Hahaha, in theatres everywhere <insert date>! Rated M for mature. Go buy tickets NOW! What is this garbage doing on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.178.225 (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments made about the plot on November 18, 2007 are not true. I saw the film the day after Thanksgiving, and it is exactly as described in the plot summary as it now stands. I have added some impressions of my own - I came away with the feeling that Moss's death wasn't clearly shown or explained after all, and for that matter, we never found out what happened to Carla. She and Moss simply seem to drop out of the story. The film is very anticlimactic, IMHO. AlbertSM (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing can stop a man of his word." Right ... aren't we supposed to judge that by ourselves? This is more of an ad than an article.

There are two things I have wrong with this article. First is the obvious problem of stating that Sheriff Bell's father died 20 years earlier. In the movie he says that his father was, in a sense, "the younger man" because he (Ed Tom) is 20 years older now than his father ever was. It's not really possible that he and his father were the same age. The other is regarding the hotel where Lewellyn was killed. I've seen the movie twice, and in what way does it ever imply that there are two different and adjacent rooms? My interpretation of that scene is that after the local sheriff told Ed Tom about Shigurh returning to a crime scene, he only *imagines* that Chigurh is still there, while in reality he is not. Those are two problems I have. monkeygra (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of Plot Summary Changes for AnmaFinotera, aka waste of space and time:

AnmaFinotera: 1. "Weapon of choice" ---> "unique weapon". The reason the phrase "weapon of choice", in the first paragraph, was changed to "unique weapon", is because this is not Chirgurh's weapon OF CHOICE!!! In the film, he only uses it once as a weapon; and that is out of necessity. His "weapon of choice" is a shotgun with a silencer. If you've actually seen the film, you'll notice that this is what's responsible for every other death that the audience witnesses Chigurh commit onscreen.

2. "Newfound massacre". "Newfound" massacre is to add consistency by placing an adjective in front of massacre, since there are numerous qualifying "massacres" throughout the film. The use of an adjective qualifies it as the original, desert massacre on which the film opens. 3. "In which a gang of mexicans.." ---> "as a gang of mexicans...". There is an "in which" elsewhere in the sentence: it sounds awkward. Example: I was driving in the car in which you had your first date in which you and your girlfriend partook. Sound nice to you? 4. With regard to the room and the blown locks, in paragraph 4: There was only ONE room with a blown lock in this scene. The camera initially frames two rooms, but zooms in on only one: the room where Moss was killed. This is the Room 114 - the same, and only room Bell is shown standing in front of, hesitating. The "two room" theory was advanced early after the films release, and propogated in literature on the internet, but has since been corrected. See the film again (or for the first time in your case) to clarify this concept. 5. The last sentence of the last paragraph was changed because it originally included a subjective interpretation of Bell's mental state. It was changed to state the objective, ostensible and measurable behavior of Bell, rather than speculate as to his mental state at the time of his narrative. 6. All the rest are necessary grammatical fixes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervox2113 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Weaponry

The article states

“ Chigurh uses a variety of weapons in the film, including a cattle gun. ”

In the previews, when he's got the cattle gun in one hand, what is the gun in the other? Chris 03:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In the film, it appears to be a shotgun with a silencer attachment. --Dynayellow 17:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can that really be done? I wonder. Chris 16:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if it can't, Chris, it's still pretty bad-*ss! -206.188.169.18 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In the novel, I believe Chigurh uses a coffee can lined with some sort of cloth material to absorb most of the sound. It's definitely a jury-rigged suppressor. I'm pretty sure this is do-able. WordsAmp (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is 100% possible to create a silencer for a shotgun, and yes, that was a 12 gauge, semi-automatic shotgun with a silencer attached on the end. Granted, it wasn't realistic, AT ALL, because a real life silencer would bring the noise of the shotgun down from Deafening, to Nearly Deafening (don't give me crap unless you've really heard silenced weapons in person before. I have, I've studied them, I know what I'm talking about). In the film though, it had the shotgun depicted as being practically dead silent. 71.207.138.63 (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead silent? No. More like a loud "kuh-plunk".

I'd say that your two main points are pretty much incorrect in their entirety - that a "real life" silencer would be incapable of total suppression and that it is 100% possible to create a shot-compatible silencer for a shotgun.

First, it is possible to create a near-silent firearm if the weapon is relatively closed to gas interchanges into the surrounding medium. I was an MP for two tours in Afghanistan and one in Iraq, and I have seen and used simple combinations of internal and external suppression that made the gas interchange quieter than the action of the weapon. Personally, I fire a Sig 9mm in a personal indoor home range, and was able to get a silencer from Baxton IWS (after a very long and arduous background check preformed by the state BCA and ATF) that makes the piece very, very quiet, similar to the noise made by a compressed gas pistol. In case you don't understand, that means FULLY SILENCED. While I have no doubt that you have some experience with suppressors, you apparently have not come into contact with any effective ones or you are not using weapons that are possible to silence due to design-intentional gas leaks from the action (such as a cheap semiautomatic pistol or revolver).

Further, while making an autoloader shotgun silenced would be well within possibility, the manner in which it is used in the movie makes ANY suppression impossible. Because the action of this type of weapon is gas powered, it is necessary for the rear action to be very closed off. The gas generated by the combustion of the cartridge would be internally redirected to load the next shell, quieting it enormously to begin with. The majority of the noise distributed following the round from the barrel could be easily quieted using conventional baffle methods. However, in the film, Chigurh uses shot with the silenced weapon, which would not be possible because the baffles would be completely destroyed after a single use. I assume when you say "100% possible" you infer that shot is used in your premise. The method I described above would only be possible given what I know about suppressors with a slug load, not with shot. So, after all that, consider crap given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.69.20 (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Get off your high-horse, 75.72.69.20. You don't say anything different than the guy preceding you, you merely restate his statement switching in and out the assumption of slug v. shot just to ride his ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.3.10 (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done a considerable amount of reading about silencer design, and this film's depiction of a silenced autoloader shotgun brought to mind a Paladin Press book entitled More Workbench Silencers, written by George M. Hollenback. This book has a chapter which reveals how one could build a silencer for the 12 gauge Maverick Model 88 bullpup-style shotgun from easily attainable materials. With an outer tubing made from PVC pipe, this shotgun silencer design is much longer and bulkier than the one depicted in the film. (Some of the silencers that I have seen in movies seem to just be too small to be effective from what I have seen; that's just Hollywood for you, I guess.) It is also designed for just 575 grain subsonic slug shell ammunition. The author does not state how much his design reduces the decibel level of this shotgun's muzzle blast, and since I have never built or seen this shotgun silencer used in reality myself, I can only wonder. Kepiblanc (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDb

I've removed the IMDb user rating per this -- such ratings are susceptible to votestacking, resulting in accurate slants. Transformers and 300 have been in the Top 200 of IMDb's films because of this. Bona fide polls would be much more suitable to determine fairly how the audiences liked it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jessie Collins?

I deleted the blurb about this Jessie Collins. It has no relevance to the production or release of the film. I've seen this increasingly in film/television articles and it's quite annoying: claims that some (obscure) actor/actress would have taken the role but other commitments stood in their way. Or they turned down the role outright only to regret it in hindsight. They read like thinly veiled attempts at free publicity by attaching their names to a well praised or highly successful film. "I was going to do it! I really was!" There's no easy way to validate these claims and even so, who cares? Who puts these in - the actor, agent or fans? I'm sure there were many who tried out for the various roles; shall we list them all? Unless it had some profound impact on the (pre)production of the film it is NOT relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.181.66 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ebert

The Roger Ebert citation keeps getting removed from this article. Are there some editors of this article that think Roger Ebert is not a reliable source? --Pixelface 11:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but it's irrelevant to the discussion of the film itself. (Also, to answer the question Ebert asks in his review: Chiguhr was hired by Stephen Root's character, and was given the transponder's tracker by the two men he killed at the scene of the shoot-out. I felt this was made rather clear in the film.)--Dynayellow 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. It's sourced analysis per WP:NOT#PLOT. It's verifiable information. --Pixelface (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"As good a film as the Coen Brothers have made." How does that necessarily qualify as praise? I could call Bride of the Monster "as good a film as Ed Wood ever made". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Put like that it doesn't sound very praiseworthy, however you cut the most important part of the sentence out "...and they made Fargo", without that context it doesn't have a fraction of the power. As Ebert described Fargo as one of the best films he'd ever seen it can only be described as high praise. Don't see how can you come away from reading his review without thinking that he's raving about it, the four stars he gave might be a bit of a giveaway too. Yorkshiresky (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler tag

I have placed a spoiler tag on this (talk) page. Where it can be argued that if you read the article page you can expect to find details of the plot, I don't think it can necessarily be expected on an articles talk page. As some important plot points have been raised in earlier discussion, it's only right to warn people of that fact. Yorkshiresky 12:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this talk page probably reveals spoilers. But the {{spoiler}} tag was recently deleted. --Pixelface (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs Down on this article

This article is uncritically approving of the film, and therefore biased. The film has a lot of problems. They really screwed up on the editing. Since the movie turns out in the end to have been about Sheriff Bell, they must have shot a lot of material that wasn't used, but should have been. Or maybe they didn't shoot it at all. As it stands the film has no point, or rather a very weak one due to the audience's lack of knowledge of, and consequently, sympathy for, Bell.

This article also fails to point out the many implausibilities in the plot. It's not plausible that a deputy would leave Chigurh with his hands cuffed in front of him, and sit down with his back to him, instead of throwing him in a cage.It's not plausible that Chigurh could murder a peace officer without triggering a statewide manhunt. It's not plausible that Chigurh could casually slaughter people in small towns for their vehicles and get away with it; of all small town types West Texans are the most suspicious of strangers. It's silly that Bell never thought to ask the trailer park manager if anyone was looking for Moss. Then he would have had a description of Chigurh from the beginning. It's not plausible that Chigurh could murder three higher-ups in a dope-running organization, and still be operating in the open, without being killed. It's intensely depressing that a mass murderer like Chigurh is still running around at the end of the film, and it's ludicrous that the police don't have a clue who this cop-killer is, or even what he looks like.

To the above might be added Bell's failure to realize that the cattle gun used by Chigurh as his favorite murder weapon ties together ties together the various crimes; and this fact is deliberately underscored by the film. First when told by his deputy that the first man killed was not shot he makes a joke about how unlikely that is, since the victim had a hole in his head, and dismisses the subject. Secondly, when meeting with Moss' wife he starts to tell a country-type story about slaughtering hogs, and mentions cattle guns. But when Moss' wife asks him why is he telling her this, he gets a perplexed look on his face and says "I don't exactly know". This unsigned message was posted by 72.79.184.142 on November 23, 2007.

i think he had his hands behind his back, he just slipped his arms underneath his legs. its not that hard as for the rest of your rant, the film does make sense, just not in the typical shootem up western where the bad guy dies the good guys win and get the girls. the film is just a little bit deeper then that.74.192.12.135 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please keep your opinions about the film to yourself. Your criticisms about plausibility, or the fact that you're not happy with the ending, do not belong here. If you think the article is biased, feel free to change it as much as you want. ----Hemisemidemiquaver (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No the fact that the summary does not mention the circumstances of the deputy's death, or the absence of a manhunt for Chigurgh, or any apparent attempt at retaliation by the dope-runners against Chigurgh after he kills their boss, or Bell's lackadaisical attitude about finding or even identifying Chigurh (who is, after all, a cop-killer), is in itself evidence of bias by the authors of this article. As for changing it, I have suggested here that it be changed, but I am am not going to attempt to impose my view if it is in a minority, and if it isn't, a better writer than I can do it.

What I am requesting is that some of the relevant circumstances of the film be added to the summary. For example, in the last paragraph above I have pointed out how the film specifically underscores both Bell's lack of interest in pursuing Chigurh, and his total cluelessness about the cattle gun.

Anyway, I thought the talk pages were FOR discussing proposed changes. Correct me if I am wrong.

The film isn't a procedural, and it's a mistake—esp. in this film—to assume that because we weren't shown something, it didn't happen.--Dynayellow (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In life if we are unaware of something, then for us, it didn't happen. In a film, if the creators don't even hint at or suggest a logical consequence of a situation, then for the audience, it didn't happen either. It has no effect on their emotional reaction to the film. Otherwise you could take selected moments from the life of a totally vicious person and make them into an average person. Imagine a film about Tony Soprano that edits out all the viciousness and just shows his love (such as it is) for his family, friends, good food and little children. As an audience we have to assume that the film maker is playing fair with us.

Is the film about Bell or Chigurh? I say it is about Bell. It starts with him, in voiceover. It ends with him and his dream about facing death.

The purpose of this article, including the plot synopsis, is not to pass judgment on the plausibility of the film's events.75.72.163.123 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fair to bring them up, though, if citations can be found. I just saw it tonight. The points raised earlier are valid. Ironically, given the alleged praise of the film by Ebert, while watching it those points made me think of a term that Siskel & Ebert used to use, "the idiot plot", i.e. something that doesn't make sense but is thrown in just to keep the film going. There were several in this one, never mind the deliberately pointless ending, which as the audience I don't care for, but that's how they wanted to end it. If citations can be found that raise these questions, then they are fair game. FYI, at the moment (3 months after the above) I think the plot summary reads pretty well. The "idiot plot" stuff would need to be in a separate section (probably under a more neutral heading). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article as it stands continues to remain unjustifiably biased in favor of the movie, given that the movie has negative issues pertaining to its grimness and its ending. --AB (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The film won the Oscar. Feel free to look for valid sources that speak to the issues you raise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true, about this article being in bias FOR the film. There's nothing in the article about the fact that this movie didn't make a lot of money and there are a lot of questions left unanswered at the end of the film. So many people left this film confused, shouldn't this article discuss this. It just sounds like someone wrote an article just to praise the movie that flopped big time int he box office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.57.85 (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

People, I'll repeat what others have said already: feel free to find sourced material and add it to the article. At least three editors have "criticized" the article for bias, but haven't bothered to enhance the article. This is Wikipedia: instead of complaining about the article, just start typing. Your efforts will be appreciated, as long as cites to credible sources are provided.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please,if you can find evidence that it was a 'flop' then put it in the article. However a domestic gross of ~$73 million dollar against a budget of ~$25 million would suggest that it wasn't. And that's before worldwide revenues, where it is still showing in several countries, is taken into acount. Yorkshiresky (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

After a thorough search it appears only two significant critics – Hunter and Rosenbaum – can be found who expressed misgivings about the film. Rosenbaum's views were already in the article. The opinions of Hunter, a Pulitzer Prize critic and successful novelist, should be there as well, and the Reception section has been expanded accordingly. I hope this quells the concerns of readers and editors that this article is biased.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't search very hard for dissenting reviews. Andrew Sarris, quite a significant critic, also wrote a negative review: http://www.observer.com/2007/just-shoot-me-nihilism-crashes-lumet-and-coen-bros. Furthermore, you should take a look at a non-significant critic, John Puccio, who has written probably the best negative review of NCFOM: http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/no-country-for-old-men/5687. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.3.10 (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the other reviews. Both seem very similar in content to Hunter's: both acknowledge the skilled craftmanship, and both say they don't like it. To add specifics would not add anything new to the article. Even Puccio admits his "is a minority report". Sarris's review is more an indictment on McCarthy's story rather than the film. Given that there are six supporting reviewers and two "didn't-like" reviewers specifically quoted in the article, I think the NPOV guidelines are met. If we were to add more "negative" material, then I'd be compelled to add more "supporters", given the overwhelming positive reception this film received (and continues to receive).
Jim Dunning | talk 14:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone concerned with NPOV read Puccio's review. Contrary to Dunning's glib summary above, Puccio goes into great detail about what he feels was wrong with NCFOM, info which does not currently appear in this article. Summarizing dissenting reviewers as simply saying "they don't like it", is pure POV, as is implying that *only* two notable reviewers gave a thumbs down. Make good on your threat to add more positive reviewers if you must, but stop delegitimizing the neg reviewers. Btw, pointing out the *fact* that RottenTomatoes classified Rosembaum's pan of NCFOM as a positive review is not original research, not any more than pointing out the *fact* that Rosenbaum's review is a pan is original research. If you refuse to leave that in, you should then take out the reference to RT's 94% positive ratings, since they are obviously not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.3.10 (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article: that is what WP is about. Without being "too glib", I have other things to do than jump to your croaks (lol). I'm sorry if my statements appear threatening; not my intention, just my opinion. For whatever reason, 76.238.3.10, you hesitate to edit, but are unhappy when someone disagrees with your conclusions about the material you point us to. Feel free to disagree with my opinions, I welcome it and learn from it; however, in the time you've taken to research and add about 200 words here, you could have accepted the option I and others have repeatedly reminded you of and done some work on the article. We look forward to your contributions. Happy editing! (As for the RT/Rosenbaum item, that observation would be more suitable in the article about Rotten Tomatoes than in NCfOM. I don't think that what could very well be some web page coding error has much significance to this article, especially since no one has represented Rosenbaum's review as being anything than what it is.)
Jim Dunning | talk 18:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What type of dogs are in No Counrty for Old Men?

I think they are Cane Corso's but not sure.172.162.65.123 (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pitbulls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.135.113 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

American Terriers AKA Pittbulls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.234.161 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitman?!

So Chiguh is interpretated as a killer with somebody behind him. In the story and the film there isn't any. He is beyond!

Not even god is visable. He acts in a lonly manner and there is no direct cause or an organization he represents.

A killer, a murderer a pschycopath or a transformend pocahonta, but a hitman would relate and his magic means he doesn'T. Is there any hint for the mafia or something I haven't understood?! He believes in or so?!--Hum-ri (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Differences and themes

The statement in the article's "Difference from . . . " section that a thematic thread has been removed from the story during adaptation is unsourced, and may also be inaccurate. It seems that the Coens kept the adultery temptation in with Moss's encounter with the woman at the motel's pool. Different in detail from the hitchiker, but same in circumstances and outcome. This should be removed if no source can be found.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, isn't the original novel a valid enough source? unless (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not in this case. WP editors cannot compare the two works (novel and film) to identify differences. This is original research and violates WP:NOR. But if a credible source (critic, reviewer, etc.) has identified a difference, then that can be considered for inclusion in the article. The key is that we editors cannot make the comparison; that is disallowed analysis.

One other thing is that WP film editors frown on just listing differences between the original work and its adaptation. It is established that changes are made when translating a book to the screen for all sorts of reasons (budget, actors, length, etc.); we expect there to be differences. Many times these just become trivia lists that include things like, "In the novel Maria's hair was red, but in the movie her hair was black." Now unless the color of Maria's hair has a significant impact on the storyline or symbolism or themes, then what's the point of mentioning it? In this article the situation where Moss is tempted to cheat on his wife may be significant in both works (I think it is in the movie, but I can't say for the novel since I haven't read it, BUT my opinion doesn't matter since I can't make the connection: a critic or other credible source must). So unless someone can find a source that identifies that contrast, it can't be included in the article.

And even if there is someone that can be quoted as saying it is a difference, is it significant enough to mention? My take, based on the description as it stands in the article, is that the Coens retained the temptation situation, but just switched the setting from the interior of a car to poolside at the motel. That doesn't strike me as a significant difference, so I'd be surprised if a source can be found for that analysis. (On the other hand, if Moss had given into the temptation at the poolside, that might be worth finding a source for so it could be mentioned.) Hope that helps.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did find one reference to the removal of the hitchhiker character by a reviewer who gave the film a more-than-cursory treatment. Kenneth Morefield at ChristianAnswers.net noted it in a way that leads me to believe that there is a difference between the characterization and intent of the hitchhiking and poolside scenes. He says, "There were some minor changes to the source material, including the elimination of a female hitchhiker that I suspect was made to make Moss more sympathetic. These should not bother fans of the novel too much, but I think they will ultimately make the ending harder to accept and understand for those who—reasonably in my mind—have seen three quarters of a straight genre flick and may be miffed by a change of gears in the last act."[1] Note, however, that although the difference does change the perception of the Moss character, he says it was a "minor change", so there still isn't a source that would describe the possible change as significant (I looked all over for one). Consequently, I'm removing the paragraphs; someone can replace the material if and when credible sources are found.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Awards list

For the second time I've converted/reverted the extensive list of awards nominations/wins to a prose style. The list content is impressive and the effort and interest that went into compiling the list is similarly impressive, but the article doesn't need it. What WP is not has numerous references that argue against inclusion of this format for the awards. "[E]xcessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia . . . ." and "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles," are just a couple. Also, when the awards list was initially added (thank you, by the way, for flagging the need for mention of the awards), it was completely unsourced: Even lists are subject to WP:Verifiability. When the list was converted into prose, references to credible sources were added by others for the noteworthy awards; unfortunately, when the list was re-added all the the sourcing was removed.

If the anon IP feels the list format is important to the article, the editor should discuss it on this Talk page before revising.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

UK release

Does anyone know if and when No Country for Old Men will get a nationwide UK release? At the moment it seems to be limited to select theatres (cinemas).

Bloody boots

Copy to the effect that Chigurh "leaves the house, carefully checking the soles of his boots, which he is shown doing at other times, because he does not like to get is victims blood on him," or that he has just "killed Carla Jean" keeps being added. It is usually removed by other editors who point out that this is interpretation on the part of the viewer/editor. Which it is: the viewer has no way of objectively determining whether Carla Jean is dead or alive when Chigurh leaves; we do not see her body, we do not hear anything indicating violence, and we can't see what Chigurg is looking at on his soles. Certainly, I, as a viewer, might be pretty sure Carla was unlikely to participate in the "traveling quarter" game and Chigurh followed through on his promise to Llewelyn. However, what we see would also support "Carla Jean throws her hot tea in Chigurh's face and escapes out the back door" just as well. And Chigurh is checking to see if there's tea on his boots.

So on the off-chance that the (mostly) anonymous IPs that keep adding personal interpretations to the article read this Discussion page first, this is why this original research is consistently deleted.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed that bit once; had not noticed that it has been inserted multiple times. The last is obvious OR; and I don't recall earlier boot checks, although he did avoid Woody's blood. I'm still meaning to pick-up the book. --Jack Merridew 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The book makes it clear that she is killed (after losing the coin toss); hence alot of people are interpreting the boot checking scene is that Chigurh murderered her and is consequently checking for blood (which also makes thematic sense, but as you stated the scene is arguably open to interpretation for the viewer). Qjuad (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm new here to this article. Setting aside the discussion of Chigurh looking at his boots, what the article doesn't mention is the prevalence of shoe, foot, boot and tracking imagery in the movie -- it creates a thread of continuity and a certain fresh viewpoint. 842U (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting perspective. Feel free to locate a reliable source that has also noted it so that its addition to this article isn't the original research of a Wikipedia editor, and ensure it is cited appropriately. Thanks for the interest in improving this article
Jim Dunning | talk 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet a personal interpretation implies subjectivity, as in, an imposition of personal opinion where factual displays only should occur. Now, if there is any possibility whatsoever that this is a wrong interp, then you are right to delete. But correlating a manifestly obvious symbol with its blatant meaning is not a matter of "personal interpretation". For example, in "Of Mice and Men", one does not see George shoot Lenny nor does one see the body. One only hears the gun go off. Maybe George misses or loses heart. Either possibility is of course asinine. And so is sticking only to facts that are spoonfed. The purpose of the article is not just to summarize but to explicate the film -- and here is where we agree -- on an objective level. I suggest that you are the one imposing your own personal interpretation of what you think cannot be posted. Please consider this before throwing out my and others' valid contributions to an article we all care about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.184.169 (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your frustration is understandable to me, since I too believe Chigurh is checking for Carla's blood. However, calling other editors "overtly retarded" is not going to help achieve consensus on this point. The Plot section is not an "explication" of the film's story; it is an objective description of the observed events of the film, easily verifiable by watching it (and validated by Consensus). Explication is an "explanation" of the plot's content, something we clearly don't want to do in this section. Inclusion of an interpretation of this event in the film is clearly in dispute; that is why this topic was initiated on this Talk page. So let's talk instead of calling other well-intentioned editors names.

Your point that the boot-checking is "blatantly" symbolic of Chigurh looking for evidence may be valid enough to include the "blatant" explanation in the Plot description. I don't know if the boot-checking is a symbol, but if it is, then I'm even more leery because symbols are so often open to many interpretaitons. But since there are a number of other editors who believe the action is not "blatant" enough, we must find another way to address the disagreement. Plot guidelines does offer a solution: "An exception to this rule may be films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources." So let's provide a credible, secondary source (such as a reviewer or critic) that offers that "explanation", include that interpretation in the Plot and cite it. The article will be all the better for it. (Actually, finding conflicting interpretations and addressing them in a non-Plot section would be even better: the issue would receive a more complete treatment, thus benefiting the readers.)

I am reverting your recent edit for two reasons: to remove the rude remark embedded in the html comment, and because the majority of editors seem to agree with omitting an unsourced interpretation. The direct and more fruitful solution is to include information from secondary sources rather than focusing on only one interpretation (which is what putting in the "blatant" explanation would do).
Jim Dunning | talk 15:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just an additional observation about "obvious" events. Jumping off from your Of Mice and Men argument, couldn't I validly argue that since there is no gunshot in NCfOM then Chigurh didn't kill Carla (or similarly, there's a reason the Coens didn't explicitly show Carla being killed)?
Jim Dunning | talk 16:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(I should try to think of these things all at once.) On further thought, even if reliable sources supporting one or more interpretations of Chigurh's action are found, I would urge against including multiple "explanations" in the Plot section. There is no way to know for sure whether Chigurh kills Carla; too may factors involved (themes of fate and chance, did she eventually agree to a coin flip and win/lose, did Chigurh step in spilt tea, lack of gunshot, no explicit scene when it would have been easy to include it, etc.). And since it's likely that the possible Carla-fates (as well as the uncertainty itself) have a significant impact on treatment of McCarthy's and the Coens's themes, production development, and adaptation, a decent treatment of the uncertainty/ambiguity of the act will require more space than is appropriate in the Plot section. Limiting to a single "explanation" or expanding to all the possible "explanations" will do the article and readers a disservice. Therefore, any sourced material addressing the meaning or analysis of the action should be placed in another section (Themes, Reception, Production, etc.).
Jim Dunning | talk 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim: look, i know everyone is doing this voluntarily, and that is why wiki is beautiful. but honestly, this is whole discussion is taking a very low intellectual turn. i dont just mean you particularly as much as this general inability to interpret rules. the rule is there to ensure the summary is a matter of truth and not a matter of opinion. what in god's name do you think the odds are that anton leaves carla alive after she refuses to call the coin? if you really think he leaves without killing her despite her not calling the coin and you think his checking his boots is just a coincidence, then i cannot help you. you see? i the spirit of the rule is that only what we're certain of is considered summary. anyone worth their salt is certain that anton kills carla.

to go back to of mice and men, according to these ridiculously tight readings, one could not summarize the climax as 'george shoots lenny.' one would instead be restricted to, 'george has lenny talk of rabbits. the camera pans off of lenny. george shoots the gun. lenny falls silent. it is unclear whether lenny actually dies as we do not see the shot enter or view an autopsy report.' so please, you are intelligent and strike me as typically reasonable. open your eyes and allow an obviously correct assertion to remain. otherwise, wiki contributors are only robots. you can be objective without being a robot. Mitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.184.169 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In the 1992 film version of "Of Mice and Men", with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich, George is clearly seen shooting Lennie. There is also a 1939 film version, and although they don't actually show the bullet hit him in that one, you do see George fire a gun, and you hear Lennie's body drop. The reaction of the others afterwards (in the 1939 film) also clearly indicates that George has killed Lennie. AlbertSM (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1939 they might not have shown it due to Hays Office restrictions. Violence was often portrayed "off-screen" then. As regards my reaction to this film, seeing it tonight for the first time, not having read the novel, and my only other information about the film being what I saw on Oscar night, I cannot say with certainty that he killed her. Fair enough? If the book says he killed her, then maybe that point could be made in the book's plot, if not here, thus compelling the article's reader to look in two places. Otherwise, the plot summary as of a little while ago is purely factual; it merely says he left the house and checked his shoes. That's enough information to infer what happened - and it's as much information as the film's viewer has. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

. . . and vent covers

The Plot description currently addresses Chigurh's recovery of the money with, "After seeing that a vent cover in the room has been removed (suggesting that the money is gone), Bell leaves unharmed." I don't think we want to say "suggesting" since this more than implies editorial interpretation (unless a source is referenced). So, do we state Chigurh gets the money back, or alternatively leave any reference to the money recovery out? Another route would be to introduce Llewellyn's favorite hiding place earlier in the description and then just state that Ed Tom sees the open vent and let the reader (as the audience did) draw her/his own conclusion, or is that unnecessary detail since the money is nearly a McGuffin? Thoughts?
Jim Dunning | talk 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I edited this portion of the plot, forgive me if it was not appropriate but this is my 1st edit on Wiki and I was quite bothered with the straight-forwardness of the plot. There is a lot more to this movie than what has been explained, so I simply added another "suggestion" in parenthesis (" - or that the money was in process of being retrieved by Cigurh"). I've seen this move several times, and even though we don't really know what happened to the money satchel, I gave it quite a bit of thought. My rationale is: 1. There's a high probability that the vent cover was disassembled by Chigurh; 2. Chigurh is present at the hotel when Bell arrives, so the potential scenarios are that Chigurh was in the process of checking the vent when Bell arrives, or Chigurh already checked the vent and grabbed the cash (or not) and was in the process of leaving. The more I think about it the more I feel that: 1. Chigurh was in the process of retrieving the money while Bell arrived, and once Bell noticed the A/C vent was disassembled he either: 1. Realized Chigurh was there and let it go and walked away (since he's out of his juristiction and didn't want to get too involved); or 2. Bell went into the vent and may have found the satchel at which it triggered a confrontation w/ Chigurh (who just wanted the money), or 3. Bell found nothing (satches was already snatched up by Chigurh or Mexicans or wrong hiding place) at which Chigurh realizes this too and leaves in peace soon after Bell does. There's just too much foreshadowing at the end of this movie (with Bell) for one to simply assume that nothing happened at the hotel btwn Bell and Chigurh. What do you think? Am I reading too much into this? 08:25, 31 January 2008, Eli

The plot sections on wikipedia must, by nature, be straight-forward, reporting only what is seen and heard in the film. It must not include personal interpretations or suppositions as to the meaning of the plot. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the suggesting implies personal interpretation or guesswork. That part needs some rewording. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jim Dunning revisions: Jim Dunning: I have noticed you tend to edit the article regularly and I believe you deserve an explanation as to why your edits are being reverted.

First, this sentence: "Once inside the room, Bell sees that the vent cover has been removed by someone using a dime as a screwdriver, indicating that the money has probably been removed by someone." -Is it really necessary to state that the money has been removed by someone? Since "someone" removed the vent cover, as indicated by the sentence, who, or what else would have removed the money? It is rather redundant, unnecessary, and even clumsy to state that the money has been removed by "someone". This is something most people can probably figure out for themselves.

2nd: "Bell examines the room, observing that the bathroom window is locked, but does not encounter Chigurh, who quietly leaves while Bell was checking the bathroom. Bell then leaves the hotel room without any incident." -For this sentence, while there is really no point in mentioning that Bell sees the window is locked, I suppose it can be left in the article. However, there is no evidence in the Film that Chigurh "leaves while Bell [is] checking the bathroom". While you may have drawn this inference, an equally likely inference is that Chigurh remains behind the door, in the shadows, and is never seen by Bell. Because there is no visible evidence either way, it is incorrect to report this as if it is fact.

3rd: "Some time later Bell visits his Uncle Ellis (Barry Corbin), an ex-lawman. Bell is planning to retire due to his weariness of the changing times, but Ellis points out that the region has always been violent, and accuses Bell of "vanity" in thinking that he could not personally make a difference." -Ellis accuses Bell of vanity for thinking he could not make a difference? Do you really think admitting failure is a sign of vanity? Does one often accuse self-depricating people of vanity? Think about it: Ellis is accusing Bell of vanity because Bell thinks he can make a difference; Ellis is trying to convince Bell that nature, and the way things have always been, are bigger than Bell is, and that it is vanity for Bell to think that he can influence, or change them.

4th:"As Chigurh drives away he is injured in a car accident and his left arm is badly broken; he manages to leave the scene before the police arrive. " -This is a case of both redundancy and improper English sentence mechanics (i.e. grammar). Why say, "[Chigurh] is injured in a car accident and his left arm is broken? By substitution, this is the same as saying: "Chigurh was injured in a car accident, and he was injured." Even if the rendundancy were not in itself the egregious part of this sentence, the sentence mechanics offend the rules of sentence construction in English. Because Chigurh is the subject of the sentence, it is improper to make his left arm the subject of the sentence after the conjunction "and". "And"is used to add additional information to the original subject of a sentence, not to add additional subjects and corresponding predicates to a single sentence (e.g., "A man got in the car and started it and drove it away and was injured", not "The man got in the car and the car was red and a kid was riding his bike and Melvin has three fingers"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ol'Bacardi151 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw the film for the first time tonight (probably the last time also, but that's another story) and I cannot say with any kind of certainty what happened to the money. The viewer who has seen it several times cannot say either, apparently. So it must be conceded that there is no information in the film that tells what happened to the money. If the book says what happened to it, that point should be in the book's plot if someone is curious. And Mr. Dunning is absolutely right about the "MacGuffin", as it is exactly what I was thinking while watching the film. The guy who took the satchel didn't even bother looking through it until much later (more of the "idiot plot" that I referred to earlier) but the story is more about morality than anything else. I was thinking back to Psycho where the detective said the swamp got the money - it was a crime of passion, not profit. Same deal here, in some sense. It's more about these guys trying to prove their manhood than it is about some object. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that Chigurh got the money because he paid the boys with a large bill, most likely taken from the cash he recovered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.108.54 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Genre

I gave this movie a Horror Category but it was removed. It is about a psychopathic killer on a mission who kills anyone who gets in his way. Comments invited - BuffaloBob (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Find a credible, significant source that supports the classification and merge it into the article appropriately. Don't forget to cite it. You may have a challenge on your hands, though, since the horror fiction depends heavily on the supernatural; if anything, the supernatural — good or evil — is absent from this film (just my opinion, not that it matters).
Jim Dunning | talk 03:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If anything, I'd call it neo-noir, neo-western thriller. I don't dare to make the edit though, even though Google will show numerous sources supporting it. Movies aren't my area of expertise on Wikipedia. I'll leave it to the veterans. --Tetris L (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

While the film is often cited as belonging to the Western genre, it does not fit thematically into the genre (see Wikipedia's entre on Themes in the Westerns page). Nor is it a horror film, as not only are there no supernatural elements but the film does not attempt (nor succeed) in eliciting fear from the viewer. While I may argue the film is thrilling (and thus fit into the thriller genre), this is relatively subjective and thus the film should be categorized simply as a Drama. Talexander1183 (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Top 10 list

I don't hide my lack of support for the list format vis-a-vis the success of the film on top 10 lists. And although I think the two sentences leading off the section is the best direction, should we be concerned that the two cites supporting the position that the film was on the most lists are to a blog containing no source info? Or that only about 10% of the list is sourced?
Jim Dunning | talk 23:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about criticstop10.com (I didn't add that to the section), but most of the list is sourced to Metacritic, and I placed that citation at the very beginning. I also cited two AP critics and knew of a more specific cite for Roger Ebert, but the rest of them can be found at Metacritic (apart from Cole Dabney, which has a citation but could maybe be excluded). I could name the Metacritic ref and cite it multiple times if you'd like. I have seen mention of moviecitynews.com in film articles and that site apparently collects alot of top ten lists, and I believe most of them have direct urls. That's another place one could research the most top ten lists claim. --Pixelface (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cited Metacritic several times. --Pixelface (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The plot explanation must reflect the complexity.

It seems to me that the people who wrote this plot as it is now are more concerned about interpreting the movie, and advocating their own opinions, and trying to explain the story to themselves and to everybody.

The movie is obviously unclear and uncertain. Myself, I have the impression that Moss did not die... Am I the only one??... I've seen other persons in doubt, doesn't this controversy deserve to be noted?...

Perhaps it's the time for us to assume that there is no clear understanding of this movie's story. It's a deep intellectual movie, and deserves to be treated as so.

Also, the article is giving too much attention to some details of the story without apparent reason. It should be more homogeneous... -- NIC1138 (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The current plot summary is too vague. This one is better: http://www.ruinedendings.com/film7088ending 18.172.5.101 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A good writeup, but conjectural. The 100 that the assassin gave the kid could have been his own. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Moss did not die?!? Then why did Sheriff Bell take off his hat when Moss's wife Carla finally arrived at the motel in El Paso? And did the local sheriff say that he was sorry that they could help "his boy"? WFP, 9:39PM, 12 April 2008

Awards

Won the Producer's Guild, Writer's Guild and Director's Guild top prizes - should include those. This makes it the prohibitive favorite to win Best Picture - only film to win those and not win Best Picture was Brokeback Mountain. JAF1970 (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Motel room at night, Chigurh and Bell

The description of the scene in which Bell returns to the motel room where Moss died has changed incrementally over the past weeks. Some of the changes have focused on perceived uncertainty on whether: (1) Bell sees Chigurh in the shiny surface of the blown lock; (2) Chigurh is actually inside Moss's room or one nearby; (3) if Chirguh is in the room when Bell enters, does he remain there.

The second time I saw the movie -- aware of these questions here at WP -- I paid close attention to the scene. It's clear Chigurh sees Bell in the reflection, so he must be on the other side of the door to Moss's room. It could be possible for Bell to see Chigurh in the reverse reflection, but if he did you'd think that he would act differently when he enters (admittedly with great apprehension), so it's apparent Bell doesn't actually see him. What happens to Chigurh once Bell is in the room is uncertain. Showing Bell examining the locked bathroom window certainly tells us Chigurh didn't exit that way, so it's possible he's either still hiding in the dark room or slipped out the door while Bell was in the bathroom. Also, I saw fit to clarify in the description that the significance of the open vent is apparent only to the audience, not Bell.

I saw the film three times, and the above description exactly matches my perception of the scene. Bell showed no sign of seeing Chigurh's reflection, and would not have been capable of seeing it as the interior of the room was darker than the outside. The only ambiguity is whether Chigurh remained behind the door or slipped out while Bell was examining the bathroom. My opinion is that Chigurh left the room, as I think he would have killed Bell once he saw that Bell was lingering in the room, but of course that's just personal interpretation. --65.6.97.12 (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we won't have a definitive description until the DVD comes out, but other perspectives are welcome here.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I felt that it was pretty clear Chigurh was in the same room as Bell; as Chigurh was looking down at the lock we see Bell's reflection. Wikifried (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm not sure why this is such a confusing issue for everyone. First of all, there is only ONE room and ONE lock that are involved in the El Paso Motel encounter between Bell and Chigurh. This is room 114 of the Motel (this is possible a tribute to Kubrick's cRm. 114 phenomenon but that's another story). This is the ONLY room that is at issue: Moss is lying dead there earlier during the day (we can tell this because Rm. 117 can be seen to Bell's right as Bell stands in front of Moss's body, ordering the occupants of the room to the left to call the police. When Bell returns to the room later that evening, there is a blood spot on the carpet in Room 114 from where Moss was lying dead. The light which catches part of Chigurh's face on the inside of the motel room door is diffusion from the external fixture between rooms 114 and 117. When Bell enters the room, he swings the door open and it does not hit a wall or anything else, but softly impacts (makes a a dull "thud" on) the far wall and then does not move. The film leaves unanswered whether Chigurh remains behind the door until Bell leaves, or whether he leaves the room at some point in the interim. Because there are NO visual cues as to what becomes of Chigurh when Moss enteres the room, it is inappropriate to comment in the article as to whatever speculation one personally, as a viewer, has drawn.Ol'Bacardi151 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. The film provides no information on how "Sugar" (how's that for an ironic name?) got out of the room, we only know that he did. So why didn't he kill Bell when he has no hesitation killing anyone? More of the "idiot plot", maybe? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

People find this scene confusing because they make assumptions. The action is designed to make the audience think that Chigurh is behind the door that Bell opens. He isn't. Get the DVD and pay attention. As the door swings open when Bell enters the room, you can clearly see that Chigurh isn't behind the door. It thumps against the wall because there's no Chigurh there. The bathroom window is locked to show that he didn't escape that way. The details of the action are subtle, but if you pay attention you'll see that Chigurh isn't in the room and, in particular, isn't behind the door.
Y'all are assuming that since Chigurh is shown behind a door, it must be the room that Bell is entering. That would be generic and unimaginative. Chigurh is in the room next door. Both locks have been shot out between Bell's two visits. Look closely when he drives up the second time. The door to the right. Yes, Chigurh's behind a door. He's just not behind the door that Bell's going to open.
Now a little speculation. If Chigurh was in the room, he would just shoot Bell, make sure he was dead, pick up any spent shells and leave. He is not threatened by law enforcement in any way. --P. Brown (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what people are overlooking in this discussion is Chigurh's portrayal as a "ghost" at various times in the film. He may be in the room, he may be in the room next door, or it may be the visualization of Bell's fear in imagining Chigurh lying in wait. What is most important is the surface effect that Chigurh seems simply to disappear when Bell enters the room. If Chigurgh were slipping out the door we should see his shadow; the cinematography makes a point of showing Bell's multiple shadows from the headlights. Yet Chigurh could be in the room; he need not kill Bell because he only kills people who see him ("That depends. Can you see me?"). The effect of this scene is similar to that of certain events in Bergman's "Fanny and Alexander": it is surreal. It can be explained in various ways but the surreal effect on the viewer is more important. You often find a scene like this as an understated subclimax to the Coen brothers' films—the fall in "The Hudsucker Proxy", the moment of recognition in "Raising Arizona", the hotel fire in "Barton Fink". 71.178.203.249 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Several Questions

not sure if this is the place to be asking, perhaps it could be detailed in the synopsis though?

1. how does everyone know that llewelyn is going to el paso?

2. when chigurh is at the hotel in del rio, he opens the door once slowly, flips on the light, then closes the door. he then opens it again quickly and flips the light on again.

3. why does llewlyn put the money in the vent in one room, then try to take it out through another room?

Wikifried (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not the place 194.168.3.18 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

i believe putting the answers in the synopsis would be useful, thanks Wikifried (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless those answers provide some significant information to the Plot description (not synopsis), then the article isn't the place to address those details. For example, the detail that the Mexicans find out from his mother-in-law where Moss is going does not appear to be all that important, just the fact they find out is. And when Moss has to get the satchel from the vent from another room because the Mexicans are in the original one, this is a minor detail, and not key to describing the story in broad strokes.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer the original questions:

1. The Mexican gang knows that he is going because the "well dressed" man learned it from Carla Jean's mother while helping her with her bags. Bell knew because Carla Jean told him on the phone, and Chigurh presumably knew only after Moss was dead.

2. Chigurh enters the room twice because he wants to see what it will look like when he enters the room where he kills the three Mexicans - their room is set up exactly like his. He also looks around in the bathroom of his own room before going, and he feels the thickness of the closet wall (he shoots through the closet wall in the Mexicans' room because he had seen that there was enough room for a man to hide there). All of his actions in his own room are in preparation for his attack on their room.

3. He puts the money in the vent in one room, but takes it out through another because he saw that the Mexicans had already infiltrated his original room - remember the scene where he tells the taxi driver to keep going? He knew that someone had already found him there, so he had to get the case out another way. 71.230.191.24 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Priority Scale

I see this is still listed as mid-importance on the priority scale, surely as an Academy Award winner it should be rated high or even top? Yorkshiresky (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate since inadequate time has passed for perspective. Just because it received these Oscars doesn't automatically make it very, very important (even with all the critical acclaim). Remember Chicago? I'd like to see it marinate a bit.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should he be called "Llewelyn" or "Moss" throughout?

In the movie he's called "Llewelyn". It is jarring to keep reading about "Moss". I think it should be changed throughout to "Llewelyn". Tempshill (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"MOSS". The positive side of using "Moss" is that it is one syllable, not three, which does not leave the reader as tired from redundant appearance of this name throughout the article. Also, it adds consistency to the article, as all the other characters are referred to by their last names (with the exception of Carla Jean, to distinguish her from Llewelyn Moss). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ol'Bacardi151 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical error

If the page were not locked, I'd fix this, but in the article it says, "Uncle Ellis (Barry Corbin), an former sheriff" when it should read "Uncle Ellis (Barry Corbin), a former sheriff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.78.56 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. To avoid the editing block on this article, feel free to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wendell

I changed his description from "slow-witted" to "inexperienced", since he never came off as dumb, just green. - Dancemotron (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Home media release and revisions

The DVD is released today so a flurry of revisions and other contributions will likely occur. Editors are advised to review discussions on this Talk page before making changes, and, since the article is already well-sourced and has received a lot of excellent attention, to feel free to discuss significant changes here first. I'm sure a number of clarifications will now be possible, but please guard against "plot bloat": not every detail and plot twist and turn should be in the plot description.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-wording needed

The following sentence is in need of a re-wording:

"Not only is No Country for Old Men a "doggedly faithful" adaptation of McCarthy's 2005 novel, it revisits themes Ethan and Joel Coen have used in Blood Simple and Fargo."

First of all, to be grammatically correct the sentence has to read "Not only ... (but) also". Also, the verb has to be the same in both clauses (i.e. "Not only is X y, but it is also z") so concepts of it being and revisiting do not balance. However the main problem is that the two notions, that the movie is faithful to the source novel and revisits themes in coens brothers movies, are not related or equatable. However, I couldn't come up with a way to reformulate the sentence that didn't entail rehauling the whole paragraph and its meaning, so I wondered if anybody had a good suggestion here? I guess that the notion is that the movie not only incorprates themes from mccarthy's book, but also from earlier coens movies; or perhaps that the movie is not only faithful to mccarthy's book, but also to a themeatic thread running through their own movies? i'd love to hear your uggestions, as otherwise i think this is a pretty good article. peace Warchef (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

how moss found the money.

Moss didnt just stumble upon the money, it was a series of events. Notice when he shot the dear, he went down and looked at its blood trail and noticed another trail of blood that crossed with the dear, he saw a dog limping away. being the hunter that he is he traced the dogs track back to the scene and this is where he stumbles on the slaughtered mexicans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooterthecat (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ATM.

If this movie was set in 1980, then why did Woody Harrilson say that he and the good could go down to the ATM and get $14k? Were there ATMs in 1980?? I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ATMs have been around since even before 1980. They certainly started a growth spurt around 1980, if not a bit before.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit, what is Jim Dunning NOT an expert in?!

Nonetheless, you've never been able to withdraw that much money from an ATM. 71.178.203.249 (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico/ Las Vegas

The article says that the movie was filmed in New Mexico, and primarily there in Las Vegas. Pardon this Canadian, but I thought LV was in Nevada. So where is the screw up? Forseti11 (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. This is Las Vegas, New Mexico. That's okay: I'm still trying to figure out how you Canadians completely surrounded part of the United States.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alleged "post-ending"?

An alleged new or "post-" ending has been added to the Plot section twice, the editor asserting that it has appeared after the credits in some of the theatrical showings (I'm assuming it's the same editor adding it both times since the two anon IPs are close). The passage describes a chance (and uneventful) meeting between Chigurh and Bell after the film-as-we-know-its events. The editor appears to have come across a posting at a video game forum website and feels that source is a reliable one. I disputed that and removed the contribution. It was reinserted with the comment that "The alternate ending has been verified independently", citing the same posting. If there is indeed a different ending out there it would be of interest, but given the critical and media attention this film has received, I'm pretty sure that news of it outside a single posting in a game forum thread titled "The Zionist Media Conspiracy" would be, let's say, rather abundant.

There's no way this source qualifies as "reliable" (much less credible), so I will continue to delete the passage until a valid source is provided.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In 100 years when you're long forgotten, I will change this wikipedia entry!!! <--- Vampire

In 100 years, Wikipedia will be long forgotten. 67.65.56.137 (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's compromise. In 50 years I'll edit the fuck out of this page and Jim Dunning will agree to not stop me. <--- Vampire

Ratings table

Why can't a Ratings table be added to this article? I keep putting one in, and people keep removing it. Nick4404 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick4404, I know I was one of the deleters, and although I can't speak for others who may have removed the certificates box ({{Infobox movie certificates}}), my reason is that I just don't see what it adds to the article. Without context, it seems to be Trivia and "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". If the film's Rating in a particular country was significant in some way — such as controversial or noticeably affected viewership — then mentioning that Rating and its context would seem to be appropriate.

This is just my take on the issue, and there is no consensus on it, but feel free to read this for some more background.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review and pass

This is an excellent article dedicated to an outstanding film (although I must admit that I prefer the book). It fulfills all of the GA criteria: it is well written, it follows the MOS, everything is verifiable and contains no original research, its coverage is broad and it is neutral and stable. It may need additional images (screencaps of particular iconic scenes and/or characters, for example) under the fair-use rationale in order to liven things up, but that's definitely not a make or break deal for me. Honestly, I see no reason not to pass this article. I do have a few questions/suggestions regarding a few textual confusions and organization, however, but again this doesn't stand in the way of this article's obvious awesomeness:

• In the "Writing" section, there is this: "As CanMag reviewer Kelly MacDonald explains :" I'm not sure what this means. Kelly MacDonald is the actor, but the quote is from CanMag; should it be "As actor Kelly MacDonald explains to CanMag:"? Also, why is it in present tense? Other quotes are presented as being in the past.
• Describing his "extraordinary moptop haircut," he said, "You don't have to act the haircut. The haircut acts by itself." Is the "he" Bardem (since it is his haircut) or Jones, who is mentioned in the previous sentence? May need to be cleared up.
• Is there a reason why the "Cast and characters" section comes after "Production" and not "Plot"? Most film articles typically place it after the latter rather than the former, but if there's a reason for it, no biggie.
• Why are the Academy Awards in table-format but not other awards (Golden Globes, Screen Actor's Guild, etc) Is it because there are just too many? If that's the case, then I could see not including any table, even for the Oscars, although they are arguably the more influential.

And that's it. I'll go ahead and pass this, so just think on the last two suggestions for later in case you wish to take this to FAC in the future. Great work! I really enjoyed reliving the experience of cowering in my chair at the theatre. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Would it be possible to make the search No Country for Old Men redirect to a disambiguation page that includes both the movie and the novel? Nick4404 yada yada yada 17:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a western movie

This can't be a western movie because its set in modern day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.237.217 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

At what date does it stop at?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.115.212 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• ~Pardon, western movies may happen in our days. _and there are some coordinates in this film, which depend on this genre.The lonesome killer for example is a common motive, the triangle of the hunters, who are hunted is a paradigma. Ask Sam Peckinpah!

Vanilla is a cat.....--Hum-ri (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC) After all it's a thriller!

Region 2 Blu-ray release confusion

The Release section says: "The Region 2 DVD was released on Blu-ray and DVD on June 2". The DVD part is true, but there doesn't seem to be a Region 2 Blu-ray so far. The only Blu-ray sold on amazon.co.uk is the import one (Region 1). And on play.com there's no sign of it either. Is there a source claiming it was supposed to be released on June 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.189.98 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Carla Jean's Death

It's absolutely clear in the film that Anton kills Carla Jean. The fact that he's afraid to get his victim's blood on him is made abundantly clear by the removal of his shoes prior to entering Moss's hotel room, his subsequent removal and discarding of his socks when he does get blood on them and his lifting his feet when Welles blood is oozing towards him. The whole point of showing him checking his boots when he leaves Carla Jean's house is to make it clear to the viewer that he killed her. I don't see how there's any ambiguity at all. In the book it's explicit but I know we can't contrast the film to the book on OR grounds. It still is quite obvious from the film and should be noted in the plot. I will try a change that stays away from being ORCapeo (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My proposed changes in bold and the reasoning in italics

The events depicted here are out of order. Chigurh kills the two men before he goes to the trailer not after. That's why Bell finds their bodies at the scene the first time he goes there and then goes to the trailer and just misses chigurh. Also, chigurh uses the phone bill to decide to go to del rio, after calling Carla Jean's mother, not the reciever which has a very limited range. It should also be mentioned that Chigurh removes his shoes before going into the motel room as this is hugely important to determining Carla Jeans fate. Chigurh, a professional hitman hired to find the satchel, meets up with two men sent by the owners of the money who give him a radio receiver attached to a transponder in the satchel, whereupon Chigurh kills them. Returning to his trailer Moss places his wife Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) on a bus to her mother's home in Odessa, Texas before leaving for Del Rio, Texas to aquire an unregistered car from a friend. He barely misses Chigurh who breaks into the trailer through use of his captive bolt pistol and finds a telephone bill prompting him to go to Del Rio. Moss gets a hotel room in Del Rio where he hides the satchel of money in an air vent before going out to buy new boots. As he returns to his motel, Moss discovers that the Mexican gangsters have followed him and now wait to ambush him in his hotel room. Moss rents an adjacent room and not long after, lead to the motel by the receiver, Chigurh rents a room with a similar layout to Moss's original room to plan his ambush. While Moss retrieves the satchel through the common vent Chigurh removes his boots then bursts into Moss's original room and slaughters the Mexicans. Before searching for the satchel Chigurh carefully removes his blood soaked socks and tosses them aside. Noticing the vent cover he unscrews it from the wall using a dime and looks inside before realizing that Moss has escaped with the money. Using the receiver, Chigurh tracks Moss to a border town hotel, just as Moss discovers the radio transponder hidden in the satchel of money. Moments later, Chigurh arrives, and the two engage in a intense firefight that spills onto the streets. In the aftermath, Moss is severely wounded, but saves himself by crossing the Mexican border on foot and checking into a hospital (throwing the satchel over a fence in the process); Chigurh is left with a shotgun wound in his leg that forces him to walk with a limp for the remainder of the film. He later blows up a car outside a pharmacy for a diversion so he can steal medicine and syringes to treat his injuries.

Here again Chigurh's avoidance of blood is a huge plot point and required to make sense of later scenes. At the Mexican hospital, Moss is met by Carson Wells, (Woody Harrelson), another operative hired by the drug buyer (Stephen Root, who is subsequently killed by Chigurh in the buyer's office). After Moss rejects Wells' offer to save his life, Wells returns to his hotel where Chigurh is waiting for him. After a brief discussion of fate and Chigurh's insanity, Chigurh shoots Wells to death just as Moss calls to talk about Wells' earlier offer. While on the phone with Moss Chigurh is careful to avoid stepping in the growing pool of blood from Wells' body. He offers to spare Carla Jean if Moss forfeits the money, although Moss himself would still be killed. Moss angrily rejects, choosing instead to retrieve the satchel and rendezvous with Carla Jean in El Paso, to give her the money and send her out of harm's way so he can be free to kill Chigurh. Carla Jean, worried for Moss's safety, contacts Sheriff Bell and gives him the location of the meet. On the way to the bus station in Odessa, Carla Jean's mother inadvertently reveals the location of the meet to one of the Mexican gangsters in disguise, and, armed with that information, they converge on the motel where Moss is staying. In another massive firefight, Moss is killed by the Mexicans seconds before Sheriff Bell is able to reach him. Hours later, Carla Jean arrives at the motel and learns of her husband's fate.

After dinner with the local sheriff, Sheriff Bell returns to the now quiet motel and finds that the lock to Moss's hotel room door has been blown out. Chigurh is shown hiding behind the door of a motel room as he observes Bell in the reflection of the empty lock hole. His gun drawn, Bell enters the room where Moss was killed and notices the vent cover has been removed with a dime. Bell eventually leaves without encountering Chigurh.

Days later, Bell visits his Uncle Ellis (Barry Corbin), an ex-lawman who is wheelchair-bound because a criminal shot him. Bell is planning to retire due to his weariness of the changing times, but Ellis points out that the region has always been violent. Ellis also discusses how the man who left him a paraplegic died in prison. He accuses the despondent Bell of "vanity" in thinking that he could personally make a difference, and adds that no one forced him to sign on as a deputy. Meanwhile, Carla Jean returns home from her mother's funeral to find Chigurh lying in wait for her. Chigurh tells Carla Jean why he is there (recalling the pledge he made to Moss to kill her if Moss did not sacrifice himself to spare her), then offers her a chance to save her life by calling a coin toss. Carla Jean, disgusted by the gesture, refuses to call the coin toss, saying that the choice is ultimately up to him.

I think this fairly describes what is shown without being OR. Given the prior scenes one knows the only reason Chigurh would be looking at his boots is to be sure there is no blood on them. In the book it outright says "then he shot her" (or something to that effect) but I think it just would have been too bleak in Cohen Brother's eyes to show her getting shot. I know that's conjecture and can't be included. I'd surmise this too because they changed the dialog in the movie from the shooting script which didn't have coin flip in her scene. They must have added it to soften the core of the film and give her a bit of defiance. Chigurh is then seen leaving the house, stopping on the porch to check the soles of his boots for blood before driving away. While driving he is hit by a car running a red light; he suffers a compound fracture in his arm but he is able to walk away before the police and EMS arrive by buying a boy's shirt off of him and using it as a sling.

If there are no comments I'm going to make changes to this effect70.183.169.175 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Broken link in Reference 10

The link in reference 10 is broken. The current working link to this item is:

 http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-10-30/film/badlands/

I'd fix it myself, but I have no idea how to fix reflist items such as this. Can someone take care of this and perhaps point me to information to fix reflist items.

(Bill (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Done. Thanks for the heads-up.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

McCarthy's opinion

If the author's opinion of the film can be found, it should be added to the reception section. Kansaikiwi (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Will There Be a 2-Disc Special Edition?

I know there currently isn’t one available, but will they eventually release one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.88.155 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)