Originally Posted by Boon:
I am not arguing, but why did you think so?
Because it was the perfect bookend to the film and ties together the real theme of the movie. If you'll recall, the first few minutes of the film is just shots of landscape as Sheriff Bell tells a story about a murderer who says, before he's about to be executed, that he would have done it again if given the chance. Bell wonders how you stop that kind of evil. He wonders if it's really worth trying.
(Spoiler alert for those who haven't seen the movie yet)
At the end, Anton has gotten away with the money. All the good guys died. Evil wasn't stopped, despite Bell's efforts. All the pursuit was ultimately for naught. So Bell retires. And it ends much the way it began: with Bell telling a story.
The entire movie is a misdirection, really. You think it's about Moss and Anton and the money. It's really about Bell. It's about an aging lawman who comes to the cold realization that he's been fighting a futile battle all these years. It's about following his dad to the camp, to peace. The dreams he describes occurred because of this realization, because of his decision to retire.
Now, from what I've read this is extremely faithful to the book. So it's not like the Coens made some wacky decision to end it weird. It was a part of the book, and it was vital to the completion of the film. No other ending would have worked the way this ending did.
(I loved the end of Burn After Reading for much of the same kinds of reasons. It exemplified the "much ado about nothing" nature of the film, and was the perfectly frivolous ending to a story about frivolous people doing frivolous things.) [Reply]
Originally Posted by SportsRacer:
Because it was the perfect bookend to the film and ties together the real theme of the movie. If you'll recall, the first few minutes of the film is just shots of landscape as Sheriff Bell tells a story about a murderer who says, before he's about to be executed, that he would have done it again if given the chance. Bell wonders how you stop that kind of evil. He wonders if it's really worth trying.
(Spoiler alert for those who haven't seen the movie yet)
At the end, Anton has gotten away with the money. All the good guys died. Evil wasn't stopped, despite Bell's efforts. All the pursuit was ultimately for naught. So Bell retires. And it ends much the way it began: with Bell telling a story.
The entire movie is a misdirection, really. You think it's about Moss and Anton and the money. It's really about Bell. It's about an aging lawman who comes to the cold realization that he's been fighting a futile battle all these years. It's about following his dad to the camp, to peace. The dreams he describes occurred because of this realization, because of his decision to retire.
Now, from what I've read this is extremely faithful to the book. So it's not like the Coens made some wacky decision to end it weird. It was a part of the book, and it was vital to the completion of the film. No other ending would have worked the way this ending did.
(I loved the end of Burn After Reading for much of the same kinds of reasons. It exemplified the "much ado about nothing" nature of the film, and was the perfectly frivolous ending to a story about frivolous people doing frivolous things.)
Yeah, screw that. The problem I have with that is for the majority of the film he wasn't involved. I had no connection to him. Seemed like the beginning and the end he was there. [Reply]
Now, from what I've read this is extremely faithful to the book. So it's not like the Coens made some wacky decision to end it weird. It was a part of the book, and it was vital to the completion of the film. No other ending would have worked the way this ending did.
Its a very un-hollywood ending that is for sure. The problem is the author (McCarther?) is notorious for have slow build up through out his stories with very disappointing endings. Like you want to burn the book its so maddening.
The Road is the same way. except you have a little kid through out the story annoying the shit out of you. Look for that hitting theaters next year. I will avoid it like the plague.
Not a problem with the Coen Brothers, they are good storytellers, but they had a horrible story to work with in NCFOM. [Reply]
I liked the ending. But I've read a lot of his books and maybe that made it easier to get. When he talks at the end about his dream where his father is carrying a torch or fire or something, it's something McCarthy uses in other books.
In the book The Road the Man and the Boy make references to "carrying the fire", and in the book it means they're fighting for Good against Evil. In that book 90% of humans are evil. The boy asks the the father, "we're the good guys right?" and says, "we're carrying the fire."
Jones's charcater in the Old Country knows his father spent his life fighting for Good against Evil, his father was carrying the fire, and at the end Jones is saying he can't fight the fight anymore, he feels overwhelmed and he let his father down.
I guess some people like cookie cutter movies with nice easy endings all the time. Maybe we should just make Lethal Weapon movies again and again. [Reply]
