As long as we're discussing plot holes in acclaimed movies, what does everybody think about the denouement of TAXI DRIVER? To me, it seems very implausible that a gunman with a mohawk could be chased away from a political rally and be lauded as a hero for a bordello shootout IN THE SAME DAY. Even in New York, Travis's exploits would have been the top two news stories of that day. It seems to me that SOMEBODY would have been able to notice the similarities between the politcal rally gunman and the bordello shootout gunman. Therefore, he would not have been celebrated as a hero and probably would have ended up in jail. An otherwise riveting film with a silly ending not worthy of a Charles Bronson actioner.

I understood that Larry McMurtry did not write 'No Country'. I have no idea who McCarthy is and assumed that the Coens had written the screenplay from their own devices.

I was suggesting that there is a similar philosophical moral to 'Streets of Laredo' (which, by the way, was made into a movie in 1995) and 'No Country for Old Men' (but with the differences in era's and approaches from the lawman perspective) - and I have wondered if the McMurtry novels were the Coens' inspiration, thematically speaking.

Oh, and I wasn't talking at all about how a film is different from a book. Other than the identification of the underlying moral, there is nothing narratively in 'No Country' that is in the two McMurtry novels.

Interesting ( and nicely written again ) stuff, darkblue. However, and perhaps this is missing the point, since you were mainly talking about how a film can differ from a book in "getting across" certain concepts, but I believe No Country for Old Men is based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy, not Larry McMurtry. But perhaps this detail does not detract from you point.

I most certainly agree with both those sentences. 'Fargo' and 'The Man Who Wasn't There' are just two examples of brilliant modern filmmaking - far more intelligent and incisive than what mass-teen audiences tend to be entertained by. I do see Fred's criticisms of 'No Country' as valid - there are times when improbablities can undermine the authenticity of a serious movie. 'No Country' does feel a little like a dumbed-down Coen to me - unsurprisingly it's the one that teens seem to appreciate the most.

The moral of the movie is not necessarily as dumbed-down as what might appear on the surface, however. Novellist Larry McMurtry wrote the brilliant 'Lonesome Dove', and its extremely dark sequel 'Streets of Laredo'. 'Dove' is a sweeping adventure and old-west drama that touches on the phenomenon of evil men - but 'Streets of Laredo' expands that theme far more - and far more chillingly. There is an understanding of those times that such unbelievably evil men were, of necessity, balanced by a few every bit as effective lawmen who would not waver at hunting down such evil outside of any rules or regulations. Civilization could not exist without the Woodrow Calls to save it from the Blue Ducks and Joey Garza's and (shudder) Mox-Mox's.

'No Country' feels very much cut from the cloth of what McMurtry's novels were attempting to illustrate with graphic realism, but with a modern difference. An unsettling difference. Ed Tom Bell is similar to the old lawmen - he knows about the existence of unfathomable evil - he'd like to stop it. But, unlike the unregulated Woodrow Call's of the past, he's been rendered impotent by modern sensibilities. He's Woodrow Call turned from a no-nonsense doer in 1880 to a chairbound philosopher in 1990.

Of course, anyone unfamiliar with the McMurtry novels - in particular 'Streets of Laredo' - will not draw the thematical connection, so 'No Country' is left, for most people, to stand on its own, which I feel is not done all that well. As a movie it feels murky and incomplete. But then, most disagree with me on that - it did win Oscars.

Interesting. Either of those scenarios would've been better then the switched ending, but it's easy to see why it wouldnt fly back then..........

In the book, she does not inform the police. She wants him to get away with it and be free, because she still loves him (strange I know!).

If viewers, then and now, cannot accept him as a villain (though he did play a cad in some early pre-codes), then we have to conclude he was miscast. The story calls for her husband to be a cold-blooded opportunist, not a Cary Grantish hero.

Yes, it feels clumsy and tacked on (Suspicion)..........