Since everyone's talking about SUSPICION, I'll chime in my two cents. Although I agree that it seems hastily thrown in that Cary isn't the killer, I have to say that even if he was the killer I wouldn't believe it of Cary Grant's character in that film. So that being said I have to agree with something someone else said on this thread, which is that IF they weren't going to have Cary be the killer and make it a false-accusation movie, they couldn't just end the movie where they did the way they did with the hasty wrap-up without revealing that the whole time the killer was some other character in the film. So to conclude, no matter how you look at it, it's a disappointing ending.

No flaw. The studio was unwilling to accept Grant as a killer. Hitch's hand was forced.

Didnt' Fontaine's character mail a letter informing the police her husband poisoned her? (so he wouldnt get away with it) I think that's what the films original ending was..........So he does kill her, but he gets it in the end..........A much better ending than the compromise (leave em leaving happy.........)

Probably a lot of us would like to see Anton get his, myself included. But, the Coens don't do sequels. If they were ever going to do a sequel, it would probably have been for The Big Lebowski.

I liked No Country for Old Men, but I though there were a few plot holes in it. Such as a downtown shootout on the streets at night, with lots of gunfire noise, but everyone in town seems to be fast asleep during all of this, and the town seems to have no policemen on duty.

The same in the murder scenes in the old hotel. There seems to be no one at all staying at that hotel except for the film’s small cast and the hotel’s desk clerk.

And then the cowboy walks back across the border dressed only in a hospital nightgown, he walks past a heavily fortified Border Patrol checkpoint in that condition, and he is allowed into the country with no I.D., no questions asked, all bandaged up, and struggling to stay on his feet. I’ve never personally experienced such a lax border patrol crossing anywhere along the Mexican border.

The hero has a million dollars in cash, yet he doesn’t really leave town very far, with his whole family, and hide out a long distance away. For example, he doesn’t take a bus for New York, Chicago, or San Francisco, where he could have easily hidden out, even with the beeper in his suitcase, since that type of beeper is only good for a range of about 10 to 20 miles.

At the very end of the film I smelled a sequel, since Anton Chigurh survived, leaving alive his strong and interesting character, who police can never find, and thus he will be available for future films.

So, where’s the sequel?

Oh, and the sheriff made a serious tactical law enforcement mistake, when he heard and saw a shootout taking place at a motel, and he decided to pull into the motel to see who was shot, rather than pursue the shooters who he saw getting away.

But, hey, this is a modern film, and modern audiences of teenagers have no ability to think. They like chases, explosions, shoot-outs, monsters, and murder, and that's what they got in this film.

darkblue, although I disagree with your assessment of No Country for Old Men, I enjoyed the way you articulated that assessment. A very nicely-written piece indeed.

However, unlike you, I feel that NCFOM does stand up to muliple viewings. I'm fascinated by the characters, especially the two leads. Also by sad, resigned, philosophical Tommy Lee Jones' sheriff.

And even though I know the outcome of the plot, I still find many of the cat and mouse scenes between Llewelyn Moss and Anton Chigurh suspenseful. (After all, we don't re-watch Hitchcock films just for the plot, obviously.)

One of the scenes I like best comes right near the end, actually. Chirgugh has Moss' wife under his control, and is planning to kill her because - well, because of his incomprehensible sense of "what needs to be done". She knows she's probably going to die, but instead of lamely accepting her fate, as some would, she tries to talk to him, to get him to see things the way a normal person would.
"You don't have to do this, you know." she says to him. The ensuing discussion they have about this, brief though it is, provides us with great dialogue and food for thought.

It reminded me of the scene right near the end of Fargo, when the police officer ( again, a woman) who's finally caught the killer tries to figure out why he did what he did, and tries to explain to him why he just didn't need to act that way.

In both films it is a woman, having a conversation with a ruthless and probably psychopathic killer, trying through their own simple goodness to "get through" to these monsters. You know they won't, but you have to admire them for trying.

"Castaway" comes to mind. All he had to do was drive down one road or the other instead of standing there to a fade out.

If you're going to tell a story tell it to the end. I don't see films because I like to guess the endings.

I started a thread on another forum about a year and a half ago, writing this:

Is 'No Country for Old Men' over-rated?

I'm always behind when it comes to watching movies and so I vigilantly stay away from reviews and discussions of those I haven't seen. Nevertheless, this one was mentioned in so many posts that some expectation of greatness filtered through.

From the start I was rivetted. A relentless, quirky monster is presented and fear is thoroughly injected (along with a sense of revulsion). The specific prey of this hunter-abomination is suitably defiant and possesses some cunning survivalism of his own - setting up what should be a gripping showdown. So far, so good. Additional to these two central characters we have the overview narration of Tommy Lee Jones as a world-weary philosopher-lawman (very suitable casting there) and a fill-in-some-information throwaway part for Woody Harrelson, not really used to great effect but serving some purpose nonetheless. Well acted with lush cinematography but with a penchant for drawn-out dialogue (which does add to the suspense in some key scenes involving our monster).

But the last half hour seems to come off the rails. The action completely stops and is replaced with 'missing' narrative and some kind of opaque artiness. Overall, I felt let down by the movie. It felt like the monster was a great idea but once the characters were set the script was unfinished. Just kinda petered out there.

So, knowing that the movie is much praised and Oscar-winning I kinda figured I must have missed something and resolved to watch it again when the chance came. After all, many, many movies get better for me the second time out.

Well, it was on again about a year later and I sat down to re-watch it, looking forward to picking up on its merits. Wow. Not worth the time I'm afraid. Knowing everything that was coming made those long, drawn out scenes just unutterably tedious (what with the suspense removed).

A movie that I can't enjoy twice just isn't worthy of the accolades that I've seen. Coming in as 'best picture' on the heels of another hugely flawed 'best' (The Departed) has me wondering just what the hell's going on with the voters these days.