No Country

This contains spoilers. Matter of fact, I ONLY discuss the very end of the movie No Country for Old Men, so if you haven't seen it, stop reading now.

----------

I didn't like the very end of No Country and have said so. Specifically, I didn't understand the writer/director choice of having the villain get hit by a car and the subsequent interaction with the two boys.

Four different people to whom I said "I didn't like the ending. I didn't understand the choice they made ..." have all given me some variation of their explanation for it and why I should like it (luckily, a fifth person who knows I didn't care for the ending, Lisa, did not say this-- I guess she understands that not everyone has the same perception of a movie).

Let me set the record straight (or, at least, straighter).

First, throughout the entire movie we are shown that the villain is "Lawful Evil" -- i.e., while he couldn't give a damn about people in general and has no problem killing rather indiscriminately, he has a code by which he lives and he doesn't sway from it. So, for example, he gives the gas station owner an out and stands by it. He gives the cowboy an option of handing back the money and his wife would live or running and his wife would die. We, the audience, understand that he actually means it. The cowboy, unfortunately, doesn't know this (not that I think it would make a difference to the cowboy). We see him kill his "boss" when the boss appears to betray him.

Secondly, we are also shown repeatedly that the villain is machine-like in that he just keeps going no matter how injured he is. He sutures up his own shot leg. He shoots the new bounty hunter who appears to be horning in on his bounty. Even when he gains a grudging respect for the cowboy, he still will not offer a deal that doesn't involve the cowboy's death. He simply will not be swayed and he will not be stopped.

So, I perfectly understand him going to the wife's house at the end and, presumably, killing her in a fairly nasty manner. What I don't agree with is the villain getting into an accident as he leaves her house. We already know that the guy is unstoppable, so having him so injured and walking away does nothing new or different. We already know that he has honor, so his interaction with the two boys doesn't teach us anything new. The entire movie was founded on the idea of the "real-life" struggle and how dangerous everyday life can be-- so we don't need to see him get in the accident in the first place.

Now, if he had been killed in the accident and that was how he came to "justice," I could get behind it. How many villains in real life have only come to justice by a fluke or odd coincidence? That's just life-- these people tend to be smart and self-sufficient and only get caught by a fluke or when their ego overcomes their common sense.

If we have him leaving the house and driving away (sans accident) and then cut to the disillusioned and having a hard time letting go cop, and then fade to black, I would be in agreement-- the cop is uneasy in his retirement and wondering about the "one(s) that got away" and whether he could still be doing it and making a difference to others. Okay, I'm behind this. I know some current and former cops-- this is real life again and would make for a great ending.

I'm a pretty smart guy and I watch a lot of movies. I understand the choices and nuances that most movie-makers make. I just don't understand the Coen brothers' choice in this particular instance and for this particular two minute (or so) scene. I think the rest of the movie is masterfully done. I simply disagree with this scene. You don't have to explain it to me or act like I'm an idiot for not liking or agreeing with it. Every reason for the scene anyone has explained to me I have provided an equally compelling reason as to why it wasn't needed; as I said up earlier, we know all of the information that is presented in this scene so it doesn't add anything new to the movie and is superfluous (to me).