Movie endings, they're usually pretty straight forward right? Everything pays off, the main characters learn something, and our heroes ride off into the sunset. Sometimes though, we don't get the typical ending from a movie, we get something much more nuanced, complex and open ended. The kind of endings that leave things up in the air for all of us to debate and theorise on until we're blue in the face. With Movie Endings Explained, we aim to delve into some of the more ambiguous and mysterious endings to films that have left audiences scratching their heads for years, and to attempt to explain them. In most cases, a definitive answer isn't really there, so we definitely want to hear from YOU on how you interpret the various endings we'll be discussing with this series.
This time we take a look at the 2007 Oscar winning modern classic, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, adapted from the Cormac McCarthy book of the same name by the Coen Brothers (FARGO, THE BIG LEBOWSKI). While on the surface it may not seem to be a film that has an uncertain conclusion, people have debated it for years since its release, arguing over what the final monologue of the movie really means, and how much symbolism plays into the overall story. It's a film so rich with depth and themes supporting by fantastic performances that you could mine its content for hours, but here's simply one take on what it all means by the time we get to the final scene of the movie.
What's your take on the ending of No Country for Old Men? Is there more than meets the eye? Or has it been discussed as an ambiguous ending more than it should?