What did "No Country for Old Men" win the Oscar for "Best Picture"?

It is indeed a not easy to understand the movie, very fine details need to see turn a movie review to you 10, the end, as many people can see, the killer with a large amount of money to buy biker boy's shirt, and with the previous Moss in the U.S.-Mexico border met three youths is very similar. And one of them asked Moss at that time: was there a car accident? Of course he wasn't in a car accident at the time, but here, the killer was. And if Cohen were to accomplish this near-obscure metaphor with the proximity of the two protagonists' behavior, he would have to create a car accident. But is it possible that the dramatic efficacy of the car accident itself is the director's only creative intent? No. As to why not, that will be explained below. Some people ask why the killer didn't kill the two boys. On the one hand, this destroys the behavioral proximity the director needed, and two perhaps makes more sense. It made the police treat the collision only as an ordinary traffic accident. And by killing the boys, the nature of the case is different. Once again, for a highly skilled professional killer, the preservation of their own interests should always be placed above the bloodthirsty nature. 9. The killer did kill Moss's wife. This is because the killer, who comes out of the house in the next long shot, lifts his foot and looks at his shoes, looking at them for reasons of cleanliness. This is accounted for when he takes off his shoes and socks in the first motel kill, when he pulls up the shower curtain when he fires the gun to kill the third Mexican, and when he lifts his feet to avoid the stream of blood that flows over him when he answers the phone in the room where he kills Carson Wells. It's not as if the killer was going to kill her sideways, as Moss's wife speculates, and the coin toss was just foreplay for the cat eating the mouse. That said, she does get killed for guessing the coin wrong. And the echoing point for this assertion comes from the conversation with the owner of the convenience store who inherited his father-in-law's property and the coin toss episode in the previous paragraph. That passage shows at considerable length one of the killer's personalities: he has an extreme dislike for people who act and think in a confused manner. That's why he had a murderous intent on the incoherent, noisy owner of the small store, who wanted to close it prematurely. However, since this person did not have the misfortune of becoming a mandatory kill in the course of his mission, like the two previous drive-throughs, the killer gave a coin toss. At the same time, the depiction of this personality of the killer echoes why the killer spared the fat woman, Moss's landlady, when she was adamant about not revealing information to him. It is because she belongs to the category that the killer appreciates. So it can be said that the killer is not just killing everyone as he pleases. He still had his own sure-footed adherence to principles and behavioral patterns. However, the coin toss should only be a temporary decision by the killer to give Moss's wife a chance. The real purpose of his visit was out of his adherence to his principles. In the previous phone call, he had exchanged his wife's life for Moss's, but the other party had refused. So he thought that Moss was equivalent to asking him to come and execute his wife. This is the principle of the killer. One cannot help but be reminded of the ending of The Lone Ranger, where Alain Delon also raises his gun on the black singer because he wants to fulfill his principle as a killer. Although, there was no bullet in the gun. 8: The scene where the killer returns to the scene of the crime to get the money. The sheriff sees the knocked off doorknob and remembers what he saw on the couch at Moss' house, so he pulls out his gun. And after entering the house, he realizes that the killer has escaped through the back window. That's when he relaxes, puts away his gun and sits on the bed. Unintentionally saw the coins and dismantled wall coverings and screws. It is implied that the killer has taken the money. In order to make the audience can be more logical to make this inference, the director through a little earlier the sheriff and the local old police officer's conversation also explains that the police first time did not find this stash. However, there seems to be a logic problem in the time span of this episode. When the sheriff draws his gun, the camera switches to the killer nervously ambushing the corner of the house. But when the sheriff doesn't wait a moment to push the door open, the killer is already gone? That's a bit too swift, isn't it? 7: The Mexican who tracks down Moss and finds out his whereabouts from his mother-in-law is a party to the drug deal that led to the desert fire in the earliest part of the movie. The plaid-shirted, mustachioed man collapsed inside the house is Moss. If this is to be doubted, how does one explain the sheriff's wordless doffing of his hat in salute and her weeping when Moss's wife arrives? The woman in the pool was killed by the Mexicans. And the reason for the tight connection between the sheriff's arrival and the Mexican's escape is simply not to give the killer the possibility of taking advantage of the chaos and taking the money in the interim. And for after the sheriff returned to the crime scene nearly encountered the killer plot, to provide a reasonable excuse. 6, Wells and the two men who took the killer to the desert before were killed because they undermined the killer's principle of acting alone. Wells, in particular, was sent there after his boss realized that this killer was uncharacteristically crazy. And that angered the killer, leading to the boss's murder. 5, Wells discovers Moss's money through a keen sense of tracking and deduction. He was certain that Moss would not be able to carry a large box of money past the checkpoint. The beer cans left by the high fence (the beer cans were a gift from the other party when Moss bought the clothes) helped him further localize his target. And Wells' eye for peripheral detail is accounted for in an earlier bit of dialogue. He counts the employers to discover that the building's elevator has stopped one floor short. 4, creates a car explosion to divert attention, and then siphons off the various prescription drugs and medical equipment needed, showing the killer's calmness and sophistication. More than that, it shows that his indiscriminate behavior does not come from impulse. 3. In his second escape to the hotel, Moss shows his alert and bold side, but also has inexplicably low IQ behavior. First, he lies in bed, unable to sleep with a vague sense that something is wrong, and then examines and finds the tracking device wedged in the U.S. currency. And earlier in the passage, he is similarly lying in bed and remembers that he has to take another walk in the desert to bring water to the dying man. Only, this time, meditating on the ceiling temporarily saves his life, whereas the last time fundamentally led to his tragic fate. Here, Cohen uses the same shot and angle to show Moss' reflection. And in the previous passage, in Moss's room, Cohen uses the same shot of the killer and the sheriff sitting on the couch across from him, reflected on the TV screen through the sunlight cast through the half-covered curtains. What is the moral of this? We can all start a discussion. Moose goes on. He finds the tracker and hears a strange noise (the killer shoots the hotel receptionist) and dials the phone to confirm, then turns off the lights. But then he did a very low-level thing: faced the door, sat on the bed, and waited with a gun. Obviously in that situation, you either hide on the side of the door, or under the bed (also with the gun pointed at the door), or behind furniture in the corner, etc. All options are more secure than this wizened sit-down. And as it turns out, it was this outrageously stupid behavior that led to his injury and escape to. Afterward, however, Moss's wits got the better of him again, and he did not flee out along the street after jumping out of the window. This made it impossible for the assassin to follow the house and shoot him through the window. Reverse into the hotel, wait slightly to see if the other man comes down the stairs, and then counterattack. Not bad! And as soon as he saw that there was no movement, he immediately went through the back door, which was a reasonable choice. Afterwards, with the killer continuing to pursue, in a hurry, crash the car into the curb. Fake has been killed car out of control, very high. And therefore anti-injury killers. 2, The best part of the movie is Moss' first motel escape. He leaves after hiding the money box in his customary manner, but after returning in a cab, he finds extra trucks outside the motel. Further, he finds someone in his room. He knew something was wrong. But at this point he is calm and instead of fleeing in a panic, he goes and buys a gun and a long pole and, to the landlord's considerable perplexity, rents another guest room in preparation for the hooker operation. Meanwhile, the killer was on his way. There are two questions about this passage: one, how did the Mexicans track Moss, also according to the tracker? But what if the drug deal was: money and drugs on both sides. And the boss who hired the hit man and the Mexican are on different sides. So why would the Mexican side, also have a tracker for the money box that was meant to be only on the killer's side? Second, there is something fishy about the Mexican's condition in the house. So much so that someone on IMDB asked: why are one of the three Mexicans in bed and two in the bathroom? What he meant was: not like rummaging around for money, but really like they were staying at a hotel. Note that Cohen includes a little tidbit before the killers arrive: while he was driving, he randomly pulled out his gun to shoot a crow parked on a bridge railing and missed. So is this miss, like Moss's unsuccessful deer shooting in the desert at the beginning of the movie, a metaphor for the fact that the person in question's fate has also quietly begun to change? From a slight analysis of the time course, we can find that almost two people do have a similar behavioral trajectory: Moss killed the deer unsuccessfully, and then the time has come, the fisherman to track the desert waiting for an opportunity (watch, sit and wait) to get the money - > the killer to kill the crows unsuccessful - > Moss escaped by fluke, spend money to buy the clothes of the passer-by, and ultimately killed - > this time the time has come to the killer, who is the Fisherman, but also wait for the opportunity (and so on) to get the money - > this time the killer, who is waiting for the opportunity (wait for darkness) to get the money - > the killer, who is waiting for the chance (and so on) to get the money. The killer starts to lose control, gets hit by a car, escapes, spends money on a passerby's clothes, and is killed. ...... The killer isn't killed simply because the movie is over. But this for "above all" money chase game is not therefore end. The next chase, escape, killed cycle, in the previous not yet finished when it has been unfolded. What awaits the killer will be the same fate as Moss. And this seems to be one of the themes that the director wants to express at the end of the movie. 1. The biggest controversy comes from why Moss went back to the desert. Why did Moss go back to the desert? Did his conscience get the better of him and he rushed to the dying Mexican to bring him a drink of water? This reason is far-fetched. Because, obviously, the Mexican is not due to hunger and thirst can not move trapped in the car. So what if he was given a big bucket of water? Perhaps it was, Moss had no intention of saving him, but out of a desire to find some kind of internal balance after getting a windfall. Knowing that this person must die, but still go to fulfill his last wish? ...... In any case, this behavior of Moss, incurred the trouble of killing.