(Spoilers for No Country For Old Men and A Cabin in the Woods)
Obviously, no one believes that literally all movies that call out or subvert tropes are good, but I feel that people often attribute positive points to movies solely for subverting expectations, even when the execution of those subversions are subpar.
One of the reasons I didn't like No Country For Old Men as much as many other people did was precisely because of this, although I would still consider it a good movie. The first half of the film is fantastic—it masterfully builds tension, has some incredible and intense battle scenes, and I like that, for the most part, the characters all make the smartest decisions they can; I could scarcely improve on any of them without the knowledge of hindsight, which is something uncommon in action movies (many movies often have an otherwise smart character acting unusually stupid to give another character a chance to take advantage).
I understand that the latter half of the movie is supposed to be a subversion of expectations and what would realistically happen to someone even as tough as Llewelyn in his situation—the protagonist dies off-screen to a group of unnamed cartel members without even facing the antagonist—but I believe that it is a lazy and unsatisfying ending to the protagonist we have built a connection to over the course of the movie, especially since his death was not even shown in the screen.
How good would the first few seasons of Game of Thrones have been if Tywin Lannister abruptly died of a disease in the beginning of Season 3, or if Jon Snow were killed by unnamed wildlings after he travels with the Night's Watch beyond the wall, as realistically someone in his position would be? How good would Breaking Bad have been if Walter White were killed by some random unnamed drug dealers in Season 2 of the show, as someone like Walt would realistically be in his position? Had there been a final showdown between Llewelyn and Anton where Llewelyn dies, with the rest of the movie playing out the exact same way it did, it would have had a satisfying conclusion while also being a subversion of the trope that the protagonist must always win; instead, I felt that it was just a cheap subversion for the sake of being a subversion.
Another highly rated movie that calls out common tropes in its genre would be A Cabin in the Woods, although it does so in a different manner to No Country For Old Men. The primary problem I have with this movie is that it is completely generic; I understand that it was intentionally made to be that way, but it is just not very interesting to watch what is essentially the most generic horror movie ever made for two-thirds of the film. I've heard people say it's creative in calling out the tropes in the genre, but I would say its method of criticizing tropes is perhaps the most uncreative way it could criticize the genre. The first two-thirds also have "comedic" scenes in a lab watching the main characters struggle which I felt utterly failed at making me laugh. The last one-third of the film didn't really have much a plot, and in all honestly wasn't very good either; at the end a character was literally just listing common tropes and saying that they must happen, which I thought was an even more uncreative way of calling out tropes. Despite being a pretty terrible movie in my opinion, it is rated 92% by critics on Rotten Tomatoes mostly for "subverting tropes of the horror genre."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's funny you say this, because Game of Thrones arguably got famous for an "anticlimactic" death or even a set of them
I remember a fan being absolutely offended at the death of Ned. Yet it was broadly considered bold and became famous. Why?
Because it was set up by the story. Ned's death is simultaneously unpredictable but also predictable and it's consequences were similarly so. It fit with the themes Martin was writing.
Similarly, No Country for Old Men is about many things, but it emphasizes the limits of the Sheriff's power to change life's brutality and the hubris of Llewellyn. This is emphasized multiple times, even directly at the audience via parables with helpful summations. The ending is also an "anticlimax" where Chigurh gets hit and walks off but it highlights that even Chigurh isn't really separate from vagaries of the world despite his rules (which he believes protect him), again tied to debates in the film.
Now, I get why that might not work for you but that similarity to GoT's Season 1 (maintaining thematic consistency) is why the movie was so well-received in spit of its "anticlimax".
Another factor is that No Country for Old Men is a movie, which means that it has a much more compressed time frame. We knew Moss for two hours, Ned for 10, Jon Snow for ~75. Different expectations.
tl;dr: My defense is that Game of Thrones and No Country for Old Men are admired for similar reasons, therefore GoT isn't a good counterexample.
Llewelyn's death wasn't "random": he was hiding from drug dealers, we were explicitly told that he would have extra dealers other than Chigurh on his tail (something Chigurh was foreshadowed as being angry about) and Moss is...just some guy. If anything, his death is the most predictable thing that happened. It was just anticlimactic.
This was also the point of the story of the cattle and the man with the prod: even in the best of times you can lose. Moss wasn't in his best times.
What exactly did it seem like Moss' arc was leading to? Cause I don't feel like the movie ever gives you any reason to think happiness or some grand achievement is on the cards. Moss' theft of the money is soon discovered and he has a psychopathic criminal on his tail, combined with his bosses who want to throw more resources at it (and are only stopped by said murderous criminal...for now).
Meanwhile, the Sheriff's perspective is basically one of fatalism and an inability to reckon with the evils of the day. At one point he seems to have been facing Chigurh (probably his imagination) and can't seem to bring himself to do anything. He's no savior for Moss.
Llewelyn has some kill but makes multiple mistakes - the most obvious being going back to offer water to the dying man and not checking the money early on - and shows what, quite frankly, is hubris. His dismissive attitude towards Wells, who is the only one who knows something about his nemesis, is telling.
He has some skill but he was clearly way over his head.
The Mexican gangsters actually came close to Llewelyn in the hotel. They were killed by Chigurh, close enough for Llewelyn to hear. Given how they were multiple men with automatics, I doubt it would have ended well for Moss.
Just as it didn't later. He was always screwed, and him being hunted by other people instead of just Chigurh had already been foreshadowed.
Fair enough, I can see that. IIRC my personal feelings I thought we were supposed to see Moss as hubristic and feel bad for the unenviable position he was in and had no choice but to try to fight his way out.
If Chigurh/the cartel had offered him the opportunity to drop the money and walk and Llewelyn didn't, I don't think anyone would see it as anything other than a dumb decision.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link