If you want to believe that, then do so, that was more of a tidbit than a concrete fact, no need to get angry, it's just a movie.
But I will say I believe he did kill her, mainly because of his pattern of looking for blood on his shoes.
If you want to believe that, then do so, that was more of a tidbit than a concrete fact, no need to get angry, it's just a movie.
But I will say I believe he did kill her, mainly because of his pattern of looking for blood on his shoes.
And for several other reasons... he promised he would kill her. It would not fit into his character not to kill her after all that we saw him doing and all that was said about him. She was given a chance to change this outcome. She refused it.
Her moral construct for refusing this just doesn't fit into Chigurh views. It annoyed him she refused calling the coin. Probably even surprised him. We can see this happening. But that's the extent of her influence on him. Chigurh is insanely consistent throughout the whole movie. Not having killed her would be a defeat to him. A change of the rules (remember his dialog with Carson Wells about rules)...
I'm unsure if there was any intention to leave this last kill open for debate. The fact he looks at his shoes is a dead giveaway. There would be no need to put this on the scene if the intention was to leave us wwondering what happened inside that house.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Saw it but wasn't bowled over. One dimensional killers like this guy and the one in Fargo are far less interesting than those with some depth, like the guys in Pulp Fiction or Russell Crowe in 3:10 to Yuma.
My favorite Coen brothers film remains Miller's Crossing.
you need to watch There will be Blood then. The guy's about as multidimensional a greedy creep can get.