Customer Reviews

No Country for Old Men

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is not an easy movie to watch - it is rife with tension and gore - but it is a thought-provoking one. With stark and bleak realism, it shows what can happen when criminals clash with other criminals, law-enforcers, crafty wild cards, and naive bystanders sucked into the criminal vortex. It shows what can happen when a relatively good man succumbs to the temptation to take an illegal route out of poverty, and, crafty though he is, finds himself up against a diabolically smart and ruthless sociopath - someone not likewise burdened by such distractions as a conscience or concern for loved ones. It shows how utterly cold a sociopath can be, and what a trail of destruction he can leave in his wake. Nothing is glossed here. The good guys are not better shots. Bodies do not conveniently disappear. Killings are not veiled or glorified or antiseptic, but graphic, tragic, and messy. Unlike so many action movies, this one does not lean on a punchy soundtrack or quick scene changes to heighten its impact. Rather, it moves in relative real time, and its quietness and its unblinking stare at events are quite dramatic enough. The ending is atypical, too - more of a whimper than a bang - and I think that to be disappointed by this is to miss the movie's point. In this movie, brutality is not depicted as rollicking entertainment, but as the messy, ugly, unfair, disgusting, and just plain depressing thing that it is.

***Spoilers Within***

Oscar ceremonies are sometimes dominated by one or two films because the opposition is weak, but that definitely wasn't the case in 2008. Nominees included No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Juno, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Ratatouille, Once, The Bourne Ultimatum, Into the Wild, Atonement, Michael Clayton, Eastern Promises and American Gangster.

I was torn at the time because I couldn't decide whether I wanted There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men to win for Best Picture. In hindsight, my two favorite films from that year are Juno and No Country for Old Men. I think the Academy got it right for once by awarding No Country for Old Men the Best Picture Oscar and Daniel Day-Lewis Leading Actor.

So why do I think that No Country for Old Men deserved its win?

The film contains so many strong elements. It gave us three memorable characters and expertly combined their three viewpoints to give us a compelling story. Roger Deakins did another wonderful job showing us the bleak Texas landscape, while the direction and writing were both superb.

Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) makes a discovery while hunting for antelope. After tracking an injured animal, he finds what appears to be the result of a failed drug deal. Five trucks are surrounded by corpses and he deduces that the last man standing would have looked for shade. He eventually locates the final corpse and finds a case containing two million dollars. Moss lives in a trailer with his wife and the money represents a chance to completely change his life.

The most interesting character is Anton Chigurh (Bardem). We see him captured by police at the start of the film, but he escapes and kills a deputy in the process. He is extremely violent and his motives are unclear. At times he appears supernatural in the way he evades capture. Is he supposed to represent Death or the Devil? Bardem makes Chigurh one of the most memorable villains ever to appear on screen. There's a scene which rivals Tarantino's farmhouse scene in Inglourious Basterds in terms of tension. Chigurh has a conversation with a gas station owner and it ends with a coin flip. The scene is both absurd and chilling at the same time. We know what's at stake.

The other major character is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Jones). He's old, wise and extremely competent. Some of his choices show that he's more concerned with self-preservation than pursuing criminals, but he somehow gets the job done. One of his strengths is the ability to reconstruct crime scenes. He has a dry sense of humor and uncanny instincts.

The first part of the story focuses on Moss. He's an experienced tracker and a Vietnam veteran and we see him trying to evade pursuit. At first, he doesn't know who will be coming after him, but eventually learns that it's Chigurh. Instead of simply leaving the country, he decides to face Chigurh himself. That might seem to be a stupid choice, but Moss does have some intelligence and appears able to take care of himself.

Chigurh also seems highly competent and we get the sense that he's being doing what he does for a very long time. His pursuit is relentless. When he is injured, he's able to take care of his own wounds. He does bleed, but there's still the sense that he either is, or he at least represents, a supernatural force.

I won't reveal any more of the plot. I have heard two complaints about the film. One is the level of violence present and the other is the unusual ending. I think the ending is partly showing how unpredictable life can be, but I understand the complaints. I thought the ending was appropriate and my only regret was that I couldn't watch these characters for longer.

No Country for Old Men is many things. On the surface, it's the story of an extended chase. The Coen brothers said that it is a story of a good, evil and something between the two. Moss can be perceived as good or evil, but he's definitely committing a crime.

Some of the scenes require us to pay close attention to the events and contain very little dialogue. It reminds me of the opening sequence in There Will Be Blood in that way. It succeeds because of the writing and the tension that's present throughout the story. If you enjoy thrillers, this is one of the best I have seen.

The Blu-ray presentation is just about perfect. Every little sound comes across clearly and the Texas scenery looks breathtaking at times.

An unstoppable psychopath moves in a straight line through his personal list, flipping coins to determine the fate of his victims, while seeking a hidden fortune in this Coen Brothers film classic! It is up there with the best of them in the violent, fast-moving, suspense category. Woody Harrelson makes a surprise appearance as a smooth-talking Texan bounty-hunter hired to take down the infamous "Chigurh!"

Having read and enjoyed the book, I was looking forward to seeing the movie. After hearing all the critical praise let me tell you that it's all true. The acting is flawless with Javier Bardem being one of the most bone chilling villains in recent film history. A lot of this movie is unconventional but that's what makes it great.

Go see it!

What's the power these days of a well-written novel like Cormac McCarthy's "No Country For Old Man"? Basically, the capacity to re-invent itself as a blockbuster movie with few alterations of the plot. Here is a list of my observations about the quality of the movie version of what I consider to be a very finely-crafted psychological thriller. The big question, as always, is does the movie do justice to its predecessor in terms of making vital connections?
A. The movie's poignant portrayal of the arid Southwest lands captures the same feeling of a moral wasteland that served McCarthy so well as the setting for his story. The viewer quickly gets the idea that nothing good can come out of this bleak landscape;
B. The movie presents a visceral picture of violence in action. As in the novel, it attempts to display it as both an arbitrary and ruthless behaviour being acted in a wildwest fashion. The law is always around in a philosophical capacity but never really engaged in physically protecting the innocent. McCarthy, in all his works, sees the world as a battle for the survival of the fittest.
C. The movie does a reasonable job in following the storyline of a man named Moss who comes across cache of $2.4 million dollars in drug money while hunting in the desert. The surrounding circumstances of the find and the battle that ensues between various characters to hold on or seize the loot are downright ugly and violent.
D. The movie gives the sheriff a similar contemplative role where wisdom, rather than valour, becomes the means by which people can sometimes reach old age. Tommy Lee Jones captures that mood very effectively in his layback role as the sheriff who is moving into retirement without too much regret.
E. The movie does a faithful job in typecasting the roles of the psychopath(Bardem) and bounty hunter(Harrelson). Javier Bardem, as Chigurh(sounds like sugar), comes across as that brooding character that deeply embodies evil while thinly cloaked in disarming pleasantness. Life for Chigurh comes down to killing others in order to get the money. There is that curious moment, however, in the film when Chigurh is seriously down on his luck and has to pay some kids to help him get away.
F. The movie, like the novel, refrains from providing closure for its audience. For McCarthy, any sense of justice comes from the evil that bad people bring on themselves by hurting other people. Unfortunately, there are no winners in this bloody fray except those who choose to say out of it.

Being the arthouse cinema fan that I am, over the last 10 or so years I would occasionally watch a Hollywood movie for entertainment, but I gave up any hope of seeing anything truly artistic from that source. It was about time I was chastened for my arrogance, and sure enough, I came across 'No Country for Old Men' a couple of weeks ago. What attracted me was the title lifted from Yeats; I correctly guessed that it must have been the title of the book on which the film was based, but at that stage I had not yet read the book nor was even aware of its existence.

What a feast! A violent modern western on the surface; a dark and bitter existential meditation underneath; actors working their socks off; solid direction and camera work; a minimalistic soundtrack that is as un-Hollywoodian as they get; all of this works together and keeps one impressed non-stop.

The layered structure of the film is quite ambitious, but thankfully, the directors do not spell things out for the viewer. If anything, certain things were made less obvious than they are in the book, and that enhanced the overall impact. For example, it takes the full length of the film, including the paradoxical ending, to bring the viewer to the realisation that the protagonist of the story is Sheriff Bell - the least likely of the three candidates for that role. This realisation has quite an impact by itself, but it also takes care of the loose ends of the surface plot - not by tying them up in any logical way but by rendering them irrelevant, which is so much better. The film is about the sheriff, and as far as he is concerned, there are no loose ends left: he lost on all counts; the bad guy won. The book is rather more direct about matters like who got the money in the end, and after the film this certainly felt like a weakness: what is the point of trying not to disappoint the readers who do not get the point, if you know what I mean... To be fair, the book is not always direct, but the film is even less so. For instance, McCarthy pointedly avoided describing the deaths of Moss and his wife in gory detail (in sharp contrast to the overall style of the book); the death of the former is even narrated by a third party rather than directly by the author. The film goes further, merely implying both these deaths.

The tense scene where Chigurh and the sheriff appear to be standing at the opposite sides of a motel room door is not to be found in the book. There are several ways of interpreting what happened there, and each of the possibilities enriches the story in its own way. My guess is that the two characters are not actually present there at the same time and that when Chigurh calmly observes the flicker of light through the punched-out hole in the lock, this is in fact just an image in Sheriff Bell's mind - a visual manifestation of his fear, which we are given a chance to see as yet another hint at the fact that the sheriff is, after all, the main character of the story. Of course, this cannot be literally the image in his mind because the sheriff does not know what Chigurh looks like - but the viewer does...

A few more words about that infamous ending. I always like it when a film ends at an unexpected point, but here this old trick achieves so much more than delivering a parting surprise. Yes, the final sequence comes from the book verbatim, but unlike the book, the film is wide open at that point because of some small changes to the plot, so what the viewer gets is an anticlimax by the action genre standards and a knockout artistically. A character describing his dream is a staple of arthouse cinema, and here we get not one but two dreams, told to us by the downbeat Tommy Lee Jones, alone in the frame, in such a thick Texan accent that I had to rewind and switch on the subtitles. Everything falls into place, except for the things that, as it dawns on us, do not matter. And can there be a better punch line than "And then I woke up", followed immediately by the credits?

(to the tune of El Paso by Marty Robbins)

Close by the West Texas town of El Paso
There was a drug deal that went very wrong
Llewellyn, he fled with a bag full of money
Came back to the scene, but he took far too long

Blacker than night was the heart of the Chigurh
Wicked and evil and killing for fun
He soon went after Llewellyn's new treasure
Armed with a captive bolt cow stunning gun

That's where the grizzled old sheriff came in
Tired of West Texas crime
Fretting and moaning
Of times that were changing
He looked for Llewellyn
To save his thick hide

So with insight he

Sought out the woman who married Llewellyn
He tried to warn her of what was in store
Meanwhile the killer was tracking Llewellyn
Tracking him all the way to his front door

But there were others looking for the money
All of them hoping to bring back the dough
Many hands didn't make light of the workload
Soon one by one, well they all had to go

Out of the motels and buildings he ran
Running or hitching a ride
He stopped an old truck
Which proved to be bad luck
It won't be long
`Fore the two worlds collide

Cast:

Javier Bardem - Chigurh: Very bad guy. If you run into him you'd better make sure you're good at calling heads or tails.

Josh Brolin - Llewellyn Moss: Guy who takes money from the wrong place, and then finds himself in the wrong time

Tommy Lee Jones - Sheriff Bell: Old man of title.

Kelly Macdonald - Carla Jean Moss: Spunky wife of Llewellyn

Short Attention Span Summary (SASS):

Dude finds drug money and takes it
Psychopathic bad guy hired to recover stolen money
Retiring Sheriff tries to find dude before bad guy does
Bad guy leaves bloody trail of unlucky folk
Bad guy's employer outsources back-up
Body count rises
Some ride off into the sunset, some don't

Based on a Cormac Mccarthy book, you can expect desolate landscapes, graphic imagery and minimalism. If you're in the mood for powerful performances and hard hitting story telling, make sure you see this one. If you're looking for happily ever afters you might want to see Enchanted instead. Call it!

Amanda Richards

When the Coen's are on there are none better. I wait with baited breath every time something new from them comes out, I know I will either be bitterly dissapointed (Lavender Hill Mob, O Brother Where Art Thou), or will soon be witnessing another soon to be personal favorite (Fargo, Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, Blood Simple). This is another great one from the Coen's. While this could be described as just a violent thriller, it is done with such great pacing and acting that it makes it a great one. The real star of course is the purely evil character played by Javier Bardem, who is so calm and nice before he kills you and who has his own warped sense of principles. "I have to kill you I promised your husband". If you see the movie you will know how warped that statement is, but you see his twisted logic. Other times he let's fate decide by a coin flip. I would not put this ahead of Fargo (their movie that should have won the Oscar) but it is very chilling and very good.

About an hour into this I turned to my wife and commented that it may well be the most tension filled movie I'd ever seen. The last time I recall being literally on the edge of my seat like that was Silence of the Lambs, I think. I was blown away right up to the end. Maybe I just didn't get it but I thought it was the worst ending I'd ever seen in such a quality flick. They take us along on a thoroughly enjoyable thrill ride and then just leave everything hanging. They were trying to remain faithful to the book I guess, but I feel a movie where the line is drawn so clearly in the sand must provide some sort of resolution. Through the whole film I was wondering who would ultimately triumph over whom; would good win over evil or vise-versa. There was no way to speculate; we just had to wait and see. And what did we get? Nothin', that's what. To say I was disappointed is an understatement. With any sort of decent conclusion this would have easily been a 5 star film but I'm deducting 2 for the wretched ending. Did I mention I did'nt like the way it ended?

Just a note to any Canadian Amazon purchasers on the Blu-ray special 2DVD package....there is a code you need to access the digital copy of the DVD included in the package, however it only works for US customers. If you want the digital copy to be able to watch on your computer or hand-held I-pod, don't buy it through Amazon.ca.