No Country for Old Men (2007)

Too bad about the ending

I was so disgusted by the ending of this movie that I ordered the Cormac McCarthy novel and read it. -- In the movie, we see the sheriff looking down at a body in the morgue. In the book it is made clear that this is Moss's body. In the movie Chigurh is waiting for Moss's wife when she comes back from her mother's funeral and asks her to flip a coin to see whether she lives or dies. In the book we see him shoot her.
In both the movie and the book we don't see Chigurh after his car accident. In the book, the accident is followed by a long lucubration in italics which is extremely boring. The end of the movie you know: the movie drops the characters and the story and says THE END. -- For a man, the movie is enjoyable to watch until the awful ending. Men like action, men like violence. I don't imagine many women would like it.
The best I can say is that the Coen brothers made a watchable movie, avoiding their many bad habits. The movie is actually pointed at the viewer with the intention of gripping and entertaining, by comparison with the accustomed onanistic solipsism of the Coens. -- I did admire Chigurh's two philosophical remarks about the coins to be flipped. "The coin is from 1958; it took 22 years to get here." And later, to Moss's wife, "The coin got here the same way I did." I don't remember these lines from the book. July 23, 2008

No Country For All Men

This film was a surprise to me. First, I enjoyed other Coen films like Big Lebowski and Fargo but this had me re-examining those movies because of how great it was. It follows the story of three characters whose lives have been interwoven due to a botched drug deal which the viewer is only given a view of in the aftermath. You have the traditional good guy in Tommy Lee Jones trying to do what is best for the world, the non-traditional good guy in Josh Brolin who is trying to do what is best for himself, and the bad guy played by Javier Bardem whose performance was more than deserving for best supporting actor. This movie trumps There Will Be Blood only because it has three fantastic characters telling the story instead of one fantastic character in Daniel Plainview. It was a treat to help myself to Daniel Day-Lewis's performance, but it was three times the treat to watch this film. No Country For Old Men is one of those movies that hits every note right and if you don't like this film, your probably don't like many movies. The Blu-ray is a must buy for anyone who enjoyed this or any film. July 16, 2008

Thought Provoking

I don't love this movie, but I don't hate it either. I came away from
it kind of puzzled and was grateful for some of the reviews posted,
as they clarified quite a few oversights and misunderstandings I had
about the film when I watched it.

The film is somewhat violent, but in no way did I find the killing
gratuitous or out of context. To me, gratuitous violence is the gory,
blood-drenched, voyeuristic killing you see in slasher and snuff films.
As for the movie's plot, I thought the story was straightforward enough
and has been summarized here adequately by other reviewers. I did not
read the book the film was based on, so can't answer to how true the
film stayed to its origins. What I found most complex about the film was
its characters, and of course, the film's hotly contested ending.

It seems Americans, for the most part, like seeing movies that are easy to
digest and have tidy endings. You're not going to get either of these when
you watch this film. Of the Coen movies, I'm guessing the reason Fargo
received such a positive response (I personally love the film) was due to,
among other things, the presence of characters with well-defined moral
boundaries and a "justice served" type of ending.

In "No Country For Old Men," the world view of the characters and the moral
codes they abide by are not simple to define. In Llewelyn Moss, you have a
man stupid enough to steal drug money, compassionate enough to take a drug
runner a jug of water, loyal enough to tell a pool-side prostitute he's married,
and power-hungry enough to sell his wife out to the assassin on his trail. By
the end of the movie, it's not even about the money for him anymore. He's
seduced by the chase, which ends in tragic consequences. For all intents, I
thought Javier Bardem does an excellent job as the sociopathic killer---accent,
bowl hair cut, and all. The fact that Anton Chigurh lives by his own twisted
"code" when it comes to his victims makes his character all the more chilling and
intense. The most complex character by far, however, is the sheriff played by
Tommy Lee Jones. A man trapped in the past glory days of law enforcement when
capturing bad guys was a lot simpler, Sheriff Bell cannot wrap his tired, old brain
around the likes of criminals like Anton Chigurh. For me, his apathy and denial
(he queries at one point if Anton Chigurh is real or just a ghost) signals one of the
film's subtler moral dilemmas. One of the most powerful scenes in the film---and
one I can't quite make sense of---is when Bell enters the last crime scene and
Chigurh is hiding behind the door. That scene sums up the moral ambiguity that the
Coens seem to be going for. What's worse? Monsters at large or the society unable to
harness them, for whatever reason? For me, the end of the film helps to answer this
very question.

Overall, I found it to be a very thought-provoking piece. I would need to see it once
or twice again, just to get in the dialogue, as I had a difficult time understanding the
Texas drawls of the characters at times. I'm giving this movie three stars due to the
quality acting and the fact that it really makes you think about what you've seen
rather than just take part as a passive observer. July 13, 2008

Huh?

The title "No Country for Old Men" implies a protagonist that's (a) old, and (b) baffled and shaken by the brutality of modern times. The old man in this [drug deal gone bad] is the rural county sheriff, Tommy Lee Jones. Modern times is the world of drug deals [gone bad] and the psychopaths who avenge the drug dealers [when drug deals go bad]. So there's the title, with its implications, and the major movie star to fill out the picture.

But the picture make no sense, Johnny, because (a) the sheriff is a supporting character [if that, and I mean it's a stretch], and (b) he's never in jeopardy.

The Story is about the Josh Brolin character versus the Javier Bardem character, and that story is a good one--to a point. Javier, playing the psychopath, pursues Brolin with--what do you think? A one-gallon cannister of compressed air with a hose attachment. This rig, any finish carpenter will tell you, will exert up to 130 psi. If there's a nail at the end of that 130 psi, and the nail is put to your temple, maybe you got a problem, since 130 psi will blow that nail well into solid wood. But if there's no nail--in fact, if there's nothing but an air blower, and the air blower is applied to your forehead--I'm finding it real difficult to buy into the Coen's claim that this device will (a) kill a man, and (b) blow a deadbolt lock out of its door and across the room, slamming it into a wall 10-12 feet away. The one-gallon cannister, of course, can fire numerous "rounds" without recharge before expiring.

This defiance of the laws of physics is called suspension of disbelief in the world of fiction, and in a Steven Siegal movie, I'm right there. But in a Coen Bros. flick where it's clear (or at lest implied) that the intent was--well, now that's the riddle, isn't it? What did the Bros. intend?

Got me, chief. I was so baffled by the ending that I wondered if there hadn't been a mistake some place. July 12, 2008

A darker Coen brothers film

I am surprised at the number of negative reviews here. For some, it seems they don't realize that the Coen brothers didn't write the story of No Country for Old Men. It's a novel by Cormac McCarthy, and the Coens take great swathes of dialogue and narration verbatim from the book. I also don't understand what is pretentious about this movie. It's a fairly straightforward regional thriller set in west Texas in 1980, when violence seem to get more violent as cocaine and heroine started to flow into the United States at an alarming rate. This new brand of drug dealing gives birth to pure evil, incarnated in the character of Anton Chigurh (played wonderfully by Javier Bardem). I can see how this kind of a story may not be for everyone. The violence in this film is serious unlike Raising Arizona and the regionalisms aren't meant to be as funny as in Fargo (although I laughed a lot at the west Texan wit and colloquialisms in this film).

The cinematography and sound are excellent as in all Coen brothers' movies, and the acting is spectacular. Josh Brolin performs well as the resourceful Llewelyn Moss. He is able to work a scene by himself with no music and no dialogue. Tommy Lee Jones gives a good performance as a tired old sheriff, Ed Tom Bell. Even Woody Harrelson does a decent impression of a professional hit man. But it's Javier Bardem who steals the movie. He delivers his lines in a measured, very low and gravelly voice. His Spanish accent comes and goes at surprising times, often in the middle of words. He has what must be the devil's haircut; he's one of the creepiest human characters I've seen in a long time.

Cormac McCarthy seems to have accidently written No Country for Old Men for the Coen brothers. It shares many elements with their previous films: regionalism, movements from wide open to claustrophobic spaces, Western motifs, cartoon and nightmare natures of violence, and surrealism. The Coen brothers do a fine job, and I recommend the film to all of their fans. July 11, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...