| New This Week | Coming Soon | Box Office | Recent Trailers | News & Gossip | Movie Mom Reviews |
Latest Reviews!
| Death Sentence | posted by: moviemantilidie | about 7 hours ago |
| Bowfinger | posted by: happygurl | about 22 hours ago |
| My Blueberry Nights | posted by: Edan Matssob | 2 days ago |
| Hellboy II: The Golden Army | posted by: Edan Matssob | 2 days ago |
| In Bruges | posted by: Edan Matssob | 2 days ago |
No Country for Old Men
Category: Suspense | Tags: coen brothers javier bardem violence evil suspense
posted by: Danger2374 221 days ago
Sometimes the Coen brothers can be more concerned with evoking a certain style than telling a good story. The results are rarely boring, but ultimately they just come off as interesting experiments. Many critics are hailing No Country for Old Men as the Coens’ best film since Fargo. I contend that it is c [profanity removed] in spirit and tone to their first movie, Blood Simple. Trust me, this is a good thing.
Here’s the plot, or what little of it there is: Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is out hunting one morning when he comes across the scene of a drug deal gone bad. Everyone is dead, and there is a case filled with two million dollars. Llewelyn takes the money. Once this is discovered, a man by the name of Anton Chigurh tries to track him down. Played by Javier Bardem, Chigurh is one of the most evil villains in film history. He has no remorse, and he cannot be stopped. (Come to think of it, he’s kinda like the Terminator). Following the trail of these two men, and trying to make sense of the proceedings, is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). And that’s pretty much it. The entire movie is one big game of cat and mouse.
I suppose the movie is really a meditation on the randomness of life and death, and in that sense it achieves its goal. The acting, cinematography, and sound editing are all superb. (I noticed about halfway through the movie that there is virtually no music). I thoroughly enjoyed Bardem as the killer, although I do have one quibble: when a villain kills everyone he meets, without discrimination, don’t the murders cease to have any resonance with the audience? I started to say to myself, There’s one more dead person. Oh well. But again, perhaps that randomness is exactly the point. Anyway, the movie is fascinatingly bleak, and I was enjoying it right up until the last fifteen minutes. Then it went off the rails.
Look, here’s the deal: I don’t need everything wrapped up in a tidy little bow. Memento had a completely ambiguous ending, and I thought that movie was brilliant. As a matter of fact, the same goes for the final episode of The Sopranos. I admire when an artist decides to shake up the audience’s expectations and diverge from the typical storytelling patterns. I enjoy being challenged. Also, I don’t need a happy ending. The good guy didn’t win at the end of 3:10 to Yuma but I still loved it. In fact, sometimes a happy ending just isn’t right for the material. Many of Steven Spielberg’s recent films have suffered because he felt the need to tack on a happy ending or wrap everything up in a pat little coda. It’s just not always necessary. But you know what I do need? SOME ending. ANY ending. And ultimately that’s what has left me feeling unfulfilled by No Country.
I haven’t read Cormac McCarthy’s book, so I don’t know if the ending is true to the novel. I suspect it is, and maybe it reads better than it plays on a movie screen. It’s difficult to explain without revealing key plot points, which I certainly don’t want to do. Basically, throughout the movie, tension is building. The suspense is delicious. There is momentum leading us towards something. And then… it’s over. That’s it. Now, I know many people will say that I am describing that final Sopranos episode to a tee, but here’s the difference: The Sopranos was about the everyday lives of the characters, and they way it ended suggested that their lives simply continued on after the show was over. In “No Country,” certain things happen to certain characters that demand an explanation, and none is given. What is the point of everything that has happened in the movie up until the end? There is none.
And let me say this: I recognize that the Coen brothers have done this on purpose. They are accomplished filmmakers who understand editing and storytelling. They certainly knew what they were doing when they made this choice. I just feel, in the case of this particular movie, that they have made the wrong choice.
Sign In to post a comment.





1 Comment
Good review. I was disappointed that you didn't bring up the similarities between "A Simple Plan" and "No Country for Old Men." I read the book first, which was very, very good, so I didn't get as wrapped up in the movie as I often do.