No Country For Old Men

[tpfkabi]

SPOILERS


in ways i'm wondering if this is the Silence of the Lamb to all the Hannibal sequels - i.e. killer walks away free with not much known about him. one cop survives...

srsly?  cos that totally defeats the purpose of the movie (not the sequels usually "get" it anyways..)  the whole brilliance of tommy lee jones' character comes from his idleness. 

he is defintely getting old - his face looked like a vast desert landscape itself - but the cop coming out of retirement because he knows the killer is not unheard of. there probably will be no sequels in this case, it just made me think of Silence and even Three Burials which Tommy Lee was also in. actually a combination Zodiac/Three Burials.

in reference to the car crash comment - it didn't necessitate the 'turning point' tag in this case (and i almost deleted that distinction) but the other car crashes of recent years (adaptation, office space, pdl, and probably others i can't think of).

[Sleepless]

MY REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

I'm not sure how to start this review. I have some conflicting thoughts about this film... Certainly this is a far superior film to the Coen's last two efforts, and yet it still sits somewhat uncomfortably with their other films I feel (even their debut). I like the darkness, the emptiness of this film. Visually, aurally, I like the tense sparseness of it all. The first half of the film is without a doubt some of the finest film-making the Coens have ever achieved. Whilst watching the film I kept thinking of 'The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada', but since I have been mulling this film over in my mind it keeps reminding my of Lynch's 'Dune'. Well, to me both films have moments of greatness, but I can't help but feel there is a better film within, desperately trying to get out. I can't help thinking how I would like to be given the opportunity to improve on what is already there.

I have a few problems with 'No Country'. Not too many, but a few. My biggest problem is with Tommy Lee Jones' character, Sheriff Bell. I get that he acts as narrator, I get that we are supposed to sympathise with his views that times they are a-changing, that there are evil men in the world... I even get the whole nature of his relation to the investigations, and admire the choice made by the Coens to remain faithful to the novel in not building to a cathartic climax where Bell and Chigurh fight to the death. My problem lies in the fact that Bell just doesn't seem to care. It's all very well him popping in and out of the story, trying to help Bell's wife towards the end, but I grew more and more frustrated with a sheriff who sat around in a diner seemly not even wanting to pursue an investigation. I personally would have liked for Bell to become more involved in the story in some way, rather than just act as a passive observer of these terrors, and then his constant musings on evil, and the emphasis put on him at the end would have been far more resonant.

Two other things that bugged me were the inclusion of Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) and that whole story line; and the scene in the convenience store where Chigurh presses the clerk to call the flipped coin. The Wells storyline seemed pretty pointless to me. He turns up what, three times: to accept assignment in the office; when he tracks down Moss in the hospital; and when Chigurh kills him. I haven't read the book, but I gather he plays a more significant role there. In my opinion, the film would have lost nothing by cutting him out completely, along with the whole office/origin of the money aspects. Now, with the convenience store, the thing that I disliked most about it was that it didn't seem to fit tonally with the rest of the film. It played like an almost comedic scene, complete with a typical Coen-quirky store clerk. I'm guessing this is the scene that other people have said there was much inappropriate laughter in the audience? It just didn't gel with the rest of the film. Now, I loved the whole thing about the coin having travelled over the years to be there at that moment, but maybe there was some other way that ideology could have been incorporated? To have one kitschy scene stick in there, it stuck out like a sore thumb.

Now, the ending, the more I thought about it I liked. But as I said earlier, I feel it could have been made so much more stronger if only Bell had actually been more of a presence throughout the film. Also, if I had the power to do so, I would have put the scene with Bell and Ellis after Chigurh's car crash and getaway, before the final scene. When I saw the film, there was a large group of the audience who started giggling when the end titles came up, laughing no doubt at the way the film ended. I think that's because Bell was just not a substantial presence in the film. Bell is supposed to be the one who holds the movie together. He is the reason it's called 'No Country For Old Men'. But I really don't think it worked. That is the film's weak spot, and it's one helluva flaw.

On the upside, however, there are many truly great aspects to this film. As ever, the Coens demonstrate their remarkable talent in saturating their films with a detailed sense of place. And the use of sound and visuals to add to this, and emphasise the tone and emotions of the film are brilliant. Also, the set-pieces are some of the most exciting scenes I've seen this year. I was trying to think back, the only real "set-piece" I can recall from previous Coen films is the attack on Leo in 'Miller's Crossing'. Maybe the showdown at the end of 'Blood Simple'? But the ones in 'No Country For Old Men' demonstrate the quality of the Coen's ability: the dog chase in the river; the hotel escape – wow. Fantastic stuff.

Performance wise, there's nothing really to fault. Jones trots out his habitual tired law man, perfect as usual (my beef is with the way Bell is used, not the character himself necessarily). But we've seen in before. Javier Bardem is of course going to get all the attention, and of course it is a great performance. Larger than life, yet minimalist and contained. The kind of performance Academy voters love to love. For me though, the two performances which really stood out were those of Josh Brolin and Kelly MacDonald as Moss and his wife. They both came across as very genuine people. Not two-dimensional Hollywood personas, nor Coen-of-old caricatures.

I'm still not sure exactly what I feel about this film. It's good, certainly, but certainly won't be on my end of year list. The only reason that would happen would be for the lame reason simply that it was a Coen Brothers film. These are all just my own thoughts, of course, I'm trying to assess the film in any serious way, simply giving my own honest reaction after I've thought about it for about 36 hours. Maybe my thoughts don't make much sense, I don't know. Maybe I'm being unduly harsh to two film-makers whose work I have loved for many years, simply as a reaction to their past two films – I want them to work harder than this to atone for their misses? I'm not sure. But this is what I feel.

I'm looking forward to seeing this film again. I really, really am.

[Pwaybloe]

the chilling thing about this thread is everyone's done away with spoiler warnings.

No shit!  BC Long, I'm going to kill you with high impact microwaves emitted through your monitor.  It's a new technology.  Make sure to PM me when you're in front of your computer, please. 

[RegularKarate]

CONTAINS SPOILERS

I can't help but feel there is a better film within, desperately trying to get out. I can't help thinking how I would like to be given the opportunity to improve on what is already there.

I personally would have liked for Bell to become more involved in the story in some way, rather than just act as a passive observer of these terrors

In my opinion, the film would have lost nothing by cutting him (wells) out completely

the convenience store... It just didn't gel with the rest of the film....kitschy scene

I would have put the scene with Bell and Ellis after Chigurh's car crash and getaway, before the final scene

which is why your version of the film woudn't have been as good.

The film does almost EVERYTHING right... almost EXACTLY what it's supposed to be.  I didn't really like Woody H. too much... he was a little too Woody and I didn't dig Beth Grant as she was a little to theatery, but I feel like everything else was done just about perfectly.

[MacGuffin]

the moment there's a link for this, someone post it plz!

It's up now:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/11/16/1/a-discussion-about-the-film-no-country-for-old-men

[ASmith]

I didn't really like Woody H. too much...

** Spoilers **

Sir, you simply MUST be shitting me.  I will never forget the way he played Wells when facing death in the hotel room with Chigurh.  Grasping at straws when no one in that situation would have been more certain of their fate than he was.  What he portrayed so powerfully was the struggle to stay composed while desperately articulating a futile case for mercy.  He was developed as a match for Chigurh, or the closest thing to it, and we see him at his knees, not being given an inch of hope while nonetheless trying to save himself with everything he's got.  He wasn't yet physically dying, but rather he was in dialog with death.

While recalling the Carson Wells character I've started thinking about his wardrobe.  It stuck out quite a bit in the colorscape of the film.  It was very light, as if to suggest he was a white knight coming to the rescue.  But it was not white.  At baby blue, it was a few, critical shades short of the heroic white that it needed to be.

[picolas]

the moment there's a link for this, someone post it plz!

It's up now:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/11/16/1/a-discussion-about-the-film-no-country-for-old-men

I didn't really like Woody H. too much...

** Spoilers **

Sir, you simply MUST be shitting me.  I will never forget the way he played Wells when facing death in the hotel room with Chigurh.  Grasping at straws when no one in that situation would have been more certain of their fate than he was.  What he portrayed so powerfully was the struggle to stay composed while desperately articulating a futile case for mercy.  He was developed as a match for Chigurh, or the closest thing to it, and we see him at his knees, not being given an inch of hope while nonetheless trying to save himself with everything he's got.  He wasn't yet physically dying, but rather he was in dialog with death.

While recalling the Carson Wells character I've started thinking about his wardrobe.  It stuck out quite a bit in the colorscape of the film.  It was very light, as if to suggest he was a white knight coming to the rescue.  But it was not white.  At baby blue, it was a few, critical shades short of the heroic white that it needed to be.

spoils!

well, well said. i loved how smart and unafraid and vaguely charming and cocky he was and how it melted away so quickly.. in fact this may be my fav Woody performance.

i had a slight fear in the back of my head that this movie would lose something second time around without the suspense but i knew there was more to it.. it seems to suggest that good is behind the times and can't be as clever as/overcome evil. the editing/form of it suggests it's almost a foregone conclusion. this is just barely skimming the surface.. there's a shitload to think about. i love the character of anton and his curiousity about the workings of all the characters around him and his genuine disturbance regarding lewelynn's wife's coin comment so much. this may be their most overtly philosophical movie. i'd really like to know if they consciously thought about more than just characters and story this time around. it would fit with their need to do something different from what they've just done every time "for the sake of variety." i realize it's an adaptation and all this stuff may be a biproduct of that, but it's too well made to not consciously be about something grander than just these people and their stories.. maybe they talk about how their process has changed in the charlie rose interview... more later. i can't believe a lukewarm review for this movie. it's a masterpiece.

edit: i keep forgetting to mention the insert of the wrapper in the gas station is the front-runner for insert of the year.

[Sleepless]

which is why your version of the film woudn't have been as good.

Maybe. Like, I said, just my general thoughts. I don't mean that I view myself as a better film-maker than the Coens, just trying to point out what I felt didn't work, and what my opinions were of how it could be improved.

it's a masterpiece.

No way. It's a good film, certainly. I definately enjoyed it when I saw it. But the more I think about it the more I'm disappointed. I dunno... I just kinda feel really mediocre about it. Shame. Definately not in my top 5 of 2007.

[idk]

SPOILERS!

how do you interpret the editing of the return of tommy lee to the hotel after brolin died - that whole scene? simply that the killer was in the other room?

I wondered about this too, if it was meant to be that he was in the other room than it didn't make it very clear and it never shows him again, like leaving or something. The way Brolin's death was revealed I found unremarkable, I was just too confused its not even made clear beforehand that was his hotel room he was laying dead in.  I guess maybe its just me but for a lot of the scenes towards the end I was too busy trying to figure out everything and it took away from being able to enjoy the significance of what was happening.

[martinthewarrior]

Best film I've seen this year. Period.

I felt like the Coen brothers finally made a movie about the character that plays a supporting role in some of their other films. Goodman's character in Barton Fink. The baby Hunter in Raising Arizona. Peter Stormare in Fargo. A character who is his violence and insanity. There's nothing else to him. He's that thought, or deed, that'll fuck you up eventually.


Blah, blah, blah. It was great.

[©brad]

oh man. this tore me a new cinematic asshole. my neck hairs have never been so erect.

ok cwbb, your ball.

[Kal]

I'm probably the only person here that hasnt seen 'Blood' yet, and I got so fucking excited when they showed the trailer right before the start of the film, that it took me a little to concentrate and stop wishing I was seeing that one instead!

Anyways, I loved every minute of it... I loved how quiet most of the movie is, which has everyone paying so much attention cause any little insignificant noise means something. The motel scenes, all of them, are excellent and terrifying.  Bardem surprised me in an amazing way. I knew he would be good, but with his acting and the ridiculous look of the character they accomplished creating something unique that will stand out forever.

I want to see this again and pay even more attention to little details. One of the best of the year for sure.

[squints]

I loved that the CWBB trailer played right before the movie started. It set this film up perfectly. First i saw "Film by Paul Thomas Anderson" and i fucking squealed out loud and as soon as that was over it was "No Country for Old Men" with barely any credits

SPOILY (by the way to everyone who hasn't seen it: READ THE BOOK! DON'T WATCH A SINGLE TRAILER! AND ESPECIALLY DON'T WATCH THAT CHARLIE ROSE INTERVIEW IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE)

There are two things that are different from the book to the movie but everything else is near perfect. Reading the book I imagined the first chapter (which is sherrif bell philosophizing about violence and such) being voice-over to a montage of a texas desert. The exact same thing they did in Blood Simple with M. emmet walsh's character and that's exactly what they did with the movie. Anyway, the two differences:

In the book, Chigurh and Moss have their gun battle in the hotel and out into the street as moss escapes to mexico. A woman in her apartment is hit in the head by a stray bullet. Carson wells comes onto the scene a day or so after the confrontation and notices bullet holes in a window above. Wells finds the woman who must've been so alone that the police didn't find her. I thought this scene maybe could've have been slipped in somewhere giving a little more weight to Woody's character.

Second, in the book the girl moss talks to in the scene right before his death is in the book for a lot longer. Moss is driving to el paso and he sees this girl hitchhiking on the side of the road, he picks her up, they have breakfast and talk on their way to a hotel. When Carla Jean finds out about Moss it seems that Moss was cheating on his wife (which he didn't) and it added more weight to the sadness carla jean must've been going through. Couple this with the death of her mother and the last scene with Chigurh and it becomes so much more traumatic.

But these are minor quarrels. The film is perfection. I was wondering how they were going to end it and that was really the only thing i was worried about. But god damn was that ending with Tommy Lee's sad eyes just incredible and haunting.

Some really memorable shots:
The peanut wrapper slowly unwrapping on the counter.
The boot scuffs on the floor from Chigurh's first victim.
The reflections of Chigurh and then Bell in Moss's tv.

The best movie i've seen in a while. I'm so happy the coen brothers are back. 

[Sleepless]

spoils

sleepless, you mustve been sleepless durning ncfom.

I never said I hated the film, but I certainly don't think it's worthy of the masterpiece status you want to bestow on it. I haven't read the book, I'm just looking at this as a stand-alone film. It is what it is. I try and do that with any film-adaptation, I believe it should stand alone as a piece of art and entertainment. From what other people have said this is a good adaptation, but I feel sometimes film-makers need to take certain liabilities with the source material in order to make a completely successful film, and I don't think that's the case here. But of course, just my opinion. Believe me, I want to like this film. Like probably everyone else here I own all the Coens movies (yes, even IC and TLK), I have books on the Coens, soundtracks.... I'm obviously not going to win any support for my feelings on this film right now. I know I need to see the film again. Basically, what it boils down to is that TLJ's character is not a big enough presence throughout the film to warrant taking his musings and emotions as significantly as we should AND THAT'S A WEAKNESS FOR THE MOVIE. Maybe it works in the book, I don't know. But film is a visual medium, and I think that Bell should have been more active in trying to overcome this evil rather than just idily track in in the newspaper. Otherwise, what qualifies him as a worthy narrator and expressor of emotions?

[Gold Trumpet]

Don't worry Sleepless, you've more than explained yourself compared to the guys who are prodding you. No need to defend anything. The movie didn't come to my city which pissed me off, but I could have seen it during a recent road trip. I didn't because I was on valium at the time. I'm hanging on to slim hopes the film will expand beyond 800 theaters or just hit my city late.