No Country for Old Men

I agree, I really didn't like this film very much at all, either. It seemed sterotypical to me, and there was very little, if anything, to attach to when viewing it.

I am shocked by everything I'm reading. I suppose some small amount of credit can be given towards the reviewers' refusal to jump on the bandwagon and claim to perceive greatness where none was recognized. Faulting the film for the lack of understanding you walked away with seems very sad to me. Many of the greatest films challenge viewers to think about what they are seeing and spend some time in reflection afterwards. I find it unfortunate that most Hollywood releases do their best to explain everything so that the lowest common denominator is sure to understand everything. It would be a travesty if films that truly challenged the audience did not exist.

Although this film challenges audiences by becoming a different film before the credits roll, there is no attempt to keep this meaning or intention hidden. Listen to Sherrif Bell's opening monologue, read the title of the film, witness Bell's behaviour throughout and listen to what he has to say in the closing minutes of the film. The message of this film could not be any clearer.

This is Sherrif Bell's story. We follow Lewelyn Moss only so that it will reinforce what Bell is thinking. Regardless, why should it matter if a film disposes of convention and tells a story that does not centrally concern only one character? If a story can be told while weaving in and out of various characters lives then it accomplishes all that it set out to do. This film achieves exactly what was intended, and does so without the type of resolution we expect from this type of film. During most book to film adaptations the ending of this film would have been changed to meet this expectation, and in doing so it would have lost much of what made the book so special and become just another cat and mouse film.

Another comment on this page says that this film is stereotypical. If you have truly find this stereotypical you have either not paid attention to the film beyond the "bad guy chases good guy" opening and midsection, or you have truly experienced films that put my meager background in film to shame. If the latter is the case I anxiously await this list of films so that I may further enrich myself.

Hi John,

Lewelyn Moss takes the clip out of the pistol and puts it on his thigh as he kneels (looks like a 9mm), pops out the chambered round, blows the water out of the chamber, tries to shake out as much water as possible hoping that the the gun will fire. He doesn't have an extra clip afterall, it's the same clip, taken out, shaken and REINSERTED. Watch it again and check carefully... )

BTW. I adored this movie....

Ciao Jay

Stubadub,

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. First you write that the film is good because it does not explain things too much, the way most Hollywood films. But in the next paragraph, you write that "the message of the film could not be any clearer." Which is it?

Stripping away all other factors, for me, this year's two critical favorites "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country" both came to down to one central factor: you either "bought" the character or you didn't. You were either awe-struck by Daniel Plainview and/or Anton Chigurh, or you weren't. I still haven't figured out what Day-Lewis was trying to do with Plainview. I'm pretty sure I know what Bardem and the Coens were trying to do with Chigurh, but it didn't work for me. He felt like another one of the Coens' comedic bad guys except that nobody told him he was supposed to be a walking punchline. Which is kind of an interesting idea. But in scene after scene, I found it nearly impossible not to laugh at Chigurh and his coin-flipping and his "friend-o", and not that nervous laugh out of fear either. And, no, it wasn't because of the haircut.

jae jae,

Yes, thanks, it does appear that way on second viewing. It didn't look that way at first, though, and drying out the chamber and reinserting the clip seems even more ridiculous to me his taking out a new clip. Again, as I said in the review, if this were meant as satire, parody, I could buy it. The exaggeration and coincidence seems laughable in hindsight. But as it's happening, it seems like the Coens want you to believe every moment of it, and I didn't.

Well, anyway, I didn't dislike the film, as I've said. I just didn't feel the awe toward it that others did, and, frankly, on second viewing on DVD, it sort of bored me after a while. But most folks like it, and that's the important thing, being entertained and/or enlightened by a film. If it works for you, it works for you, and no one can take that away.

John

Hi John,

Firearms and water don't usually mix well, unless you happen to have a Kalashnikov. For the most part, ammunition and the firing mechanism will often not work if a gun has been dunked in water a pistol is also worse off than a revolver. The USA's own ubiquitous M16 assualt rifle often has condoms rolled on and placed over the tip of the gun like some phallic perversion, to stop water from entering the barrel or the firing chamber whenever the weapon is used by the marines in wet conditions. Lewelyn's actions were at least believable particularly as the character of moss is a Vietnam vet. He would know that his chances of killing the chasing pitbull would be much better if he can just dry off that damn pistol. Now, to your point "The exaggeration and coincidence seems laughable in hindsight." I argue here that there was none intended John, that is "no exaggeration and no coincidence", the fact that you found there to be makes me wonder what made the movie dislike you so much or vice versa. The scene was very pragmatic in nature. The obvious threat was there. He has a certain knowledge and training that made him peform in his own best interests in a particular fashion under duress. I posit it makes it more "believable not less so". The same can be said for anyone doing what they know to be "correct" in a particular situation that perhaps an audience outside of which that discourse operates, will not understand or make it out to be a moment of triviality. But as you said, each to their own, for me it was a time for the Oscar's to make up for recent blunders and I am glad they did...

Jay

csjlong,

I don't believe either point negates the other. It is perfectly plausible that a film can both challenge the viewer and present enough information to provide clarity. This movie challenges us by defying convention and forcing the audience to think. Audience expectation is subverted and the film takes an unexpected direction. By the end of the film it has become something entirely unlike the films that have preceded it, and we are left to digest what has happened and how it all fits together.

At the same time we are given enough information throughout the film to discern how Sherrif Bell's reflection on life at the end of the film connects with the Moss/Chigurh storyline. This is not a film without a specific statement, and it is not intended to be ambiguous. This film is not a Muholland Drive(a wonderful film for the record). We are not given pieces with no obvious connection and only vague clues as to how we might connect the dots. In films like that there are often many interpretations and the director specifically hopes that people will walk away with completely different takes on what has transpired. Here we are supposed to walk away with a specific understanding of the world that Sherrif Bell has gained at this late stage in his life. Chigurh is the embodiment of this understanding and as a result the Moss/Chigurh conflict ends in the way that it always had to end.

No Country was bar none my favorite movie of the year. The film made perfect sense to me, and it was one of the VERY few movies that I thought was as good, or even better than the book.

If you like The Departed, you'll like this movie. Is a movie about morals, is a movie about way of life...is a movie about?? You name it.

The story is great, the acting is great, specially by Bardem who does an excellent job portraying his character (I can think of so many possibilities for him as a comic book villain), the editing was good, the cinematography was great.

It's a movie that takes many turns where you expect it and many where you don't expect it, yet it slows down for you to digest them altogether, whether you understand them or not. I enjoyed this movie very much (if it wasn't for the quality of the print which suffered of softness thanks to subtitles, I think), except for the ending, which had a 'Natural Born Killers' type of ending (I enjoy odd/sad/negative endings anyways).

It is a great movie, I don't know if it's the best of 2007, but on the top (Ratatouille, I'm talking to you).

I went into “No Country” with extremely high expectations. The critics couldn’t stop slobbering all over it, pre-Oscar nods were already being doled out to it and it was made by the creators of four of my all time favorite movies “O Brother Where Art Thou?,” “The Big Lebowski,” “The Hudsucker Proxy” and “Raising Arizona.” I brought my girlfriend with me, she had never seen a Cohen Brother’s film before (yeah I know) but I wanted her to give me a gage on what I was expecting to be my favorite film of the year.

Once the house lights went up I turned to her and she asked, “What did you think?” To which I replied…”Meh.” She on the other hand loved it. “No Country” had me throughout the first half of the flick, I was enjoying it as a “post-action” film and I thought both Brolin and Bardem were wonderful. In particular Brolin, who I think actually gave a better and more interesting performance than the much championed Bardem. He just seemed to be the art film version of Jason or Michael Meyers to me. But my main problem with “No Country” was that halfway through the film, the attention shifts and it’s an hour of Tommy Lee Jones chewing up the scenery playing the same boring role he’s been more than happy to do for years now. Once he started into dueling monologues with Maurice form “Northern Exposure” I just wanted the film to end.

I appreciated the abundant symbolism, and the performances of the majority of the actors, but in the end “No Country” simply wasn’t the film everybody is portraying it as. I didn’t see anything special about it, it definitely wasn’t my favorite film of the year, hell it didn’t even crack my top ten Coen brothers movies. Every few years a mediocre “arty” film like “No Country for Old Men” is released and mainstream America loses their minds over it. “American Beauty,” “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Napoleon Dynamite” are great examples of this phenomena. The majority of people are so used to consuming garbage like “American Idol,” “Transformers” and whatever CD is on sale at Wal-Mart that when a film that reaches for a slightly higher level of entertainment comes to the multiplex people lose their freaking minds over it.

But to be fair, given the fact that the Academy hasn’t handed a “Best Picture” Oscar to the year’s true Best Picture since 1991 it wasn’t surprising to see it win the statute.

stubadub,

I enjoyed the ending, but I really don't see anything about the rest of the film that marks it as groundbreaking or unique. This is a straightforward genre story told shot and told in a classical manner (continuity editing, linear storytelling, etc.) which, like most films of its kind, delivers a moral message. That's not a criticism there are plenty of great films that fit that description. There are also plenty of merely adequate films that fit that description. I think "No Country" falls into the latter category. I'd have a much more positive view of it if not for the character of Chigurh and the performance of Bardem as Chigurh. But then again, I also think Anthony Hopkins is positively ridiculous as Hannibal Lecter.

I'm going back a bit now, but I didn't dislike it due to a "lack of understanding", I just didn't find it interesting, well-done, or believable. This may lead you to argue that I didn't understand it, but there have been several 'deep' films in the past that I feel I've understood just fine, but still didn't like them. That being said, I love plenty of others, I'm just fine with muddled conclusions, Ingmar Bergman is a favorite of mine, after all. I agree with Christopher, the ending was clever, but not truly ground-breaking, it's not the first abrupt ending I've seen, not by a longshot, There Will Be Blood had one that was somewhat so, and a much better and more successful one at that. Of course, this doesn't make me right, people are destined to disagree on movies like these, which perhaps suggests their worth.

Oh, I liked The Departed alright, and I, obviously, didn't like this one.

I agree with John's review. I waited to give my judgment on movie until I see it. Alas the movie does nothing new for the genre. Drug deal gone bad, one bad guy chasing the guy the all the money. Kills everyone ! Not for a single moment I thought it was about random events. I think John's rating is bit high. I would give a 5. Now don't come telling me that you are smarter than me coz you understood what Coens were cooking. :-).

Chris -- why did you like the ending? seriously !

My another thought - is that the entire movie is a dream which Tommy lee recites in the end to his wife. Now that would be a highly abstract ending !