Starring: Oscar Winner Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin
Extended Cameo: Woody Harrelson
I went to see No Country For Old Men yesterday at a 1 o'clock matinee. I'm happy to report that there were about 30 people in the theater located in a sub-standard mall. That's good news for theaters, the film industry, Los Angeles, California, the U.S., and the Democratic party.
The plot is rather simple. Drug deal goes bad. Good guy finds suitcase full of money. White collar execs behind the deal want their money back. Bounty hunters are hired. Mayhem, murder, suspense, and helplessness ensues.
What I Liked
• The cinematography. Having driven through the desert on many occasions, the movie shows it as I remember it. Wide-open, scrub-covered, windy expanses with gorgeous thunderstorms on the horizon.
• Set decoration. I was particularly impressed with the kitchen in the "cat" house towards the end. The detailed selection of the items on the counters and walls made it very believable.
• I enjoyed the acting. Tommy Lee Jones underplaying a retiring sheriff. Javier Bardem underplaying a sociopathic killer with an odd sense of duty to a skewed code of killer ethics. However, I couldn't see Woody Harrelson as anyone other than good old Woody standing behind the bar at Cheers.
• Speaking of Woody, I've read a lot of reviews saying his character was superfluous. I disagree. It was through him that we discover that the white collar drug dealers had hired multiple people to find their money. We also find out he was a retired Army Major so we see the corruption of drugs and money extends beyond the Mexicans driving the stuff across our southern border.
• Speaking of money, this was an excellent film if you're looking for support of the theory that money is the root of all evil. Drugs just drive the thirst.
• The depiction of life as random. Or is it? Does that very randomness actually bring us all to the point where we are at? "Does everything happen for a reason?" or is it true that "He was in the wrong place at the wrong time." Can you cheat death even though it is coming for you?
• Despite the gratuitous violence, there were a lot of suspenseful moments that I enjoyed watching through my fingers.
What I Didn't Like
• I'm getting too old to watch people get blown away on screen.
• I left feeling depressed...sometimes the evil elements in the world seem to have the advantage and the fight just gets worse and worse.
• The storytelling was a little slow for me although I understand it was part of the effect of how things happen at a different pace in West Texas.
• The ambiguous take-away. The abrupt ending seems to be the buzz about the movie. Some people claim they don't get it, then another "class" of people turn up their noses and say, "Well, you just didn't get it." In the research I've done since, those people who "got it" can never quite explain what it is that they got. Please leave any explanations in the comments. Readers be warned that the comments may contain spoilers.
The film won Best Picture, Best Director(s), Best Supporting Actor, and Best Adapted Screenplay. The Academy seemingly loved it; me, not so much. I don't get it. I haven't seen Michael Clayton or There Will Be Blood yet, but I would recommend the other Best Picture nominees Atonement and Juno over this.
My thumb is pointing down a bit for No Country For Old Men. For another review, check out what Michael had to say over at Manhattan Chowder.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
My Thumb Kinda Down: No Country For Old Men
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I haven't seen this one yet, but read the book (and blogged a little bit about it).
I liked the book precisely for the Biblical overtones. Some of the questions you have about where the movie comes down on the "meaning" of the events would probably be cleared up by reading the book (and it's a pretty quick read) -- the Anton Chigurh character has some interesting monologues (in the movie, too, I think) about how there are no accidents, and we all play a role in each other's fates.
I thought the coin toss -- the scene in the book where Chigurh is introduced -- was keen and powerful, and I wrote at the time that I imagined that's the scene that captured the Coens' imagination. Chigurh's take on it is that we are all, in effect, instruments of fate. The cruellest instance of this comes during his encounter with Carla Jean, of course. That scene doesn't make sense otherwise.
Although I have read reviews that say the book "unraveled," my take on the ending is that it just heightens the mystery of fate, and of Chigurh's insistence that he is an instrument of it.
I'm a fan of the Coens and Cormac McCarthy, so I am looking forward to seeing this, but at the same time, I'm always a little wary of adaptations.
One more plug: Go see Michael Clayton. I used to be indifferent to Clooney, but ever since seeing him in Syriana, I think he's the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread. And Michael Clayton is a genuinely good, adult movie. The ending is smart. It engages the viewer in a way I haven't seen lately. And Tilda Swinton is from outer space.
Mike--I've had Let There Be Blood on my must see list since you reviewed it some time back. I'll have to add Michael Clayton to the list, although I don't think it is still playing around here. And George Clooney is going to be tomorrow's Hunk-A-Lot post. I fell for him in the Coen's O Brother, Where Are Thou?
Oh, if you were depressed by Country, after watching There will be blood, you will think of Country as an MGM musical. Dark, dark, dark.
I would never put myself through that again.
Thanks for linking me Gavin. I guess when a movie like this receives the kind of kudos it's getting I feel rather left out that I don't feel the same way. That seems to happen more and more with Hollywood and me these days tho.
Post a Comment