|
Movies Books Music Food Tv Shows Technology Politics Video Games Parenting Fashion Green Living more >

Lunch » Tags » Movies » Reviews » No Country for Old Men » User review

No Country for Old Men

A 2008 movie starring Javier Bardem directed by Ethan Coen and Joel Coen

< read all 24 reviews

Best picture for 2008 is the least of its praises

  • Apr 16, 2008
Rating:
+5
Pros: Everything but the lack of music

Cons: Maybe too violent for some--not really a con, but it fits here

The Bottom Line: A new sort of epic that is worth every second.

Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie''s plot.

No Country for Old Men won the best picture Oscar for 2008 and has had about 2 score people write reviews for it. I will write the normal review but have an analysis portion below that puts the story (based on the book) and the film itself in context based on the artists involved.

The plot is simple to explain but deeply complex in the telling.

While hunting, Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) finds the remnants of a massive shootout that left all but one dead and he about to die. Among the ruins, he finds a satchel containing a huge sum of money. He takes this home and begins to formulate a plan. He feels guilty for not helping the one partial survivor, so he goes back in the middle of the night. He finds pretty quickly that he is not alone and those who have joined him are shooting at him. He hurries home and sends his wife Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) to stay with her mother. He sets out to confuse those who have begun to chase him.

Meanwhile Sheriff Ed Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is alerted to the massacre. Because Moss had left his truck behind, Sheriff Bell uses his seriously uncommon common sense to piece together that Moss has either the money or some of the drugs that were the cause of the massacre. From here starts a chase in four parts. You will have to watch the film to see how the rest of it plays out. I will say this before getting into the rest of the review: unless you lack a sense of, or understanding of dread, then you should have goose bumps very often.

The acting was spectacular. Atonement had the same caliber of talent but it and No Country are the rare gems in this regard that I can remember in ages. The only reason that Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, and Javier Bardem stand out is the amount of time they have on the screen. One of my favorite “bit-part” actresses, Beth Grant (Carla Jean’s mother) is her usual hysterical self in a movie that has very little comedy in it.

The camera work was the Coen brothers at their best. I will get to this in the deep analysis below, but they have a sense of location that has to be seen to be understood. This very talented pair knows how to use this necessary function of filmmaking to further the symbolism in a movie already rich with symbols. They use the same sorts of framing as a sort of control, meaning they will use a framing shot with the very dark Chigurh closely followed by the same framing for Sheriff Bell. This isn’t at all unusual for the Coens.

The only thing I have any trouble with is the music, or the lack of it. The best Coen movies (Raising Arizona, Miller’s Crossing, and especially Oh Brother Where Art Thou) have plenty of and memorable music; I cannot recall so much as one note of anything in this one. Yes it could be part of the underlying sparseness of the film, but I think it is really a layer that is missing.

The violence in the film, for some, might be gratuitous and this is a perfect lead in for the contextual analysis to follow. Violence plays a significant role in every McCarthy novel except his first The Orchard Keeper (and it still has its fair amount, but the tone of the novel is different so the violence doesn’t have the same impact). Therefore, the Coens did a good job of integrating this aspect of the novel into their film.

I highly recommend this film; it may not be for everyone, but what film ever has been?

The review is over. The contextual view follows and will likely contain plot spoilers. Much of the focus will be on McCarthy because my assumption is that fewer people will be familiar with McCarthy than with the Coens.

So much of Western literature has been about sex and death—those two facets are supposed to be the guiding principles of life and literature. This means that stories primarily about either or both become huge YAWNs. For McCarthy, the balance is entirely different. For him the primal urges are violence, fear, and death. Keep in mind, these are primal urges occurring deep in the limbic portion of the brain skipping the higher functions almost entirely. And what sets him apart from the crowd is that his language to describe these events is so lush that both the limbic and higher brains are involved in processing it. This is challenging mainly, but can also be frightening and sometimes frustrating—but in the same sense a good crossword puzzle can be frustrating. The sort of standard man vs man paradigm works only so far with McCarthy. In a similar vein, man’s inhumanity to men also only goes so far. McCarthy has found a behavioral space that is outside of hatred and where motive is vague if it is involved at all (it is not uncommon for men to fight for no decernible reason other than fight). This probably sounds silly, but Chigurh is a recent example of what I mean. I will examine him, then move back to McCarthy.

In both novel and film, No Country contains something that may not be unique, but I am so struck by it that I can’t recall ever seeing it before (and the only real analog to Chigurh in a McCarthy novel is the Judge in the utterly brilliant Blood Meridian). Chigurh is a character. He moves, speaks, bleeds, so he is “real” in that sense. However he ultimately is the avatar of what I call beige evil. Evil typically has a driver behind it, a motive. In Chigurh, what you get is not a motive-driven evil; what you get is the essence of whatever solipsistic ethic a complete sociopath maintains. He doesn’t want the money. The film makes a decision that the book does not, but even the film leaves room for the following conclusions.

The money is the reason he was hired; this was a poor choice. Chigurh is a force; he is the shadow of a dream where you are chased but when you turn around, instead of seeing nothing, you see him. Everything else is incidental. Killing isn’t a motive either; it is a gerund. One must have some activity for momentum to continue, killing is Chigurh’s avocation.

The reason money isn’t the motive is clear enough for me. He shows up in the executive office and kills the guy behind the desk—the one who apparently helped control the drug – money transfer situation. Ostensibly, this man hired him. This can be seen as motive: if he kills the folks, he gets to keep the money. The problem with this as motive is that he doesn’t kill the kingpin, just a deputy. Besides, given all that we know about him, who would be able to stop him from just taking the money—a very tiny few see him and live.

The Judge, Chigurh, and the father and son pair in The Road are characters, but they are different from the rest of the very well crafted characters. In all cases, these people for lengthy stretches become symbols or forces. The Judge is the model for a playful evil: let’s see what happens if I do this horrific act. Chigurh is already well fleshed out. The father and son in The Road are the keepers of the light (this last is unique among McCarthy’s works—a symbol of something essential to the higher brain).

Sheriff Bell and Moss are indicative of nearly all of the main characters from his other novels. Each man has a common sense that is extremely broad but has the ability to focus intensely on something in particular without losing the over all sense of preternatural native knowledge. They are closely related to characters like Marion Sylder in The Orchard Keeper and the eponymous Suttree. And each of these men and a score of others like them use relatively short sentences to make their points. Why speak more when less will do?

These men know themselves as deeply as they know their surroundings. This is the second aspect of McCarthy that is so important to his work and that works well with the style the Coens use in their better films. Location is as important as the people acting within it. He will often spend several paragraphs setting up a scene where only a few sentences are exchanged before moving on. Faulkner, someone McCarthy is often compared to, had a similar sense, but what sets the two authors apart is just how each man frames their “place.” For Faulkner, the place was a mini-universe; it was a place where, as has been said often, the illiterate consider their lives within a deep narrative using words they would never have heard, let alone understand. For McCarthy, location is more of a set piece and proving ground. McCarthy’s sense of place is limited only in the sense that he cannot spend dozens of pages describing a valley. In the same way, it is a proving ground for McCarthy to show off his style which is a mixture of beauty and sometimes frustration given the breadth of the man’s knowledge of the rarer words in English.

People unfamiliar with his work will, by and large, run into problems with what appears to be, and sometimes is, a dull look at a landscape only for that purpose. Billy Bob Thornton did a respectable job of translating All the Pretty Horses to the big screen, but it was mostly ignored. Thornton did his level best to show the landscapes as the author described in lasting detail. The problem is that the film was incorrectly billed as a romance. Those seeking romance were totally disappointed. Those knowing McCarthy may have been disappointed, but they understood (or at least I did) the attempt to show at least a reasonable attempt of explaining how McCarthy’s stories work.

Now to the Coens. Their work in Miller’s Crossing, Barton Fink, Fargo and Oh Brother showed that the brothers think in the language of epic. Fink was almost entirely an inside movie; however, the story still had an epic scope. The interior scenes in Miller’s had the same feel to it. Perhaps you can argue that what they do isn’t tied to location and I won’t argue; however, I would argue that they know how to integrate location into a film so that it makes sense as well as preserves the story they want to tell.

Artful directors know how to manipulate the scene and framing to increase emotion. Actors can do this with words and motions, but if you add thoughtful camera work and the impact is far greater. The Coens’ epic films allow for a level of ease that is uncommon among current directors. Since the films have such broad scenery and scope, the viewer never, or rarely, gets a sense of claustrophobia. What this permits, though, is a very wide area with which to make a point. Consider the way Chigurh walks down the hallway in the Hotel before his encounter with Moss. He is framed in the center—his entire blackness walking down the middle of a hallway that may as well have been as wide as a football field. There is no close up claustrophobia that is common or even required for focusing on the bad guy. Instead, the whole scene stretches the length of the screen. That sort of sudden dread in what was, for me, a relaxed state is like a strong muscle twitch.

I may have already gone in too long, but here seems a logical stopping place. If you watch No Country a couple of times then watch the others I’ve listed, you will see signature character types, situations, and camera use that would allow you to spot a Coen Brothers’ movie with one eye closed. The same can be said of McCarthy—but it requires both eyes.

Recommended:
Yes
 

What did you think of this review?

Helpful
0
Thought-Provoking
0
Fun to Read
0
Well-Organized
0
Post a Comment
More No Country for Old Men reviews
review by . May 02, 2011
This movie is probably the Coens at the height of their moviemaking prowess, even though this isn't my favourite overall of their movies. That title still belongs to The Big Lebowski. However, I do think this is the best Coen drama, girded by exceptionally strong performances and a simple but enthralling premise. That guided by the Coen brothers' steady directing makes No Country For Old Men a definite must-see and a fitting entry into their collection. It's also very worthy of winning …
review by . March 26, 2008
Wow. Great movie. I saw this movie at the Rialto in Raleigh, NC, which is worth a trip in itself as an old school "movie palace". The lobby is about the size of my kitchen at home, just enough room for a concession stand, then double doors open directly into the big theatre with a concrete floor sloping down to the big screen on a real stage. Stepping through those double doors is a 50-year step backwards, but the place looks like it has been recently renovated as the floor is clean, the seats are …
review by . May 30, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
WHAT A GREAT ENDING
      NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN       I don't know about you but I have always been a huge fan of the Coen Brothers Joel and Ethan, I have liked every film the two have put together. This is no exception and is just another classic in a long list of classics, both theatrically and on DVD this is a brilliant film. I can honestly say that a lot of the time I do not agree with the winners or even the nominees chosen by the Academy for the Oscar but they got it right …
review by . July 01, 2011
While it's very easy to trace comparisons between this film and prior Coen projects, such an exercise seems almost trivial when one considers that this story was adapted from one of Cormac McCarthy's most accessible novels. It's comforting to note that the Coens have found a story compatible with their usual trademarks: dialogue characterized by a regional vernacular, eccentrics who both voice and embody the story's themes and a measured pace interjected by bizarre scenes of intense …
Quick Tip by . February 21, 2011
This movie takes patience, and requires interpreting. If you're not interested in having to think through what the movie is trying to say, it will just seem like one damn thing after another.
Quick Tip by . December 28, 2010
"The Terminator" in Texas...    Somehow I have to make 50 characters here.
review by . July 11, 2009
posted in Movie Hype
Josh Brolin as Lewllon Moss
Sheriff Ed Tom Bell is a good sheriff.  He can put together a crime scene and get in touch with who he needs to.  Never gets hurt and does a good job keeping the peace.  One day though an ugly and violent crime is enough to put him out to pasture.  It was enough to make him realize how just like all those disgusting crimes across the country he only read about in newspapers, has finally come home to West Texas.  Towards the end of his tenure as Sheriff, an old friend of …
Quick Tip by . June 08, 2010
CRAZY but so incredibly good. Watched it in my criminology class.
review by . September 06, 2009
posted in Movie Hype
I was sheriff of this county when I was twenty-five years old. Hard to believe. My grandfather was a lawman; father too. Me and him was sheriffs at the same time; him up in Plano and me out here. I think he's pretty proud of that. I know I was. Some of the old time sheriffs never even wore a gun. A lotta folks find that hard to believe. Jim Scarborough'd never carry one; that's the younger Jim. Gaston Boykins wouldn't wear one up in Camanche County. I always liked to hear about the oldtimers. Never …
Quick Tip by . October 31, 2009
Poor Texas man runs off with drug money he finds at a crime scene only to have a bounty hunter on his tail and a sheriff in between. Great.
About the reviewer
Paul Savage ()
Ranked #57
I name and describe everything and classify most things. If 'it' already had a name, the one I just gave it is better.
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

You
cyclone_march
Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
About this movie

Wiki

The Coen brothers make their finest thriller sinceFargowith a restrained adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel. Not that there aren't moments of intense violence, butNo Country for Old Menis their quietest, most existential film yet. In this modern-day Western, Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is a Vietnam vet who could use a break. One morning while hunting antelope, he spies several trucks surrounded by dead bodies (both human and canine). In examining the site, he finds a case filled with $2 million. Moss takes it with him, tells his wife (Kelly Macdonald) he's going away for awhile, and hits the road until he can determine his next move. On the way from El Paso to Mexico, he discovers he's being followed by ex-special ops agent Chigurh (an eerily calm Javier Bardem). Chigurh's weapon of choice is a cattle gun, and he uses it on everyone who gets in his way--or loses a coin toss (as far as he's concerned, bad luck is grounds for death). Just as Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), a World War II vet, is on Moss's trail, Chigurh's former colleague, Wells (Woody Harrelson), is on his. For most of the movie, Moss remains one step ahead of his nemesis. Both men are clever and resourceful--except Moss has a conscience, Chigurh does not (he is, as McCarthy puts it, "a prophet of destruction"). At times, the film plays like an old horror movie, with Chigurh as its lumbering Frankenstein monster. Like the taciturn terminator,No Country for Old ...
view wiki

Tags

Movies, Drama Movies, Action Movies, Dramas, Coen Brothers, Coen Brothers Movies, Woody Harrelson Movies, Joel Coen Movies, Javier Bardem Movies, Tommy Lee Jones Movies, Ethan Coen Movies, Josh Brolin Movies

Details

Director: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Genre: Action, Drama, Adventure
Release Date: 2007, November 9, 2007
MPAA Rating: R
Screen Writer: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Runtime: 2hrs 2min
Polls with this movie
Barton Fink

Coen Brother Classics

by

American Beauty

Oscar Winning Movies

by

© 2014 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists