|
http://imdb.com/title/tt0477348/ I’m surprised nobody here has written a review for this yet so here goes. If you’ve seen Fargo or The Big Lebowski as much as I have then you know the Coen Bros. need no introduction. This film is unlike anything they’ve ever done and unlike any film I can think of. It’s the best movie I’ve seen since City of God in 2003 and it’s the one film I’ve highly recommended to everyone I meet. But I know this movie isn’t for everyone as seen in the Cinema Discusso thread and that’s okay, it’s not meant for everyone. In short, No Country for Old Men is about a man (not an old man) who finds a cache of money in the desert from a dope deal gone wrong and the subsequent cat and mouse chase with a psychopath. However the story and plot are the least important aspects in this film. By the end you’re sure to have many questions buzzing around your head about semantic details in the storyline and characters, just like I did. It took me time to realize that these details aren’t important. The moral and existential questions this movie raises are the bulk of it’s ferocity. I’ll say no more. The acting is some of the best I’ve ever witnessed. Tommy Lee Jones (the old man) is at the top of his game and Josh Brolin has sure come a long way since The Goonies. The real star, and the one most likely to leave you scared shitless by the time you leave, is Javier Bardem. His performance as the coin flipping psychopath Anton Chigurh is so unsettling and precise that it crawls into your subconscious and places his image under the definition of evil. Really, if you don’t enjoy the film, you’ll enjoy him. Go see this movie. 5 out of 5 E: Oh, heh, when I saw this there was a bus load of old people in front of me mumbling and asking questions and just generally confused about everything. So lean over to my chums and whisper "No movie for old men, eh?" 
prostate_milk fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Nov 28, 2007 |
#
?
Nov 28, 2007 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Awesome movie experience: This is the kind of movie that stuns the audience. Seriously, for like a whole minute after the movie ended and the credits started rolling, it was absolute silence. Nobody moved. Like no one wanted to break it, which is pretty rare for movie theaters. (You know, people usually stand up, start talking about how much they liked/disliked it, some clap or boo,etc) The ending is so anti-climatic (in the good way, it fits perfectly with the course of the story) it's overwhelming. I was awed by how good this movie was, and I've read the book a couple times so I even knew what was going to happen. I mean really, if you feel suspense even when you know exactly how a scene turns out, that's a good film. Beautiful cinematography, great cast and script, exhilarating cat-and-mouse sequences, super-subtle dark humor and not one movie cliche in sight. How's that for a slice of fried gold? 5/5 - Best of the year
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2007 03:47
|
|
|
I went into this movie with really high expectations and was not disappointed. NCFOM is easily one of the best movies i have ever seen in every respect. It may not be for everyone, but I still recommend everyone see it as it is one of the most intense, well made, and original movies ever made. 5/5 If you only see one movie in 07 this should be it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2007 07:23
|
|
|
I was on the edge of my seat throughout the entire film. This met and exceeded my expectations. However I didn't like the ending that much. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2007 21:07
|
|
|
I almost never watch suspense/thriller-type movies more than once, but I'll be seeing this one again and again. Superb film. 5 out o5
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2007 23:27
|
|
|
My 2nd-favorite Coen brothers film, just behind Lebowski. Worth seeing just for Javier Bardem as the most cold-blooded and twisted psychokiller ever committed to film. Only one word of caution: if you're one of those people who need an ending where everything is all wrapped up nice and pretty with a bow and poo poo, you'll hate the ending. Easily 5/5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2007 04:10
|
|
|
I'll agree that this movie was amazing. I was still thinking about the movie for large chunks of time days later. I only have one complaint about the movie - the sparse sound track. Now, artistically, it is impressive that the movie is able to be so captivating without the crutch that soundtracks provide. However, the lack of noise from the movie meant that jerks whispering in the theater are that much louder, and tended to pull me out of it during the quietest, most suspenseful scenes. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2007 11:13
|
|
|
Awesome film. i was pissed when Denver wasnt part of the limited release @ the beginning of Nov. Reminded me of a Kurosawa samurai film. The characters were perfect, so was the dialog. Nothing felt cheap or out of turn. Coen brothers best film and def movie of the year for me 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2007 13:32
|
|
|
There is an old and very busy thread on this in Cinema Discusso, although it's filled with spoilered text and a lot of speculations regarding the plot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2007 02:18
|
|
|
Very good cinematography and acting. An exciting film overall. Tommy Lee Jones was a terrible walking cliche, as usual. The pacing was superb. I'll give it a 4/5, with a 1 point deduction for ending with the weakest character in the film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2007 04:02
|
|
|
It was a great movie, undoubtedly, but I couldn't help but feel incredibly unsatisfied at the end of it. I really was waiting for Tommy Lee Jones to drop that crazy fucker in a really wild west "you don't mess with texas" kind of fashion. I don't know what his dream "meant", and frankly I don't give a poo poo. But yeah, the rest was great. As everyone else has said, top notch acting by ALL parties. There wasn't a character in the whole film, no matter how minor, that didn't feel completely real. 4/5 Ramrod Hotshot fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Dec 2, 2007 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2007 04:22
|
|
|
I love the Coen Brothers, and this was as good as any other movie they've made . I think it was as good as Fargo, even, plus a lot like it. Only even bleaker. I especially loved the scenewhere Chigurh came out of Carla Jean's house, and you were hoping she was alive, but then he checked his boots and you knew he'd killed her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2007 06:20
|
|
|
Great Coen brothers movie, in the sense that it completes the arc from Blood simple to Fargo in brave gripping style. Chigurh was perfectly created from the novel. In the end, though, some of the dialogue translated poorly onto screen, Tommy Lee Jones was completely one-note (although a very competently played note) with the exception of his final interaction with Chigurh, which i thought was quite well done. Carla Jean was very poorly cast and played, I thought. the coens seemed to see in her character a sister of the hick women of Fargo, but in the novel she has more power within her. Similarly, Woody harrelson was an awful choice, I thought, and his character suffered from being severely edited. Jimmy Johnson or whatever his name is seemed out of place and pushed this from "film" into "coen brothers film." The plot and characters and generally the mood of the novel were skewed by editing, and despite the gorgeous and oftentimes gripping cinematography, the cast and script are just not equal to Cormac Mccarthy's writing, and unfortunately cannot capture the pace and details of No Man's world. As a result people like the above poster expect a grand shootout, and are disappointed by the sinking ending, while the novel has an obvious peak and its downturn is a despairing fall forward into space. The movie can only rely on Tommy Lee's acting to give it closure, and though he makes a fine attempt, it just doesn't fulfill. Overall very enjoyable but was just enough off-target to leave a bitter taste. Again Javier whats-his-name was excellent and his character only lacks in that his scene partners are never quite up to his level, with the exception of Josh brolin who does a very fine job despite his somewhat skewed character.\ coen brothers movie: 5/5 regular movie: 4/5 book-to-movie translation: 3.5/5 edit: just a thought; the irksome thing about this movie is that some scenes are perfect (the entire eagle motel section as well as chigurh's final scene), but others are drawn off point by the stubbornness of the coen brothers to push a quirkiness into the bald border plains when it doesnt really belong there (the "wild petunias" deputy, carla jean, the mariachis) and in my eyes, calling chigurh a psychopath misses the point; he is an angel of death in the post-christian wasteland of the border lands. he's not just a killer, he is a manifestation of the borderland's negative space, the gaping maw which has cracked open in the earth. when chigurh talks he makes sense; he is correct, he is a representation of the reality which many of the other characters (except tommy lee) are not ready to accept. drat i ought to turn this into an essay, essay! *walks it out* Caligula Braun fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Dec 3, 2007 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2007 09:33
|
|
|
I really enjoyed the movie until about the last half hour. When they didn't show how Llewelyn died or Carla either. The ending was really anti-climatic too. Its really well done though and i liked the pacing but the last half hour felt rushed. 4/5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2007 19:19
|
|
|
This movie fully engrossed me until the last half hour or so. From someone who didn't read the book, having so much assumed information thrown at me to sort out alone is VERY annoying. If Coen's goal there was to make people so upset that they felt the need to see it again, then he shall enjoy his bountiful income. He could have done a better job solidifying the idea that Tommy Lee Jones is the main character (maybe I'm stupid but I just never figured that out until the end??) I learned long ago to not assume narratives imply a main character. Typically the amount of screen time does that. Then for Llewelyn to be shot, killed, and ignored for the rest of the movie and his girlfriend's death to be treated as equally insignificant really made me not want to give my attention to anything, since it probably would not matter. Overall: 2.5/5. Too much assumed information, too much relying on the audience to have a background of the book, too much misleading information. lovely anticlimatic ending with highly irrelevant dialogue. First 90 minutes: 5/5. Very engrossing story. Diabolical, unstoppable villain. I love 'wild' west settings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2007 19:12
|
|
|
Walked in with very high expectations and was floored. I really loved it, and loved that it didn't take long to take off. My dad and I discussed after that neither of us could pinpoint a climax in the film, as it all seemed non stop and would require a second viewing to take it all in. I didn't feel the ending was bad, just anti-climatic in a good way as already stated. I was completly in awe of Chigurh he was fascinating to watch and sent chills down my spine, very rare to feel watching a film for me. My only real complaint was Josh Brolin's character was a very strong silent type, so he doesn't talk much or give insight into himself, although I can't really complain since I think that's what they were going for. 5/5 if there's one movie to see this year, this was it. I haven't felt the actual NEED to go out and see a movie like this in years. Not disapointed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2007 05:41
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Awesome movie experience: This is the kind of movie that stuns the audience. Seriously, for like a whole minute after the movie ended and the credits started rolling, it was absolute silence. Nobody moved. Like no one wanted to break it, which is pretty rare for movie theaters. (You know, people usually stand up, start talking about how much they liked/disliked it, some clap or boo,etc) Odd, my theater had a few people saying, What???? The movie had too many retarded flaws for me to really get into it. The sheer amount of blood that Chigurh lost, or the hotel bellkeeper that was killed for no reason when he didn't kill the other ones. There's a couple other ones, and I swore the sherrif saw him off the bolt's reflection of something that moved inside, but I guess I'm a liar. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2007 07:38
|
|
TLG James posted:Odd, my theater had a few people saying, What???? Yeah, a couple people behind me were like "It's over?". I loved this movie. The opening scenes definitely set the tone for how shocking and brutal the rest of the movie is. For filming in a desolate looking sandy desert, there is some amazing cinematography. I haven't actually been scared by a movie in so long, but Chigurh is terrifying. When I went home from the theatre I thought he'd be sitting in the corner of my room, haha. 5/5 my favorite movie of 2007.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2007 19:06
|
|
|
The audience I saw this with was completely silent through all the right parts (it was a really packed theater too), that has never happened to me before. The opening scene was amazing and set the film. I agree with a lot of the posters about Chigurh, easily the most dangerous and scariest villain I have ever seen. The whole movie had me in knots, and my friend remarked that after it was over it had made his stomach hurt because it was so tense. I also really liked Jones character, I felt that he really added a sense of control and comfort in an otherwise painfully tense movie. I took a Western film course this semester and it was really fun to see those elements in this movie; it really added an extra element for me. The only thing I didn't like was the choice of Harrelson, it seemed like he was miscast. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2007 01:04
|
|
|
TLG James posted:Odd, my theater had a few people saying, What???? As with most Coen brothers movies, the mythology and symbolism were often lost on me, but I was still able to really enjoy it. It's one of the most suspenseful films I've ever seen. 4 / 5
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2007 04:54
|
|
|
I don't know whether to be happy or frustrated about the people who expected more out of the ending. To me it was a very fitting close to the movie and although the pacing admittedly left me a little jolted with the way it flattened out, I was very pleased when the credits appeared. This movie throws you for a few loops and I welcomed them all with open arms, the fact that the main character isn't who you think it would be isn't disappointing but eye-opening. If you expected more from the ending, pay closer attention to the title of the movie. I'm also very glad that when I went to see this there was only one other family in the theater apart from myself who went alone. They were quiet and it worked very well to help the experience, I can't imagine seeing this in a noisy theater. Excellent movie. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2007 17:23
|
|
|
I just got home from watching this and I loved it. I think for the most part my fellow audience loved it as well....until the ending. There were many audible "What!'s" and "That's it?'s". I heard a couple people say it was awful and one guy said it was the worst thing he had ever seen. Again, I however loved it. And I loved the ending. It was perfect. Don't get me wrong, I had an initial WTF moment too, not vocally, but the abrupt ending just clicked so well with the overriding theme of the movie and the title itself. The world turns and you see and read and possibly experience horrible stuff everyday and ultimately it can overwhelm you if you let it. You never know when your end is going to come or the end of those you love. You just have to persevere and live it anyways and that's the strength of the message in this movie: Life goes on for better or worse. The world moves forward....but at some point, we don't. I personally would have been happy with the credits rolling immediately after the killer got hit by the car, but ah well. A beautiful movie with a beautiful ending. I can see how it would be frustrating for some people though. If you like it a bit more straightforward with no dangling plot points then this isn't for you and I can respect that. I won't suggest that means you aren't smart and so on as I have seen and heard suggested by others. Different strokes and all that. Anyway, 5/5 - beautifully written, filmed, acted, and executed in general. 33rd Degree Idiot fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Apr 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 04:25
|
|
|
First movie I really felt compelled to see. Had me on the edge my seat, especially with the coin flipping with the old man. I thought Chigurh was the best acting I've seen in awhile. Very creepy and disturbing. I am confused on how Chigurh was involved with the money. Also, if you look at the dead Mexican in the hotel you can see him link several times as Chigurh is on the bed. I enjoyed all the casting. Even Woody for some reason. It will take me awhile to figure out the theme and what the dream meant, so I am definitely reading the book. Ending was perfect. I loved it. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2008 03:48
|
|
|
Started out well. Compelling plot and it got the audience hooked early on but the last half of the movie was drawn out and didn't quite solidify the fact that you were being misled the entire first half of the film. That realization didn't occur until the end, bad move. When a book is adapted to film, there needs to be a degree of consideration taken for those who didn't read the novel, and I feel that is where this film fell short. Those of us who didn't read it were left saying "wtf?" at the end of the movie. Funny to some, annoying for the rest of us. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2008 19:49
|
|
|
whoops
MajorDishes fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Jan 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2008 05:53
|
|
|
I don't really know what to make of it, to be honest. For me, it's one of those movies that you have to see twice to really get the full depth or deeper meaning out of it. The last half hour was a bit of a let down - I agree with the above posters, the ending would've been better if if ended after Chighur died in the car crash, or even if it faded to black as he was walking down the road after he gave the kid the money. The dialogue at the cripple cat dude's house seemed drawn out - either that or I didn't catch the relevance. I think the underlying theme of the movie was that (as one character said) it's arrogant to think that fate is coming after you, that the world is against you - things come and go, and time keeps moving on. As strangefool said "The world moves forward....but at some point, we don't." I guess that really fits in with Tommy Lee Jone's second dream - his father's already waiting on the other side, got a nice warm fire going, waiting for him just on the other side of that rocky, sometimes snowy, mountain pass of life. I'll reserve true judgement until I see it again, but overall, as of now, I give it a 4/5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2008 09:44
|
|
|
From my site (may be spoilers) “No Country for Old Men” runs its course in the expansive broken landscape of West Texas in 1980 and yet seems to reside in the deep and disturbed recesses of the American mind. It’s as much a product of this country, with its tangled and bloody history, as the superficial cowboy fashions its protagonists wear. Directed by the Joel and Ethan Coen and based on the sparse and violent Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, “No Country for Old Men” plays out like a nightmare laden with the cruel resignation of the inevitable. The inevitable in this case is Anton Chigurh, a black vortex the story swirls helplessly around, pulling everyone he encounters into his destructive orbit. He’s played by Javier Bardem, a Spanish actor with a knack for hiding in plain sight (see “Before Night Falls” to see what I mean). With only a cattle gun and a shambling lurch, Anton burns a trail of carnage across a wide swath of small towns and scrubland. His eyes linger on his victims with the aloofness of an archangel, his expression shifting from subtle amusement to empty headed serenity. Anton is not a standard issue sociopath, but more like a natural force, immutable and eternal. Through the mechanics of fate or arbitrary happenstance other characters are sucked into Anton’s maelstrom. Llewelyn, a retired welder and Vietnam veteran played with devious ingenuity by Josh Brolin, discovers the bloody remains of a drug deal gone bad while on a hunting trip in the desert. Among the corpses, he discovers a satchel with a couple million dollars. A foolhardy cowboy by nature, Llwelyn takes the money and runs. After a near lethal encounter with Mexican smugglers, he sends his sweet wife, Carla Jean (played with open faced sincerity by Kelly MacDonald), to her mother’s and flees with the money. But his bid for fast cash soon attracts Anton. Anton has escaped arrest and garroted and cattle gunned his first victims. His initial killings, carried out with the efficiency of a robot programmed for murder, attract the attention of local sheriff Ed Tom Bell and his deputy. Played with an unapologetic West Texan drawl by Tommy Lee Jones, Bell enters the story saddled with feelings of defeat; his narration, which bookends the action, introduces us to a man who has simply stopped understanding the world. With Bell’s old fashioned values and conservative mindset, sociopaths like Anton exist beyond the pale of explanation. Once Bell realizes what Anton is doing, he decides against his own best interests to protect Llewelyn and Carla Jean. He cautiously picks up Anton’s trail and reassures Carla Jean that Anton will brought down before killing Llewelyn, though their jittery conversation tells us that they both know that Llewelyn is in way over his head. Also picking up the pieces left by Anton is the genteel hired gun, Carson Wells (an eccentrically patrician Woody Harrelson), who tries to warn Llewelyn to give up the money at his own peril. Llewelyn is able to get by on guile and luck, but Anton is single-minded, determined, and just keeps coming back for more, reminding me of Robert Di Niro’s description of Joe Pesci’s character in “Casino.” No matter where Llewelyn runs, Anton is right there, even when he escapes to Mexico. A feeling of dread hangs over the chase like swollen black thunderheads on the horizon and the Coen Brothers use every trick in the book to sustain an impossibly long stretch of nerve wracking suspense. Most of the film plays like a perfectly calibrated horror movie with a western look, but unlike most horror films it builds towards a powerful and resonant final act with a handful of perfect monologues. The beauty of the film is not merely technical, like some critics have suggested, but also arises in its dialog (mostly taken from the novel), which is both deeply meaningful and deceptively opaque, echoing the strange otherworldly discord Juan Rulfo gave his ghosts in “Pedro Páramo.” The conversation Anton has with his victims is absurd in its dry detachment. The people he encounters are struck with bemusement when this strange creature, with his own rules about life and death, ambles into their lives. Negotiating with him is like negotiating with the weather. Ed’s narration is all horror of the world and resignation. Llewelyn is mostly a doer, but even action collapses in the face of the inhuman Anton. And when words are called for, they fail him. One conversation is particularly crucial. Feeling too old and impotent to take on Anton, Bell visits his rueful Uncle Ellis, a retired cop played by Barry Corbin, who tells him a haunting story about a lawman at the turn of the century and how he met his doom. Anton is not something new to Uncle Ellis, but just the latest version of an ancient evil buried in the national psyche; he’s not an aberration but a recurring disease for which there is no cure. Bell finds no solace here. This conversation and a later one with his wife elevates the genre material into tragedy. The one criticism someone might level at the film is its overriding nihilism, its sense of hopelessness in the face of cosmic evil. It offers little in the way of personal redemption or rectifying justice. But it serves as a corrective to the narratives of good and evil, civilization and barbarism, individualism and adversity latent in the western genre. It offers neither closure nor the cathartic joy of revenge to its protagonists. And that’s okay, because sometimes resourcefulness and effort really aren’t enough. “No Country for Old Men” drains away the last of the western’s antiquarian charms. If the traditional western was our nation’s “Aeneid,” a story of frontiers and civilization designed to seduce us with a flattering self image, these new westerns are our “Romulus and Remus” stories, ugly and primitive, revealing something buried and repressed in the national character. They’re not explanatory narratives laying a neat schematic of westward expansion, but bleak metaphors for an inherent condition in American culture. Anton is eternal, the horror underlying the neat story of law and order on the frontier. Even without the incredible performances, beautiful writing and thematic power, the movie would be a visual masterpiece. Roger Deakins’ camera work is perfect, encompassing both the monumental scale of the desert- I’m from the southwest and his work captures the color and light of the American desert perfectly- and the frightfully close up intimacy of people struggling on a small scale. The natural landscape, beautiful but pitiless, simply dwarfs and encloses its human inhabitants. Like Anton, there is no escaping this place. “No Country for Old Men” is a brilliant film and certainly one of the best films, if not the best, in the Coen Brothers filmography. They have made more entertaining films, but never a more merciless or deeply felt one. In parts it sucked the air out of my lungs, but somehow the whole left me giddy and inspired. By seizing the mythic, it rises above simple politics and interpretations and leaves the viewer stunned and breathless. It’s really that good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2008 08:37
|
|
|
I liked it too, but I have a complaint that seems to be unique in this thread and while about as superficial as you can get, is really pretty darned important. It is that a combination of the emphasemic drawls of some of the characters and the freakishly thick accents of the others meant that I often didn't have any idea what the hell they were saying. I found out later about most of them, but I didn't understand the conversations in the hospital, or the one where Tommy lee jones went to see an old friend of his, or fairly integral small parts of other ones. Go to a viewing for the hearing impaired is my advice. Other than that it was ok. Beautiful choreogrpahy, interesting if simplistic storyline, and pretty darn good acting. I'm wary of Anton's actor, because being such a complex and unusual character it is easy for an audience to accept pretty much any way he is played (see also Robert Ford). But he was entertaining, certainly. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2008 01:08
|
|
|
I went in with no expectation and no knowledge of the story. What a treat. The characters were fantastic and the story kept me locked in. To me it had the right balance of being believable and surreal at the same time. I don't enjoy too many new movies but this was a pleasant surprise. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2008 20:26
|
|
|
If you'll enjoy some Texans having pointless quirky conversations in a heavy drawling accent, peppered with the occasional action, this movie is for you. Very slow and boring, with one of the anti-climatic film endings I have ever seen. Don't let the film intelligentsia convince you otherwise. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2008 23:05
|
|
|
Finally got to see this film, and I must agree with most of the posters here. Amazing movie, loved every second of it. I even didn't mind the ending after I got over the intial "wtf" abruptness of it. Oh, and Llewelyn is the man. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 22:54
|
|
|
Let me preface this by saying I have never read the book that this movie was based off of, but the amazing cinematography and atmosphere effortlessly speaks volumes about the worlds and points of view that each of the characters are coming from, and the visual cues are enough to fill in the gaps while just being elusive enough to make you want to watch the movie again. That said, those aspects of the film are the clear gems, while much of the flow and some of the dialogue of the movie appear choppy and unsure in comparison. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a veteran of the Vietnam war who lives out his thirtysomething years in the Texas wastelands having little and doing even less stumbles upon a drug deal gone wrong and amongst the carnage inadvertantly discovers a lifechanging sum of money. He instantly makes a half thought out plan to get himself and his wife Carla Jean (Kelly McDonald) as far away as possible from their old lives, but while tripping his way through the steps attracts the attention of a murderous psychopath Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) who is not above cold bloodedly slaying someone merely to throw another twist in his trail. After one of his officers is executed by Anton and it is revealed he's a distant acquaintence of the fugitive, Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) takes a personal interest and starts his own search for Moss. Most of the movie slowly and suspensefully captures this chase, and this is where the movie is at its best. Anton's signature method of execution is a cattle gun, which requires him to gain the confidence in his victim and stick a tube to his/her forehead attached to a harmless looking air tank, and it's impossible to witness this chilling methodology without shivering a little. When he's being his cold calculating self, he hits on all cylinders, but there a few extended conversations (I'm looking at the gas station scene) that come off as a little verbose for such a businesslike person and almost silly, and kill the spidery excitement of the buildup. Brolin is a prop most of the time, speaking by actions instead of words, but that's fine because this is a strong silent man who speaks that way anyway, and the nuance comes off well. Tommy Lee Jones' performance is great as an aging sheriff both frustrated but ultimately resigned in a genuine Texas way to a world that is slipping out of his control, but he seems distant to the rest of the movie and only ever interacts with any of the other characters near the end. And speaking of the end.... The only mention we are given of the ending is once it has already happened. While we are given hints and pieces as to what occurred, they are all viewed through the eyes of Jones' character in that detached detectivy way, and I think that's a huge blow to what would have otherwise been a great movie. In my opinion, the strengths of Joel and Ethan Coen have always been in the sometimes wacky, usually over the top, but constantly entertaining resolution to the weird events they have laid in front of us. Their symphony always leads to a hypnotizing crescendo that they can do like no other team, and thus I think they kneecapped themselves and the movie heavily by not playing it out for us note by note. It comes off as a cocktease and I think this is one of the biggest detractors and why this is not near the upper half of Coen Brothers films, much less the best. There are also a couple of scenes at the end that feel like the epilogue of a book, and while they were relevant and even somewhat enjoyable they did seem sort of forced in as well. A good effort, but not one that will ever be remembered as classic. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2008 16:34
|
|
|
It was a good film right up until the lead was killed. The hitman in my opinion isn't scary or threatening at all, I realise he is meant to be some form of unstoppable evil, death incarnate with his emotionless relentless killing but he fails totally in my eyes and is a pathetic enemy. Tommy lee Jones and whoever played the lead and his wife are great actors the rest of it is a waste, and I think the Coen brothers made the sequence of events so it is against the Hollywood norm but the norm isn't always a bad thing and it wa a bad decision as far as I'm concerned. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2008 05:40
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie. It had some pretty intense scenes like the scene where Llewelyn was in the hotel and he hears Chigurh in the hallway. He calls downstairs, doesn't get an answer, and you hear the beeps outside of his door. Then Chigurh goes down the hallway and turns the light off. I thought that whole scene was amazing, and I actually caught myself clenching my fist in the middle of it. Overall, I was fairly engrossed in the movie. I didn't even want to get up and go to the bathroom. Definitely my favorite Coen Brothers film by far, and if it wins best picture I won't be complaining. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2008 15:10
|
|
|
The absolute best film of the year. The Coen brothers out did themselves and made a film that is superior to Fargo in every way. Filled with fantastic characters (including my favorite antagonist in recent memory), perfect dialogue, and edge of your seat shootouts/chase scene's. However, the ending may have a lot of viewers scratching their head if they don't delve deeper into the meaning of the events and Tommy Lee Jones chillingly great ending monologue. Even so, this movie has something for everyone; whether it be the perfect pacing of the action, the unforgettable "villian", or the deep meaning throughout. See this film, it should be the law. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2008 05:05
|
|
|
I just got back from seeing this, so I suppose I should write about it while it's fresh in my memory. As has been mentioned elsewhere, this film stands starkly at odds with previous Coen productions. It's stark, minimalist, tightly shot. There is little to no music, no obvious setups, and no foregone conclusions. I'd personally liken it to Fargo, albeit set in the real world, and that makes a whole world of difference. The air of quirky humanity, and the feeling that it'll all turn out right in the end is gone. This is reality, or at least something painfully close to it. Once that downward spiral of greed, violence and revenge begins, it doesn't stop easily. Make no mistake - this is a very violent film. But at no point does it portray this violence as anything remotely acceptable. There is no glory here. Every gunshot wound is closely examined in painful detail. Terrible repercussions of each wrong turn made. At the end, you're left not wondering 'What happened next?' or 'Where are these characters going to go now?'. But rather 'Where do I stand in this world?'. Or at least, that's what I took from it in the end. I was apparently one of the lucky ones, and was part of exactly the audience this film was pitched at. As the credits began to roll, there wasn't a single peep from the audience. Not a word, not a shuffle. A minute or two into the credits, people began to rise from their seats and walk out. A triumph of a film. Powerful, tragic and affecting. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2008 20:56
|
|
|
I saw this flick over the weekend and was impressed about how it lived up to the hype surrounding it. I've been a fan of the coen bros. work for quite a while, although I enjoy it when they use their comedic skills to their fullest potential, a la "Raising Arizona." This movie was somewhat of a tangent for them, as it contains very little comedic area for any actor to tread in. There were certainly a few laughs, but nothing quite on the level of the irony found in "Fargo". Right off the bat, however, this movie reminded me of Fargo because of it's scenery. The idea of a set of strong characters placed in a very bleak and harsh setting immediately took me back to the snow covered landscapes of that film. I sensed the correlation between the desert and the snow. For the most part though, most of the characters in this film are the most developed ones they have ever produced. Gone are the shallow and silly overtones of their previous efforts, and that has mostly to do with Cormack McCarthy. Every character in this film has a resolute purpose and they are true to their core values. This is a HUGE difference between this film and all their other films. You even get the sense that Anton Chigurh is not really just a killer - he is smart and a perfectionist - nothing he does in the film is less than calculated. Even his haircut, which has become somewhat of a farce for the film, fits his personality somehow - it's just creepy enough to scare you but it's always *perfect*. There are multiple praises I could sing about this film, but given that many others have already done the same, I'll skip ahead to a few things that I thought were flawed about this film: Tommy Lee Jones - yes, he's a good actor. I just got a little tired of his typecasting for this film. I honestly would have preferred that somebody else play his role because I didn't really feel that he gave it the emotional depth it needed. For the most part, his character is the one you're supposed to sympathize with. He brings a human element to the mix amidst the brutalism of the rest of the film. Unfortunately, I was left detached from his performance. The closing monologue definitely did not put the emphasis it needed to for this film. It felt a little anti-climactic when it wasn't supposed to be. Cohen"speak" - ok, yes, I love most of the Cohen's interjections in terms of dialogue, but there were a few times where the dialogue felt just slightly forced. Especially the scene with the Gas Station guy. I know, I'm being picky, but I wasn't as impressed by that scene as I should have been. That being said, the majority of this film is without a doubt, a creative Tour de Force. The performance of Javier Bardem was riveting - even if I wasn't really "Scared" by him like some other folks, his delivery was just sublime. The cinematography was perfect, and the story was brought to life in such a cerebral way that you know they put everything they possibly could give to the film into it. Any inconsistencies in the film are surely made up by the rest of the triumphs in this film. A great piece of modern filmmaking that deserves every award lavished on it. 4.9 / 5
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2008 19:44
|
|
|
I had seen "There Will Be Blood" about a week ago and had convinced myself that there was no way "No Country for Old Men" could be better. Yeah well... NCFoM floored me in nearly all regards. It's the first thriller that I can recall that actually has meaning below its superficial surface of heart-pounding action. The cinematography was beautiful and the absence of music is both eerie but never seems weird -- it's as if it's right that there should be no music. Tommy Lee Jones is solid albeit a bit bland while Bardem is so unbelievably well-played and frightening that, by the movie's midpoint, his presence will dominate the screen and you will be knocked into silence, watching and waiting. The ending will certainly be it's most controversial point, and it's understandable. When the fade to black occurred, while most of the audience stood in stunned silence, the voices of several "I think that was the ending..." quietly crept through the theater. And in that regard, the ending is perfect; it could have easily fallen into a pitfall of an action scene and a conclusive bow on top, but it didn't. It stood true to itself, and in a sea of Hollywood happy endings, it's a rare and beautiful sight. I highly recommend that everyone see this movie. If you hate it and call it a bad movie, I can understand, but I will contend that you are wrong. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2008 06:56
|
|
|
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) madattheinternet fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jul 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2008 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
I have no idea what the poster above me is talking about, but, I must echo all the sentiments of why this is a great movie. Fantastically written and directed with intense and chilling dialogue and perhaps the greatest movie villain of all time. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2008 18:29
|
|