Peter W.
11-17-2007, 12:47 AM
No Country For Old Men is not a masterpiece as reviewers suggest, far from it. The film reminds one of the Hitcher and follows a similar predator/prey super villain formula but masquerading as something artier, therefore pretentious. The Coen brothers are imitating themselves with a variation on Fargo/Blood Simple in a new dusty setting. But the film is not half as good as Fargo and has a more rudimentary and typical plot. The main character accidentally comes across drug dealer's money and decides to run off with it. This is how the movie begins. There has been no development of him as a person so you feel little sympathy or connection to him (a major flaw) as he is pursued by a psychopathic assassin trying to recover the money and exact punishment. Of course the psychopath is a "super killer" with "interesting" eccentric quirks and we are supposed to be facinated and impressed by his weird but slightly funny ruthlessness. The fine actor Javier Bardem does his best with this limited role though and cryptic less than Mamet comments. There is also not a clue to what makes his character tick we are simply to be awed by his "coolness", but that is not enough to make a great film. Unusually late in the movie the Sheriff played by Tommy Lee Jones enters the scene and in imitation of the Fargo recipe he and his deputy make their contrived, provincially funny-yet clever remarks as they try to figure out what is going on. It does not come off with the style or humanity of Fargo. The sheriff here is slightly amusing but mainly a boring and weary mumbler, nostalgic for the good old days who has no useful impact on the plot as the woman officer did in Fargo. Woody Harrelson appears in the middle of the movie for the sake of a cameo and turns out to be more dynamic than the sheriff and the pursued main character who are supposed to have primary roles.
The movie has some exciting suspense pursuit scenes particularly at the opening of the movie but there are many unexplained events and a very unsatisfying truncated ending (and the book shouldn't be used as an excuse for flaws- the book is Cormac McCarthy's weakest). There is little humanizing dimension as there was in Fargo. There are also some similarities to the better Coen Bros film, Blood Simple, which when going the cold blooded route had a more satisfying realism and consistantly compelling dark poetry of mood. The Brothers C. have added aspects of the Hitcher plot and a touch of Pulp Fiction/Blue Velvet black humor but with less creatively and variety as in those films and despite a little contrived weirdness, only in superficially minor detail. The sheriff delivers some half developed philosophical comments about fate which may confuse some into thinking that there is more here than meets the eye. Underneath a new set of clothes is a conventional concept and a cowardly fatalistic pessimistic view of humanity which may appeal to those who are comforted by the lay back in your chair and proclaim the life stinks and then you die philosophy while getting off on the "neat" violence. Undoubtedly you don’t feel anything for the characters. The film is not as good The History of Violence which has a similarly dark but is more cohesive and even that film was overrated. The brothers had their own style but now they're imitating themselves and less bizarre bits of David Lynch thrown in.
But if oddball "cool" cold blooded killers pursuing people is enough to satify you, you will enjoy this film. Apart from that there is no great artistry here and little emotional dynamic it does not sustain the tension or plot twists of the degree of the Hitcher (or Hitchcock) despite it's slightly artier "strangeness" around the edges and cowardly pessimistic philosphical pretentions posing as "reality".
The film is well shot but the cinematography is nothing exceptional.
One of the more creative aspects of the movie is the killer's retro 70s haircut and unexpected Hispanic casting. However the film breaks no barriers and stays far within the confines of Tarantino/David Lynch style. Perhaps this is why so many people are raving about it.
No Country for Old Men puts forth the rationalization to be a commentary on greed only to indulge the viewer in another villain worship of the killer badass. It's an excuse for people who feel little control over their own lives to identify with the bold determination and persistence of a psychopath.
The movie has some exciting suspense pursuit scenes particularly at the opening of the movie but there are many unexplained events and a very unsatisfying truncated ending (and the book shouldn't be used as an excuse for flaws- the book is Cormac McCarthy's weakest). There is little humanizing dimension as there was in Fargo. There are also some similarities to the better Coen Bros film, Blood Simple, which when going the cold blooded route had a more satisfying realism and consistantly compelling dark poetry of mood. The Brothers C. have added aspects of the Hitcher plot and a touch of Pulp Fiction/Blue Velvet black humor but with less creatively and variety as in those films and despite a little contrived weirdness, only in superficially minor detail. The sheriff delivers some half developed philosophical comments about fate which may confuse some into thinking that there is more here than meets the eye. Underneath a new set of clothes is a conventional concept and a cowardly fatalistic pessimistic view of humanity which may appeal to those who are comforted by the lay back in your chair and proclaim the life stinks and then you die philosophy while getting off on the "neat" violence. Undoubtedly you don’t feel anything for the characters. The film is not as good The History of Violence which has a similarly dark but is more cohesive and even that film was overrated. The brothers had their own style but now they're imitating themselves and less bizarre bits of David Lynch thrown in.
But if oddball "cool" cold blooded killers pursuing people is enough to satify you, you will enjoy this film. Apart from that there is no great artistry here and little emotional dynamic it does not sustain the tension or plot twists of the degree of the Hitcher (or Hitchcock) despite it's slightly artier "strangeness" around the edges and cowardly pessimistic philosphical pretentions posing as "reality".
The film is well shot but the cinematography is nothing exceptional.
One of the more creative aspects of the movie is the killer's retro 70s haircut and unexpected Hispanic casting. However the film breaks no barriers and stays far within the confines of Tarantino/David Lynch style. Perhaps this is why so many people are raving about it.
No Country for Old Men puts forth the rationalization to be a commentary on greed only to indulge the viewer in another villain worship of the killer badass. It's an excuse for people who feel little control over their own lives to identify with the bold determination and persistence of a psychopath.