Though I'm mightily anxious to see Richard Kelly's DONNIE DARKO follow-up SOUTHLAND TALES, the weekend's top film pick is a no-brainer.
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. People are calling it the best film of the year, and if it isn't, it's darn close.
The Coen brothers have been spinning their wheels for a while -- O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU was good, but I can take or leave INTOLERABLE CRUELTY, THE LADYKILLERS, THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, and much as I know BIG LEBOWSKI is now beloved by stoner-hipsters, it really isn't as good as the cultists say.
But this is hardcore. There are echoes of previous work --a terminator-like character a la RAISING ARIZONA, and the combination violent-heist/mockery-of-local-speech-patterns obsession of FARGO. Some have said this film is bereft of mockery or humor; I disagree, as undoubtedly would the numerous audience members who laughed with the movie when I saw it. The Coens have a lot of fun with Southern speech, from the overly clipped macho variety ("Where'd you get that gun?" "The gettin' place") to the long, rambling, roundabout way some folks just have when trying to amicably pass the time.
When Llewellyn (Josh Brolin, looking like a dead ringer for a young Nick Nolte) comes across the remnants of a shootout and a suitcase full of money, he takes the cash and gets away clean, until his conscience overtakes him, and he returns to the scene of the crime to give some water to the half-dead man he found there. He is spotted by pissed-off Mexican drug dealers also returning to the scene, and flees, little knowing that the Biggest Badass In the World, a Terminator-like figure named Chigurh (Javier Bardem, with a He-Man pageboy haircut and Lon Chaney scowl of evil) who kills people using an air gun powerful enough to shoot holes in their heads.
All this is observed by an aging sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones), who feels that time is passing him by, and the world is becoming more depraved and unstoppably evil than a man like he can cope with. If Clint Eastwood were the director, this sheriff would undoubtedly saddle up one last time and conquer evil, maybe sustaining a fatal wound in the process. But the Coens are in charge, and they don't play it like that -- this sheriff doesn't just fear he's ineffectual -- he IS ineffectual, powerless to stop the drama unfold.
And that's going to be a big dividing line among viewers of the film. Though the movie doesn't skimp on action and suspense, it doesn't offer a conventionally satisfying conclusion (that's all I'll say on it, and you're better off knowing that going in). Key dramatic moments happen entirely off-camera sometimes, which will piss some people off. But those people may miss the larger themes -- this is less about who gets the money than the fact that nobody can stop the rising darkness in the world (the movie's set in 1980). Naturalism, not heroism.
I haven't read the Cormac MacCarthy novel this is based on -- apparently, the plot and dialogue are quite faithful, though the speech has such a Coen ring to it that an outsider must conclude either that they rewrote things in their style, or that the book complimented their rhythms so perfectly that it was a match made in inevitability. Either way, it's a fantastic choice, and a movie well worth your time.
Caveats: For a mainstream Oscar-aspiring drama, this has some shocks, and moments of violence and gore, that are intense. It also has almost no estrogen -- this is a "guy movie" through and through. Llewellyn's wife and mother play supporting roles, but have little bearing in the action.
November 24, 2007 20:44
After reading at least a dozen reviews, I was wondering if anyone was going to pick up on a key element. If he had not gone back, if he had not given in to his compassion, the chain of events would have been very very different.
November 25, 2007 08:11
The Coens are obviously brilliant most average movie goers know and respect their work. In "No Country" they have matured, with the unquestioned aide of one of America's best writers of fiction MacCarthy. I do not know beans about writing or movie making but I do as most human's do, what is pure amusement and what is sprinkled with another substance I'll call art for lack of a better word. I have read some MacCarthy and if this isn't his dialogue it is a damn good copy. The subject matter or plot occupies your senses as a mosquito stings, while the point and truth as comment on culture and values is the malaria one will suffer or face long after the event.
November 26, 2007 14:06
Fred: At first blush, going back to aid the dying man seemed to loom large as it provided Moss' immediate identity to the killers and may have toyed with the chain of events somewhat, but as someone who read McCarthy's novel as well as watched the movie, I can not believe it had one bit of bearing on where Moss's decision to take the money was "going to end" (to paraprase Chigruh when talking to Moss on the phone). With at least one transponder in the loot, the evil that was Chigruh would have followed Moss with the same basic result. Again, going back with the water was, "in my opinion, man" for purposes of establishing the good in Moss in direct opposition to the evil that we saw plainly in the face of Chigurh when he strangled the deputy who had everything under control. Like the taking of Nathan Jr. in Raising Arizona, Moss' taking the money unleashed a fury that was too enevitable, too horrific for Moss's surprising resourcefulness and Bell's decency combined. One thing that Wells's character did was to put Moss and us on notice that a certain kind of evil is too something (powerful, intelligent, resorceful, maybe just evil itself) to hide from. In McCarthy's dark vision of where society is headed, even if Moss had not gone back (against his own nature) and even if there were no transponders, the everyman represented by Moss would have fared the same. Different hotel perhaps but dead nonetheless.
And by the way, Mr. Thompson, I am neither hippy nor stoner (not even a bowler) but just a guy that appreciates art on the screen and the Big Lobowski is a great flick, not a good one. Although I will not resort to calling you a human paraquat for YOUR opinion, man. For I abide. Happier trails to you both.
December 9, 2007 12:29
I saw "No Country For Old Men" last night. I'm no fan of the Coen brothers' films or those with similar dark, violent orientations. However, aside from being rattled by the violence and tension, I found a terrible beauty to it. The acting was great. The madman was horribly bad and nailed by Mr. Bardem. Josh Brolin was outstanding and Tommy Lee Jones was awash in longing for better days and resigned to the realization that they were gone. He did a really strong job. The only feeling of humanity in the whole movie came from his character, in fact. Woody Harrelson was so-so, but passable. But, dang it, that film scared the hell out of this hombre and I needed a drive through a huge display of Xmas with the wife and my buddy who saw the movie with me to get rid of the creeps I got watching "No Country For Old Men". And, hell yeah, I could see the resemblance between Brolin and a you Nick Nolte. Merry Xmas.
January 6, 2008 12:53
This movie offered up incredible acting from all 3 main characters, as well as from several others: Jones' father, and Brolin's wife, in particular. These performances were nothing short of spectacular. However, I hated the movie. It was, for me, a relentless killing spree that eventually became tedious. The message about society's growing "darkness" came through LOUD and CLEAR - like a sledgehammer. (Much like reading the daily newspaper these days.) The movie's heavy nihilistic tone didn't allow for any suspense - it was inevitably all going to be bad - and it was.