free counter with statistics No Country for Old Men | Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

oldmen1.jpg

In Texas, You’re On Your Own

No Country for Old Men / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | February 28, 2008 | Comments (88)


Just as every generation’s youth believes they were the first to invent rebellion, so too does every crop of old men hold firmly to the notion that their world was the one pure one, and that it’s being leeched of that beauty by the iniquities of their crooked children. That’s the central truth behind No Country for Old Men, the latest film from co-writers and directors Joel and Ethan Coen, who have fashioned another fantastic movie that’s a genre-swirling mash-up and as psychologically taut and philosophically mature as anything they’ve ever done. Their latest film is in many ways a return to the roots they laid down with Blood Simple: No Country for Old Men, adapted from the Cormac McCarthy novel, shares the dusty Texas backdrop, shocking bursts of violence and gallows humor of the earlier film. But instead of a sweaty neo-noir, the Coens this time opt for a more deliberately paced story that places as much emphasis on the emotional turmoil of the observers as the motives of the killer or the trials of the victims. The film is also funny, trafficking in the quick wit and character-driven humor that’s a hallmark of Coen films, where the actors seem to take such profound joy in the slightly off-kilter language that the air becomes electric with the possibilities of where the film might go and around what strange corner it will wander. Most of all, the film is about a world that’s moving on and leaving its once-proud lawmen and protectors to stare blankly at the savagery around them, even as they long to return to a time when things felt simpler, even if they never actually were.

The story opens with the cruelest of the three men whose lives become slowly intertwined: Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a terrifying psychopath who kills with little forethought and no remorse, flags down a man on the highway outside Sanderson, Texas, and murders him with a captive bolt pistol, a kind of air-pressured steel rod that’s used to knock out cattle before they’re slaughtered. The metaphor isn’t exactly tough to crack: Anton isn’t just a killer, but someone who perceives himself as living on an elevated plane of existence, not merely able to judge men and dispatch them but somehow afforded this right by nature. The action shifts to Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a hunter ambling through the vastness of West Texas scrub who happens upon several trucks and a few corpses in a valley, the evidence of a drug deal gone bad. Moss finds $2 million in a satchel not far from the site and, in an understandable but still deeply stupid move, takes the money and high-tails it back home to his trailer and wife, Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald). Moss isn’t a cruel man, but a kind of utilitarian one: He loves his wife but is mainly interested in how to tolerate her. Brolin is fantastic, as well, turning in what’s easily his best performance in a role that relies on strength and gruffness but never loses its empathy. The third man of the story is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), an aging lawman who never draws his gun and spends most of his time lamenting the world’s advanced state of decay. Bell is a quiet man who loves his wife and misses what used to be: There’s genuine lament, not scorn, in his voice when he says that after “sir” and “ma’am” disappear, there’s no stemming the tide of moral turpitude. The Coens’ screenplay expertly establishes these men, tying them together as lonely hunters trying to return the world to the way each thinks it should be.

Soon enough, though, Moss makes his first mistake, and it’s the only one he needs to make to set Anton on his track. Returning to the scene of the crime late that night, Moss is discovered by the Mexican drug lords who’d orchestrated the deal, and he winds up running from them through the desert to the river. In the hands of other directors, it would have been a workhorse action sequence, something that scoots the plot forward with a lot of flash cuts and music stings and not much else. But the Coens don’t waste a single frame, turning Moss’ midnight exploration of the dark valley into something terrible and beautiful and unnerving. Cinematographer Roger Deakins, a longtime collaborator of the Coens, is a master of using negative space to heighten the suspense that’s inherent in the scene, and the Coens aren’t about to do anything as hacky as overplay the score to drive home the emotion. The result is the first in a gut-wrenching series of sequences that rely purely on the story for their power, and they succeed every step of the way. When Moss takes off running through the desert, it’s honestly frightening. It never for a second feels anything other than real, and vital.

Anton’s pursuit of Moss, and Bell’s pursuit of them both, drives the story dramatically, but there’s also a sharp sense of humor running beneath the surface, carving out a perverse little geography. Most of it is simply the Coens’ way of giving their characters something offbeat to say, as when Bell’s deputy, Wendell (Garret Dillahunt), says of two victims in suits, “These boys appear to be managerial. I think we’re looking at more than one fracas.” And Bell’s speech is laden with aphorisms as perhaps only a movie sheriff’s can be, like when Wendell remarks that the soured drug deal is a mess, to which Bell replies calmly, “If it ain’t, it’ll do till the mess gets here.” But the Coens aren’t out to make a mockery of the border lawman stereotype, and Bell is certainly no hick. He is, in fact, the smartest man in the story, but even he can’t quite grasp the horrible truth confirmed by Anton’s existence: namely, that no evil is new evil. Fathers always lament their sons as lost causes, but never stop to realize that their brothers are just as bad.

Bell’s existential bewilderment is what makes No Country for Old Men not just a great film but a great Coen brothers film. Their characters are constantly struggling with what it means to live the lives the say they want to live, whether it’s Ulysses Everett McGill realizing the joys and horrors of being a family man or the Dude just trying to abide. Jones is so perfect in the role that it’s almost easy to overlook him next to Brolin’s work or Bardem’s riveting performance; Jones manages to seem at ease with himself and deeply upset with the way the world now works, the heavy bags under his eyes carrying a weight he’s clearly tired of bearing. On the other end of the spectrum, Bardem is electrifying as Anton, capable of wearing a look of near-erotic joy when strangling a man or remaining stone-faced while mowing down victims point-blank with a shotgun. His presence alone is unnerving, and the Coens are smart enough to let the story work for them when it comes to Anton’s hunting of Moss: The scene where Anton approaches Moss’ door, with only the shadow of his boots visible below the door frame, is stunning in its simplicity but damn jaw-dropping in effectiveness.

“I always liked to hear about the old timers,” Bell narrates at the beginning. “I never missed a chance to do so.” For all its violence, No Country for Old Men is filled with quietly haunting moments where Bell or Llewelyn or even Anton seems to pause and consider just what it is they know, and what it is they’re doing. The Coens’ ultimate triumph is the way they can use such bloody depravity in a real-world setting to shock you into attention and then, very quickly, whisper the truth of the way of the world into your ear. The Coens bookend the film with Bell, and the final scene is just Bell at his kitchen table, talking to his wife about the dreams of his father he can’t seem to shake. Bell is a good man, but that doesn’t give him a claim on the world. If anything, just the opposite: This is no place for him.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.









Counterfeiters, The | American Psycho


Comments

Great review - can't wait to see it...

Posted by: Mattfactor at November 12, 2007 2:12 PM

Thank you for a solid review Mr. Carlson. I'm glad you liked this movie - I was hoping it would be good. Sooo I guess I'll spend the $10 to see it.

Posted by: b at November 12, 2007 2:27 PM

You had me with Garrett Dillahunt.

Posted by: Paddydog at November 12, 2007 2:28 PM

I want to see this, but I just know that I will piss my pants, 'cause holy shit does Javier Bardem look some kind of mean.

Posted by: AllGussiedUp at November 12, 2007 2:40 PM

Oh, thank Christ. I was afraid this was going to get flamed. I saw this film with a crowd of industry people who were doing a lot of headscratching, because they "didn't get it". And granted, the narrative does kind of do a fancy little ballerina leap at one point leaving at least this humble viewer going, "Bwwwhhhhaaaattt?"

This movie jarred the bejesus out of me, and I...I kinda liked the feeling. The three male leads put in phenomenal performances (Josh Brolin, right? No serious, Josh Fucking Brolin), and the inherent douchebaggery aside of crying out for Oscar nominations this early in the game, if someone from this picture doesn't get nominated for something, I'm leaving Hollywood. In flames.

Particularly Javier Bardem as the Dutch Boy Terminator. There's a haircut I'll be seeing in my sleep.

Posted by: insertclevernamehere at November 12, 2007 2:41 PM

Dutch Boy Terminator

[*snork*snortle*]

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at November 12, 2007 2:43 PM

I'm impressed. This was a fantastic review, of a movie I was starting to have doubts about. I must go see this now.

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at November 12, 2007 2:47 PM

I don't know about this one. I am so incredibly sick of the guy-thinking-he-looks-cool-by-walking-away-from-an-explosion-and-not-looking-back cliche, which I saw in the commercial. It's disappointing to see the Coens use it.

Posted by: Todd at November 12, 2007 2:49 PM

After what Billy Bob did to "All the Pretty Horses", we are due for a professional rendition of a Cormac novel. It helps that this book was written in the form of a script, almost as if Cormac hand-wrapped it for someone. Im glad to see that the Coen boys went back to Blood Simple for this one.

Cant wait.

Now, If I can only find a way to stop Hollywood from ruining "The Road".

Posted by: ryan at November 12, 2007 2:55 PM

So glad to hear the movie lives up to its promises. I watched the trailer a few months back and have been waiting for this movie to come out.

Will definitely go see it this weekend. Wonderful review.

Posted by: Lex at November 12, 2007 3:04 PM

I was pretty much hooked at:

Coen brothers

Javier Bardem

and Tommy Lee Jones

Posted by: greer at November 12, 2007 3:08 PM

Daniel, you truly have a gift for writing in the way you solidly convey your point in an intelligent manner, that speaks to all levels. Bravo.

This movie sounds awesome. I will definitely make a point to see it.

Posted by: katy at November 12, 2007 3:09 PM

I saw the preview for this when I went to Darjeeling Limited. I can honestly say from the trailor it looked like it had no plot. Now, I must see it.

Posted by: Scarlett at November 12, 2007 3:12 PM

2/3rds a fantastic film, the last 1/3rd a stumbling trainwreck that essentially undoes the film; a terrible, terrible plot convolution (yes, i *know* it's in the book, so what?) after which the movie just starts witholding the resolutions of scenes in seeming sheer spite of the viewer (again, thanks cormac!) and a closing scene that seems tacked on from some other movie, one written by Hallmark.

pity, josh brolin is absolutely fantastic, bardem does a wonderful job (though in the end, he is limited by the reality that his character is no more than a cartoon) and jones is adequate, though his character is the least compelling or interesting of the three leads

Posted by: shoulders of orion at November 12, 2007 3:18 PM

I was on board with this at the mention of Tommy Lee Jones.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 12, 2007 3:31 PM

Looking forward to seeing this. The trailer does kinda suck. I have been trying to get the spouse to go with me, but he was not impressed by the trailer. Bardem's weapon in the trailer scares me, so that was reason enough.

Posted by: Melody at November 12, 2007 3:36 PM

I don't like theaters and generally only see a few movies a year in them, so this should tell you how much I'm looking forward to this movie. Loved the book, love the Coen brothers and think they're the best choice to bring it to the screen, and holy CRAP does Javier Bardem look terrifying.

Posted by: june at November 12, 2007 3:39 PM

Not having read the book, I assumed that the lack of resolution in some scenes was a cinematic choice made by the Coen brothers--one which I much appreciated, because brutal violence can itself get tedious and predictable after a while, and I liked the relief of ambiguity. Anyhoo, interesting to find out that it was in fact written that way (or at least that's how I interpreted your comment, shoulders). If only the New York Public Library didn't have like 50 holds on the book already I might be able to find out sooner.

Posted by: Cara at November 12, 2007 3:40 PM

This is a very interesting review; I have been looking forward to it, mostly because I had no idea what kind of film could be made from that book. I will be interested to see it!

Posted by: zh at November 12, 2007 3:41 PM

just saw the previews the other day, looked great, and then it said it was Coen Bros, and I had a sneaky feeling this would be da sh*t! thanks so much..

Tsuru

Posted by: Tsuru at November 12, 2007 4:01 PM

Great review. I saw this last night, and it was fantastic. I've been telling everyone to see it, except my sister because she won't like it and that will just make me think less of her.

Posted by: mm at November 12, 2007 4:03 PM

Great review. I saw this last night, and it was fantastic. I've been telling everyone to see it, except my sister because she won't like it and that will just make me think less of her.

Posted by: mm at November 12, 2007 4:04 PM

i so want to have cormac mccarthys babies; im so glad this film looks so very promising.

Posted by: yumi at November 12, 2007 4:21 PM

Regarding the walking-away-from-an-explosion movie cliche - yeah, that was probably the only moment in the entire film that gave me a little pause. Although, by that point, I suspect most viewers are going to be so entranced by Anton's villainy that I doubt it will bother you much. The image is cliche, but in this case it didn't feel tired because of Anton's resourcefulness and purpose.

Posted by: Darth Corleone at November 12, 2007 4:49 PM

Saw this gem last night-- I agree, the trailers were somewhat lame, but Bardem delivers such a terrifyingly simple performance, any tiny missteps by the promotion department are easily forgiven. Jones does what he knows best: world-weary westerner with wry humor and gargantuan wrinkles. However, it's Bardem's delivery of his lines in an enunciated, vaugely accented rumble that chills you to the core. Add the disturbing medieval combover and Johnny Cash ensemble, and you've got yourself an Oscar nomination. I'm glad to see that this is absolutely exploding in limited release, and will quickly spread to a wider audience. Most definitely the Cohen's best post-Fargo work.

Posted by: Aratweth at November 12, 2007 5:45 PM

Sounds like a keeper.

Posted by: sosumi at November 12, 2007 6:02 PM

Darth Corleone is right about the walking away from the explosion scene. I totally agree.

Excellent review for a fantastic movie. Best I've seen in quite a while.

Posted by: joe at November 12, 2007 7:25 PM

In regards to the blowing-shit-up-while-walking-away-badassedly...that annoys me too, and it did make me think less of the film when I watched the trailer, but in the film itself the moment serves a specific purpose which is quite...well, badass. Anyway, I consider the moment to be 60% justifiable by plot and 40% pure cinematic eye candy.

imdb trivia has Javier Bardem being dismayed about his chances to get laid while sporting that haircut.

Posted by: Cara at November 12, 2007 7:27 PM

Hee, Cara! Although, I have a hard time believing that Javier would have difficulty in that department. If so, call me, Javier - we'll remedy that post-haste.

Posted by: Daphne at November 12, 2007 8:04 PM

Bra-fucking-vo, Daniel. Excellent review. Can't wait to see this movie.

Posted by: Scott at November 12, 2007 8:30 PM

this movie is the balls. ive heard so many people complaining about the ending (if you've seen it, you know the exact scene), but i thought it was played brilliantly. in fact, when i read it in the book, it pissed me off to no end, but in the movie it was handled much better. i just thought this movie was beautiful. i think the only film this year that could possibly match this is there will be blood.

Posted by: jordan at November 12, 2007 11:16 PM

Jordan - The exact scene? I can think of about three. Anyways, I totally agree, it was brilliantly done. Like I said earlier, it's the best movie I've seen yet this year.

Posted by: Joe at November 12, 2007 11:41 PM

Dan, your reviews are some of my favorites. Thanks!

Posted by: Finn at November 13, 2007 1:11 AM

Wait -- no mention of Woody Harrelson's role in this?

Posted by: Finn at November 13, 2007 1:13 AM

I am very excited to see this! I love the Coen brothers,
but even more importantly, my god a fresh story at the cinemas?! Not a remake! Not a sequel! I feel so hopeful about the world.
Thankyou Dan, for making me dance at my desk.

Posted by: Loob at November 13, 2007 1:44 AM

Can't wait to see it but...WHAT'S WITH THE SPOILERS?

Posted by: seth at November 13, 2007 2:14 AM

Finally, a good adaptation of a Cormac McCarthy novel! But with the Coen brothers at the helm, I shouldn't have expected anything less.
Slightly off-topic: Did anyone get to read the promotional interview that came out for this in Time? One of the best I've ever read--no self-congratulatory pats on the back and flattery from the Time reporter, just a (natural?) conversation between the Coens and McCarthy. That's what got me convinced to see this film, and Dustin's review has just cemented that resolve.

Posted by: bloodsugar at November 13, 2007 2:52 AM

Daniel's review, I mean. Ugh. Sorry.
Back to self-imposed silence for me.

Posted by: bloodsugar at November 13, 2007 2:54 AM

Finally a decent Coen's movie! I've been waiting for quite a while now - ever since The Big Lebowsky, in fact. Must say that Fargo is my favorite film of all time (and that's not an easy choice to make, believe me). I happen to think that all of the early Coen's flicks are terrific - from Blood Simple straight through to the Big L with the possible inclusion of O Brother - and after that the quality dropped, so now I am extatic that the brothers have returned to form. I am counting minutes until I see this film. Good review, by the way.

Posted by: Toothed Varmint at November 13, 2007 3:16 AM

I'm also hot for this. Mind you, I really liked Intolerable Cruelty, so what the hell do I know? :)

Posted by: Craig at November 13, 2007 3:45 AM

I have been ludicrously excited about seeing this ever since it appeared on my cinematic radar. This review has taken my "ludicrous excitement" up to "giddy delight".

Fantastic news! Of course I'm going to have to wait for UK release dates.. which according to IMDB will be the 18th of January. *sigh*

Posted by: Alex the Odd at November 13, 2007 6:56 AM

"Of course I'm going to have to wait for UK release dates.. which according to IMDB will be the 18th of January."

What?! Fuck!

Oh well, that can be the proverbial carrot to get me through Christmas.

Posted by: Craig at November 13, 2007 8:16 AM

I saw a screening of this film two weeks ago and was absolutely blown away. I had unreasonably high expectations for this film entering the theatre, and left with those expectations surpassed. Hands down, NCFOM is my favorite movie of the year.
Brolin was fantastic, and his performance almost overshadowed TLJ's and Bardem's simply because I was not expecting it. It's true that Tommy Lee Jones is so subtle and perfect for the role that he almost seems like he is not acting- I guess that is the beauty of it, but it makes it easy to almost disregard him.
Bardem just gave me the chills the entire film.

Posted by: lux at November 13, 2007 9:42 AM

I agree with you, Daniel. Bardem was stunning, especially his queer, lost line, "A.T.M." as he sits across from Woody Harrelson with death in his hands. As if saying, "You don't get it, do you. This is about something wholly different from persuasion, greed, love of murder, something else entirely..."

The only thing I'd like to discuss more is the dreams Jones touches on at the bookend of the movie. What do you make of that? Is there a place where we can get the script to hear that again? I am not looking for answers, it was so beautifully said I'd like to hear it again.

Nice review.

Posted by: matt at November 13, 2007 9:48 AM

did you get any coen poo on you?

Posted by: mothy at November 13, 2007 9:58 AM

Saw this last night and all I can say it was intense. What a 2 hours to spend. Brolin was incredible and for all of you bitchin about the final scene- it was an interesting way to end the movie but if you listen to TLJ's story it makes sense with the overall themes Daniel illuminated. If any movie was worth my 11.25 this is the one.

Posted by: BlackCapricorn at November 13, 2007 10:55 AM

I thought this was going to be an awesome movie. The combination of McCarthy and the Coens was just too good to be true.

Great review. I was going to see it anyway, but now I'm going to see it sooner.

Posted by: Wednesday at November 13, 2007 11:01 AM

Add my "great review" to the stack. Also, thank the gods for the Coen Bros.

Posted by: NeoCleo at November 13, 2007 12:12 PM

"I don't know about this one. I am so incredibly sick of the guy-thinking-he-looks-cool-by-walking-away-from-an-explosion-and-not-looking-back cliche, which I saw in the commercial. It's disappointing to see the Coens use it."

Sorry to say, but you have no clue. Chigurh has a precise reason he walks from the explosion away like that. That's definitely not your average, wanna-be-stylish action sequence. I presume you watched this scene in the trailer?

Posted by: Arthur Dent at November 13, 2007 2:11 PM

The book was excellent and turned me into a full-fledged Cormac McCarthy fan. When I saw the trailer and that the Coen Bros were attached, I knew I had to see it. And this review does nothing but reinforce that decision.

Well played, sir.

Posted by: RichieRich at November 14, 2007 1:45 AM

I presume you watched this scene in the trailer?

I saw it in the commercial, like I said. I haven't seen the movie yet.

Posted by: Todd at November 14, 2007 9:57 AM

@craig

I'm in the minority, too. I love Intolerable Cruelty, have watched in repeatedly. "Counselor, you are the engine that drives this firm." (have to hear it in the voice)

I know all about the hijacking of this film, that the Coens didn't finish it. Who cares, the dialogue is fantastic. "I introduce her to THAT silly man"

Sorry, but I consider George Clooney to be the epitome of the Coen actor. No one else delivers their dialogue with such perfect zeal. "I gather that you, sir, like me, are blessed with the gift of gab."

Now, that is not to undermine the perfection that is Jeff Bridges as the Dude. "Watch it, man, there's a beverage here."

The only issue I have with the Coens, and it's a minor one . . . I absolutely hate that sniveling worm, John Turturro. He is tolerable in Oh Brother, mildly inobtrusive in Lebowski, and otherwise a walking, talking bottle of ipecac. **hurls**

Posted by: denadn03 at November 14, 2007 6:49 PM

I just read the book and just saw the movie last night, and both are stunning. The expert casting, evocative shots, and tight pacing are all standout features of this film (at least for me), but everything just works damn near perfectly. It was worth my $13.25 (THANKS, FANDANGO).

Posted by: Katie at November 15, 2007 9:20 AM

Go see the movie.

And try to remember that a really good film is one that you think about for days. Not the one where someone rides off into the sunset.

Posted by: MRod at November 15, 2007 1:11 PM

I saw the movie twice. I loved it. The only thing i didn't like was the audience. The second time I saw it people were laughing throughout the entire movie, thinking it was Fargo. They were even laughing during the most gruesome scenes - *Spoiler Alert* like Chigurgh removing bullet fragments. There are some humorous moments, but it isn't a laugh out loud comedy. It's meant to be suspenseful and uncomfortable, and to leave you thinking.
Btw, on another note, did anyone notice there isn't a single musical note played during the whole movie? No score, it doesn't need one.

Posted by: s.eth at November 16, 2007 12:42 AM

s.eth, that was the first thing my friend and I said to each other once the credits started rolling! Kind of interesting, considering how large a part music plays in other movies by the Coen brothers.

Fantastic review, fantastic movie. Bardem's character scared the crap out of me.

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 10:28 AM

Definitely the best movie I've seen in a really long time...I'm a huge fan of Bardem and it was great to see him in this role. Nevermind that I had a dream about a fucking oxygen tank last night. Ugh. I'll never look at those the same way ever again.

The ending bugged me though--not the actual ending, but what happened in the theatre during the ending--a "that's it???" from most of the people in the audience. Even if you're thinking it, seriously, just shut up and let the movie finish.

Posted by: em at November 19, 2007 10:07 AM

Definitely the best movie I've seen in a really long time...I'm a huge fan of Bardem and it was great to see him in this role. Nevermind that I had a dream about a fucking oxygen tank last night. Ugh. I'll never look at those the same way ever again.

The ending bugged me though--not the actual ending, but what happened in the theatre during the ending--a "that's it???" from most of the people in the audience. Even if you're thinking it, seriously, just shut up and let the movie finish.

Posted by: em at November 19, 2007 10:08 AM

I just caught a showing.
I liked it allot.
BUt it doesnt have the sterotypical "American ending" which seems to not sit all that well with alot of people.

Posted by: Hal at November 20, 2007 3:09 PM

Let's see if I can be honest about this movie without mentioning Blood Simple. If I did that, I might as well compare the similarities this has to The Ladykillers. (Blood Simple is pretty awesome in many our opinions) I also apologize ahead of time for any soapboxing that may fall as consequence of the craziness that is being heaped up in praise of this (like Joel Coen got all of Terence Malick's fans too!). This movie is well done but not really that good. Take nothing away from Kelly MacDonald or Javier Bardem. Take nothing away from the cinematographer Roger Deakins. Even though Tommy Lee Jones is pretty played out in my book, his presence is appropriate to Texas even if he didn't speak an Spanish in this one. It probably isn't even the Coen brothers fault.
This movie was almost great (but if you are looking for something awesome, sorry). I did initially leave the theatre feeling like there was no ending. I was fine with it by the time I pulled out of the parking lot. My problem was that this movie can't be as serious as it takes itself. All those old men who do think their world purer and finer are kooks when they just talk like that.


I also think that casting the humorless Josh Brolin in the lead was a huge mistake. Joel, Come On! And I didn't enjoy Woody Harrelson in the movie. IF we wanted someone playing himself, Joel should have got Bruce Springsteen for that role.

I know that discovering movies on your own is really a primordial joy for those natural geek/nerds of film, and so this is one of those that some kid will find sitting next to Noi Albinoi and Moral Ambiguity. This is the kind of movie you will recommend to people today, and they will not appreciate your thoughtfulness. You have to discover this one on your own, and now it's too late. I really do wish NCFOM was awesome, but such is not the case. Definitely worth seeing for the champion villainy of Chigurh, just don't get over-excited.
Do you see what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass?

Posted by: Jackseppelin at November 21, 2007 12:29 AM

jackseppelin, i need you to stop. unless you're 14, which seems probable, in which case, you don't have to stop, just do it more quietly.

Posted by: tindersnix at November 22, 2007 3:08 AM

I liked the movie even though the ending was kind of...unexpected? There was a lot of weird suspense where I wasn't sure if I was in suspense or just freaked out.

It bothers me, though, when movies can't get right little things to make it more realistic. When they show him injecting lidocaine (100 mL no less) into his upper leg, I just had to laugh. Who would put in a local anesthetic nowhere near the wound? Just stupid.

Posted by: Sydney at November 23, 2007 5:01 PM

I saw this movie this past weekend and was constantly slapped upside the head until I said, "Well I'll be. . ."

My favorite part of the entire experience was listening to the knuckle dragging, unoriginal and intergalactically stupid people repeating the phrase "I don't get it." A warm sensation settled into the sub-cockle area of my smug heart.

Dennis Miller was right, pretty soon the king will be the one who just doesn't shit himself. See folks, the newer more friendly version of the Terminator doesn't lower himself into the molten steel while giving the thumbs up in this one. Better stay home and not miss the Quince sale on QVC.

Posted by: bucslim at November 27, 2007 9:18 AM

And where the fuck was Texas Ranger Earl McGraw?

If I ever get my hands on those sick fucking bastards it's payback time!

Posted by: bucslim at November 27, 2007 9:22 AM

Haw haw!

Look, all I'm saying is that movie is unexceptional. Maybe I watch too many movies, but you are mistaken about this one. I'm glad that Chigurh got away. Evil men kill evil men these days, and not often enough.

Just arguing merits of the movie, and not whatever grand ideas you think are fresh here, I'll go out on a limb here and say that I think the movie Badlands is also not very good. I can forgive the cheesy use of voice over. I can dig the trigger-happiness of their little journey. I like him facing his end, his choosing how it went and how it would finish. But in the end, whether or not images stay with me, it was not a very good movie. In a universe without Man Bites Dog or the Sugarland Express, maybe we could say that Badlands is an amazing film. It's just that if we do limit ourselves to the very lofty and narrow reality of cinema, there are better versions of this and many other new movies you say you like. And the thing that bugs me is when people who should know better not only do not say so, but they seem to fall into the current.

I know it is blasphemy for a Pajabian to say they do not like a Coen Bros. movie, but dammit, that isn't my concern. Raising Arizona, Fargo, Lebowski, Barton Fink-Five fuckin star. Miller's Crossing, Man Who Wasn't There, Blood Simple, Hudsucker, O Brother--Four Stars. I'm not sorry, but probably a combination of Cormac McCarthy and Josh Brolin but this in the very average bin.

Posted by: Jackseppelin at November 27, 2007 5:44 PM

GREAT review!! I was almost in tears by the end. I want to see this movie tonight!! Thank you.

Posted by: ktclear at November 28, 2007 5:17 PM

coen-po; I love it.


Seriously, I think the only thing (well, maybe not ONLY) the bros did 'wrong' was the car crash. They showed the traffic light about 40 times too many, well...5 or 6. I saw the 2nd shot of the light and knew what was coming. They might as well have played the shark music from JAWS! It would have had WAY more impact (pun intended) if they had just - BOOM - done the crash.

Loved it all the same!

Posted by: jtheman at November 30, 2007 5:30 PM

A light sprinkle of spoiling in what I say here

I'm glad someone mentioned Earl McGraw. I'd forgotten to mention him when I was reporting back to my friends who'd urged me to see it. I liked that I felt like I was seeing what happens when Earl's in his own movie.

I'm glad that I was warned by one person that "well...it's pretty nihilistic". The other person, the one who didn't warn me about "The Departed" ("I saw it...what the hell are you trying to do to me???"), was the one who sparked my interest by saying it was also funny. It *is* funny....though as bleak as it is quiet. Josh Brolin does a whole hell of a lot with such a silent part. My gold star goes to Roger Deakins though. Not just the quality of the images, but pointing the camera and light in that direction to begin with. Like, who the fuck would think to set up that shot? That's where my Oscar vote's going, but I know he gets little Academy love. I do have to give credit to Barry Corbin and the script for the way he quietly slams Tommy and his reasoning. Kelly's Carla Jean is the true uncompromising, noble character.

Mind you, I do bear a grudge that they get no respect for their outright comedies. The whole world loved "Fargo" and then I'm watching "Lebowski" in an empty theater twice. I've still only seen "Fargo" the one time. But I *am* a bit contrary, and I also like to have fun when I go see a movie. Having said that, this is still a really damn well made film.

Now I need Joel Robinson to come sing "Only Love Pads The Film" for me so I can snap out of this existential dilemma.

Posted by: Jay at December 2, 2007 1:58 AM

Saw this last night - horrible and beautiful and uncomfortable. I loved it!

**spoiler alert** The ending, although it was abrupt and did not tie everything all up in a neat "hooray the good guys win again" superficial package, may have been the most satisfying ending I've ever seen in a movie. I can't explain why, perhaps just the 'realness' of it - no resolution, no answers, really no point, just life.

Posted by: Pam at December 5, 2007 2:05 PM

Apparently, none of you Cohen fans like any LOGIC within your films. You're willing to let them get away with plot devices that you'd turn around and rip any other film maker for using.


For exmaple, Moss goes back to the shoot-out site to bring the dying man water (if he was a Vietnam Vet, he'd know that dude was good and dead). If he doesn't do this, no one finds out who Moss is (and no, saying "I'm fixin' to do something stupid" doesn't make up for this action).


Then, in the sandy desert, Moss can out run a 4x4 truck. Yeah, that happens all the time.


Then, Anton just happens to drive by the right hotel Moss is staying in (meanwhile, Moss, at no time until the story tellers decide to, never fully checks out the money or satchel). Considering how big and vacant West Texas is, that's a little too lucky.


Two shoot out in hotels results in no calls to the police. A killing in an office building results in no calls to the police. How convienent.


Tommy Lee Jones character never investigates a thing. What a good cop. He works from a diner, just deducing all this by reading a newspaper. While I know why his character was in the film, he actually served no purpose in the plot at all.


Anton is more like Michael Myers in Halloween than anything. Slow and plodding, he catches up with everyone using a cliched slow walk. Wow, how menacing.


Though Anton knows Moss is in the Mexican hospital, he does bother to cross the border to get him (although he's willing to track down and kill everyone else). No, crossing the border is just to big a step to make, especially considering how difficult Moss made it look.


But Woody Harrelson, having just entered the story, can track Moss down to that same hospital with no problem.

The car crash at the end - while serving no purpose - is also cliched and telegraphed.


Look, I wanted to love this film as I have other Cohen Bros. flicks. But while entertaining, this movie was internally stupid. And while I can allow for things to be left unexplained and up to the view to determine, some things (like Anton's killing of a cop to start the film) need further explination otherwise the scenes are pointless (you're telling me a cop killer in Texas won't be hunted down by every available law enforcement officer out there? Again, no LOGIC).

Posted by: B-Unit at December 6, 2007 11:40 AM

Absolutely stellar performances from everyone. I was truly impressed by Javier Bardem, an actor I had never noticed before. Tommy Lee Jones redeemed himself after being in some atrocious abominations, and the much maligned Josh Brolin (remember him in "American Gangster"? No? Look again, he was good there too, considering what he was given...) would be wise to use this role as an elevator for his future career choices.

That the Coen Brothers stupify some people is not in the slightest way a surprise. They have always required some application of intelligence to "get". I feel the same as one of the previous posters in saying that the lamentations of the plebians upon completion of the feature did in fact give me a temporary superiority complex. Felt pretty good, then I realized I'm not perfect and my head deflated.

Speaking of imperfections, the ancient phrase of "to err is human" comes to mind. While I found minor details to be slightly skewed, I none the less possess the power to not be an egregious ass and let such things ruin my experience. People make mistakes, no one is an expert on everything, and if the Coen Brothers (or anyone else for that matter) wanted to use some "cliche'd gimmick" in THEIR movie, then they may do so. (Personally, I found the scene to be both profound and intentionally humorous. I suspect that was the intent. I could be wrong, you'll no doubt tell me if I am.) As to the ending, I concur with another poster that life is like that. Not everything is resolved into a neat, pretty package of good-will.

In conclusion, I applaud their daring in choosing a difficult story to transition. McCormack's stories are often more along the lines of internal conflict, a very difficult thing to portray on screen. Considering the dross that is foisted off upon the (I refuse to say "unsuspecting", we know better) public, this film was a breath of fresh air.

Posted by: Cpljennaj at December 7, 2007 8:30 AM

I saw this last night and was blown away! Josh Brolin was amazing! Javier Bardem was insane! Loved it. Jackseppelin, you are one hilarious troll :) Your posts gave me a good chuckle.

Posted by: Ooh at December 7, 2007 4:12 PM

Great movie! Love a flick that make you go "WTF". Not enough of them these days (as most that have been semi negative as alluded too plot twists are easy to see) But with that and not having read the book... did anyone notice that the time jumps started with short periods of time and became progressively longer?? Is the author planing a sequel to this book (being it was published in 05) and how could you not (being a good capatalist) make a sequel to fill in these missing parts and add new ones? Then you have the prequel HA HA HA boyo

Posted by: Kokopeli at December 10, 2007 2:50 PM

B-unit is on the money. I managed to get past the bring-water problem, and coasted through about half the movie thinking "this is pretty good". But the pointless introduction of Woody Harrelson put me off, and the third-act speechifying was positively awful.

The problem is the script. What might work in a novel just doesn't make for a satisfying film. It's beautifully crafted, but it's too long, and it just drives off a cliff about half way through.

No, I'm not a big Cormac McCarthy fan, but I'm judging this purely as a movie. And as a movie, it's better than many, but nowhere near the masterpiece people are making it out to be.

Posted by: rocky at January 2, 2008 12:06 AM

I saw this movie last night and I thought it was spectacular.

At the showing that I attended, when the credits rolled, I honestly wanted to stand up and start clapping. But the theater was filled with stony silence. I have no idea if the audience was thinking "WTF? That's it?" or if they were stunned, like me, from seeing a truly great film. Movies like this do not come around often.

Posted by: melissa at January 6, 2008 1:50 PM

Geez, this years' Oscar should go to Bardem, hands down. He's terrific in the role. Absolutely creepy.

Posted by: Abelo at January 12, 2008 5:25 AM

This is still my favorite movie of 2007 hands down. I actually went to see it 3 times. Loved it through and through. Not everyone loves it though as evidenced by the girl sitting behind me. At the end credits she gets up and tells her friends, "That ending was stupid, I don't get it. Oooh maybe they'll explain it in the sequel!" Statements like that remind me why I hate most of the movie-going public.

Posted by: JDIII at January 13, 2008 6:16 AM

I was raised in Sanderson. Fuck this silly-assed movie and Tommy Lee Jones, et al. There's not a knuckle-draggin' simian in Hollywood who knows just how twisted Terrell County's remaining resident genetic mutants are, and their capabilities. And remember, they are only the vestigal remnants of some of the most deviated families in the Western Hemisphere. You do not want to ever come into contact with ANYONE who actually lived there; they posess the ingrediants for the REAL movie.

Posted by: Juan Escalante at January 13, 2008 5:34 PM

What Escalante says is true. When not robbing or derailing trains, transporting drugs, or planning their next mountian or building to burn burglarize, or dynamite for sport, some of these Terrell County freaks cornholed horses, rigged airplanes to crash, murdered their brothers and made life generally miserable for the upstanding church goers who were more covert with their demented activities - and the above occured when they were bored. When these morons decided to go to work on somebody it was time to clear out of Dodge. Today many of these people are doctors, lawyers, teachers, and psychoanalysts. But don't be deceived. Within their blood flows the defective genes that contain pure evil and a lion cannot change its stripes. Some of these pieces of true western art are subject to explode at any moment. Old Tommmy Lee dont want to know them!

Posted by: Dan Gravilovich at January 13, 2008 5:55 PM

In searching for information regarding No Country for Old Men I find it very disturbing to see that some residents or former residents of the fine community of Sanderson are still denegrating the town and its citizens. One of my most cherished distant relatives was a sober and upstanding elected representative for Sanderson. Over the years of his official tenure, he frequently expressed his frustration in not being able to bring to justice the perpretators of such disgusting offences against the town people, the Southern Pacific Railroad and their long established traditions, fraternal organizations and God fearing churches. He told me many times that it was the warped sons of a few Anglo disgruntled ranchers, doctors, teachers, one strange Post Master and other prominent ( and not so prominent )mentally ill misfits, and a couple of Mexicans who never accepted their established place in society who controlled the county through graft and extortion. I had hoped that most of these dangerous thugs and hell bound psychopaths would be dead by now, but I now see that nature must continue to run her course until all of these criminal and jaded ruffians and their sick memories have been removed from the face of the earth. Most of the older Good Anglo Widows Sons of Sanderson should remember who they are and prevent their return at all costs. So Mote it Be - E...W...H...

Posted by: E.W. Hogg at January 13, 2008 10:46 PM

The ending is so ridiculous as to negate the greatness of the whole movie. The ending isn't "Oh wow" existential, it's just ridiculous. There's a tremendous buildup during the meat of the movie, but then it's like the authors just decided to take a quick break for a snack at the end and never came back...

Posted by: lark265 at January 21, 2008 11:36 PM

When I read through these comments, the "explosion cliché" hubbub really bothered me, and I needed to pause for a moment and consider why I would give my own 2 cents regarding something so trivial. I realized it's not trivial. Bad films have mad that a cliché "cool guy" move, but nothing in this film exists simple to be "cool." Everything has a purpose, and therein lies the one of it's key strengths. Anton doesn't look back at the explosion because it would have defeated it's purpose. It doesn't make him look cool, it makes him look smart. And smart guys are a hell of lot scarier than cool guys.

Posted by: panlow at January 22, 2008 3:54 PM

The major theme is GREED and its consequences ("there are no clean getaways") and fighting with our conscience. It is NOT about death finding us. This is the point of the movie - move away from obsessing about death and instead look at the real root of all evil: GREED. Are you greedy? Do you fight with greed (Anton) in your mind?

Read the reasons below, rewatch the movie and everything will become clear!!! This is the one and only explanation of the movie.

There are two layers to this movie, the real part and the sub-conscious part:

Real Layer/Story: Moss finds some money beside dead Mexican drug dealers. He goes back to bring a dying Mexican some water but other Mexicans spot him (see his face/car) but lose him. However, they now know who he is via his rego plates - they go to his trailer park but he is not there so they track his wife around via the phone number of her mother (there is no tracking device (see below)). They find out where he is staying via his mother in law (helping her with her bags). When they do eventually find him they kill him in the hotel but do not find the money. Bell finds the money at the crime scene by checking the vents but he turns it in to the authorities (not shown but implied - see below). Carla Moss kills herself in grief after her husband's funeral. Bell retires because he cannot make sense of all the greed and evil in the world (a good man like Moss dies because of it), he cannot seem to stop it ("There are no laws left"). In the dream he and his father try to bring 'light to the darkness' but in the end he 'wakes up' to reality.

Conscience Layer (see below for more explanation): Moss does not meet Anton for awhile into the movie. He initially has a cleanish conscience (i.e. going back to give the dying Mexican water). When Moss decides to run from the Mexicans instead of just leaving the money in his trailer for them to find and leave him alone, Anton (greed) focuses his attention on Moss and begins tracking him. There is no tracking device. The tracking device in Anton's possession symbolizes Anton (greed) getting closer and closer from Moss' sub-conscience to Moss' conscience. Moss begins to understand that his wife will be in danger , he sees/realizes Anton/his greed, finding the phone list (which is actually the Mexicans finding the list in reality). He then discovers the tracking device at which point he meets Anton (greed) in his conscience. The next scenes are him fighting with greed in his conscience. He wounds greed (Anton) but does not kill him. Since greed is wounded you then see him talking to Carson Wells (his reasoning conscience) who says he might be able to help him and his wife if he just hands over the money (give up his greed). The hotel room across the street is Moss' mind. There Anton (greed) kills Wells (his reasoning conscience). We then see Moss having a direct argument with his greed (Anton) and Anton says that it is Moss' fault that his wife will now die - it was his choice (in his sub-conscious he thinks that the Mexicans will find her). Moss is then killed by the Mexicans but they do not find the money. Bell is not possessed by greed (you see him mirrored by Anton(greed) in the tv). Bell goes into the hotel room where greed (Anton) is potentially 'waiting' as the $2 million has not been found. He goes in there and sees the vent, he knows there is $2 million in there but he knows he won't take it (the heads on the coin symbolizes he made the right choice) so he does not see greed (Anton) - presumably he turns the money in. Carla kills herself (meeting Anton (death/greed) was her husband's fault). With his work done Anton finds some new 'victims' for greed when spots the kids on the bikes. He is wounded by the car crash so greed is wounded but then as he heals himself they begin fighting over the $100 bill (which in reality they probably found on the street - the cycle of greed begins again). Bell retires because he cannot make sense of the greed and death (we know he does not know greed), him and his father tried to shed light in the evil of the world but he 'wakes up' to reality that it will always be there (You can't stop what's coming).

Who is Anton?:
Anton is greed conscience. He is a ghost. He is not real. "Can you see me?" We have a choice to succome to greed (coin toss). He wears black/dark clothes.
Movie Poster Titles:
"You can't stop what's coming" (Anton). He survives the car accident and bullets but you can wound/slow him down.
"There are no laws left" (greed/Anton can't be controlled by laws/by Bell it is up to the person).
"There are no clean Getaways" (greed/Anton eventually wins - greed has dire consequences)

Who is Carson Wells and what is the Business Office?
Carson Wells is the good/reasoning conscience of Moss. The meeting in the office is the reasoning part of Moss' mind (the high rise office symbolizes his mind - the top of the building). The man behind the desk is Moss' sub-conscience saying that he wants his good conscience (Wells) to stop his bad conscience (Anton). Wells (good conscience) names a date, 28th November last year, when he last met Anton (bad conscience) - possibly this was a time that Moss had conflict in his conscious before. Wells says he knows Anton "every which way".
Moss talks to Carla on the phone and could end everything but instead insists on keeping the money. He says he has to find 'him' and she says "Find who?" She asks about the safety of her mother and Moss says she'll be alright (he knows the Mexicans will find his Mother in Law). At this point Anton (greed) bursts into the office (Moss' mind) and kills Moss' reasoning part of his mind. The other character, accounting, is just another part of Moss' mind probably accounting for his money. Moss knows in his mind that the Mexicans will find his wife (says the Mexicans were given a tracking device).

And there are many many more parts in the movie that support all this. Now watch the movie again and you'll be going "Of course!" "Oh, that line makes sense!"
THE DEBATE ENDS HERE!

Posted by: Matty Bede at February 1, 2008 7:18 AM

Fantastic analysis, Matty Bede. I look forward to re-watching this film and testing your theories.

Posted by: Robot Cat at February 29, 2008 4:56 PM

Wow, Matty Beade that is a great explanation. When I watched it I was just looking at it on the surface, I was going to analyze it more when I watched it again. I'm going to keep thinking about what you said here while I watch it. Already I'm making connections and going "Of course! How did I miss that?!" I'm really excited to see it now!

Posted by: Kay at March 1, 2008 10:32 PM

I you in the "it was a big build up to nothing" camp were expecting, consciously or unconsciously, a Hollywood ending.

Oh yes you were. Couldn't you hear the trailer announcer intoning "IN A TOWN...without borders. IN A TIME...with no limits. ONE MAN risks all he has, against the only man crazy enough to try to stop him."

Yeah. No.

Try "one half-bright ne'er-do-well (okay, he made something workable out of tent poles. Or was it hockey sticks?) risks his own and his wife's life for some drug money. After many people, innocent and non-innocent, are killed, he refuses to give in, and challenges the killer, mano-a-mano. And so OOH SPOILER he dies. Because he forgot a whole other bunch of people were also trying to kill him. Did I mention he's not too bright?"

This happens every day to crooked people in real life. Why is it so hard to understand in the movies?

Posted by: Janis at March 4, 2008 5:14 AM

Son of a bitch did this movie suck balls. I mean I'm all for twist ending and shit but dam there was no ending what a fucking stupid piece of shit this one if I ever see one of he Coen Bros I will punch them square in the face for making such a piece of shit

Posted by: king john at March 22, 2008 7:25 AM

I like Matty Bede's cogent explanation of the movie. I subscribe to it except for one issue. I don't see how some of the minor characters in the movie fit in with this interpretation. Can someone clear a few things up for me?

If the gunfight in and around the hotel is just Lewellyn fighting his inner demons, then that excludes the notion that the Mexicans offed the hotel desk clerk (because he wasn't real either). So, I think the clerk personifies Lewellyn's feelings of guilt or shame. After Anton shoots at him, he makes his way downstairs, he takes a few seconds to acknowledge the man's death. It had to have crossed his mind that he would still be alive if he hadn't tipped him ($) for his help.

In the alternative, that character could be just a plot device to re-inforce the notion that Anton is greed personified. The clerk was tempted with the money, and paid the ultimate price.

What about both of the unfortunate drivers in the film? The man in the white '77 Ford, and the man in the pick-up with the chickens in the rear. Neither of those two had any connection with Lewellyn or the money. There wasn't even a coin toss to test their resolve. Moreover, we are led to believe that these two were honest, and law-abiding, and that the latter of the two is even a good samaritan of sorts.

So that kind of muddies up the waters for me. Does anyone have any new insight?

Posted by: WCP at March 26, 2008 2:09 PM



searchthesite.jpg