Latest Coen Bros Flick - What's The Big Deal?

[Guest kungfusamurai]

I thought I'd check out the film No Country For Old Men, the latest film by the Coen Brothers, because I read so much critical acclaim for the film. I don't know if these critics were butt kissers or fan boys, because this film as a whole, was weak. At the end of the film, the theatre was silent and everyone just got up and walked out. It was like a 'what the f&*&" type of reaction, I'd say.

The film starts off interesting where we are introduced to the main characters in the filme: a psychopathic killer taking some lives; a guy out hunting who stumbles across a drug deal gone wrong; and an old town Sheriff who sees the world changing too fast around him. The film progresses, and there are some interesting twists and turns, and it feels like the film is going somewhere, to a final, cathartic climax. But it never happens. The damn thing just peters out into the credit sequence. In the end you even feel like certain characters, like the Sheriff, were pointless and didn't even need to be in the movie.

The Coen brothers really dropped the ball on this one. I think a good movie not only has a good story arc, but it should also wrap up in a nice way. I had the same feeling about Scorsese's Departed. I liked the film as a whole, but the last 15 or so minutes seemed like a cheap way to end the film without really coming up with anything substantial.

I haven't seen their films, but the ones I have seen, which include Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, Big Lebowski, and O Brother Where Art Thou, I found to be way better and if you liked THOSE films, I don't think you'll be too impressed with this latest effort by the Brothers Coen.

KFS

[Guest daisho2004]

KFS WOW I thought this movie was going to be really good from the previews and what I read about it so far, now from what your saying it sounds like a total Bomb. I'll still watch it when I get a chance.

[Guest kungfusamurai]

KFS WOW I thought this movie was going to be really good from the previews and what I read about it so far, now from what your saying it sounds like a total Bomb. I'll still watch it when I get a chance.

I can't pan the whole movie, because like I said, it does have some great plot twists and turns. But as a whole, there seems to be a lot of stuff either that doesn't need to be in there (like certain characters) and the way things wrap up is so anti-climactic it's not even funny. If you can watch it on the cheap (like a $4 movie night), then definitely see it for yourself if you like the Coen's, otherwise, don't blow $13 on it.

I was almost as disappointed with this as I was with Zodiac, which was a bomb by a director who's films I've generally enjoyed, David Fincher.

KFS

[Alex]

Couldn't disagree with your more on this. I've seen every movie they've made so far and this one falls into the top 3 with Fargo and Millers Crossing.

The ending is very anticlimatic, and would be severely disappointing if you're looking for a straight-forward conventional crime tale. I would even go as far as saying that in terms of basic story telling it just doesn't work. However sinse this is based on a Cormac McCarthy novel, who's narrative is usually loose to say the least, I wasn't really expecting anything neat and tidy. This really isn't even a thriller, although its filled with moments of serious white knuckle tension. It's more of a philosophical rumination on things like the passage of time and inevitability of fate and death, filtered through the sensibility of a modern western. As such, the journey here is much more important than the destination.

I realize I'm making it sound stuffy boring and pretentious, which isn't really doing it justice. There's plenty to enjoy here for both genre hounds and regular movie fans, starting from the fact that the violence is some of the best put on film in the last decade. The cinematography is absolutely mindblowing, every shot looks like a painting. Javier Bardiem creates one of the most memorable and chilling screen villains in ages, maybe even ever. Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin are both very impressive as well as Woody Harrelson who's character could've used a bit more screen time. Overall, as far as the general craft of movie making is concerned (aside from the screenplay itself) this is virtually flawless.

Also, I have to say that the crowd reaction I experienced at the screening was of hushed awe more than anything and overwhelmingly positive. There were no people clapping and yelling, but this isn't really the type of movie that calls for it. I heard many people say that they want to see it again ASAP and I share the sentiment.

[Guest kungfusamurai]

Couldn't disagree with your more on this. I've seen every movie they've made so far and this one falls into the top 3 with Fargo and Millers Crossing.

The ending is very anticlimatic, and would be severely disappointing if you're looking for a straight-forward conventional crime tale. I would even go as far as saying that in terms of basic story telling it just doesn't work. However sinse this is based on a Cormac McCarthy novel, who's narrative is usually loose to say the least, I wasn't really expecting anything neat and tidy. This really isn't even a thriller, although its filled with moments of serious white knuckle tension. It's more of a philosophical rumination on things like the passage of time and inevitability of fate and death, filtered through the sensibility of a modern western. As such, the journey here is much more important than the destination.

I realize I'm making it sound stuffy boring and pretentious, which isn't really doing it justice. There's plenty to enjoy here for both genre hounds and regular movie fans, starting from the fact that the violence is some of the best put on film in the last decade. The cinematography is absolutely mindblowing, every shot looks like a painting. Javier Bardiem creates one of the most memorable and chilling screen villains in ages, maybe even ever. Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin are both very impressive as well as Woody Harrelson who's character could've used a bit more screen time. Overall, as far as the general craft of movie making is concerned (aside from the screenplay itself) this is virtually flawless.

Also, I have to say that the crowd reaction I experienced at the screening was of hushed awe more than anything and overwhelmingly positive. There were no people clapping and yelling, but this isn't really the type of movie that calls for it. I heard many people say that they want to see it again ASAP and I share the sentiment.

Warning May Have SPOILERS Below:

I see your point Alex, especially due to the fact that the film was based on a novel, and the Coens probably didn't want to depart from it that much. And the idea that times are a changin', and probably not for the better. I agree that the execution on the most part was very impressive, although I really disliked the jump cut that was done when we see the ultimate fate of Josh Brolin's character. It's like the brothers couldn't figure out a smooth way to transition into that later point in time, so he jumped to that moment when the mexicans did in Brolin.

The characters I found to be extraneous were Tommy Lee Jones and Woody Harrelson. I do understand that the movie was constructed to show how the world was changing from the point of view of Tommy Lee Jones character, but it still felt like his not being there wouldn't have hurt the film. Same with Woody Harrelson's character - he didn't need to be there. His role just seemed to be a simplistic way of shedding light on the psycho hitman/killer and what he is all about, but even that could have been done without him.

And then there are the motivations for the characters that kind of annoyed me. For example, I don't really understand why Josh Brolin went back to the scene of the shootout when he probably knew very well that more bad guys would probably show up under the cover of darkness. And he parked his truck right where it could be found and tampered with instead off to the side or something.

And then he kept carrying the money in that big bulky suitcase instead of putting it into some gym bag or something less conspicuous.

Tommy Lee Jones character - why didn't he or the coroner doing the autopsies figure out the murder weapon was not a gun, but one of those compressed air devices that shoot a rod out to kill livestock? Even I figured that out, and I don't even work on a farm. They should have known about that.

The Killer - his role was to recover the money? The drugs? Was he going to keep it after he realized he was being 'double crossed' by his employer?

And lastly, with a crime of that magnitude, wouldn't there have been FBI crawling all over that county/town? I know it took place in 1980 or so, but I'd still think that a drug deal gone back that involved so many dead people would have resulted in some federal people coming onto the scene to help or hinder Jones.

I know I'm probably being more nitpicky than I would have been had I really enjoyed the film. Unfortunately, those points were things I noticed during the course of the film, before the ultimate, dry ending.

KFS

PS I just wrote the above really quickly as things popped into my head, so my grammar's probably sh*&, more so than usual. My apologies ahead of time if it sounds like disjointed ramblings.

[Alex]

SPOILERS**********************

KFS it seems you missed a couple of details. For example there are several references to the FBI trying to contact the sheriff about the murder scene and the investigation, and he avoids dealing with them.

Chigurah's role is explicitly stated as recovering the money, and he ends up keeping it at the end.

Tommy Lee Jones actually does figure out the cattle gun thing, they just never have a scene where he says "hey i figured out what's going on". They make a reference to this at some point as well.

Jones's character is essential to the movie, he is the heart of it, he is the one that 'observes' the change. Without him any philosophical or psychological aspiration would have to be removed and the film re-written to be nothing more than a cat/mouse chase between Lewellen and Chigurah, which honestly sounds more like the movie you were hoping to see.

I agree with you on two points. First, Harrelson could've been removed easily. He is entertaining but they either should've given him a more crucial role in the development of the story or not had him there at all. It seems like a nod to Coen's previous efforts which are littered with similarly interesting and quirky but ultimately useless side characters.

Second, why did Moss go to back to the scene - that kinda bothers me too. It seems he's having a bout of concience about not helping the dying mexican, which is why he brings a jug of water. At the same time it's pretty obvious that at that point the mexican would already be dead and nothing good can happen from returning.

Switching the money from suitcase to gym bag wouldn't have made any difference as the tracking device is hidden in the money itself.

[Guest kungfusamurai]

SPOILERS**********************

KFS it seems you missed a couple of details. For example there are several references to the FBI trying to contact the sheriff about the murder scene and the investigation, and he avoids dealing with them.

Chigurah's role is explicitly stated as recovering the money, and he ends up keeping it at the end.

Tommy Lee Jones actually does figure out the cattle gun thing, they just never have a scene where he says "hey i figured out what's going on". They make a reference to this at some point as well.

Jones's character is essential to the movie, he is the heart of it, he is the one that 'observes' the change. Without him any philosophical or psychological aspiration would have to be removed and the film re-written to be nothing more than a cat/mouse chase between Lewellen and Chigurah, which honestly sounds more like the movie you were hoping to see.

I agree with you on two points. First, Harrelson could've been removed easily. He is entertaining but they either should've given him a more crucial role in the development of the story or not had him there at all. It seems like a nod to Coen's previous efforts which are littered with similarly interesting and quirky but ultimately useless side characters.

Second, why did Moss go to back to the scene - that kinda bothers me too. It seems he's having a bout of concience about not helping the dying mexican, which is why he brings a jug of water. At the same time it's pretty obvious that at that point the mexican would already be dead and nothing good can happen from returning.

Switching the money from suitcase to gym bag wouldn't have made any difference as the tracking device is hidden in the money itself.

Thank you for clearing up those points above. I guess Moss returning to the scene was him feeling bad, but then again, he brought such a huge bottle. Wouldn't have been in his best interests, anyway, to let the guy die because if he lived, he could tell his fellow drug guys about Moss.

Yeah, the tracking device definitely would have been still active, but it would have made the money handling a lot easier. Plus, he could have split it up, put some in one place, put some in another. Oh well, I didn't direct the movie so it's easy for me to say stuff after the fact.

KFS

[Guest dionbrother]

It's a really brilliant film until the finale. All buildup and no payoff doesn't work in a movie, unlike a meditative art novel. I'd still recommend Cohen Bros. fans check it out.

And I thought ZODIAC was excellent, ranking with GONE BABY GONE as my favorite of the year.

[doug maverick]

this film felt like it took a thousand years. and it ended with a wimper(which i actually liked for some reason) the audience didn;t even clap at the end they just was like thats it oh okay better go home.