No Country for Old Men

Return to the Main Page

Summary:
Texan Llewelyn Moss stumbles across a massacred group of Mexican drug dealers, in which a deal obviously went bad. He also finds a suitcase full of money, and finds himself pursued by a relentless killer. Sheriff Ed Tom Bell investigates the crime while contemplating his old and weary age.

Review:
The latest picture by two of my favorite directors is a huge improvement over their last two films Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. They've returned in full force for their next crime story, keeping a tone more akin to the likes of Fargo and Blood Simple, with less humor than the former and prettier cinematography than the latter.
It's going to be tough talking about what didn't work for me with No Country without giving spoilers, but I'll do my best (and NOT give spoilers).

I wanted so much to feel the same amount of praise that most others are giving this flick, but a few key elements didn't quite come together as smoothly as they should have. I do understand why they had Sheriff Ed Tom Bell opening and closing with his monologues. Thus, the title referencing how he's getting a little old for the quickening pace of crime in 1980 versus those of the old-timers that he admires. My issue with Jones' character is that if he was excised entirely from the movie, it would have taken away the titles' point and given a less ambiguous conclusion in which many seem to be pissed off at. I'm not upset with the final scene, even though it would have been better if we finished without his speech. If that was done, then yes, the main "message" would have also been different for the themes that Bell gives to the story. Every time Bell had a scene, I kept thinking to myself, "and why are we following his sequence of events again? How is this changing or helping with the connection between Chigurh and Moss?" He's always a step behind, and we see him reaching a destination almost immediately after The Shit Went Down. I get it, he's a step behind but still keeping pace in the long run, but his getting older is making Bell reconsider his choices and personal drive. Even though I know why he's in the movie, I think it would have been just as good if he wasn't in the picture at all. Unfortunately, doing such a thing would have altered the dynamics of the movie's main theme. Even though he's not in the movie that much, it is just as much - if not moreso - about him as it is about Chigurh and Moss. I still don't like it. I just feel like without having Bell, the movie would have been better for me. Just don't tell me it's because I don't understand his part in the story.

On to the things that I really really loved...

98% of the rest of the movie is spot-on. Especially interesting was the way fate was presented by the mere flip of a coin by Chigurh, but how that is only the shallow surface of the way fate plays a major role throughout the entire movie. If it wasn't because of Moss's mother-in-law, such-and-such wouldn't have happened. If Chigurh changed his mind in the final scene, then fate would have cast him a different side of the die. Also, if Moss did not decide to say one thing to Chigurh, then he wouldn't have been at his final destination in the movie at ALL. Moss not hitting low on his target at the beginning would have completely altered future events. Perhaps most significant is Sheriff Bell's final decision at that hotel near the end, and what he resigned himself to with his future. This sort of thing can be mentioned with every movie, but in the case of No Country, I get reminded of the irony of small choices and how it deals a different outcome each time because of Chigurh's simple coin toss. Nicely played.
Javier Bardem kicked my ass backwards and sideways with his freaking amazing portrayal as Chigurh. Perfect casting. Josh Brolin was also great for his part. You never learn much about the man Moss himself, but you get enough to think that he might not be a great guy, but he's definitely more high in the morality scale than Chigurh; perhaps. I'd probably take the money, too. It's also interesting watching how he handles his pursuers that obviously are professionals in their killing fields. He makes good choices more than bad, and I love it when a movie doesn't make dumb decisions for the purpose of keeping the audience entertained and throwing logic out the window. There was not one time where I figured they were reaching out too far with wild conclusions. Each decision and outcome worked for my feeble mind!
As expected with a Coen flick, the cinematography is freaking fantastic. Lighting, framing, and the pace of each shot was absolutely appropriate for the story being told. If there's anything these guys are good at (which is almost everything), it's making their movies look as if they were filmed DURING THAT TIME. You pick up any Coen brothers movie, and you can most likely tell that it's their movie by the look alone, no matter what decade it's taking place in. This movie wasn't filmed this year; it was made in 1980!
There are also plenty of unexpected surprises, as long as you haven't read the book. I guess this movie closely follows it, almost to a fault. If I didn't know it was a book, I'd think it was something the Coens thought up themselves, because it's their flavor of story from every angle. I wasn't thrown off or mad that not everything goes well and ends happily. It's not just a story about an old man who can't understand the horrors and pace of the new breed of killer (which I already said feels a little innocuous), but it's also a story of good vs. evil, the wheel of Ka (fate), and a crime caper.

The Coens did an outstanding job with No Country for Old Men. Many will be turned off by the final scene, most of THOSE probably because it doesn't spoon feed the viewers and tie up all the loose ends with a pretty rose-colored bow on top. It was meant to make people think, and talk about what they think the movie is really about. It also managed to do so without sacrificing logic. It DOES provide the clues for solving the mysteries, but many will be too jaded to look back on it. Then, there'll be some people like me who just thinks that in the end it's not as effective as hoped. Nonetheless, I can't NOT recommend this movie. It's pretty darned astounding, and I feel like giving it a B+ just because of Bell's role. I can't, though, because I want to watch it again in the theaters. That's a rare thing, and almost EVERYTHING ELSE in this movie was the bee's knees.

GRADE: A-

Reviewed: 11/26/07