Just got back from seeing the Coen Brothers No Country For Old Men tonight. I wasn’t sure what to expect, the teaser trailers made it look vaguely menacing and dark enough to be intriguing. Generally I find “westerns” to be tiresome so I that had me a bit hesitant, and the big issue is the fact that this is a Coen Brothers movie. Their work has been, shall we say, uneven. I love Raising Arizona and The Big Lebowski. Barton Fink had it’s moments. O Brother, Where Art Thou was quirky and the dialog was often entertaining, but the joke was about 90 minutes too long. Most importantly, I fucking despise Fargo and everyone who sings it’s praises. I suppose you could say I took the reviews from the “experts” of this new work with a grain of salt.
I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised. This movie was fantastic. The Coen’s toned down the odd-ball nature of their characters to a tolerable level and allowed the dialog and accents to set a interesting sense of place without bogging down the whole damn film with it. The characters were fairly minimal and lacked much background and I found this to be their greatest strength. The story is lean and very compelling. The characters just are what they are without pretense or justification and that makes the course of their actions all the more fun to follow.
They essentially throw you into the story right away and it moves along pretty briskly. There aren’t a ton of twists and turns, but to it’s credit it’s all very believable and the characters tend to make the types of choices you’d expect a real person to make. The only part that tends to stretch credibility is that everyone seems to act with a minimum of emotion. The death and fear and chaos that occur are taken in stride without any outward panic, guilt, anger or grief by the primary players. Being that it’s set in the macho rural world of west Texas it’s in step with the world they are trying to create.
The ending was somewhat typical of a Coen Brothers movie and I suspect that it will create a mixed response from people. I personally found it a little anti-climatic. Tommy Lee’s character occasionally felt out of place. He’s essentially the only one given any back story and any real emotion and I found it somewhat out of place with the rest of the movie. In a way I suppose it gave the movie an added sense of “significance”, but I think it’s mostly bullshit. I bet the Indy film buffs will create all sorts of greater meanings from it though. That said, he gets all the best lines as a result and overall it doesn’t dramatically hurt the movie.
I’m a bit surprised that there’s no thread out there for this movie yet (at least I don’t think their is, the title is tricky to search for). I’ll leave it here and open it up to anyone else who’s seen it. In short, I thought the movie was terrific and they created a really outstanding villain. I recommend it to everyone, I think it will appeal to both Coen lovers and everyone else.
I think part of the reason no one has started a thread yet is that it opens wide this coming Friday…for those who don’t live in NY or LA.
It is on my must-see list and will probably see the first showing it this Friday.
BTW, I thought Fargo was great and rank it as a classic film from recent years. Any comparisons to Fargo only make me more eager to see this film, although I know this is not going to be Fargo II by any stretch of imagination.
Fortunately it’s not available in just NY and LA, as we saw it last weekend at an arthouse in Philly. I am a big fan of the Coens, and even when they’re not at the top of their game their work is always worth seeing, IMHO. With No Country… they are playing at the top of their game, and I will probably be seeing it again next week after it goes wide. Javier Bardem plays one of the best on-screen villains in ages, and the rest of the acting is top-notch as well. I will forego further analysis until after my next viewing, because I still need time for it to sink in. Yes, I think it’s that good.
No wonder I’ve not been seeing it in the local papers.
Omniscient, how do you rate it on the disturbing/violent scale? I’ve been hearing that it’s a little over the top in these areas, and I’m a bit of a wimp.
Love the Coens for their great body of work even if I don’t unreservedly love all their movies. Nevertheless, this appears to extend their record of fabulous neo-noir films, so I’m setting aside time this weekend to see it.
BTW, I don’t personally think that Fargo is in their top three (for me those would be Miller’s Crossing, Blood Simple and The Big Lebowski), but I equally don’t see how anyone could despise it. Hell, the performances of Frances McDormand and William H. Macy alone elevate it to the ranks of great film.
This is a bit difficult to answer. I have a pretty high tolerance for that kind of stuff, so it didn’t bother me a bit. The girl I went with had a couple cringe-worthy moments and she’s a wimp when it comes to blood and needles. And another girl I discussed it with found some of the killing a bit difficult. Then again, they both really liked the movie regardless.
I’ll put it this way, there are definitely 3 or 4 scenes where there’s a good bit of blood. There’s also a scene were a character does some self-surgery to treat a bullet wound complete with needles. None of the scenes are terribly gratuitous though. Each is fairly quick and they don’t dwell on anything too long. This movie is probably less gory than Fargo, there’s certainly nothing on par with the wood-chipper scene. It’s much less gory and troubling than any war movie produced in the last decade (Saving Private Ryan, When We Were Soldiers, Flags Of Our Fathers etc.) and less gory than any R-rated swords and arrows flick in recent memory. The only reason this might be troubling is that it’s done in a very authentic and believable manner.
I think just about everyone will find the violent parts well worth it. I say go for it, and shield your eyes if you must.
As someone with relatives from that part of the country I didn’t find the accents the least bit original and entertaining. Once you take away that aspect, the movie is about as entertaining as watching paint dry. It’s only redeeming quality was Steve Buscemi’s breakout performance.