Review: No Country for Old Men

First of all, let me piss off a few people: I wasn’t all that impressed with “Fargo” or “The Big Lebowski.” Much like the Smashing Pumpkins are for music, while I can appreciate the artistry and interesting stories, I just didn’t think they were as awesome as everyone else thought they were.

That said, Brooke, the Molitor brothers and I went to see the new Coen Brothers film, “No Country for Old Men,” based on the 2005 novel by Cormac McCarthy. The film centers generally on Llewelyn (Josh Brolin), who stumbles upon $2+ million and tries to keep it. The guys who lost it in a drug deal gone bad want it back, so the hunter chases after the hunted. Tommy Lee Jones is peripherally involved, one step behind Brolin and his hunter, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). The rest of the supporting cast is rounded out by Woody Harrelson, Stephen Root and Barry Corbin.

Brooke wanted to see the movie because she’d read it was something of a modern western, and indeed it was. It takes place in 1980, but all the elements of classic western films were there. The bad guy dressed in black, the good guy(s) with white cowboy hats, etc. In all, it was a well-acted, well-made movie…but…

…I didn’t “get it.” Brooke liked it, and I believe Adam liked it (unsure about Matt…), but I’m not sure. I can’t really explain why I feel this way, as doing so would give away the ending of the movie (note: don’t read the Wikipedia article on the movie unless you want to read spoilers about it). I think Brooke got a little annoyed with me as we talked about the film because I was trying to find meaning in it all. I think I simply missed the point, or perhaps there wasn’t a point. It makes me wonder what the book was about, and/or how faithful the Coens were to its pages. It’s in limited release, I think, so if any of you see it, lemme know what you thought…

On the Wikipedia article regarding the movie, however, I did find a few critical opinions that have helped me out, and I’ll leave you with those:

“Like McCarthy, the Coens are markedly less interested in who (if anyone) gets away with the loot than in the primal forces that urge the characters forward… [I]n the end, everyone in No Country for Old Men is both hunter and hunted, members of some endangered species trying to forestall their extinction.”
— Scott Foundas, The Village Voice

“The movie demonstrates how pitiful ordinary human feelings are in the face of implacable injustice.”
— Roger Ebert, the Chicago Sun-Times

4 Replies to “Review: No Country for Old Men”

  1. Brooke asks that very question daily…

    Go see the movie and lemme know what you think. We saw it at the Moolah theater – they’ve got leather couches for you to sit on to watch your movie, and Schlafly on tap… 😛

  2. I’ve seen it, and I rather liked it. I got the impression that the point was that the world is grossly unjust, that the good guys don’t necessarily win, and that old men can’t deal with that, hence the ending.

    Mostly, I just think it’s an extremely well-made, unique film about some very human characters.

Comments are closed.