linsenbardt.net

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

Dang, I haven’t been to the movie theater in a loooooooong time… Needless to say, I’ve been studying a lot recently and took this opportunity to escape the confines of my little room upstairs and went to see “Beowulf,” the new Robert Zemeckis film based on the classic epic poem.

Now, when I say “classic,” I mean it… At least according to the Wikipedia article, it dates back as the oldest written manuscript in the English language (AD 1010) and, as Mrs. Rahm and Mrs. Grupe in 10th grade were kind enough to point out, it holds nearly all the elements that we modern folk consider as “the hero story.” A hero that comes to save the people of the land from giant beasts when others can’t, and does it for glory. Also, and perhaps more important to Rahm and Grupe, the Beowulf character also included a “fatal flaw,” something that translates into nearly every modern hero tale. Every hero has his/her weakness.

I guess what I’m saying is that this is, perhaps, the original “hero” story…unless you count Gilgamesh, but who can read Cuneiform script, anyway? (…besides Liz, of course…) 😛

Anyway, so the movie was decent… In all honesty, watching the movie, I thought they added stuff to the end that wasn’t in the originally epic poem, but according to Wikipedia, it was in there and I just forgot…oh well… Either way, the effects were borderline spectacular – there were instances where I forgot I was watching a pseudo-animated movie. Some things, like galloping horses, could have been done a bit better, but for the most part the movie was a wonder to behold. The acting was pretty strong, overall, and of course, the story included most elements of the epic poem. There were certainly some liberties taken with certain details, but it made for an entertaining movie…

Something about it didn’t sit well with me, however…and I sadly can’t figure out what it is… I think I expected a little more action than I actually saw. They played up the “hero” character beautifully and stayed true to the story, but seeing as the movie was being compared with “300,” maybe I thought it’d have a few more action scenes. Don’t get me wrong, there was action in there, but the only “WOW” action sequences were at the end between Beowulf and the dragon. The movie was just about 2 hrs long, which was perfect…I didn’t look at my watch until the very end (usually a good sign), so I wasn’t bored, per se…but I still felt like something was missing… Maybe if any of you see it, you can enlighten me…

Regardless, you can’t fault the story. Any story that’s lasted 1000 years has got to have some merit…and considering that nearly every super-hero movie/comic/etc. is based in large part on Beowulf, you’ve gotta respect it. I still have a lingering feeling that I wanted something more, but oh well… It’s at least worth the rental, if not the theater visit…