Dissecting movies - No Country for Old Men

Cracker Funk

Cracker Funk

What works?

What doesn't work?

Break it down. Look at it from a narrow perspective, and then take a step back, and look at it from a broad perspective.

Don't just say that you like it, or don't like it. Give reasons. Specific reasons. Reasons that filmmakers should discuss.

GO!
 
This would have been my favorite movie of the year, but.... As a friend of mine said:

Watching NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is like eating a hot fudge sundae, with a hair at the bottom.
Click to expand...

425.bardem.country.110507.jpg



I love love love this movie until the filmmakers turned the focus away from a wonderful Josh Brolin character and had his fate happen off-screen! I also hated how this movie builds up a possible 3 way superstar clash between Tommy Lee Jones (the sheriff) Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin only to have none of it happen. :no: The best resolution ever becomes the ultimate anti-climax!!

2_NCFOM_071218022912420_wideweb__300x375.jpg


What makes it most bothersome is that these are superb characters that you can really invest in. This is a perfect example of "artsy fartsy" pissing on the conventions of story telling and tarnishing a great movie. I have the DVD and I still watch the first 2/3rds of this movie on AMC, but I don't stick around for the end anymore. I pretend that the last 25 minutes didn't happen.


JoshBrolinTerminator.jpg




My fave Coen Brothers movies are BLOOD SIMPLE, RAISING ARIZONA, FARGO and the first 2/3rds of this movie.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen it for a while. but one thing that stood out for me while watching it, was that it was audacious storytelling -- not on the part of the Coens, but on the part of Cormac McCarthy -- to kill off the main character long before the story is over.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know how it plays out on paper. But in a movie, it's a weird thing to do, because it could easily leave the viewer feeling suddenly rootless. We follow Josh Brolin's character and his struggle, expect the story to be his journey, and it suddenly isn't anymore.

Plus, he's killed off-screen, another odd move. Again, it yanks the rug out from under the viewer.

I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about these factors; I can say I liked the movie, but these moments of character and and narrative disorientation alienated me from it somewhat. Perhaps others felt this disorientation to be exactly what made the movie great for them.

In any case, it's not my favorite Coen Brothers film; that would be "Miller's Crossing." I really enjoyed "True Grit," and thought "A Serious Man" was the most thoughtful, mature film they've ever made.
 
I am not a fan of the film at all. To me, it was Oscar bait, pure and simple. I hate movies like that. I found it boring and pretentious. At some point I'll read the book (I am a fan of Format McCarthy). I remember very little about the movie other than the visual style (which I liked).
 
I'll start off by saying I don't really care for the Coen brothers. They do make good films, sometimes great films, but I tend not to like them. That said, I LOVED No Country.

The absolutely haunting sound design stood out for me (rare that an aspiring composer gets taken by something so sparse), really putting me in that lonely state of mind most of the characters seem to live in. The story could have been done as a fast paced action film, but the choice to shoot the way they did (and things like the above mentioned off-screen death), reinforce the idea that the actions aren't the point.

And the ending, I thought, was perfect. It defied all expectations and left me questioning everything I had seen (and the point of it all). It's not a neat and satisfying ending (a lot of japanese literature ends in a similar state. Kobo Abe in particular favors that sort of ending), but an ending that really worked for me.
 
I really liked No Country For Old Men.

But then again it's been a few years since I saw it and it's difficult for me to comment with any great accuracy on the plot. I had the same problem in discussing Signs. I realise this is not the place for suggestions but maybe we could limit it to 2011 films?

What I remember enjoying is the ending, Josh Brolin's death and just Kelly Macdonald generally. Every film is 70% richer for the presence of Kelly Macdonald.
 
I loved the book. If the Coen’s had changed the ending to fit the
“Hollywood” mold of a big superstar clash I would have been upset.
I felt it was audacious (the perfect word for this) of them to
stay with the original ending. It’s very difficult for the filmmaker
to maintain the overall feel of the novel in the movie adaptation.
They did it.

It was a daring move for these filmmakers. Clearly not appreciated
by many movie goers. But shouldn’t we, as filmmakers, at least
consider trying something daring once in a while? For many they
failed - for many it was exactly what it should have been.

This movie follows the “standard” structure and the twist is the
climax. If you look at the story as Bell’s story - not Moss’s - it
makes sense to not show the big “showdown”. He is telling this
story from what he understands and is horrified by how it played
out. Audacious.

I think they succeeded in faithfully translating a novel to the
screen so, for me, that is a great accomplishment.
 
I didn't enjoy this film when I saw it in the cinema, I didn't enjoy it when I watched it at home.
I don't know why (at the moment). I have to watch it again.

But:

DirtyPicturesTV said:
In any case, it's not my favorite Coen Brothers film; that would be "Miller's Crossing." I really enjoyed "True Grit," and thought "A Serious Man" was the most thoughtful, mature film they've ever made.
Click to expand...

DirtyPicturesTV, how come the worst of Coen brothers' are your favorite films :). Just curious...
 
I agree the movie had potential since it had a good cast. I actually own the movie but never watch it. I think it is because the movie is so dark and bloody. I normally like movies that have a happy ending that are not so bloody and about murder. If it is bloody it should be fun like Kill Bill. I even like the last Rambo which was really bloody but had a hero story and good ending. So I guess for some reason the No Country for Old Men movie just left me with a negative feeling about it to the point I don't want to see it again. It was an ok movie for the first time around watching it though. The movie gave me nightmares too.
 
Last edited:
Javier Bardem's character was the only reason I finished the movie. The movie had great cinematography and I love the Coen brothers but the story just wasn't all there
 
kinglis said:
:lol:
Click to expand...

Now I think of it that last Rambo movie really did not have much of a story but at least it was a good action movie and had the basic hero thing going for it. I don't rewatch it that much eaither though because it was really gory. It was better than No Country for Old Men.
 
Last edited:
kinglis said:
DirtyPicturesTV, how come the worst of Coen brothers' are your favorite films :). Just curious...
Click to expand...

Let's satisfy your curiosity:

"Miller's Crossing"
Rotten Tomatoes: 91%
IMDB: 8.0

"A Serious Man"
Rotten Tomatoes: 89%
IMDB: 7.1

"True Grit"
Rotten Tomatoes: 96%
IMDB: 7.9

Critics and fans agree with me. So what's your point?
 
DirtyPicturesTV said:
Let's satisfy your curiosity:

"Miller's Crossing"
Rotten Tomatoes: 91%
IMDB: 8.0

"A Serious Man"
Rotten Tomatoes: 89%
IMDB: 7.1

"True Grit"
Rotten Tomatoes: 96%
IMDB: 7.9

Critics and fans agree with me. So what's your point?
Click to expand...

True Grit deserves a way lower grade. That film was very disappointing. A Serious Man was excellent and so was Miller's Crossing, but not as much.

The Coens rarely put out a bad movie like Intolerable Cruelty or The Ladykillers.
 
Ponty301 said:
True Grit deserves a way lower grade. That film was very disappointing. A Serious Man was excellent and so was Miller's Crossing, but not as much.

The Coens rarely put out a bad movie like Intolerable Cruelty or The Ladykillers.
Click to expand...

It's funny how different all of our opinions are, regarding the Coen Bros. I think "Intolerable Cruelty" is hilarious, though I couldn't stand "Ladykillers". I LOVE "True Grit", but was very disappointed by "A Serious Man".

I'd bet we can all agree on "The Big Lebowski" and "Fargo", no? Maybe? "Raising Arizona"? :yes:

I'm reserving my comments for "No Country For Old Men", because I've decided to give it a 2nd chance. I didn't like it, upon 1st viewing. Crossing my fingers that the 2nd viewing will be better for me. :)
 
I love Big Lebowski, Fargo, and Raising Arizona. I would like to add Bloodsimple and Barton Fink onto that list. Those five films a Coen Brothers gold.
And yes, watch No Country again. I think films deserve multiple views to fully enjoy them and No Country is one of them. You might enjoy a little more than last time, or continue to not like it. It's a different movie and probably their most artsy film, but I think it works perfectly.
 
I'm a big fan of O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Burn After Reading. I've watched 2/3 of True Grit and really need to get around to finishing it (loved it so far). I liked The Big Lebowski, I've never seen Fargo, and I didn't like No Country. I'm thinking I might give No Country another shot, as it's been a few years since I've watched it. And one of these days I will get around to watching Fargo.
 
It's one of my favorite films of the decades. Beautiful acting, cinematography and pacing. I'm always seriously impressed at how closely it follows the book.

I saw it with friends, and most of them didn't like it. The ending bothered them, and I thought that was a shame, because it meant they were used to a more standard type of ending, and they couldn't break out of that narrow view of how you can tell a story in a movie.

I think it's one of the Cohen Brothers' best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top