...the Coens sabotage their wonderfully understated style in No Country with the trivial substance of their narrative.
Now, I know that fans of the movie (and they are legion) will think that I "just didn't get it," and they will be more than willing to explain to me exactly what the story "means." Sorry; I don't think that will do, not because I'm unwilling to listen but because the movie itself should be more self-evident than that. I don't dislike a fiction being deliberately ambiguous; I'd just like some assurance that the authors intended the ambiguity, that they had some idea what various interpretations audiences were likely to discuss. Here, frankly, I got the impression, for right or for wrong, that neither McCarthy nor the Coens knew what they were talking about.
OK, how about the movie's action? Well, I don't think I can name another supposedly "realistic" film (symbolism aside) with as much hyperbole or as many coincidental, unexplained happenings and unanswered questions as this one contains. Satire? Perhaps. Let me give you one example from early on the story: After finding the money and going home, Moss returns in the dead of night to the scene of the massacre (with a jug of water for the one gangster he noticed still clinging to life, I guess to show us that he's really a good guy at heart), and he arrives at the exact moment that another group of baddies appears on the scene. What are the odds? Fleeing for his life at this point, Moss outraces a pickup truck on foot. And wounded, he swims across a river. Then he shoots a vicious dog that's chasing him, just as the dog is about one inch from his throat. Yes, much of the action in "No Country" is stirring and fun in its way, but it's also mostly ridiculous when you think about it, and it's thinking that the Coens want us to do as we watch this film. In other words, they try to have it both ways, and I couldn't buy it.
I won't even go into the ending and the multiplicity of uncertainties it leaves hanging. Not that I ever expect a conventional movie ending or a clear resolution to a movie's dilemmas. Life isn't like that, so why should movies be any different. I can accept happy endings, sad endings, surprise endings, twist endings, or dangling endings. But at the same time, I do expect some kind of ending--to leave the theater with something upon which to reflect. I left "No Country for Old Men" with mixed feelings, asking "What the...?"
I appreciated that the Coens tried to turn the mythic West upside down by providing a healthy dose of irony to familiar fictional characters and situations. That they don't completely succeed is probably beside the point for most critics, but not for me. The fact is, the Coens sabotage their wonderfully understated style in "No Country" with the trivial substance of their narrative. Still, I enjoyed much of the film, despite its being merely a "could have been."
John's film rating: 6/10
The Movie According to Chris:
In American films, so-called character development often takes the form of connect-the-dots psychologizing. We learn all about the character's background (ugh!) so we understand exactly what turned him into the person he is today: Character X feels Emotion Y because of Event Z that happened during his childhood. See the tedious opening act of "Batman Begins" for a particularly galling example of this phenomenon. I agree with David Mamet: a character reveals himself through action. What he does is also who he is. No need to learn about his background (ugh!)
So I don't have a problem with the one-dimensionality of the characters in "No Country." Just as the basic plot is standard boilerplate for the genre (man finds bag of money from a crime gone wrong, tries to take it, gets chased by bad guys), the characters are also stock elements. My problem is simply with Chigurh. I have no idea what to make of him. This isn't a bad thing; hooray ambiguity! But I find him to be truly ridiculous, also not necessarily a bad thing but not, I suspect, what the Coens (or McCarthy) intended. The films' fans claim that Chigurh is a mythical character of some sort, a representative of death or fate. That makes sense in terms of the story, but Chigurh is so damned insubstantial that he can't carry the weight of myth on his cartoon shoulders. To me, he felt more like one of Dean Koontz's endless array of serial killers, each "new" one distinguished simply by a different set of eccentricities. I was on the fence about him (and the movie) until his encounter with the gas station clerk. There's just something about the way Bardem says "Friend-o" that makes me want to laugh rather than cringe.
The film does offer some imaginative and potent sequences, especially in the beginning. Moss's desperate run from the hound of hell showcases the Coens at their very best. I enjoyed the ending, too, particularly the way that the would-be protagonist (Jones, who is advertised as the film's star) has absolutely no impact on the resolution of the narrative. He might as well not have been there. I find that very sad, and not in a cheap or manipulative way; after all, it was the point of the movie at least according to the title. Still, it wasn't enough to sell me on "No Country."
There's no need to intellectualize. In fact, it's pretty straightforward. I just didn't "buy" Chigurh. He doesn't work for me. At all. I couldn't get past that.
Chris's film rating: 5/10
Video:
Certainly, this is a film that benefits from its wide, 2.35:1 ratio scope, given the amount of wide-open spaces it conveys. Buena Vista Home Entertainment do it justice in a transfer that captures all the beauty of the film's cinematography. Colors are bright and vivid without being gaudy or cartoonish. Definition is reasonably sharp for an SD disc, so the images stand out well. There is practically no grain to speak of, and, of course, its being a new film there are no blemishes anywhere. Of very minor concern, I noticed that faces on occasion appear a trifle too dark; there is a touch of glassiness to the picture; and on close inspection there is an almost imperceptible haloing. It's of little consequence.
Audio:
There is hardly anything one can complain about in terms of the Dolby Digital 5.1 audio, although, to be fair, the film doesn't call upon it to do very much most of the time. This is, as I've said above, a fairly quiet film, all the better to set off its violence more starkly. When loud effects do occur, they come across with all the more impact. The sound is mostly front-channel oriented, the surrounds conveying a little wind and water noise, an airplane flyover, a pleasant musical ambience, that kind of thing. But the soundtrack's biggest asset is the transparency of its midrange, the tiniest noises coming across in crystal clarity. You have to admire its small points.
Extras:
The disc's primary extras are three featurettes. The first and most substantial item is "The Making of No Country for Old Men," twenty-four minutes. In it the filmmakers make their own observations on what the movie is about, with Jones calling it "a comedy horror chase." The second item is "Working With the Coens," eight minutes. It is a rather reverential, self-complimentary fluff piece on the greatness of the directors. The third item is "Diary of a Country Sheriff," six minutes about the character and personality of Jones's tradition-bound sheriff in the film.
The extras conclude with sixteen scene selections and a chapter insert; Sneak Peeks at four other Buena Vista products; English as the only spoken language; French and Spanish subtitles; English captions for the hearing impaired; and a handsome slipcover.
Parting Shots:
It is just possible after all this rambling that I have totally misread the movie and that the Coens meant it entirely as a send-up after all--a parody, a spoof of noir, action, slasher mysteries, and the darkest of all their black comedies. If so, I would have to praise them for their satirical purpose but criticize them for not being obvious enough to make their intentions clear to this lunkheaded reviewer. While I liked at least half of what I saw in "No Country for Old Men," the movie as a whole seems merely to be different for the sake of being different.
OK, how about the movie's action? Well, I don't think I can name another supposedly "realistic" film (symbolism aside) with as much hyperbole or as many coincidental, unexplained happenings and unanswered questions as this one contains. Satire? Perhaps. Let me give you one example from early on the story: After finding the money and going home, Moss returns in the dead of night to the scene of the massacre (with a jug of water for the one gangster he noticed still clinging to life, I guess to show us that he's really a good guy at heart), and he arrives at the exact moment that another group of baddies appears on the scene. What are the odds? Fleeing for his life at this point, Moss outraces a pickup truck on foot. And wounded, he swims across a river. Then he shoots a vicious dog that's chasing him, just as the dog is about one inch from his throat. Yes, much of the action in "No Country" is stirring and fun in its way, but it's also mostly ridiculous when you think about it, and it's thinking that the Coens want us to do as we watch this film. In other words, they try to have it both ways, and I couldn't buy it.
I won't even go into the ending and the multiplicity of uncertainties it leaves hanging. Not that I ever expect a conventional movie ending or a clear resolution to a movie's dilemmas. Life isn't like that, so why should movies be any different. I can accept happy endings, sad endings, surprise endings, twist endings, or dangling endings. But at the same time, I do expect some kind of ending--to leave the theater with something upon which to reflect. I left "No Country for Old Men" with mixed feelings, asking "What the...?"
I appreciated that the Coens tried to turn the mythic West upside down by providing a healthy dose of irony to familiar fictional characters and situations. That they don't completely succeed is probably beside the point for most critics, but not for me. The fact is, the Coens sabotage their wonderfully understated style in "No Country" with the trivial substance of their narrative. Still, I enjoyed much of the film, despite its being merely a "could have been."
John's film rating: 6/10
The Movie According to Chris:
In American films, so-called character development often takes the form of connect-the-dots psychologizing. We learn all about the character's background (ugh!) so we understand exactly what turned him into the person he is today: Character X feels Emotion Y because of Event Z that happened during his childhood. See the tedious opening act of "Batman Begins" for a particularly galling example of this phenomenon. I agree with David Mamet: a character reveals himself through action. What he does is also who he is. No need to learn about his background (ugh!)
So I don't have a problem with the one-dimensionality of the characters in "No Country." Just as the basic plot is standard boilerplate for the genre (man finds bag of money from a crime gone wrong, tries to take it, gets chased by bad guys), the characters are also stock elements. My problem is simply with Chigurh. I have no idea what to make of him. This isn't a bad thing; hooray ambiguity! But I find him to be truly ridiculous, also not necessarily a bad thing but not, I suspect, what the Coens (or McCarthy) intended. The films' fans claim that Chigurh is a mythical character of some sort, a representative of death or fate. That makes sense in terms of the story, but Chigurh is so damned insubstantial that he can't carry the weight of myth on his cartoon shoulders. To me, he felt more like one of Dean Koontz's endless array of serial killers, each "new" one distinguished simply by a different set of eccentricities. I was on the fence about him (and the movie) until his encounter with the gas station clerk. There's just something about the way Bardem says "Friend-o" that makes me want to laugh rather than cringe.
The film does offer some imaginative and potent sequences, especially in the beginning. Moss's desperate run from the hound of hell showcases the Coens at their very best. I enjoyed the ending, too, particularly the way that the would-be protagonist (Jones, who is advertised as the film's star) has absolutely no impact on the resolution of the narrative. He might as well not have been there. I find that very sad, and not in a cheap or manipulative way; after all, it was the point of the movie at least according to the title. Still, it wasn't enough to sell me on "No Country."
There's no need to intellectualize. In fact, it's pretty straightforward. I just didn't "buy" Chigurh. He doesn't work for me. At all. I couldn't get past that.
Chris's film rating: 5/10
Video:
Certainly, this is a film that benefits from its wide, 2.35:1 ratio scope, given the amount of wide-open spaces it conveys. Buena Vista Home Entertainment do it justice in a transfer that captures all the beauty of the film's cinematography. Colors are bright and vivid without being gaudy or cartoonish. Definition is reasonably sharp for an SD disc, so the images stand out well. There is practically no grain to speak of, and, of course, its being a new film there are no blemishes anywhere. Of very minor concern, I noticed that faces on occasion appear a trifle too dark; there is a touch of glassiness to the picture; and on close inspection there is an almost imperceptible haloing. It's of little consequence.
Audio:
There is hardly anything one can complain about in terms of the Dolby Digital 5.1 audio, although, to be fair, the film doesn't call upon it to do very much most of the time. This is, as I've said above, a fairly quiet film, all the better to set off its violence more starkly. When loud effects do occur, they come across with all the more impact. The sound is mostly front-channel oriented, the surrounds conveying a little wind and water noise, an airplane flyover, a pleasant musical ambience, that kind of thing. But the soundtrack's biggest asset is the transparency of its midrange, the tiniest noises coming across in crystal clarity. You have to admire its small points.
Extras:
The disc's primary extras are three featurettes. The first and most substantial item is "The Making of No Country for Old Men," twenty-four minutes. In it the filmmakers make their own observations on what the movie is about, with Jones calling it "a comedy horror chase." The second item is "Working With the Coens," eight minutes. It is a rather reverential, self-complimentary fluff piece on the greatness of the directors. The third item is "Diary of a Country Sheriff," six minutes about the character and personality of Jones's tradition-bound sheriff in the film.
The extras conclude with sixteen scene selections and a chapter insert; Sneak Peeks at four other Buena Vista products; English as the only spoken language; French and Spanish subtitles; English captions for the hearing impaired; and a handsome slipcover.
Parting Shots:
It is just possible after all this rambling that I have totally misread the movie and that the Coens meant it entirely as a send-up after all--a parody, a spoof of noir, action, slasher mysteries, and the darkest of all their black comedies. If so, I would have to praise them for their satirical purpose but criticize them for not being obvious enough to make their intentions clear to this lunkheaded reviewer. While I liked at least half of what I saw in "No Country for Old Men," the movie as a whole seems merely to be different for the sake of being different.
Average user rating (1-5):
Not yet rated.
Not yet rated.