LAist: Why No Country For Old Men Isn't A Great Film

thomasberg

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:09:26 -0800

first of all, you're wrong second of all, you're wrong third of all, well... you get the idea Suger only kills luelin's wife not leulin himself, Luelin is killed by a bunch of raving lunatic mexicans who are scared off when he shoots the shit out of one of them. We don't get to see that of course but seeing it would ruin the subtlety of the movie, the whole atmosphere of the movie is beautifulm, it's got this very clean and very deliberate feel to it and showing such a gruesome scene would mess with it. The fact that you wanted to see it so bad just makes you a stupid hick. offense intended.

iwritela

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:25:28 -0800

This is pathetic. It's no wonder I don't read the L.A. Times. Now moving on.

la_coco

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:13:28 -0800

a. LOL! b. duh.

mintxcore

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:40:10 -0800

I think comedies in movie theatres should have laugh tracks. that way, I don't have to "work" to figure out when to laugh in movies.

fossaltus

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:59:50 -0800

Your defense of the film revealed you missed major plot points but you said it better yourself, "French, Spanish, whatever. I'm just a guy sitting in a theater, if you can't explain it in a way that I understand, that's not my fault, award-winning filmakers, its yours."

jeremyb

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:58:04 -0800

tony you are wrong. this is not a cool alternative opinion, this is the wrong answer. Enjoying No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Diving Bell and the Butterfly, these aren't so much films as intelligence tests. and by intelligence i mean taste.

jeremyb

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:57:41 -0800

kali

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:22:56 -0800

i was like "was that him?" i thought maybe they were gonna tie the loose end up later or something... not even a close up of dead brolin... sigh.

Tony Pierce

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:47:01 -0800

for the record, where did i say i didnt get it? i got it. whats not to get? i just didnt like how it went down. as for giving bloggers a bad name. thats a new one.

fitterhappier

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:35:23 -0800

Hey Tony, I have no problem with you not liking the film or even not "getting" it. What I have a major problem with is that you are allowed to write for a living. That's the real crime here. Taste aside, you are absolutely daft. "French/Spanish whatever?" Really? You realize you lose all credibility on your opinions when you write such things. A typo's a typo, but you are just brutal to the english language and should apologize to anyone who holds the written word in esteem. And I agree with Daisylady...the LA Times is a perfect spot for you. You're giving bloggers a bad name.

Daisylady

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:07:41 -0800

Congrats on your new position at the LA Times. Looks like you'll be a great fit at a rag that disregards the artists that keep the film industry great.

cutephase

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:46:54 -0800

i thought the character depth in NCFOM was weak compared the Fargo, or Blood Simple...

samkim

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:47:01 -0800

from my friend. First off, how can anyone take this review seriously when one uses phrases like "mofo". Secondly, the ending of the movie is not a cop out. If you MUST KNOW how the people were killed to understand the point of the movie, then maybe Hitman is more to your liking. The only thing lazy is your half-assed review that doesn't even deserve to be called a critique. If you took even a minute to think about the point of the film, then maybe you wouldn't be so caught up on how the "mofo" killed "anti-hero" (congratulations on using a term that makes you seem intelligent). The Coen brothers were attempting to evoke thoughts on its themes of fate and acceptance. But God forbid there be a movie that makes you think. And God also forbid a movie sweep the Oscars for having great acting and good direction. And since it seems so difficult for you to grasp heavy concepts, I am being sarcastic. I wonder if you even realize how ignorant you sound, basically saying, "yeah the movies great, but I don't get the ending, so it shouldn't win an Oscar". And I wasn't a big Sopranos fan, but I did see the last episode, and the comparison is a very weak one. Poor example. But again, if you delved deeper you would realize there are distinct differences between the two. The Sopranos' ending was meant to be sensational, to make the audience wonder if there was going to be a hit or not, leaving them on a cliffhanger. Obviously, its understanding why fans would be upset; they want closure, they want resolution. "Old Country", however, ends the way it does for a very different reason. It wants to make the audience think. Yes, you should be surprised that it ended, you should be confused, and then, as an intelligent movie goer, you should think about why it did, how it fits into the rest of the film. And I'm not sure how many movies you have seen, but they don't always have to be completely focused on the plot. In a lot of great movies, the plot comes secondary to the themes the story is trying to convey. I would argue this is one of those stories, and the great thing about it is that the plot is so great, even though it is secondary, it still captivates the audience. But, the Coen Brothers were aiming for something more than just a good story in this film. The ending was perfect for what the movie was going for. You are goddamn right you can't blame the author, because he wrote a hell of a book, and I applaud the Coen Brothers for staying true to his vision by not watering it down for the masses. If that vision gets lost on one useless blogger, well thats what Transformers if for.

fossaltus

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:30:04 -0800

There is a HUGE and fundamental difference between choices and mistakes, and at least hyperspace put his points more eloquently the second time around (seems as though he would be more at task for doing a film review) In regards to hyperspace I do only want to address a point made which I will copy here: "I'm sorry, but the title of the film and the one minute voice-over from Sheriff Bell in the opening scene do not build a sufficient foundation for the film's last scenes to be devoted entirely to his ennui, nor do they make the movie "about him." The beginning narration, which is much longer than a minute by the way, is the same dialogue found from the last scene in the film. These scenes bookend the film and create a sufficient foundation, which is more clearly represented in the direction the film ends up taking. Whether you like the direction is up to personal preference and apart from that I think your judgments are fair and at least founded on something. Mr. Pierce on the other hand, we get that you didn't enjoy the film, but your review also showcased that you didn't understand it and are blaming the filmmakers for not getting it. Your subsequent responses further reveal this. The Mexican's are shown running into their car and driving off right as Tommy Lee Jones pulls up and Llewelyn is dead, that's pretty clear. I will at least be up front in saying it's a matter of taste but I found that scene much more surprising and devastating that he died so cheaply after everything we have seen him go through. That's an opinion, a review, whether it's on a blog or any form, should make those distinctions. The difference between the standard one holds a blog critic to that of Oscar winning professional filmmakers exists because what you view as issues with the film are choices, and for the most part, critics (people who are also professionals at what they do) seem to agree with them with a 96% average on rottentomatoes.com out of 161 reviews. You on the other hand, within your position of reviewing the film, made countless and obvious errors while the Co(h)en's made choices. I do hope that your work with the LA Times displays a bit more journalist integrity and fact checking, and less knee-jerking defensiveness. .

f_for_fake

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:20:54 -0800

You say culture is improved when artists are held to a higher standard, then you say you worked to pay for the ticket and shouldn't have to work to enjoy the film. So, following that logic, artists should be held to a higher standard, as long as that standard produces work that is really easy for you to digest. That's your standard for art? Really? I mean, really? You suggest that the Coen's film takes the "easy way out" -- but you're the one who is also saying that the narrative is "too much work for me." Dude, the Coen brothers make *art* movies, they have always been intellectual and wonderfully pretentious in their approach to filmmaking. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This one is towards the top of their game. You disagree, fine, you wanted Rambo and you got Ordet. Either it's not your cup of tea or you just didn't get it, or maybe a little bit of both. Your opinion is fine, it's yours. But your analysis, "critic", is flat out wack.

twooh

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:20:26 -0800

"French, Spanish, whatever. I'm just a guy sitting in a theater, if you can't explain it in a way that I understand, that's not my fault, award-winning filmakers, its yours." This guy is an editor?

Tony Pierce

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:31:50 -0800

bro you can suggest that we "get rid of art and film and culture that makes you work a bit," but im suggesting that we get rid of art and film that takes the easy way out. culture is improved when we hold our award winning and (justly) well-respected artists to a higher standard. i worked to pay for the ticket. why should i have to work to enjoy a film? isnt the job of the director to make a complete film? not 3/4s of one? Brolin's character was able to escape the clutches of a man who never seemed to lose any battles. why can't i as a viewer demand to see how he fucked up in a way that killed him? was the cougar in on it? was it an ambush? was there a struggle? did he really just share a beer with the cougar or was he in the midst of an adulterous moment? sorry man but thats too much work for me. likewise we saw how French/Spanish killed everyone. whats so special (or insignificant) about bro's wife that her finale is unworthy of being screened? surely youre not saying that the emotion the audience would feel while seeing this perfectly innocent woman being murdered is worthless? especially after we see that he gets away with it? sounds like you are holding a blog critic at a higher level than professional film makers. how is that going to improve film, culture, and art?

f_for_fake

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:07:07 -0800

I love the "i'm just a guy sitting in a theatre" critique. Yeah, let's get rid of art and film and culture that makes you work a bit. Let's just have popcorn movies and Thomas Kinkade paintings and blogs about celebrity bullshit. "if you can't explain it in a way that I understand, that's not my fault, award-winning filmakers, its yours." Do you really believe this? I mean, really? Wow.

hipsterorbum

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:00:40 -0800

Uh, I didn't like it either. It was slow at times and I was really bummed that Llewelyn dies, because he did such a good job evading "Sugar" for quite some time. I know that the book was written that way, and it would be a huge faux pas for the Coen brothers to change that but that's the movie I want to see. Westerns are typically feel good shoot em ups, and I would like more of the same. Sorry. Additionally, to anyone who thinks they know what happen at the end, how can you be so sure? How do you know for certain it's arty and confusing? Maybe YOU ARE WRONG, but we can never know for sure since there's not more evidence from just the movie itself to prove it. Finally, I do NOT think this movie is really about chance. When Llewelyn's lady refuses to take a chance on her life, I think it's pretty obvious that if Anton wants to kill someone he does, and later if an old man wants to be a shitty driver and hit Anton, he will. Shit happens is a much better summary of this movie, since it shows us that it doesn't matter if you're good or bad or ugly, you can die.

gingerous

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:25:06 -0800

It is precisely when Llewelyn dies that you realize the point of the movie is not some money chase or a cold blooded killer. There have been many movies about those subjects. It's really about Jones facing his fears and his predestiny. And what happens when he doesn't live up to the moment... Sorry it didn't live up to your preconceived notions of how a narrative should flow. I personally think that's what makes it a great film.

Hypersquared

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:25:11 -0800

For me, it isn't an issue of spelling out the details or wrapping events up tidily. Those are not qualities that I value in movies at all. In fact, I tend to resist movies that are too explicit in their purpose, maybe even to a fault sometimes. I am, however, fairly adamant about aesthetic shape and thematic follow-through, and I do feel strongly that any work of art should have an immediate emotional impact (i.e., hitting the gut). Even if that reaction can be enriched and given more detail after the fact through discussion with friends, external reading, whatever, the success of the work should never be dependent upon those post-mortems. For about 90 minutes, No Country for Old Men asserted itself as an elegant, minimalist thriller, almost entirely consumed with the mechanics of the Chigurh-Moss cat & mouse, albeit enlivened with some excellent performances. Then, without any apparent effort to give those chapters any closure, the film abruptly became a philosophical portrait of a man's final days in law enforcement. The transition was simply not graceful, and I'm open to the idea that the abruptness of the change is somehow in service of the movie's themes, but I'm skeptical that I'd be persuaded. I'm sorry, but the title of the film and the one minute voice-over from Sheriff Bell in the opening scene do not build a sufficient foundation for the film's last scenes to be devoted entirely to his ennui, nor do they make the movie "about him." Allow me to highly recommend Cristian Mungiu's film 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, which will be coming out shortly. Here's a movie that does not spell anything out, nor does it tidy up after itself. Several questions remain unanswered by the movie's end, but never once does it lose sight of its themes. For my money, it's the best film of the year. As much as there is to love about No Country (and there's a lot), a man has to call it like he sees it. All for now. I'm off to catch a "metaphorically-heavy Disney film." I'm not quite sure what that is, but I have it on good authority that they exist, and I'm all kinds of intrigued.

Tony Pierce

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:23:40 -0800

French, Spanish, whatever. I'm just a guy sitting in a theater, if you can't explain it in a way that I understand, that's not my fault, award-winning filmakers, its yours. Same goes with the Mexicans allegedly killing the hero. If you don't show it happening, it's confusing, not arty. This is a movie that will win tons of awards. It should tell the story and not shy away from the most climatic parts, which it did with the death of the hero and the death of his wife. The fact that I added an "h" to the Brothers' name is an easily corrected typo. Failing to add critical parts of a film is far more damning. Good writers, artists, and filmmakers should never shy away from doing the hard parts of telling a story. That's what these talented men did in this film - shied away - and stand by my critique. Warts and all. And if you notice, I'm not saying that my mistakes are art, therefore you shouldn't defend the Bros that way either.

fossaltus

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:20:27 -0800

This is the problem with Blogging in general. Firstly you need an editor so embarrassing mistakes like misspelling the name of the filmmakers (which by the way is about the easiest fact to find on the subject, which embodies your clear lack of attention to detail). Errors like that are understandable but compounded with the fact that you didn't even get major plot points (the mexicans killed Llewelyn not Anton) and then write about it as if it was the movies fault makes your critique basically useless. You can believe or say things are a cop out when you understand them, but the first 5 minutes of the film (the montage of West, Texas) which Tommy Lee Jones narrates over is also the last five minutes of the film, clearly this part of the film escaped both the reviewer and hyperspace who claims that Tommy Lee Jones was too "peripheral when in actuality the movie is about him. The TITLE OF THE FILM directly refers not only to what the film is about, but the underlying focus. Your idea of wussing out is them not sticking to the filmic conventions you expect, which shows your limited range of enjoyment of more challenging work. Even if you didn't see this upon your first viewing those facts are there and if you still don't like it, at least it's for reasons pertaining to guts and not a lack of understanding.

mintxcore

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:25:29 -0800

I am always surprised when people pan No Country. Sure, the ending is a bit off-putting. But, like the Sopranos ending, it's not a mistake. It's not an instance of amateur filmmaking. It is an artistic choice. People complain all the time about how 'stupid' Hollywood has gotten and here comes a very smart, challenging film and many of the same people complain. Plus, If you haven't noticed, The Coen Brothers don't always make movies that wrap up all too cleanly (Blood Simple, Barton Fink, Miller's Crossing). Hell, if you think No Country's ending was unsettling, watch out for A Serious Man.

twooh

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:38:12 -0800

But being an idiot is the new Hollywood 'Cool'! In all seriousness, the Coen brothers are perhaps some of the best filmmakers of all time, being extremely versatile and cohesive in their storytelling. The ending was not a 'cop-out', and I believe the filmmakers have an intention in doing what they do in their films. I left the theater wanting to watch it again and dissecting it. I'm glad it was a movie that wasn't spoonfed which a lot of movies do now.

f_for_fake

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:37:18 -0800

"How can you create great characters and just let them die like that with no explanation and no death scenes? It's a cop out. It's lazy film making." I take issue with you calling this "lazy filmmaking" just because it's not all wrapped up in a bow. In fact, it's quite the opposite -- it's challenging filmmaking, which is why you might be struggling with it. The Coen's have always been about de-constructing genre. They relish in fucking with convention. I think this time they are doing it as well or better than they ever have, and it's not an easy experience if you want to see Tommy Lee Jones kick some ass, and have every narrative element explained and played out in typical Hollywood fashion. I suspect many if not most will be slightly put off by this film. But that doesn't make it lazy. This is a damn mature film-- yes, they do drop the ball a bit towards the end, but only in terms of pacing and narrative transitions, not because there aren't any "death scenes."

Hypersquared

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:18:33 -0800

Well, I am pretty dumb. There's no getting around that.

panasonicyouth

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:11:07 -0800

Hypersquared, that could be the absolute dumbest way to watch movies and interpret them. Simply put, without launching into a giant diatribe of what's wrong with film these days, life isn't always hit you in the gut or miss. There is so much more subtlety than that and that's what's so impressive about this film. The Coen brothers have decided to force you to think and examine the movie and the underlying philosophies that run it. If you want everything spelled out for you, if you want a movie to simply hit you in the gut and move on, then stick to metaphorically-heavy Disney films. That seems to be all you can handle.

Hypersquared

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:52:05 -0800

Pierce is right. (Other than his spelling of Coen). In the hour or so that I spent sorting through my feelings on the film (which, like Tony, I was impressed with on numerous levels), feeling more and more strongly that the Coens had really dropped the ball here, I knew also that there would be scores of counter-minded film freaks out there who would assert that the structural collapse of the film's last third was entirely deliberate, and would provide links to online dissertations that would explain precisely why what only appears to be a badly botched narrative arc is in fact fully supportive of the Coens' vision. I don't want to hear it. If it has to be explained in some painstaking, academic deconstruction, I'm not interested. Movies, like all art, work on an intuitive level or they don't work. It either hits the gut or it misses by a mile. Sheriff Bell was far too peripheral a character for the movie's first two acts for it's last act to be drawn from his personal reflections. No Country for Old Men is a wreck on the highway, albeit a wreck of a beautifully made vehicle.

Bob LLama

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:38:57 -0800

Hey BusTard... Before you get all high and mighty, you might want to look into the differences between "nationalist" and "national." It could potentially save you a lot of embarrassment in the future. Too late for today, I'm afraid...

BusTard

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:27:08 -0800

I see you insist on being an idiot, Tony. Not only did you confuse a spanish actor with being french, but you misspelled the name "Coen." Perhaps a wee bit of research for that which you forgot might have made you look less a moron. (For the record, I always spell nationalist nouns in lower-case.) The balance of the film is done very well. The opening carnage is not witnessed, nor is that at the end. What the film is about is chance. I imagine that you never guessed that "The Good The Bad and The ugly" was about greed, either. Now, you have a week before you go on to screwing up the LA Times blog, so you had best stop wasting time watching movies and get back to erasing your embarrassing comments as well as those of folk calling you out on previous LAist blogs.

Josh Tate

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:21:04 -0800

Bardem didn't kill Brolin. The Mexicans did.

plm

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:53:57 -0800

i thought it was very very good. the acting some of the best of 2007. but it was a bit anti-climatic. there was no explanation as to how bardem got to brolin and what the exhange between them was. i thought that was what the film was leading up to. as for the killing of his wife, no problem not seeing that. we just spent such an intense and long time with brolin that i think that the audience deserved to see how he died. i'm no old man, give to me straight!

Josh Tate

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:49:16 -0800

I disagree about, oh, 1000 percent. No Country for Old Men will and should win the Academy Aware this year now that Atonement got dinged by several major critics. I understand that people had trouble with the ending. The best discussion I've seen about it is from Glenn Kenny. http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/2007/11/a-ghost-and-a-d.html

hominycheese

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:02:12 -0800

So you're upset that the filmmakers stayed true to the author's vision? You were hoping it would have more of a "Die Hard" ending? Something a little more formulaic? Can't say I agree with that. btw, Coen Brothers is spelled wrong.

Bob LLama

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:27:24 -0800

I know why it's all so confusing for you: You've got Spain and France confused. Javier Bardem is Spanish, and his character is named "Anton Chigurh," which is about as French as the Kremlin.

Fitten Trim

Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:57:55 -0800

I think [b] Old Country [/b] was very good; maybe not great, but damn good. But I'm a bit confused by your note [em] "Frenchy kills two of the most important people. But we don't see him do it." [/em] The drug deal was between Mexicans and Americans. The Americans [aka Stephen Root] send "Frenchy" [aka Javier Bardem]. The Mexicans are on a different track (and probably pissed off that Brolin killed their dog). After the Mexicans ask his girlfriend's Mom where she's going, they go to the motel and they kill Brolin. It's them getting away in the pick-up truck as Tommy Lee Jones is driving up. As for Brolin's girl getting whacked, I didn't want to see it. Did you?