No Country for Old Men Reviews

• a near-masterpiece

  
  By A19ZXK9HHVRV1X on 2007-12-08
  In the stylish new Coen Brothers' movie, "No Country for Old Men," the violence is both graphic and coy, both in-your-face and strangely demur in the way it is portrayed. Bit players are frequently blown away in full view of the audience, while key characters often meet their ends off screen, away from the spotlight of the prying camera. For this is the theme of the movie, that violence is arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable, and that things are only going to get worse in a culture that has grown increasingly coarse and indifferent to human suffering over the years.
  
  The "old man" of the title is Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), a small town Texas sheriff who, right on the verge of retirement, has seen a depressing spike in violent crime thanks to the recent proliferation of drug-running from Mexico (the movie takes place in 1980). For this is a "new time" in America, one in which an all-out criminal "war" is being fought, as much on the open plains as in the crowded cities. It is the "old men" like Bell, the last in a long line of old style Texas lawmen, who can no longer recognize their country and who are left to recede into the background bewildered and frustrated by their inability to do anything about it.
  
  As the story opens, a group of men lie dead in a windswept field, victims of a drug deal gone terribly awry. The perpetrator is a psychopath by the name of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) who is now wandering the countryside on a random killing spree, dispatching human victims as casually as the rest of us would a mosquito or fly. Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is a "retired" welder who stumbles upon not only the carnage-strewn scene but a suitcase filled with millions of dollars in unmarked bills. When Moss makes the fatal mistake of taking the loot, he becomes the prime target of Chigurh, who will stop at nothing to get what is rightfully his.
  
  Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy, "No Country For Old Men" is less notable for its story and characters than for its cinematic naturalism and impressionistic style. Despite having made some truly exceptional films in the past, Joel and Ethan Coen have never been as thoroughly in control of their medium or as supremely confident in their filmmaking as they are here. The first hour, in particular, is such a flawless masterpiece of composition and tone that it will probably be studied as a model in film school courses for years to come. Not since the films of Terrance Malick has landscape been used to more brilliant effect than in the opening section of this work. The setting - so brilliantly captured in Roger Deakins' incisive cinematography and Craig Berkey`s stunning sound design - becomes a palpable presence in its own right and a key player in the drama. The Coens have done their own editing on the film, which explains why the pacing feels like an exquisitely honed piece of music, built on finely calibrated beats and rests, meter and rhythm. The hypnotic, dreamlike quality of the filmmaking carries the story into the realm of archetype and myth which matches perfectly the surrealistic nature of the piece.
  
  Bardem provides a bone-chilling portrait of a human killing-machine whose sole purpose in life is to destroy that which gets in his way (not that he doesn't enjoy killing just for the sheer pleasure of it as well). In Bardem's hands, Chigurh becomes the true incarnation of evil in its darkest form. Jones brings a world-weary gravity to the role of the sheriff, while Brolin, who gets the majority of the screen time in the film, does some of the best work of his career as the man desperate to keep one step ahead of his pursuer.
  
  Perhaps predictably, the movie is not able to sustain the same level of greatness all the way through its running time and there are moments when the filmmakers seem to lose their way somewhat (particularly when Woody Harrelson shows up as a comic-relief bounty hunter). The unresolved ending may frustrate those who don't like any loose ends hanging around at the end of a story, but the inconclusiveness of the conclusion actually adds to the verisimilitude of the movie quite a bit.
  
  Still, even if the movie falters a bit towards the end, there's no denying that "No Country For Old Men" is one of the outstanding films of recent times. In fact, that first hour or so is about as close to perfection as filmmaking is ever likely to get.
  
  
  

• 'To this we've come'

  
  By A328S9RN3U5M68 on 2008-03-16
  Cormac McCarthy's novel NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN has been successfully transformed into a film in the skilled hands of Ethan and Joel Coen. The story is intact, the characters are given the dialog so uniquely McCarthy's invention, and the horror of the message of the book - that we have come to a point in time when crime, especially random murder, surrounds our lives - is, if anything, even more pungent than on the pages of the book. It is an amazing, and a highly disturbing movie, and while this viewer is one of the few who does not believe it deserved the Oscar for Best Picture, there is little doubt that it is a brilliant piece of cinema.
  
  The story is fairly simple: on the raw plains of Texas a slaughter of men and dogs engaged in a drug deal is discovered by a simple guy Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin). Moss observes the mayhem, sees the drugs, finds the 2 million dollar payoff money, takes the money, and embarks on an escape, leaving his wife Carla (Kelly Macdonald) to escape the pursuit of a mad killer Chigurh (Javier Bardem) who in turn is being pursued by the local sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) and a hired hitman (Woody Harrelson). The satchel of money contains a tracking device and Chigurh has the instrument necessary to follow the trail the device leads. The remainder of the film is the pursuit both in Texas and in Mexico, accompanied by countless brutal murders of all sorts by the crazed Chigurh, until a surprise ending.
  
  But the toughest part of this violent film is more in the discussion of shared philosophies between the sheriff and his old cronies: they reflect on the sad state of universal crime that is so different and more malevolent than in the 'old days'. The conversations, in the superb dialog of these old men, bring our attention to some realities we would rather not confront, and those realities are even more disturbing than the repeated images of bloated bodies and senseless murders that fill the screen. Jones, Brolin, and Bardem are indeed superb in their roles, but the small cameos of the townsfolk of Texas are little gems of acting and direction. This is a difficult film to watch because of all of the violence, but the message is one we must heed. We may be allowing the creation of 'no country for any men'. Grady Harp, March 08
  
  

• A classic. Plain and simple.

  
  By AEQFYOI6YJ83Z on 2007-12-20
  You hear the phrase "daring film-making" tossed around like a beach ball these days; someone kills off a main character, it's "daring" and "original" and should be nominated for 20 Oscars. If you want to know what "daring film-making" really is, stick around 'til the end of "No Country For Old Men." Not that you'll have much trouble--you'll be glued to your seat the entire time. Probably shaking in terror and anticipation.
  
  Here's the premise, and I'll sum it up quickly: a man finds a satchel containing 2 million dollars and then hits the road, persued by a psycopathic hitman and a haven't-seen-it-all-yet-apparently sheriff. If that summary of the plot doesn't suit your purposes, then just go see the movie. It's not about plot anyways. The plot is good, the plot is interesting and great...but it's not about plot.
  
  It's about acting. It's about cinemetography. It's about script. It's about Josh Brolin putting you on edge and yet getting your sympathy vote; it's about Tommy Lee Jones giving the performance of his career; it's about Javier Bardem creeping you the [bleep] out. Hell, even Woody Harrelson, in his too-brief role, proves he's more than a funny man. The main star is, of course, Texas--beautiful, rugged, majestic, and eerily terrifying. The dialogue is brisk when it needs to be, thoughtful when it's called for, and always engaging. There are two scenes that rank as the most suspensful I've ever seen: the scene where Brolin's character is sitting in the dark of his hotel room, waiting for Bardem's character to make his move; and the scene where Jones's character enters the hotel room near the end. Both scenes left me shaking in my seat, sweating, scared and rivetted. I don't think that's ever happened before--at least not twice in one movie.
  
  A word on the ending. I went to see this with a buddy of mine. On our way home from the theater, we talked about nothing but the ending of the movie (eventually we got around to "Cheers" and began bashing Ted Danson and praising Danny de Vito, but that's neither here nor there). The plain and simple fact is, it works. I mentioned "daring film-making" at the beginning of this review. To me, "daring" is when a film-maker stays true to the movie, to what needs to be done for the sake of art. The Coen Brothers, more than anybody else out there, do that; and they have never done it better than with "No Country For Old Men." So casual viewers beware: you may leave the movie feeling unfulfilled, like something is missing. And you will probably have nightmares afterwards. But that just goes to show how effective "No Country For Old Men" is. It's a classic. See it, and you'll understand my reasoning. Or don't see it and miss out on a truly original cinema experience.
  
  

• PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL NIHILISTIC HOGWASH

  
  By A2IU2BSVWQLKJ7 on 2008-01-14
  Finally, a violent Art Film that the critics can enjoy too, without feeling guilty about it. And they can spew some pseudo-intellectual nonsense about how transcendent it is symbolically. It's not. It's really intellectual hypocrisy. (My reasons are at the bottom of this review.)
  
  A friend and I were discussing the blank negativity that seems to be permeating The Hollywood Landscape of filmmaking these days. Children having children, children killing children, killing and murder, murder musicals, and torture porn. (Richard Roeper's term for the latest trend in horror films.) This film came up in the conversation. My friend called it "dysfunction of the human spirit." I wish I had said that.
  
  My friend is fairly brilliant because that's what this film is really all about... And, the fact that you can use a cattle punch to kill people and open locked doors. This is a film that proselytizes against it's very own dysfunction. It's cynical and depressing filmmaking with a self-abnegating moral. I know a lot of the blame for this lies with the author. I know someone who read it. Apparently, it was just as dysfunctional as the film.
  
  NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a violent exploitation film that is posing as a deep moral artistic statement about society. It's not. It's really a violent lowbrow crime drama about a killer chasing a guy that stole some drug money. On the peripheral, a lawman and some other interested parties, including a bounty hunter played by Woody Harrelson (what a waste of a great cameo), are also giving chase and making pretentious speeches.
  
  The film has some good noir elements. Like blood leaking out of cowboy footwear, a wounded dog limping across the plains, and lots of dead and bloody bodies lying around. Booyay!
  
  The cinematography and direction are topnotch. It has a great look. My guess is that it was not shot on film, but digitally. (You may correct me if I'm wrong.) Which allows the cinematographer to shoot at night using only the ambient light of the location. Lighting a shot is the most time consuming aspect of filmmmaking.
  
  The beginning of the film is quite stunning, and I thought I was in for a real treat as far as the storytelling goes. But, the unbelievable plot degenerates into a dull chase with lots of homicidal killings. (See my review on Michael Mann's COLLATERAL.) The story is fairly pedestrian and mostly dumb. It's full of holes. Not just bullet holes, but plot holes. (SPOILER ALERT) Bardem strangles a sheriff and murders an innocent motorist with a cattle punch and no one alerts the FBI? There is no massive manhunt or statewide dragnet? R-i-g-h-t. I just knew the satchel of money contained a transponder. I even yelled, "transponder," outloud in the theater before it was said or revealed later in the film. No one was in the theater to tell me to "shut up." Ho-hum.
  
  It has a cast of mostly underdeveloped characters. Javier Bardem plays a cartoonish sociopath and is not particularly menacing in his Prince Valiant haircut. He makes a face when he kills like he's just eaten the best ice cream ever. Pretty hammy. And Tommy Lee Jones plays the same old lawman that he always plays in movies. The killer gives two of his potential victims the choice of life or death, with the toss of a coin. A sociopath with a conscience. Then, he nonchalantly walks around town in the open with a cattle punch and a silenced shotgun, pleasantly shooting and almost killing everyone in sight. Mostly at night. But, also in broad daylight. I guess there are no people in Texas. Or no people in Texas with phones. Realism is not at fault in this film. I guess it takes place in Bizarro World. Or Bizarro Texas. Apparently, the killer got that cool coin at The Bizarro Franklin Mint in Bizarro Pennsylvania. "Truth is stranger than fiction?" Yeah, whatever.
  
  Towards the end of the film, how is the protagonist, played by Josh Brolin, found? Does it matter? What happens to Brolin's wife? Oh right, it's ambiguous. Resolution is antithetical to a Serial Killer Art Film.
  
  A couple of good oneliners make this feel like you might be watching a Coen Brothers film, but it's protagonists are not as comically inept as the ones in BLOOD SIMPLE or FARGO. There are some offbeat cameo characters that appear to be refugees from a David Lynch film. But, they feel like an afterthought. I chuckled a few times, but mostly, I yawned through this boring exercise of Art House Noir. I couldn't wait for this film to be over and I kept looking at my watch.
  
  My Uncle was a Commander in The L.A.P.D. for more than thirty years. Cops don't suddenly have an epiphany about evil and crime after a lifetime of law enforcement. They develop a hard outer shell very early because they deal with the scum of the earth on a daily basis. I didn't recognize the lawman in this film at all.
  
  The message of this film seems to be saying "that the times they are a changin'." There was a time when a lawman could get the job done without a gun and some fancy detective work. Now the law is outmatched, which spells doom for all of us. The abhorrent underworld is now a part of the American landscape. And it's populated with sociopaths that kill and maim without remorse. But this film revels in the killer's flair for creative mayhem. It's frolicking and wallowing in it's own blood. Intellectual hypocrisy in my book. You can't have it both ways. I have a problem with violent films that are proselytizing against the very violence that they are depicting. The villain in this film is depicted as an anti-hero. Bardem is made-up to look like some romantic medieval villain or hero. Maybe he respresents Prince Valiant or Robin Hood with that obnoxious hairdo and his strange game of chance. The depictions of brutal violence negate the message of the film. "Do as I say, not as I do?" SILENCE OF THE LAMBS depicted the very same intellectual hypocrisy, and won an Oscar for it. (Contrary to what The Academy or your teenage Emo son believes, Hannibal Lector is not a hero.) This will probably win one too. What a shame. But, I'm not buying into it.
  
  I actually enjoy films with violent content as long as it serves the story in some fashion. All this film has to offer is a double barreled shotgun sandwich, some depressing dimestore symbolism at the end, and no real resolution.
  
  (SPOILER) THE METAPHORICAL ENDING FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T GET IT: Evil survives when Bardem walks away. Good, metaphorically represented by Jones and his dream, is vanishing. The dream is a premonition of his death, both literally and metaphorically. I don't need the Coen brothers to tell me that good does not always triumph over evil, after splattering the screen with blood. There is nothing new here. "Genius" is defined by something that has never been postulated or presented before. The metaphor is old, and it's hardly genius. I get it. I just don't get what it's doing in this bloody lowbrow crime drama.
  
  This is not a great transcendent crime drama. It's a bad story mixed with violent sanctimonious self-righteous crud. This film strives for artistic merit, but it's really just another violent cartoon like THE HITCHER. That film was fun. This one was dull. I hated this flick.
  
  "We believe in nothing, Lebowski."
  
  Yah, we believe in nothing."
  
  If you want to see The Best Serial Killer film of 2007, see David Fincher's ZODIAC. That's a brilliant film. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a bloody overrated mess.
  
  IM, not so HO, this is the worst film The Coen Brothers have ever made. Joel and Ethan Coen deserve a spanking for this. I hope they get back on track with something funny.
  
  Apparently, the Critics are not as bright as they appear to be. America really is a dark and depressing place. Not because of this film's reflection of society. But, because films like this are being lionized by the masses as some sort of standard of excellence. Which is a sad reflection of America, in and of itself.
  
  Pseudo-Intellectual Nihilistic Hogwash.
  
  

• Perfecting the Emptyness (with updated postscript)

  
  By A3NH7PYU4AD5GA on 2008-02-06
  Any positive comment from me for this hot balloon of an overrated Oscar candidate is for the directors and the cast. They do their best to turn a pretentious story of empty violence into a watchable movie. Not even the Coen brothers can find one iota of humour in the story, of course. Reason is, there is none. There is also nothing else. There is some suspense in the first half, until one has figured out the lay of the land. Then it becomes the normal McCarthyesque meaninglessness.
  There are only two ways to make violence without meaning interesting: either you do a Pulp Fiction, or a normal straightforward suspense story, say of a Robert Crais novel like Hostage. Pretending that this can be a a deep existential situation by having good old TLJ show us a version of his suffering face will achieve nothing.
  The big irritation with McCarthy is, that he is so overrated, as if his productions had any literary value. Wake up, people! There is nothing there!
  If the Academy Award Jury needed a good violent movie among the candidates, they should have nominated Eastern Promises instead.
  
  P.S. Ok, 3 stars; the comments discussion has convinced me that I need to watch it again, which I did. I come back with a slightly better impression. TLJ's melancholia does indeed give the story a solid meaning, and he would have deserved the Oscar. Not so Bardem for his portrait of a psychotic killer. It is usually easy to play madmen.
  I fail to understand those of my fan club here who tell me the film is funny. I seriously suggest that you start some introspection before it is too late! As a little melancholic story about violence in Texas, I can accept the film and I would give it 4 to 5 stars. As satire or cult film, let me tell you, it is not worth much.
  
  
• No Movie For Smart Men
  By A39IBJB2PBVC7I on 2008-03-23
  When an A student comes home with a C- it's a lot more disappointing than when a C student comes home with a D. From the very beginning, the Coen brothers have been in my personal pantheon of favorite writer/directors - even their failures are better than the successes of lesser practitioners. Coen brother films could be relied upon for sturdy craftsmanship, memorable characters, keen intelligence, dry - even lethal - wit, and the ability to dance easily between the absurd and the vividly authentic. Even lesser films like The Big Lebowski (very dumb) and O Brother, Where Art Thou? (ham-fisted) stood head and shoulders above everyday Hollywood fare. That's why it's so ironic the Academy swooned over NCFOM, the worst movie these two prodigies have produced.
  
  Unlike so many of their contemporaries, the Coen brothers never succumbed to the style-over-content trap - until now. For them, character always drove plot, protagonists were interesting and well drawn - not to say quirky. The gushing over this film's first act, with its lovely desert footage, elegant pacing, and atmosphere - conveniently glosses over the complete lack of action - or point. Llewelyn Moss, Josh Brolin, stumbles over a drug deal gone bad and unwisely takes the money he finds. (Brolin is actually quite good as a doomed idiot.) This act prompts what some would describe as action, or story. Tommy Lee Jones essentially channels himself as aging Sheriff, Ed Tom Bell. While his hangdog expression - painted on a face resembling 40 miles of bad road - "says" that the violence of this day is beyond his comprehension, the story does not. That's a pity - since that is allegedly the film's theme. TLJ moping doth not a movie make.
  
  Coen brothers films are always characterized by black comedy - think back to the white glove and knife in Blood Simple. One must wonder what happened to their sense of humor. NCFOM is devoid of irony, wit, or even the ability to poke fun at its own pompousness. Woody Harrelson's pointless stroll through the scenery might have been intended as funny, I hope not; it's dreary filler that arrives when the film is already dragging. More egregious still is the body count. The Coen brothers have certainly killed off quite a few characters over the years, but in the past there was always a reason, it was integral to the plot. The killing in NCFOM is relentless, pointless, and repulsive. Apologists would say; this IS the point, the merciless, unending nature of violence. My response is that this is a movie, not a philosophical debate. The moment you have symbols instead of protagonists, you're in trouble.
  
  Which brings us inevitably to Anton Chigiurh, played by Javier Bardem. Mr. Bardem must get points for not giggling while sporting his ludicrous haircut. But the Academy was just flat-out wrong. His character is one-dimensional and his performance is one-dimensional - at least Bergman had the creativity to put Death in a Speedo and cape. The celebrated "coin-toss" scene is indeed wonderful, but it's a very small moment of excellence in a large, arid landscape. O Coen Brothers, Where Art Thou?
  
  
• Despicable Snuff Film Being Sold as "Serious Art"
  By ASQ8KNNP3A7FP on 2007-12-21
  "No Country for Old Men" is for the kind of film fan who remarks, "Gee, wasn't that murder a clever mise-en-scene?" and who asks, "What kind of lens do you think they used in that strangulation shot?"
  
  The skeleton of "No Country for Old Men" is a cheap, 78-minute, gun-monster-chase B movie. Javier Bardem plays Anton Chigurh, the monster. He is Frankenstein; he is Max Cady from "Cape Fear;" he is from your childhood nightmares. He may be death personified.
  
  One of many completely implausible scenes: an arresting officer, defying any logic, turns his back on Chigurh. Chigurh, displaying the supple sinuosity of a Cirque du Soleil contortionist, or an orangutan, slips out of his handcuffs. This is done out of camera view, because for Bardem it would be impossible; thus the scene's implausibility. Chigurh then, in real time, strangles the young police officer to death on camera. This is an extended sequence. This is the payoff for "No Country for Old Men": watching one human being kill other human beings, in scene after scene after scene, using various weapons, including a captive bolt pistol usually used on livestock. Guess Chigurh couldn't get hold of a Texas chainsaw. This is a slasher flick for the pretentious.
  
  Early on, there are well-done, if standard, chase scenes. A man outruns a car: not believable, but fun to watch. A pit bull chases this fleeing man down a whitewater river. The man reloads his gun at the very last moment (of course) and shoots the pit bull dead just as it is about to sink its teeth into the man. Later, in a hotel, a beeping transponder informs the killer where his prey hides. Your pulse may race and you may think that this is all leading up to something interesting. You will be disappointed.
  
  Tommy Lee Jones, whose ear lobes appear to be metastasizing as he ages, wanders aimlessly through the film as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, delivering cornpone, homespun, cowboy poet ruminations that are more or less opaque in meaning. No doubt the film's fans are even now feverishly compiling a companion volume that decodes Bell's dreams and conveys their depth.
  
  Woody Harrelson, late the bartender of the TV sitcom "Cheers," shows up for a completely pointless half-hour role that yanks the viewer right out of the movie. "What is Woody Harrelson doing here?"
  
  Some years back, some bored English majors decided that conventional narrative structure was not intellectual enuf, and decided to play games with narrative. "No Country for Old Men" plays these sorts of games. The viewer is invited to invest time getting to know characters who are eliminated from the plot in ways that convey no meaning and are not moving. The narrative flow is truncated and yet the movie keeps going; viewers ask themselves why the movie is continuing -- sometimes out loud, even in a movie theater -- this is supposed to be a deep, intellectual experience. It is not. It is merely annoying.
  
  Other than bratty English major head games, pretty much the entire substance of "No Country for Old Men" is a series of murders and tortures committed by Chigurh, who may symbolize your high school's worst bully - a bully so terrifying exactly because he targeted English majors. His victims are often courteous; their likability makes watching them be humiliated and then murdered an uncomfortable, and, given the film's structure, ultimately pointless exercise. Not only are the Coen Brothers torturing their characters, they also torment their ticket-buying audiences.
  
  Chigurh's nice victims are often poor, rural, Southern, whites, the kind of people often not featured as positive, lead characters in Hollywood entertainments. They are often villains - witness films like "Deliverance." Here they are murder victims. Chigurh is associated with Mexicans, part of a rising "dismal tide," as one Anglo character puts it. No matter how you feel about immigration, you may find this association of Mexicans with a rising tide of evil to be offensive.
  
  The film's boosters insist that the movie offers three deep and shocking lessons: life doesn't always follow a neat narrative structure; evil often triumphs; and the old days were more peaceful and, nowadays, things are getting really bad. In truth, everyone walking in to the theater already knows the first two "lessons." No one needs the Coen brothers to inform him that life doesn't always follow a neat narrative structure, or that evil often triumphs. We expect filmmakers, and all artists, to offer us a more substantial thesis. As for the third "lesson," that the old days were more peaceful and things are getting really bad today -- have the Coens, or Cormac McCarthy, heard of Attila the Hun, or any number of other less-than-peaceful and courteous personages from our common human past?
  
  One might well be dubious about "No Country"'s "lessons." Visit internet discussion boards devoted to this movie, and you will find fans asking, not "What is fate?" or "What is the role of a good man in a bad world?" but questions like, "If Hannibal Lector and Anton Chigurh were locked in a room, who would come out alive?" Given such reflections, one is safe in concluding that the appeal of this film is its emphasis on graphic violence, rather than on any more advanced intellectual or artistic merit.
  
  
  
• Murder Porn
  By A3NM0RAYSL6PA8 on 2008-02-24
  I sat in the theater for about ten minutes after No Country for Old Men was over. It wasn't the genius of it that left me motionless. In fact, I didn't detect very much genius in it at all. I found none of the characters terribly appealing or engaging, save for the sheriff played by Tommy Lee Jones, and he was, at most, an attempted surrogate for the audience--bearing witness to the events of the film and emoting a combination of disbelief, chagrin, and shock. The story was scattershot and barely engaging. And what held it all together at all was a murderous character who seemed to be a superficial study in ruthlessness--a man who, in the relentless pursuit of money, gets to indulge a grim kick for gratuitous killing. Everyone knows that there are bloodless, heartless, and fiercely stoic maniacs in the world, and that there always have been. In fact, in the kind of spoon-feeding I truly hate in movies, Tommy Lee Jones's character recounts a newspaper story about a brutal killing to unnecessarily drive home the point. The only question No Country for Old Men left on the table, at least for me, was, "So what?" It's like Terminator told from the point of view of the machines--a heartless, relentless tale with nary a lesson in it apart from the obvious: Don't mess with drug dealers because you're likely to find a kind of ruthlessness you've never imagined. Not exactly rocket science, and not exactly unimaginable, since it's been done before in better movies, including The Professional.
  
  Part of the reason No Country for Old Men left me cold is that it seemed remarkably undecided as to its own message. As a result, the critics have had a field day coming up with all manner of metaphors they believe inhabit the story and the characters. I could find none. At best, Javier Bardem's killer represented the kind of conscienceless, amoral persona that has become a rather common trigger point for fear and public panic. Not shaded by any empathy or concern for human life, he may be a representation of the modern, existential killing machine who is beyond reasoning with or avoiding--like the carjacker who kills the young mother after she tries to connect with him and provides details of the young children she will leave behind. He is a predator unmoved, and perhaps even disgusted, by other human beings. One monumental problem, however, is that No Country For Old Men provides no counterpoint for this. There is not a single character I cared about who came into the crossfire of Bardem's narcissistic psychopath. In addition, since he mainly focuses his murderous rage on those who, to one degree or another, are culpable in the theft or attempted recovery of drug money, his persona lacks the cold-blooded arbitrariness of so many real killers that make the news.
  
  No Country for Old Men, in the end, is the cinematic equivalent of watching a shark feed. As the movie wrapped up, I thought, maybe the one person spared by our homicidal shadow of a character might kill him in some unintended accident. At least that would put a nihilistic smile on our faces at the end of this otherwise humorless dirge.
  
  
  
• Coen Brothers Jump Shark
  By AAD4K2ODWH29N on 2008-03-12
  The Coen brothers have finally spoofed themselves. This movie sucks. Don't waste your time or money. It wasn't even watchable, I found myself wanting to find something to read. Believe me when I say, this isn't on the same level as Fargo or even Raising Arizona. It's way, way down there. Oh, and the elitist remark the brothers make on the making of doc., about someone living in a double wide and working at Walmart, was just plain snobbery. These boys have been in Beverly Hills too long.
  
  
• still horrible
  By AYC0J1N5MB8Q on 2008-01-26
  Well, in response to the 'haters' on the discussion page, I would have to agree that taste differs, however a) you're wrong about me, and b) this movie did and will forever stink and be boring as hell. I have over 1200 movies at home, anything from Gandhi and Driving Miss Daisy to the Matrix, historic war epics, documentaries, and everything in between. This includes all genres, all ages, black and white, computer generated, international, mainstream, nieche films, cult classics - you name it, I got it. Heck, I even took college courses on film, analysis, and film making... None of this changes the fact that this movie blows. The acting was stiff, 95% was shot too dark, the "gun" was downright silly, the ending was non-existent, and why this film won any awards other than a Raspberry is a Hollywood mystery. The films that tend to win awards, often do so because there is a limited amount of industry-specific people who want to set themselves apart from the crowd. Sometimes, they get it right (Pan's Labyrinth) and sometimes they get it wrong (as in the case here). Not even the violence, as many here called it, was anything to write home about - you didn't really see anything because it was all shot in the dark! I have seen Western's with more violence than this dull excuse of a film (Soldier Blue). Critics (and regular people) can heighten any film beyond its actual worthiness and claim to be superior to others, with a better understanding of the intent etc bla bla... Nothing changes the fact that I was bored to tears with this overrated mess of a 'movie'.
  
  I went to the theater with a buddy to check out the new Coen brothers film. We had great expectations going in, but when we came out, we wanted the two hours of our lives back. This is one of those movies where the "expert critics" hail all the things that prevent this film from becoming mainstream. But for the regular Joe, you, and me, this simply boils down to a massive disappointment. The characters are flat, the story drags on 45 minutes too long, the ending may be the worst in film history... Stay away from this one. The early reviews heralded this one for the "weird cattle gun" and it's "extreme violence" etc. Not true. The weapon was rather silly and most of the important story events are happening in the dark or behind a door (oooh) so as to put your imagination to work, rather than your eyes. This may work well for critics, but for an audience that expects a wild ride, this is a recipe for boredom.
  
  
• What masterpiece?
  By A1V5PUTAN7CD6N on 2008-03-30
  I saw this film with high expectations due to the all the praises I've heard lavished on it. What a let down. Sorry, but it is totally predictable and tries to make up for the well used story line with unique weapons for the graphic violence. What sort of hitman/killer is going to drag around a compressed air tank? The ending was an absolute let down. No one wants to see the bad guy get away, what after so many killings including the lead fellow's innocent wife. This movie actually pissed me off, which I won't normally write in a review. The bad guy deserved to get it in the end and did not.
  
  
• This Movie Won The Best Oscar??? The Academy Is Nuts!!!
  By A3BJGCJRYQOUI2 on 2008-03-16
  This has got to be the worst best movie Oscar ever!!! If all you care to see is a psychopathic killer (how in God's name did this guy when the best actor???) on the rampage, then this movie is for you. On top of that, the movie has one of the worst endings ever where everything in the movie is left up in the air. It doesn't even deserve one star.
  
  
• I thought this was the John McCain story but......
  By A18MEO51KI240X on 2008-03-31
  it is a slow, plodding, boring film of people who all look stoned. None of them smile, all appear to have an IQ below lukewarm, and they all talk using words like "yep", "nope". . Why did this actor win best supporting actor? I don't know. He says little, just shoots people with a livestock killer and shows little acting range. I bet I could perform as well and I am no actor. The story is annoying with sterotyped western characters that talk like they have a real challenge putting a sentence together. The story is not entertainment, not intelligent nor does it even succeed at being a thriller. It moves like a drunk hippo. If people really acted like the characters in this film there would be no country at all since no one really communicates and they all wear the expressions of having used too much Botox. Why this got best picture is the real question. The directors try to be quirky and have people do and say quirky things but it is so obvious and silly it screams "you are watching a Coens Brothers movie". Very distracting. Avoid this piece of junk or at least just rent it. Buying it would be stupid because who could sit through this garbage more than once? I grew so restless waiting for its predictable ending that says "SEQUEL!".
  
  
• The Worst Coen Brothers Movie Ever
  By A1NF9MY54E4MU4 on 2007-11-27
  The Coen Brothers make 2 types of films: deeply symbolic humorous parables, and local-color humor-tinged melodramas. "The Big Lebowski" and "The Hudsucker Proxy" fall into the former category, while "Fargo" and "No Country For Old Men" fall into the latter. Unlike "Fargo", however, the plot of "No Country..." lacks any cohesion other than authentic-sounding local-color dialogue and it's excellent delivery by the film's performers -- all of which is ultimately meaningless, in the absence of a larger narrative context. Yes, the Bros.' fine production values are also well-displayed here, but overall this film feels like an empty exercise in attempting to recapture their previous brilliance.
  
  
• Terrible
  By A159WODB60CAOV on 2008-01-23
  This movie has no begging, no end, no arc. It is one of the most disappointing films I've seen in years. The acting is superb, the cinematography and directing excellent. It's just the story. There is none, and it made watching this film a miserable experience.
  
  
• No, seriously.
  By A2P0CHR2KVAY47 on 2008-03-26
  *Spoiler*
  After watching this film, I was completely baffled. I asked myself- Did I really just see this? This film is about a man who happens upon a drug deal gone bad, after the fact, and finds two million dollars. He, of course, takes the money, and immediately has to fight for his life. The entire film is this poor sap running from a maniacal killer, in order to keep the money. Along the way, the maniacal killer murders several more people and our "hero" throws away a chance to save his wife in order to keep the money.All end up dead except for Tommy Lee Jones who ends the film talking about dreams. This film was well acted, well directed, and has beautiful cinematography. Basically, the main character is a man so filled with greed he will risk other's lives, including his wife's to keep some money, and the man pursuing him is more animal than human.
  What's the point of this movie? Is there one?
  The ending was totally dissapointing and after that I wished I hadn't seen the film.
  
  
• Just a very bad movie
  By A2QGJSTKN0WRGH on 2008-03-28
  I don't get it. Do not know what the hype is all about. This movie sucked. This movie once again proves that the critics don't have a clue, the Oscars are meaningless, and people will buy into anything.
  
  It is two hours I wish I could get back.
  
  
• The Oscars are crazy!
  By APTP3ZOCEI9XG on 2008-03-31
  Why are critics giving (as well as most Amazon reviewers)this movie such great reviews? The movie does not make sense.The Javeir guy had a stale perfomance as the villian and somehow won an oscar. The movie was uneven and left to many loose ends, I mean nothing was solved where did the money end up, when the josh brolin character got killed I thought that was one of the mexcian at first( you could not see his body cleary) The villian kills a dozen people and walks away, after he is in a car accident, that makes no sense and what is that story Tommy Lee Jones is telling at the end of the movie about? I think the critics have some kind of favorable blind eye to what ever the Coen Bros. do. I just don't see it.
  
  
• You have Got to be Kidding!
  By A1V8AXAZ3B7VYN on 2008-04-27
  To think that this Stink Bomb compares with such films as Gone with the Wind and Ben Hur is not only ludicrous but blows my mind! This has got to be one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. A psycho murderer travels around the country side in Texas butchering people. No rime or reason to anything. He is supposed to be chasing a guy who accidentally ran across a bag full of money at a drug deal gone bad. The guy is extremely stupid and the murderer character has no talent whatsoever.
  All I can say is that Tommy Lee Jones must have been desperate to play the roll as the sheriff in this one. I like him as an actor, he's done some real good work on film, but he really should have passed this one up. Even the ending stinks. Does the hero get the bad guy? No way, not in this bomb. Tommy Lee retires, gives up is more like it, and the murderer goes driving off into the sunset, gets in a car wreck and escapes on foot, patching himself up with a shirt from a young boy on a bike.
  Don't waste your time on this one, the Academy can have it!
  
  
• Muddled and unclear story becomes most overrated near-classic this side of
  By AQUVTQFFXP4AC on 2008-02-26
  [..]
  
  I was not biased against the film when I saw it. I loved "The Big Lebowski", and was even amused by the similar theme in the two: both involve a suitcase full of money which the main character carts around, for events to get the suitcase lost, and inevitably leave the audience in the dark as to the eventual fate of the money.
  
  Unfortunately, as great as the movie started out, it devolved into pretentious art-film-like moviemaking and a muddled ending with no clear ending. Not defined ending or happy ending, but CLEAR ending. The whole thing came to an abrupt end like a train that hits an invisible wall at low speed.
  
  The cinematography was something worth an Oscar in itself, and I especially loved the way it was shot when Llewellyn discovered the botched drug deal and eventually the money. It was so realistic, you could almost feel the mucky grime of blood drying in the sand or the greasiness of an overused dumptruck, the plainness of the brand-less milk, all the homey settings of a western border-city.
  
  The character Llewellyn isn't very likeable. He reminds me something of The Dude in that he's very much aloof to the horrors of seeing the shot-up drug dealers, and casually takes their money and goes home, suddenly remembering one of the dying men asked him for water, and deciding to go back with a gallon of tap water for him, until Anton Shigurh comes after him and he panics, and is forced to become resolute.
  
  In the beginning, Anton Shigurh, played by Javier Bardem, seemed the ideal villain; quiet, utterly irredeemable, seeming the kind of person who would kill someone at any moment without any sort of honor. Even the scene where he makes a shopkeep gamble on his life with the flip of his coin, you fully expect Anton to kill him at any moment, even when he lets the man live.
  
  At about the mid-way point of the movie, it starts to unravel. Perhaps I need to see the movie again, but for the life of me, I cannot begin to wonder what Tommy Lee Jones's character's purpose in the movie is. He promises Llewellyn's wife that he'll make sure Llewellyn lives, and goes about doing nothing but reading the newspaper and lounging about in the office or at a diner. Only once does he visit the crime scene, and towards the end does he come close to the killer.
  
  Next come the nameless character played by Woody Harrelson, and the oh-so-elegantly named "Man in the Office" played by Stephen Root. Woody Harrelson's character describes Anton for us, and then wanders off to meet with Llewellyn, and then get killed by Anton for some reason. Anton then randomly appears in the Office man's office and kills him in the middle of interviewing some guy for a job. Anton doesn't say anything of worth to the other man, and is then back to the western area chasing Llewellyn. I have no idea what that was supposed to be about.
  
  
  The thing is a mess, as the movie skips ahead slightly with Llewellyn dead, and Anton flustered that he lost the money. In a moment that completely changes my opinion of Anton from cold, calculating, assassin of pure evil, to a pitiful, pathetic, stubborn childish creature that kills Llewellyn's wife just because Llewellyn didn't let Anton kill him.
  
  For some random reason, as Anton is driving off from her house, he gets hit by a car, staggers out with a broken arm, and walks away.
  
  For another random reason, Tommy Lee Jones's character has some retrospect, then gives a long, rambling soliloquey about a dream he had. I have heard many accents, and I have very sharp hearing. I can understand some of the most rambling of mumblings and mutterings, but for the life of me, I could not understand more than a few words of Tommy Lee Jones's heavily accented, mumbling, rambling speech about dreaming about his father.
  
  And it suddenly ended with "And then I woke up."
  
  
• A Demonic Fantasy
  By AN39URIQD9ZRA on 2008-03-02
  As the story dealt with the chase of the protagonist by a vicious killer, the movie was very riveting till the last 20 minutes or so. The end was as anti-climatic as it possibly can, and at that time one realizes that this was another "Pulp Fiction" like movie in which heinous criminals are celebrated, and law-enforcement is either absent or entirely inept.
  
  This could not be the reality since if nine murders, including one of the police officer, were committed in Texas, the entire state and FBI would be chasing the culprit. In this demented fantasy, only one sheriff is wee bit concerned and he spends most of his time in banal musing/discussions, whence comes the title.
  
  The "main" character in the movie is so dim that on finding a lot of cash in a box, belonging to smugglers, he wants to keep the money but never counts it, nor does he change the box! Had he counted the loot, he could easily spot a transmitter in there and even a retard would have changed the briefcase or box. All the cleverness is ascribed to the savage killer who is so super-human that he can wiggle out of handcuffs and can be present at any place he desires, with a silencer-equipped machine-gun no less, and police is unable to find him.
  
  A society where such depraved movies are feted and get most big awards obviously has people whose psyche is very sick deep down. It is a saving grace that this movie was far from popular with the general public and N.Y. Times critic had called the book: "Sinister High Hokum".
  
  
• Betrays The Viewer
  By ARMVAHWQQ9S8A on 2008-03-13
  Imagine if, for instance, Harry Potter shifted gears three-quarters of the way through and abandoned the titular wizard, instead focusing on Dumbledore's day-to-day life. Imagine if 24 abandoned the story of Jack Bauer three-quarters of the way through a season and instead made Bill Buchanon's musings about old age the "new plot" of the show. Imagine if any story you've ever liked kicked the main character and the very THEME away three-entire-fourths of the way through, and instead shifted focus to an until-then secondary character who hardly even crosses path with what used to be the main plot.
  
  That is what happens in "No Country for Old Men."
  
  The cinematography is great, the acting is great, the existential themes are great... but what does it matter? The ending isn't even one of those endings that give no closure, but are intelligent enough to make up for it, like with Angel and The Sopranos. It's not that I don't get the ending, because the reason behind it is easier to grasp than the aforementioned "similar" (and vastly greater) endings---but the thing is, unlike in ANGEL and THE SOPRANOS, I felt betrayed as a viewer. If a story has to do one thing, it has remain consistent. This is a sloppy, all-over-the-place mess.
  
  The worst part is that I really liked the plot of the first three-fourths. But---as you'll likely find out if you ignore this review and truck with all those who are obsessed with this mess---all of that went to hell. Like The Departed before it, the Academy Awards loved it, but I don't think people who like consistent stories by competent storytellers will. If you're interested in the real best film of 2008, go with Juno.
  
  1/10
  
  
• The Emperor's New Clothes of Cinema.
  By A2BHTPBLR1V6V8 on 2008-03-27
  I won't argue that there's not a certain type of person that claims to "love" this movie. I'm just saying: I don't ever want to have to spend more then five minutes alone with that that "certain type of person." This movie is boring, rambling, pointless, and dull. Furthermore, it's badly produced, poorly acted, and is so incompetently Directed that I guess it was inevitable that it would be a Critical Darling. Still, there's a reason why it tanked at the box office, and the Oscars that featured it was the lowest rated in Oscar history. The reason is this: the movie is pure, unadulterated garbage from beginning to end. The less said about the ending the better, but it's unbelievable to me that people are actually praising this movie for the fact that the script sucks. I swear, you could build a car with square wheels, and some people would praise it for it's "risk-taking design". That's what this movie is: a car with square wheels. Only buy it if you're the kind of pretentious geek that will endure any amount of personal pain and boredom, just so you can brag about how "brilliant" this crappy movie is.
  
  
• should be less than half a star
  By A106YTARQFGJDO on 2008-03-11
  Bad bad.... At the end you will be left with "That's it"
  it's one if the dumbest movie I've seen. some says its a Coen brothers film, which should tell you it will be strange. but this one was worst, slow in parts, many parts you are left thinking "what the #$@% is going on now...." and some of the character were dumber than dirt.
  I'm So glad I didn't have to waste movie ticket price.
  
  
• This is the best Hollywood can offer?
  By A3KSY2YN7IU191 on 2008-03-24
  I know the quality of movies has gone down, but to give an Oscar to this piece of garbage is unbelievable. A totally pointless movie with truly bizarre dialogue. The scene in the convenience store with the killer is such a joke I thought the two characters would break into a rendition of "Who's on first?"
  
  By far the worst movie to ever win the best picture Oscar.
  
  
• No masterpiece for old directors
  By A6DOCZ10B7JAJ on 2008-03-30
  Haha, just kidding Coen bros, this is an intense, action-driven thriller that is quite entertaining. It is fargo from perfect though.
  Now, I was very suprised to see such a violent crime caper win Best Picture. The Coen brothers did alot of things well. You can check some other reviews for praise, I'm just going to concentrate on some problems I had with No Country.
  
  *POSSIBLE SPOILERS*
  
  -The plot gets boiling with the aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong. Llewelyn(Brolin) stumbles across the scene--dead dudes, truck full of drugs, & cash. He snatches the cash and splits.
  Now, if you are a thug affiliated with either the buyer or the seller in this messed-up deal, you still got the kilos of drugs left behind. Can you not find some solace in retaining(or acquiring) the product? Ok, maybe not.
  -Llewelyn gets spotted at the scene of the bloody transaction. The bad guys chase him in their truck but he jumps in the river and gets away? They gave up on the only link to the million bucks awfully easy. I dunno, maybe drive the truck along the riverbed in pursuit? A novel idea.
  -The ruthless villan(Bardiem)kills a police officer early in the movie. Cops usually frown upon this. But the sheriff(Jones)seems more intent on finding Llewelyn and serving as a narrative commentary on what a rough world this is. In the meantime Bardiem leaves a bloody trail that really seems ignored. Great detective work fellas.
  -The charactrer Carson Wells(Harrelson)was pointless. He was a bounty hunter on the trail of the money. He finds Llewelyn in the hospital and politely asks him for the money. Then once denied, tells him well, if you change your mind, here's my number. Riiiiight. Maybe this Carson character was felt neccessary to add to the high body count.
  -Llewelyn gets wounded and dumps the satchel of money in the weeds. He then crosses the Mexican border to get medical attention. Carson later sees the money in the weeds but makes no attempt to go get it? Biding his time I guess, wow what a great bounty hunter.
  
  Allright, I'm done complaining. I don't mean to sound too critical of this movie, I really did enjoy it. Fargo is still my fave by far. No Country is worth a look though.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Keeps you up at night
  By A3AVJCB1ZD6ZY5 on 2007-11-23
  What's the difference between a good film and a great one? I know Film Appreciation classes try to normalize those answers by giving parameters by which to judge, but I still believe actual answers are as unique as the members of the audience.
  
  In my case, greatness is defined by the number of snippets of the individual films that are engraved in your mind. For example, the scene in "Casablanca" where the Germans at Rick's are singing their national anthem and everyone else joins together to sing the French national anthem louder. I once had the privilege to see "Casablanca" screened at the Paramount in Austin and heard the stillness as the first words in French sounded--then the thundering applause at the end.
  
  Add a second quality. Great films make me think--whether I want to or not.
  
  I didn't come out of the theatre this evening with a 5-star rating for "No Country For Old Men." I sat down twice before this to write the review for this film and walked away. Now, I'm up at 4:21 AM still considering events and dialogue and I htink I'm ready to write.
  
  At the very first, Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) delivers a monologue against a West Texas backdrop. He's a third-generation lawman who knows of a time when the Sheriffs didn't carry a gun...The times are changing (kids now have green hair and bones in their noses), but he still looks back on that prior generation as a role model.
  
  Next, a Texas deputy is in the process of arresting a Hispanic man (Javier Bardem). The Deputy takes him into the station and calls the Sheriff commenting that the man had an oxygen tank and a hose kind of like someone with emphysema. That deputy was dead wrong.
  
  A hunter Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is shooting at some pronghorn deer. He hits one, but doesn't make the kill shot. In his search for the wounded animal, he comes across a drug deal gone bad. Both parties had apparently gone "Wild West" on each other, leaving a pickup bed full of heroin and 2 million dollars in cash in a suitcase. Moss leaves with the suitcase full of money, but returns later that night to take a drink of water to the only survivor, a Hispanic man. One of the best scenes in that film occurs between Moss and his wife Carla Jean (Kelly McDonald) as he's leaving:
  
  Moss: If I don't come back, tell Mama I love her
  Carla Jean: Llewelyn, your Mama's been dead 20 years
  Moss: Then I'll tell her myself
  
  By the time Moss returned to the scene, the 'corporate people' are looking for the drugs and money. Chigurh killed them, but where's the money?
  
  This sets Anton Chigurh (Bardem) on Moss' tail. He's not just a gangland fix it man, Chigurh may well now be the Energizer Bunny of Sociopathic Killers. He moves through Texas like a tornado--wreaking havoc wherever he goes, but occasionally whimsically sparing a person.
  
  Many reviewers have offered up "No COuntry" as an Oscar contender and I certainly would agree it's a possibility. Bardem's portrayal of Chigurh is as fascinating as it is hair raising. Brolin and McDonald definitely deserve a nod as supporting cast. McDonald particularly stood up to Bardem very well.
  
  I offer up three cautions to people planning on attending this film:
  
  1. Don't attend "No Country" when you're looking for passive entertainment. Yes, there's plenty of that to be had--but the film is much more than chases and gunfights and you need to be paying attention to understand what's happening. (I'm planning on going back by myself to review some bits I didn't quite understand)
  
  2. If high violence with concomitant bloodshed and tension are problems for you, be advised that "No Country" is "no film for the squeamish or faint of heart."
  
  3. If you like definitive endings, this is not your film. On the other hand, if you like to consider the character, the circumstance, and follow the clues--like me, you can come up with a scenario that works for you. Indeed, "No Country" may be an interesting film to show to a writing class to have students try and write an ending of their own based on the clues.
  
  
  
  
• Mixed feelings,but mostly negative on NO COUNTRY...
  By ATXL536YX71TR on 2008-01-19
  Amazon asks us "Do we love,like,feel okay,dislike or hate " a film.They are ALL subjective terms.It leaves room for personal taste and interpretation.So,this will be a very tough and,I am sure,unpopular OPINION of mine,but here goes...
  
  I thoroughly disliked this film.The story offered nothing to me.I did not find it at all interesting.I did not care for any character.I found them all to be lacking in every sense of human dignity.I found the killing numbing.This film made me feel like Anton-cold and lifeless inside.I did not find it suspenseful.Each murder made me feel as though," Oh well,just another day at the office!"I really just wanted the film to end.The slow moving and exacting pace of the film was not to my liking,especially without any viable soundtrack.The film was very devoid of colors other than the browns and tans of desert and paneled motel rooms.The film had little dialogue.I did not like FARGO,so I suppose that the Coen Brothers are just not my style...but I can understand other people liking their films.
  
  What I did like was the way in which the film was cleverly cut in order to show the movements of Brolin,Bardem and Jones.It allowed the story to see all of the actions going on in each character.Still...not enough to hold my interest.
  
  There was one continuity error that glared at me which was The Regal Motel offered "Free HBO" on it's sign.Nope....not in 1980 it didn't.Check your facts.
  
  Javier Bardem was the only reason that I went to see this film.I love his work.Not even he could save it for me.It was fun to see Scottish actress Kelly Mac Donald play a Texas wife.That was unique.I'll be in the minority on this one.Here come the "not helpful votes"....Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.....
  
  
• If I could give it 0 Stars, I Would
  By A2HXGVR8JEJY4B on 2008-01-26
  Absolutely THE worst movie we've seen in a long while. No good story line. No closure. Nothing. Little dialog. We can't believe how many people rave about this. Probably worst than The English Patient.
  
  
• Misfire!
  By AL2NW5EREFUPA on 2008-03-27
  Listen: I love the Cohens, right back to Blood Simple. I mean, these guys are genius. But this is a bad adaptation of a very, very good book.
  They've taken the bare plot bones of the book and shot it literally, nearly scene for scene. The problem with this approach is that the heart of the book isn't in the plot. It's in the inner life of the protagonist, the sheriff, and in the book the reader is taken by hand through this inner world of aging and dread. The Cohen's obviously think they've captured this by implication, and by a couple of scenes with the sheriff and his wife and father. But they have not. So, in the end, the viewer is just left hanging, wondering what the hell just happenned. This movie is, ultimately, as phony and one dimensional as The Blair Witch Project. Granted, everyone gives dandy performances. But to what effect? If you liked this movie, and if you didn't like this movie, read the book. Now that's a work of art.
  
  

• There Will Be Blood
• Michael Clayton (Widescreen Edition)
• American Gangster (2-Disc Unrated Extended Edition)
• I Am Legend (Widescreen Single-Disc Edition)
• Gone Baby Gone