No Country for Old Men

I always find the Coen Brothers films remarkably appealing. With "No Country for Old Men" they have again created another enjoyable and well made film which works on many levels. Both scary and funny, it is well acted and explores questions of human morality and mortality without becoming morose. The story combines with the visual metaphors and Tommy Lees character to provide some thought provoking material and make this much more than the simple story of good versus evil, though it works wonderfully on that level too. I find my own understanding differs from what some reviewers have written regarding the "meaning" but that ambiguity is expected. Good art is open to individual interpretation. I like the tag line from the box..."There are no clean getaways"!

This is two hours of your life that you'll never get back. Absolutely riveting until the credits roll and you realize the Coen brothers must have run out of money and said, "Just ship it. Whatever the last scene was that we shot, we'll call that the ending." I'm really surprised they bothered with credits at all. I wouldn't want my name on this pointless mess.

I confess to being baffled by the 3.5 star rating this movie has received. I'm a longtime Coen Brothers lover and I think this is some of the best material (script-wise) that they've ever worked with - no surprise considering it's a Cormac McCarthy adaptation, but still...

As other reviewers have beaten the plot to death, I just want to make a few critical points without getting into the plot synopsis, but there may be some spoilers in here. First, this is a movie ABOUT violence, or the ubiquity of violence. Yes, it's about other things too, but this movie has been kicked around by the usual suspects quite a bit with reference to the level of violence, and frankly that's just silly. If it were violent for its own sake, I would agree there was nothing artistic about it, but it's just not. I myself am not a big fan of violence in itself, and in the first really violent scene of the film, I had to turn away. And the point of the movie (for me) is that YOU SHOULD HAVE TO TURN AWAY. Violence should be repugnant, and difficult to watch. This is timely, considering we're presently involved in two wars, and entering an era historically similar to the one portrayed in the film. I think one of Anton Chighur's lines sums it up best: "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" He delivers this just before he executes the profit-driven character played by Woody Harrelson, but I think the scope of that idea is much broader than that of the scene and perhaps is the underlying question in the film.

Whatever else anyone says about the film, it really is perfectly written, perfectly cast (down to the last extra), impeccably acted and beautifully filmed. It requires some thought, if you aren't just watching to enjoy the carnage, and really I think this is the most one can hope for from a film.

An excellent movie. I would recommend it to all, but it is no film for the faint-hearted.

I first wrote my Amazon review of the book because, after watching this movie, I was interested to see for myself how much of the screenplay actually came word-for-word from the book.

Although many parts of the book, No Country for Old Men, appear in the movie, don't cheat yourself by missing out on the story in both media.

I mentioned, The Godfather, because I made a point of reading the Mario Puzo book after watching that movie. As always happens, the movie had to trim away scenes and characters but the heart of the story remained intact.

The Coen brothers had a lot less cutting to do from the source material in making No Country for Old Men. Regardless, the movie and the book both stand up well to repeated viewings and readings.