|
|
Rating:  - An Oscar worthy Western metaphor
I heard a lot of bad stuff about this flick from my friends before I saw it -- that is wasn't Oscar-worthy, that is was same old-same old Coen brothers, that it broke no new ground, that is was slow and crawled at a worm's pace. Much of this is true but, having recently seen Oscar-nominated film "Michael Clayton" and the even slower and more boring "Atonement", I would suggest the Motion Picture Academy made a wise choice handing the statuette to this movie.
"No Country for Old Men" is a Western reinvented in 1980 and crosses paradigms between post-Vietnam angst (both main characters, the hunter and hunted, are veterans of the conflict) and the coming Reaganomics of the era, where personal self-indulgence and winning at all costs was the mantra of making money in the 1980s.
If you haven't seen the film, a hunter goes out to dusty rural Texas one day and stumbles upon a drug deal where everyone is shot up. He finds $2 million and a game begins between him and two other gents wanting the money. It's not clear from the film what role each protagonist played in the drug deal -- one is a bounty hunter after the dough while the other seems to have had some role in the shoot em up -- but both want the money. One is the lead character, a bad dude that dislikes everyone and sheds a lot of blood throuhgout the film.
As is their wont, the Coens throw in another character and star -- Tommy Lee Jones as the local aging sheriff -- to mix up the bubbling cauldron. Put this all together and you have an old fahsioned cowboy chase film shot in modern day Texas using picup trucks and SUVs as substitutes for horses and covered wagons.
One of my favorites parts of this movie is the silencer the bad guy uses on his shotgun that looks like a tin can. Boy, is that thing funny! He uses it to good affect throughout, offing about 15 people in his bloodthirstry search for the money. One of my least favorite parts is the Coens' inability to tie a knot at the end of the film, which ends the same way "The Sopranos" TV series ended -- inconclusively. You have no idea what happened to anyone still alive or the $2 million.
That shortcoming aside, this is an interesting, involving and intellingent film made from a book that is the Coens first real suspenser since "Blood Simple" in 1984. It has much of that film's aura, pace and design and, as such, represents a return to roots for the Coen brothers. Let's hope they can continue making high quality films and continue leaving George Clooney out of their movies. That makes things better for everyone, in my opinion.
Rating: - ?????
Why is everybody hating on this movie? I particularly found this to be an excellent movie! If you've seen it 3 times and still don't know what it's about then you must clearly be smoking some good indica. BREAKDOWN: Regular guy/2 million dollars found by regular guy/2 million dollars wanted back from a psychotic hitman..And the search for regular guy begins!!! Easy enough?
VI
Rating:  - When did violence equate to art?
A lot said already but I am like many others struggling to find what has made this movie such a talking point. The plot was in no way clever and the message if anything depressing and not new - that the world is getting increasingly violent to an extend where one can only question if evolution has been put on hold or even reversed.
Granted the acting was decent at times and the characters were uniquely portrayed but since when has setting new standards in purposeless movie violence been considered an art form. One can only assume that the sheer number of movies that are produced prohibits true quality movies from standing sufficiently out by their sheer quality alone - something darker and more uniquely sinister must be added to the twist. I do accept violence must be added to make movies realistic at times such as in American History X but only when it serves the purpose of the story line and the message .. I fail to see what the greater purpose for the violence was in this flick which leaves me with nothing but an empty feeling afterwards...
I am keen to hear some true arguments from those who like this movie as to its purpose and what makes it outstanding or even average.
Rating:  - Not your typical movie, so don't expect it to be predictable.
Great movie. Not your typical movie. Lot's of people didn't like how it wasn't predictable. I enjoyed the fact that I didn't know what was going to happen. It was well directed, scripted, and acted. Can't ask for much more.
Rating:  - Depraved
I don't understand why this film is so highly praised. What is it really about? If the answer is that it is an examination of ultraviolence, then what is our response, our counter to this spectacle? The film seems to say that there is no counter, that we're stupid, greedy, idiots who can't get out of our own way enough to save our own skin. When confronted with evil we sell out our families, betray our morals, and act so stupidly that we're all but predetermined to fail. That's a harsh indictment of man's ingenuity, perseverance, and moral fiber; I think it's BS.
|
|