No Country for Cliche Film Review
What Not To Do
Salon.com’s review of No Country For Old Men is surprisingly terrible. Not quite as bad as this one, but they’re definitely in the same ballpark.
Firstly, if you’re going to bother reviewing a movie, please attempt cover more material than you found while scrolling the IMDB page. Please give us something more than stock praise for things like its (immaculate) cinematography and the already-token guffawing at Anton Chigurh’s hair (which, I’m sorry to inform you all, makes him more badass, not less).
Secondly, in order to review a movie you have to rise to an above-average understanding. Having a dim idea just won’t do, but if that’s the best you’ve got, at least try to cover that fact up. Don’t say things like:
“No Country for Old Men” is a thriller, although the plot points often connect only tangentially. It’s not supposed to add up in the end, and we’re not supposed to read its plot twists and turns all that literally.
—Stephanie Zacharek @ Salon
Hmpf. So you watched the movie and really found it to be a disjointed David Lynch mish-mash? Then blog not. No Country was exactly opposite of this fumbling description—I’m hard-pressed to think of a nuance in this movie that wasn’t thoughtfully placed, and deeply entrenched in the plot lines. Typically, a slightly off-cuff movie will bathe in vagueness in order to remain entact—this movie didn’t. Every plot point was neatly tied up by the end, only you had to pay attention. Every scene that seemed to connect “only tangentially”, Stephanie, was probably answering questions you just didn’t think to ask.
Salon.com also illiterately refers to Anton’s weapon as “a pressurized thingie used to stun and instantly kill cattle”. I’m not going to pretend to know the name for this ‘thingie’ (aside from air gun and maybe cattle gun), but if you’re going to blog about it, do some google footwork, eh? Provide a service.
Ok then, add something.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say the opposite of everything I’ve read in every other review: this movie is not a thriller. Whaa?? Ok, it was half-thriller—which explains not only the introduction, conclusion, and a dozen or so vigniettes in between (not to mention the title No Country For Old Men). It was a thriller wrapped in the frame of an old-timey piece. We the audience are told why this isn’t the country for old men, but the movie makes a clear priority of these men in the very vivid portraitures of older gentlemen characters—first and foremost Tommy Lee Jones. To see this story as a thriller for your own eyes, rather than seeing it from theirs is, in my opinion, to miss half of the film.
I have sympathy for those who were confused the first time you saw this movie (unless you blogged about it). This movie did seem disjointed but I promise it answers most of its questions (I’m going to comment here some questions I had). Also, I’ll try not to spoil the plot but this movie is daring with its expenditure of characters—the ‘protagonist switch’ that happened late in the movie at first view took me by surprise (until I watched it again and realized this movie was not about Anton -> Llewelyn feud).
In a hilarious and gut-wrenching way my friend’s cell phone went off for a minute in her purse during the closing sequence, as Sheriff Tommy Lee is explaining his dream. I’m glad I saw the end again—it was simple and genuine in a way I’m sure many viewers scoffed at as misplaced or contrived. Meh, I guess most of us are cynical, stimulation junkies. And here we have a movie about exactly that.
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 am
Two questions, both ironically about Anton sparing people
1) Why would Anton reply to the accountant’s “are you going to shoot me?” be “That depends. Did you see me?” It seems out of character, unless one considers that Anton considered this man, literally, an accountant. As he stood and watched his hired boss die, he confessed his reasons for doing so to this man. Through the whole movie, Anton never let anyone walk away. Why him?
2) Anton and Tommy Lee encounter one another in the hotel. Was it just camera glare or did Anton’s character seem to be crying while laying on the bed? Also, the movie made a point to make a mystery of the means of Anton’s exit from the hotel room. The whole scene seems to ask: why would he spare the Sheriff?
So, if anyone can chime in, please do. Maybe I’m just overthinking things.
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Even on first-viewing, the theme is apparent. A picture of desperation, violence, and courage set on and around the Texas-Mexico border, as viewed by a somewhat interested, somewhat third party. Dun dundun! Cormac McCarthy! Old wisdom plus hot youth on the frontierish wildness set. We’re supposed to like and pity both Anton and Llewellyn, clearly, from the perspective of the old men. The pity for both is the only reason, well, I can’t give that bit away. Oh well.
Westerns of any type will always hook people. Not sure quite how that works.
It’s a decent movie, and will certainly be up for awards. As for senselessly Blowing People Away, well, not sure how that works, either.
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
As for question number 2, It looked like he was crying to me, too, but I can’t really recall. As for sparing the sheriff, it was so he could have the lovely dream to wrap things up, of course!
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I think people are silly in their reasons for not loving it, but not for not loving it in general.
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Personally, I would say the old men are to be pitied. Must suck more often than it’s worth.
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
@kristen 3 - I had that thought to (he wasn’t killed because, by golly, he had to live). but then I wondered about the function of the scene in general, except to make the point that Anton ended up with the cash. Maybe that’s that.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
So how would you rate it in terms of “Don’t bother”, “Rent it”, “See it NOW”?
Your review makes it sound interesting and I don’t think I’ve even seen a preview of it, much less thought about going to see it until now.
*goes to look up preview*
December 19th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I’d say See it NOW and, ironically, I’d bet on a coinflip that you’d think its the best movie of the year of the biggest waste of time of the year. =)