User Reviews (2,167)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    The meaning of Sheriff Bell's dream was that he was ashamed of himself because his fear of death prevented him from doing his duty. In other words: Ed knew the criminal was in the motel room, but his fear of death prevented him from doing his job, which, in this case, was to die honorably in the line of duty.

    He interprets this moral failure as a desecration of the legacy of his father.

    This is contrast with the moral failure of Anton: Anton killed the woman who refused to play his coin game, which forced him to assume the moral responsibility for murdering her. This incident is immediately followed with Anton's car accident, which represents him being punished by God and forced to rely on the charity of others for survival. This is why Anton demands the kid take the money in exchange for the shirt - because he recognizes that he's being punished (i.e. he recognizes the charitable symbol and that he doesn't deserve charity) which is an indirect admission of guilt.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film grabs you and doesn't let go. There is so much tension and so much pain and so much death. I can think of a more despicable villain in my movie viewing past. This is a stretch for me because I am really tired of gratuitous violence. The scenes here are so graphic and fast paced, deaths of innocents and perhaps, the deserving. I guess I should read the book for some insights. The grim reaper is around the corner and he has an air compressor not a scythe. I'm curious to see what other things Bardem has done. He is certainly a presence. Of all the scenes that will stay with me, the one at the hole in the wall gas station when the first coin is flipped is the most intense. There has been so much commentary. All I can say is it was like watching an accident; you can't take your eyes off it.
  • This film is nearly perfect. Even now, 15y years later it still holds up and seems timeless. The dialog can be a tiny bit cute, with Sheriff Ed Tom dropping one-liners a mile a minute in his droll, deadpan way, but they are all great one-liners you will find yourself quoting to your friends. Anyway it's very funny and dark at the same time which is a tough balancing act that the Cohens perfected in this film.

    I should say that the cinematography is beautiful also. People talk about the amazing acting but the barren landscape of Texas doesn't seem to get much mention despite the "Country" featuring in the title itself plays a starring role in the film from the first scene.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The message of this film is that there is no symmetry to life. What goes around does not come around. The fall of the coin has no bearing on the way the cookie crumbles. There is no right or wrong to the fates of men. No justice. Opportunities seized may lead on to fortune, but they could just as well lead on to dusty death. Only children expect things to be fair. As things once were they need no longer be. Now that IMDb has decided to list reviews by date there is a slightly increased possibility that this effort will be read by someone. Performance reviews are absolutely not read by me for helpfulness, but for interest and entertainment.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I expect a film like 'No Country for Old Men' to be polarizing for some, especially if they're expecting a big finale with the good guy and the bad guy drawing their guns in the end to settle the score. 'No Country for Old Men' is a film that dabbles more in existentialism, despite all the crime that occurs. Basically, what I'm saying is that the film adapted from the novel is very unconventional not only for its genre, but also in its approach to storytelling. What the Coen brothers do best is combining altogether different elements and creating something with its own unique character. While there are subtle throwbacks to the old wild west, the story takes place in modern society where technology has advanced, society has advanced and unfortunately crime has too.

    What are Anton Chigurh's true motives? Does he have a philosophical doctrine that we the audience are unaware of or are just unable to comprehend? What Anton does is create a lot of questions that arise from his actions and his interactions with the other characters. To watch a character as odd as him is fascinating and I cannot give enough credit to Javier Bardem in portraying such a character that is so enigmatic and just his presence alone is able to evoke so much mystery. Even though Anton is very incomprehensive, it is all made up for by being able to be somehow captivated by him.

    How every character deals with Anton is interesting, to say the least and as the film progresses, the feeling of despondency increases gradually. The lack of heroes is what gives this film its sense of hopelessness and that feeling of hopelessness is basically set in stone from the first few shots coupled with Tommy Lee Jone's epic voice-over narration in introducing the story. It is the perfect introduction to what we will witness in the story and what it all means for a sheriff like him in comprehending these events. As the events occur, we the audience reflect on these situations just as much as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell. Tommy Lee Jones' performance in this role is impressive and is injected with a great sense of humanity. I commend his portrayal as Bell, in that he is the character who carries the weight of the story.

    The acting is a huge fragment in bringing this film to life, but what also does that is how the visuals are executed and it is definitely utilized to a great effect. From its majestic shots to its beautiful lighting and color tones, the Coen brothers set a mood that permeates the whole film. Its barren settings really add a feeling of desolation that is at the same time hypnotic and surreal. While the film can be suspenseful and its suspense is definitely executed perfectly, the film still somehow manages to maintain an air of mystique. The non-existence of a soundtrack really gives the film a feeling of loneliness, all the while adding an even greater sense of sterility to its already barren wasteland.

    I can go on and on about the great acting, its memorable shots and its great script, but what makes 'No Country' a great film is that it manages to be truly idiosyncratic in its execution just like how the Coen Brothers' other great films are. Even if a film like this leaves me more questions than answers, if it still manages to captivate me to a point that I'm willing to return to it, then that shows that it doesn't matter if I don't have any answers to my questions. There are only a few films that are able to pull this off naturally and 'No Country for Old Men' is definitely one of those special films that can do just that.
  • Opinions do look to be sharply divided on this typically interesting effort for the Coen brothers. Some hail it a masterpiece, others don't see the appeal at all. While this viewer doesn't quite fit into the former camp, he will say that it's one of the more unconventional examples of crime fiction that one is likely to see. It's much more of a character piece than anything, with some grisly scenes of violence here and there. Based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy, it centres around three characters, one being a poor hunter named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), who one day stumbles into the aftermath of some drug deal gone horribly wrong. He finds $2 million on the scene and impulsively decides to keep the money for himself, while a mysterious, creepy, sadistic stranger named Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) tracks him down, porting a unique pressurized air weapon. Somewhat involved is a weary Texas sheriff, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), who's unsettled by what he sees as the changing times. Now, granted, what's going to test the patience of some of the viewers are some of the monologues; this isn't for people who want a straightforward story and who are turned off by philosophical musings. One can hardly fail to notice how low key most of this narrative is; even in the more intense scenes there's never really a sense of urgency. On the plus side, what we do get are some excellent character moments from the solid star trio of Brolin, Bardem, and Jones. The supporting cast is equally impressive - Woody Harrelson, Kelly Macdonald, Garret Dillahunt, Tess Harper, Barry Corbin, Stephen Root, and Beth Grant. The Coens work with some of their reliable prior collaborators such as composer Carter Burwell and cinematographer Roger Deakins. All things considered, "No Country for Old Men" may not be to all tastes, and does require some patience on the part of the viewer. It also doesn't resolve itself in the way one might expect for this genre, and might prove to be less than satisfactory in this regard for some of those watching. There's one fantastic confrontation near the end, but the film closes, curiously enough, after a monologue by Bell about a dream he's had. How much or how little all of this works will be up to the individual viewer. In any event, the actors are all fantastic, especially Bardem, and they make the journey worthwhile. Eight out of 10.
  • No Country for Old Men won four Academy Awards in 2007, including Best Picture and Best Director(s). Despite the critical acclaim, the Coen Brother's adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel was probably a bit of a head-scratcher to many people.

    The film's narrative begins in familiar fashion, introducing you to the main characters and setting up the plot using recognized, established filmic devices. Llewelyn Moss stumbles upon a suitcase filled with cash and wants to keep it for himself. Anton Chigurh is the sociopath who will stop at nothing to get the cash back. Ed Bell is the Sheriff tasked with bringing Chigurh to justice and, it is presumed, keeping Moss and his wife, Carla Jean, from danger. In addition, there's a corporate backer, a hired gun, and a Mexican gang who are also after the cash (i.e., the McGuffin). So much for the usual narrative elements.

    When the film continues far beyond the point that the expected narrative structure breaks down, viewers are left to grasp at what the film is actually about. What, if anything, is this film trying to say?

    I propose that the film is, among other things, a meditation on the impotence of human and divine systems of justice in light of unflinching, unrelenting, random, radical evil. There are a number of elements in the film that indicate such a meditation, but one need not look much further than the meditations of Sheriff Bell, whose words begin and end the film. Consider:

    "There was this boy I sent to the 'lectric chair at Huntsville Hill here a while back. My arrest and my testimony. He killt a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it was a crime of passion but he told me there wasn't any passion to it. Told me that he'd been planning to kill somebody for about as long as he could remember. Said that if they turned him out he'd do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell. 'Be there in about fifteen minutes'. I don't know what to make of that. I sure don't. The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure."

    With these words, the film's "story line" unfolds, with Sheriff Bell trying, and failing, to be effective.

    At the end of the film, the retired Sheriff Bell describes a dream to his wife:

    "It was like {my father and I} was both back in older times and I was on horseback going' through the mountains of a night. Going' through this pass in the mountains. It was cold and there was snow on the ground and he rode past me and kept on going'. Never said nothing' going' by. He just rode on past... and he had his blanket wrapped around him and his head down and when he rode past I seen he was carryin' fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. 'Bout the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was going' on ahead and he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. And then I woke up."

    The film is nihilistic in both structure and content. If you would like to force a less despairing ending, Bell's dream could be interpreted as a ray of hope: a light shines in the darkness! On the other hand, it is a dream that he wakes up from.

    I don't know what to make of that. I sure don't. But that doesn't mean I can't try.
  • Xstal29 April 2023
    An opportunity presents to get rich quick, a stash of cash made up of bills thick as a brick, but your conscience sets a trail, for a reaper to assail, a real psycho, has a vessel with a kick. You start to make a run, but you're tracked down, these pursuers cause a grimace, and a frown, until you spot the hidden tracker, locater for deadly attacker, you make escape, but get injured, as you leave town. Determination keeps the story rolling on, everyone risks, the singing of, their own swan song, the lives of others are ignored, fate, luck, destiny explored, but the bounty counts for nothing, if you're long gone.

    Some of the finest cinematic characters you'll encounter.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If this doesn't end my year in the top two films of the year then we are in for one hell of an awesome year of movies.

    The new film from two of the best filmmakers working today No Country For Old Men shows the talents of the Coen Brothers on top form. After a couple of disappointments (Intolerable Cruelty had flashes of Coen genius but felt more of a Coen imitation than the real thing; Ladykillers had the odd funny moment but was the blandest film the brothers ever made, and there's just no excusing Marlon Wayans!) they knock this violent western drama out of the park.

    More in the vein of their superb early mostly-serious efforts Blood Simple and Miller's Crossing (my personal favourite of the Coen back catalogue) No Country For Old Men is a slow-moving, character-driven masterpiece about uncompromising and uncompromised characters. It is very violent and bloody and not always for the squeamish.

    Shot through with moments of humour these come, as in life, from real situations and observations so don't be fooled into thinking this will be the serious film with goofy-characters Coens of Fargo. No Country For Old Men is a tough, gritty story.

    The unrelenting pace may take its time but you are gripped every moment. This is a thriller that genuinely thrills.

    Javier Bardem gives the best performance of his career. And, yes, I have seen The Sea Inside and he in superb in that but here he is simply extraordinary. It is a portrayal of unrelenting evil, of true derangement, of a human being with no shreds of humanity that ranks at the very top of studied film psychopaths. And I say film not movie because this is not a clichéd character. This is not a character whose lunacy you enjoy over popcorn. This is one of the most frightening performances ever committed to celluloid. I felt truly nervous of what was going to happen every time he walked on screen.

    Josh Brolin essentially carries the bulk of the movie and he is excellent in a role that challenges him. I have never seen him perform to this level and if Bardem didn't steal the film you'd be talking about Brolin all the way home. As it is this gives him a showcase for his talents that should see him get a lot more attention.

    Tommy Lee Jones is used sparingly but to great effect. Sounding more like Michael Parks than ever before his scenes pepper the movie with a wearied view on a world he doesn't really like or understand to great effect.

    I did find Stephen Root a little distracting as i have never seen him in a serious role before and he just looks amusing but he is in very little.

    Roger Deakins' cinematography is breathtaking as usual and the Coens' script is superbly crafted. There are moments, almost asides from the main plot, that would be superfluous in most scripts and excised in most studio films but which work perfectly in the overall context of the movie as only the Coens can achieve. One scene featuring Bardem in a gas station is up there with the best scenes i have ever seen on film.

    I have not gone into the plot here because I saw this film having not read Cormac McCarthy novel and knowing little other than the basic log-line - a man out hunting comes upon a scene of dead bodies, guns, drugs and money on the Mexican border and comes to the attention of both those behind the scene and a local world-wearied sheriff - and i think that's the way to see this film.

    Go in knowing as little as you can but knowing at least this: this is a serious, violent, slow-paced character piece from the Coens. This is not a Fargo. If you are squeamish don't see it. If you have a short-attention span don't see it. If you only love the Coens for their fantastic comedies like O Brother and Big Lebowski and the comedy/thriller Fargo don't see it. But if you want to see an intelligent, superbly acted, powerful, beautiful cinematic treat that will remind you of the true power of cinema see it, see it, see it. It's a masterpiece. Bravo Ethan and Joel.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    People who watch these critical darlings really amuse me. They use words like "hauntingly flawed" or "beautiful and haunting" or "stayed with me for days." No Country For Old Men, at least the first hour and a half is main stream, well done, captivating, gory drama, thriller, action western and then the last half hour takes the film into this queer, nonsensical, blathering of artistic garbage that only someone who pretends to understand would care about. I do understand where they are trying to go with the film...the moral is...times have changed. Was that so hard to say? Instead they create an entire character, use a first class actor to portray him who does little to nothing in the entire film because artistically he's "washed up and tired of the world." It doesn't come across like that at all. The infamous Coen Brothers drop this interesting thriller/drama on you with this in depth creation of a serial killer who is just completely hell bent and disturbing and then they toss the entire story away on a disgustingly stupid and boring ending never giving closure to anything that they set up prior. I almost wonder if they did it on purpose as some sort of a cruel joke. I mean it feels like they got to a certain point in the film where they should have ended it but decided, 'no let's tack another 45 minutes on it but just ram whatever we come up with on to it.' As one IMDb reviewer pointed out...it feels tacked on and like a completely different movie.

    Josh Brolin is really terrific as country man Llewelyn Moss. As we quickly discover Moss is not as country and as stupid as he might come across. In fact he's quick witted, honest, and a fast study. He turns out to be a formidable opponent to a killer who has never had a formidable opponent. Brolin is terrific in the role. A worthy hero whose character is demeaned by its ending. Javier Bardem...well if anyone actually deserves Oscar nomination for this film it might be him. Bardem plays steely cold, brutal and ruthless killer for hire and for fun Anton Chigurh. He is a strange and interesting character who we learn and know little to nothing about. He seems to like games, and he seems to be brilliant and subversive. His straight expressions and monotoned voice make him downright disturbing. The wasted actor on the pointless character I mentioned is the amazing Tommy Lee Jones who doesn't get to be very amazing as the tired, worn out old Sheriff Ed Tom Bell. Jones is a phenomenal actor but he's almost useless in this role. He stumbles around a crime scene or two intelligently pointing out facts and then spewing wisdom about how things have changed and then doing nothing else. Very unfortunate.

    When it comes down to the very clever cat and mouse game between Brolin and Bardem, the film is brilliant. Bloody, and riveting and the story is starting to unfold but everything goes by the wayside. The key here is that so much of the story is unknown to us. An entire bloody battle over drugs has transpired and we know little to nothing about it. We only know this insane serial killer enters the picture and wants the money found and kept by Brolin's character.

    *******SPOILERALERT**********

    This is one time I can't help but spoil the film because I need to rant about it. The film goes down hill when, outside of the viewers sight, they cheaply kill off the main character of Llewelyn Moss, by Mexicans who also want the money. We don't see the kill...there is never any show down of any kind between Brolin's Moss and Bardem's Chigurh, and after that death the film literally just goes to pieces. However, outside of the horribly misplaced and mis-made ending, No Country For Old Men will likely impress you. It is shot in such a style that it feels like an old Western...the long, single shots and the gritty sand swept desert. Still fatal flaws make this one a poor choice by the Academy. 7/10
  • While on a hunting trip, a sportsman (Josh Brolin) finds dead men and a stash of cash in the remote back country of West Texas, the result of a drug deal gone wrong. The greedy hunter takes the cash, but soon discovers that the resourceful criminal responsible for the drug deal, an outlaw named Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), has a way of tracking the loot. The hunter thus finds that he is the hunted. Meanwhile, an aging Texas sheriff named Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is after both the sportsman and Chigurh. The story is set in the early 1980s.

    To some extent, this film is a character study of Sheriff Bell, an honest lawman who is wise, observant, grounded in reality, and has a long memory. "No Country For Old Men" is really his story. He doesn't know quite what to make of the drug war that has crossed over from Mexico into Texas; it's something new (for the 1980s); and it makes a land that has always been hostile to settlers even more hostile and dangerous.

    The film's premise is quite simple, and the story is straightforward with minimal twists. A lot of time and care are taken with procedural actions: loading a gun, dressing a bloody wound, constructing a pole to retrieve a package from an air vent, for example. Dialogue is minimal; there's lots of silence.

    Overall casting and acting are impressive. I especially liked the performance of Tommy Lee Jones who seemed a natural choice for the role of Sheriff. Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin are also well cast. Several minor roles are extremely well performed, like the store owner who is asked to call a coin toss, and the rotund lady who, with a dour face, defies Chigurh's requests in a characteristic Texas twang.

    The film's color cinematography is quite good; there are lots of sweeping, wide-angle outdoor shots. I really enjoyed the geographic setting, with that whistling West Texas wind, the silence, and the stunning vistas. It's a landscape that is starkly beautiful. Yet, despite its beauty and wilderness traits, it can quickly turn hostile and unforgiving for anyone unprepared for its hidden risks.

    "No Country For Old Men" is a fine film. I'd describe it as a chase story -- character study combo, with elements of noir, especially in the visuals. Violence may be a tad much for some viewers. But given the subject matter, it is entirely appropriate.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This was a movie I was initially going to avoid because I had seen the trailers so many times and was less than thrilled. However, after hearing a great review from one of my best film friends, who's opinion I respect highly, I thought what the hell I'll give this a shot.

    I'll admit I really enjoyed the the first half of the film up until the confrontation between Anton and Llewelyn where they first set eyes on each other. I loved the fact that no music is used, and I love that we know so little about the main characters as we go into the film, yet the acting and dialouge is done so well, although dialouge is sparce in this first half, that the characters all seem like very real people. Some of the tension in this first half is almost unbearable (in a good way). When we are at the second hotel and the tracking device starts going off and Anton walks right by the room as we hear the beeping. My god, I could barely sit still. And then the way the rest of this scene plays out as Llewelyn runs to the passing car, and the driver get's shot in the throat. Wonderful.

    However, after this confrontation, what happened to the tension? I was no longer gripped to my seat as we go and clear up subplots with Woody's character, that I could care less about. Does this tension compare to that of our protagonist's? Not even close. Yet you think that all this is building up to a final confrontation between Llewelyn and Anton, especially when the two talk on the phone. But no, this never comes. The next time we see Llewelyn, he is dead on a hotel floor. Along with his death goes the energy that kept this film rolling. I'm not saying that seeing this confrontation between Llewelyn and Anton is necessary, but there still needs to be away to keep the conflict rising, which the Coen brothers I guess forgot to do here.

    Instead we're left with a confrontation between Llewelyn's wife and Anton and some old food for thought from Tommy Lee Jones. Yeah, I liked the confrontation between Llewelyn's wife and Anton. But was it as good as the confrontation between her husband and Anton. Nope. I feel the Coen brothers were trying to emphasize the point of there story in this second half. Having to do with both fate and pure evil. Anton embodies both these things seeming to be a soulless monster who is on a mission that he has no control of. I've heard many praise his character saying that this is a great character study of a person who embodies pure evil. Well I have seen plenty of horror films where this character is represented as well, only Anton talks and gives a voice to this evil. And it's almost as if we know what he is going to say, that is exactly what any character of pure evil would say. And after all this we're left with Tommy Lee Jones little speech at the end. I had almost completely checked out at this point. Not because I wanted to (I guess it was fate) but because THE MOVIE no longer gripped me. I only caught bits and pieces of Lee's speech once again talking about fate, and then I was happy to leave the theatre.

    Sure this movie has themes of how money can make you cold and dead to life, fate, and pure evil. But is this done in a new refreshing way. No. Does it stir my mind in a different way. Nope.

    I have seen most of the Coen Brothers film, and I'm left disappointed almost every time. I think they are two of the most overrated directors that are alive today. I'm not saying they make bad movies, because they don't. It's only that I feel too many of their movies are heralded as genius when they are only in the category of good. This happens to be another one of them in the good.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This was an exciting chase/suspense/character movie until about the half way mark. At that point, too much was going on, all of it similar and all of it almost beyond comprehension. There seemed to an endless supply of Mexican drug runners be to killed. Where they came from, with whom they were affiliated, what they were trying to do, were all insufficiently explicated-if at all. The end of the movie is, IMHO, just a disintegration-as if all the money or film stock ran out. Some attempt is made to present the point that this film is an existential exercise showing what I would call nickle and dime existentialism.

    Yeah, yeah, we're all going to die. evil exists, life is a coin toss. This philosophizing didn't help.
  • Rural Texas can be hard on anyone, even a rugged and tough Sheriff with a lifetime of exposure to it. No Country for Old Men exemplifies the grit of deep Texas and there's nothing better than a good chase. Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell balances his dangerous chase for a monster assassin with the equally dangerous chase for a good ole' cowboy that comes down hard on the bad side of some very bad people.

    Josh Brolin as Llewelyn Moss finds himself in a dangerous dilemma when he brushes up against a bloodbath of a drug deal gone terribly bad and a satchel with 2 million dollars inside. The man looking for that money is a dispassionate and inexpressive villain, Anton Chigurh played by Javier Bardem. The rest ensues as a thrilling triple narrative, from a determined man with 2 million dollars on the run, only hoping to escape the mess that he stumbled upon, an old man sheriff facing an evil like none he's ever seen, and a psychopathic killer, an unstoppable evil with no remorse and a extraordinary determination to find what is his.

    With its blood-soaked scenes, grimy West Texas setting and haunting terror filled moments between characters, No Country for Old Men is both riveting and beautiful. The dialogue is flawlessly delivered and the performances are award worthy. With almost no music in the entire film you're left immersed and focused on how the Coens utilize sounds and silence to score the film. From wind gusts and boot steps on wood floors and concrete, to deafening silence within the dialogue, it's a score that's frightening and precise.

    -Eric Statzer
  • Warning: Spoilers
    No Country for Old Men is as exceptional a mix of two creative talents- the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan Coen, and author Cormac McCarthy (recent winner of the Pulitzer for The Road, his own masterpiece) as one could imagine, as they converge on a story that in lessor hands would be just a B movie. The story concerns an average Joe out hunting one day in Texas who comes across a bunch of dead bodies, heroin, and a satchel with 2 million in cash. He takes it, but without knowing that a true embodiment of a psychopath (Javier Bardem) is on his trail, and as he evades him it becomes more and more clear the fatalism that lies in store, as a weathered sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) is also on the trail with perpetulally sad eyes looking on from his stolid demeanor.

    More than this, it's also about as good a morality play as one could ask for, because it plays and tools and makes very serious questions about what is moral, or what isn't, or what is so ambiguous that it's all up to the toss of a coin or a chance ride out of town. There are a few interpretations to Bardem's character Anton that could be taken, but one thing is certain- he's less a symbol than a real presence, a "ghost" as Jones's sheriff calls him that can come around at the drop of a pin, usually in the dark, and strike the utmost fear (or confusion if you're a clerk) in the hearts of men and women. You'll never look at a coin toss the same way again. Or an air-gun. Or fixing a bullet wound in a leg. Or a hunt at a motel. Or even the aftermath of a car crash.

    But at the same time it's the purest time of cinema, recalling Hitchcock and Leone and Welles's Touch of Evil and the best of noir and westerns. There are so many exceptional shots and lighting, so much depth to the perception of the characters through the mis-en-scene, so much tension, that through this it's all up to the actors to make or break the near-perfection that is the McCarthy source. Bardem embodies Anton like no other could- you can't look at his eyes, often steel-cold and horrifically professional (to what professional who can say), which occasional tear- and it's obviously worthy of an Oscar. And Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones are also fantastic; we see Brolin often in the midst of an action scene, a moment of 'save-your-life' going on, and one can finally see an actor of his caliber completely breaking out in a role that doesn't require him to ever totally "emote". Jones, on the other hand, gives a compassionate turn in a film that's about the struggles of desperate men in a land without law and order. He's gone through so much that it comes out completely in his voice and eyes, sorrowful but holding back, and he reaches a level of connection with the character that makes the Fugitive look like simpleton TV. Kelly McDonald, who plays Lleland's wife, is also excellent when called upon, especially in a crucial scene later in the film.

    It's gut-wrenching, bleak, violent, super-tense (I clenched many a knuckle during some scenes), surprisingly funny in a darkly comic manner not seen by the Coens in many years, and artistically fashioned to a beat that is meditative (watch the opening moments with Jones's voice-over), simple, and doomed. It's beautiful and terribly tragic, for McCarthy fans it finally strikes at what is truest to his material- even if you haven't read the book itself the Road will give an indication of the mood and atmosphere at hand- and at the moment I can't think of any other film that would be the best pick of the year- maybe one of the best films I've ever seen.
  • I don't remember being so scared in a movie theater since "Don't Look Now" Here the Coen Brothers take everything a step further with exhilarating ease. The terror was genuine and not because we were rooting for Josh Brolin or anybody in particular. The terror was personal, Joel and Ethan Coen made that terror visceral and tangible. It has to do with our own nightmares. Josh Brolin was a perfect piece of casting because in a way he doesn't have many personal colors. He's one of the bunch, one of us and we could put ourselves in his shoes. That is the art of film narrative expressed in a way that we've never experienced before. I heard people old enough to have seen Hitchcock's "Psycho" in the theaters and what glued them to the screen was their own fear. Well, that's what I've experienced here. Javier Bardem is superb, considering that he's the reason for the fear. He carries a human/inhuman kind of strength and we know he'll get us, sooner or later and if we consider the ending of the film, he might still do. Worthy Oscar winners, all of it and all of them.
  • Days after seeing it, I am still haunted by No Country for Old Men. There is just something so effectual and uncompromising about it, that mere words will only begin to skim the surface of the cinematic excellence on display.

    At its most simplistic, the film is a game of cat and mouse. The mouse here is Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a hunter who stumbles upon two million in cash after a drug deal gone wrong, and takes it thinking nothing of it. He tries to cover his tracks, but ends up letting the group looking for the money, figure out his identity. The cat is Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a hit-man hired to find Moss and the money. But Chigurh is unconventional at best; he also happens to be bordering on mentally insane. And another man, a law man this time, Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), is on the trail of both men as they criss-cross around Texas.

    Right up until its dénouement, the film is simply brilliant. Taut and thrilling, it blows right through the majority of its two hour runtime with ease. Even during moments of slowing down, the film stays right on track and never feels like it has run its course. It engages even when it appears that nothing is happening. The Coen Brothers truly crafted what appears at first glance to be a masterpiece, even if it is their first real shot at something that is not indelibly and inarguably their own. Even without reading Cormac McCarthy's novel, I know that the Coens have done it justice, even with their bitterly twisted and dark sense of humour scattered throughout the film.

    But all of that comes to a standstill as the film concludes. The last twenty or so minutes feel like hours as the film wraps itself up, and it almost feels like these scenes belong to another movie entirely (one that borders on being pretentious and monotonous). I realize now that McCarthy's novel probably ends the same way, but it does not help provide closure to the fact that the movie is so break-neck paced right up until this happens. Its brilliance is shattered by what looks to be a series of tattered events thrown together to provide closure for all of the characters, alive or dead, and for its audience. It speaks volumes to the film's title, but it just does not feel satisfying compared to the rest of what we saw. Even with its enigmatic devices at play, I still cannot come to terms with how the film closes. It does haunt, and in a way, it may prove to be a significantly stronger ending as time rolls on. But as it stands now, it just feels weak.

    What is also a bit of a surprise, and only seems to appear as the film concludes, is the music. It is not so obvious at first, but the majority of the film is audibly shown with just the sounds the characters make and no background music to speak of. This element is brilliantly used, as it helps intensify every situation and makes the film downright terrifying in some cases. It just helps truly make the film come together, and only helps establish the quick pacing even more so. It was definitely a surprise, and one that will probably help the lasting impact of the film become even stronger.

    The lush and bloodsoaked visuals also help to define the film. Despite the film taking place mainly in deserted areas, or the desert itself, the camera manages to capture just the right essence of what the writing and acting is conveying. The isolation and the terror almost become characters themselves through these visuals, and are sure to be recognized as the award season rolls in.

    The film's acting is also very well done. Brolin anchors the film and even when it is just the audience reacting to his attempts at saving his life, he manages to deliver the best performance of his career. He breathes life into Moss, and truly brings a sense of pathos to the character. We feel for him and his greedy mistake, and as he develops into a man unwilling to go down without a fight, he only manages to up the ante for himself countlessly. Jones, as the law man stuck on the fringe of every event, also does very well for himself. Most of his work is simply delivering dialogue, but it is delivered in such a fashionable sense that you feel like he is speaking to the bigger picture of things, and not just himself. I would have liked a bit more development in his character, but what little there is helps his performance greatly.

    Supporting turns from Woody Harrelson and Kelly Macdonald are also done well, but are overshadowed by the main cast by both Brolin and Jones.

    And even more of an overcast is Bardem as the ruthless Chigurh. He absolutely nails this character down to his very bones. If anyone is merely toying with the idea of seeing the film, it should be specifically for Bardem. His performance is calculating and plagued with petrifying silence. When he chooses to talk, his words sound like they are being given by the essence of evil. This is a man with a plan, but it is one that only belongs to him. His enigmatic presence is developed throughout the film, and never once does it feel particularly appropriate to understand where this menace comes from. Watching him on screen is a jolt to the heart, and will go down as one of the best performances of the decade. His terrible hair only helps to make his character that more scary and formidable.

    No Country for Old Men is one of the best pictures of the year, even if it is flawed. Its brilliance and lasting impact with leave you haunted.

    8.5/10.
  • It was not very long before I watched 'No Country for Old Men' that I watched the other remarkable film of 2007, 'There Will Be Blood.' Back then I thought that Paul Thomas Anderson has delivered the Best Picture of the year with his oil epic, but after watching the Coen brothers chilling and violent adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel, I knew right away that here was a film destined to be even a greater film than any I've seen this past year.

    It's not easy to watch 'No Country for Old Men.' The first time I saw it, I found myself dazed enough to not be able to stand-up immediately even after the whole end credits have finished. And yet, mixed with the feeling of shock is the profound sense of wonder and awe with what I have just witnessed on the screen. It took me another viewing to fully appreciate the meaning and intention of the film, and while the experience from watching the film is not one everybody will enjoy and understand, it certainly is one of the most moving and thought-provoking movies I have ever watched. This is the kind of movie that will make you think, the kind that stays with you even after a long time has passed since you've last watched it. On the literal level, it is a simple cat-and-mouse chase thriller movie, but from within its roots lie a very profound philosophical and penetrating analysis not only of the characters and the situations involved in the story, but also of the kind of world we are living in today and the more monstrous sides of it we often choose to ignore.

    The story revolves around the chase between a guy named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin,) who stumbles upon a stash of money in a drug deal gone wrong in the middle of the desert and a psychopathic but surprisingly "principled" assassin named Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). The third party and the moral center of the story is the guy trying to find both the hunter and the hunted, Ed Tom Bell, the old sheriff of a peaceful, but increasingly becoming violent locality in West Texas.

    The movie features the perfect mix thrill and excitement that would be expected out of a movie in this genre. The Coen brothers' direction of the particularly intense chase scenes between Chigurh and Moss are masterful, evoking emotions of suspense to the highest level and pushing the audience to the very edge of their seats. This is achieved by very careful editing and sound direction that perfectly recreates the tense atmosphere whenever a particular scene is being played out. Also remarkable is the photography (done by Roger Deakins) of vast scenes in the desert where even what the ordinary moviegoer would consider as "empty scenes", where no action is played out, tells a story in a visual manner, where even when there is no dialogue or action on screen, the sweeping images speak out for themselves.

    'No Country for Old Men' is rich in such bravura kind of film-making. The particular camera move, position and choice of background and other trivial details such as time of day, cloud cover or positioning of the props and point-of-view perspective offer the best experience for the audience, and the most effective means of story-telling for the Coen brothers. Just watch the scenes of Tommy Lee Jones as the tormented old sheriff being burdened by the challenge of something that is greater a force than himself, something that he "does not understand," and you will realize what I mean. The environment and tone created by the filmmakers perfectly accentuates the performance of Jones and more importantly, the core messages of the film. This style is present throughout the film and one of the particular points that makes it more than just a chase movie.

    I must say that I can't help but agree to most people when they say the Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh is the most disturbing character (and yet mesmerizing) to grace the screen since Anthony Hopkins introduced us to Hannibal Lecter in 'Silence of the Lambs.' Chigurh effectively radiates evil and embodies violence in a very intelligent and forceful manner that touches the fear in all of us. Like Lecter, he personifies evil not in the conventional and simple sense, but in way that somehow presents to us the whole magnitude and complexity of its nature. In the dialogue he speaks, a kind of thinking revealed is one that is calculating and deeply philosophical but essentially ruthless and sinister.

    The film's monumental achievement is in its ability to remarkably transport us into a world where the places, emotions, fears, anxieties, choices, morals and realities of life are strikingly brought to life and presented to us in a manner where we, after the whole experience, can reflect upon and look back with careful consideration. In the end, the moviegoer is left to marvel at the beauty (and madness) of it all. Here the theme of innocence lost as it is corrupted by evil and violence is explored in the most cinematic fashion, delivered perfectly with richness of emotion and the greatest impact possible. The violence and bleakness of it all is not there to simply evoke reaction or engage the audience, it is there to tell a story and impart an experience of great magnitude and intention, to which the Coen brothers have brilliantly succeeded. All at the same time the movie is a character study on the effects of evil and innocence lost, an exploration on the themes of fate and chance, an analysis of the freedom to choose and its consequences, a reflection on evil and good as forces of society and the investigation of basic human emotions such as hope, fear, love, violence and aspiration in the face of a variety of situations.
  • There's very little "good" in No Country for Old Men beyond the mesmerizing acting and viciously dark screenplay. Instead, the unholy trinity of temptation, cynicism and pure, dark, evil take center stage in this modern western directed by brothers Joel and Ethan Coen.

    Based on the 2003 novel by Cormac McCarthy, the movie unfolds in the dusty Texas borderlands as hunter Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) stumbles upon the remnants of a desert drug deal gone bad, complete with a case containing two million dollars. Succumbing to temptation, Moss makes off with the money setting in motion a chain of events that leaves a trail of blood spattered carnage across the State as he is pursued by the ruthless, coin tossing hit man Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) among whose killing weapons of choice is a pneumatic air gun.

    Bearing little in common with pretty much any previous Coen film with the possible exception of Blood Simple, No Country for Old Men is a dark, bleak, ode to the baser elements of the human soul, and a spit in the eye to the noble ones as well.

    With a structural trademark hinging upon breaking the conventional norms of predictability, No Country is a movie that will unsettle you at successive turns - in the way deaths are dealt out; by its palpable tension that can almost be cut with a knife, and its periodic deviations from the narrative norm – the latter likely the only Coen brothers "quirk" for which their movies are renown.

    Switching back and forth between the game of cat and mouse being played out by Moss and Chigurh and the investigation of unfolding events by cynical aging Texas Sheriff Ed Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), the Coens weave a web of dangled threads that one can't help but expect will be neatly tied together at story's end, only to tie them up in ways that buck the storytelling norm and manage to be both unsatisfying and true to their nature at the same time.

    Unforgettable among this tableau is Bardem's Chigurh. The Spanish actor who has also appeared in Love in the Time of Cholera and Goya's Ghosts evokes the most amazing presence of a ruthless killer with his own twisted adherence to a bizarre code of ethics that nothing short of witnessing his performance can do it justice.

    Sadly, however, justice is one of the few items in abundance in this movie. And yet, as unhappy as I am that the Coen's screenplay defiantly refuses to cater to the audience's inherent desire for satisfaction, I grudgingly have to admire them for opting for the unpredictable.

    Consider the movie akin to one big coin toss – will it be heads or tales? Call it - you've been calling it your entire life.
  • In the last 20 minutes or so the movie loses steam it kills its own momentum & immersion ,the movie then crawls on its belly for a few more yards before dying out & the credits starts rolling ,i watched the 1993 Falling Down the same week & it blew this out of the water..."you see !! the ending is clever the message of this film..." NO just NO this is a movie after-all there's a reason why even history & biopics are MOVIE'fied
  • Warning: Spoilers
    You can believe all the negative things being said about this movie. What's remarkable is that it's such a bad experience that it turns out to be the ultimate pallet cleanser. What I mean, all other movies you see after having to endure this awful film will seem less bad by comparison. I realized this while walking out of the "Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem" showing. It's a terrible movie in its own right but I found myself saying, "At least it wasn't as awful as NCFOM." That's not a joke or an over-exaggeration in any way. Walking out of NCFOM, you feel cheated, disappointed and even a bit angry. How is any film going to make you feel worse then that? I wasn't expecting anything coherent from AVP and that's what I got. Judging by the ratings here and a few critics that I read, I was expecting at least a decent film from NCFOM. For those that think this movie offers a deep theme or a hidden, complex agenda, you need to grow up.

    The movie offers poor dialogue from the first scene on out. It's clichéd, needlessly cruel and the story itself is a trite disaster. The film exists only to jar the viewer and to attempt to be edgy and different. It offers nothing substantial, even in it's veiled attempts at allegory and a thematic message. It agitates the viewer at every level by callously killing any character they even half develop. What was the point of Woody's character? Why have the killer survive with no ramifications? Killing a main character (and his innocent wife) away from the camera is as poor as it gets. Let's not even discuss the ending, there are enough people that have mentioned that irritating lack of conclusion. I could go on but why bother? I'm not even going to remember the specifics of this film for very long. All I'll remember is the general unpleasant flavor it left and I'll remember that not many movies will leave such a poor taste. I'm not bitter. I'm grateful that going to the movies now has a bottom to the barrel in which to judge future films.

    I want to thank the creators of this film. It single handedly sets up better experiences for the rest of the year because nothing could possibly be worse then this movie.
  • "You don't have to do this," repeated words in this lingering film, which really does not feel like a typical Coen Brothers film to me. Fargo, had its quirky character and its grotesque moments, but this film is all about a subdued natured intermixed with quick action. For what I expected, I got some of it, but also a bit more of a subdued air and timing than I expected. It would do things in spurts, action at the beginning then a lull and more thunder. It worked great for keeping one on edge, which Brolin did, excellently in the lead role lying awake thinking too hard. Jones too was good in a strong supporting role as a close to retirement sheriff who is on the outside shaking his head at the carnage and mayhem unleashed by the simple finding and taking of a satchel full of money.

    The real gem and glue of the film though is Javier Bardem's menacing character who has his own brand of justice, which is extremely harsh and well insane. Even the one who claims to know him cannot even begin to stop or even slow him down. Bardem whom I have not had the pleasure of seeing in anything before is gold and like no other before looks to have the supporting actor award locked up in this performance. His presence is felt, even when he does not show up. That is something I have not seen in film well since probably The Third Man and Orson Welles' character Harry Lime.

    I cannot really describe the film that well so I will suffice to say that is best modern western tale I have seen since The Three Burials of Melquiades, which also happened to have Tommy Lee Jones and was directed by him to boot. Another thing I noted was the lack of strong score. The filmmakers just seemed to let the sounds of the creaking boots and the desert landscape speak for the film. It felt natural and a bit menacing.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This review may contain a spoilers, I'm not giving a summation of the movie plot here, but be forewarned, for your own information, that I might make references and/or hints to the storyline in this review.

    This movie isn't so much as a movie as it is an anecdote. It's like watching some dismal abyss of a film, with no plot, no real ending, and just a depressing story that basically comes down to no discernible resolve.

    The actor's are spot on, Tommy Lee Jones is as good an actor as anyone, he's always suited as the strong, masculine, and wise individual salted with the experience of ten men's lives. It is a role that he is very suited for, and in the last 15 years or so, from the role he plays in the various US Marshals series to the beyond his expectations of years in Rules of Engagement, etc; he is very much the tired old veteran who feels he has lived beyond the expectation of his life, and much of the movie you feel that reflection in his acting. Javier Bardem is clearly the self absorbed evil character that so many movies have, and yet he never has any closure. We never get a sense that justice has reacted to his narrow misses with death.

    Josh Brolin plays a convincing role at times, but I take issue with certain points in the movie. !!SPOILER!!WARNING!!SPOILER!! For example, at one point Brolin appears in the wild to be a successful and talented tracker. He portrays someone who is not so much intelligent as he is wise to his surroundings and the fragile nature of life. And yet he misses a deer he's hunting (why is he in the desert in the first place is beyond me). Then when he revisits the scene of the various trucks scattered upon a drug deal gone awry, he doesn't bring his rifle nor his binoculars? Why would you approach a situation where Drug money is clearly involved without a long range rifle, and more importantly no ability to defend yourself? How smart do you have to be to dump a bag full of money for a new bag? Have none of these people considered that there might be some kind of tracking device? Brolin saw the locater earlier. What did he think it was for, Radio Control Cars??? I kind of feel like this is one of those movies that got cut too many times before the film reached the studios, and as a result we're left with a story that doesn't have a plot line. We're left with no explanation really of who orchestrated the Heroin deal, why it went bad, more so at first it appears that Woody Harelson is some photographic memory genius and then gets ambushed by Bardem. How did Javier track him? Spidey sense? Sixth Sense? Did he invoke the Great Spirit from beyond? Come on.... at least give some kind of detail on how and why Woody is even involved? Why would Woody even leave the money untouched? Six out of ten is gracious, only because the acting is so good, but next time, if the movie needs to be thirty minutes longer to get a story across, do it. Because this movie is a mess. I think this must be how everyone at the season ending of Entourage felt when they screened Vinnie's cluster-you-know-what of a movie....

    Great acting, Great actors, but a story that is about like watching Happy Gilmore take a swing at the puck....
  • buckethead6625 November 2007
    Warning: Spoilers
    No Country for Old Men had a great storyline, character development, acting, and cinematography, and still managed to disappoint me greatly with its crappy anticlimactic ending.

    What is the purpose of suspense? I couldn't wait to see how the three main characters would interact when they inevitably met. But the Coens yank the rug out from under the audience by suddenly wiping out the protagonist 75% of the way through the movie. Why waste so much time building Llewelyn Moss'(Brolin's) character and emphasizing his resourcefulness if you're going to kill him off so abruptly with no explanation? There's easily an entire scene missing. Fine, I get it: the Mexicans found him. I don't need a rosy ending, but at least reveal how his demise went down. I'm not even asking for a gory shootout sequence; just elaborate on what led up to it. Yes, there is an underlying commentary on fate and humanity, but this movie is also an action/crime thriller where multiple peripheral characters are strangled or blown away by a sociopathic killer. It seems disingenuous to skim over the main character's death. Moss never had a chance, and neither does the viewer.
  • fluffyrona29 October 2007
    If you like films that literally take your breath away, then this goes to the top of the list.

    As stated elsewhere, Javier Bardem is so spectacularly evil and menacing that, if I were Mrs Bardem, I'd be worried about him coming home at night. The man exuded controlled evil, and I found myself not breathing when he came onto screen, yet couldn't take my eyes from him - a truly mesmerising presence.

    Tommy Lee Jones turns in a belter of a performance, and mention should also be made of Kelly MacDonald who nails a faultless Texan accent alongside a multi-layered performance (despite the paucity of her screen time).

    Beautifully shot, as you would expect, and with some (welcome) moments of humour amongst the gore, this is a very very fine film. Miss it at your peril, because when those little golden men are being handed out next year in LA, I predict a lot of them will be going to this film. A belter.
An error has occured. Please try again.