No Country for Old Men

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.

No Country For Old Men. It's a near perfect western thriller gone somewhat wrong in the end. Hero a hunter himself finds a bag full of money from a crime scene but then gets hunted down by a crazy lunatic killer. Adding other dimensions there is aging sheriff trying to help hero without his knowledge. The movie starts and flows like a clean water with edgy characters, tricky situations and some clever ideas. Then when you are all set for bang-bang climax, movie takes a different route, plot becomes ambiguous, motives become unclear and our hero is out of the story just like that. If you are not overly miffed by the deviation in last half an hour, then you would be attracted to this like an iron to magnet because of its crazy characters, witty dialogs, haunting atmosphere and chilling silence.

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.

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.