Yeah I agree with most of what you're all saying. I enjoyed this movie immensely. Bardem and Brolin were amazing in this, and I really like Jones's storyline as well. Definite A+ only because I really had to think about this movie for a while after I saw it. The theme doesn't hit you right away, but hen it does, you really will feel excited.

Definite must see

This film has the best sound design I've heard in a decade -- I wish so-called 'horror filmmakers' would learn that sound is infinitely more terrifying and unsettling than visuals. The acting was pretty incredible across and board and, scary as this film got (and there were many, many, many intense and unsettling moments), it's also very funny at times.

I need to see it again. I saw it as the tail-end of a triple feature with American Gangster and Beowulf, so I was a bit exhausted when it started.

Right now, it's an A-.

Very good movie. What prevents it from getting **** from me is that

The ending I was also a bit meh about, but the more I think about it the more I like it. It's a really tense movie with fantastic performances from all involved.

***1/2

This is probably the definition of a film you have to watch twice. I don't really feel like I can do it justice after just one viewing, especially one in a noisy theatre, full of restless teens, next door to Fred Claus being played at full volume. As such, the lack of music really stands out and the delicate dialogue is difficult to decipher at times. Furthermore, from a purely moviegoing experience, the dark ending feels unsatisfactory, and I know that I have to watch the film again, forgoing the narrative, in order to fully understand it. As it stands now, though, it's one of the very best films of the year.

A lot of people seem to be complaining about the Tommy Lee Jones subplot, and of course everyone has something to say about that ending. I don't think these two are unrelated. On the surface, this storyline seems extraneous, taking away from the extremely intense main story. The constant asides to Bell and his deputy's investigation seem only an attempt to explain the events that are happening, but as nothing is ever fully explained, this subplot seems useless. I don't necessarily agree with this. Bell - his opening narration and final thoughts especially - seem to be a representation of the thematic element of the story, whereas the Llewellyn/Chigurh story is an affirmation of these themes. I'm not sure if I've got a full grasp on everything the film is saying - there's definitely ideas about morality, violence, money, death, and the changing world thrown about - but I got enough to know that multiple viewings are required. And I'm looking forward to it.

Of course, one can not ignore the utterly thrilling and exceptionally shot main storyline, which, at least up until Llewellyn's death, seems to be operating entirely within conventional, Hollywood standards. That's not to say it isn't incredibly effective. From the get-go, Chigurh is shown to be one of the most ruthless, calmest, inventive and downright terrifying villains in cinematic history. His unique appearance, his physical tics, his unusual choice of weapons, and his very precise manner of speaking combine to create a full, fleshed-out character - but as for portraying a human, well, that's another story. On the flip side, Brolin's quiet, reserved Llewellyn is the emotional core of the movie, making us feel for him even as he proves to be just as selfish and villainous as those chasing him. The conflict between the two is the highlight of the movie, from the terrifically tense cat-and-mouse chase in the first motel to the terrifically intense gun battle in the second one. Though there is no real physical payoff to these confrontations, I think the phone conversation between them - the one and only time they speak - is fitting enough. Both characters receive their retributions in other ways, which is the perfect capper to the conflict. Though their ends may be narratively unfulfilling, I think they work flawlessly thematically.

One must not forget about the fantastic technical aspect when reviewing this film, either. The lack of music is very stark and though makes the scenes much more suspenseful and scary, as there's no musical cue to tell us when to be frightened. Tied in to this, the use of sound in this movie is impeccable, and may be even more effective than the visuals. The scene where Chigurh finds where Llewellyn is hiding while the latter waits for him is accomplished almost entirely through the use of sounds - Chigurh's boots on the floor, the beeping of the transponder, the unscrewing of the lightbulb, the readying of his gas tank weapon. We, like Llewellyn, are forced to just listen, but we know what's going to happen next, making the inevitable that much scarier. Of course, as with every Coen film, the cinematography is stunning, and nearly every shot in this movie is stunning and artistically rich. The careful, eloquent nature of the dialogue that has become a staple of these brothers' films is utilized to full extent here, and as I said I need to see it again to take in everything. Overall, just a fantastic achievement.

Even so, I couldn't help but be disappointed by that ending. It wasn't a "that was it?" response, where I felt something was left unexplained and I didn't know what happened. It was more of a "oh, that's it", where I just feel depressed and emotionally drained. There is no character redemption - even Bell, the most moral of the characters, is not left untouched - no plot threads being tied up, no happy ending. It's just a hopelessly dark finish. Of course, that fits in perfectly with the film's perspective on the world, so perhaps it's a great ending. I just couldn't see it that way.

I saw this again last night. I have no doubt that in a couple of years it will be widely regarded as one of the greatest American films of all time. There is no way you can overstate the impact of the final ten minutes. Everything feels like it has built up and lead to these two final moments - Chigurh's visit to Carla Jean, and Ed Tom's retirement and recollection of his dream. Both scenes are emotionally devastating.

In the first scene, Chirgurh has tears welling up and can't muser anything more than a barely-audible whisper. Why is this? Is it because Carla Jean personifies everyone he has come in contact with -- they can't fathom why someone like him exists? What he sees as principals and a way of life everyone else views as simple homicidal mania.

In the second scene, the emptiness and desperation in Ed Tom's voice and face is almost too much to bear. He is a broken man who has no place in the world anymore, and isn't sure he even wants one. As he says earlier in the movie, why would God want anything to do with him? Not because he has necessarily done something to warrant such a shunning, but why would God want anything to do with ANY of us?

No Country is all about omnipotent powers guiding us to finish lines. Chigurh believes he has learned to coexist with them and in fact thrive in them (something that is literally smashed apart in the final act), and Ed Tom doesn't even know if he wants to be a part of them, or if it is even worth it. This dichotomy is the thrust of the film.

AFI Class of 2017, ythink? Rly?
I like this.

OMG!!! Make me puke, I just swallowed some bad film analysis...

I think it'll miss out on the one in ten years, then land in the 60s or 70s for the 2027 one. Regardless of whether or not people liked the intensity or the way they handled the major death or what have you, from a filmmaking standpoint, this could in fact be a perfect film. As I watched it, I couldn't think of one thing they could've done to make a scene more effective, or a shot that would've been cooler...and usually I can spot something like that in a movie. At least one weak spot or bad moment. There really weren't any in this film. I mean, if you don't like the ending you don't like the ending, but from a script-is-done-lets-shoot-the-movie standpoint, this film owns everything else I've seen this year.

Oh okay. I like how because your opinions are intentionally contrary you think you can get by on shit like this that has zero content.

If you have a problem with what I'm saying, fine. But actually address the issues in what you're saying. Anyone can rub out a pithy, douche-bagey throwaway.

Don't you think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves here. I'll be nearing 40 by then!

Besides, AFI is 90% prestige and 10% how good the movies are. And that might be generous.

well, I think the Coens have respect in Hollywood. Enough, at least. Sure, "Fargo" should've won Best Picture, but honestly, I'm surprised a film like that even grabbed a nomination from the straightforward-sappy-loving-Academy [Pulp Fiction and Silence of the Lambs would have to be very rare early exceptions of that]. If this film wins them an Oscar, it would really help its chances at hitting the AFI list. It's hard to predict, but unless this ages badly [and great filmmaking is close to timeless], i don't see how it could get ignored. Especially with its great box office making it a widely seen, widely-discussed, longer-lasting film. It may not be my favorite film of the year, but holy cow did the Coens do a remarkable job with it.

Fargo made the first list then fell off, so I dunno, it could. Needs BP though.

Pithy - - thanks!

As to the issues, I don't want to embarass you by dwelling on every detail, but suffice it to say that my illness stems from such nauseating verbiage as the sentence that ends your review:



Aaaaaaaaccckkkkk!

To this day I can't wrap my head around why Fargo is considered head-and-shoulders above the Coen Bros other great works.

Anyways this was crackerjack entertainment. It's quite clear that after the poor reception of The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty they really examined what they needed to have a great comeback. No Country for Old Men may not have many of their signature quirks, but it's chock full of their strengths. An excellent use of sound and lack thereof. Some incredibly thrilling scenes, especially when Brolin returns to the drug deal. And yeah, Bardem is the most effective cinematic villian to come around in ages. That said, I do think the film loses momentum after the off screen death. It's purposefully deflating, but after that I went from loving it to appreciating it. Bardem's scene with McDonald didn't really do nearly as much for me as it did for makeshift, it felt no more significant to me than many of his other encounters with poor bastards. Tommy Lee Jones speech at the end resonated with me much more than anything with Chigurgh after Moss' death.

All said and done, welcome back Brothers Coen. I've missed you.

So.... does anyone else think that bradley hasn't seen this yet?

Saw it in the early days of limited run, read my review on page one of this thread and tell me again you don't think I've seen it - - but this over-rated crapsicle's definitely gotten on my nerves - - between it, and Positive* Jon's accusations, I think I'm finally getting in touch with my inner troll...

Congratulations, you have yet to say a single fucking thing worth any merit. If you're afraid of hurting my feelings, DON'T BE.

What an asshole.

You wanna talk about superfluous writing, why don't you check out your own "reviews". No one can talk completely AROUND a movie quite like you.



I guess THAT'S fucking brilliant, huh Bradford? Pot, Kettle, Black.

Huh? The last scene was the most relevant in the film. I don't know if empty is the best way to describe it; whatever you call it, it's damn powerful and just as compelling and haunting (if not more) than the "chase" scenes earlier in the film. T L Jones nailed the role. He was damn good and really, really brought it together at the end.

A week and a half later and I'm still thinking about this film.

... and more Se7en praise. It permeates every film discussion involving young male adults.

I read it, and I'm more convinced than ever. You don't ever say anything substantial about the film, in any of your comments in this thread. Big words and colourful metaphors do not make a good review. I understand you have an "image" to maintain, but it's quickly growing tiresome. At least see the movie before you start attacking it.

Makeshift,

I wouldn't worry about it. I think your review hit the nail on the head for the most part.

I do agree with someone else though, Brolin dying off camera was a disgrace, and marred the movie. There was just no reason for it, it could have been an immensely powerful scene which they were apparently scared of.

They weren't scared. The entire film is this elaborate cat and mouse (and three legged dog) chase in which the mouse always seems barely a step ahead. He finally gets what he thinks is the heads-up on Chigurh, (no longer has the tracer deal, mere hours away from getting rid of the money and setting his girl free, this whole resolution to kill Chigurh (which he probably still believes at this point)), finally gets a minute to "rest", and he's killed anyway...and not even by the "cat". If the film says anything, at the very simplest it is that anyone can die at any time. I thought it worked quite well.

Plus, who the hell needs to see their hero be shot? After all the death in this film, you think one more on screen murder would have been "powerful"? It's the end of the life of a largely innocent man...it wouldn't have been powerful, it would have been a couple Mexican's knocking on the door and opening fire.

Exactly, The whole point of the film is that the characters and the audience don't know whats coming next, despite how smart they are. Hence with the car accident, its not the typical you see the car coming, the car hits him from the cameras viewpoint.

I knew he was going to be hit by a car. It seemed kind of obvious. (Guess I've seen too many surprise crashes just like that in many a movies tv shows and tv commercials)

Not looking for powerful, it just seemed out of place. You're seeing everything the guy is doing for the entire movie and then all of the sudden, at the time of his death, you don't get to see what's going on.

Oh yeah, it was great. Though if he died I would have rolled my eyes a bit.