Yeah, I got it now. Should have been obvious, but you never know....

I understand about school. I'm pretty swamped with it myself, so much so that I should be spending less time on here, but I use it to release stress. Or so I thought...

I didnt dismiss it as nothing special, i simply said that I need to see the film again because I truly do believe I must have missed something and that is my anger with the ending. I havnt seen the film again since I saw it the first time I want to see the film again because I want to see the ending again and see how I feel about it in context with the movie. The ending was so abrupt that I got angry. As I look back on it I do agree that that is probably the only way to have ended the film, I agree that TLJ is the main character, I agree with the majority of the things, I just need to see it again.

I guess I don't really have much to add to this thread that hasn't been said already. I agree that there's some great craftsmanship behind this. Performances are great all around. Its ability to evoke a very specific time and place is its greatest strength. I have no real complaints with the movie...except it also doesn't linger in the mind...doesn't have that long term, or even instantaneous connection/impact that it could that would take it from very well made movie to a great one. So, unfortunately, I was a bit disappointed...

B+

A-


It's time to finally give my thoughts on the subject.

No Country for Old Men is a very finely-crafted movie with top-notch direction by the Coens. Would I call it a masterpiece? Probably not, but then agaian, I've been rather weary of calling films that lately. In any case if anything, it features one of the best directing jobs of 2007. If only it wasn't for P.T. Anderson...

No Country for Old Men is essentially a modern western. Its characters are very ambiguous at best, the movie is flat-out nihilistic and full of pessimism...or, as you also may call it - bitter realism. I think it brough its point of fate and our unableness to do anything to stop it from coming very well, but at the end it just tried way too hard to estabilish that point (I think of the car crash. A cool and unexpcted moment, but in hindsight an unnecessary one, in my opinion). I understand that up until that point in the film, Anton Chigurh represented the unstoppable fate only to have this role taken away from him at the end. It also sadly seemed, however that it was partly done to at least inflict some damage and pain on a character as vile and evil as Chigurh.

That said, I didn't have problems with the very ending. Generally, I am not opposed to open endings anyway. I loved the ending of A History of Violence and the finish of Sideways. Only in Eastern Promises it bothered me a bit. However, the problem is that not expecting it to end so abruptly, you don't pay enough attention to Tommy Lee Jones' dream-speech which is quite poignant and sums up his character fairly well (I re-read the speech at home). Llewellyn being killed off-screen didn't bothered, it much rather fit the tone of the whole film in which any life is equally worthless. I didn't expect them, however, to be so harsh to actually off Kelly McDonald's character as well. While it was vile, I admire the Coens for being brave enough to pull off something shocking as this. Despite not showing the actual killing, Chigurh checking his shoes for blood is just as effective.

Aside from being a clever nihilistic drama, it's also mostly a great bloody chase thriller. I was torn for a long time between liking this or There Will Be Blood more. While I contend that Blood is a better-shot and directed film overall, I would give my personal slight preference to No Country simply because aside from being clever, it was also very tense at certain times. The hotel attack and the following shot-out between Moss and Chigurh were put in scene perfectly. The cinematography, the editing and the sound all worked together so greatly here to create the most tense scenes of 2007. The scene before Tommy Lee Jones enters the motel room at the end and the first Chigurh-killing of the Mexicans are also as suspenseful. The movie is also fairly bloody and violent without even showing much.

As far as the acting goes, the film delivered the goods as well. I don't really understand the praise for Tommy Lee Jones here, but Josh Brolin certainly deserved to be mentioned more for his role. The same goes for Kelly McDonald. Javier Bardem's Chigurh obviously stole the show here. He was simply badass with his pressurized air tank and his badass gun. H ejust gave me the creeps. The coin-toss scene and the scene of Chigurh asking ther woman where Llewellyn works are so incrdibly tense that they really kept me at the edge of my seat, all thanks to Bardem's great delivery of his lines. I stll liked Casey Affleck a bit more in Jesse James, but Bardem was top-notch here.

Moreover, I was a fan of some small bits of humor inserted into the film here and there which makde the whole thing to be not all dark and grim, providing a few laughs, and thus, lighter moments. Kudos to the Coens for their great screenplay and direction, as well as to the actors for pulling it off, especially to Bardem. This movie is ruthless, brutal, sober and it doesn't take any hostages. As I said, though, they just did try a bit too hard towards the end. My other minor gripe would be the uselessness of Woody Harrelson's character who gets introduced just to get slaughtered by Bardem's Chigurh (also, how the hell did he realize so quickly where the suitcase with the money was). No Country for Old Men is one of the Coens' very best directional jobs. I feel that some of their films are quite overrated (The Big Lebowski, Fargo), but with O Brother, where art thou? and this they have shown that they've got versatility and the vision of great artists. The movie is an exhilarating, suspenseful thriller, but also a journey to the darkest in our lives.

It was a light impersonation of his unique(which is good) diction and posting style, I didn't mean anything by it. I know this is extremely after the point, but I sometimes feel bad if I come off more asshole-ish if than I mean to, so I thought I'd clear that up.

8.8/10
A

Yeah, the best movie of the year for me and my favorite Coen Brothers film.

I tend to prefer movies daring to be more overt about their ideas, but still, it deals with its ideas beautifully.

That's the thing, I felt No Country For Old Men was immensely entertaining, and honestly the two major things I grade on a film is entertainment and art values, everything else is minor, but that doesn't mean they aren't important. If someone does a bad job of acting it is harder to find it entertaining. Because of that I don't grade films on their quality, but on how well I enjoyed them, afterall that IS what movies are for: enjoyment as either entertainment or art.

As for No Country, I don't quite give it an A+, rather a A/A+, true I don't expect perfrection as an A+ is not always and in fact is never perfect, but there was two choices I really have a hard time fulling relaxing with and are slightly unforgivable, but they don't detract from the film, just my enjoyment as a whole, but obviously not by much.

I watched it the other night and thought it was brilliant! It's the best film I saw of the 2007 movies and it's the best Coen Brothers film I've seen.

Grade: 9/10 (A)

I agree with this...

More ammo for the non-hypenotized:

Yes, because we should really listen to what SFERIC says, whoever the fuck that is.

Bradley Witherberry, seriously, everyone is tired of your routine.

People who liked a movie you did not are not hypnotized. You do this with every damn movie you don't like, and then you actually have the gall to say we're stupid because we don't want to award masterpieces like Freddy Got Fingered and Bubble Boy Oscars.

It's hypenotized - - I would never accuse any of the esteemed members of WOKJ of being hypnotized. And yes, giving Oscars to those two classic comedies would go a long way to righting the many times the Academy has wronged me. Anyways, my real point above was that the general audiences will not enjoy this film, like some of the hardcore Coen brothers' fans around here have. The DVD release is going to be met by many agonized screams in living rooms around the world.

I am only too happy for those that truly enjoyed this film, as I am for anyone who enjoys any film, but I will never give up my secret hero identity of Antihypester - - guarding the world against hype & opening eyes since 2004®...

If general audiences just hated this movie, then why did it outpace the previous highest grossing Coen Brothers film by nearly $30 million (keep in mind that deficit itself is a pretty decent gross for a Coen Brothers flick)?

Film buffs and those "drinking the kool-aid" didn't power this to almost $75 million. Heaven forbid anyone in his/her right mind could find this to be a brilliant movie.

"General audiences" propel shit like 10,000 B.C. to $35 million dollar opening weekends. Who gives a fuck what they think?

Actually I know more people who loved this film, not liked, loved, than people who hated and disliked it combined.

General audiences are made up of morons who wouldn't know a great film if it bit them in the ass. They just can't appreciate anything different. Plus, most of them are only looking at this film on the surface and don't bother looking into it deeper. They simply don't get it. Thankfully these idiots don't pick the Oscars, though I think they may have allowed them to when Crash won.

Anyway, this isn't a film for the mainstream. They should just stick to stuff they can understand, like Wild Hogs.

Heh. Thanx for helpin' make my point guys!

Have i mentioned lately that this is still the most overrated film of all time???

Just picked it up on dvd. I give it a B+ or A-.... Some may find its ending a bit lackluster. Wanting a little more closure but thats what makes it unique. Its a slice of time. A story with no true beginning or ending.

It's a wonder the producers didn't use your quote as a promotional blurb:

"Unique lackluster ending!" - RAWSAW of WOKJ

I still disagree, I really felt the mainstream audiences enjoyed this film. Hell my ex-girlfriend who only likes mainstream films really enjoyed this.

I saw it and I liked it overall, I sure didn't love it. I probably give it a B+, although I didn't care for the ending very much, I think that is what hurts the movie for me.

Watched it again tonight, first time since the theatre. It does, indeed, improve upon repeat viewings. Without having to focus on the narrative of the film, one can focus on the themes instead, and thus the much-critiqued ending not only makes sense but fits in perfectly to the rest of the film. I don't think I fully understand the full meaning and implications of Ed Tom's dreams, but the film's message is undeniable. This is not just a cat-and-mouse thriller with a shitty ending.

It's now firmly ensconced at #2 on my top ten list for 2007, just behind Blood. It's also guaranteed a spot on my next top 100. What a film.

I really liked it but i think i need to see it again.

for now, B+