Things I didn’t like about No Country for Old Men

No Country for Old Men

I remember thinking the the trailer was ok—but that this wasn’t the type of movie I’d be able to watch with Stephanie. And then the reviews started pouring in, and then the Oscar nominations. I think it was this sentence that finally caught my attention:

No Country may be a masterpiece, but it’s a cold-blooded one, perhaps too much a splatter fest and a museum piece for Oscar voters.

Over the long weekend Stephanie wanted to do some shopping, so I took the opportunity to take myself out to a movie. I’ve been really curious about There Will Be Blood (a movie I might could get Stephanie to come along for), but the timing wasn’t right, so I decided on No Country.

I have to say, it’s not a bad movie. It’s crazy well-made. If you haven’t seen it and want to, you definitely should. I just didn’t like it. And I want to tell you why. This may well be the only negative review of “No Country for Old Men” that exists. Anywhere.

This is the point where you should stop reading if you want to see the movie.

I have to admit, Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh is totally captivating. His captive bolt pistol is badass. Tommy Lee Jones is ok, but didn’t he just play a sheriff? I also liked Kelly Macdonald.

But thinking back over the movie and plot, there was so much I found hard to suspend my disbelief for. It’s clear that the Coen brothers went to great lengths to make the movie feel real, which just makes the reality-gaps seem even more glaring to me.

Returns with water

Why did Llewelyn Moss go back to bring the critically wounded drug dealer water in the middle of the night!? Not only was it dumb, but I wasn’t convinced he really cared that much—he acted more like a boy whose mom just told him to go feed the dogs. It felt like this was one of those obvious plot moments intended to put him into a compromising situation in order to set horrible things in motion. Which is exactly what it did.

Evades car and dog

So now he’s running away from a car full of people shooting at him in the desert who are inexplicably unable to hit him with bullets or the car. And the sudden changing of the light from pitch black to dawn conveys this sense that they’ve been comically chasing him for a long time. Of course he manages to evade them by swimming across a river, but not until he’s able to shoot the dog they sent after him at exactly the last moment. Last moment as in he had to pull the dog’s teeth out of his shoulder. Yeah right.

Unbelievable hitman

So now the hunt is on, Chigurh is called in, hired to track down Moss, and unexpectedly he shoots the suits who’ve hired him. Why? Just ’cause I guess. Seems like a dumb move to me. Hard to believe a hitman with a reputation for killing his employers would get much repeat work.

Moss gets away

Meanwhile Moss is at a hotel with the money, to accomplish what? Who knows. What is he waiting for? What are his plans? He hides the money in a super sneaky way, and then when he gets wind that he might have been discovered, pulls a MacGyver and recovers the money from a room on the opposite side of the hotel through the air vent.

At the very same time, Chigurh discovers the Mexicans camped out waiting for Moss. And blows them all away. And given how silent the film is, with little soundtrack, a lot of emphasis is placed on the sounds—the machine guns, and squeak of the money satchel as Moss retrieves it. It’s clear that Moss hears the gunfire (OMG get out of there!), but it’s unclear whether Chigurh hears the satchel squeaking in the vent. Why not?

And suddenly we skip to Moss in a car he’s riding in after hitchhiking. But remember, Chigurh knows two things, the money was nearby just before he killed the Mexicans (because of the beeping proximity sensor) and then it wasn’t there. Dude, go outside and look for your guy! He’s running down the highway with a briefcase trying to hitch a ride. It seems a little unbelievable that Moss got away.

Town of the deaf

They play the cat and mouse game at yet another hotel (how does Chigurh find him?), which precipitates into a crazy middle of the night downtown car crash/shoot out. Which is where I found it really hard to suspend my disbelief. As much as people have fled depressed downtowns, how is it possible no one was around or heard the car crash or gun fire? I mean really. Same with the machine gun fire at the motel. How is it possible Chigurh got away from that?

Self-surgery

Psychopathic hitman killers have to be well-versed in emergency medicine, because they certainly can’t go to a hospital with all manner of bullet wounds, right? So we get to watch Chigurh patch himself up with medicine pilfered from a pharmacy after he blows up a car outside.

Woody? You’re kidding me

At some point Woody Harrelson gets called in, trying ever so hard to play it straight, acting badass, like his sanity makes him even more cold-blooded than Chigurh, but he comes off just seeming goofy. And it doesn’t get him anywhere because Chigurh kills him almost instantly. Did he even have a point?

Did I miss a scene?

Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is in El Paso in broad daylight, ostensibly there to help Moss, and he hears machine gun fire, sees a car swerve into the busy road in front of him as two guys jump into the car and speed off. Given their high profile, one assumes they’d be easily apprehended, $2 million and all. The sheriff pulls into the motel they emerged from to find the motel all shot up and a few people dead, one face down in the parking lot. But we don’t see who. In fact WE NEVER SEE WHO! One figures this is that whole movie setup switcheroo (for the final 10 minutes of the film) where we think Moss is dead but he really isn’t, but no, it seems that he’s really dead. We just never seem him dead. I started to wonder whether some scene had been spliced out of the reel, it seemed that abrupt and disjoint.

Don’t show or tell

So now the movie stops being suspenseful, which means it’s almost over. Chigurh comes back for Moss’ wife. Does he kill her? WE DON’T KNOW. All he does is check the bottom of his boots upon emerging from the house. Hmm, checking for blood? Or just as bored as we are?

Car crash ex machina

And then as he’s driving away through a quiet residential neighborhood, nervously checking his mirrors (so that we know something must be coming up) a car smashes into him out of nowhere. Is this deus ex machina justice? Gimme a break. And once again, no one is around, no one hears the crash and comes running, except two boys on bikes, who give him a shirt to use as a sling as he slips away again. It was probably one of the least satisfying, emotionally void movie endings I’ve ever experienced.

« Previous

14 comments

Shelly

2/23/08 9:07pm

Best and funniest review yet. You must be young. Re name movie no movie for young (thinking) people

marcia

2/24/08 10:33am

First off, Google ads amuse me sometimes. I am almost curious enough about what a “No Country for Old Men” ringtone would sound like to clicky clicky on one of the ads.

I found the movie unsatisfying. It was extremely well made and acted. But the ending was empty. I adore violent movies and don’t expect happy endings. But this one left me feeling brain raped in the bad way. (I guess there isn’t a good way. But I do enjoy an ambiguous or downer ending now and a gain) But evil always wins and life just goes on? Bleh, thanks for punching me in the belly.

miz

3/2/08 5:04pm

I agree.. And what was the purpose of that scene with the old guy in the wheelchair the sheriff visits toward the end of the movie? Just a break from every other scene where he blows somebody (anybody!) away so the blood can splatter? Can’t BELIEVE this won best picture. Snore.

Tummy14

3/7/08 5:00pm

Agreed - just finished watching it… can i have the past two hours of my life back please. VERY disappointing.

hermance

3/10/08 5:29am

I find it odd that your critique of the movie pretty much resorted to, “That could never happen.” It’s a Coen Brothers film. I’m curious as to what made you expect realism and/or think that realism should be the measuring stick, since none of their movies have ever aspired to realism. You’re certainly a savvy enough viewer to know that, so what made you expect something else from this?

justin

3/10/08 9:18am

hermance, I guess I didn’t realize that one has to critique a movie in the context of the director’s (or directors’) entire canon for that critique to be valid. :)

I saw that the movie was nominated for a Best Picture, read that it had a good chance of winning, went to the movie, and wrote about my reactions to it. Given how universally praised the movie was compared to how unsatisfied I was upon leaving the theater, only motivated me further to write down why. It surprised even me that I took issue with so much.

There’s a difference between believability and suspension of disbelief. Many movies, when you step back, are hard to believe, but more important is whether the framework of reality created by the movie allows the viewer to temporarily suspend their disbelief during the course of the movie. Yes Coen Bros. movies tend to be over the top, and yes Chigurh was a total badass, but that’s no excuse for what seemed like holes in the plot.

That may not even be their fault, as I’ve read the movie is a fairly faithful adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s book by the same name.

patrick

3/11/08 9:35am

no country for old men is unassumingly unconventional…

dumbfounding form a moral angle, but that can be a good thing.

Well

3/13/08 8:55pm

One thing that may help you in your questions is that the book and movie are far more esoteric than you might believe or care to research. The book does fill in some gaps, but there is actually quite a bit of philosophy involved.

Chigurh is basically evil incarnate, he doesn’t have any moral ties to anything other than fate. He killed his employer because his employer didn’t trust him. Also, it is never really said that he is a hitman, in fact it is more so implied that he is a tracker.

Also, I advise you to see the movie again, because you most certainly see a dead Moss laying at the front door of his hotel room.

Chigurh definitely killed Carla Jean, no question, I promise. Even without reading the book, you can tell through clues presented throughout the film.

The point of the crash at the end is to essentially show that evil cannot be stopped. Chigurh = Evil, and even in a crash the certainly should have killed him, he survived and got away. It was also a way to show that he did indeed get away with the money, that is if there was any question left after the whole dime by the vent scene.

To Miz - That part isn’t all that random, it is another look at Ed Tom Bell and the world he finds himself in. His cousin in the wheelchair is there to remind him that what is going on is nothing new, it is just taking on different forms, forms that Bell is unaccustomed to but that he has to come to grips with.

Dig deeper, a lot of this movie and book has to do with good vs. evil, but with other complexities thrown in to add some flavor. There is some realism in the way it is presented, but the overall theme definitely allows for some suspension of belief to drive home the point.

staylor

4/3/08 8:21am

suspension of disbelief–need it to enjoy almost all forms of entertainment. but my problem has more to do with any deeper meaning-some monster tracks and kills some guy…not much to think about or appreciate. but, i figure i just missed something to really appreciate. let me know what it was, i would feel better about seeing something valuable in it rather than having wasted money. what does it speak to? not everything needs a message, a moral, but it must touch us on some level that speaks to the human condition to be truly valuable as a piece of art. let me know what is in that long movie!!

Trey

4/10/08 1:04am

I agree with the part about bringing back the water for the wounded man, that’s just an moronic plot device much like the one in the start of Jeepers Creepers, and it’s sad to put this movie and that one in the same paragraph. I give this picture an overall 6/10.

bebo

4/11/08 11:00am

totally agree and you pick up Exactly all the points that I did. One can only allow for so many coinicdences etc. I was bored in the end, and even Bardem didn’t have much to do.
Very disappointing especially I do like some of Coen Bros films.

Matt

4/23/08 9:57pm

I agree with you too dude, all the way. There were way too many unbelievable or terrible plot twists.

When Chigurh just casually walks into that corporate building and shoots the dealer on the spot…. First of all, it makes no sense that he did that… at all. And secondly, I can’t shake it that he could get in just like that. No security? No metal detectors? Absolutely nothing??? The man’s making no effort to conceal a fucking BOLT PISTOL!

Matt

4/23/08 10:02pm

Hermance, this movie is a decent example of an adaptation of literary Naturalism (which often focuses on the theme of Fate), a style derived from earlier forms of /Realism/. Ironically, it lacks, literally, in many aspects of that area.

emkay

6/16/08 9:21pm

I’m right there with ya brother! I was really disappointed by this picture - and that’s not what bothers me. I feel like there’s a lot of intellectually dishonest or delusional praise of this picture based on what I, as the viewer, don’t see — odd defenses that more details are in the book or that it’s really an allegory and the assassin is evil incarnate and can’t be stopped and other such claptrap. I expect some needs of a story to be satisfied by the end of a movie - but this one feels like the final reel is missing or something because NOTHING gets satisfied.

A story was set up at the beginning of this movie - a compelling scenario with potentially interesting characters. Problem is, none of it panned out — as portrayed in the movie these characters are ultimately cardboard cutouts with no meaningful motivation and their fates are totally disconnected from their places in the story. In essence, there IS NO STORY — no catharsis, no meaning unless you’re some dopey nihilist into really depressing shit. ‘Cause in the end, NONE of it mattered.

That being said it was executed brilliantly — but it was brilliant crap. When the credits just started after that meaningless conversation between the sherriff and his wife it felt like a gutshot. People need to stop complaining about the end of the Sopranos series — THIS was the biggest jerk off of 2007.

But hats off to the Coen brothers - it’s one hell of a feat to hold an audience in suspense for 2 hours only to deliver nothing and be praised for the effort. I don’t mean that to be as snide as it sounds — I am truly in awe of how good the picture felt and totally pissed that the rug got pulled out at the end.

I’m sure somebody out there feels that’s the point — whatever…