Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Director: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

Time Out rating

Average user rating

116 reviews

Synopsis

Joel and Ethan Coen are back with a bloody adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s terse literary thriller about a Texan Vietnam vet who stumbles into the aftermath of a gangland drug operation. Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem star.

Movie review

From Time Out London

West Texas, 1980. Out hunting deer in the desert down by the Mexican border, Vietnam veteran Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) happens on a heap of carnage: torn-apart trucks, corpses of men and dogs, the bloody bodies of others who’d be better off dead, and a case packed with cash: about $2 million. With no witnesses, and confident he can handle himself, Moss opts to keep what’s clearly payment in a drugs-handover gone wrong, and treat himself and wife Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) to a life considerably better than their trailer-park existence. Trouble is, psychopathic hitman Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) also wants the loot, and begins carefully hunting the hunter, in turn pursued by veteran sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), who can’t help feeling the world’s turning more crazily violent.

The Coens’ first outright adaptation is of a Cormac McCarthy novel so attuned to them that the film feels – at least until the final few scenes – as if it’s based on one of their own original screenplays: ‘Blood Simple’ meets ‘Fargo’, almost. For all its fidelity to its source, however, it’d be wrong to think it merely an illustration. The Coens meticulously select the most filmic moments of McCarthy’s terse, gripping book; they trim the sheriff’s nostalgic reveries and philosophising, embellish and enhance the action, and succeed overall in transforming the novel’s economic descriptions into a full-blown world populated by vivid, plausible characters.

Most impressive, they find a cinematic equivalent to McCarthy’s language: his narrative ellipses, play with point of view, and structural concerns such as the exploration of the similarities and differences between Moss, Chigurh and Bell. Certain virtuoso sequences feel near-abstract in their focus on objects, sounds, light, colour or camera angle rather than on human presence. As in ‘Barton Fink’ or ‘Fargo’, the Coens prove that properly innovative artistry and engrossing entertainment can co-exist to utterly compelling effect.Notwithstanding much marvellous deadpan humour, this is one of their darkest efforts: Chigurh, especially, is a nightmarish creation, polite manners and pageboy bob perversely accentuating the volatility in his strangely logical head. Roger Deakins’ superb camerawork, top-grade performances all round, and understated, assured direction ensure the film exerts a grip from start to end. A masterly tale of the good, the deranged and the doomed that inflects the raw violence of the west with a wry acknowledgement of the demise of codes of honour, this is frighteningly intelligent and imaginative.

Author: Geoff Andrew 2008-01-15 15:28:22

Time Out London Issue 1952 - January 14th 2008

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

Jason said...

Posted on Mar 12 2008 14:11 I can't imagine anyone being disappointed by this film, unless they were expecting popcorn entertainment. But to each his own ;) This isn't an "emperor's new clothes" situation. This film is bloody poetry, and even having read the book I was breathless with each frame. TLJ's closing speech and the abrupt ending was magic. I'm not a Coen fanboy, either-- they made some good movies, some not so good-- but this thing is a beast.

Report as inappropriate
MRK7421 said...

Posted on Mar 10 2008 21:50 I hared this movie. I knew nothing about who produced or directed it but noticed its similarity to "Fargo". This movie is tedious....and its production values are overindulgent. Sure, it's all about the characters but I could care less about reneck cops, murderers and stupid Texas women.

Report as inappropriate
harry4sure said...

Posted on Mar 09 2008 23:32 I went full of anticipation having read some terrific revues.Technically the film was great.....BUT...who cares about technicality?. This movie is balderdash of the most self indulgent kind. Someone should tell the cohen brothers that films are entertainment ....and that is why people go to the movies. Sadly this technical tour de force.....is exactly that ..a technical tour de force. This just CANNOT be anyones idea of entertainment.

Report as inappropriate
luke sorba said...

Posted on Mar 07 2008 20:41 A shallow and flashy movie by formerly pioneering directors who have long since run out of ideas (The Ladykillers anyone?). The dead pan humour and sang froid violence are a throwback to the nineties era of gangster cool and expose the film's essentailly adolecent centre. There is a clumsy attempt to disguise this with a Tommy Lee Jones voice-over as pretentious as it is incongruous and which seems to have wandered onto the soundtrack from an even earlier decade - the elegaic 1970's Western. Although Javier Bardem gives a completely engrossing performance, he is basically The Termintaor dressed by Austin Powers. But then if Titanic can win the Best Film Oscar why not this....

Report as inappropriate
Ted said...

Posted on Mar 06 2008 01:48 A friend mentioned that a great movie should have two elements-it should grip and enthral you while you are watchingit, and it should make you think after it. I was really looking forward to this movie, and think it succeeds on the second criteria, but I can't honestly say that it gripped/entertained me while I was watching it, which a grea movie should. I have to wonder whether all the people who profess a great love for it, and debate all the varioius (real or imagined) themes in it to the nth degree would truly love it that much if all the critics hadn't say they loved it so much. It's a bit like jazz-if you don't get this movie then you're made to feel inferior in some way. Don't get me wrong, it is good, but nowhere near as amazing as people would have you believe. I thought Million Dollar Baby was a blatantly obvious weepie Hollywood movie that was predictable as anything so I'd like to think that I'm not a total idiot who "just doesn't get it."

Report as inappropriate
kalon said...

Posted on Mar 05 2008 03:47 Officially I have to say that im tired of the artistic let the viewer figure it out plots in movies. Its becoming as cliche as telling us the whole story of how the good guy dodges all the bullets and rescues the kidnapped girl. No Country starts of with the most amazing cinematography and art direction only to unravel into a frayed abstract cliche you figure it out jmovie.

Report as inappropriate
Mari said...

Posted on Mar 02 2008 15:18 Many reviewers here refer to the half a film scenarioo, but isn't that how real life is? Think - have you ever had a situation in your life end with all loose ends tied and all resolved? No, this is more like reality and anyone who wants it different is looking to the world of cinema to give them what real life often can't - closure.

Report as inappropriate
Markus said...

Posted on Mar 02 2008 12:01 I just saw the movie last night with a few friends. We got excited only to be dismayed. I don't know what the critics are raving about. Feeling sorry for the Coen Brothers is more like it by pumping them up. The movie was exciting for a while albeit horrificly bloody for the masses but the ending put it in the "Crummy" category as one of the worst movies of the year. Hollywood, like our foreign policy these days, has gone blind in seeing through the muck. Save your mulla on this one. It’s not even worth buying the DVD unless you want to destroy the mood of a nice evening.

Report as inappropriate
Aaron said...

Posted on Feb 29 2008 12:40 I thought this film was great and reminded me of the film catch me if you can
the film does drag on a bit but this is a great film and defiantly worth watching

Report as inappropriate
Matt K said...

Posted on Feb 27 2008 14:01 Absolutely amazing piece of film making, more emphasis on characters than the plot itself which should always be the case, bloody brilliant!

Report as inappropriate
gill said...

Posted on Feb 24 2008 15:57 brilliant to see the Cohen Brothers film. Absolute fan of theirs, this film leaves you with more questions than answers. If you haven't seen a Cohen film before, leave you're expectations at home and just enjoy. Wonderful characters, acting and film work. Makes you jump! Loved it.

Report as inappropriate
Tulip said...

Posted on Feb 18 2008 22:06 Anyone who says this is half a film is deluded, just take time to understand it properly...even if some loose ends aren't tied up, thats quite clearly the intention of the directors. The end of the storyline doesn't coincide with the end of the film, so to assume that the final scene is going to piece it all together is ridiculous. The whole film makes sense, but with some deliberate ommisions, which obviously threw of some of these jokers who are giving it crap reviews. Technically perfect direction and cinematography, incredible acting, perfect story line. One of the best films of the last 10 years.

Report as inappropriate
corbett said...

Posted on Feb 18 2008 20:24 I would like to start by saying I have never felt the urge to comment on a film in my puff.But this film drove me to it.It is utter pants.The movie has a very slim storyline and fails to follow it.I spent all my time trying to understand why the actors, it happens quite a lot, the actors just start to waffle on about things that have nothing to do with the film.I am not an arty farty type of guy, I like my nut jobs to be nut jobs and my heroes to do the right thing.But in this movie there is no begining no middle and definately no end.There was utter silence and I mean utter silence in the cinema, when it eventually became clear that the movie was over.Dont get me wrong the acting roles were fantastic the guy who was the nutter did a fantastic job of being a nutter and old TLJ did a fantastic job as sherriff, but the parts were not in the same movie. it could have been a lesson in how to act and in a forum and would have been as good and made as much sence.As it stands I would not reccomend wasting the money to see this and definately do not believe the emperors new clothes scenario that has shot up over this movie. Personally if I see mr G Andrew (above reporter) I will ave to issue some rude awakening medicine to his erse, As I think he got it well wrong on this one and cost me money that I could have spent on needles for my eyes.

Report as inappropriate
Tommy said...

Posted on Feb 18 2008 19:18 Personally i can't help but feel "Ireland317" is taking this film far too seriously, asking questions such as "as humans how are we suppose to define what an ending should be?" (along similar lines). It's a film based on a book nothing more nothing less. You could argue the ending in Terminator 3 raised questions to who's really in control, good or evil and so on. The ending was too abrupt, it's as simple as that., it was mind provoking and unnecessarily. The director clearly done this on purpose just to get a reaction from critics and viewers a like- and for that alone i feel this film loses a certain amount of Kudos. When you start reading comments such as "the film is left open to what your imagination makes out of it" over and over again it simply wears thin. The acting was superb as would be expected from these three fine actors. Best film of 2007.

Report as inappropriate
Linda said...

Posted on Feb 18 2008 09:54 Excellent film, was engrossed from start to finish, even though the ending was mind provoking, left it open to your imagination. Acting was superb as would be expected from these three fine actors. Really enjoyed

Report as inappropriate