Film

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

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Time Out rating

Average user rating

75 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

Time Out London Issue 1952 - January 14th 2008

User reviews of this film

usman khawaja said...

Posted on Apr 15 2008 00:01 no movie for sane men
this would be the most appropriate title for a pointless and absurd adaptation of mcormacks book,who is one of the better american prose stylists,while the coens have a style of their own,as in BARTON FINK AND BLOOD SIMPLE AND MORE PALPABLY IN FARGO- but cinema is more then style, it needs and breathes on a plausible script,
here a drug /dough deal goes wrong with a terrible massacre involving man and dogs and all we see is a frustrated old typecast jones as sheriff -bell investigating multiple massacres,where was FBI or do they not get involved with mexican criminals ,
you also have a gun battle in a texan town in the heat of night with cars crashing galore without another soul in sight as if texas is a ghost state,while half the state is butchered by a stone faced bardem as a mysterious hitman with a hairstyle that will make him cospicuous from new york to alaska -no one is able to keep tabs or even trace him .
you wonder why kelly macdonald a scotswoman is playing a texan with an exaggerated an accent as can be ,but the most hilarious aspect is how bardem gets into every nook and corner unannounced and walks out after discharging his lethal weapon, a gas cylinder-a novel terrorist weapon to kill for,he kills and uses it to unlock doors as well dually as an automatic weapon and a door opener too -saving some cash for coen brothers and the producers,this is the most ingenious creation in this most generic violent thriller which doesnt even come close to unforgiven or seven in its violent and wanton meningless execution ,
earlier he also smothers a texan ranger in the first reel and his wrists are macerated but you dont see any sign of the wounds hence forth, yet again he is able to self treat after an almost fatal thigh wound which can exsanguinate mortal men but this one is INVINCIBLE,
his main protagonist is brolin who for no valid reason returns to the massacre site hours after he left a dying man without water ,by the time an injured brolin ends up in mexico on foot and is woken from his footpath slumber in the most hilarious scene of the year by a group of mexican serenaders ,you will be in splits ,he then uses his NAM reference to cross back into u.s.a ,no wonder we have such a big problem with illegal immigrants,throw some references about your army experience and the u.s border is open ,take notes al-qaeda operators and mr bardem would be ideal as an ALQAEDA HENCHMAN as he even looks like one, but no one except an old frustrated sheriff running around texas like a mad dog can sniff him and the icing on the cake is tess harper as mr,jones love interest, who plays it straight with a bemused smile on her face,well she was lucky because most people around me were dozing off or walking out.
the narrative then goes haywire as brolin ends up in a texan motel and is solicited by a blonde ,his status henceforth is diificult to establish ,since even coens cannot explain what happens there and cut the story short.i wish they had done that earlier because they did not have a script anyway.
this is .a classic example of how a bad script can never make a good movie despite technical wizardry,after all the butchered mexicans and dogs-3 till last count,lets say TEXAS IS NOT FOR MEXICANS AND DOGS BUT ONLY MEANT FOR MAD MEN ,what a country as i remember it to be quite different from what i saw on screen,thank god,next time coens need to research their medical and mexican subjects more carefully .
well the only reason to see this movie is a languidly tense atmosphere which rings false and is enhanced by sound ,light and crisp editing like the sequence where bardem shoots at a bird sitting over the bridge rail from his truck ,i wish someone had shot this turkey down too -but then even bardem missed the bird in the movie itself ,enough is enough - jbz7879

Report as inappropriate
Martin said...

Posted on Apr 14 2008 22:01 Well, if superb cinematography, taut direction, scintillating acting, plot, panorama, pace, fear, tension, horror, irony, wit and insight won't do it for you, then what will? This isn't a romcom or a chick flick. It stays faithful to a marvellous book. It makes its points brilliantly: when morality and money clash, money wins and bad guys do get away with it.
This is a great film, one of the very best of the decade, with arguably the most terrifying villain ever depicted on celluloid. Javier Bardem is worth the admission money on his own.

Report as inappropriate
Henry Zakumumpa said...

Posted on Apr 04 2008 18:16 No Country For Old Men is a masterfully crafted movie. The Coen Brothers prove they are still on top of their game. The film is haunting and stays with you even after the cineplex. It elicits powerfull perfomances from the three lead actors Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem. Tommy lee Jones is in familiar territory (The Fugitive, US Marshalls) and plays a beat up, cynical small town sherif in Texas country.The movie opens at the scene of a massacre. An apprent drugs transaction gone badly wrong. There are a half dozen bodies next to pick up trucks. The josh Brolin Character chances upon the scene before the cops. His hyena instincts are too run away with the booty he finds before the cops come in. What follows is a cat and mouse chase . The Brolin character seeks to outsmart any competition while on the run with the two million dollars booty. He however didnt count on the formidable foe that is the Bardiem character. No Country is indeed an excellent movie with its exploration on the theme of money. To what lengths can we go to find and keep money? What price does an individual pay for treasure? Money certainly doesnt bring happiness as our protaganist learns the hard way in No Country. The movie is seemingly shot with no sound track excpet for the original scene sounds without much sound effect. This gives the movie an authentic, real time, real life feel to it. The film sound editing almost tells a story of its own. The three lead characters roles are intelligently connected with the plot . Javier Bardem steals the show and most of his acting is more body language than screen play. He plays the role with a wicked faithfulness. Its a violent movie almost in the Tarantino frame. So, this is really no date movie. But for the beauty of the story, the award-winning perfomances, sound editing and authentic texaz country landscape this a must- watch movie. I award in four out of five stars.

Report as inappropriate
EVETS said...

Posted on Apr 04 2008 07:49 I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT FILM, WITH STRONG PERFORMANCES. JOSH BROLIN, EXCELLS HERE. THE CINEMA PHOTOGRAPHY AND SCORE WERE NOTHING TO WRITE HOME ABOUT, BUT BY NO MEANS POOR. MY ONLY NEG ON THIS IS THE ENDING... OTHERWISE GOOD ENTERTAINMENT

Report as inappropriate
STEVE COLLINSON said...

Posted on Apr 04 2008 07:45 I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT MOVIE, WITH GREAT PERFORMANCES. JOSH BROLIN, GETS BETTER BY THE MOVIE. THE CINEMA PHOTOGRAPHY WAS NOTHING TO WRITE HOME ABOUT AS WAS THE SCORE [SEE ANYTHING RIDLEY SCOTT AS DONE] BUT THE TONE OF THE FILM, DUE TO A GOOD SCRIPT AND GENUINE MOMENTS OF TENSION AND ANTICIPATION, MAKE FOR GOOD ENTERTAINMENT. THE ONLY THING THAT LETS THIS PICTURE DOWN IS THE "OH, IS THAT IT!?" ENDING, 8/10

Report as inappropriate
Chris mankey said...

Posted on Mar 31 2008 21:32 "Anyway, as it won best film at the Oscars it is by definition appalling."
You're "by definition" an idiot!

Report as inappropriate
Matt said...

Posted on Mar 30 2008 21:00 This film has incredible cinematography, and the portrait of a psychopath is very very accurate, (I am a forensic psychiatrist) but I did feel it had all been done before in pulpy serial killer flicks like "Halloween" etc. Essentially it is a boring film as the relentless killing just mounts up and up until you cease to care, so it has no tension to speak of. The "times have changed- or have they" theme seems a bit thin to me- it made me think yes they have, and for the worse, and this film and others like it are probably contributing to a general erosion of our capacity to be shocked at violence. Anyway, as it won best film at the Oscars it is by definition appalling.

Report as inappropriate
Di said...

Posted on Mar 25 2008 17:25 I'm 50/50 with this film, I can appreciate the thoughts behind it but I just didn't find it all that entertaining. I can appreciate the depth & realism it is s'posed to portray but from what I saw of the trailers I expected more of a shoot 'em up! There were some awesome scenes and some that had me nodding off. The dialogue was hard to follow sometimes and I expect if you were not 100% into the film you could find it quite boring listening to monotomous texan drawl.
I think the plot was overall pretty good but the characters lacked depth most of all.

Report as inappropriate
Wendy said...

Posted on Mar 24 2008 06:20 Fargo was amusing, this movie definitely was not. I can't understand why anyone would say it is brilliant. It did nothing for me at all. Hated the lack of character development. I feel like there is more in a CSI Miami episode than in this movie. Also hated the plot. What is so interesting about stealing drug money and then being hunted down? No surprise there. Also hated the Texas stereotype (and I'm not even native Texan). Hated the ending. But mostly I hated the message or theme of the movie. OK, so maybe I didn't get it. Or maybe the message is so obvious that I wouldn't think anyone would even try to make a point of it. Who doesn't know that good guys don't always win? Or that the world is full of bad people, corruption and evil? We see it on TV every day. (try Court TV). But there's also alot of the opposite, that is there are still a lot of positive things left in this world. Still lots of good individuals out there, although I think corporations and our country have done some bad things. Am I too smart for this movie or too dumb?

Report as inappropriate
Jaleh said...

Posted on Mar 20 2008 20:29 I loved this film. It was spare, it was subtle it was real, it was humane, it was brutal, it was a fantastic yarn, beautifully paced, beautifully and expertly shown on film. Brilliant. It deserved all the kudos it received. I could watch a film like this every day of my life and feel privileged to witness the skill and art of brilliant, all too rare, master movie-makers.

Report as inappropriate
amb said...

Posted on Mar 17 2008 21:54 Without question one of the worst movies ever made. I am so angry that this film has been taken seriously . What a con. How is it that we live in 2008 and yet still be falling for the emperors new clothes scam? When did it become acceptable to tell a story without resolving ANY of the plots themes? No relationships were explored and the characters were so uninteresting and one dimensional that the viewer couldn't invest in any of them. When you dont care about the characters the story becomes pointless and has no chance of being the thriller' it was billed as The writing was lazy and we were expected to buy into ridiculous assumptions (oh I know where he must've hidden the cash!) . None of the characters grow or go on any kind of journey. The Coen Brothers showed complete contempt for the audience by serving up such deliberate tripe. The only good thing about the film is that Tommy Lee Jones screen time is mercifully brief.

Report as inappropriate
zach said...

Posted on Mar 15 2008 12:44 The comments on this site underline exactly the point the Coens are making in their film - but which sail straight over the heads of the growing number of humans whose only measure of a movie is "hey was I entertained...like I was when I saw Epic Movie, or Hot Shots. I was enthralled thru-out and the use of Tommy Lee Jones summation of the increasingly mindless people of the world - i.e. like those who couldn't see the brilliance of this movie let alone spell or write English - was stunning; it took me back to Barton Fink with John Turturro sitting on the beach with a box that may or may not have contained his girlfriend's head. We didn't need to know then - otherwise you have just another Hostel Part II - and thank God the Coens stuckc to their guns and didn't pander to the movie companies out there whose only goal is to make as much money as possible from the droves of people who forget what they saw the minute they walk out of theater, but insist that they had been entertained. The comments here show that this was a five-star rating - it made people think and react. My most brilliant experience watching this was when I realized I had seen maybe 20-30 minutes go by without a single word of dialogue - and indeed was thinking wow ! even Hitch must be impressed up there.

Report as inappropriate
Film Buff said...

Posted on Mar 14 2008 21:56 A movie with a lot of possibilities which it blew right by without a second glance. Strong initial portraits of the three main characters, the Sherirr, the Psycho and the Loser, were never really captiolized on. I thought that was a pity because the character development was so strong in the opening. Ignoring the scene when the Loser lost sort of made sense, he was born to lose and it was inevitable but could have been used to turbocharge the development of the Psycho. The Sheriff wandering idlely picking his nose while the man that killed his deputy was at large certainly proved this was "No Movie for Old Men." More's the pity, there could have been an epic buildup to a confrontation between the Sheriiff and the Psycho. Sadly, they abandoned many of the conventions of story telling which is a useful reminder of why those conventions are used, to provide entertanment. This wrings praise from those bored and jaded with movies as entertainment and leaves those looking for entertainment hung out to dry. As it turned out, this movie is fartistically brilliant and well suited to those who prefer playing with their pretensions rather than those seeking entertainment. I rate it half a pants load.

Report as inappropriate
poolitaaja said...

Posted on Mar 14 2008 04:06 This movie socks!!!! I don't know or understand why it was the best movie at the oscars it is horrible too violent, senseless and Javier Bardem is a genius: won an oscar for just walking and killeng people here and there without saying more than 1000 words ao the film
ii is a shame that they nominate this movie, a great one and deserved to be at the oscars was gone baby gone, excellent film

Report as inappropriate
Nic said...

Posted on Mar 14 2008 00:41 I'm totally surprised by all the viewer comments on this site. I saw No Country today for the first time and absolutely loved it. I checked Rotten Tomatoes and it's sitting at 94%, then I come here and everyone's saying it's crap? Did we watch the same movie?
There is so much tension in this movie and the lack of a conventional musical score just adds to this. I was gripped the whole way through. The acting is superb, and the dashes of black humour are just right. Someone mentioned earlier that a truly good movie should grip you while watching and make you think afterwards, and this one did both for me.
One more thing - stop moaning that we only see the aftermath of Moss's death rather than the death itself! The fact that Bell turns up too late and we experience the scene as he does makes it all the more powerful and hopeless. it's restraint like this that sets the Coen Brothers apart.

Report as inappropriate