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

kjpt140v said...

Posted on Nov 25 2009 22:31 I think Geoff Andrew needs to see the Emperor's new clothes for what they are, nothing. The reviewer wants approval from the establishment. This film, I promise you, is overrated

Report as inappropriate
becky said...

Posted on Oct 16 2009 10:31 i really cannot think why this film gets me right to the edge of my seat. i loved it :)

Report as inappropriate
Purdy Purewal said...

Posted on Apr 13 2009 22:33 So sooooo dissapointed with this movie... couldnt catch it at the cinema so ordered via Love Film and i havent seen such a poor movie in a looong time! SO slow, boring, and it did not go anywhere! Tommy lee Jones was hardly in the movie despite the movie being based on him?! What a puzzle of an end!

Report as inappropriate
jim said...

Posted on Jan 05 2009 02:41 rubbish and boring. very pretentious.

Report as inappropriate
trev said...

Posted on Dec 14 2008 15:08 rubbish

Report as inappropriate
trev said...

Posted on Dec 14 2008 15:08 rubbish

Report as inappropriate
mahedy said...

Posted on Dec 14 2008 15:06 hated it.....boring and no substance in my opinion!!!

Report as inappropriate
George Marshall said...

Posted on Nov 23 2008 23:23 Although highly artful in its styling and photography, I found it impossible to watch this film without asking endless questions about 'why' the characters were doing what they were, and why it was possible for them to keep doing it- and in this case what the point of the whole thing was anyway.
However beautifully acted (this is) any film requires an internal coherence and when a film attempts a kind of realism in its settings and acting style it only makes a greater demand on the plausability of the script. I'm afraid this only confirms my previous conclusions that the Coens are superficial and lacking in the core values that makes real artists.

Report as inappropriate
Thomas Noctor said...

Posted on Oct 07 2008 19:08 This movie is a hugh rip off of 'Night of the running man'. This over hyped piece of non sense has the worst ending I have ever seen in a movie. Extremely boring its the third oscar nominee in a row Ive seen thats rubbish. I love thrillers and action movies. Everyone in cinema came out asking what the Coen Brothers were on when they made this boring move, Even though the opening scenes were promising nothing happens after that. Boring.

Report as inappropriate
GerardThomas said...

Posted on Jun 29 2008 00:05 I have loved all the Coen brothers films up until this one which was frankly a disappointment.
It seemed just ridiculous vilolence without the personal involvement of their earlier films.

Report as inappropriate
Lelo Rom said...

Posted on Jun 22 2008 09:05 This film was absurd in every sense: The fake plot, the stereotyped characters, the picture-postcard locales. Who are the Coen boys, the producers, the distributors trying to hoodwink with this over-rated nonsense?Hint: The American public? Hmm...Yeah, I guess so.Javier Bardem was, frankly, comical with what tension there was in the film pivoting around his invincinbility, his appearance with gas canister supposedly evoking terror in the minds of the most stalwart. Guys: Give us a break! This is American vulgarity at its' worst.

Report as inappropriate
Magmabulle said...

Posted on Jun 07 2008 23:25 The best Coen movie ever made in my opinion, which says a lot. It is suspense and keeps you on the edge of your seat until the very end.

Report as inappropriate
usman khawaja said...

Posted on Jun 06 2008 22:39 thank you richard or dick whatever -your prose is unmatched so you can give others lessons for free ,no i do not know what dramatic licence and nit-picking mean -please give your definitions as you seem to be the prose stylist worthy of ibsen and oscar wilde rolled into one ,but let us decide first what your function is on this forum-giving a critique of movies or nit picking on others -i do hope your majesty will agree nit picking on a personal level is distasteful ,but then i would have thought a fecund imagination like yours will know those public etiquettes .
nice to make your worship's acquaintance

Report as inappropriate
Richard M said...

Posted on Jun 02 2008 23:28 The film won the Oscar for best picture. That used to be quite an honour, but these days that doesn't neccesarily mean 'most entertaining film of the year', its more about either the artistic integrity or liberal message conveyed. The film is absorbing and is generally conventional (I didnt even notice the lack of a musical score) but judging from a number of comments on here, I'm not alone in being disappointed by the ending. Nor am I being a philestine in saying this- I understand the message being conveyed by the sherrif's story, and indeed the title, but there seemed something unresolved, and maybe the Coen's should have created their own epilogue to the book. Yes I was slightly puzzled by a couple of events and its not the perfect film, but to be honest I'm more puzzled by other comments on here, Mr Usman, your 'prose style' needs a little work, never mind your expectations of cinema.. your nit-picking on tiny points and continuity errors should not make up a review. It's a fictional film not a documentary, havent you heard of dramatic licence? And FYI, the film is set in 1980 (maybe this explains the haircut, amongst other things). What I like about this film is that every single word of what little dialogue there is, is absolutely spot on, explaining and asking questions in equal measure. In short, it makes you think. It's not a typical popcorn movie but that's not a bad film. Unintelligent people would call this a bad film. I don't have time to read the book, and I'm sure if I did I would like it a bit more. Atonement, for this reason is the better film from the last year for me.

Report as inappropriate
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