Movies

[Caradoc]

Rolling Stone review of No Country for Old Men:

Misguided souls will tell you that No Country for Old Men is out for blood, focused on vengeance and unconcerned with the larger world outside a standard-issue suspense plot. Those people, of course, are deaf, dumb and blind to anything that isn't spelled out between commercials on dying TV networks. Joel and Ethan Coen's adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel is an indisputably great movie, at this point the year's very best. Set in 1980 in West Texas, where the chase is on for stolen drug money, the film — a new career peak for the Coen brothers, who share writing and directing credits — is a literate meditation (scary words for the Transformers crowd) on America's bloodlust for the easy fix. It's also as entertaining as hell, which tends to rile up elitists. What do the criminal acts of losers in a flyover state have to do with the life of the mind?

Plenty, as it turns out. McCarthy reveals a soulless America that is no country for anyone, never mind old men. The so-called codger representing besieged law and order is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, played by Tommy Lee Jones with the kind of wit and assurance that reveals a master actor at the top of his game. On the page, the sheriff is a tad too folksy, dishing out cracker-barrel wisdom to his good wife, Loretta (Tess Harper), with a twinkle written into his homespun truths. As you already know by now (and In the Valley of Elah categorically proves it), Mr. Jones does not do twinkle. He's a hard-ass. And when he chews into a good line, you can see the bite marks. Here's the sheriff on how crime has gotten so out of hand: "It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearin' 'sir' and 'ma'am,' the end is pretty much in sight."

That unpretty end takes the form of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), an assassin who rivals Hannibal Lecter for dispatching his victims without breaking a sweat. Bardem, with pale skin and the world's worst haircut, is stupendous in the role, a monster for the ages. Beneath his dark eyes lies something darker, evil topped with the cherry of perverse humor. Chigurh carries around a bulky cattle gun. He'll politely ask a mark to get out of a car before he caps him in the head; that way the car won't get messy with gristle and brain matter. And he has this little game he plays. Staring at the human species like a visitor from another planet, Chigurh flips a coin. Your choice of heads or tails might just save your life. Only don't piss him off.

It's Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) who comes down hard on Chigurh's bad side. Moss is a cowboy in a world with no more room for cowboys. He enjoys teasing his wife, Carla Jean (the excellent Kelly Macdonald), but you can feel his discontent. Then one day, when he's out hunting antelope, he gets his shot at the big score. Right out there in the desert are a half-dozen dead bodies drawing flies. One man, barely alive, sits in a truck and begs for water. It's a massacre. There's also a stash of heroin and $2 million in cash. Moss takes the cash and runs. Wouldn't you? That question sets up the film's moral dilemma and puts us in Moss' boots. This is Brolin's breakthrough — he rips into the role like a man possessed, giving Moss the human touch the part needs. Moss even returns to the scene that night with water for the dying man. Huge mistake. Shots ring out, and Moss, after packing his wife off to her folks, goes on the run with Chigurh on his tail and the sheriff tracking both of them.

That's all you'll hear from me about plot. The kick comes in watching all the gears mesh with thrilling exactitude. I've heard some carping about the ending, which stays tone-faithful to McCarthy instead of going for Hollywood pow. Hmm. I thought that'd be worth a cheer. No Country for Old Men offers an embarrassment of riches. Jones, Bardem and Brolin all give award-caliber performances. Roger Deakins again proves himself a poet of light and shadow as director of photography. Carter Burwell's insinuating score finds a way to nail every nuance without underlining a single one of them. Props are also due editor Roderick Jaynes, who no one's ever seen, since he's a pseudonym both Coen brothers hide behind.

OK, then. How does No Country for Old Men stack up against the best work of these artfully merry pranksters? Near the top, I'd say. There are echoes of Fargo when a deputy declares, "It's a mess, ain't it, Sheriff?" and the sheriff answers, "If it ain't, it'll do till the mess gets here." And admirers of Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink and even The Big Lebowski will find tasty bits of bright and bleak to noodle on. But this landmark of a movie is fresh territory for the Coens, accused, often unfairly, of glib facility and lack of passionate purpose. Screw that. Not since Robert Altman merged with the short stories of Raymond Carver in Short Cuts have filmmakers and author fused with such devastating impact as the Coens and McCarthy. Good and evil are tackled with a rigorous fix on the complexity involved. Recent movies about Iraq have pushed hard to show the growing dehumanization infecting our world. No Country doesn't have to preach or wave a flag — it carries in its bones the virus of what we've become. The Coens squeeze us without mercy in a vise of tension and suspense, but only to force us to look into an abyss of our own making.

[ThunderTitan]

Books often have much more of a storyline than a movie may have (duh) because a movie is, on average, about 2 or so hours in length and there is a limit too how much of a story you can fit into the movie.

Fist film ever made took over 16 hours... they kept cutting it until the 2 hour cut didn't make any sense...

Or do I crack open the Babylon 5 complete collection and start there?

No... first you invite me over for a B5 marathon...

[Kalah]

Sorry, but you know quite well what would happen if you and I were ever in the same room. Firestorms in Indian swamps, elephants appearing in chimneys, black holes appearing, left becoming wright, cosmic singularities etc... let's not open up that can of worms, eh?

[Old_Man]

Fist film ever made took over 16 hours... they kept cutting it until the 2 hour cut didn't make any sense...

It's a first film ever made, what can you expect? For it to be perfect the first time? . A lot of experimenting would go into it and if cutting it didn't make much sense then that would later be improved upon and would turn into what we all know today. You can take what you said and apply it to computers. First computers were massive, some as big as the room. Now what do we get today? We get ones that can be held in our hands. It's all evolved since then.

[Veldrynus]

Sorry, but you know quite well what would happen if you and I were ever in the same room.

What? You two ladies would instantly start lezzing out?

[Veldrynus]

Fist film ever made took over 16 hours... they kept cutting it until the 2 hour cut didn't make any sense...

It's a first film ever made, what can you expect? For it to be perfect the first time? . A lot of experimenting would go into it and if cutting it didn't make much sense then that would later be improved upon and would turn into what we all know today. You can take what you said and apply it to computers. First computers were massive, some as big as the room. Now what do we get today? We get ones that can be held in our hands. It's all evolved since then.

Actually, I don't think so. The very first feature film titled The Story of the Kelly Gang was 70 minutes long. Such a length was a huge accomplishment around that time. Due to technical limitations the shorter works were more trendy.

[Borsuc]

First computers were massive, some as big as the room. Now what do we get today? We get ones that can be held in our hands. It's all evolved since then.

That is more because of technical limitations rather than a "first mistake"

I mean, it's not like a 2 hour movie needs more technical advancements than a 16 hour one

[Kalah]

Just watched The Dark Knight on a 42" plasma screen backed up by a big home-made stereo. Spoilers coming up, btw...

Negatives: the make-up/effects of Harvey's face was bad, m'kay. Poor. Also, Bale's somewhat mediocre performance as the Batman made me feel a bit of a longing back to the days of Michael Keaton, who did the BruceWaynely bit better. I was also a bit miffed the Joker didn't die, like he did in the first movie. Still...

Ledger's performance left little to be desired. It is spec-tac-ular. That thing he does with his tongue and the smacking of the lips... the strange behaviour from insane to ingenious, and how did he do that voice!? When Nicholson did the Joker he didn't have to change his at all; Ledger doesn't sound anything like himself, he sounds like... the true Joker. The scene when he blows up the hospital and walks away.. it takes a spectacular method actor to do that. No wonder playing the role got H.L. so stressed...

Also, good performances from the others; Oldman is his usual class performer, and I enjoyed the way his voice carried over to the end credits. Caine is good, but I think it's a poor choice of the director to have his character Alfred explain the differences between order and chaos.

[darknessfood]

Watched van Wilder 2:the Rise of Taj. Entertaining, but predictable for the most times, and a bit cliché, but it was nice...

[Jolly Joker]

Just watched The Dark Knight on a 42" plasma screen backed up by a big home-made stereo. Spoilers coming up, btw...

Negatives: the make-up/effects of Harvey's face was bad, m'kay. Poor. Also, Bale's somewhat mediocre performance as the Batman made me feel a bit of a longing back to the days of Michael Keaton, who did the BruceWaynely bit better. I was also a bit miffed the Joker didn't die, like he did in the first movie. Still...

Ledger's performance left little to be desired. It is spec-tac-ular. That thing he does with his tongue and the smacking of the lips... the strange behaviour from insane to ingenious, and how did he do that voice!? When Nicholson did the Joker he didn't have to change his at all; Ledger doesn't sound anything like himself, he sounds like... the true Joker. The scene when he blows up the hospital and walks away.. it takes a spectacular method actor to do that. No wonder playing the role got H.L. so stressed...

Also, good performances from the others; Oldman is his usual class performer, and I enjoyed the way his voice carried over to the end credits. Caine is good, but I think it's a poor choice of the director to have his character Alfred explain the differences between order and chaos.

I did the same yesterday. Let me add that I've read quite a few Batman comics as well. The Dark Knight is quite obviously - for certain reasons - the best Batman movie up to now - by a fair margin.
One reason is indeed H.L. supreme performance as the Joker in combination with a very spectacular script. It's worthy to note, that his scenes were not digitally dubbed in any way and that the videos the Joker sends within the movie were directed by Ledger himself, with Nolan being so pleased with the first one that he wasn't even there when Ledger made the second.
I'm not easily impressed, but indeed Ledger's performance is absolutely mesmerizing. You have to see it to believe it - he should win the Oscar hands down.
However, I disagree about Bale. For me the story is a bit different. Indeed, Keaton ia a supreme Batman/Wayne in the first Batman movie - but only if you regard the comics up to a certain point in time. You see, the character of Batman and the style have changed over time, and Keaton repesents the Batman until up to the mid-80s.
Nolan's version, however, follows Frabk Miller's Batman, a much, much darker hero in a much darker universe - a universe is which, as Rachel says it in the movie, not Bruce Wayne wears the mask of Batman (the role Keaston plays well), but instead Batman wears the mask of Bruce Wayne. You might say hat Bruce Wayne stayed the kid he was when his parents were shot, forever lost in guilt and terror, to be a grown-up person only as Batman.
Closing the circle, I think that Bale does a great job to let Bruce Wayne appear like being played by a bad actor, if you know what I mean. Or, to phrase it differently, Bale plays Batman playing Bruce Wayne - which he does quite well in my opinion. You can tell that it works - I don't think it's only me feeling that Wayne feels uncomfortable when NOT being Batman. The Wayne identity is indeed his real mask, not vice versa.

I'm not yet sure about Two-Face's mask. It's certainly breathtakingly gruesome and has a good shock value. Since he won't appear again, obviously, it may have done the job it should do. If he would have been developed as a lasting character, things may have been done differently.

For Joker's death - well you just can't let him die as you cannot let the devil die when you tell the story of god. The Joker is THE villain for Batman, even more so then the Goblin for Spiderman.
In hindsight it might have been better due to H.L.'s death - I don't see anyone slipping into the role of the Joker within the next 20 years or so - it would take a supreme effort to follow Ledger on that track.

For everyone NOT having seen Ledger perform the Joker you can watch him on YouTube. Try it, it's certainly worth it.

[Elvin]

Looks like I wasn't the only one to watch it these days And damn that was a good film. When I first watched it at cinema I was blown away, many brilliant moments and as you said Heath's performance was spectacular. I was not sure quite what to expect and his chaotic approach often took me by surprise, he wasn't exactly a jolly good fellow. I hoped batman would let him regale how he got those scars the third time That was also a sad moment in the film, when he said they would be fighting forever.. Lady Luck has a bitter sense of irony sometimes.

And agreed on the Wayne part, as he says in the first movie that's not him. Even when he acts as Wayne his mind is elsewhere, it's all an act. Somehow I liked Bale better in the first movie, maybe because he had more Wayne time then. That jerkish image he kept was hilarious.

[Kalah]

The South Park movie is on. Laughing my ass off....

[ThunderTitan]

For Joker's death - well you just can't let him die as you cannot let the devil die when you tell the story of God.

Spoilers: actually, that's exactly what happens to the devil in the end...

[Kalah]

I just thought it was done really well in the first film, with the laughing-box and everything... a really eery scene. Would've liked to see that done by Ledger.

[darknessfood]

Resident Evil was on tv, man I hate movies based on games...

[Asheera]

Some of them are not that bad but some indeed are utter failures... and this goes the other way around as well (games based on movies)

[Borsuc]

You mean Resident Evil 1? It was ok. In fact, quite good I might say.

[darknessfood]

Really, you found it good.I hated it, and 2 was even worse. How they can screw up something cool like Nemesis is beyond my believe...

[Borsuc]

I haven't watched the others but I heard they are a lot worse than 1.

[darknessfood]

Really, Nemesis beeing controlled by a remote controll (riiiiiiiiight), and the powe ranger fight on the end, that was juts crap...