No Country for Old Men

As I was leaving the theatre, a woman up ahead of me said to the man she was with, "That's was pretty different."

My first response (internal, of course) was, "Yeah. It was a Cohen Brothers film of a Cormac McCarthy novel."

But as I thought I realized, "No, it wasn't different at all. It was the most conventional Western I've seen in some time."

I guess just because it was set in 1980 the convention wasn't obvious? There is a clear good guy and a clear bad guy. The bad guy even wears black. There are many of the standard formulae of the Western -- shootouts, Mexicans, the law men, the innocent woman caught in the middle, etc.

The cinematography seemed like a John Ford film -- The Searchers just influences everything after it. There was the violence of a Peckinpah. But I thought it had more of the moral sense of a Howard Hawks film, like Red River. Not overwrought with moral ambiguity but not as easily wrapped up as a Ford film.

All that said, I loved it. Not only is it beautifully shot, the acting is impeccable. Almost every actor delivers a spot-on performance filled with nuances. Josh Brolin was incredible, which really surprised me. And Tommy Lee was as good as he can be, which is great. Bardem was fascinating, but I really liked the other two performances better. His was just too one-dimensional for me, though that's how the character was clearly written.

4 1/2 film reels
4 popcorn kernels

Comments

[charles]

That's good to hear. The Cohen Bros are just about the most trustworthy directors out there, so I'm glad they held true.
My next read will likely be a McCarthy novel. I'm thinking either Blood Meridian or No Country for Old Men, maybe that new apocolyptic book. Suggestions?

[Scott]

I found Blood Meridian awfully densely written and really didn't like it. I think I blogged about it somewhere, or maybe commented on Charlie's site. I loved The Road.