Adam Brucker

From a friend…

So I was browsing your blog this morning and noticed a rave review of No Country for Old Men. I recently bought the dvd and just watched it for the first time this weekend.

Frankly, I just don’t understand why anyone thought this movie was remotely watchable. I mean, I enjoyed the psycotic Javier Bardem character and all but there was just so little else…and the ending? Jesus. I actually said to myself as the credits were rolling…”what happened to Lard Ass?”

I’d really love some commentary on why people found this movie enjoyable…I honestly think people give media way too much credit just because a story leaves something out, leaves something to imagination or just doesn’t finish the story that was set in motion. Yes, it was a different way to tell a story but that’s all I saw…

Overall, I just didn’t find it entertaining at all…perhaps I was angered more b/c it won an oscar, etc.

Thoughts?

Okay, I’ll bite…

This movie seems to inspire the same sense of bewilderment in some of its viewers that Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) felt about the rising tide of violence in West Texas in the early 80’s.

Somewhat ironic that much of the audience (see the incredible amount of one and two star reviews on Amazon.com) is completly missing the main theme of the movie: Life can be relentless and complex, and will at no time bend to neatly fit your expectations. There are forces at work that you simply can’t control and it’s an act of conceit to believe otherwise. The sooner that you realize this, the better off you will be.

The big hangup seems to be that the people who didn’t like this film were generally expecting a big shootout out at the end and were disappointed when the directors chose to resolve most of the big plot points off the screen.

If you look at the details presented in the film, it’s pretty clear that:

• Moss is killed by the Mexicans at the motel at the end of the film
• His wife is killed by Chigurh at her house

The only detail left up in the air is who got the money, Chigurh or the Mexicans, and I believe that this is purposefully left unsolved because it really doesn’t matter - the movie was never about the money.

Now, assuming that a second or third viewing of the movie will make sense of the plot points for someone, is a negative reaction to the movie still justified?

Sort of.

You could say that it’s boring, you could say that it’s too “artsy” or violent, you could say that you didn’t like the characters - I suppose all of those would fall into the “you’re entitled to your own opinion category” and it would be tough to objectively argue against such subjective things.

But, to say that the movie was “unwatchable” or didn’t deserve Oscar consideration doesn’t fly with me. Hyperbolic media reactions aside, this film deserves the accolades that it has received, and if you can’t at least “appreciate it,” even if it’s not your cup of tea, then I say order another Bud Light at The Olive Garden and enjoy your breadsticks because, like Sheriff Bell, you’re in for a long hard ride from here on out.

Now, I’m no elitist (in the past week I’ve watched a NASCAR race from start to finish (who’s going to stop that Kyle Busch!?!), seen “Iron Man” in the theater, and yes, have even put back a couple of Bud Lights), but in this case I’d say that if you go beyond not personally enjoying the movie and question others for thinking it’s great, you’re in the wrong on this one.

To be fair, my friend’s comment above doesn’t go this far, and our subsequent email exchange confirmed his open mindedness about the film, but he’s uncommonly reserved compared to most of the people who didn’t like this film.

I’ll also admit to not really answering his “what’s so great about this movie” question - there are much better commentaries out there to read - and also to having asked similar questions myself in the past:

For example, I don’t “get” the new Radiohead album that made the top of every single best of 2007 list last year. I’m still waiting for someone to explain the genius of it all to me, but knowing enough about Radiohead and their prior work (”The Bends” is coming to any desert island I ever get sent to), I’m willing to concede that there is something happening there above and beyond the huge amount of hipster-fanboy fanboying going on.

I’ll also concede that there are plenty of things out there that really are lousy, “No Country For Old Men,” is just not one of them.

And, one last point, depending on your definition of “psychotic,” I’d argue that Chigurh is potentially the least psychotic character in the entire movie.

Other comments?

Loved this movie in the theater and it was even better seeing it a second time on video not having to worry about the plot quite as much.

Not sure if this is the Coen Brother’s best film (gotta love the almost 100, one and two star reviews on Amazon), but it’s up there - here’s how I’d grade their films:

• No Country for Old Men (2007) = A
• The Ladykillers (2004) = Haven’t Seen
• Intolerable Cruelty (2003) = B-
• The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001) = B
• O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) = A
• The Big Lebowski (1998) = A+
• Fargo (1996) = A
• The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) = B+
• Barton Fink (1991) = B
• Miller’s Crossing (1990) = B+
• Raising Arizona (1987) = A
• Blood Simple. (1984) = A-

Anton Chigurh: Don’t put it in your pocket, sir. Don’t put it in your pocket. It’s your lucky quarter.
Gas Station Proprietor: Where do you want me to put it?
Anton Chigurh: Anywhere not in your pocket. Where it’ll get mixed in with the others and become just a coin. Which it is.

(If you liked No Country, rent Blood Simple to see where it all started.)

There’s a lot not to like about this movie: it’s essentially the same story as Anderson’s previous two outings, The Royal Tenenbaums (2002) and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2005), much of the dialog, filmmaking technique, and visual effects are recycled material as well, and overall it feels like (at best) a lateral move for the director.

That said, I’ve been strangely compelled to watch The Darjeeling Limited three times in the past week. Even if it is a retread, and potentially Wes Anderson’s least compelling film, it’s still a solid movie that I think would have been received more favorably if it were considered outside of Anderson’s other great work.

The director’s attention to detail is as amazing as always, his ability to convey a sense of place (this time in India) is powerful, and he seems to have mastered the slow-burn approach to developing the story in the absence of anything more than a few minimalist plot devices.

So yes, ultimately The Darjeeling Limited is just another typical Wes Anderson movie, but, as I’ve said before, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

I’d recommend that you rent it and see for yourself…

I officially gave up on the Oscar’s in 1994 when Forrest Gump beat out Pulp Fiction - the greatest movie of all time - for best picture.

This year pulled me back in as I had seen more than half of the films nominated for the major awards, including 4 of the 5 up for best picture, and thought that 2007 was a great year for movies in general.

Not to mention, I’m a John Stewart fan, love the Coen brothers, hope that Paul Thomas Anderson makes another 20 movies, and was genuinely interested in who took home the top prizes.

Well, it seems that my tastes don’t line up all that well with the rest of the country - the news reported today that this was the least watched Oscars EVER

Sunday’s broadcast now ranks as the smallest U.S. TV audience for the Oscars since 1974, when actual viewer totals first became available. The household rating, 18.7, also marks the lowest level by that measure going back to the first televised Oscars in 1953.

Doesn’t surprise me…

Wow, it feels odd to be recommending a Ben Affleck movie given the bulk of his recent work, (his earlier roles in Dazed and Confused, Mallrats, and Good Will Hunting obviously excluded) but he really does an amazing job in his directorial debut. If you’ve ever spent any time in Boston off the beaten path, you will love this movie.

Even more so than Affleck’s prior take on Boston, the excellent Good Will Hunting, Gone Baby Gone is a brutally honest and unflinching depiction of the city and the people who live there. Having lived in Boston and worked in Dorchester (way back when), where the bulk of the action takes place, I recognized a lot of the locations, and while I ran with a slightly different crowd, I definitely know people who know the people who could have been cast in this movie.

Throughout the movie I kept remarking how well Affleck nailed every detail. I especially enjoyed all of the neighborhood bar scenes - scary places indeed, and I loved how it was always a nice bright afternoon outside in contrast to the shabby, dimly lit, packed with locals sort of establishments that you can find throughout the city.

Definitely an upgrade over 2003’s, good-but-not-as-good, Mystic River. Both movies are adaptations of Dennis Lehane novels but Clint Eastwood, who directed the first film, just didn’t have the benefit of that South Boston DNA that Affleck clearly drew heavily upon.

A special mention for the mustache worn by Titus Welliver (the guy who played “Adams” in the TV show Deadwood) - worthy of an Oscar on its own.

More Info & Links:

Date Watched: 2/23/08 dvd
IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452623/
Amazon Link: Gone Baby Gone
Rotten Tomatoes : 93% Fresh