Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Movie, Book, and Music Review No Country fof Old Men

I seen it last night, or more accurately I saw the last half, twice.

What happened was I was a few minutes late and walked into the movie after what I assumed must have been the opening credits. A bit of a puzzle that the local working-class stiff welder guy out hunting had already found the drug money at the shooting site, but I went with it.

This movie is unpredictable enough you can't tell that you got in late, I only fully realized it when the movie ended just ninety minutes later. Turns out there were TWO theaters in that hallway showing overlapping screenings, I walked into the wrong one. I got to watch the last half again anyhow.

Anyway a very well-crafted movie, by the same guys that made "Fargo". And a careful period piece set in the West Texas of twenty-five years ago.

This place has changed since then, but even back then I dunno you could stand on the retaining wall of even a sleepy International Bridge to toss a suitcase containing a million bucks over the railing and down onto the brushy banks of the Rio Grande and expect a) nobody official to notice and b) said new-looking suitcase would still be there even one day, let alone three days later as the plot suggests.

A fine turn by the actor who plays the welder, not at all awed by the criminal forces unleashed against him. Also a fine turn by Woody Harrelson as one hit man, and an equally fine one by whoever played the Mexican hit man, an accomplished psychopath who uses an air powered slaughterhouse bolt gun to efficiently take out door locks, and a silenced 12 gauge pump for reliable one-shot stops on his victims (I had never seen such a beast before, I guess its possible, maybe with low charges in the rounds).

I will call a possible blooper in that some shots he clearly uses buck, others what appear to be slugs.

Worth seeing though just for Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of a weary Sherrif, outgunned and overwhelmed by the evil pouring through his country (a minor detail; he carries his .45 in condition two).

It weren't actually shot in West Texas, but New Mexico serves as a pretty good stand-in.

Watching it, it called to mind a modern-day "Lonesome Dove" or "Street of Laredo", with Jones in that same territory up against a modern-day psychopath on the scale of Blue Duck or that blond Mexican kid with the Mauser from "Laredo".

The ending changes all that though.

Birdwatcher

Not particularly. The Coen brothers butchered Cormac McCarthy's book by adding dialogue and scenes of their own creation and leaving out key elements that explain each character's place in the story.

For instance, the "well-dressed Mexican" who assisted Carla Jean and her mother at the El Paso bus depot. The book identifies him as Pablo Acosta, the man who put Anton Chigurh on his mission. The Coen brothers instead have him in a totally incongruous scene that makes absolutely NO SENSE.

Steven Root's character, aka the "man who hires Wells," was supposedly in a completely secure office where he was supposed to be safe from everything. Yet Chigurh breaches the security and kills him. This was an important point in the book (as in death will find you no matter what) and explained in the dialogue that SHOULD have occurred between Steven Root and Woody Harrelson. Again, the Coen brothers chose to omit this for some unknown reason.

I'm a BIG Coen brothers fan and a BIG fan of the book on which this movie was SUPPOSED to be based, but I'm extremely disappointed in this "interpretation."

Made perfect sense to me when we see 2 Mexicans trying to hop into the running Bronco after shooting Lewellen in El Paso. How do you think they knew where to find him?

Here, let's include the ENTIRE quote you're referencing, not just the parts you like:
It only "makes sense" to you because you don't know any better. Let's spin your dogma some. How did the "well-dressed Mexican" find Carla Jean and her mother? Telepathy? Movie magic? The book makes reference to a Mexican hitman driving a Plymouth Barracuda and a telephone tap when Carla Jean called Sheriff Bell at his home to tell him where Lewellyn was. (Which -- by the way -- was Van Horn, Texas, not El Paso.) It also refers to Chigurh breaking into Carla Jean's mother's house in Odessa and finding the telephone bill. The hitman shoots a teenage runaway traveling with Lewellyn and then shoots Lewellyn. Chigurh shoots the hitman and takes the satchel of money.

Is the relationship of the "well-dressed Mexican" to Chigurh explained in the movie? Yes or no? If you actually SAW the movie -- and I mean you were paying attention and AWAKE -- you might understand.

The scene to which you refer NEVER occurred in the book.

Read the book, then come back and comment. Or maybe actually watch the movie.

Maybe you should learn that life isn't designed to make you [bleep] happy. If I wanted to read the book I would have. When have you EVER read a book, then seen the movie and have them line up EXACTLY one for one, line for line? (Adaptations of plays excluded)



The "relationship" is not explained - but it isn't necessary to entertain me for 2 hours 40 minutes at a whopping cost of 6 bucks. We never find out if he gets the antelope either but I am not going to cry like a little woman over that.

Does it flipping matter where exactly he gets the telephone bill? I think not. What would a teenage runaway have added to the movie?
Are you familiar with how movies are made from a book? Just how long a screenplay has to be compared to a book? The paperback book was 320 pages a screenplay is usually 120-135.



No it makes sense because I don't need to to be lead from scene to scene like a freshman in an American Lit class because I can't make inferences for myself.

I went and saw the movie and was entertained for a very reasonable price. I can enjoy things because I, apparently, am not as mad at the world as you are - because I didn't expect the Coen to write the screenplay to follow the book 100% exactly and because I have enough mental horsepower to realize things happen in stories that we aren't going to be shown, it is up to me to fill in the spots. If you can't handle that - I suggest you pull the shades down and try and keep the world out of your life because it all isn't going to go like a book where you are fed EVERYTHING.

ETA:

I went to watch a movie not a book and based on that this is easily the front runner for picture of the year. The Coen brothers built suspense in that movie like no other they have done. Anton outside the hotel door, the peanut wrapper in the little gas station, the way Anton is a total cold killer but not as detached as Gaear Grimsrud in Fargo.

1 NT Times best selling author (who has a movie in the works as we speak) put it this way:

This is essentially a movie about good and evil - not the triumph of one over the other but their existence. In the end Anton gives Moss' wife a chance out but she denies it - says it has nothing to do with the coin (we never see him kill her but you KNOW she is dead after). The only time Anton is ever showing any type of fear is as Tommy Lee Jones comes back into the room where Moss died - Anton is behind the door. You EXPECT TLJ to get smoked and it never happens. Coen brothers can create some tension for sure.

As I understand it from people who have read the book - Anton recovers the money in the book - I knew it from the movie even tho they don't say it outright - Anton pays the kid with a 100 for the shirt and we did see the HVAC vent off with the dime.

The sound editing of the flick was great too. No crappy background music trying to gin up suspense. Straight forward cinema.


Here is a link to the screenplay as it was written : NCFOM

In other words, someone with limited reading skills -- like you -- needs pictures. And popups.

Uh, "The Sand Pebbles," "Shane," "The Getaway," "Band of Brothers," etc. I realize you're a fairly young person without a range of experiences, but movies based on books should typically follow the narrative on which they're based. Perhaps you should choose to excercise your mind with a good book in the future.

In other words, you're now admitting that that part of the movie makes NO SENSE.

Uh, he found $2 million. Why in the hell would he give a damn about antelope hunting? Did you watch the movie? Or were you watching the kids' movie next door? It's okay, go ahead and admit it. The point of the money from Lewellyn's standpint was nothing else mattered anymore. Did you watch the movie? Do you remember when he told Carla Jean she was retired? Do you recall when he told her they were leaving everything they owned in the trailer, because they didn't need it anymore?

Yep. It's called KEEPING THE STORY IN CONTEXT.

Are you aware how SHORT this book was? Perhaps it's all beyond your reading level. (It all goes back to your need of picture books and popups.)

In other words, it doesn't take much to entertain someone of your ilk. You cannot accept the fact that I criticized your "favorite" movie. It happens. It's life. Get over it, little man. You took offense when I pointed out some obvious problems with the movie and you chose to respond with a rather angry and immature rant. Go back to your sandbox and stick to "Sponge Bob Square Pants."

Short book? - 320 pages is almost the equivalent of 3 screenplays - that is 3 complete movies and before the book was published it was turned in at around 600 pages. Wonder what was edited.

Hmmm - a person posted (Birdwatcher) that they enjoyed a movie and YOU posted your rant about how it wasn't exactly like the book.
Talk about juvenile.

I never admitted that the scene didn't make sense - I simply pointed out that I didn't need the director to think for me - I could infer that after Anton got Moss to basically admit his wife was in Odessa he called the Mexicans with his next quarter. Am guessing if the Mexicans can put guys with machine pistols in hotel rooms they can station a few at the bus stop and train station and any other reasonable place in Odessa. It was OBVIOUS that the "well dressed Mexican" was pumping the mother for information. (it is called social engineering - appearing to be something you are not to get information usually from people that have little consideration or understanding what persec or opsec is) I mean someone as old and well read as you shouldn't have to have their hand held to make that monster jump in deduction.

It does take quite a bit to entertain me - I actually use my mind instead of expecting things to be handed to me on a platter. I routinely read up to 4 books at a time and my tab at the local book store is usually over my truck payment each month. Yea - I can [bleep] read. And before you get all excited and accuse me of having no life experience or limited mental capacity - I have traveled communist countries, speak several languages (that is more than 2 - none of them Spanish) and yea for 30 (compared to many at my age) I have seen some things and done some things that most haven't.

You want to cast insults fine but what I find odd is your biggest complaints about the movie (voice here anyway) aren't the largest deviations from the book. We get almost ZERO information from the movie about the Sheriff being a WWII hero. Yet you leave that out - all you were really looking to do is piss and moan because you didn't have something exactly the way you wanted - it wasn't the movie was different than the book - just those scenes where things weren't as you decided they should be. Did you even read the screen play?

Those were the things I took the time to discuss. Pay attention. I realize from other nonsense you've posted that you're a very young person. And your "experiences" aren't particularly worldly. That's not meant to be an insult, it's just a statement of fact.

I liked the book. It's 309 pages of fairly large type. Since you're apparently not inclined to excercise your mind through reading, allow me to explain what that means: IT'S SHORT AND FAST READING.

The theme of the book is of good and evil, with greed being man's downfall. That's pretty simple, is it not? (Feel free to add a yes or no as you see fit.)

I also like the Coen brothers. "Blood Simple," "Miller's Crossing," "Raising Arizona," "The Big Lebowski," "The Ladykillers," and "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" are among my favorite movies. They each tell a story of morality cleverly wrapped in an entertaining movie.

I don't feel that way about "No Country For Old Men." It's disjointed and is only LOOSELY based on the parent novel. The Coen brothers actually ADDED a significant number of scenes to the movie that only make the story more difficult to follow. At the same time, they DELETED several key parts from Cormac McCarthy's novel that would have only aided in telling their usual morality tale. Get it?

That's called my OPINION. Savvy?

What you are not getting is while 320 pages is a light night of reading - it is NOT A MOVIE. Book does not = movie - when the Cohen brothers bought the option or rights to the book, they negotiated what they could and could not do regarding the story to make it fit a 120~ish page screenplay. That is why the movie isn't a replica of the book with pictures. I am not commenting on the reading aspect but on the way movies are made - and 320 paperback pages will not be a 320 page screenplay. Get it?

My point never was that I don't or wont read - but simply that you didn't have to read the book to enjoy the movie for what it was. Get it?

I agree on the theme of the movie/book - in fact I posted that before:


I am willing to stipulate based on not reading the book that the theme is good/evil - I also got the same exact story out of the movie. Get it?


Only because you are tied to the preconceived notions of what the story is from reading the book. The movie is easy to follow without reading the book for anyone who can understand tracking a person down, protagonist/antagonist relationships and a damn good modern western. (Tell me you didn't think Lee Van Cleef in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" when you saw Anton. A cold-blooded killer who sticks to his principles. Shooting Moss' wife because he gave his word? You even see the human side of Anton there by giving her the chance with the coin to live. The guy exudes this pervasive sense of unease in all of his scenes, and creates so much tension during his confrontations with the people he usually ends up killing.)

The movie on it's own (without reading the book or even people who aren't necessarily familiar with the Cohen brothers work) is an enjoyable movie - it is easy to follow and other than some initial issue with Anton's accent or manner of speaking - it took me several lines to get how he says things so I can easily understand his lines.

ETA: The cinematography was great - the use of soft focus and editing was good. The lack of music (esp considering how much music has played a role in other Cohen movies) and while the conversation doesn't have the zingy one-liners that most movies seem to have these days - it does have some very memorable lines:



Comes off as real people speak without sounding like "CB voice". There isn't a major star making bad jokes or comedy relief in the movie - it is played out very real. No CGI or any such crap either.



What's great about that is no Texan forgets his mother is dead - obviously Moss has a ton of stuff on his mind and serious misgivings about what he is about to do.



Anton says this to Woody's character - obviously there is a past between them (Woody knew what he looked like and lived) and Anton knew Woody by name - it's kind of like lingere - you know there is something back there but it's obfuscated.

What YOU don't seem to grasp is they ADDED scenes and dialogue, while DELETING the same from the book. This makes the story DISJOINTED. You've already admitted as much.

Yes, Javier Bardem was very menacing and was probably the best possible person to play Chigurh. But that point is moot.

Show me where I admitted the movie was disjointed.

Here you go, dude:

What you also don't seem to be able to handle is that someone liked something you feel they shouldn't based on some feeling of inflated self worth. After all someone who reads as much as you or likes the Cohen brothers as much as you and you don't like the movie - then it's crap.

And no I really don't care that you don't like it I really don't think much of you as a person.

No skin of my back - it's all just electrons over some cable and fiber optic lines. The only reason I got into the thread to begin with was your holier than thou attitude towards another poster's review of the movie.

You obviously spend too much time thinking you have the answers and that much has been obvious since your initial postings on the single shot forums. Nothing but criticism. Quite honestly you aren't worth the effort and I simply am not going to waste my time with your shortcomings as a person/man.

Good day.

That isn't disjointed - it didn't detract from my understanding of the movie - we never see everything that happens to everyone in every movie - are they all disjointed?

Don't go away mad. Just go away. And read the book while you're at it. You know, make the most of your time. I'll help: The Book.

Sure it is. A character pops out of nowhere, with no explanation and no introduction and diappears just as quickly. Read the book.

Talk about disjointed...

Argue, fuss & cuss all you want but, kindly quit changing the suject topic.

I ain't gonna argue about its fidelity to the book, because I didn't read it, but I liked whatever story was up there on the screen, mainly because it wasn't the usual, predictable Hollywood tripe. For that reason alone, I count it as probably the best movie I saw in '07, although I see fewer movies every year it seems.

Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem, an actor from Spain, not Mexico, in case anyone was confused, were EXCELLENT, and the rest of the cast did admirable jobs.

This is off topic, but I've heard good reviews about Cormac McCarthy's book "Blood Meridian," so it's on my short list to read within the next couple of months.
DAL357

P.S. I know a thing or two about Hollywood-butchered books. I can't watch either the old B&W or the newer Disney versions of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" because they completely urinate on everything Victor Hugo was trying to show with his novel, namely that life back then was short, nasty, and brutish. When those Hollywood rumphumpers put a happy ending on their versions, they ruined the entire story. I detest Hollywood and I hope it collectively strangles to death on its own vomit.

Wow fellas, sorry I looked at this thread. Maybe you should take it outside - or at least to the PM's so we don't have to see it.

Gosh, where have I been?

I saw nothing incongrous in the movie, except maybe the concept of a major shootout in downtown Eagle Pass with nobody noticing.

As for them finding the adress/phone bill, I do recall Chugarsh looking for and removing the VIN plate off of LLwellyn's truck, and then finding the phone bill on the floor of their trailer.

A bit unrealistic that Llwelyn could hunt so freely on so much open land, the movie must have been set in some other Texas, the Texas I know is all fenced off.

Anyone who doubts that folks would know that Llwelyn's wife had gone to visit her mother, and that her mother lived in Amarillo, ain't spent much time in Sanderson Tx, especially Sanderson of twenty years back (not that its changed all that much).

The only improbability I saw was that computer generated crow ay night on the bridge, that don't have crows anywhere between Del Rio and Eagle Pass, just Chihuahua Ravens, which look and sound different.

A bit of a stretch, given the limited range of the transponder,that Chugarsh could find Llwelyn in Eagle Pass after coming so close at the motel in Del Rio. OTOH, there ain't very many highways out of Del Rio and Eagle Pass would be a pretty good gamble..

Also, the Rio Grande and bridge in the movie were clearly not the river and bridge in Texas, turns out the scene was prob'y shot in Albuquerque, which makes a lot more sense.

Birdwatcher