No Country for Old Men

A deadly thrilling neo-western with ruggedly honest tradition. What the mournful narrator tells is not just a tale of a worthy and evil pursuer, but also a multi-layered testament that old times cannot be brought back. Originality in every step, a maddeningly oppressive silence, and a feeling that this story could have been even a good bit longer. (2009-12-25)

The ecstatic cries of American critics, confirmed by the Oscar award, about extreme violence are rather pious pleas of all those who have read McCarthy’s novel and have seen something made by the Coen brothers before. The film is a perfect confirmation that the writers are slowly but surely becoming as arid as the desert on the Texas-Mexico border. This stuff was made for them, but a slave adaptation doesn't make a good movie, and if they didn't have those amazing actors (after American Gangster, Josh Brolin wins again), their adaptation would have absolutely lost its meaning. 70% (rounded down due to expectations). (2008-01-04)

A very different and original film. The Coens have finally stopped messing around with the awkwardly rough comedies that I found so desperately boring and instead made a hard-hitting film without humor, with an atmosphere that could be cut with a knife and action scenes that could be in a film textbook; without a single slow-motion shot, absolutely unpredictable, raw, brutal, realistic, and excellent. The only thing that bothered me was the storyline with the peculiar policeman Tommy Lee Jones. His lamenting over the old times that will never return somehow didn't fit well with the tough story about two tough guys competing for a hefty bundle of money. (2008-07-12)

No Country for Old Men is not for everyone, in fact, I’d say it’s only for a very narrow section of the public. I’m sure the Coens are very satisfied with it, you can’t deny the film has a distinctive style, but what good is that when I almost fell asleep? The plot moves forward very slowly, and in some places it feels that it doesn’t move at all. The shots of the desert landscape (room, car…) are beautiful, but they could have been shorter and less static. I must praise Javier Barden’s amazing performance, without it the experience would have been barely half as good. (2008-08-04)

It’s a cheesy thing to say, but... the book is better. Considerably better. A return to the peak of their skills for the brotherly directing duo? Not at all. More like remaining deep in the shadow not only of McCarthy’s book, but mainly in their own shadow, which is that much worse. Which is a little paradoxical in view of the fact that from the very beginning this was an almost slavish word for word adaptation without any ideas or invention of their own. The Coens are stagnating in terms of creative talent. The whole movie is terribly “readable". If you know their movies, then you will know exactly when to expect what shot, when the camera won’t move, when the next “surprising" cut to another scene will come. What makes it even worse is that the opportunity that Cormac McCarthy offered them in the shape of his existentially moralizing modern day western might not come along again. I can’t deny the perfect atmosphere evocation by means of long takes and perfectly exploited silence. Also they managed to choose an excellent cast. But the mistake that drags it to the bottom of mediocrity is the absolute neglection of the character of Sheriff Bell. His tired old-man’s puttering from one place to the next seems superfluous in this movie. While in the book his storyline full of moral dilemmas over the state of society full of paradoxes is the best part. And then there is the fact that the sudden cut at the end doesn’t fit at all - ok, it’s the same as in the book, but without what preceded it. Tommy Lee Jones’ role is simply worthless. Does what I wrote above that this is a bad movie? No way, but it isn’t really good either. (2008-01-20)