5Q Movie Review: No Country For Old Men

Q: So all these critics and Filmic Boards of Judgement are proclaiming this one of The Best Movies Ever Conceived, etc. So I'll hate it, right?
A: "No Country" is not exactly a crowd-pleaser, but neither is it an inaccessible, artsy blur. It's a grim, brutal story of some bad people trying to recover some money. Many might be turned off by the violence and overall tone. For many others, the storytelling style might be more of a detriment. The Coen brothers load this film with a lot of the things that critics (and people who see a lot of movies) love but Joe Moviegoer often hates, ambiguity being first and foremost.

Q: Javier Bardem just steals the movie as the ruthless killer Chigurh, doesn't he? Will he be a shoo-in for some awards?
A: He is certainly an effective screen villain, providing a fearsome presence. However, Tommy Lee Jones is far more memorable as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, who is trying to sort everything out. His character is apparently laid back, especially considering the events around him and the intensity of the situation, but he is no less competent or charismatic for it. Bardem can't steal the money from Jones, who delivers his often wry, often philosophic dialogue with just the right amount of world weariness and "still gives a damn." It's an amazing performance that should not be overlooked.

Q: Do the Coen brothers have an excuse for that Dorothy Hamill hairdo Bardem wears?
Forget about that distinctive 'do. You'll hear enough about that elsewhere. What grabbed me was Chigurh's socks. During one brutal sequence, the killer takes off his boots and then peels off his socks and flings them across a hotel room. I was both mesmerized and appalled by those things. It's terrifying to imagine the blood, grime, and sweat that had accumulated under those filthy boots. That pair of socks could have been as devastating a weapon as the unique gun contraption he points at unsuspecting targets. At least the gun gets you right away. The socks, I imagine, linger.

Q: Are the critics right to call this a renaissance for the Coens?
A: They're right to call it a fine film, but while I was disappointed by "Intolerable Cruelty," let's not crap on all of their recent output. Their "Ladykillers" remake is an underrated comic gem. But the critics tend to loooove the Coens' darker films, so there you go.

Q: Well, is this "darker film" just a bunch of people shooting each other? And are the Coens kind of poking fun at those people, what with the off-kilter touches like Bardem's hair?
A: In "Fargo," I detected an overpowering air of condescension about the characters, as if we were just supposed to be laughing at the simple people with their funny accents. Not sure if that was the intent, but it's what I got from it. "No Country" doesn't give me that sense at all. In fact, it is not just a bunch of dumb characters trying to kill each other, but rather a bunch of highly skilled, intelligent characters doing what they do very well. They may not be working on a particle accelerator, but they are participating in a fundamental activity: hunting and surviving.

I really like the way the Coens show these men methodically going about this business and thinking it through and carrying it out. It may not be what some would call "intelligence" at first, but it clearly is, and even though terrible things are going on, you have to admire the cleverness and the skill displayed. I think the filmmakers do, too.