No Country for Old Men Review

 

Here it is, the last movie I talk about in the summer. I might as well come out and say it but this has been tough. Not looking at the movies, it’s nothing. But trying to stay on schedule when just coming back from my actual job is challenging. Since my job requires me to look at a computer screen, the last thing I want to do is look at another one and a big LED screen. I try to motivate myself that I’m doing it for myself since I enjoy it. It isn’t fun when you miss schedules and miss an error that gets corrected after the fact. Attempting to do two reviews a week has been the toughest thing, but this initiative will go on. If I ever tell you when I’m done, I’ll let you know. 

With that, let’s look at the Best Picture winner, No Country for Old Men.

1. Deconstruction of the Western

Based on the book of the same name by Cormac McCarthy, this is the first adaption of his to win the illustrious title of Best Picture. Some of his work has been adapted, but it’s only this one and The Road that has been met with critical acclaim. Although I haven’t read the book, the movie still feels like it has touches of McCarthy.

To begin with, it’s about time I look at the Coen Brothers. They’re the most acclaimed duo directors you can find. Both have a distinct directorial style where it doesn’t adhere to any of the film tropes that you would see. Much like Paul Thomas Anderson, the Coen’s style mostly focus on fate and circumstance. Which is apparent in this film. 

Story wise, it’s easy to follow. A hunter named Llewelyn Moss spots an aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong. He takes the money and is followed by the hitman Anton. Tailing them is a sheriff named Bell, who’s trying to make sense of the whole ordeal. This movie is what you call a neo-western. I’ve already talked about another one back in April when I reviewed Sicario. 

Here though, it adheres to the usual element of being a neo-western. Switch the old west with places such as Del Rio and you can fill in the gaps of what is updated with this genre. The best thing about this movie is that it feels like a chase movie. Moss is being chased by Anton, so much so that he has to adapt in order to survive the bounty on his head. 

I can’t wait to talk about Anton Chigurh, but I must give credit to the other actors. Moss is a simple man, and it’s established that he’s a vet. With moments of being crafty and being able to put up a shooting, gives credence that he has experience in combat. Josh Brolin does a good job of playing Moss, so much so that the moments when he gets to a shootout is tense. 

Especially in the moment where Anton is at the same motel as our lead that it drives the anxiety levels to 11. When viewing this movie, there’s a sense that there’s a showdown between the two of them that is ultimately building up. Something that is expected with this sub-genre. The great thing about the movie is that it subverts it. We spend an equal time with both Anton and Moss that they’re much like each other. 

Not to get into spoiler territory, but if you’re watching the movie for the first time you might get disappointed. And I think it’s intentional given what the whole movie is about thematically. When you really think about it, it’s about fate. With both characters being hunters and the hunted, they each experience something that is pre-destined. I might as well talk about the main villain to expand on my thought. 

2. Anton Chigurh

This is the scariest antagonist that has ever been put into film. I mean yes, horror movies come along and introduce a character that can’t be stopped or reason with. With this specific film, Anton is the most frightening because he’s the most realistic. I’ve read somewhere that he is the most realistic depiction of a psychopath by a group of psychologists. 

I think what makes him scary is that he’s seemingly unstoppable. He manages to locate Moss through a transponder and even call his wife. It’s the small actions that seem insignificant that gets the ball rolling by making the rivalry between Llewelyn and Anton personal. They’re total opposites of each other, in fact one specific action mirrors the both of them when they ask random bystanders to help them. 

The best scene of Anton involves him being in a gas station. He threatens a man and asks him to call the coin when Anton is covering it. There’s so much anxiety with what the killer is going to do. We see him using the weapon called the captive bolt stunner and it’s the perfect combination for him, fast and efficient. 

That scene in the gas station symbolizes the entire movie because it’s about fate and pre-determination. You have Anton questioning the gas station cashier, and the cashier not knowing just the inherent the danger the man presents. When he survives a potential death, Anton tells him not to lose the coin. Since it’s lucky, he can’t afford to lose it. 

3. Overall

This movie is the highest standard of best book adaptations. There’s more movies that can match that title, but this movie subverts an expected genre and becomes engaging. 

There Will Be Blood Review

        This is it, the final week of my in depth look into genre films. 2007 will be the year that had two of the best book adaptations to ever come out. I’ll be talking about the other one on Saturday. Based on the first half of Upton Sinclair’s book Oil!, There Will Be Blood is considered one of the best films of the early 2000s. With that, here’s what I think. 

1. Daniel Plainview

        This is my second Paul Thomas Anderson film that I’ve watched. He is mostly focused on movies that have an introspective look to them. Specifically, focusing more on character evolution through ideas of alienation and loneliness. You see there’s not much of a story but seeing the character change from where we see him to where the film ends. To sum it up, his life is the story. 

        We follow Daniel as he starts off being a miner in California. Throughout the film, we see him discovering oil and begin to descend into his bitter self as he comes across a preacher named Eli. To begin with, Daniel Day Lewis does a fantastic job playing Plainview. The actor is mostly known for his method acting. Meaning that he delves into his character, fully committing to the act. 

        What makes the film great is that seeing Daniel throughout the 1890s and early 1900s feels like a tragedy. He’s a person who is driven by greed when he discovers oil. Although, one could say that he did have principles when he adopts his son H.W. and taking him in his wing by teaching him the business of oil. By nature, he is willing to exploit someone for his own means. 

        And that’s the big takeaway with his character is that he takes advantage. I’ll talk about the theme after this tab. The other character Eli is just as good as Daniel. It’s surprising just how good of an actor Paul Dano is. Having seen a few movies of his, I say that he deserves an award. Anyways, Eli is the opposite of Daniel.

        What separates both of them is that Eli has faith. He’s a preacher and is desperate for money. We see him plead to Plainview for money since he states that his land has an undiscovered oil field. Aside from that, he thinks that he’s a prophet. My favorite moment is when Daniel visits his congregation. Eli tells an elderly lady that he can remove her arthritis. He “grabs” the arthritis and throws it out. The camera pulls out and then goes back in when Eli does the action. 

        It's my favorite moment since we see Daniel basically figuring out Eli right there. He’s not faithful, but he is realistic with what he wants. Eli is equally worse than Daniel since he lies and is a greedy person since he wants to expand his church. Both are perfect counterpoints of each other because they care for their own needs. They each have moments where they admit their failings and the last one is especially worth seeing. 

2. Themes

        Obviously, one of the big themes in the movie is that it’s about capitalism. Daniel is driven by consumption to drill further into the Southern California land to discover more oil. It gets to a point of alienation where he has no one else as a friend or family. The moment when he talks to his son is tragic since H.W. started an oil company. While Plainview sees it as competition and rejects his adopted son. 

        Another thing I’ve noticed in the beginning is the music. When you hear it, it’s reminiscent of a horror movie. I feel that it’s intentional since when Daniel discovers what’s underground it gets the ball rolling on his character’s downfall. In one way, it has elements of faith. You could say that Daniel gets corrupted and turns into a devil. Like when he tries to use his son to get more land. As well as moments that involve Eli since he made a bargain with Daniel to get money for his property. 

3. Overall

        I will say that it’s a slow burn of a movie. You have to be in the right mood to watch it. Regardless, it’s one of the best films and showcases why Daniel Day Lewis is the best at what he does. 

Goodfellas Review

 

        This one is now an absolute classic. What hasn’t been said about Goodfellas? Well, for one thing, I think it’s everybody’s favorite Martin Scorsese movie. Without them knowing that Scorsese directed the film. And wouldn’t you know it, it’s based on a book by Nicholas Pileggi, who also co-wrote the movie with Scorsese. Anyways, here’s what I think. 

1. Henry Hill

        When I first picked this movie to do for July, I never would’ve thought that the main star would pass away. Seeing the movie after the fact, Liotta does a great job narrating Hill’s life. We see his beginnings where he’s fascinated with the mob. From there, we see an evolution where he morphs into someone who can be easily deplorable. 

        The way he’s narrating feels like he’s reminiscing on his life after the fact. It gives the audience his way of thinking when being associated with other mobsters. For one thing, it’s used to decode what the modus operandi of the mob, or how they handle a person who’s become to much of a nuisance. 

        I just like that its one of those stories that it starts as a rag to riches and then transition to a fall from grace. I’ll elaborate more on that when I talk about the mob in the next tab. With seeing Henry becoming a mobster, he looks so out of place. Like, he’s probably the only normal guy when the others eat dinner or play cards. 

        If there’s one scene to really punctuate that is the scene that probably got Joe Pesci an Academy Award. After Tommy tells a hilarious story, Henry tells him that he’s funny. From there, it’s nothing but tension and high anxiety. Tommy looks like he’s about to kill Hill, and you have Henry just trying to say the obvious. The one line that is often overlooked is that Tommy says that “Henry might fold under questioning.”. 

        Not only do we get him narrating, we also hear his wife Karen. She doesn’t narrate as much as Henry, but both really communicate to us this important thing. They’re out of their league. Her moment is when she’s at a party with the mobster’s wives. Karen is the only one that isn’t covered in full makeup or gossiping. And she can see through the wives façade. 

2. The Mob

        This is thing that always interested me in these types of movies. I’ve also wondered why the mob is sometimes glamorized in movies and tv shows. To me, I think that it’s wanting to be a part of a family that knows people. Or having that freedom to do whatever what they want, since the authorities are paid to look the other way. 

        The only movie to really popularized the mob is The Godfather. While I haven’t seen trilogy, imagine that, a movie guy not seeing The Godfather trilogy. What I can say is that the family drama within the movies is the main draw. Someday I’ll watch and immediately give it my own two cents of what I think about them. 

        Anyways, the mob in Goodfellas is portrayed as duplicitous. I say that because we see in the lens of Henry’s younger years that he thinks that what they’re doing is good since he’s making money than just staying in school. Later on, they’re own actions is what inevitably lead to Hill’s fall from grace. If there’s another thing I noticed is that there’s two types mobsters in the main leads life.

        You have Paulie and the duo Jimmy and Tommy. The former is from what I could gather a more behind the scenes person who doesn’t get his hands dirty. While the duo, well they get more action but at a detriment. I feel it was important to see the two sides of the mob because it plays an important role with who Henry is. He tried to be part of the mobsters group, but ultimately gets entangled. So much so, that he must lose everything to save himself. 

        One last thing I want to bring up is that what makes them scary is that they'll sever any connections. I mean, nobody could've expected that one of the main stars would get whacked. His death just came out of nowhere. This movie doesn't shy away by showing them who they really are. Any other movie would be completely biased and show a romanticized version of the mob. Here, it's a double edged sword where you can be an ally or someone who needs to be removed. 

3. Overall

        This is one of my favorite films of Scorsese, only he can be that talented with portraying the mob in his own lens. Goodfellas is a classic of the early 90s.  

Jurassic Park Review

 

        If you were to ask me what is my all time favorite movie, without missing a beat it’s Jurassic Park. Growing up I adored Dinosaurs, I was always fixated with the documentaries from the Discovery Channel. My first exposure to the franchise was through a tie-in arcade game for the sequel The Lost World (1997). What’s weird is that the movie I saw first was Jurassic Park 3. Make sense of the flawed entry to the franchise when I was young. It wasn’t until I finally saw the first one, and man, my childhood would’ve been better had I watched the only good Jurassic entry. 

1. Spared No Expense

        Now before I start, Dinosaurs and movies go back a long time ago. One of the first animated movies involved a dinosaur called Gertie the Dinosaur. It was a rare movie since well it was silent, but it had a live show like a circus. From there, the creatures were associated with stop motion animation with films like The Lost World and King Kong. Hell, there were movies that I talked about that had the creatures such as in Fantasia, duh King Kong, and in Godzilla. 

        The first minutes of the movie immediately set the tone of what we’re going to see. To explain what tone is again, it establishes the mood for the whole movie. An introduction to the actual creatures, but not showing off what they look like. Only shadows and the ferocity are what teases us. The music too is kind of mystical as well. It’s not booming or grand, but it has that unsettling mood to it.

        I always feel that when watching the movie, people tend to think the paleontologist Dr. Grant is the star. I mean, yes we follow him throughout the park. The only real reason he’s in there is to be the two approvals the park needs to be operational, but he’s not the actual main protagonist. Nor is his implied lover Sattler or the Chaos Theory hunk himself Dr. Malcolm. 

        That’s not to say that they aren’t good. All three of the doctors have distinct personalities and are at least believable instead of just being stick in the muds. Grant, out of all them has a character arc. It’s kind of obvious, but it helps that the child actors are put to the ringer when dealing with the dinosaurs. As well as Malcolm delivering a line about how I feel about the recent Jurassic movie.

        The real protagonist is the park owner Hammond. He’s the best representation of a protagonist who has good intentions. When we see him, he’s very jovial about the park and is proud of the fact that he is responsible for recreating and cloning dinosaurs. Hammond is also flawed; his pride is what gets in his way. There’s a scene with him that involves the scientists and I’ll get to it. 

        What makes the movie work is that everything goes wrong. The whole park that Hammond thought up turns out to be an absolute nightmare. Also, I feel that the movie is a spiritual successor to another Michael Crichton work, Westworld. I’ve talked enough about that one, but the idea remains the same. A good idea turns into a really, bad idea. 

        If there is one detail that I like, it’s the moment when it starts to rain. Since it happened on the actual day of shooting the memorable T-Rex scene. Hurricane Iniki slammed into the Hawaiian Islands during the filming of the movie. The rain even affected how the dinosaur “acted” when it attacked the jeep. That moment when it lunges to the kids wasn’t scripted, since the water got into the mechanics of the animatronic. 

2. Duality of Dinosaurs

        There’s really no way to simply put this, but the special effects for this movie still hold up. For being nearly 30 years old, it aged beautifully. From what I read; the whole film was supposed to be in stop animation. It wasn’t until special effects powerhouse Industrial Light and Magic had an employee who might’ve changed visual effects for the better. Phil Tippet created the Dinosaur Input Device, it was a figure that looked like a dinosaur but had sensors that was recorded on a computer that would provide the basis of what the dinosaur would look like in motion, without it looking choppy. 

        Anyways, back to the film. The way the dinosaurs were used in Jurassic Park reminded me a lot of Jaws. Moments where we see small cues or glimpses into the creatures, but not the whole body or scope of the animal. It doesn’t get that much credit but the best moment in Jurassic Park is that the creatures get a few screentime. From the beginning and when the main cast takes a tour of the park shows that idea. 

        That the dinosaurs aren’t a part of the ride, they’re animals. They act out of their own instinct. For instance, when the group stops to look at the Dilophosaurus, they see nothing. All of it ties into the central idea of the whole entire movie. Which I will talk about in the next tab I promise.  

        As far as presentation is concerned, they utilized two ways of doing it. The Brontasaurus scene is one of many highlights in the movie. We see the angle to show just how immensely massive the creature is. And to show the good side of the creatures. Then we have the horror element, just hearing the footsteps and the water moving sells the dread of what’s coming. There’s no other way to say it, seeing the T-Rex eat a goat, break out of the deactivated cage, and roar. Just plain cinematic magic. 

3. My Favorite Scene

        For as much as people remember the dinosaurs in the film, we only see them for just 15 minutes in total. I think people skip on this scene because I can understand that it’s boring. How could people sitting around, not touching their food, be that engaging. To put it simply, after the doctors digest what they saw, Hammond expects their approval. Malcolm questions the methods as to why Hammond brought back dinosaurs. 

        That whole scene trumps all the sequels, by squarely pointing out in a meta prescience why the franchise doesn’t work. It’s something to see Malcolm become upset since he figures out the owner by saying that the man is willing to merchandise a miracle that is a slight against nature.

        You could interpret the scene in one or two ways. The Doctors obviously voicing their displeasure at Hammond at the miracle he’s created. By pointing out that his pride obscures rational thinking. Another is that they’re sort of like gods. Like with the lights from the projectors behind them evoke a feeling like they’re gods. Tampering with something that they think is controllable. 

        This one scene is representative of the whole movie. The idea of man becoming gods, their ability to control nature. I might as well get it out of the way, but this is what the sequels are missing. As much as the dinosaurs are the stars, the succeeding films aren’t about anything. They lack the humanity and the ethical questions that make this film still the only great entry. I mean yeah, no one goes into a movie expecting to learn something, but the sequels should be more than just theme parks. Well, I got myself there. 

4. Legacy

        The movie was for a while, the highest grossing film of all time. It came out in 1993 alongside another Spielberg hit Schindler’s List. You can dub that year Steven’s year, because Jurassic Park broke the Box Office and Schindler’s List being his only film to win Best Picture in the Oscars. 

        I think this film is comparable to Star Wars when looking at the merchandise. I mean, you can’t walk anywhere and see someone with the iconic park logo with the fossilized T-Rex. Or a Jeep having the colors of the park. The merchandising was immense. Now with something that big of a money maker, a sequel is always obligatory. It’s one of those rare instances where the sequel of the book was made after the success of the movie. And the movie being adapted just as the book came out. 

        And you better believe that dino-mania was alive in the 90s. You had movies that had to put in a dinosaur due to the popularity of this movie. You had clunkers like Theodore Rex, We’re Back! A Dinosaur Story, and Carnosaur that tried to cash in on the admiration of the extinct creatures. And wouldn’t you know it, one of the best animated Dinosaur movies A Land Before Time, which predates this one, got a record 11 sequels. How’s that even possible?

5. Overall

        This is my favorite movie. I adore every minute of it. It balances adventure with horror without it feeling like whiplash. This movie is utterly timeless.