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.