The Coen brothers... Javier Bardem won his Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Who in this movie has a background? It is certainly not with Bardem, this Old Testament avenger angel, who repays each according to his sins. “And whenever I come, he is waiting for me there.” I could not count the awards and nominations. .
If your principles have come to such an end as they have
A chilling thriller based on the novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy, which chained me to the screen for two hours.
A brilliant performance by Javier Bardem, a good level from Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones and a cameo, my favorite Woody Harrelson.
- From the start, Ethan and Joel Coen have been building up the pace, and by half the narrative, that pace is hovering at peak value. The avalanche of events covers the viewer with his head (a similar feeling experienced in the Big Lebowski), which contrasts with the slower “Fargo”.
Javier Bardem gives an incredible level, completely getting used to his character. Anton Chigur, a social phobia and psychopath with his strict, perverted moral code, for the sake of which Anton will make any sacrifice. At first glance, he is an impeccable killer for the mafia, but in fact an uncontrollable tool with post-traumatic disorder, which punishes all the “wrong” from his point of view.
Luvelyn Moss (Josh Brolin): A simple American man, a retired Vietnam veteran, steals money from the mafia, thereby falling into the crosshairs of the hero Javier Bardem. Luvelyn, like Anton, feels discomfort in a calm world and succumbs to the first temptation to “war” in peacetime.
A beautifully built game of cat mouse and emotional swing give a truly excellent cinematic audience experience.
"No Country for Old Men" may be the greatest Cohen film, but still:
"Where's Lebowski's money?"
"No Country for Old Men" is considered the best film work of the famous brotherly duo - Ethan and Joel. It is indeed hard to disagree with this. And although the content of the film at first glance seems extremely simple and obvious, revealing the story of an ordinary, average hard worker, on whose head suddenly fell a fabulous amount of money, with which he, of course, will act according to the system “as soon as possible to hide a green gift from everyone who needs it.” Yet, despite this, the depth hidden in the bowels with seemingly uncomplicated atrocities, leaving behind mountains of breathless bodies and streams of blood rivers, demonstrates a large-scale ground for philosophical thinking about the significance of the events presented in the picture.
And in this vein, as it is, in principle, usually happens in the case of the consideration of truly deep film masterpieces, the rage of the imagination of interpreters has no clearly defined boundaries. Some see in the tape vivid images of such a significant concept for all living beings as time. They identify the three main characters of the film with three temporary hypostases, they say, Tommy Lee Jones showed the image of the Past, Josh Brolin - The Present, and Javier Bardem - The Future. An interesting theory, quite justified in its essence.
However, the following interpretation of the plot vicissitudes, in general, may be forgiven for colloquial phraseology, blow up the brain. The main villain of the film - Antona Chigur - in reality was not! Some video bloggers, meticulously providing an extensive evidence base of their theoretical conclusions, bring to the audience the idea that the hero of the respected Tommy Lee Jones invented the cold-blooded sociopath-killer / i> with the goal to explain, or rather even to justify , the bloody actions of the self-assured and fearless character Joe Brolin /i> hidden money path . This theory is very attractive and therefore met with unanimous applause of users of one popular video hosting, accustomed to watching without stopping the opinion of anyone without getting, not even bothering to think about a movie. However, this vociferous assumption has some flaws that quietly destroy its integrity. The character of Woody Harrelson is also a fiction? The final scene of Chigur, who finds himself in the house of the wife of his desperate opponent, is also just an old policeman's fantasy? Apparently, he is just the most brilliant storyteller, capable of inventing everything in the world, and even in such colors and amazing plot intricacies that just amazed. And is it really reasonable to assume that the talented brothers-screenwriters from the very beginning simplified their own script idea to such an extent that they reduced it to a phantasmagoric story tired of the profession and of the very life of a police officer? I don’t want to believe it, but honestly, I don’t believe it!
In the same way, you can find more than one excellent interpretation explaining all the plot moves than, in fact, until now, since the release of the tape in the rental, and are engaged in fans of the creativity of the Cohen brothers and especially scrupulously suitable to such investigations figures of video content. Ordinary connoisseurs of good cinema can only enjoy a direct narrative movement, which without philosophical immersion looks extremely curious. Although the narrative, in fact, prompts almost from the first minutes to immediately start looking for answers to questions of this kind that come to mind: What, generally speaking, is happening here? Why would he do that? What does he really want from him? In conclusion, this block of reasoning should be said only one thing - Bravo Cohens!
In addition to the amazing plot, capable of giving birth to such different semantic context meaningful theories, of course, it is worth highlighting the cast of the film. Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, Kelly McDonald and, of course, Javier Bardem, awarded with a scattering of prizes for his sinister performance, amazingly demonstrated on the screen the viability of individual professional talents. The character Bardem and all firmly settled in memory, as one of the most demonic antagonists of modern cinema, standing on a par with Joker Heath Ledger, a mad assassin from the film The Cursed Way performed by Jude Law and the character Kevin Spacey from the Fincher superthriller Seven>. A cruel, heartless, incorruptible villain, following an individual code of rules and believing in a set of certain principles - this is always very scary and at the same time incredibly attractive to the viewer.
As a result, "No Country for Old Men" is a cult masterpiece of Ethan and Joel, which is a philosophical parable with the widest field for all sorts of interpretations of the plot, none of which comes close to the original idea of its authors. This cinematic work causes controversy and indignation, admiration and love, disappointment and bewilderment, and therefore has all the signs of a significant unit of modern art, no matter how lofty it sounds!
Imho, overrated. And either I misunderstood the idea, or the brothers-directors badly underperformed, but in my opinion, Javier Bardem in this film eclipsed the protagonist. Not least because of the great acting.
Very talented film, cinema as art. The plot seems to be a simple story with simple conflicts. But there is something unreal, almost comical about the actions of the characters. It always seems that something is wrong here. It's no accident. In addition to the main story, there is one that never appears on the screen. It can only be reconstructed from hints and the general course of the narrative. Why her? Hard to say. Perhaps for the sake of the opportunity to implement such a complex idea. Cohen always managed to shoot so that the film satisfied both aesthetes and the mass audience, bringing profit at the box office. It worked in this case as well. Plus, the actors are doing great.
You don't get Oscars for strong movies. This film, on the one hand, contains all the honed Cohen elements, clean lined footage of Roger Deakins, editing weighted on apothecary scales with an accuracy of milliseconds, how much frame lasts. A panoptic of strange characters, but what are strange, mostly selective bastards? In the elderly, a fair share of social criticism was added, which apparently gave the Oscar success.
The originality of the trick invented by the Cohens, which is creepy, but in general, as usual, they have a funny criminal thriller on the heels of a moral comment. Evil works. Good does not work. The old sheriff watches the thrashing happening with sadness in his eyes, and in truth, he is more concerned about his future in the realm of shadows than he is about catching evil, which makes him as comical a character from the panoctipum, twisting, as everything has become terrible, and before it was not. Youth sees no evil. In his youth, the sheriff probably could grab a suitcase full of money and go on the run ... and then old age ... you have to watch the plot from the outside and grumble. Old men have no place in a world of horror. And perhaps not the place in the world of shadows, where they are waiting for their ancestors. Strange intermediate position.
Meanwhile, Chigur, flipping a coin, claims that people make their own choices, and he, like Leo Tolstoy, gives them revenge. A little accidental though. Someone can repay, and someone to forgive, obeying the coin. This makes him a metaphorical figure. The angel of death, the judge of God. Naive audiences and critics, of course, decided that before them only psychopathological cruelty and nothing more. Oh, those naive viewers. . .
For all its deep thinking and combination of heterogeneous layers, plot and metaphorical, effective and inactive (metaphysical) film Cohen catches up with empty academic anguish. Except for a couple of hit episodes. And still leaves a feeling of some roughness, not converging ends ... For example, the character of Woody Harelson, why is he in this movie? A parody of Chigur? Another veteran of the war, decided to take his? so it seems that there is already such... why exactly such a strange plot move ends the story of the main character? Why is it so oddly shown, and the rest of the film weighed like a pharmacy scale? If Chigur didn't kill him, then the hero was right about his claim? Or is it a war against God’s punishment? They fight back against the angels, but they can't deal with the Colombian scumbags? Then why does Chigur work for them? That we have in front of us such a badly working, broken Last Judgment? In general, the puzzle doesn't work out. And if in Barton Fincke it seems that it is necessary that we do not understand anything about the box, the severed head, etc., then there is a feeling, some quality defect, hidden behind the external gloss and accuracy.
5 out of 10
This is the phrase that came to mind after watching. Why? Let's figure it out.
I loved the acting and directing, but the ball is the story. Be it books, movies or plays. You can make a bright, beautiful creation, but if the story is not exciting, if at the end there is no feeling of goosebumps, goosebumps from an unexpected outcome or an awareness of the deep meaning, goosebumps from the climax when the puzzle is assembled into a whole picture - then time is wasted.
Alas and ah, there is no place for Old Men here. The characters are interesting in themselves, but the narrative is frankly weak. What did the authors want to show? The triumph of evil over good? The variability of the world? Or just added inconsistencies and metaphors, in the hope that the people “suck”?
In my opinion, the latter option is the true one. I know, I know, they're throwing me rotten tomatoes right now, saying I didn't get it. You are wrong, I have been thinking for a long time. Below I will give three theories about the semantic load of the film.
The first interpretation is the most banal - the world is changing, we are getting older and what was once savagery becomes the norm. Thought is as old as the world and does not smooth out the gray finale.
Or maybe it is the embodiment of the idea of the superman Nietzsche? Well, the one who is logical, rational and stands above good and evil. Let’s say we have three heroes: the hero of the past is thoughtful Sheriff Ed, who does not understand the criminal at all. The hero of the present is Llewelyn, a kind of brave guy, ready for adventure. And in fact, Anton Chigur is a hero of the future, working as clearly as the weapon in his hands.
To begin with, the very concept of Nietzsche disgusts me. The idea of the superman served as the basis for the principles of the Nazi Party (albeit greatly distorted). Besides, Chigur doesn't fit that rank. Why does he offer people a kind of game with fate (who has watched, knows what I mean)? Where's the rationality?
The third theory I found on YouTube. Allegedly, “A country is not for old people (literal translation of the name)' is a kind of metaphor for Valhalla, a country for heroes who died not by their death.” Moss and Chigur can get there, but Ed lived to gray - he does not belong there. Another important point: note how we are ' not shown' the end of Llewellin's story.
In fact, the true hero of the work is Ed, he did not climb on the horn and outlived his father for several decades. The sheriff knows his place in the world, does not try to jump above his head and does not risk his life in pursuit of ghostly trophies.
I must admit, this theory seems to me the most correct. But even she doesn't brighten up a boring climax that promotes beliefs that are alien to me.
Really? I would have returned two hours of my life if I had known the contents of the painting. If philosophical reflections are discarded, it is a beautifully shot western, with a crumpled narrative and questionable metaphors.
Another Oscar-winning film by legendary directors of our time. Another great disappointment...
Let me tell you about the movie. First, it's Javier Badem's game. You believe his character and see him as a psychopathic killer. Second, it's his unusual gun. I have never seen such weapons in films. Third, a rather promising start. Both the appearance of the main villain and the first scene in the desert at the scene of the showdown. But that’s where the movie ended for me. Of course, there was also the presence of saspient, but not the one I like (I like psychological, not anticipation of murder).
I don't want to talk about the disadvantages for long. No matter how much you talk about his deep philosophical content, I have not seen him. Perhaps this was the idea of the author of the book. Perhaps he even carried it out. But in the movie, I didn't notice it. In the film I saw only insatiable lunatic maniac-killer (although the intellect will not deny him), rather stupid hard worker and phlegmatic sheriff of old age (quite smart). I expected not only bloodshed from the film, but also a confrontation between the minds of the sheriff and the maniac, and between them - the troubles of the hard worker. But alas... The plot did not reach such a height, limited to a mountain of corpses and rivers of blood. I did not see any metaphors in the characters for the changeability of times and the display of the past, present, future. The future in particular. A psychopath cannot be our future. He's a killer. Nothing more. Why look for philosophy in crime?
There is a mountain of unanswered questions. How does the killer's weapon work? Why would a hard worker get into all this mess when they had to catch up with the cops, the feds and the sheriffs? How did the killer anticipate the actions of the sheriff and the workman? Does he feel pain at all (a normal person would have fainted 5 times from pain during his adventures)? Who does he work for and what is his mission? Where and where is he from?
If the film leaves me with questions not of a philosophical nature, but in the course of the plot, it is a low-quality film (for me, a subjective criterion).
The ending, of course, is murderous. In fact, only the maniac survived. Sheriff's alive, but he's already talking about death. What's the point of the movie? Is evil invincible?
Unable to resist (before temptation) will lose in the race according to the rules of evil.
The combination of thriller and drama in the genre designation immediately divides viewers into two groups, just as they are divided among the heroes of this story.
Those who prefer action to thinking about the attainability of the goal drag their lives and the lives of all who come across them in the way – they are the spring that drives both the plot and the feelings of the audience.
The moral scale of comparisons is therefore taken beyond what is happening ' here and now' - it is a generalization of experience ' the old men' free to judge what is happening. Their intervention is not able to stop the course of events, this is the life truth & #39; distribution of roles & #39; policeman and criminal.
Lowellyn Moss is the witness involved in the action – this is ' delegate ' the audience in the plot. The creators of the film in this way force us all to try on what is happening on the screen, give reason to understand the arguments ' old men' in the wake of what happened.
Thus, moral assessments have a solid basis of our feelings of empathy ' to the witness ' who intervened in the disassembly of villains, not for the purpose of the triumph of good, but because of a rush of momentary blindness of greed. Then, of course, he will find excuses in the already irreversibly unwindable chain of events. So he became a hostage of prey, and dragged into a dangerous circle of the most expensive people.
The film does not preach the basic truths of goodness, but makes you think that in the rapid change of life situations (irreversible, and very common) in our dynamic world, only spiritual perseverance can be salvific. Only in this way we will not be dragged by a momentary feeling into the disastrous funnel of evil plots.
The film’s authors Ethan Cohen and Joel Cohen, giving a dramatic parable the dynamics of the thriller, involved the audience in comparing values, transient and eternal – values that do not fit in a suitcase with money. For all the effectiveness of the methods, evil is fruitless – this is the conclusion confirmed by the film.
Favorite by many viewers and film critics, the film ' Old people do not belong here' received high ratings, huge fees and many awards at various film festivals. What is the secret of such a bright popularity, such an unpopular genre of neo-Western?
To begin with, it is worth noting the excellent camera work from Roger Deakins (Escape from Shawshank, 1917, Blade Runner 2049) and the magnificent cast. Absolutely all actors fit into their roles and look harmonious in the frame.
The script is based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy ' Old men don't belong here'. The main theme of the picture is the changeability of generations, which is expressed through the conflict of three main characters: Anton Chigur, Ed Tom Bell (sheriff), Llewelyn Moss.
Anton Chigur is a symbol of the future, a superman performing his task by any means.
“If your principles have led to such an end, what good have they done?”
Ed Tom Bell is a hero of the past, an old and exhausted man. He cannot reach his goal (to catch a criminal), he is already in the past. The world changes in his eyes, but he does not. What is his final monologue:
“We came back in the old days as if... I was riding, wandering the mountains at night, passing through that pass. It was cold. There was snow all around... Suddenly I see him jumping past me silently, without stopping. Skipped... He wrapped himself in his blanket, lowered his head. When he came, I saw fire in his hands. He was carrying him in the old-fashioned horn. I saw the horn. It burned from the inside with milky, moonlight. And I realized in my dream that he had jumped forward. And he will make a fire there, in the unknown distance, where there is darkness and cold. And whenever I come, he's waiting for me there. And then I woke up.
Llewellyn Moss is a man from this generation whose life is mundane and boring. Trying to move beyond his daily life, he gets a lot of problems and difficulties, usually because of money and his own stupidity.
- Will he be looking for you?
- Would you look if you had two million stolen?
Thus, the Coen brothers were able to build an intriguing and entertaining film with its own philosophy. This world will be interesting to any generation, be it an old man, a young man or a superman.
Wait, don't run. Stand with your brother for five seconds.
Today on the menu you are offered a hot film the Coen brothers with a burning temperament of the southern state and, of course, the spicy aroma of the problem ' fathers and children'.
Lewellyn Moss - a typical representative of the South of the United States (cowboy hat, boots made of crocodile leather), while hunting in the desert, notices cars, ' raw lips under the crow and bodies eaten by a worm' All this is the aftermath of the meeting that ended in a shootout, the drug cartels. Realizing everything, Llewellyn and his greedy nature begin to look for a suitcase with money (for another reason, drug dealers will not gather). And that's where it starts.
What if we told you that the film is not about shootings and chases? You know what we're getting at. All this goes to the background of those really important things that are laid down by the authors.
In the film 3 the main characters: adventurer Llewellyn Moss (allegory for the present - the desire for change), elderly sheriff Ed Tom Bell (allegory for the past - a monument to a bygone era) and bounty hunter Anton Chigur (allegory for the future is exactly the same ' superman' Nietzsche: a man without emotions and morality). Each of them is the personification of different time periods and generations living in it.
And of course, the most important scene of the film is Ed Tom's visit to the ranch to his old colleague, long ago retired. It is in their dialogue that it is shown that violence has always had a time, and the delights of the older generation in the past are no more than ordinary nostalgia.
The movie is difficult to call dynamic: it's viscous , like toffee. But every event is rich, that there is actually nowhere to rush.
This film uses reception of the panorama, thereby emphasizing the features of the south of the country.
Also, in this film, we saw a real dreamcast, with leading positions in Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin and of course Javier Bardem. It was Javier who betrayed his character (Anton Chigur), a unique look from which the blood freezes in his veins.
At the end of we get the answer to the question posed in the title of the film. The Coen brothers are deliberately hiding it and taking our attention away from it, making it more enjoyable and adventurous to watch this film. Undoubtedly ' Old men do not belong here' - a masterpiece.
Probably many viewers, including me, over the years it is increasingly difficult to pass by works that seem to have not crossed the threshold of the symbolic twentieth anniversary, but nevertheless are already considered to some extent cult. And probably after the release could be considered such. The Coen Brothers probably have enough of these things right now. These are generally unique filmmakers, whose participation in a particular project becomes a guarantee of quality. About their picture “No Place for Old Men” was generally heard, not to mention the fact that quotations and shots from the film fill a good part of the world wide web. Well, it should be said that it will be very pleasant to join this film 13 years after its release, since the picture is actually worthy of embodying certain facets of the Coen brothers’ talent.
Texas is the birthplace of American farmers and at the same time modern cowboys with a cool temper. And this is a very dry place, in which one of the local, so-called "cowboys" - Moss, finds the scene of a violent cartel shootout. No one survived this shootout, and all the booty for which the criminals fought so desperately remained virtually untouched. Enterprising Moss takes a huge suitcase, which is completely full of money, and was already thinking about how to implement them. But not everything is so simple, and behind the suitcase, but also Moss himself, a hired killer is sent, who will stop at nothing.
Probably not even worth mentioning that the work just fantastic atmosphere, which looks stereotypical, but at the same time somehow fascinating. All the scenery and accents on them are used wisely, and many things are often emphasized by the creators. This is facilitated by the local construction of the story component. Already managed to find out the fact that it generally corresponds to the original book, and probably this is correct, since I can not say that I am not a fan of twisted plots and riddles in the narrative. And in general, in one way or another, the picture is quite capable of providing all this. The point is that we literally without unnecessary words show the plot, which in principle goes without any cut details. Here's the hero of Moss, here's the scene of a shootout, and here's a ruthless killer who's already making a mess. All this is introduced into the narrative without unnecessary murmuring. But at the same time, it is a little saddened by the fact that despite the scrupulousness of the first half of the film, it seems that in the second half of it there is a lack of some fragments or additional frames, and I personally did not leave this feeling by the time the credits began.
The Coen brothers are known for their really cool and high-quality dialogues, and of course this is reflected here. And although some of these dialogues are not always essential for the main plot of the picture, they are made really qualitatively and look with interest. That is, not every director is really able to rivet your attention to this or that dialogue, to the tact of communication of characters, to the construction of phrases and even some ideas. But specifically, the Cohens can do this at a very high level. After the dialogues of the same Chigur, you perfectly understand how terrible he is, personifying evil in its pure form. I have his image throughout the film completely personified with some unstoppable killing machine, and literally everything in his image seems to emphasize the danger emanating from him. Moreover, there are enough brutal scenes in the picture, and the catalyst for these very scenes is almost always the character of Javier Bardem. Perhaps it does not make sense to sing the praises of the picture “Old men do not belong here”, since I am only one of those viewers who was late for the high-speed of this work, but at the same time quite happy that I was able to join, albeit after 13 years.
8 out of 10
The thirteenth film by the Coen brothers, based on the novel of the same name "No Country for Old Men." At the center of the events of the film, there are three fundamental characters who are in a certain way interconnected and the whole plot is built exclusively on them.
1) Llewellyn Moss — Ordinary working man, Vietnam veteran. Of its fundamental qualities, it is worth noting good physical strength and resourcefulness in certain situations of the film. Although he is not bright with a clear mind, he has what is called ingenuity. The role of this character was performed by Josh Brolin.
(2) Sheriff Ed Tom Bell played by Tommy Lee Jones. This character acts as a narrator in this film. At the beginning of the film, Ed talks about the changes taking place: crime in his region is growing, and criminals are becoming more cruel and inhuman. This is the main theme of this film. Ed is a seasoned and experienced police officer at an age who has seen a lot and can be called the wisest and most skillful police officer in this movie.
(3) Anton Chigur played by Javier Bardem. He is an unscrupulous and ruthless killer who acts solely in his own interests. He can be called the main antagonist of this film. It cannot be bribed or negotiated, it cannot be demoted or broken. A real psychopath who has no conscience or pity for anyone. But despite this, he is a professional in his field, smart and cold-blooded, who sometimes likes to decide the fate of people, with the help of a coin toss, the so-called accident. Anton Chigur is certainly one of the most frightening killers in the history of cinema.
If we talk about acting, then Javier Bardem surpassed all the actors mentioned above. To portray such an abhorrent image of a ruthless killer (since, in Bardem himself, any manifestation of violence is disgusting) really was not easy. But he did it with a hurrah. In principle, acting is an absolute plus in this film.
As for the plot, there is no mind-blowing plot with incredible twists and turns, it is made at a decent level, albeit with the slightest flaws. But I assure you, these flaws will not leave any holistic impression of the plot. Again, it is made at a decent level. And it is also worth noting that the dialogue in this film, which is without exaggeration done perfectly. Especially Anton's initial dialogue at the gas station with the seller.
As for the musical accompaniment, it is not enough. But the directors explained this by the fact that they wanted to create the necessary atmosphere of terrible silence, which would keep the viewer in suspense for the whole film. In my case, not to say that it succeeded, but someone it will really keep the tension.
As for the so-called sacred meaning in this film. In my opinion, there are several ideas in this film. The idea of inhumanity and cruelty, where the apogee is Anton Chigur. A killer who has no moral principles, who can kill anyone, be it a woman, an old man, etc. Sheriff Ed, like the idea of responsibility and moral duty, he sincerely tries to do his job perfectly. The world in which he works is far from ideal. In fact, the elderly do not belong in it. And Moss' idea of profit. Whose storyline is the easiest. That’s why I’ve come to describe all three characters, because I don’t think there’s one main character in this movie, and all three have a major influence on the plot. There is no hidden philosophical meaning in the film, the whole idea of the film is quite simple.
Overall, the film is made at a very good level, with great dialogue and acting.
The tape, based on the novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy, is considered one of the best creations of the Coen brothers. I know these filmmakers first of all from the film "Big Lebowski", acquaintance with which the first time was not asked. Here we rolled out a film that combines the atmosphere of a terrible thriller, woven chases, shootouts, and is accompanied by all philosophical reflections on the nature of the human character.
And after these movies, I don’t want to dream that you’ll find a coin on the street, because I don’t know who it belonged to. So here the main character, a Vietnam veteran, decided to hunt deer, went on a bloody trail and discovers the place of a real massacre. As it turned out, the drug dealers did not share something and shot each other. Finding a suitcase full of money, he decided to take it for himself. As the saying goes, "I quietly stole and left - called "found"." But as it turned out, the money had masters, and they intend to return theirs. On the one hand, Mexicans chase him, on the other hand, a real psychopath went to the heart of the main character. The urge of greed of one person triggers a series of murders in Texas, in parallel with which an elderly sheriff tries to fight.
The tenacity with which Ethan and Joel approached the creation of the tape deserves special praise. They not only made the film, but also wrote the script, acted as producers and editors. The movie tells about the era of the 80s, we are told that the criminals really raged and keep the terrain in fear. And the Coens do their best to convey the tension of the atmosphere, starting with cool camera work and ending with the lack of soundtrack throughout the film. Yes, it is the silence of the desert, the unmuffled sounds of gunshots and the breath of the breeze brings cold.
Regarding the performer of the role of the main character, the brothers spent a long time fooling around. At first they wanted Paul Walker to play him. Then they tried to call Heath Ledger, but he refused. And Josh Brolin, who eventually played the main character, the directors refused, and the actor himself recorded the samples. And you know, Josh Brolin is more suited to the role of a former veteran fighting his stalkers than Ledger. His Llewellyn Moss turned out to be somewhat grumpy, but when his life is threatened, he will fight like a wounded wolf.
Sheriff Ed Tom Bell performed by Tommy Lee Jones plays the role of the local Confucius. He is tired of seeing all these atrocities, talking to his peers about how the modern generation went crazy. His monologues, which open and close the film, are imbued with deep undertones, and the interpretation of his two dreams is worth thinking about.
But let’s be honest, although Brolin and Lee Jones played well, the real king here is Javier Bardem, who played the psychopathic maniac Anton Chigur. Seriously, I'm going to have nightmares about him tonight. The author of the novel called Anton “pure evil”. From ordinary murderers, he is distinguished by coolness and determination, as in the Terminator, extreme cruelty and the presence of a kind of philosophy. He considers himself a tool of fate, prefers to decide the fate of the characters with the help of a coin. One of the most powerful scenes of this film takes place at a gas station, where Chigur flips a coin and tells the salesman “guess the side, your whole life is at stake.” The killer is also remembered for his weapons - most often he deals with people like cattle, using an air nail gun, which sometimes opens locks better than any bear cubs. The character instantly entered the lists of the best movie villains, and Javier Bardem received an Oscar for this role. Which allows you to put it on a steepness next to Anthony Hopkins and Heath Ledger, because in the film it is about 20 minutes at maximum.
And you know, I didn't like this movie just because it's one of the few that makes me shudder. It is designed in the spirit of a kind of bloody fable about the cycle of malice in nature. In addition to the noted acting work of Bardem, the film received statuettes for best director, best script and, most deliciously, Best Film. But McCarthy's original source didn't come to me, to be honest. Everything is written in such a style that all the literati would be stuck on the nearest birch.
The film, which according to the description would not watch, but not without pleasure looked as a task.
The plot of a conventional Western. I've read that some people don't understand the film's open ending. I just thought it was logical to undisclosed finale, if it can be called that at all.
Acting. A maniac is easy to play - he does not need to look for a seed of the role, he can be a killer for no reason, so I will keep silent about the main character. His crazy hairstyle and gas cylinder played for him - the discovery of the author of the novel. But his pursuer (a Vietnam veteran) just lacked credibility. It is a mystery to me why it is being undermined by such sacrifices because of this money. Image unopened. The secondary heroes - service workers - were pleased: they played brilliantly, gave a genuine live reaction, they all bravo, unlike the venerable and Oscar-winning others.
Directing. In cases where there is no shooting or, say, if you remove all the buckets of blood, it is pure Hitchcock water. I would call the genre of this film a sampance crime: the tension is held by those moments when nothing terrible happens, made qualitatively. Interesting humor - English, with a serious face and very appropriate. The music only appears in one place, the moment is also comic and made to fame. Otherwise, there is no music, and this is very enriching the film: the viewer is not helped, he can be responsible for his experiences.
The operator with more love filmed the maniac - apparently wanted in the audience to cause sympathy. I had a backlash - and why on the maniac such stunning shots? My favorite moments are eating in a car with a maniac.
7 out of 10
The film, based on the novel of the same name by Cormack McCarthy, is considered one of the best creations of the Coen brothers. I know these filmmakers primarily from the film 'Big Lebowski' acquaintance with which something was not asked. Here we rolled out a film that combines the atmosphere of a terrible thriller, woven chases, shootouts, and is accompanied by all philosophical reflections on the nature of the human character.
And after these movies, I want to dream less and less that you will find a kosar on the street, because don’t know who it belonged to. So here the main character, a Vietnam veteran, decided to hunt deer, went on a bloody trail and discovers the place of a real massacre. As it turned out, the drug dealers did not share something and shot each other. Finding a suitcase full of money, he decided to take it for himself. As they say, “silently stole and left – called “found”. But as it turned out, the money had masters, and they intend to return theirs. On the one hand, Mexicans chase him, on the other hand, a real psychopath went to the heart of the main character. The urge of greed of one person triggers a series of murders in Texas, in parallel with which the elderly sheriff tries to fight. . .
The tenacity with which Ethan and Joel approached the creation of the tape deserves special praise. They not only made the film, but also wrote the script, acted as producers and editors. The movie tells about the era of the 80s, we are told that the criminals really raged and keep the terrain in fear. And the Coens do their best to convey the tension of the atmosphere, starting with cool camera work and ending with the lack of soundtrack throughout the film. Yes, it is the silence of the desert, the unmuffled sounds of gunshots and the breath of the breeze brings cold.
Regarding the performer of the role of the main character, the brothers spent a long time fooling around. At first they wanted Paul Walker to play him. Then they tried to call Heath Ledger, but he refused. And Josh Brolin, who eventually played the main character, was refused by the directors, and the actor recorded his own auditions. And you know, Josh Brolin is more suited to the role of a former veteran fighting his stalkers than Ledger. His Llewellyn Moss turned out to be somewhat grumpy, but when his life is threatened, he will fight like a wounded wolf.
Sheriff Ed Tom Bell played by Tommy Lee Jones as the local Confucius. He is tired of seeing all these atrocities, talking to his peers about how the modern generation went crazy. His monologues, which open and close the film, are imbued with deep undertones, and the interpretation of his two dreams is worth thinking about.
But let’s be honest, although Brolin and Lee Jones played well, the real king here is Javier Bardem, who played psychopathic maniac Anton Chigur. Seriously, I'm going to have nightmares about him tonight. The author of the novel himself called Anton 'pure evil'. From ordinary murderers, he is distinguished by coolness and determination, as in the Terminator, extreme cruelty and the presence of a kind of philosophy. He considers himself a tool of fate, prefers to decide the fate of the characters with the help of a coin. One of the most powerful scenes of this film takes place at a gas station, where Chigur flips a coin and says to the seller ' guess the side, your whole life is at stake' The killer is also remembered for his weapons - most often he deals with people like cattle, using an air nail gun, which sometimes opens locks better than any bear cubs. The character instantly entered the lists of the best movie villains, and Javier Bardem himself received an Oscar for this role. Which allows you to put it on a steepness next to Hopkins and Ledger, because in the film it is about 20 minutes at maximum.
And you know, I didn't like this movie just because it's one of the few that makes me shudder. It is designed in the spirit of a kind of bloody fable about the cycle of malice in nature. In addition to Bardem’s noted acting work, the film received statuettes for best director, best script and, most deliciously, ' Best Film'. But McCarthy's original source didn't come to me, to be honest. It was written in such a style that all the literati would be up on a rope.
There are three main characters in this picture, and all three are equivalent.
The sheriff represents the past. This is a classic hero - a good guy who fights for the greater good. Such a hero cannot be treated with dislike, because we are used to this type of hero in the vast majority of films, and he does not give reasons not to sympathize with him. All he does is wonder what life has become - he is a relic of the past, he does not manage to understand what other characters are guided by, because in his youth everything was simpler and honest, but now he can not keep up with the motivations of the other two characters.
Luellene represents the present. He's a non-classical hero - he's a generally good guy, but he goes to crime. Active, risky, smart, in my opinion, he steals money, not because he needs it so much, most likely he needed adrenaline, to break out of routine and routine - this can be seen by how easily he refuses a girl, home and security. Although this character is a criminal, but nevertheless we can empathize with him - he has a family, he intends to protect it, he does not kill people left and right, he even wanted to give water to a wounded Mexican.
And of course the sweetest, Anton Chigur. Anton is a post-non-classical hero who represents the future. He is a character who goes beyond the law, beyond the laws of the underworld, beyond morality. For Anton there is only one authority - his word, he says "I gave my word, I must do it", and to fulfill the promise he overcomes distances, kills everyone who gets in the way and continues to live and get out. It would seem that this character should inspire nothing but hatred - he is an absolute enemy for any person. But nevertheless, we like him the most. The first reason is that it reflects the spirit of the times. Today, there is an increasing tendency toward total freedom and the overthrow of all hierarchy, and the measure of freedom is the responsibility for one’s actions, thinking and choices that one takes upon oneself. So Anton is perfect. Well, the second reason is how the filmmakers savor this character and enjoy it. Tommy Lee Jones is very charming, but old and boring, Luelyn active but empty. But the character of Bardem, this is a very romantic and cute figure - his speech in dialogue, his behavior, his coin game, and of course his victory over all obstacles throughout the film - is it not a gesture of love from the authors, which makes us feel sympathy for the hero.
Of course, the future filled with people like Chigur is a terrible thought, and the type of Luellin would like to meet less, away from sin. But a society of people like a sheriff would be a comfortable and peaceful place. But judging by the legitimation and legalization of any deviations, sooner or later Anton will flood the world, and then it will be fun.
10 out of 10
80s of the twentieth century. A Vietnam War veteran stumbles upon corpses, drugs, and money while hunting, deciding to pick up the latter, leading to a sequence of events.
It’s amazing how I was able to miss it in the year the film was released, and in the next dozen years, because this movie is exactly my type.
It is difficult to accurately determine the genre of the tape, there is a mixture of western, detective, psychological thriller, even there are some elements of a slasher. This picture is clearly not worth watching children, pregnant and impressionable.
Ever since the first “Fargo”, it is clear that the Coen brothers are able to shoot a cool and pressing movie with unexpected plot twists and bright characters. And this film is not only not an exception, it is one of the brightest representatives of the best creations of the famous director's duo.
The film has assembled a high-quality and eminent cast: the main character, who is not a hero at all, but very stubborn, although not stupid (as it, unfortunately, often happens) Lewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin), who has seen the life of Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), charismatic and, in my opinion, insufficiently revealed bounty hunter Carson Wells (Woody Harelson), and, of course, the main antagonist, whose motives and aspirations are impossible to fully understand, in my opinion, Anton Chigur (Havier Bardem, whose second role is more deserved for this actor).
There are many deep ideas in the picture: what can lead to one wrong decision, and how important it is to be able to make the right decisions; how great is the temptation to give up your principles, and who can afford not to change them; how important is determination; and, of course, whether there is a pure embodiment of good and, perhaps most importantly, evil. Each of these ideas, one way or another, is revealed in the film, but do not expect the answers to be simple and, especially since they suit you, because the Coen brothers have very specific views on life and justice.
8 out of 10
I don't know how to drive, I don't speak English well and I hate violence (c) Bardem That's why you're going to be in our movie. (c) Cohens
Old people don't belong here
I haven’t read McCarthy’s book, and I never will, but I’ve been in contact with someone who knows the author’s work. I did not believe that the Cohens could adequately transfer such a work to the screen. After watching the movie, he will call this film adaptation perfect. Personally, I'm not surprised. The Coen brothers are wonderful directors (incidentally, in those years they began to be written off after Intolerable Cruelty), when they collect all the will into a fist, something beyond. "No Country for Old Men" is one of the brothers' best films.
Plot. A laborer finds a clearing of corpses and a huge amount of money. After a while, an insanely strange man begins to hunt for him (with a damn ridiculous hairstyle on his head, aha, the Coens are such Coens). I really liked the atmosphere and the story. It’s a pretty big deal, especially in the second half of the movie.
The Coens put you on a cold thriller, keep you on edge. And when you're completely soaked in it, the brothers suddenly start to turn somewhere far away where old people certainly don't belong. A deep movie with an unrealistically cool ending. Fincher may be getting jealous. Look at it with your own eyes.
Separately, I would like to highlight actor Tommy Lee Jones. He's an old man, he's boring, he's muttering the whole movie under his nose. Of course, you want a thriller with Bardem and Brolin, but listen carefully to this old man, I beg you. For Z, Tommy Lee Jones is the main character of the film!
I don't like brolin. I would have replaced Bale, for example (he would have played brighter, don’t argue). But on the other hand, it's good that Josh is playing here. After all, against the background of Brolin, old Bardem makes history, takes the absolutely deserved Oscar. Played a lot of bright roles, the statuette brought brothers, crazy to go.
I will definitely review it again, maybe more than once. Dry mouth. It's dry. Not a western, no, drama. For the Cohens, even death itself can pay for the wrong choice. Let's flip a coin, get lucky or try to wake up.
The lauded, publicized, Oscar-winning adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s work was personally not to my liking. You know, some literary masterpieces are better not to be filmed at all. And this one is among them. Let me explain why...
Many people don’t see or want to see people die. When a large family lived together, the elders were buried together. Death has been, is and will always be an eternal mystery to all of us. Not touching on this topic, not talking about it is wrong and very strange.
Cormac McCarthy, New Mexico, 2007, in an interview before the film was released.
The film is an authentic adaptation of one of Cormac McCarthy’s best novels, the only novel in the history of literature written without a single punctuation mark, in solid text and without a single paragraph. The Cohens did not add a single extra episode to the film, not a single extra phrase. Almost all the dialogues of the characters repeat the dialogues from the book word for word. The whole sequence of events of the novel is accurately transferred into the film, including its main metaphors.
Outwardly, like many other Cohen works, the film turned out to be extremely simple. There are no unnecessary special effects, no complicated music. The whole film takes place in almost complete silence. But how subtly recreated the atmosphere of the novel! A novel that can never be taken literally. A novel, behind each main character of which there are certain images. These images are the plot core - the basis of the novel, without their decoding it is impossible to understand what the author of the novel and the creators of its film version have planned.
The film, like any complex work, has two planes of interpretation. The first line is noted by many reviewers. In this hard-hitting novel, many episodes, dialogues, even punctuation - or rather, its absence - and composition carry an important meaning: the old in American culture is dying. The “golden generation” of the 50s is replaced by a new generation of yappies – the main characters of the 80s, during which the novel takes place. There comes a world of new creatures, a world of beings named Anton Chigur – death in the guise of Homo Sapiens.
This thought is most fully characterized by the conversation Bell at the very end of the film, which is already retired, and his wife. Bell says he had two dreams. In the first, he “loses the money” that his father, who also worked as a police officer and was long dead, gave him. In the second dream, Bell and his father cross a snowy mountain pass on horseback. His father quietly overtakes him, carrying fire forward. Bell knows that somewhere ahead, his father will be waiting for him at a bonfire surrounded by cold darkness. “And then I woke up,” concludes Bell. These dream images clearly show that the old generation is losing strength and will soon be completely replaced by a generation of young predators. Old people are already struggling to fit into modern life, rapidly changing orientations.
But, of course, McCarthy would not be the greatest novelist of the era, and the Coens would not be talented directors if only this layer was shown in the novel and in the film. To create a book and a movie simply about the change of generations in the American culture of the 80s would be too banal. Therefore, the main idea and the main images of the novel are to show the story of a man who has embarked on the path of Death and does not understand it until the last moment, although, having made his choice at the very beginning of the film, in his heart he understands that his days are numbered. Levelin, stands on the path of Death itself and all his further actions are dictated by an inexorable fate that leads him to a single goal. It is the fate and can be explained by the episode when the cowboy allegedly went unreasonably for the second time to the crime scene, besides, you can remember how before his risky trip he gave a joke about hello to the dead mom, which he will pass personally.
The figure of an unflappable killer with an oxygen tank, emerging from nothingness and disappearing into nothingness, is not some specific person with a set of properties, but one of the endless incarnations of Death itself, taking its victims every second. That is why, as the main weapon of death, such a strange weapon as a bulky device for slaughtering livestock was chosen. For Death, unfortunately, there is no difference whether there is a man standing in front of it or just cattle. From the very beginning of the film, Death in the face of an impenetrable man in black is getting closer and closer, to the main character as a child, using masterfully hidden metaphors along the way explaining to the cowboy that he is already dead, but in his power to save his loved ones.
It would probably be very, very sad if McCarthy didn’t show in the novel, and the Coens in the film, the only force in the world that can resist Death. The name of this power is impeccability. All the acting heroes of the film, who are not perfect, are inexorably overtaken by Death. If the policeman at the beginning of the film were perfect with respect to a strange stranger, for example, by placing him in a camera, he would live. If the main character of the film was perfect, made his choice in favor of $ 2 million, and thought for at least 30 minutes what he should do in such a situation, he would undoubtedly live (at least until he did another flawed act). Note that when Lewellyn acts for some time not according to the template, deliberately, he for some time postpones the fateful denouement. However, then he again performs faulty actions and Death strikes his last blow.
So, with every choice in life, especially one as fundamental as taking or not taking the sum of $2 million (that is, about $20 million in our time), a person pushes back or brings closer the fateful ending leading him to Death. Making every choice in life—think about impeccability, otherwise Death will come for you—is the main theme of McCarthy’s novel, and that’s what the Coens teach in their film. A beautiful, full metaphor for the story of Death, life choices, and the forces that can confront Death. The central genius of the Cohens in Cormack McCarthy’s fully authentic translation of the great book is that the authors do not try to infect us with pessimism or give us false optimism: they only demonstrate the kind of world we live in, the paths we choose, and how death can lurk behind every choice, whether it be in the form of Anton Chigur or some other force of animate or inanimate force.
“No Place for Old Men” is a crime thriller by the Coen Brothers. The film is based on the novel of the same name by American writer and playwright Cormac McCarthy. More than successful for awards work, which has collected many film awards from various festivals, guilds and academies. Including from the most significant film Academy, which awarded the tape with eight nominations, four of which, namely “Best Supporting Actor”, “Best Adapted Screenplay”, “Best Director” and “Best Film”, were victorious. In addition, the film also entered the top ten best paintings of the first decade of the XXI century, sharing fifth place with the detective thriller David Fincher “Zodiac”.
In the course of timekeeping, the Cohens are increasingly trying to convey the idea of what old people do not belong here, and where, after all, it is “here”. And if initially the main message of the tape in the mind of the viewer can be limited only to the most banal “hunt for lost treasure” with shootings and murders of varying degrees of cruelty, where everything simply boils down to the confrontation of the victim, in the person of welder Llewellyn Moss, who decided not in time to show an act of mercy and found himself in the very center of criminal intrigues of the second largest American state and his pursuer – the hired killer Anton Chigur, who performs his work in cold blood, methodical and even with insanity. Then, over time, the main morality acquires much more distinct touches and a rather deep meaning, starting to play with new colors. Which, of course, contributes to the presence in the plot of the character of Tom Bell, the local police sheriff, as a third party to the conflict. After all, it is his personality that expresses the moral convictions of the past, in which, as is known, the grass was greener, and the bandits had at least some ethical principles. In the modern world, Bell is confronted with the inexplicable cruelty of human nature from the actions of people around him and the events that take place, leading only to death and nothing else. On his way, he meets Chigur, who is ready to take the life of a completely innocent and uninvolved person, guided only by which side of the coin the poor guy will choose. For the murderer himself, such a pattern of behavior or, if you like, a “chip” can mean an attempt to convey to others and, accordingly, to the audience the idea of belonging to their lives to higher forces, even if by higher forces one should understand chance, inner voice, death or God, and not one’s own will. Which definitely gives depth to the character, although it does not justify it in the eyes of either the former or the latter. Nor does he justify it before the law, of which the above-mentioned sheriff is a supporter, gradually realizing that everything he has ever believed in, be it honor, valor, or the elementary sense of proportion, adjacent to remorse, does not correspond in any way to the realities surrounding his reality. Thus, the Coens reveal the main conflict of the tape, directly juxtaposing different types of worldview, comparing the new “immoral” world with the noble world of the “old school”. But at the same time, in this comparison, they do not try to find the frankly right side or the right answer, ending the film with nothing, if nothing is the true goal of each of their characters.
As writers and directors, the Coens create a special world within their picture, exactly suited to the definition of a western, along with sandy scenery of the Mexican-Texas desert, weapons, gunfights, hoard chases and, of course, cowboy hats. But the western is not classical, characteristic of the times of the 60s and 70s of the XX century, but rather its noir representative. Where the main difference of the latter lies in the characters themselves, their characters and consequences, to which the actions of each of the characters lead. In other words, the main task of the Cohen Western is to demonstrate a world in which a truly “righteous cowboy” who has lost echoes of his past glory and faith in a decent society is forced to voluntarily resign, both because of the rejection of his personal beliefs by this very world and in order to avoid the prospect of being killed for blood principles. Which, in many ways, makes him “an old man for whom there is no more room on this earth.”
In addition to ideas about unjustified cruelty, changing attitudes of different generations and changing the moral foundations of society, the Coens raise the classic question of unexpectedly collapsed wealth and its impact on the fate of man. Showing through the storyline of Llewellyn Moss how much the life of an ordinary welder can change, he takes possession of a suitcase with two million dollars. And knowing whose film this is, with a great stretch we can say that after the word “change” follows the phrase “for the better”.
Throughout the film, the viewer does not necessarily leave the oppressive, pressing and odious atmosphere of hopelessness, completely allowing you to feel on your own experience the inexorability and doom of the characters to not the most favorable outcome. What, in many ways, contribute to the actor's incarnations and, surprisingly, the lack of a soundtrack as such. And if everything is much clearer with the work of actors, it is at the highest level, which, in particular, should be applied to Javier Bardem, who steals absolutely every appearance on the screen, really causing a sense of hostility and fear to the character of Anton Chigur. Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin also perfectly cope with their images, albeit partially pale against the background of the same Bardem, but this is due more to the specifics of the role than acting talent. From the background, I want to highlight Kelly McDonald, who successfully conveyed the inner experiences of the wife of stubborn Llewellyn, fully revealing her acting potential in her extreme scene. That, returning to the conversation about the soundtrack, things are not as clear as it may seem at first glance. Its complete absence in the picture, of course, to someone this will seem a disadvantage, but in fact such a decision can be justified by giving the ubiquitous atmosphere greater depth and framing it in the special boundaries of blood-colding silence.
Working with the camera of the notorious Roger Dickens is only the final confirmation of both the cameraman’s “haunted eye” and the directors’ interest in his presence on the set. Nothing ordinary, of course, the viewer’s eye will not catch, but to call it bad or at least unworthy of this film language definitely will not turn. All scenes are shot with full understanding and, definitely, love for their work, which turns each frame into a finished picture, staged according to all the rules of camera art.
“No Country for Old Men” is not the most unambiguous, but definitely noteworthy, Coen film. A simple story, to be tested, which has a much more serious connotation than the banal veneration of the cult of violence in human society. A story that encourages, as in the case of a good book, to read between the lines and enjoy every moment of its flow. But, at the same time, it does not try to thoroughly chew its essence to an inexperienced viewer, reserving the right to be misunderstood and even unaccepted in some cases. Although the Cohens themselves never really wanted this.
7 out of 10
I read an interesting review about the film and decided to watch it. The review said it was a film about a veteran, about trauma and about politics, intended to influence the election. Honestly, I didn't see it there. I didn't see much at all. Strange and misunderstood film.
At first glance, it's simple. Suitcase with money and the pursuit of it by competing offices. All this is handled with a fair amount of violence and sadism. So much so that my first attempt to watch a movie, made about 6 years ago, stopped after 10 minutes. This is the fault of the absolutely brilliant character of Javier Bardem, an emotionless psycho killer. Watching him kill people without a single emotion is scary.
If I’m talking about actors, I’ll continue. Everyone played great. Accustomed to relying only on himself, Moss - a former military man - turned out to be a magnificent character. Cowboy. You could say the American ideal. He cares about himself and his family, whatever their relationship is. He does not count on anyone’s help and considers it possible to break the law. Very bright and colorful type.
Tommy Lee Jones is very much like himself from MIB, a weary, battered, wise lawmaker who notes and accepts his shortcomings. Very charismatic character, with a great sense of pofigism. Whatever happens, that's his slogan. Bodies? All right, well, I gotta finish my coffee first. The killer at the door? All right, I'll cover myself with the juniors.
I can't help but mention Woody Harrelson. A short role, but how charismatic. And a slight note of humor that graced and slightly defused the film. Tommy Lee Jones alone is not enough.
Excellent selection of actors.
Great script. In fact, the main character is also not emotional. Like his antagonist, he acts in cold blood depending on the situation. The whole movie shows us that they have a lot in common. One phrase, one ideology of thinking. At the beginning of the film, for example, they say the same phrase while hunting. They get clothes the same way. They treat injuries the same way. The difference is only in relation to the surrounding people: one does everything for himself, trying not to harm others, and the second, on the contrary, receives from the realization of his own power, apparently, pleasure. The script reveals all the characters. I was wondering if politics might really be there. Perhaps they are trying to show us that a soldier who returned from the war is not so different from a murderer, but, at the same time, is a tragic character.
And in this context, the quick and fuzzy ending of the film becomes clearer. It doesn’t matter who wins what happens. We were shown the similarity of two people, and the rest is secondary.
However, this does not explain the behavior of the sheriff and the final scene. And the title of the movie. What old men? When it comes to the sheriff, he didn't do well. He can't handle the speed, the mafia, want peace? The motive, by the way, is again from MIB. But he's not the main character. Or is it a hero and antagonist who is considered old? But it's hard to call them that either. One is just a psycho, and the second is led by completely human desires, there is no submission, no apathy, no signs of old age.
So I think the film's intent is still hidden for me. One of the rare cases where you want to know what the writer meant, what you wanted to show and tell. The movie is good, but it’s too scary at times. That's probably good.
“No Country for Old Men” is a clever western about “Trees Were Greener Before.” The unhurried course of the story, the appropriate lack of music, excellent acting, savage clever dialogues, philosophical depth, the signature irony of the Coen brothers, the finale, Westerns not peculiar, and Javier Bardem as the philosopher-killer Anton Chigur, absolute evil in human form.
Chigur can be considered Bardem's best role, as can Sheriff Ed Tom Bell's best role as Tommy Lee Jones. Although Brolin's character is indignant, the actor plays with dignity, and the Coens will invite him to their films twice more: in Iron Arm (2010) and in Long Live Caesar (2016).
Although there is an action, and moreover, very high-quality - Chigur is impressive with both a firearm and a pneumatic pistol with a percussion rod - the main emphasis is on dialogue, which through one can be pulled to quotes. The philosophical and ethical apogee of the film is the conversation between Sheriff Ed (Tommy Lee Jones) and his retired disabled colleague Ellis (Barry Corbyn); despite the disappointment, phlegmaticity and fatigue of intonation, the conversation is existentially loud. Old actor Barry Corbyn with his role as the archetypal wise old man coped flawlessly. Here are some excerpts from this conversation:
Sheriff Ed Tom: I always thought that when I got older, God would, well, somehow come into my life. Not in. I don't blame him. If I were him, I would have the same opinion of me. Ellis (disparagingly dismisses): You don't know His thoughts... What you are facing is not new. You can't stop what's coming. The world didn't come together on you. To think so is vanity. Something similar - though in more optimistic, cheerful tones - Gandalf spoke in The Hobbit to Bilbo Baggins, returning from an unexpected adventure. This is not the only roll call with Tolkien in the Coen brothers - just remember the hobbits who inhabited the film "Fargo".
The Coen brothers think about typical themes in "No Country for Old Men." A God who seems to be, but does not manifest Himself in any way, or who manifests Himself incomprehensibly, will later be, only in a different way, both in the Serious Man and in Long Live Caesar. A situation in which people are helpless, and the only source of comfort and hope is dreaming, was in Raising Arizona (this will be, as Cohen’s homage, at the end of the second season of Fargo). An experienced cop facing monstrous murders and a cold-blooded psychopathic killer was in Fargo. And, of course, characteristic of all the films of the brothers skeptical, pessimistic view of man.
Psychopath Anton Chigur, like Nolan's Joker a year later, often decides whether to kill based on whether an eagle falls or tails. Sometimes he is reproached: “It is not the coin that decides, but you.” This, according to Mikhail Bakhtin, expresses a certain worldview - in this case, the philosophical position that the soul, unlike, for example, a dog or stool, has freedom. But Chigur believes that the act of choosing in the soul is no different from falling a coin to one side or another, and that the soul functions according to the same principles, falls under the same laws as inanimate objects.
The hero of Bardem observes his unique code, internally he is as far removed from society as possible. He ironically asks his co-worker, a predator who has domesticated (and perhaps asks all viewers), “If the rule you followed led you to this situation, what good is it?” But the Chigur Codex makes hair stand on end. His inner freedom, detachment, and unflinching adherence to his principles turn – at least from the outside it seems that it should be – into a terrible inner emptiness and dehumanization (though it is not known what he experiences subjectively).
Who is Anton Chigur? One would argue that he is, among other things, the personification of man’s main and last enemy, death, Thanatos, which enemy was rediscovered and rediscovered under hypocritical stratifications when, about 100 years ago, the era of law ended and the era of narcissism began, the era of “I, I, and again I” – in other words, the era of Agent Smith. Anton Chigur is the embodiment of the same principle that was embodied by Professor Moriarty, the clown Pennywise, and Bloody John, not to mention the Satan of traditional monotheisms. Anton Chigur has always existed in different guises, trees have never been greener. There is no escape from this absolute evil except in dreams. This is especially true for Sheriff Ed, who, like his peers, does not belong here.
9 out of 10
I remember when I was 17 years old. I decided to go to this movie without first reading Collmack McCarthy's books. I went to the movies thinking it was a Western. However, the first footage showed that it was not a Western. It's about the real people who live among us.
I liked the movie. By the way, I thought it was modern Texas, and not the mid-80s. I’ll tell you right away that I watched the movie with excitement and didn’t try to figure out its meaning. So the ideas of the film and the Sheriff's reflections on God and justice. From my point of view, it looked a little out of place. However, I decided to watch it to the end.
Heroes:
Llewelyn Moss, a former soldier, finds an ill-fated suitcase full of money and tries to escape with it. He doesn’t like the life he leads. He hopes to find a way to live in a new way. It’s the first time I’ve seen a character I’ve never liked before. Moss is a man who survived and fought in Vietnam. He's the kind of guy who apparently realized this isn't the war he was counting on. The state did not compensate him and found the money. He finally realizes that this is his chance to live a new life. What's interesting is, as a teenager, I believed in Llewelyn Moss. I thought he would win at the end.
Anton Chigur is an analogue of the Terminator, but alive. A typical hitman, not retreating from his goal. I like the way he solves his problems without thinking about anything. He is not a villain, but the anti-hero of history. He is a character who does not live with love and money. And the idea that someone who does a bad job or is involved in unclean things should disappear.
I liked Moss’s wife, a girl who was smart and understanding. I felt sorry for her, it was a shame that a good person by nature suffered because of money that she did not need. You can see she loves Moss.
Tommy Lee Jones also did not disappoint, played a good man accepting the world as it is. In some places, his calmness annoyed me. It seemed that he did not want to challenge and try to stop what he could not control. What disappointed me was that it was like he wasn't trying to fight crime. He's not interested in it for a long time.
And the last actor to play Chigur’s teacher and partner, Carlson Wells. Even though he fought in Vietnam, he is a humorous character. I can't be serious when I need to be.
I liked episodic characters - although the actors are unknown to me, but they all played well people from different backgrounds.
What is the moral of the film: money will not bring you happiness if you unfairly earned it or stole it. Therefore, never take what lies badly and help your neighbor, no matter what.
Yes, the Wild West is not the same, it has become even more wild!!!
Cinema is not for children!
The theme of the film is beaten to pain. The main character, a tough rural man, with ordinary desires and a quiet life, finds a lot of money and a mountain of trouble with it! But the presentation itself makes you look at everything from a different angle (complete immersion).
The film has everything that the viewer likes: shooting, chases, black humor. The director from the first minutes takes the viewer in turn and does not let go until the end! Each character of the film is a masterpiece embodiment of a harsh life in which the director wants to involve the viewer.
The film is clearly not going to appeal to those who ' can not read between the lines ' A movie about the difficult life in those places. About the cops who live there, and most likely die early. To mention the villainous protagonist who played a key role in the film, Javier Bardem is great.
“Don’t put this coin in your pocket, it’s your lucky coin.” A in the pocket it is mixed with the remaining and will turn into an ordinary coin. What it is and what it is. ?
I had never seen the work of the directors of the Coen brothers before. I started meeting them with this picture, because it attracted me with its extraordinary plot, famous cast and pointing out what has to do with the thriller genre, which I love very much. Even not quite pleasant reviews did not discourage the desire to take time to sit down more comfortably, pour yourself a cup of tea and immerse yourself in the atmosphere of Texas landscapes, massacres and human relations.
One of the interesting features of “No Country for Old Men” is the same approach to each hero. There is no single character with the main role. We're looking at the life story of a sheriff, an escaped prisoner, and an ordinary hard worker. All of them are given an equal amount of time, which distinguishes the picture from a number of similar ones.
However, the cold-blooded killer-maniac Anton Chigura is most vividly remembered. Just one stare through his eyes and you already have the feeling that his next victim will be you. In the film, Chigura is a kind of embodiment of violence in our cruel time and the way of fate, deciding whether to live or not. For example, in a scene where a maniac offers to play a game with him, giving the tanker a choice: “Eagle or tails?” This, by the way, is one of the episodes, holding in full tension and not letting go for a second. Javier Bardem did a great job and definitely deserved the Oscar.
It was also a pleasure to see Tommy Lee Jones (Men in Black) and Woody Harrelson (Welcome to Zombieland), whose performance was at a level and did not disappoint. The entire cast is successfully and organically selected, which makes the film only stronger.
Rarely in the cinema can be praised for the camera work and excellent editing, but, I want to note that the creation of the Cohens was no exception. At a minimum, they should be praised, and viewers enjoy the visual component.
To summarize, cinema is not for everyone. Not everyone will understand the message of the film, and may ask a lot of questions and feel strange after watching. Now, despite this, the picture definitely deserves attention, so
Not for everyone. There's something to think about.
Lovers of the Cohens. And those who have not watched Big Lebowski and Fargo - only if you do not expect a whirlpool of special effects, melodies and fairy tales from the film. Before my eyes – harsh reality and justice.
Fathers and children, retribution, the onset of old age, the meaning of life - that's what the movie is about, if very briefly.
Despite the cold actions of some heroes, you often catch yourself laughing at their actions. Humor is very subtle and barely noticeable, but no, it's not a comedy. On the other hand, the snot is not bred. The hero has trouble - nothing, thoughts in a bunch and act on. Not a trivial drama.
One of the characteristics, which is always on the surface, but catches the eye only at the beginning of the credits - before them, in the film you can not hear a single melody. It's like there's no soundtrack. This achieves dryness, further emphasized by the sandy surroundings and golden colors. Yes, blood and explosions are present, but not in Tarantin's volume. The viewer clearly sees different heroes with different life principles, their reasoning, their actions.
And the consequences of their decisions. In Cohen's beautiful and well-made. The pleasure of camera work is not that everywhere, but it is worth looking closely - the symbolic location of objects and the camera is carefully thought out. And thanks to a certain minimalism, this film versus the typical, untalented dramas and thrillers as a massive oak door versus cardboard partition. The pleasure of one look, the depth of one thought.
The main villain here is brilliant. Cold-blooded, elegant and strange, he looks a rare skillful owner of well-calibrated principles, which can be discussed for a long time. Such heroes are lacking in many films. However, as we see further, this film is not about attempts to defeat a villain man, but rather about different stories of struggle with what this villain bases his principles on.
The film collects several famous actors, but they look so organically that you watch not actors, but heroes.
In the whole movie, it was never boring. The film did not release until the very end, which came unexpectedly. From the outside, it can easily seem boring and uninteresting, but if you do not lazy, dip and carefully enjoy from the very beginning, there will be nothing to regret. There is definitely something to talk about.
I don’t like thrillers, I miss scary scenes, closing my eyes, but I couldn’t watch this movie: after all, the Coens. Although there are probably hundreds of films in this genre, few of them can compare with this one – in terms of impact and, what is important for me, conceptuality.
Its protagonist Anton Chigur is not some ordinary bloodthirsty maniac who kills everyone for his own pleasure. This terrible character, who appeared only from the underworld, took on the "noble" task of judging the representatives of the human race, well, almost as at a terrible judgment, in order to cleanse this world of contamination. Most of his existential test does not pass, although the exterminator gives some a chance to justify himself, looking for at least a small lead to release his next victim in peace.
There is no one to justify the greedy, cowardly and selfish human tribe, devoid of moral foundations. And the only one who can resist Chigur is not Llewellyn Moss - quite a positive character, who, however, like many others, does not manage to pass the "humanity exam", but an honest policeman Ed Tom Bell, by nature of service obliged to restore order in this world. Although he is not very successful - it is time to put his hands down - he still does not give up.
Where moral norms do not apply, it remains only to follow the norms of the law in the hope, even if weak, that this will save humanity from self-destruction. That’s how the Cohens get – very pessimistic and misanthropic, but powerful and honest.
10 out of 10.