No Country For Old Men [Blu-ray]

Anton Chigurh is so serious and funny at the same time in this movie even though he doesn’t intend to be. That hairstyle is something else and not something I’d expect to see on a nasty serial killer psychopath.

A great film for all the family.Moral of the tale - let a dying man die of thirst as he's dying anyway. Then you can rob all the money and get away with it.

Many of reviews I've ready here have encapsulated the films merits adroitly. What I'd like to add is that film seems to have no musical score whatsoever, relying on the acting, sound design and cinematography to conjure the utterly gripping drama. In fact, the lack of music enhances the gritty realism of the piece.

This is one of the best films I’ve seen for a long time. The acting was superb. The three lead characters were clearly defined and very different. Javier Bardem as the psychopathic multiple killer Anton Chigurh was quite outstanding. Almost every time his face changed expression, the hairs stood up on the back of my neck. The story basically is about a man finding a suitcase full of money and deciding to keep it. Simple, straightforward stuff. Almost every scene builds up to a blood stained climax or a narrow escape. The minor characters are well done too. Mrs Moss played by the lovely Kelly Macdonald was charming and Woody Harrelson was excellent as a rational hitman. My only problem with this film is the ending which lacked resolution (as others have pointed out). In one way, this is not important - there was never going to be a ‘happy ending’ and justice was never going to be done. In fact a happy ending would have been out of place and probably ruined the ‘existentialist’ message of the film – which seems to be ‘life is a bitch, get on with it’. Be that as it may, I was left unsatisfied at the end, which may reflect more badly on me than on the film. All the same, because of the sustained brilliance of the direction, script and film making, I would strongly recommend it.

One of my favourite films.

Strange that so many reviewers take a jab at the film because of the ending. The quiet ending *was* the point. The Sheriff was irrelevant in this new, more violent time, in his heyday he was used to cuffing kids around the ear rather than booking them, and then seeing them generally turn into decent adults. But Javier Bardem's character, Anton Chigurh, is the personification of this new breed of "bad guy" that does deals out in the no-mans-land of the US/Mexican border areas. Remorseless and bereft of conscience, he sees murder simply as a means to an end. Against this new breed of criminal, the Sheriff is now an irrelevance, just so much chaff to be thrown to the winds of time. He couldn't stand in the way of these new criminals for a moment, and he knows it. This film is about the investigation that finally broke him, the couple he couldn't save, and which results in his handing in his badge, decamping with his wife to a safer, quieter spot and finally admitting that he is outmatched.Those who didn't read the book beforehand (I'd read it 2 years previously) were probably taken in by the action scenes in the various clips and teasers, and expected a full-on action adventure.For me, the film was faultless. The cinematography excellent, the dialogue true to the book, including some parts of the book I laughed aloud to read, e.g. "It's a mess, ain't it". "well, if it ain't, it'll do 'til the mess gets here". There was nothing here to dislike. Characterisation was excellent, the acting likewise, usually completely loose and natural.So, if you were one of those that didn't like the ending, please don't blame the film. Read the book while you're waiting for the film release, and don't be taken in by trailers in future.

I refrained from seeing No Country for Old Men for a good few months. I didn't go to the cinema to watch it and I waited a day or so once I rented it. I was not overly eager to see it as I had a feeling I was going to be underwhelmed. Even with the Oscar and the glittering critical acclaim, I just knew it wouldn't be anything special and I was right.There was a time when I was a big Coen's fan but I feel like I have outgrown them if that's the right word. I remember as a film student being wowed by their films' quirkiness, style and cleverness. However, I now find myself wanting more from a `good' film, for example, real emotional involvement, psychological realism e.g. the characters behaving as they probably would were they real people, characters that show development or different sides to them. This has always been the Coen's biggest weakness - providing characters that we really care about, that are interesting in more ways than just being fun to watch because of their exaggerated mannerisms. Barton Fink was an exception, John Turturro was amazing and we sort of cared for him and Francis McDormand in Fargo and Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski were similar but even then, there was always an element of cartoonishness about them. I find myself agreeing more and more with those reviewers who were always more reserved in their appreciation of the Coen's, citing their works as placing more importance in the style rather than the content.Why does Bardem's killer use the cattle stun gun? He's shown us that he's more than willing to use a silenced shotgun to do his dirty work so why lug around this huge bulky chunk of metal? It's no quieter or less messy than his shotgun. I haven't read the book so I don't know whether it is a Coen invention but it seems to be nothing more than a shallow stylistic device. Again with Bardems 60's style bobbed hair style - this must surely be a Coen invention since they have a history of adorning their characters with bizarre hairstyles - again it is nothing more than a shallow stylistic device to say, `look, this is a Coen film'! And some of the dialogue! For instance, the much quoted line where Brolin's character asks his wife to tell his mum he loves her if he doesn't return - yes it's very snappy dialogue but exists for no other reason than that and would only really work if we were to believe that a man had forgotten his mother had died. Hmmm.No Country is a good film. It is enjoyable and there are some decent set pieces where the tension and suspense is quite high and it's good to see the Coen's exercising some restraint but apart from the `indie' ending, there is nothing really to separate it from any other high end Hollywood thriller but the critics will have you believe it is something so much more. It isn't and don't let the injections of an old man's musings or a killer's deterministic speeches make you think it is.In fact, how can the film really be about the changing face of America or fate - these are huge grand themes and ones that would benefit from a very different sort of approach. Perhaps something more akin to a multi stranded approach like the way Crash dealt with racism - something that justifies or `proves' its message by using an assortment of situations and relations. Taking a small crime story that really focuses on three men and saying this represents worldly change is stretching it to say the least. And then the story shoots itself in the foot and contradicts itself completely towards the end when Tommy Lee Jones' character visits his uncle and his uncle relays him the story of a violent past event way back in 1901, the point being that the world has always been a violent place and it is not getting worse as the poor sheriff thinks!So what is the film trying to say??? One minute it seems to suggest the world is becoming increasingly hostile and the next minute it says that it's always been like this! I remember Seven played around with the same theme.I actually liked the ending, I thought it was nicely understated and shows how things can fizzle out and be left unresolved. I didn't care to know whether or not Bardem killed the wife, because it wasn't at all important to the story (although I feel the Coen's may have given a clue e.g . Bardem checks the soles of both his shoes as he leaves the house, perhaps checking for blood stains? - it doesn't really matter anyhow).A previous reviewer compared No Country to The Terminator and I would agree. No Country is basically a suspenseful genre movie about a man being chased by a seemingly unstoppable killer (there's even a scene where he `repairs' himself). Yes the acting, injections of wit and cinematography are up to the usual high Coen's standards but I personally didn't find the film to be exhilarating or refreshing or particularly deep and meaningful. It's a good genre movie, sadly nothing else.