No Excuses for Old Men

So I've looked long and hard and I can't seem to find one review for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN that isn't raving about how amazing it is.

I mean we all know that it won the Oscar for Best Picture, and we know that Javier is an excellent dancer...but did anyone see the movie I saw?

It was long, slow, uninteresting and meaningless. I suppose if you like that sort of thing, then watching this movie is a great way to spend your time.

I really tried to love it and I even watched it again after it won the Oscar, but I still couldn't love it or even care enough to hate it - I was indifferent to it. It didn't enhance my life, challenge me to think in a new way, entertain me or impact me at all. But with it winning the Oscar, I've started to wonder if I'm missing something that is so obvious to others.

Or is it the "bandwagon mentality" that occurs when a movie wins an award which make everyone speak highly of it? - No, that can't be it because critics were raving about it long before the Oscars. So what am I missing? I don't get it?

True, men with guns are sexy and tossing coins is a good way to make decisions, I don't deny these facts. But there was no seeming point to it and no character that I cared about in the story. So how does that make for a great movie? (I will admit that it was fun, after the movie to talk with my friend about some invisible meaning of the characters names and the dream, but that's not worth an Oscar in my opinion.)

So, please tell me, what is there to love about this movie? Or is it so "artistic" that it's not supposed to be understandable by the average viewer. Look, it was filled with great actors and, of course, "the enigmatic Coen brothers" so there's no excuse for it not to be a moving experience?  But it wasn't.

See, the thing is, I didn't hate the movie, I was just bored by it. And worst of all it didn't even put me to sleep.

I go to the movies to be entertained, to be moved but this movie did neither for me.

P.S. And another thing, how is Javier Bardem a Supporting Actor...such as the movie was, he carried it, yes? Doesn't he deserve a Leading Actor credit?

Comments

[Edward X Young]

I concur with you completely on your observation "No Excuses For Old Men." Your bandwagon syndrome certainly applies to the Coen Brothers. I've found their films largely enjoyable -- but extremely highly overrated, ever since I first encountered them personally at the New York Film Festival in 1984, where they were hyperbolically praised for BLOOD SIMPLE: probably the public moment that started their bandwagon rolling. (I recall them as a couple of egotistical twerps.) They gave the Best Picture Oscar to NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (and it was the best of the films in that category of nominees); but was it a "masterpiece"? Hardly! As almost every other picture Oscar-nominated this year (or most any year), it was flawed, albeit interesting. I think the only picture with any Oscar nominations this past year that approached the title of "masterpiece" was SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET: There Will Be Blood -- and Singing! What a courageous, unique and challenging effort from Tim Burton. And look what that got from the Academy -- a measly Art Direction award. The two most original, challenging, remarkable pictures of 2007 got absolutely no recognition from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences: GRINDHOUSE and AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE MOVIE FOR THEATRES. (I'm not joking. Have you seen these pictures?) These are the movies that mattered, the ones that will be remembered and cherished by fans long after all the Oscar winners of 2008 are only dimly recalled as answers to trivia questions. (And that day will probably be before the end of the year!) As far as movies featuring men with sexy guns, try as they might, nobody has ever been able to do it like Sam Peckinpah. Just recall THE WILD BUNCH, PAT GARRET & BILLY THE KID, and especially BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN has no place on the shelf next to those iconic macho classics. I really like Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh -- but he's no Warren Oates -- or even a Strother Martin. Bloody Sam's ghostly legacy blows the Coen's, as well as all other pretenders to Peckinpah's empty throne, right out of the water, like they were being shot to pieces by William Holden behind tripod-mounted Maxim machine gun.

[David Reich]

I enjoyed the film, but you are right -- it was slow-moving. I don't know if it deserved Best Film, but it seems there wasn't a lot of strong competition this year.

As to why Javier Bardem got supporting actor rather than lead actor positioning -- it's a matter of Hollywood politics. As I'm sure you know, since you're in The Biz, actors fight over whose name is bigger or first in the ads and posters, or whose name comes before the title, etc.

[Red]

Dear David and Edward:

You guys are the good guys!! I wish you'd been in the Movie. Then I definitely wouldn't have found it boring!!

kisses,
Red