What, specifically, is good about NCFOM? Very little has been offered in the way of supporting arguments, other than it’s well-crafted and precise. The same could be said of any number of movies that come out every year. Woody Allen’s Match Point is near-perfect in its execution (and, coincidentally, is also a dark film about chance). Is it great cinema? Probably not.
I can’t think of very many American movies from 2007 that I saw and liked, but I don’t think it makes much sense to only compare it to movies made in the US. Off the top of my head, some movies from 2007 that I prefer to NCFOM:
Persepolis
Starting Out in the Evening
Eastern Promises
Encounters at the End of the World
Some might include 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days, but I’m ambivalent about that one. That said, I found it more compelling than NCFOM.
I’ve yet to see Tarr’s The Man From London (2007), but from what I know of Tarr, I bet it’s better than NCFOM.
It’s been noted that NCFOM is a meticulously faithful adaptation. Accordingly, all the mediocrities of McCarthy’s writing are transferred to the film: overwrought purple prose, overblown archetypal characters, and improbable plot contrivances — in other words, a lot of style masquerading as profundity.
The Coen brothers have visited this territory time and again, and I think they did it better in movies like Blood Simple and Fargo.
@Josh – Well it’s difficult for me to get hostile at someone who liked Starting Out in the Evening because I absolutely adore that film. But I will say that while Blood Simple and Fargo deal with similar themes, I felt No Country was a step forward for them, a growth in their filmmaking. Speaking particularly of Blood Simple, which has a similar tone (Fargo has many more comedic moments) to No Country, I think the arguement for No Country’s superiority can be found in it’s efficiency. I love Blood Simple but I think No Country is a far leaner film in that every scene is perfectly placed and executed. The tension that is created, scene by scene, is impeccable and I recall sitting in the theater completely mesmerized, literally on the edge of my seat. Normally a film (even a great film) doesn’t engage me the way No Country did.
As well, the performances were particularly compelling. Bardem’s character has become a pop culture icon but I don’t think that should diminish how powerful it was. That scene in the gas station, after we’ve already seen him kill two people and know what he’s capable of, wow. Credit not only Bardem but the Coens for editing that scene with such confident use of silence. My favorite character though was Tommy Lee Jones’. The film is set up to make you believe it’s a suspenseful cat and mouse game and I love how they totally pull the rug out from under you. As soon as Brolin’s character dies and the way that he dies (that is to say, how you DON’T see it and that it’s not by Bardem) makes you question what the film is really about. THAT’S when you understand where the title is coming from. What happened in the film was completely unexpected and I never anticipated what would come next. That scene between Tommy Lee Jones and the old man in the wheel chair – awesome. Iconic. Favorite scene in the film.
Seems to me that it’s the sort of film that will “stick”—-sell on DVD, show on cable on weekends, etc. I could see it bumping The Last Picture Show or Yankee Doodle Dandy or Forrest Gump from the next AFI list.
I have to agree. I think No Country For Old Men has a good chance of being declared as a modern day classic. The film, brilliantly directed, I think, deals with timeless themes in a setting which says much about the world in which we live, and does so more skillfully than almost any other recent film (that is, of the last 10 years). Though many people seem to have been either troubled or impressed with Jones’ monologue at the end (considering it THE defining moment), there are all kinds of wonderful things going on throughout the film. Burned indelibly in my memory is the brief, seemingly inconsequential moment when the archetypical Chigurh malevolently and unnecessarily expends energy to shoot a bird as he continued his methodical, and yet incredibly violent quest. Nothing quite like it in recent cinema, and it seems to have struck a nerve in the cinematic consciousness. The only other film that comes to mind when I consider it is Terrence Malicks Badlands, which handles a somewhat different subject with no less atmosphere, narrative intelligence and creativity.
its a great movie, but a “classic”. eh i dunno.
First of all I’m doubtful of the popular term “modern classic”. By definition, ‘classic’ is a work of art that endures, that maintains its standard of quality over time and to call something a ‘modern classic’ is contradictory, especially since the film has only been out a couple years. But anyway, just a pet peeve of mine.
I’m hesitant to call it a classic, not simply for the reason stated above, but because this is not new territory for the Coen Bros. As someone mentioned previously, it was a similar theme explored partially in Fargo and perfectly in Blood Simple (a film which I would call a classic). Even so, it IS a great film with wonderful cinematography and fine acting. I think what detracts from the film is just McCathy’s story – he’s not a great writer, more concerned with style than anything worthwhile, but the Coens handle his inept writing very efficiently with their excellent use of editing and fine actors who give the dialogue more substance than it really has.
It is a polarizing film as mentioned before, but I agree with many that it is a great film, just not a modern classic.
First I want to say that NCOFM, along with “Zodiac”, is among the four or five best pictures of the decade for me. I sincerely hope that it will be viewed as a classic film in the future. The phrase “modern classic” is sort of worthless to me.
However, my suspicions lead me to believe that it might suffer some backlash through the years. There are some who don’t see the film as being very “deep” (whatever that means), and still others who’ve found the shifts in tone to be puzzling. Here I’m referring to the idea that NCOFM poses as a sort of philosophical meditation when it is really only a throwback suspense thriller. Some here have said that they found it boring. But most importantly, I think it will suffer because people won’t see it as being as ambitious as TWBB (a movie I like, but feel has some serious flaws). NCFOM does not reinvent the wheel, but it does perfect its turning. I think that people want to see and appreciate something new and exciting. And, it seems that’s how people feel about TWBB, even though I strongly disagree. TWBB is just as strongly rooted in classical Hollywood cinema and grammar as NCOFM.
Again, I hope I’m wrong.
no.
its a good flick though.
IMO, one reason NCFOM and There Will Be Blood are often compared side by side is because they have similar openings, both of which are practically quotations of the great opening of Kubrick’s “2001.”
No Country, in my mind is no classic. For it it is, it is certainly one of the lesser films to ever be called such. One of the main characters is a maniac with NO PERSONALITY, and when he gets away in the end it doesn’t help the film, although I don’t think if it would have mattered if he got caught or not because he almost doesn’t give you anything to hate. He is just a blank, a murderer, but a blank. He gets away, and if I recall it wasn’t even a close call. So what you have is a film that is built on suspense and has a driving story with the money and all, only to have the guy that is driving the story killed by the guy with no personality.
I won’t compare it to the brilliant but flawed There Will Be Blood, but for another film with a similar setting and one of the same stars “The Three Burials of Melqiades Estrada” is a far superior film to No Country for Old Men.
ps. Pan’s Labrynth while good, is no classic, and nearly as overrated as No Country, on a side note, they should have either called it “Fawn’s Labrynth”, or atleast called the devil ‘Pan’ in the subtitles in the film-I wonder if they fixed that for the dvd release?
The Diving Bell and The Butterfly for me is the best movie of 2007 to be released by an American director.
I can’t consider No Country a classic, mostly because I have never fully enjoyed a Coen Brothers movie I find them all average. I always feel as though so much is built up i their movies and nothing is accomplished, I felt like this in No Country right at the ending monologue.
There Will Be Blood is a modern classic, No Country For Old Men is a modern really good movie.
no country for old men was awful, not a masterpiece.
@Fredo
I think you said it best when you said it may be too soon to judge. The film is way to recent. I know there’s no criteria to judge this but I feel it’s usually best to wait until the decades over and then reflect. In 2010 there may be a slew of masterpieces that make you forget about NCFOM by 2015.
The only time the world hasn’t waited a suitable amount of time that i can recall is when L’Avventura was in the top ten on the Sight and Sound list in 1962, 2 years after its release! Whatever you think of either film, NCFOM isn’t revolutionary enough for that to happen and even if it was, I kinda think the critics who put L’Avventura that high were being presumptive.
@Mike – You’re right, time is needed to truly judge a film (just like judging presidents – hey, maybe in 20 years we’ll all think Bush was the greatest president ever! haha).
Yes it is.
definitely not.
it was visually interesting and well directed, but the film itself was dull and meandering. this would be fine is there was any real depth to the movie, but there really wasn’t. it was an ok movie, but to call it a classic is….well, i obviously don’t get the appeal, is all
There Will Be Blood is a far superior film, i believe
It’s one of the greatest films of the decade. It’s a bit early to start comparing it to the all time greats. An all time classic is something that’s just as good when you watch it long after the time of it’s release than you do when it first comes out.
I didn’t like it the first time I saw it, but then I saw a bunch of Sergio Leone westerns and ‘got’ it.
I think There Will Be Blood is overrated though. Besides a great lead performance and a few wonderful scenes, the plot seems to be “Hey, isn’t this guy an asshole?”
The naked truth here?
It’s a very interesting, modern, ultra-violent thriller with colorful characters. But no, I don’t see it as a Classic or some kind of deathless film that generation after generation will seek or embrace.
YMMV.
I would say absolutely, yes.
yes.
its a classic for sure.
and its editing, use of sound, etc will be studied in school for a long time
No
NEXT!!!!!!!
How can something made 3 years ago be considered a classic. I don’t care if you’re referring to modern day, it is still too new for that.
“No
NEXT!!!!!!!"
Agreed.
“I think There Will Be Blood is overrated though. Besides a great lead performance and a few wonderful scenes, the plot seems to be “Hey, isn’t this guy an asshole?””
Agreed.
I think people general remember Best Pictures, but as far as it being a classic in the future…so hard to say. I personally don’t think it was groundbreaking or something that’s going to affect the future of cinema, but that’s really something only time will tell.
one of the few times Ehrenstein is right about a contemporary film.
when you break down all movies there is a transparency in them that makes you wonder who made that decision because all movies suck there is not one that satisfys completley and thats why moviegoers keep going -+
only on tuesdays.
Law
Well, I am struggling to think of any other recent American film that can be considered a classic, so I guess No Country for Old Men can be a good ol’ American classic for the lack of a better film.