Mary Ann and I finally went to see No Country For Old Men at the Quarry Theater in LaGrange. The Quarry is my second-favorite movie theater. It’s accessible and clean and has good equipment, polite patrons, and a large parking lot. For this movie, the serious fans were out in force. The sensation of brains focusing on cinema was almost palpable, like a giant, pulsating hive-mind. I swear, the only sound I heard from the audience during the entire film was a few times when I giggled inappropriately.
Since I don’t want to be a spoiler, I won’t go too deeply into the plot, not that there’s so much plot to go into. Instead, here are five good things and five bad things about the film:
Good:
1. Generally excellent acting. Tommy Lee Jones projects an iconic, craggy presence. Javier Bardem, although he looks like the evil brother of Randy Quaid’s character in Kingpin, still manages to be effectively menacing. Unbelievably, James Brolin’s son is a pretty good actor. All in all, the cast does an excellent job with some difficult material;
2. Desert locale. I just have a thing about movies set in deserts. I think it stems from being a teaching assistant in a class where we watched a lot of Sam Peckinpah and John Ford movies. Or maybe Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Whatever.
3. No easy answers. I have to respect a movie that absolutely refuses to resolve its plot in any conventional sense;
4. Literate script. Probably the source material had something to do with that. There’s a certain lilt to the dialog; and
5. Refreshing lack of sentimentality. This isn’t Ghost we’re talking here, that’s for sure.
BAD:
1. Not enough scenes with the compressed air cattle gun. Just kidding. There are plenty.
2. Too much contrivance. The plot, such as it is, relies far too much on psychological theses that don’t ring true. For example, Josh Brolin initially gets in trouble by doing something absolutely ridiculous, both in the context of his character and in the context of human behavior. I just didn’t buy it. Also, people in this movie, including the police, are mighty slow to respond to all the carnage. You’d think that after the first few gunshots fired in a motel, somebody would be dialing 911;
3. No easy answers. I have to respect a movie that absolutely refuses to resolve its plot in any conventional sense, but I don’t necessarily have to like it. There’s a sense of letdown when some dramatic confrontations never materialize or are never shown to the audience. Those of you who loved the ending of The Sopranos, however, will probably like it that way;
4. Literate script that doesn’t always say much. For all the use of elegaic language in the movie, a lot of it seemed just for show. I may be prejudiced, since I thought the same about Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. When you’re lifting your title from Yeats, those are some big shoes to fill. I could have used less cracker-barrel philosophizing and more of that cattle gun; and
5. The ending. When the movie ended, everyone seemed surprised. That isn’t necessarily a good thing. Maybe the audience members have reevaluated and are now talking about the brilliance of how the Coens wrapped matters up. At the time, though, it felt like someone had pricked the balloon of the giant pulsating hive-mind. I, myself, wanted a little more.
Overall, I’ll give it three stars — just like Kingpin, but for different reasons.
Hey, I never said to come here looking for profundity!