No Country for Old Men

Let's get this out of the way right now.  I don't really watch movies at the theater, so if you're ever interested in seeing a BH review on MHR about a movie currently in theaters, it's probably going to be about a cartoon.  Three of the last five times I've been to the show have been with the kid for "Horton Hears a Who," Ratatouille," and "Shrek 3."  Most everything I watch is on DVD, which is fine with me because I have a nice television, but I am not current.  There's something about watching the DVD rather than going to the theater that sharpens your judgement.  I'm spending $3 instead of $30.  I'm comfy on my couch and not next to someone horning in on my side of the arm rest.  If I see a movie at the theater, a lot of factors encourage me to inflate my opinion of the movie.  I want to feel good about my $30.  I convinced myself "For Love of the Game," was good at the theater.  At home, pluh.  Kevin Costner's fastball looked a lot less, um, I don't know, 47 mph on the big screen.  So there are good things about seeing most movies at home.

That said, I might be the last person in the U.S. to have seen "No Country for Old Men."  Maybe I'm overestimating its viewership, but obviously, after winning 'Best Picture" and getting a lot of attention over the past few months, it's been seen by a lot of people.  Is the attention merited?  The awards?  I can't really tell.  Of the Coen brothers films, I don't know if it cracks the top 3.  As far as being a compelling story, "Fargo," was much better.  "O Brother," was better.  "The Big Lebowski," while not artistically as accomplished nor meant to be taken as seriously, was so fucking clever at the time.  I wonder if just having the Coen name on a movie gets it a degree of acceptance prior to it's even being viewed.  

The characters are totally believable.  No one performs outside themselves.  The characters are injected into fucked up situations, but you never wonder how they got there.  You don't know what's going to happen next.  Is the hitman going to get his guy?  Is he going to live?  Is Josh Brolin going to make it?  He doesn't turn into Rambo, overcoming insurmountable odds to save his woman and his life.  Would I act any differently if I were being chased with a gun?  That all said, why was this movie supposedly better than "There Will Be Blood," or "Into the Wild?"  I don't know that it was.  Are Academy Award voters so blah that they slobber and drool over any perceived anti-Hollywood style twists and turns?  Do they love unknowingly recognizing post-movie that they've been rooting for the bad guy?  I'm not sure why this movie garnered the unquestioned and unexamined acceptance it did.  It's good.  It might be great.  I'm not such a douche that I'd presume to tout my own movie interests over those of more accomplished movie-goers.  But, it's not as good as "Fargo," nor its own contemporary, "Into the Wild."  I'd watch it again though.