Overrated or Underrated: No Country For Old Men

[Uncle Sam]

Sick and tired of deciding whether videogames like Resident Evil 4 are better or worse than they're generally considered to be? Yeah, me too! That shit's gone on way too long. So I took that old tired concept and revamped it. Now we're gonna decide if movies are overrated or underrated, in some stroke of genius. I'm what happens when you breed a renegade with a maverick. You get an infertile renerick . All my siblings are mavegades...

In my recent campaign to tell everyone on the internet how overrated TDK is, I was asked for an example of a better recent movie, perhaps one that was actually deserving of an Oscar. I said No Country For Old Men. They then used a lol smilie, presumably because they didn't actually have an argument. 'Cos, y'know, this film did actually win four motherfucking acadamy awards you laughing motherfucker. They managed to do it without a dead Javier Bardem too.

Anyway, I'm getting carried away. But it's clear people are split on this film. Personally, I think people that think it's overrated are people that are used to their movies spoon-feeding them. Just a personal opinion. It's original, it's entertaining and it doesn't have to have a dramatic speech with even more dramatic music over it to get you involved. People are fat, people are old, people have annoying accents loose ends are left dangling all over the place. The villain has a stupid haircut. In short, it's absolutely brilliant. In fact, considering how many people think it's overrated, I'll say that it's underrated.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

It's rated correctly. For every person who says they didn't like the ending (which is fuckin' awesome) there are the same ammount that say it's great. The awards are misleading. There Will Be Blood is a superior film. But No Country is just more enjoyable. The difference being that you'd prefer to watch a film about drugs, money & murder over a very serious dramatic film about oil.

Anton Chigurh is also one of the best villians of recent times. He's like The Terminator but without being metallic. He's probably what a real psycho is like. Uncharismatic, and as normal as somebody can be for a serial killer. He also get's way in the end, and kills the guy who's supposed to be the hero with absolutely no fuss. Personally I don't need to see people die, I do that in most films I see.

 

[jmt225]

I agree with Jake; it's rated just right.

This is a movie you either really, really love, or really, really hate. And I truly think the sides on each fence are even. You probably wouldn't get that feeling with looking at internet and critics ratings of the film, but if you talk to normal people who've seen it, you'll usually get the same amount on each side of the fence as I said of people who love it and hate it.

Personally, I'm on the side of the fence that hates the film. I really want to like it, but even after four times of viewing it, I still don't like it. However, I have been warming up to the Coen Brothers other films. I watched "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" for the first time recently since it was released on video, and enjoyed it a lot more then I did the first time around (granted, I was around 15/16 years old the first time I saw it, so my taste in films back then were still shit anyway). And I also saw "The Man Who Wasn't There" and "Raising Arizona" these past couple of months and both were good, especially "Raising Arizona". And I plan on checking out “Burn After Reading” once released on DVD right before Christmas, even though some douchebag on another forum already ruined a big scene of the movie by posting a gif of what is probably the most popular part in the entire film (if you’ve seen the movie, then you probably know exactly what I’m talking about).

 

[Y 2 Jake]

This is a movie you either really, really love, or really, really hate. And I truly think the sides on each fence are even. You probably wouldn't get that feeling with looking at internet and critics ratings of the film, but if you talk to normal people who've seen it, you'll usually get the same amount on each side of the fence as I said of people who love it and hate it.

I don't think opinion on the film is spilt half and half. The majority of people like the film, it's just the ending that they don't like.

It's kind of similar to the end of The Sopranos, you expect something to happen, but it doesn't. So the first time you see it you think it's anti-climatic.

I really want to like it, but even after four times of viewing it, I still don't like it.

Four times? That's pointless, if you want to like it you'd be better off leaving it for a few years and coming back to it. 4 times a year is excessive even if you love a film.

However, I have been warming up to the Coen Brothers other films. I watched "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" for the first time recently since it was released on video, and enjoyed it a lot more then I did the first time around (granted, I was around 15/16 years old the first time I saw it, so my taste in films back then were still shit anyway). And I also saw "The Man Who Wasn't There" and "Raising Arizona" these past couple of months and both were good, especially "Raising Arizona". And I plan on checking out “Burn After Reading” once released on DVD right before Christmas, even though some douchebag on another forum already ruined a big scene of the movie by posting a gif of what is probably the most popular part in the entire film (if you’ve seen the movie, then you probably know exactly what I’m talking about).

The Coen Brothers are awesome. What are the quotation marks for?

 

[jmt225]

I don't think opinion on the film is spilt half and half. The majority of people like the film, it's just the ending that they don't like.

That definitely could be the case.

Four times? That's pointless, if you want to like it you'd be better off leaving it for a few years and coming back to it. 4 times a year is excessive even if you love a film.

Yeah, I know. But I saw it once at the movie theaters, once with my mother when she brought the DVD when I was in town, and just two other random times when there was just nothing else on (it's been on Starz for a few months now).

Maybe a few years down the line my opinion will change on the film, who knows.

The Coen Brothers are awesome. What are the quotation marks for?

Lol, I don't know. Sometimes I put them there, sometimes I don't.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

It's rated correctly. For every person who says they didn't like the ending (which is fuckin' awesome) there are the same ammount that say it's great. The awards are misleading. There Will Be Blood is a superior film. But No Country is just more enjoyable. The difference being that you'd prefer to watch a film about drugs, money & murder over a very serious dramatic film about oil.

Why do you say There Will Be Blood is a superior film? Even though it was based off of an Upton Sinclair book, in its execution, I thought it was nothing more than a wannabe Days of Heaven (and, P.T. Anderson ain't no Terrence Malick) that could have been cut by about 30 minutes. In my opinion, only great performances by Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano saved this film from mediocrity.

But, I would agree that No Country For Old Men is rated correctly. Furthermore, I think it is the best thing the Coen Brothers have ever done (even though my favorite film of 2007 was Michael Clayton).

Edit: I originally said that There Will Be Blood was based off of a novel by Sinclair Lewis. I have corrected my post to show that it was actually based off of a book called Oil! by Upton Sinclair. Apologies for the mistake.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Why do you say There Will Be Blood is a superior film?

More dramatic performances, larger scope, it's about oil yet it's intresting.

Even though it was based off of an Upton Sinclair book, in its execution, I thought it was nothing more than a wannabe Days of Heaven

A book about oil, called Oil? Eugg, no thanks. Intresting to watch, bore to read.

I haven't seen Days Of Heaven.

(and, P.T. Anderson ain't no Terrence Malick)

No he's better. He doesn't try to get along on intresting visuls alone, which is all he tried to do with The New World. Magnolia, Boogie Nights & There Will Be Blood are just as ambitious as anything Malick has done.

that could have been cut by about 30 minutes.

That could be said about most films. Comedies these days are nearly two hours long, instead of a more compact 90 minutes. Even The Dark Knight could have done with a quarter of an hour lopping off.

In my opinion, only great performances by Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano saved this film from mediocrity.

The film in general isn't going to intrest a lot of people. It's not a film you watch to enjoy.

Furthermore, I think it is the best thing the Coen Brothers have ever done

Not even close imo.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

No he's better. He doesn't try to get along on intresting visuls alone, which is all he tried to do with The New World. Magnolia, Boogie Nights & There Will Be Blood are just as ambitious as anything Malick has done.

When I said that "Anderson ain't no Malick," what I really meant to say is that films that try to relay information to the viewer through visuals rather than action are not really Anderson's forte. I will gladly concede the point that Anderson is a good director, as I agree with you...his films preceding There Will Be Blood were original and superbly written and edited. However, I think that there is no denying that There Will Be Blood is very different from Anderson's previous films..it is much less talkative and much more contemplative. And, when compared to similar films about the early American frontier and mid-west, I think There Will Be Blood falls short precisely because these films were directed by individuals whose strong suits were meticulously recreating an historical period and showing how the physical and social atmospheres of this period affected those who lived in it.

Not even close imo.

It would be interesting to know what Coen film you think is the best.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

When I said that "Anderson ain't no Malick," what I really meant to say is that films that try to relay information to the viewer through visuals rather than action are not really Anderson's forte.

Oh yes, I agree. There aren't many who can make a film look better than Malick, certainly not over the length of a whole film.

But There Will Be Blood was never going to have the scenery of The Thin Red Line. Grass is prettier than sand, water prettier than oil.

I will gladly concede the point that Anderson is a good director, as I agree with you...his films preceding There Will Be Blood were original and superbly written and edited. However, I think that there is no denying that There Will Be Blood is very different from Anderson's previous films..it is much less talkative and much more contemplative.

Don't get me wrong. I'd much rather see Magnolia, which was my favourite film for a long time. Or Boogie Nights. But TWBB on paper should be really dull. It doesn't have any porn and it's basically just one or two men holding your intrest for a whole film.

And, when compared to similar films about the early American frontier and mid-west, I think There Will Be Blood falls short precisely because these films were directed by individuals whose strong suits were meticulously recreating an historical period and showing how the physical and social atmospheres of this period affected those who lived in it.

I couldn't really say, I don't watch much set in that era. Apart from maybe westerns.

It would be interesting to know what Coen film you think is the best.

My personal favourite is The Big Lebowski, although I'm not under the impression that it's their best. Fargo is probably the most popular, so overall I'd consider that their best. More people watch and enjoy it, therefore it's the best etc. But really I'd go Miller's Crossing.

Overall it's hard to judge because they don't stick to one genre, also No Country is new, so time might tell on that one.

 

[X]

First off, let me say I'm very pleasantly surprised that some of our posters here are even aware of a filmmaker like Terrence Malick, but I suppose he's become more mainstream since the Thin Red Line. Truly one of the great filmmakers of the century, aside from the mediocre at best New World. But still, Badlands, Days of Heaven, and The Thin Red Line are three fantastic movies that don't get the credit they deserve. The Thin Red Line was better then Saving Private Ryan in my opinion, while Badlands continues to be ripped off shamelessly to this day. Natural Born Killers, that overrated mess that everyone spooges over? Nothing but a ripoff of Badlands with some MTV video editing thrown in and over the top acting.

No Country For Old Men is definately one of the best films of the still very young 21st century. Everything about it is pitch perfect, from the dialogue to the Coen's bravely deciding to forgoe the cop-out (or "happy ending") in favor of the more realistic and dramatic approach. Anyone who doesn't like the ending of this film, simply isn't capable of understanding it. The people who wanted a happy ending where the good guy triumphs and sails off into the sunset with his blushing bride are the absolute bottom of the movie-going barrell, the kind of people who liked Wild Wild West. And we all know those types of people are evil, pure and unadulterated.

Jake summed up Javier Bardem's performance perfectly, Anton Chigurh is one of the best villains of not only recent memory, but I'll dare to go out on the limb and proclaim him one of the best of all time. He's a hundred times more frightening then Jason Voorhees, zombies, or Satan himself. I cannot praise Bardem's performance enough, and upon first seeing the movie I immediately went out to find more work of his (The Sea Inside stars Bardem and is another amazing film from the equally astounding Alejandro Amenabar, check it out if you're in the mood for a serious and touching film).

Josh Brolin & Tommy Lee Jones shouldn't be overlooked either, both bring their absolute A game to the table and I can easily say that this is the best performance from either actor that I've yet to see.

In the end, I would say that this film is underrated, but that's hard to say when the film won so many Oscars. So I'd say it's rated correctly, as what it is: a masterpiece, and the Coen brothers best film to date (though Blood Simple and Miller's Crossing could be thrown into that argument).

Quite ironic that I just watched this movie a view hours ago for the 3rd or 4th time then come on here to find this thread.