No Country for Old Men

I'll never stop loving the Coens, but I have soured on this movie in a big way. No Country For Old Men is such brutal piece of literature to translate to the big screen. It's definitely got its share of cinematic moments, but the bread and butter of the novel is Ed Tom Bell's musings on a world-gone-wrong that precede every chapter of the book. I can totally understand why the brothers dropped that in the film, it would seem to make the flick a much more palatable cinematic experience. But in losing Bell's inner-narrative, you pretty much lose the whole story. He's the clear-cut central character of the novel and when Moss dies, it doesn't feel as weird as in the film because we still have Bell going on about how much violence has erupted in the past few years and how everything is changing a little too fast for his liking. No Country For Old Men is very much Bell's story; he's a relic of a world that is passing him by. Everything is changing and different kinds of people and violence are emerging and while the movie tries its durndest to bring this to the forefront, the book just does it that much better.

I really liked the movie the first time I saw it and I loved the Coens for not resting on their laurels and going with such a difficult book to adapt. But I've found it simply doesn't hold up to multiple viewings like a Coen flick should. Technically speaking, it's a perfect film. Those early desert scenes really are breathtaking. And kick-ass performances all around. Especially outta Tommy Lee Jones doing his best Tommy Lee Jones. I've mentioned somewhere else on the site how much I thought of Jones when first reading the book and he doesn't disappoint here in the least. He's the balls. But, unfortunately, No Country for Old Men isn't the balls.

It's okay, though





And, yeah. Anybody know why Chigurgh did take off his socks?