MYSTIC RIVER

by Gordon

Directed by: Clint Eastwood

Released: 2003

Rating: R [language and violence]

Runtime: 138 min.

Main Cast: Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Laurence Fishburne

Rotten Tomatoes: 88%                    IMDB: 8.0/10

 

   I can’t quite fully embrace the level of acclaim garnered by this movie…a great movie I’ll admit. And please don’t mistake my less-than-ecstatic review for being a jab at the film in any way. It’s a very well done, well acted, and well scripted movie…it no doubt deserves to be well received. It didn’t touch me as significantly as it seems to have in higher film critic circles, but admittedly, the film may just be “bigger” than me…a higher form of art than my emotional brain is capable of processing. The emotional brain I possess wished for a slightly different storyboard (conclusion especially), but all in all it very well may deserve the praise it’s achieved.

   Set in Boston, the film opens with three young friends, Jimmy Markum, Sean Devine, and Dave Boyle, who after playing a game of hockey in the street, somewhat relucantly decide to carve their names in newly drying cement on the side of the road. A car pulls up, at which point a self-professed police officer (not in uniform) scolds the boys for their actions, and orders Dave into the car (also occupied by a man in a priest’s clothing), and drives off. The two men (we see in a telling snippet) are in fact mere child molesters keeping Dave locked in the basement. He fortunately escapes, but the sinister effect on the young boy transcends his youth and manifests into his adult life as the film quickly shifts twenty-five years later, all three friends now living very different lives and speaking little to each other of the past, despite the fact that they still live on the same somewhat haunted streets of Boston.

   Jimmy (Sean Penn) is an ex-con running a neighborhood store whose daughter Katie (Emmy Rossum) is secretly dating Brendan Harris with plans to elope. Jimmy hates Brendan, as it’s later revealed that he never liked his father either. Dave (Tim Robbins) is a blue collar worker living near Jimmy who’s still affected by his abduction, with a wife and young boy he often has trouble relating to.

   The events of the movie revolve around the murder of Jimmy’s daughter Katie, occurring on the same night that Dave sees her in a local bar, later returning home with blood on his hands and clothes. He tells wife Celeste (Marcia Gay Harden) that he fended off a mugger and possibly killed him. Overseeing the investigation is their old friend Sean (Kevin Bacon) with partner Whitney Powers (Laurence Fishburne), whose first suspicions are directed toward Brendan Harris after they find that the gun used to kill Katie is the same kind that was used by Bredan’s father Ray (now out of town) in a previous robbery.

   Both Sgt. Whitney Powers and Dave’s wife Celeste, however, increasingly suspect Dave of being involved because of his wounded hand and strange behavior, his own wife even confessing to Jimmy (her cousin) that she thinks Dave killed Katie. At this point, Jimmy’s own friends who had been conducting their own investigation pick Dave up and take him to a bar in an effort to get him drunk and confess. When Jimmy enters, Dave, already feeling sick, becomes even more nervous and runs outside to vomit. Jimmy tells Dave he can either confess to killing Katie and spare his life, or deny it and be killed. At the same time, Sean and his partner arrive at Brendan Harris’ house just before a violent scuffle between Brendan, his brother, and his brother’s friend gets out of hand, resulting from Brendan’s knowledge that their father’s gun had been used and suspecting his brother’s involvement.

   It’s a nail-biting ending, full of mystery and emotion both for the characters involved and the viewers. Equal praise can be given the story’s set-up, with complex, interweaving plotlines and characters, and great performances all around (Penn and Robbins winning Academy Awards for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, respectively).

   I have few complaints, but complaints nonetheless: Dave’s early abduction, while very much affecting his character for the remainder of the film, doesn’t translate much or seem to resolve either in the story’s development or with other characters. Also, while the closing scenes to the film make for a thrilling conclusion, the results to follow and effect of truth learned for the remaining characters seem too transparent, the emotional toll escaping all of them on the level I felt deserving. But subtle small talk, winks and nods between them in the final shots may convey all that director Eastwood felt necessary. Altogether, it’s a well-above-average mystery movie, and perhaps moreso, as Richard Roeper points out, “a great portrait of three tough but damaged men.”

BROTHERS

by Gordon

Directed by: Jim Sheridan

Released: 2009

Rating: R [language and some disturbing violent content]

Runtime: 104 min.

Main Cast: Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman, Sam Shepard

Rotten Tomatoes: 58%                    IMDB: 7.5/10

 

   I wanted to like this movie more than I did, but I still can’t help but be attracted to the story, the cast, and the performances given. It’s not a very happy film all in all, its key plotlines honing in on subjects of broken family relationships, infidelity, and the effects of war. But it’s also not without its redeeming glimmers of hope to be found in all three. Still, the daunting challenge in convincingly portraying all of these elements in a single story is perhaps just out of reach even for a great director like Jim Sheridan.

   Both criticism and praise have been directed toward the film for its casting. Personally, I’m one to commend it. Despite a sometimes less than believable family history between its three prominent stars (one that might even have been helped by their characters being slightly older with more life experience), all three have proven some of the best acting chops of our generation, Brothers showing no exception.

   Tobey Maguire plays Sam Cahill, a marine and young family man about to embark on a fourth tour of duty to Afghanistan. Shortly before departing, his brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) is released from prison for armed robbery. He’s noticeably more carefree than his stable, regimented brother Sam, a fact duly noticed and reminded him by those around him. When he joins Sam’s family and their father for dinner at Sam’s house, one of Sam’s young daughters greets him by saying, “Mom doesn’t like you.” At the dinner table, after lightly inquiring about the war, his veteran father sternly tells him, “Your brother’s a hero. He’s serving his country, and don’t you ever forget that.”

   Soonafter reaching Afghanistan, Sam’s helicopter crashes into the ocean, and news comes home of his death. A funeral is held, and more animosity erupts between Tommy and their father outside, this time Tommy retaliating back, criticizing his dad for coming home drunk, fighting with their mom, and putting ideas of war and bravery in their heads years ago. Tommy continues to be somewhat of a nuisance at home, calling Sam’s wife, Grace (Natalie Portman), to pick him up and pay his tab at a bar after running out of money.

   But while Grace continues to mourn for her fallen husband, Tommy begins to redeem himself by refurbishing her kitchen and spending time with her two daughters who come to enjoy his company. Even conversations between Tommy and his father start to sound more hopeful. This culminates to a point where Grace warms up to the brother she once looked down on, and while sitting beside the fireplace one night, they share a kiss, both of them regretting it soonafter.

   As the viewer begins to warm up to Tommy too, the kiss wouldn’t seem such a bad thing, except unbeknownst to the rest of his family, Sam is still alive and being held hostage by a group of terrorists with a hometown friend and fellow marine. He’s eventually rescued and comes home, but is noticeably changed and distant as a result of what he’s seen and done while in captivity, calling to mind the change seen in Tom Cruise’s character in Born on the Fourth of July.

   Further alienating him from those he loves are growing suspicions of an intimate relationship between Tommy and Grace in his absence, something denied by both (but perhaps not strongly enough). Top acting honors have to go to Bailee Madison, one of Sam’s daughters, for the unflinchingly real emotion she poured into a scene at her sister’s birthday party where through tears she yells at her father that he should have stayed dead and that her mom loves Uncle Tommy. I have never been so convinced by a child actor. Her words, though unfounded, fueled Sam’s suspicions to a breaking point, and in a violent display of emotion, Sam makes his frustrations perfectly clear to those around him, even costing him the way of life he almost had back.

   Unfortunately, Sheridan’s turn at the story hasn’t garnered as much praise as the Danish film of the same name by Susanne Bier, both of which take inspiration from Homer’s The Odyssey. In many ways it could have been aided by a few minor story and script edits, but the foundations of deep human relations are all there. It’s nice to sink your teeth into something this serious now and again, fairytale ending or not.

THE LOVELY BONES

by Gordon

Directed by: Peter Jackson

Released: 2010

Rating: PG-13 [mature thematic material involving disturbing violent content and images, and some language]

Runtime: 135 min.

Main Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon

Rotten Tomatoes: 35%                    IMDB: 6.8/10

 

   I looked forward to The Lovely Bones for considerable time prior to its release. It wasn’t helped much by a confusing North American release…first a limited one in mid-December, and then wide over a month later. But that aside, there it was…the new film by Peter Jackson, the reputable director of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong which, yes, I did like very much. Through trailers I was already aware it would be a departure for Jackson…though still appearing visually daring and creatively exploring, it would not be the sweeping, epic type of picture that Jackson’s won the world over in films past. The Lovely Bones, obviously, wouldn’t suit that type of picture.

   Knowing a little about the book by Alice Sebold from which the film derives, the type of picture Jackson created seems a fairly successful rendering. I liked it…that much I can say confidently. It was a good movie. Certain elements shine. The storytelling was clever. The acting (especially from Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci) was solid. The dreamlike sequences of life after death were thoughtful and imaginative. But when it was all over, I wasn’t buzzing with the telling aftertaste of a classic, memorable movie. And I’m not sure whether to direct my criticism toward director Jackson or author Sebold for that.

   The story is set in a suburb of Pennsylvania in 1973, and Jackson does an impressive job of recreating the period throughout the movie. 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Ronan) takes a shortcut through a cornfield home from school one day, when a man from her neighborhood, George Harvey (Tucci), approaches her and lures her into an underground den he’s built. He goes on to rape and murder Susie, and with this Jackson decides to show little, focusing on the build-up of the heinous crime instead. It’s a commendable approach, but part of me feels that a more visceral depiction of the depths of Harvey’s evil nature might have aided the film’s supsense and intensity.

   Confusing things slightly for the viewer, what we actually see is Susie escaping from the den after kicking Harvey in the face. She runs into town and sees her father Jack (Mark Wahlberg), who after being alerted by the police is using a photo to ask if anyone’s seen her. But he doesn’t see Susie. She then runs home to an eerily empty house, and then upstairs where she finds Harvey in a bathtub with blood in the sink. It’s then that she discovers she’s been murdered and, while I appreciated the supernatural turn, its execution seemed slightly sloppy.

   Detective Len Fenerman (Michael Imperioli) is called in to investigate, but when they find Susie’s bloody hat at the scene of the crime, Susie’s family must accept their loss. Susie must also accept her own death, and she’s aided by the help of a girl she meets, Holly Golightly, who is also one of Harvey’s past victims. The pair traipse through a land called “the in-between”, a dreamlike, changing landscape that combines earthly elements and visions with those of the mind. Jackson craftily paints this imaginative picture, which becomes an added dimension of appeal, but there was an ambiguity to it that left me slightly confused.

   Harvey is questioned by police, but successfully evades any suspicion. Susie’s mother Abigail (Rachel Weisz), under too much stress surrounding Susie’s death, leaves the home and works at a California apple orchard. Her eccentric mother Lynn (Susan Sarandon) replaces her in the home. Aided by previously undeveloped camera film that Susie left behind, Jack increasingly suspects Harvey as his daughter’s murderer. Following Harvey into the cornfield one night, he’s brutally attacked by a young man who, along with his girlfriend, believed Jack to be ambushing them. With her dad in the hospital, Susie’s sister Lindsey breaks into Harvey’s house when he’s not home to look for evidence. She finds it in the form of what could be called a “murder diary” that he’s hid in an upstairs bedroom. Harvey returns, however, and in a hold your breath scene, runs after Lindsey, through and out of his house, until she finds refuge in her own home.

   It’s here, after a shining glimmer of hope and potential justice, that I believe the story misses the opportunity entirely. Lindsey enters her home to find her mother has returned after learning of her husband’s injuries. When all the viewer wants is for Lindsey to reveal  her newfound evidence to everyone that matters (family and police), the story complicates things and effectively strips the previous scene of its momentum by overlapping it with the subplot of Abigail’s return home. Lindsey, possibly to protect the strains on her parents’ relationship, elects to give the book to her grandmother instead, though that reason doesn’t seem grand enough to trump exposing Susie’s murderer.

   What happens with the evidence at that point is left unclear and untold. The story shifts to a giant sinkhole in the earth where Harvey begins to dump the chest containing Susie’s body before fleeing the area. By chance, Susie’s friend Ruth and her high school crush Ray are also by the sinkhole as this is taking place. In a bizarre series of events, Susie enters the body of Ruth, causing her to collapse. When Ray rushes to Ruth’s side, he discovers it’s Susie, and they share a kiss. With this, Susie’s apparent last wish fulfilled (which is somehow greater than her wish for her killer to come to justice), she returns to heaven, as if to redeem the fact that she was murdered in the first place. Her killer, we see some time later, does find justice, but cheaply so and in no way close to how the audience (if I can speak for) would hope.

   I can’t complain too much about Jackson’s direction. He took a complex and in some ways conviluted story and told it the best way he saw fit, which wasn’t all bad. I think, then, my primary complaints need to be directed toward author Sebold who, despite a unique, thoughtful premise, didn’t connect the dots when it mattered in the end. But still Jackson, good-intentioned as he was, took perhaps equal responsibility when he signed on and helmed the feature. In short, it’s not bad, but it is an opportunity missed.

VANILLA SKY

by Gordon

Directed by: Cameron Crowe

Released: 2001

Rating: R [sexuality and strong language]

Runtime: 136 min.

Main Cast: Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, Penélope Cruz, Jason Lee, Kurt Russell

Rotten Tomatoes: 40%                    IMDB: 6.9/10

 

   I love this movie, and yet many film critics don’t. The general masses are a little more positive, but are still pretty mixed on the issue. Some people just hate Tom Cruise, and understandably so, but he really isn’t a horrible actor…I’d even call him a good one. For me, the real gem about this movie is its emotionally-charged, thought-provoking look into the possibility of alternate realities. A little sci-fi, yes, but not in a distracting, “techy” way. Even a movie like Avatar, with a plot centering on a futuristic non-human species, is relatable and “real” enough to hold one’s attention.

   Vanilla Sky, however, set in a not-so-distant future and a reality we already know, thoughtfully and maybe most important, subtly, allows you to follow and accept a story that slowly veers into the unknown. The film centers on the life of David Aames (Cruise), a rich and perhaps spoiled heir to his deceased father’s publishing company, who falls in love with a girl named Sofia (Cruz). Aames isn’t a lovable hero, but he’s a relatable mix, and for sympathy’s sake, relatable’s what you want.

   Through an unfortunate bout of jealousy coming from an ex-lover (Diaz), Aames awakes one day to find his entire face has been badly disfigured. The true-life implications of such personal physical tragedy in the wake of a fresh, new love is captivating enough, but a number of dream sequences, intertwined with separate scenes of a mask-wearing Aames in a jail cell with an appointed psychologist (Russell), leave one wondering what’s really going on. Despite cosmetic surgery restoring his good looks and his regaining the heart of Sofia, there are still unexplained glitches and questions as to the identities of Sofia and Aames’ ex-lover that have culminated into Aames’ arrest for murder.

   I won’t give the conclusion away, but there are explanations, more bitter than sweet perhaps. The question of reality as opposed to perceived reality becomes a central theme, especially in the face of dramatic shifts in the relationships experienced by Aames during the duration of the film. Our main character’s emotions hinge on these questions, and layer these emotions with a great soundtrack (Radiohead, R.E.M. Sigur Rós, to name a few), and my mind starts turning. Such becomes even more the case as director Crowe artistically sprinkles in odd bits of imagery and video that bring to mind recollections of past, forgotten memories, as they are meant to express for Aames.

   The film closes on a note of self-awareness followed by personal will power to take a step toward one of two life-changing paths, each with their own advantages and not. By the time the credits roll, you still won’t love David Aames, but you’ll feel closer to him, either for recounting similar emotions held by him in the story, or experiencing new ones as portrayed on screen.

   Like certain other successful (or at least noteworthy) movies, Vanilla Sky touches on a variety of genres, from mystery to sciene fiction, to romance and comedy, to adventure and psychological thriller. In doing so, it taps into the corresponding emotions in all of us, leaving us a full helping of personal reflection in its wake. Successful to the viewer or not, it’s also unlike most movies you’ve seen before. I love this movie too much to hate Tom Cruise, and if not love to give you the same conclusion, then hopefully respect.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD

by Gordon

Directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson

Released: 2008

Rating: R [some violence]

Runtime: 158 min.

Main Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano

Rotten Tomatoes: 91%                    IMDB: 8.2/10

 

   Two-and-a-half words: Daniel Day-Lewis. As with most films to star my second-favorite actor (first place taken by Dustin Hoffman), his performance, while not wanting to say made the movie (which would take deserving credit away from the great Paul Thomas Anderson’s direction, one of the best soundtracks I’ve ever heard, and great performances from the supporting cast), propelled an already great movie into “classic” status.

   Day-Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, an early 1900s oil-man who starts from the ground up and spends the duration of the movie wise-talking and manipulating his way with locals and businessmen in pursuit of monopolizing the oil market in Southern California. By his side most of the way is his son and “business partner” H.W., who starts as a baby in a basket who’s adopted by Plainview after the child’s father dies to a rigging accident early in the film. And complicating Plainview’s efforts is the young preacher Eli Sunday, played by the promising rising star Paul Dano.

   There’s a recognizably unique aura to the film that penetrates through nearly every scene, a combination of vast and dry landscapes that holds the characters in their own seemingly cordoned off world, an unnervingly beautiful soundtrack by Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood of predominantly strings and percussion, and generally good old historically-set storytelling seen through the lens of an obviously keenly-observing cinematographer. Not bending from the formula, it binds the story in a nice, neat package that ties its events together, scene to scene, beginning to end.

   The differences and animosity between Plainview and Eli Sunday are beautifully acted in ranges from subtle (earlier on) to blunt and vicious, with both men having the upper hand at different times. Unwillingly joining Sunday’s church to fulfill part of a deal, Plainview is humiliated by the young preacher in front of the congregation as part of his initiation, an act later reversed in the final scene of the movie.

   The part where things get subjective is whether or not the story is interesting/entertaining enough to be appreciated by all audiences. Spoiler Alert: It’s not. Some don’t like historical pieces. Some won’t dig its lack of sex (or any romantic relationships at all)…(they’ll mostly be women). Others will miss any substantial violence or action. There’s really not much that’s in-you-face about this movie, but its subtle character nuances, overflowing through nail-biting motives and subsequent decisions, in my opinion packs more of a punch than the best Die Hard movie (take your pick).

   Rarely do so many themes abound in a (mostly) singular story: faith, family and greed at the forefront. Added to the interest is an absentee hero and/or villain, as both main players are unquestionably despicable but also oddly deserving of sympathy at their lows. In a way it affords the viewer the opportunity to take curious interest in the ups and downs of more than one character’s story.

   Sometimes we see a movie we wish we’d never seen. Many times we see a movie that was the best part of our day or week. Rarely we see a movie that leaves a lasting impression which goes on to influence the rest of our movie-watching careers. Thank you to everyone involved with There Will Be Blood in making such a rare one.

AVATAR

by Gordon

Directed by: James Cameron

Released: 2009

Rating: PG-13 [intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking]

Runtime: 162 min.

Main Cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel Moore, Michelle Rodriguez, Stephen Lang

Rotten Tomatoes: 82%                    IMDB: 8.6/10

 

   Avatar isn’t a movie for everyone. There are some people who just can’t get into a science-fiction story. Others are turned off by epic 3-hour-long blockbusters. But it’s undeniably a movie for most people, and its earnings so far will more than back me up on that. It is now the fastest film to reach $1 billion in box office receipts, and the fourth highest-grossing film of all time, with still more time to go.

   One could speculate as to what elements are most responsible for the film’s success. Initial expectations from fans and critics alike were that it would be a commercial failure, due to reasons ranging from its inflated budget to its story centering on “big, blue cat people”, with late night personalities saying it was expected to fare as well as Titanic, “the ship, not the movie”. But then, Titanic (the movie) wasn’t expected to do well either, and everyone knows what happened with that.

   It’s true…there are big, blue cat people in the movie, the Na’vi, a humanoid race living on a distant planet called Pandora. The year is 2154, and a group of humans , or rather two groups, have inhabited their territory, with two entirely different motives. A group of scientists (headed by Sigourney Weaver) are interested in learning more about the natives. Using avatars, genetically engineered human-Na’vi bodies that they can control with their minds, they can interact with the Na’vi. Then there’s the large corporation whose hired the help of former marines to extract a precious mineral that’s, unfortunately for the Na’vi, sitting right under their homes.

   And their homes, all of Pandora really, is a beautiful jungle landscape concocted from Cameron’s imagination since he was a boy. Much of the film’s budget (and the reason for delaying production until the right technology became available) went into creating Pandora, and the Na’vi and other creatures that inhabit it. Cameron’s and his crew’s efforts have birthed a place and people so beautiful and convincing that even the most staunch conservative could relate to and root for the Na’vi, who live in harmony with nature and worship a mother goddess called Eywa. And that’s what you’ll do as you watch the drama unfold between the two races, the result of which should be told only by Cameron. The hero of the story is Sam Worthington, playing a marine who grapples between fulfilling his orders and protecting a woman and her people he’s come to love in the Na’vi.

   Of course there’ll still be those traditionalists and older folks whose inner child died with every passing year of age who can’t get interested in a made-up race of futuristic blue people. Even some of the young and hip generation have criticized the visuals, especially of the Na’vi, but when was there ever a unanimous agreement on anything new and visually creative? And in my humble opinion, girls with tails are hot (Zoe Saldaña’s beautiful as herself or as an 8-foot-tall, blue, flat-nosed humanoid).

   Plus, with just about every kind of movie element appearing somewhere in the movie (love, betrayal, suspense, war, acceptance, humor, etc.) how can you walk away from it without liking something? Cameron’s said that if the film was successful, two sequels would be planned. Whether that’s a good idea or not is another debate, but based on his criteria, I’d say he has his answer.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

by Gordon

Directed by: Coen Brothers

Released: 2007

Rating: R [strong graphic violence and some langauge]

Runtime: 122 min.

Main Cast: Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, Kelly Macdonald

Rotten Tomatoes: 94%                    IMDB: 8.3/10

 

   I don’t really remember why I saw the movie for the first time. There was no actor in it I was too familiar with, aside from Tommy Lee Jones, who I can’t say stirs up notions for me of movie greatness. I had heard of the Coen Brothers before, but not enough to know what projects they had worked on previously or what praise they had amassed. The trailer probably had something to do with it. I think I remember it making an impression. Then I probably looked up initial reviews (which stood out as being uncharacteristically positive). Of course, I do remember why I saw it for the second and third time in theaters…it’s a freaking great movie.

   It’s a simple story that when put into the hands of the Coen Brothers became something more complex. It’s a story of good vs. bad but not in the traditional sense. The directors have described the three main characters as “a good guy, a bad guy, and one in-between”.

   The movie opens with bleak, sweeping Texas landscapes and a monologue from Jones’ character, who says, “The crime you see now, it’s hard to even take its measure” as you catch a first glimpse of Bardem’s character (the bad, really bad guy) being handcuffed on the side of the road. A minute later he’s choking the deputy on the floor with his handcuffs, a menacing look across his entire face. The scene establishes from the beginning the kind of bad guy you’re being introduced to, and the violence he’s capable of. Then he’s free and on the run with a ‘captive bolt’ device (used primarily to slaughter cattle) by his side…a trademark weapon for a trademark villain. As he holds the device up to the forehead of his next victim on the side of the road, he says softly, “Would you hold still, please, sir?”, a line echoed in the first words to come from Brolin’s character (the “in-between”, everyday man) in the next scene as he steadies his crosshairs on a field of antelope below. The film already draws comparisons between the two.

   Instead of risking a nightmarishly long analysis of the entire movie, I’ll try to be brief. Shortly thereafter, Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) discovers a drug deal gone bad and a large sum of money left behind, which he takes for himself. This becomes evident to Anton Chigurh (Bardem), who sets out to reclaim the money with the help of a tracking device set to locate the briefcase. Along the way we see him interact with a number of locals in scenes that put his odd demeanor on full display (see clip below) as Ed Tom Bell (Jones) and his deputy dig deeper into the crime.

   Moss hides out in a motel, but is soon tracked by Chigurh, who mistakenly breaks into the wrong room and misses Moss who is again on the run. Almost halfway into the film, enter Woody Harrelson as Carson Wells, a hired operative, like Chigurh, with the same task of finding the money.

   At the next hotel, in one of the best scenes of the movie, Moss sits and waits in the dark of his room as he senses the presence of his tracker in the hallway. Even the viewer’s senses are on alert as the elevator dings, the footsteps grow louder until their shadow is revealed at the crack of the door, the lights in the hallway go out (a smart move on Chigurh’s part), and then…well let’s just say the pursuit picks up, and both men are injured. Watching Chigurh tend to his unsightly wounds, you can feel his pain, but there’s an animalistic determination in his expressions, like it’s all part of the job.

   Chigurh finds Wells and the two sit for an expectedly tense conversation. As Chigurh points his shotgun towards Wells he asks with a smile, “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”, to which Wells replies, “Do you have any idea how crazy you are?” “You mean the nature of this conversation?” Chigurh replies, to which Wells answers, “I mean the nature of you.” One more sentence was all the time Wells was given.

   I’ve given away too much already. There’s a lot more that go down. Shit happens…some random, some expected. It’s a great story (hats off to Cormac McCarthy), but the actors and direction really took it to the level of “classic” (for I hope decades to come). Javier Bardem undoubtedly deserved his Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. There are a few creative touches that stand out and add to the movie’s richness. One of the more obvious is its lack of a soundtrack. Virtually all of the movie is void of music, leaving the ears to pick up on only the sound effects and dialogue. Then you’ve got the three main characters (as previously mentioned) that almost never interact or have scenes together (and when they are around each other, there’s little talking if any). And in terms of how the directors approached violence in the movie, the audience gets to see a lot of deaths, but not, ironically, those of any characters you’d expect to see the death of.

   Classifying a Coen Brothers movie is no easy task. No Country’s been referred to as a crime movie, a horror, a noir, even a comedy. Above all else, though, it’s a Coen Brothers movie. If you wanted to save yourself five minutes you could’ve just stopped there.