No Country for Old Meh

OK. Now I consider myself a pretty astute and intelligent filmgoer. When I watch a movie, I am not simply observing an interplay of characters on a screen. I watch films through several different lenses: I (try) to see the director's vision, the writer's intentions, the actors abilities; these are just a few examples of how I digest a film. And I give all movies an equal shake on this; my multi-faceted scrutiny is not reserved just for "highbrow" films: I apply it to the largest grandest epic to the most silly slapstick comedy.

Approaching film-watching in this manner typically results in a more balanced critique. Like, the story may have sucked but the actors made it watchable. Or, the actors came off as community theater rejects but the end titles were in a nice font. You see my point. There are very few movies I outright hate -- or outright love.

And there are even fewer that outright confuse me.

Like most sharp-minded, red-blooded human beings, I hate looking like a dumbass. Especially when it comes to a subject in which I consider myself a bit of an aficionado, like movies. When a particular film is lauded with critical praise, heaps of awards, and the acclaim of millions of moviegoers, and I see the flick and just don't get it, I feel kinda dumb. What did I miss? What didn't I see, that clearly everyone else saw? It makes me feel as if there's some great joke that I haven't been let in on.

The latest movie in which I missed the punchline in a big, big way is "No Country for Old Men". Last night, I settled in to watch this film, all ready to enjoy a rollicking, highly original piece of art as only the Coen brothers can produce. And, 122 minutes later, I was left with one feeling and one feeling only about this multiple Oscar winner, critic's darling, and box office smash. I was left with "Meh".

Allow me to attempt a translation of "Meh" as applied to "No Country for Old Men".

The movie wasn't bad. The movie wasn't good. But I suppose I failed at seeing it through the lens of the directors' vision, since I didn't really see much of anything at all happening. Granted, this stark simplicity is a Coen brothers trademark: their films tend to move slowly though methodically, introducing fascinating and unique characters along the way, presenting deliciously dark and twisted moments of intensity, leading up to an unforgettable climax. Though I couldn't identify any of these elements in "No Country". It's more aimless than slow. The characters are more one-dimensional than human. And the usual dark humor and memorable climax were missing altogether.

But I know this is what some people liked about the movie. They enjoyed that the Coens stepped out of their "violent black comedy" genre and made a movie that was entirely different for them. A) It's the first time they presented an adaptation of someone else's work; "No Country" is based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy, and though I haven't read the book, most agree that it is a faithful, almost identical reworking of the novel. B) The movie eschews their usual dark and bloody humor for dramatic and deathly-serious mayhem, the consensus being that this is the first interpretation of "real life" the Coens have given us without clever, quirky little commentaries. And C) "Hurrah!" Hollywood seems to be shouting. "You've finally abandoned your artsy-fartsy ways and given us the guns and blood and explosions the world so desperately needs!"

Well. I don't need it. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer the riskier, darker, wonderfully wicked Coen brothers that gave the world such American masterpieces as "Blood Simple" and the amazing "Fargo". Don't get me wrong, all of the Coen's movies are violent and bloody and extreme, but in their pre-"No Country" work, it's typically in aid of a higher purpose: painting a certain picture of a certain community of endearingly oddball characters in moments of sinfully entertaining crisis. To me, "No Country for Old Men" seemed to be violent only for the sake of violence, and any hope of the Coen brother's usual wit was substituted with a pretty ho-hum story of a bunch of bad guys chasing each other for a bunch of money. Meh.

Normally by this point in a movie review, I would've given you a synopsis of what the movie is about. But if you reread the second-to-last sentence of the previous paragraph, you pretty much have the gist of it. There's nothing new here. There's nothing surprising. There's nothing revolutionary. And there's nothing I found even remotely unique.

So why all the praise? Why all the unabashed adoration for this film? Sure, it's the Coen brothers and they are a respected cinematic institution. Yes, the actors all do fine work here (Javier Bardem is a stand-out -- and somehow manages to still look incredibly sexy even with that ridiculous bowl-haircut; and I am a big fan of Tommy Lee Jones, I think he's the most underrated and underappreciated actor in movies today...plus he reminds me of my dad). Yup, the cinematography is great and adds to the overall mood of ruthless desert bedlam. Of course, with the Coen's adaptation of the great McCarthy's words, the script and (surprisingly sparse) dialog are commendable. So yeah, I can see giving a nod to "No Country" for being an acceptable departure from the Coen's usual work. But this movie was a critical and commercial blockbuster! And I totally missed why! Argh.

I think it's in order that I watch "Fargo" again tonight, just to remind myself of the many, many reasons why Joel and Ethan Coen are masters of their craft.