Style over substance

Rating: 2/10 (14 September 2016)

Hello again whoever is bored to read the whole text just read the following few lines.... Style over substance is in my opinion the case here. I disagree with other people that say that this movie has no plot. I believe it has one but it seems to me that's it's only to show off. It's like they want to deconstruct the genre of crime and/or mystery movies and they want to make a comment on that. In the first half of the movie we have the normal narrative the stereotyped characters and everything is going according to what usually happens in this type of movies. But in the second half all hell brakes loose. I mean what happens seems more like something that's trying to say something about the structure of the movie or to be some kind on comment on the genre than try to follow the characters....Also in the second half we have all the symbolism and the mystical and philosophical lines that all the fans love to try to connect the puzzle of the plot that it only emphasizes the point of the movie and it's more arrogant and flamboyant than helping deliver the message...It looks like these lines were made only for fans to have something to admire...
Somewhere near the end of the movie it hit me. I remembered Barton Fink and it all made sense. I mean in that movie the also wanted to make a critique on how a director who wrote scripts for theater descended by writing scripts for Hollywood or something like that. But in the end that symbolic critique was very superficial and it seems that it was the kind of critique that the people of the industry of Hollywood that talked about would have no problem of receiving.
It's the same thing with No country for old men I believe. Not only that but this movie because it tries too hard to accomplish something and to have a lot of style seems very pretentious and arrogant to me. It's good for the cocktail parties with all the Hollywood society and the cocaine and stuff but it's bad for cinema bad for art. It seems more like a structural exercise than one would make in film school than an actual movie. It seems the kind of movie that the Hollywood clique the one that's being criticized in Barton Fink would love and it did. The critiques praised it and the fans that couldn't see past the surface praised it. And I really believe it's too much fuss about nothing. They try to make a complex plot and in the same time a symbolic comment about the genre and in the same time something else....You can't do everything!!! The scale has to tip at something!!! Or it has to have some kind of balance...
Finally I don't know if they constructed this messed up movie in a way that everything made sense. And I'm not so interested to find out. It's like this Kinder egg that you are eager to open but once you open it you are disappointed because the toy inside is lame...
If I recall correctly Blood Simple was a movie in which Cohen brothers didn't try to hard. They wanted to make a crime/thriller movie and they did it. And it was good. Now they try really hard to make philosophical comments and critiques and stuff but in my opinion they are not good at it. They don't seem that smart. They seem good at making movies and I believe they should go back to just that.