This is two movies in one: What to definitely do in film-making, and what NOT to do in film-making. Entertainment (then utter disappointment) at its finest

Rating: 6/10 (4 December 2008)

No Country For Old Men is an amazing thriller full of tension, suspense, well-directed moments, fantastic imagery, wonderful dialogue, superb acting, and a nice plot to tie it in together. Then the movie decides to end. This film takes one of the biggest quality downfalls I have ever seen in my life, and this is by no means exaggeration. How does a movie do so well for so long and then deliver such utter garbage when we the viewer least needed it? How on earth does a movie full of tension for so long suck out the entertainment and desire to continue watching in a mere matter of moments? The questions continue to linger through my head as I write this; as the Best Picture Oscar winner disappointed me in ways I've never been disappointed before.
The worst part is the hard-hitting potential that was chugging along the fantastic story four-fifths of the way. The Coen Brothers looked like they ran out of ideas or just had no clue how to stop rolling the cameras and finish the gosh-darn story. In a film that liked showing more than telling throughout the first 90 minutes, it was certainly a surprise when the rest of the film was pretty much just narrated to us, as if we were a bunch of idiots. Main characters in the end are whether watered-down, having a serious case of the talkies, or just flat-out disappeared. This is easily one of the weakest films to actually receive a Best Picture nod. Well, at least it ain't Crash but it's certainly a movie that could have been one of the best in decades.
In this film, we follow a hunter (Josh Brolin) becoming hunted down by Mexican criminals, lawmen (Woody Harrelson, Tommy Lee Jones), and a psychotic killer (Javier Bardem) because of a great deal of money he discovered at a crime scene. This is pretty much a tense, violent cat-and-mouse game that has a good deal of followers and supporting players. No Country For Old Men is based off a novel with the same name by Cormac McCarthy; and translates well to the screen with very few changes and subtractions. The Coen Brothers can weave a good script, and their previous work is definite proof of this (Fargo, come on now). The dialogue of the killer Anton was downright scary, and the philosophical views of the cops involved also spark a bit of interest. However, when staying close to the original material, one tends to forget that original material does have its flaws as well. Unfortunately, the Coen Brothers were also very accurate with the weak portions in the book.
The ensemble cast in the film is absolutely wonderful, from the usually awesome Tommy Lee Jones to the decent Josh Brolin to the incredibly scary Javier Bardem. The film has a heavy dosage of cruel realism and the acting is one of the main reasons why this film worked so well for so long. Bardem portrays one of the best movie villains in ages, even surpassing that of Heath Ledger's Joker and Hugo Weaving's Agent Smith. His performance overpowers that of everyone else's by leagues.
Let's discuss what made this film so magnificent for the first two acts. First off, the directing was phenomenal as there were many series of long shots that built up the tension to a point in which you couldn't breathe. Then there's the incredible cinematography that could craft beauty out of dull settings. Last but not least was the quick pacing that kept the story flowing well and maintaining the interest of the viewer involved. While the portrayals of the characters could have used some major work writing-wise (the origins of almost all the main characters were pretty much non-existent) they kept the movie interesting. The lack of a soundtrack allowed for us to truly appreciate the incredible usage of sound involved (even a wrapper made a distinctively realistic noise when placed on a table).
Ending. What ending? The film literally wraps up in the middle of a scene. The film literally has no major climax, doesn't wrap up any loose ends, goes on a philosophical tangent, creates even more questions (which is never good if you are trying to END the movie) than answers. Everything going for this powerhouse flick was thrown away towards the end and instead we get this muddled, disgusting affair of dialogue. First 100 or so minutes: a lot of bark and bite. The last 20 minutes: weak, weak, weak barking and not a single bite. It was as if we were seeing two totally different movies, and neither one of them technically ended. It was as if the last pages of a good book were replaced with unsatisfying and useless Chicken Soup for the Soul quotations. The movie could have ended worse only if it were done in a gigantic musical interlude with hyper fruits flying out of cannons. Other than that random suggestion, you have to dig pretty hard to find the last time a good movie that ended in such a sour note.
Bottom Line: beautiful gem in the beginning, utter trash and garbage by the end of it all. What hurts the most is that with so much potential, the Coen Brothers ripped apart what made the movie work and spiraled it towards heavy disappointment level. The sour taste of the ending still lingers in my mouth as I write this. Best Picture? Sorry, but the entire movie has to deserve it, not just most of it. It's a total shame because there was such good usage of sound, such good cinematography, and grand acting. No Country For Old Men was like a five-star meal with a two-star topping. Let me end the review just like the mov-