Hitchcock most certainly could have and *did* do better

Rating: 5/10 (3 July 2009)

Film critic Roger Ebert once said that the biggest mistake the Academy Awards ever made was giving 2000's "Gladiator" the award for Best Picture of the Year. Now I thoroughly enjoyed "Gladiator" and if I had to list what I personally felt was the Academy's biggest mistake in Best Picture, I think I would select 2007's winner "No Country for Old Men." First of all, let me state that my giving this Oscar-winner a negative review, that I am standing very far away from the majority. Most people who have seen "No Country for Old Men" would describe it as a masterpiece; a modern-day classic with truly marvelous suspense. Well, I've seen the film and I would describe it was neither a classic, nor very suspenseful. And I know that by panning this film, that my review will be the subject of user criticism and probably, for some, proof of my worthlessness as a reviewer. But I sat down to watch "No Country for Old Men" with high expectations and had the time of my life with the first half-hour, but soon lost interest after that and ultimately I resulted in feeling the movie was in a word: mediocre. Very well-made, but mediocre.
The film is about a hunter (Josh Brolin) who stumbles upon a killing field that resulted from a drug deal gone bad. While investigating, he comes upon a case full of money and instead of turning it in, keeps the cash and goes on the run when he learns he's being tailed by a vicious tracker for the dealers (Javier Bardem). Meanwhile, a sheriff played by Tommy Lee Jones, tries to solve the whole affair more or less in the background.
Now this is a story that had me interested at the start. It's basically an updated version of Geoffrey Chaucer's classic "The Pardoner's Tale." And it sports a great cast with great performances, especially by Bardem, who won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, and is well made by the Coen brothers, famous for their previous endeavors such as "Fargo" (1996), however, the film ended up, to make it short, very much like its cinematographry: dry and lacking vibrancy. Again, it had a terrific beginning. But immediately after that, it seemed that the movie really bogged down and became deprived of the energy required to stay interested. And part of the reason for this is the inclusion of unnecessary characters. The Woody Harrelson character, in particular, is completely unnecessary and really does nothing at all worthy of one's time in the picture except stand around and talk. What was the point of his character? To a certain extent, what was the point of the Tommy Lee Jones character? I feel the film would have been better had it strictly focused on Bardem and Brolin as the hunter and the hunted, for their story was the interesting part. The subplot with Harrelson and Jones' wanted to retire just really seemed to get in the way.
I won't rant on about this film forever, but there is one more thing I really do want to cover. I read a lot of reviews about this film and a lot of enthusiastic supporters said the film was so riveting and so suspenseful that "Alfred Hitchcock himself couldn't have done better." Well, I've seen the film and I can honestly say that Alfred Hitchcock most certainly could have and DID do better in films such as "Rear Window" (1954), which was twice the movie this is. There was suspense at the beginning, in a sequence with Brolin being chased by drug dealers and voracious dogs, but after that, I didn't find a single moment where I was on the edge of my seat of finding myself jumping in fright. So all in all, we all have a Best Picture-winner that we don't think is worthy of the award and for me, it's "No Country for Old Men."