Finally, a Coens film beloved by everyone... but is it good? and does it worth it?

Rating: 5/10 (26 February 2008)

First, I must say that I absolutely love Coens' films (those real Coens), but I can't not to admit that No Country for Old Men is very far from their standart of movie-making. It's a good film, well cast, well made, well filmed, actors play good (and Bardem plays very good) but there is something that doesn't make it those Coens I'm used to (or have been used to even). See, once you start making movies for big audience, for big money you will never stop... even if you try. And it doesn't look to me if Coens tried. Their entry to mainstream was painful, Intolerable Cruelty and then Ladykillers were really very disappointing. But at that time Coens already had a reputation of top class filmmakers (who they are in fact!). So that's why came this project - amazing PR campaign, only lazy critic (especially American one, especially in those big shiny movie magazines or some central newspapers) didn't call it an Oscar contender in best picture (means it finally fits all Academy's standarts). Film doesn't have philosophy - it has one simple idea which is chewed by every mind, by every critic (and wannabe critics, who represent much bigger army in today's world of information). And, furthermore, it doesn't have the style. It has a great picture, which is a very different thing. It's absolutely beloved by so many people because finally Coens have a film that suits everyone. It suits critics, it suits Academy, it suits producers and it suits masses who now discuss the genius of Coens and run on IMDb to cast their "10" vote to make it 23d best picture ever made. I feel sad that Coens went the same way that Scorsese.