Reviews: "No Country for Old Men" and "Lions for Lambs"

Coensisting

In the first few moments of No Country for Old Men, there is already a feeling that this is a tale that will spark a trip that one might not expect. The cool landscape of the Texas desert combined with a somber narration from Tommy Lee Jones registers heavily with the viewers. It seems to speak that what we are about to see is grimly dark, yet at the same time poetic and beautiful. I feel that perfectly sums up this film, which is a grand return from the famous directing duo.

Though normally Joel and Ethan Coen have divided up the work of producing, writing and directing (over the years they've done it all, but only one would take credit for directing and the other producing), here they share all three credits. The film, which the Coens adapted from the Cormac McCarthy novel, is set in a seemingly deserted Texas landscape around 1980. In this barren wasteland, there enters an assortment of fascinating characters. One is Llewelyn Moss, played with deep earnest by Josh Brolin. He's a Vietnam vet who tries to just make ends meet when, while hunting antelope, he stumbles upon a drug trade off gone bad. It is here he discovers a suitcase filled to the brim with hundred dollar bills and, being the opportunist, he takes the money. This sets into motion a driving plot that introduces even more wild characters. We get Ed Tom Bell, played with considerable ease by Tommy Lee Jones, as the local sheriff. Bell is an old fashioned guy who detests the way violence has spread through America and also hopes to find Llewelyn before someone else does. That someone else is Anton Chigurh, the infamous Javier Bardem. Chigurh is an assassin hired to find Llewelyn and the money, and he obviously has no shame in killing anything that gets in his way.

The most interesting thing about the film, and the most celebrated part, is how the Coen brothers crafted this film. They use a balance of interesting angles and quirky editing (done by the Coens under their trademarked pseudo name "Roderick Jaynes") to infuse the piece with a wondrous sense. Even a strange use of sound editing is perfectly matched in this film, such as early on when Chigurh strangles a deputy, a train whistle can be heard. There's no explanation, but it adds a little more to the scene than had it been left disturbingly silent. Much of their success is also added by the brilliant cinematography from their long time collaborator Richard Deakins. Deakins has already provided the photography for two other films this year, and the Academy should certainly see fit to award him an Oscar this year either for this film of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. It is really the Deakins cinematography that brings life to this film, and it is mixed with the Coens' direction that gives it a real instense feeling.

Certainly the main attraction in terms of the performances is Javier Bardem. He does indeed create a chilling and demonic psychopath that will definitely be remembered throughout the history of films. Armed with a compressorized slaughter gun and a shotgun fitted with a bold silencer, Chigurh defines himself as a force to be reckoned with. Even his low voice can send chills down the spine as it reminds us of a sosciopathic personalitly that is very unpredictable. Brolin also does good work at creating a character that we can both root for and despise at the same time. He isn't a saint, and many times he is a selfish bastard who likes to think about the money he's got stowed away more so than other's safety. However, we do get tender moments from him, and it is a nice mix to his character. As for Tommy Lee Jones, he is a great actor, however one cannot deny that the role of a Texas sherriff is by no means a stretch for the man, but he does a nice job at portraying some sort of morality pole in the entire film.

As much as I loved this movie, I have to admit that I did find flaws. As poetic as those first few moments of the film are, the film does take its tedious time in getting into its suspenseful plot, mainly because Chigurh is more so portrayed as a more laughable/horrific psychopath rather that a totally frightening one. Also, and I'll attempt not to give too much away, the ending is missing a sense of closure. An idea like this is often debatable, but for this viewer it was certainly necessary to completely fall in love. Still, those are small complaints and should not be judged heavily in watching this film. After a string of interesting, but ultimately, underwhelming flops like O Brother Where Art Thou, The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty, it seems that Joel and Ethan Coen have finally reminded us why their classic black comedy from more than a decade ago put them on the movie scene as gifted filmmakers. They are now back in a familiar country again: watching bad things happen to questionable people. *** 1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-.

The Political Seen

If anybody read my review of Rendition a few weeks ago (don't bother raising your hands), I mentioned an infection to be tearing itself through Hollywood about the onslaught of post-9/11 films that attempted to deal with the subject of battling terrorism and commenting on the war in Iraq. That film was by no means an antidote, and the only thing that had come close at the time was Paul Haggis' very flawed In the Valley of Elah. Now Robert Redford and an impressive cast chime in with his film, which is still flawed but possesses something that the others lack, which also gives it stance of recommendation: actually talking about politics.

The film contains three different stories that are central to its theme. The first, and the undeniably more interesting one, is the trade off between Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise. Cruise is Jasper Irving, an ambitious Republican senator from Illinois who has agreed to be interviewed by Streep's Janine Roth, a television journalist (strangely absent from a camera).

The second scenario involves Robert Redford as Stephen Malley, a political science professor at a California University having an intense political/sociological debate with hard ass student Todd Haynes, played by Andrew Garfield.

The last story explores the lives of Ernest Rodriguez and Arian Finch, two soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, played by Crash's Michael Peña and Antwone Fisher's Derek Luke, respectively, that are trapped on a snowy mountaintop in the country surrounded by the enemy. This story is a bit of a cheat at combining two, because it also includes flashbacks to scenes when Rodriguez and Finch were students in Malley's classroom and the intense arguments they had about joining the military.

Though this is a flawed film, I found that the actual discussions about politics was really the determining factor that sets this apart from other films about this subject. You really get this from the Cruise/Streep scenes. Their clever banter with each other are well played, and you can really see the great chemistry these two have. Their scenes also work because both liberal and conservative ideals are both supported and attacked. Irving is very ambitious and has the tongue of a usual politician, but also understands that being a Republican is a tough job, and he knows the tricks of the trade to get people to try and see his justification. Roth points out the flaws in Irving's grand idealism, but also is subjected to the slander that liberal media stations often endure in order to get a story by taking interviews out of context. It is really fascinating watching these two go at each other.

Redford is a fine actor and director, but its normally a role that must be separated. When it is shared on screen, there is a feeling of laziness with his direction and he resorts to stationary camera moves and formulaic editing styles. With one exception, this is the case, but Redford as director is better when he isn't directing himself. His scenes with Garfield aren't quite as provocative as the ones with Cruise and Streep, but they do bring up interesting subjects to talk about, such as the affect of politics on the youth and the unwillingness to sacrifice, even if they don't necessarily resolve the issues at hand. Likewise, conversations between Redford and the soldiers hold high marks in showing how some members of the youth feel the need to sacrifice and how that decision can be met with some opposition. However, the scenes that actually take place in Afghanistan are the weakest part of the movie. I think these two soldiers behave irrationally, and the ending they encounter is very far-fetched and unbelievable.

In the end, what makes this movie works better than most other films about this subject is its commitment to politics. The whole situation in Iraq and the war on terror is very politically motivated, and I feel it is the best option to discuss when approaching this subject. Rendition came close to that ideal, but failed to devote as much screen time to those characters. Robert Redford's film is occasionally murky, with one story line that feels out of place, but the overall message is clear. I don't think we have found that "antidote" yet, but the closest thing we have is the blood from this lion. *** / ****; GRADE: B.