Lumenick's "No Country" review

email this story
read comments (16)
post a comment

When a truly exceptional film comes along, it sometimes inspires critics to do their best writing. N.Y. Post critic Lou Lumenick is expected to keep his prose plain, unadorned and borough- friendly, which means he can't do an A.O. Scott, an Armond White or a Lisa Schwarzbaum. But his No Country for Old Men review has exceptional conviction and a pure-of-heart quality.

NCFOM "is the first movie I've seen in a very long while that deserves to be called a masterpiece," he begins. "It's such a stunning achievement in storytelling that, when the DVD comes out, I'd wager you could even turn off the sound and hardly miss a thing. This really isn't a movie to watch on DVD, though.

"You need as big a screen as possible to savor Roger Deakins' sweeping cinematography, which is as integral to the movie's triumph as the edge-of-the-seat direction by Joel and Ethan Coen, or a trio of unforgettable performances by Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones.

"Adapting (and, if you ask me, surpassing) a 2005 novel by Cormac McCarthy into their best-ever movie and their first Best Picture contender since Fargo, the Coens deliver a classic, neo-noir Western of innocence lost set in 1980 Texas.

"Jones, who gets top billing but has notably less screen time than his co-stars, has never been better or a more commanding presence. Just watch when he pours himself a glass of milk from a bottle that Chigurh has left out after visiting Llewelyn's house.

"Bardem delivers by far his most effective English-language performance as the enigmatic, deep-voiced Anton Chigurh, who plays with potential victims in memorable ways (notably a sequence at a gas station).

"The breakthrough here is Brolin, whose Llewelyn starts out as a greedy comic bumbler not unlike William H. Macy's Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo, but turns into a character worthy of a Greek tragedy." Another Greek reference!

"Even in one of Hollywood's best seasons in years, No Country for Old Menworks as high art and a rousing genre entertainment."

That said, this passage from Armond White's review is especially strong: "This is the Coens' first crime movie since they began to master the medium, and the way No Country morphs from noir into contemporary-western moral struggle makes it deeper, funnier and even stranger than Fargo, their 1996 hit.

"You know what national cataclysm happened since then, so it should be no surprise that the Coens have made a crime movie that seems quietly aghast at the likelihood of death and menace occurring on American soil. Unlike American Gangster's sensationalized crap, this is a crime movie/western exercise that contemporizes the miasma of a world at war."

Thompson's kind words<< previous | next >>"Lions for Lambs" review

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 9, 2007 at 11:55 AM

comment #1

BNick says ...

"borough-friendly"

Don't make condescending generalizations, Jeff.

Are you kidding? I AM Queens Boulevard.

Posted by BNick at November 9, 2007 1:00 PM

comment #2

malibugigolo says ...

No Country is the most cinematic movie of subculter since Five Easy Pieces (outside of a Claire Denis movie, her movie Chocolate is the greatest piece of Cinema in the last 25 years) along with being the ONLY logically honest intellectual progression in a narrative, since Breaker' Morant.

A classic.

Posted by malibugigolo at November 9, 2007 1:11 PM

comment #3

AJW says ...

Always fun when Armond White morphs from marginalized nutter to reliable source based on how well his views coincide with the party line.

Posted by AJW at November 9, 2007 1:12 PM

comment #4

malibugigolo says ...

AJW

Armond's take on Redford' use of transition was way off in Lions for Lambs ( a modern-day version of Sergei Eisenstein? and yet he doesn't like Clooney's pikno-ness?) But I love reading him. He thinks out his reviews. He doesn't give me his feelings or a mere plot rehash.

Peter Bradshaw's take on the movie was more like what I thought.

"In fact, it gives liberalism such a bad name that on leaving the cinema, I felt like going out and getting a nude study of Norman Podhoretz tattooed on my inner thigh."

Posted by malibugigolo at November 9, 2007 1:22 PM

comment #5

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

I'd wager you could even turn off the sound and hardly miss a thing.

Have to heatedly disagree with that. The essential story would come through, but there are so many great lines that you'd lose a lot, including the entire heart of the final scene, and Bardem's hilarious discussion with the gas station attendant.

Posted by Luke Y. Thompson at November 9, 2007 1:51 PM

comment #6

T. Holly says ...

Todd McCarthy banged out (possibly with a factual error or too) a good, un-sentimental review in Cannes complete with spoilers (which I love). And the reviews linked here sound overly re- written and hermetic, and tone wise, have more in common with evangelicalism, than critism.

Posted by T. Holly at November 9, 2007 2:18 PM

comment #7

Armin Tamzarian says ...

Also, best sound design in quite some time. Would hate to lose that.

Posted by Armin Tamzarian at November 9, 2007 2:19 PM

comment #8

Craig Kennedy says ...

No sound? A Coen movie without dialogue would be a symphony without strings.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at November 9, 2007 2:23 PM

comment #9

Monument says ...

I think the point he was trying to make about the "sound" is that the visuals are so good that they can tell the story on their own. This is true with any great movie.

I'd wager that you can watch a movie like Citizen Kane with the sound off and still understand the film, the visuals are that strong.

Posted by Monument at November 9, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #10

T. Holly says ...

OK, "criticism," not like lit crit clitism.

Milkman showed up at insane fellow blogger TOH's site with his Carrot Top question.

Posted by T. Holly at November 9, 2007 2:41 PM

comment #11

MilkMan says ...

Just wait, T. Holly.

"Borough-friendly" is right. The worst-kept secret in America is that 90% of New Yorkers are out-and-out hicks.

Claire Denis is one of the greats. The Intruder, Trouble Every Day, Friday Night, Beau Travail...I don't think it's going out on a limb to say she's one of the best ten filmmakers of the last 25 years. The Intruder is like nothing I've even seen.

Johnny Rosenbaum hated No Country, yet after reading his review I don't understand why. Can someone please read it and explain to me what the hell he's trying to say? I mean, I love Essential Cinema and I think he's one of the best, but he kind of lost me on this one.

Armond White is batshit crazy. I rented, what was that Joseph Kahn movie, the one with the motocycles, with Martin Henderson? Anyway, I rented that movie because he said it was, and I quote, "a pop-art masterpiece," and I've never taken him seriously again. His Spielberg fetish is creepy and I'm guessing the only reason he liked No Country is because he thought everyone was expecting him to hate it since everyone else pretty much loves it.

I'm seeing No Country at the ArcLight. I'll be the one wearing earplugs.

Viva Carice! Viva Exit Ghost! Viva Flanders!

and most of all:

Viva Peter Watkins! The Freethinker is out on DVD!

Posted by MilkMan at November 9, 2007 3:21 PM

comment #12

malibugigolo says ...

I'd wager you could even turn off the sound and hardly miss a thing

who said that?

uhh........that's called pure cinema.
this is a visual medium after all.
the greatest scene is when Javier's character goes to the gas station and the subtext it about different cultures, death, AND FATE
but never said...what movie has anyone seen recelty that had a scene that was all Subtext that informed so much?
if you're in the mood for such a movie try "M" by Lang

T Holly did you read Hoeg?

Posted by malibugigolo at November 9, 2007 3:48 PM

comment #13

Jay T. says ...

Awesome... I loved the book, so I can't wait.

Mentioning a movie without the volume, it's really too bad the Coens haven't tried to revive their To the White Sea project (based on James Dickey's book, which has one line of dialogue over a span of about 145 pages or so).

Posted by Jay T. at November 9, 2007 4:31 PM

comment #14

le corbeau says ...

Okay, I actually saw something when it opened for once. Terrific movie, dry as a bone, though I heard a lot of complaining at the end; but also a lot of appreciative laughter throughout.

That said, the idea that this is some comment on Iraq just shows how far the New York media have their head up the collective bubble. First of all, it's set in 1980. Secondly, I think maybe a movie about how nasty violence got as a result of the drug trade is about the cultural changes, not of a war in the middle east, but-- call me crazy-- of how nasty violence got as a result of the drug trade. I don't mean it's literally a problem picture but Jesus, there's no need to travel that far from its front and center thesis to find its point.

Thirdly, if it is about something broader-- well it is, it's about aging-- but beyond that, if it's about something broader, helloooooo, it takes place on the border between Mexico and the US, the title has "country" in it (yet it's not entirely certain which country it means), and a significant part of the plot involves border crossing. You want to find a modern political issue in it, try that it's about the fact that our sense of superiority over Mexico in terms of our order and morals and civilization is thin as tissue and just as easily torn. I don't know why Iraq has to be dragged into it when Mexico is the 800-lb, gorilla in the movie.

Posted by le corbeau at November 10, 2007 7:04 PM

comment #15