Posts Tagged ‘no country for old men’

A little known movie called No Country for Old Men came out a couple years back, raked in a few random awards and then settled into obscurity. With few critics or audiences avidly backing the film, the movie disappeared quickly, taking with it its shoddy acting and direction. Good riddance.

Alas, Miramax believes it can make a few more dollars on the unsuspecting moviegoer, as they are about to release on Tuesday a 3-Disc Collector’s Edition. You can read my full No Country for Old Men movie review, where I fault the picture for a variety of things including its lack of excitement, questionable acting – especially by the awful Javier Bardem – and horrific direction by the Coen brothers, or you can read on for my review of this new DVD collection…

Read the full article »

It was announced today that Tommy Lee Jones, who, ultimately, turned out to be a completely useless character in No Country for Old Men, is suing Paramount Pictures, the makers of No Country for Old Men, for over $10 million dollars from the film.

Jones is asking for “significant box-office bonuses” and other compensation he says are owed to him from the Oscar-winning movie, which went on to make over $160 million. Apparently, according to him, there were known errors in his contract as the film went into production, and he wants an external auditor to look things over and assess what he is owed.

How come every year lawsuits come up like this? Maybe it’s not that uncommon as there are plenty of B2B contracts that go to court, but it always seems like some big name actor or director (I’m thinking of Peter Jackson here) is suing a studio over money that wasn’t paid to them. You have to think that in the day and age of immediate visibility and legal scrutiny that major disputes – such as over millions of unpaid dollars – wouldn’t happen. How does this happen? Are the studios simply naive to think that people who are used to making millions of dollars a paycheck won’t notice if they aren’t paid? Or do the plaintiffs and their lawyers not examine their contract enough? Either way, isn’t the contract supposed to clearly define the amount or percentage an actor, writer, director or crewman is supposed to make?

It seems clear cut to me, but then again, I don’t work in Hollywood.

… or that’s what should happen. I liked No Country for Old Men, which comes to DVD this Tuesday. At the time I saw it in theaters, I thought it was a strong contender for Best Picture. Despite a lackluster ending, the movie is dark, meaningful and well conceived, with all elements working together in synergy. Josh Brolin turns in the best performance of his career. Tommy Lee Jones is good even though his character serves no real purpose. Javier Bardem is amazing and delivers to the screen one of the most memorable and frightening villains of all time. No Country is one of the best Coen Brothers’ movies, if not the best.

These were the kinds of statements that carried the movie through the award season. It struck gold early on, and critics and voters for the various award shows showed reluctance to give other films a chance. With exception to the Golden Globes, a good chunk of “Best” awards went to No Country, despite strong competition from some other great films.

I have to say something I never thought I’d say: I agree with the Golden Globe voters.

No Country for Old Men is not the best movie of 2007, and as such it does not deserve the Oscar for Best Picture. It is, when it comes down to it, a great thriller with deeper meaning, but that’s what it is: a thriller. On top of that – let’s face it, folks – the ending sucks. No matter how you want to spin it, the ending is a dud, and do movies with bad endings deserve to win Best Picture?

(the answer is “No”)

Who should have won Best Picture? I don’t know. I thought both Atonement and There Will Be Blood were stronger candidates. Atonement was a great film on many levels; what it lacked, perhaps, were the super strong performances that No Country boasted. There Will Be Blood rode the coattails of Daniel Day Lewis’ incredible performance, but the movie is powerful, dark and simply incredible to watch. Both of these movies feature far superior endings. You can see my top ten movies of 2007 list for more details.

I’d even make arguments that Juno and Michael Clayton are more satisfying films, though it’d be pushing it to say they are better movies. Still, Juno was entertaining and had a nice, sweet ending; Michael Clayton was a bit slow but had an incredible last scene.

I was not surprised that No Country for Old Men won for Best Picture, but having watched many of the Oscar-nominated films in the last two weeks (generally for the second time), I realize that the movie just isn’t as good. Re-watch No Country, Atonement and There Will Be Blood and let me know if you still think No Country is a better film; it seems like everyone liked the movie so much because the marketing told us that everyone else liked it so much.

By the way, I have the No Country for Old Men DVD, and it’s not all too exciting. Of course, the movie itself is good, but the special features are few to be had. The movie comes to DVD March 11, 2008.

No Country for Old Men is now out in select theaters and expanding over the next month, and I must say that this movie looks to be one of the coolest this year. Watching Javier Bardem walk around killing people with a coin flip and an air compressor is like butter on toast: perfect. Honestly, this movie looks absolutely spectacular, my only concern being that I might be hyping it up just a bit too much.

But it’s about damn time the Coen Brothers did a truly dark crime caper a la the old days (read: Blood Simple), and judging from reviews, No Country for Old Men certainly delivers.

Even better, I’m giving away an autographed No Country for Old Men movie poster over at my Movie-Source.com website – the contest expires at the end of November, but please enter to win the poster. It’s autographed by both Joel and Ethan Coen! Enter now!