I’m sorry but I need to vent.
I’m afraid I don’t quite understand the effusive critical reception for No Country for Old Men. Something’s not right with the Group Think surrounding this film. A guy finds a suitcase of money and a bad guy chases him… for two hours. Sounds like a drive-in movie to me…
I think this is one of those films that the Academy, too, will scratch their heads about as they reflect back on this award five or ten years down the road. Even films that some deemed unworthy for Best Motion Picture in the past (Chariots of Fire, Driving Miss Daisy, etc.) have transcendent elements about them. Great art lasts because of its ability to transcend. What’s transcendent about this film?
I fully respect the talents of Javier Bardem and the Coen brothers. But even ardent supporters must admit that their efforts in this film are less substantial than that of much of their previous work. I believe that this Best Motion Picture award for No Country… says more about the state of filmmaking in Hollywood today than anything else.
Was it just me or did Javier Bardem’s character remind you of the Michael Meyers character from the 1978 film Halloween?
Another actor, Sir Anthony Hopkins, won an Oscar for portraying a serial killer. Are the characters of Hannibal Lector and Anton Chigurh even in the same league? Revisit Silence of the Lambs to witness a multi-layered, highly nuanced acting performance. Where have our standards gone?
Does No Country for Old Men really deserve more Academy Awards than The Godfather?
Thank you for this opportunity to vent. I feel much better now…
