(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)
(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)
No Country for Old Men
SW score: 43
4.5 out of 5 octopi
++ The academy rarely gets it right. But with No Country for Old Men, only a complete collapse of any proper judgment could prevent this film from being anointed as the year’s best. Much better writers than I have already sung its praises. It is one of the most atmospheric films ever made. Barely any music is played, making the sounds hit that much harder. Javier Bardem was a force of evil unlike any other seen before in movies. His simmering anger always seemed ready to burst to the surface in a profound fury but he never let it. He was pure menace under a horrible haircut, lacking any sound or aforementioned fury, but his expressions and looks and quiet determination signified everything. Josh Brolin almost matched him in intensity but he let his emotions out. Woody Harrelson stole every scene he was in, despite only being in a small part of the film. Tommy Lee Jones played a tired lawman just trying to walk away into the sunset but having to watch the worst kind of mayhem tear apart the end of his watch. Tommy Lee Jones has a charisma that cannot be taught. He owns every scene he is in and I don’t even think he could explain how. He resonates control and wisdom. He is a legend. And Kelly Macdonald stood in front of evil and would not cower. Her anger and courage shook the unshakable man. In a career of many magnificent movies, this is Ethan and Joel Coen’s masterpiece.
(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.
(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)
(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so
(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)