Yes, it's another film review that doesn't actually touch upon the plotline at all.
This time it's No Country For Old Men and it has a lot of people waxing lyrical about it on account of its unorthodox story-arc and curious delivery. On IMDB, it's sailed straight into the Top 250 chart at an impressive 23 with a gargantuan rating of 8.7.
But I'm, like, struggling to see what all the fuss is about...
As I see it, it's not a patch on the Coens' magnum opera Fargo or Miller's Crossing and would more fittingly rank along the lesser Barton Finks' and Raising Arizonas' of this world. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie; it's just not great.
Still, there's a lot of debate going on and the sniffy view is that you need to be of a certain IQ to appreciate it. Lest anyone suggest that the Emperor's New Clothes are looking a bit... scarce...
Unless I'm missing something? Cos one poster opined that it was for the very reason that the movie had the balls to stray away from the cliched storytelling formula that qualified it as one of the best movies ever made.
But I once made a movie that had the balls to stray from the well-trodden path. I all but abandoned the cliched introduction and ended it with no resolution. And here was the trick: the viewers were left not knowing what happened to the bride and groom after the battery on my camcorder ran out.
Some narrow-minded folk said it was pure shit and had no place in the cinema, but, well. I guess those people just didn't have the intelligence to get it...
No Country for Old Men: 5/10.
