No Country for Old Men** (2007)

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m no expert when it comes to film. I am passionate about it and I try to learn about the craft and its history when I can. Every now and then a movie comes along that makes me feel like an outsider. In some cases it boils down to too much hype or my subjective opinion. These cases are easy to identify because there are usually a number of professional critics and moviegoers who share my outlook. Then there are films like the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men. Praised for its artistry and themes by many, I stand confused and wonder if I missed something.

While hunting, Llewellyn Moss comes across the aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong in the wastelands of West Texas. Moss finds all but one man dead and makes off with over $2 million in drug money left at the scene. Later that night, he suffers a guilty conscience and takes water back out for the lone survivor to ease his suffering. This decision proves life-altering, as men connected to the botched deal show up to reclaim their money at the same time. Moss escapes but leaves his truck behind. The drug lords use the plates to identify him and hire a vicious hitman to track him and the money down.

The hitman, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), is inventive, super-intelligent and relentless. Using a transponder hidden in the money, Chigurh tracks Moss down and they begin a deadly game of cat-and-mouse spanning both sides of the border. In the midst of all this, aging lawman Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) does what he can to protect Moss and his wife, finding himself always one step behind and picking up the pieces of a new breed of lawlessness he can’t comprehend.

I’ll put a little praise out there first- Javier Bardem is spectacular as Anton Chigurh. He earned his Oscar, no questions asked. The cold indifference toward his victims is chilling enough but Bardem really gets across how smart the man is too. Here is not just a desensitized killing machine; Chigurh ponders philosophy, determinism and chance with his victims. Nothing creeps us out like a bad guy smart enough to be a college professor and yet doesn’t bat an eye while killing someone.

Here’s the trouble- Chigurh is the kind of frightening villain that requires a strong protagonist. Lewellyn Moss is not that person. Even without passing moral judgment on his actions (leaving a man in the desert heat, taking money that isn’t his, and not reporting a crime scene), Moss does not come across as a likeable guy whatsoever. He’s stubborn, defiant and I’m pretty sure he was poaching instead of hunting. Nothing he does early on tells me I should care about this man.

But then Chigurh comes along and all but forces you to care about Moss. Not because he’s in the right or in any way an innocent victim, but because, subconsciously, we know that we shouldn’t pull for the psychotic killer chasing him. It makes for a frustrating experience. When Chigurh comes close to his prey, the intensity ratchets up and you can’t help but find yourself on the edge of your seat. You want to shout at Moss to stop being such an idiot, but you’re still on the edge of your seat.

Speaking of Chigurh catching up to Moss, this is just one example of how much chance and luck fills the story. Moss coming across the carnage of the drug deal is believable. Going back to give a dying man water hours later is a stretch at best (and also did nothing to redeem Moss’s character for me). Obviously, Moss needs to go back or there would be no story, because the drug lords wouldn’t have tracked his plates and Chigurh probably never would have found Moss with his transponder. Said transponder is the lone element of the film that reminds you that the story takes place in the 1980s. Chigurh had to be less than a quarter of a mile away from the cash in order to pick up a signal. He may have been able to track Moss down over time but, frankly, he got lucky to find him at all.

The only likeable major character in the film is the lawman. He spends most of the movie wondering what’s gone wrong with the world that criminals keep getting more violent and using more frightening means to do their dirty work. His musings on crime and violence are interesting but they’re also made a moot point later in the film when another former lawman tells him that all the old-timers say the same thing when a new generation finds ways to break the law. The question is still out there as to whether or not crime will ever stop getting uglier but the answer is that ‘uglier’ is all relative anyway.

While much of the film is an exciting game of cat-and-mouse, the third reel leaves something to be desired. There’s some finality and resolution but that last reel feels anticlimactic in a number of ways to me. I understand that not every story needs to have a clear-cut ending but the film seems to end too suddenly after a very slow stretch of dialogue. It’s one of those endings that make you go ‘huh?’

No Country for Old Men is a very good film about very sketchy people. Maybe Hollywood and the Academy enjoyed embracing their darker side with this film. That could explain why it won Best Picture. Or maybe it just wasn’t a strong year for Oscar nominees. Whatever the reason, I don’t quite see what everyone else saw that made this such an award-worthy film.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Invictus (2009)

Hollywood finally gets around to casting Morgan Freeman in the role few would doubt he was always meant to play- Nelson Mandela. This Clint Eastwood-directed biopic is not what you might expect. Rather than a straight biography of Mandela’s rise to power, the larger focus here is sport and diplomatic relations. It may seem like an odd choice for Eastwood to pursue but it all makes sense in the end.

South Africa, 1994: apartheid has fallen and Nelson Mandela has been elected president in the nation’s first truly democratic elections. Whites, accustomed to being the ruling class, find themselves overwhelmed by the country’s black majority. The newly empowered black populace wants to make up for years of oppression by punishing whites and whites are terrified that this is their unavoidable fate. As president, Mandela steps in to unite both sides, determined to serve all South Africans and not just those who put him in office.

Mandela looks to the near future for a chance to bring the country together. In 1995 South Africa will play host to the Rugby World Cup. Mandela meets with the South African team captain François Pienaar (Matt Damon) and asks him to help unite their people through sports. They take the skeptics and dissenters head on. The team, despite being despised by blacks as a symbol of apartheid, makes in-roads with many as they travel the country and teach young black children how to play rugby. The lone black player on the team serves as the children’s rallying point and hearts across the country begin to warm to the scrappy set of underdogs as the tournament grows closer.

Biopics like this are a slippery slope. History has documented Mandela’s successes and failures as President of South Africa, so I can’t judge this film based on Mandela’s push for diplomacy and unity. That’s historical fact. It’s easy to get caught up in the emotion of his plan but that’s not what makes this film good. It’s the presentation of this story that matters.

The story itself is true, so very little can be said about the writing. However, the pace moves pretty well, with only a few slow spots along the way. Thankfully, the fact that it’s based on true events eliminates the bitter taste of what would otherwise be called clichés. Sports dramas are particularly vulnerable to clichés- underdogs, come-from-behind wins, powerful and tide-turning speeches by a coach or player. All of these things have come to be predictable, sometimes to the point of rolling our eyes.

The difference is always whether the story is true or not. True underdog tales may feel predictable but why would anyone make a movie about a team that remains terrible or falls far short of its lofty goals? The way I see it, if it’s a true story, you can’t say that it’s full of clichés; only that it is filled with truth.

Matt Damon (bulked up even further from his Jason Bourne days) does well as the South African rugby captain. He seamlessly portrays Pienaar’s journey from wide-eyed and overwhelmed by Mandela’s vision to a confident leader pushing his team toward greatness. Morgan Freeman is still the big draw here though. He captures all of Mandela’s sly wit and craftiness that reminds me of Ben Kingsley’s more charismatic moments in Ghandi.

Eastwood proved he could capture sports in action with Million Dollar Baby’s boxing scenes and he doesn’t disappoint here. We don’t just watch the action from the sidelines. Clint finds ways to take us on the field, giving viewers an up-close look at a brutal sport that is still foreign to most Americans. The physicality and pacing of the games work to the film’s benefit, giving us a healthy dose of adrenaline in the midst of diplomatic scheming.

I was caught off guard with the final match of the World Cup though. Unless I missed something, it wasn’t made clear that it was the final match until the trophy presentation. A little more clarity could have helped hammer home the importance of the action. Other than this, there isn’t much to complain about with Invictus. Audience familiarity with underdog sports dramas may water down the impact of the rugby team’s accomplishments but only a cynic could brush off the diplomatic triumph.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5