jeek

I'm a big movie buff, but books are my first love; so when I see film adaptations of books I've read, I've often been disappointed. "No Country For Old Men" is an exception to the tired cliché 'The book is always better'. The movie left out quite a lot, such as the teen runaway that accompanies Lewellyn on his trip to El Paso; but the movie captured the maudlin tone of the book. Many have commented on the odd ending of the movie; and the book is the same way. The book was an engrossing cat-and-mouse chase, but bogged down in the end. The somber ending of the movie captured the theme of the book, that the good does not always vanquish the evil.

The Coen Brothers are great artists, and when I heard they where doing this film, I knew they'd do a great job. And they did. They deserve the Oscars they've won. All the performances were spot on. I just find it odd that it was the best movie of 2007. Is this movie in the same league as "The Godfather", "The Lost Weekend", "Schindler's List", et al? Regardless of my opinion, it is now. Must have been a mediocre year, I guess.

As for Cormac McCarthy; I think he's a good writer, but some of his books (i.e. 'Blood Meridian'), were boring to me, but his greatest achievement, "The Road" will soon be a film. It is one of the most emotionally devastating and powerful literary experiences I've ever had. If it's done right, it too will be an Oscar contender. I'm on pins and needles waiting for that film, but I have doubts that it will be as good as the book. If the Coen Brothers were directing it, I might have higher hopes. Wait and see, I guess.

First off, I have to admit that I went into this film with low expectations. I've hated every film by P.T. Anderson ("Boogie Nights" is the worst film I've ever seen). "There Will Be Blood" is more garbage from this no-talent. He doesn't seem to understand how to pace a film, his dialog is insipid and his characters are impossible to identify with. Yet the most irritating thing about his films are that they're BORING! The photography in this film is excellent, but the screeching soundtrack made me want to gouge out my eyes. Daniel Day-Lewis is an extraordinary actor, but he'll be downgraded in my book because he participated in this trash. Wake up Hollywood: P.T. Anderson is a hack! It astounds me that his films get such great reviews.

I don't know much about religion. I was raised Protestant, but never took much stock in church, therefore I'm no expert when it comes to religion, so I'm not going to argue facts. What I find so amazing about this film is that Mel Gibson spent his own money to make the film he wanted to make. It takes a hell of a lot of courage to spent $25 million of your own cash after Hollywood tell you 'you're crazy,no way' and continue on with a cast of no-names and subtitles.

The production quality, the acting, costumes, and Caleb Deschanel's photography are second to none. I always took Mel as an action-superstar, but now I include him in the same league as Spike Lee, F.F Coppola and other directors who give the middle finger to Hollywood and make the films they want to make.

As far as the view that this film is anti-semitic, all I can say is Jesus was a Jew. Christians understand that Jews aren't responsible for his death; we as sinful humans are responsible for his death: me and you are responsible for his death, but through his resurrection we can have eternal life (that's about the extent of my religious understanding). Christians understand that Jesus was born to die, therefore I don't think mobs of Christians are going to be running in the streets burning down synagogues.

Regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof, go see this movie. If you don't believe in religion, go see it anyway for the fact that it is a powerful, intense and beautifully filmed movie.