No Country For Old Men (2007)

Director: Ethan Coen and Joel Coen
Writer: Cormac McCarthy (novel), Joel Coen and Ethan Coen (screenplay)

Set in 1980, a West Texas hunter stumbles upon the aftermath of a botched heroin deal. He attempts to run off with a satchel containing two million dollars while pursued by a homicidal murderer and local sheriff.

I've been a fan of the Coen Brothers' work for a long time. The first film class I took as an undergrad was all about the Coens and their style. Though I've purposely missed their last three pictures, The Man Who Wasn't There (2001), Intolerable Cruelty (2003), and 2004's The Ladykillers (nothing can top the original Ealing Studios film with Alec Guinness), I was excited to hear about their most recent project: No Country For Old Men. I missed it in theaters and I'm really sad I did but seeing it at home was just as wonderful. No Country has the most fully realized feel of a film the Coen Brothers have made since Blood Simple (1984) or Raising Arizona (1987). It's an especially dark, existential, and nihilistic experience deriving from its lighting, tone, and desert locations. The three male leads, Llewelyn Moss (Josh Bolin), Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), and Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), are all magnificent pursuing each other. Scottish actress Kelly Macdonald (who I adored in Robert Altman's Gosford Park [2001]), Woody Harrelson, and Stephen Root are perfect in their supporting roles.

The film has come up twice in my film theory class due in part to its sheer lack of music (there's something like 15 minutes of music in the whole film including the five minutes of end credits) and specific narrative techniques the Coen Brothers implement.

The film opens with Sheriff Bell's voiceover about how his father and grandfather were also Texas sheriffs and how the "old-timers" never used or even carried guns. At first, the speech seems incongruous but it really informs the viewer about one of the film's overarching themes. As prominent as the chase between Moss and Chigurh is, this is Sheriff Bell's story. An older man right at the edge of retirement, he consistently notes how much his county has changed since was first a lawman. The failed drug deal, Chigurh's brand of emotionless violence, and Moss' take-the-money-and-run idea are all symptomatic of the social change the country in general and this county in particular have undergone. As the title suggests Bell is out of place in the Texas of 1980, he is nearly obsolete and always two steps behind Chigurh and Moss.

I said earlier that No Country For Old Men is a fully realized feeling film and by that I mean it has the tone of a Coen Brothers movie without the emptiness that hangs over most of their work. The Coen Brothers truly know their craft but from a postmodern, film-buff standpoint. Many of their films are set in very specific genres with an eye on references and parallels. No Country pulls from a variety of genres but is not overtly self-conscious of its filmness. I've read and agree that the Coen Brothers’ movies often lack the heart and soul of most films. Their attention to narrative and extra-narrative details sucks the life out of their movies, making them seem artificial. This is a fantastic exception. The references, though present, are heavily muted. One example is the setting: the American/Mexican border town recalls the setting of Touch of Evil (1958). As another example, Llewlyn Moss, a Vietnam veteran, is introduced hunting with a high-powered rifle. There is a close-up of him picking up a discharged shell and putting it in his shirt's breast pocket. This references an early scene in The Deer Hunter (1978) in which Robert De Niro's character Michael holds up a similar bullet and proclaims to his hunting friends, before they ship off to Vietnam, "This is this. It ain’t something else. This is this." Like the characters in No Country, Michael is an existentialist, believing that he wields no control over the course of his life. While Moss might think he can change his and his wife's lives by running off with the drug money, he cannot. Moss even knows that his attempt at changing his life's path is an error when, in the middle of the night as he prepares to revisit the crime scene, his wife Carla Jean asks, "And what’re you gonna do?" he replies, "I'm fixing to do something dumber than hell, but I'm going anyways." Like Michael of The Dear Hunter, it's not in Moss to half-ass anything.

For all its emphasis on the meaninglessness of men's journey through life and the overall dark tone, No Country For Old Men is a spectacular cinematic experience. As sparse as the film is, it's full of thought-provoking ideas and powerful images. I think the Coen Brothers have matured as filmmakers and I hope this is a sign of things to come.

Mr. Brooks (2007)

Director: Bruce A. Evans
Writer: Bruce A. Evans & Raynold Gideon

Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) is a successful businessman, loving husbands and father, Man of the Year, and recovering serial killer. On the wagon for two years, Mr. Brooks gives in to the personified "little voice" in his head Marshall (William Hurt). After killing a couple one night, a man calling himself Mr. Smith (Dane Cook) approaches Mr. Brooks with pictures of the crime and strikes a deal to join Mr. Brooks on his next jaunt.

I heard about Mr. Brooks from two different friends, both raved about Dane Cook's role in the film. I kept hearing, "Yeah! Dane Cook in a serious role!" I'll touch more on Cook's performance later but first I want to think about Kevin Costner. I haven't liked everything I've seen him in mostly because I haven't seen the majority of his work. While I find JFK (1991) a flawed film, Costner is great in the Jim Garrison role but then Tin Cup (1996) is a little too off beat even for me; I felt numb after Dances with Wolves (1990) and Dragonfly (2002) was just...interesting. Mr. Brooks however is a role that I can't imagine anyone else playing due in large part to Costner's star persona. Costner is an all-American good guy; he is Eliot Ness and Robin Hood in my book. That being said, I love it when beloved actors play against type. That's exactly what gives Mr. Brooks most of its edge: Costner's creepiness. He's a disturbingly cool killer but a warm and troubled everyman. Costner brings so much conflict to the character that be becomes a wonderful antihero.

Mr. Brooks' foil is that of his inner demon Marshall. Their scenes together, once you get used to the film's approach to the character, are some of the best in the film. Marshall always pops up to remind Mr. Brooks that he is, in fact, addicted to killing. Apart from representing Mr. Brooks' id, Marshall represents the analytical, detail-oriented side of Mr. Brooks' psyche. Unlike many of his other, more restrained performances (I'm thinking Body Heat (1981), Kiss of the Spider Woman [1985], and A History of Violence [2005]), Hurt is allowed to not only open up but have fun with Marshall. That enjoyment comes through in Marshall's teasing moments with Mr. Brooks, egging him on to kill again and again.

Now we come to Dane Cook. When in the right mood, I really enjoy his stand up but I think it's going to be a long time before he's able or even willing to effectively slough off that side of himself. Mr. Smith is as serious of a role as I've ever seen Cook in and I hope he continues to pursue more roles like this one. I've always wanted to see him play something close to Mr. Smith (I even wrote a role specifically for Cook in a screenplay). While his performance is strong and fairly out of character from the comedian I'm used to, too much of the manic, nervous energy he brings to his stand up is in Mr. Smith. He has several moments when is fully in the role but for most of the film he is Dane Cook playing Mr. Smith who is a character in a serious movie. That being said, he makes an interesting counter-point to the Mr. Brooks/Marshall dynamic. While Mr. Brooks is a well-oiled machine Mr. Smith is a careless, opportunistic, and impetuous thrill-seeker. Cook pulls off that side in spades. It's the moments when he has to pose a real threat to Mr. Brooks that Cook doesn't fully deliver. I won't write him off as an actor of serious roles just yet. I think that with time and the right roles, Cook will make the same transition Steve Martin, Eddie Izzard, Robin Williams (One Hour Photo (2002) was some creepy business), and especially Jim Carry have made.

In addition, while I harp on the three male leads, I can't ignore the great supporting cast led by Demi Moore. Her portrayal of the troubled police detective hunting Mr. Brooks gives a real sense of urgency to the story. While some of the police scenes are a little stock, she brings a real vitality to those moments. And I'm going to go head and make a call about Reiko Aylesworth (she plays the divorce lawyer Shelia). I first saw Aylesworth on the only episode of The Dead Zone I've ever seen (and I saw it by accident/chance/nothing else on) and she really struck me. While her part in Mr. Brooks is very small, I think she'll be going places and soon. I had the same feeling about Charlize Theron when I saw her in The Devil's Advocate (1997). Within three years, I think/hope we'll be seeing more of her apart from 24.

In closing, Mr. Brooks is, on the surface, an interesting study of the inner pathology of a serial killer. Coupled with his other life as a “normal” person, Mr. Brooks is a pleasant blend of twisted and touching.

Street Trash (1987)

Director: J. Michael Muro
Writer: Roy Frumkes

Manhattan bums are dying off, melting from the inside out after drinking a mysterious liquor called Tenafly Viper. Seriously, that's it.

I'm not taking this very seriously because the movie is not at all serious. It was recommended to me by a long-trusted horror comrade and sitting down to watch it, I wasn't sure what to expect. The premise is a little hard to swallow until the main bum, Fred (Mike Lackey), bursts in on a couple having sex, tells them the apartment building is on fire, slaps the naked chick on the ass, and runs out that one really understands the tone and intention of the film. Street Trash is not meant to be taken seriously. It's what I call a "12-pack flick." By that I mean it's the kind of movie where you get a group of your buddies together, crack open a case of cold ones, and have a good ole time watching/heckling a ridiculous movie in the wee hours. The writer, Roy Frumkes (horror buffs know Frumkes from his Document of the Dead documentary on the making of George A. Romero's 1978 classic Dawn of the Dead) had loftier goals for the story but budgetary constraints squelched many of those aspirations. His documentary The Meltdown Memories makes a fantastic companion piece to the original film.

The story is strong if a little loony at times, but that's really part of its charm. While suspending one's disbelief at the prospect of hobos as main characters is a little difficult at first, you grow to care about these "less fortunate" people. When Fred nearly drinks from the Viper bottle towards the end of the film, I was concerned for him. The gore effects are really something I miss as a horror fan. The over-the-top, in-camera special effects are welcomed in all their neon glory. This is where the "torture chic" movies miss the boat in my book. Their seriousness, especially the first Hostel movie (I’m one of the twelve people who loved Cabin Fever, by the way), propel the gore into the camp territory dominated by latter slasher sequels. As I see it, there is a fine line between uncomfortable gore and silly gore. Street Trash treats its gore with the utmost irreverence. At the same time, it's not making any serious statement about the status quo in late 1980s New York, though one could draw Marxist conclusion about Nick Durran's (Tony Darrow) presence in the film.

While the whole film is a joy to watch, James Lorinz as Doorman steals the show. The film is infused with a kind of dark humor but Lorinz's deadpan delivery of his few lines standouts above even the wonderfully low-budget effects. When he pops up again at the end of the film I was really pleased. In closing, Street Trash is not for everyone, but for those who can appreciate it for what it is will reap the benefits in repeated viewings.

The moral of the story is this: if you have the opportunity to buy a pint of booze for a DOLLAR, just walk away. It's not worth it. But if you just can't pass up the deal, give the bottle to someone else and break out an umbrella.