Press Release Criterion Press Release: No Country for Old Men (2007) (4k UHD Combo) (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

I'm not sure that its Oscar wins would prevent the Coens from editing the movie if something about it nagged at them and they thought they needed to "fix" it.

With Miller's Crossing, they never even announced it as a "directors' cut" or anything. They just tried to slip the changes past everyone and hope nobody would notice.

Yeah, I mean, I don't like the cuts they made to Miller's Crossing, which I thought was a perfect film. I don't like the recut of Blood Simple. The cuts they made to these I feel are done to remove comic moments so the films play more dry. Fine, if they are into that idea, but I wish when they did this the original version was also preserved, even if just on a Blu-ray.

With No Country for Old Men, I don't know if there were any moments they may have felt were too openly funny, the one performance that comes to mind that is a bit funny in parts, that I could maybe see them trimming, is Woody's part. Which I would hate if they cut that down, he is perfect in the film, his entire performance. I felt Emmet Walsh was perfect in Blood Simple and that every second of that performance was gold, chopped that down though. I think they were trying to make the film play more like their later films. The humor in their later work tends to be super dry and it is like they thought if they made something too openly funny, it just wasn't good enough. The earlier films though were funny and I loved the humor.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

At least with Miller's Crossing there is a Blu of the theatrical that came out before the Criterion. If I want to watch the film, I don't watch the Criterion version, that basically is just for the special features, which honestly I won't revisit as much as the film itself. I would love a copy of the original version of Blood Simple, the one I saw in theaters several times, but I would say that is lost to time.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The real question is can anyone confirm the 4K/UHD running time is the same as the Blu-ray?

 

[dpippel]

The real question is can anyone confirm the 4K/UHD running time is the same as the Blu-ray?

According to the covers of both releases, their runtimes are identical: 122 minutes. I can confirm that the Criterion 4K disc is at 122 minutes 13 seconds. I no longer have the older Blu-ray so can't directly speak to that one. The 4K presentation is outstanding, by the way!

 

[JohnRice]

According to the covers of both releases, their runtimes are identical: 122 minutes. I can confirm that the Criterion 4K disc is at 122 minutes 13 seconds. I no longer have the older Blu-ray so can't directly speak to that one. The 4K presentation is outstanding, by the way!

The original BR is 122:10. CC probably just extended the opening titles. If it includes their logo, that's probably the 3 seconds.

 

[Robert Crawford]

That takes care of that issue.

 

[dpippel]

The original BR is 122:10. CC probably just extended the opening titles. If it includes their logo, that's probably the 3 seconds.

Thanks for the old BR time, John. That 122:13 length I cited doesn't include the Criterion "C" intro. At any rate, 3 seconds one way or the other is well within the margin of error for different authorings. I think it's safe to say that the Coens didn't do any editing or tinkering on the 4K that would affect the runtime.

 

[JohnRice]

I completely forgot Miller’s Crossing had been changed.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I completely forgot Miller’s Crossing had been changed.

When they recut Blood Simple it was pretty clear the cuts were to remove moments that were too obviously humorous. The cuts to Miller's Crossing are small but they do remove one of the funny lines, one that to me played great, but they took it out. I don't think all the Miller's Crossing cuts were specifically for humor, some I think they just thought were slightly better pacing. To me, the entire film, every second was brilliant, so don't fiddle with it. They seem to like removing beats from the older films.

Their later works I think threw people a bit because they were often much more dry with the humor. The Big Lebowski is so funny that I just don't think they could do a recut that dried it out. The same with Raising Arizona. I guess with Blood Simple or Miller's Crossing they saw a chance to tweak them and make them more like their later works.

I think as the old saying goes, most filmmakers when they watch their films can't help seeing what they think are mistakes, and they have an overwhelming desire to fix them.

I believe Michael Mann also tweaked his film Thief when it got the Criterion treatment, but I can't recall what he took out. As they like to say, a film is never finished if you are allowed another crack at it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I absolutely love No Country for Old Men but I waited and have not yet ordered it because I wanted to see if people would say "Holy cow they cut this bit out!" or "They changed this scene!"

I've told the story here before but I saw this film the day it was released to theaters and had a funny experience. When the film ended I could hear people grumbling in the theater. When I exited the theater into the hall that led back to the lobby a group of people had gathered there having a heated discussion about the film. Bottom line was they hated the ending and a few other scenes as well. They felt so betrayed by the film, they wanted their money back. There were maybe a dozen or more people having this talk and they were angry.

So, as I came out they asked me, as they were doing to everybody coming out, if I thought the film was a rip-off. I heard a couple other people say it was and they thought they might not have shown the entire film, that some piece of it was cut out at the end. They really thought the Tommy Lee Jones dream story was awful.

I said I thought the film was brilliant, a masterpiece, and truly would probably be seen as a great American film. Wow, did that disgust them. They all did storm off to "find a manager" to request a refund. I said as I was walking behind them, "Why would you get a refund? You paid to see a film and you saw it."

Again, if looks could kill, I would not be here to type this.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

It's possible again to order this title from Criterion's website. I just placed an order for this, along with Seven Samurai. I had $60 in gift codes, so the total came to just under $17.

 

[JoshZ]

I believe Michael Mann also tweaked his film Thief when it got the Criterion treatment, but I can't recall what he took out. As they like to say, a film is never finished if you are allowed another crack at it.

Mann is one of those directors who can't look at any of his old movies without changing something in them. Just about all of his films have altered cuts on home video.

 

[Clinton McClure]

I just placed my order through Amazon. I used some Hilton rewards points I had saved up so it’s free!

 

[Jeffrey D]

I absolutely love No Country for Old Men but I waited and have not yet ordered it because I wanted to see if people would say "Holy cow they cut this bit out!" or "They changed this scene!"

I've told the story here before but I saw this film the day it was released to theaters and had a funny experience. When the film ended I could hear people grumbling in the theater. When I exited the theater into the hall that led back to the lobby a group of people had gathered there having a heated discussion about the film. Bottom line was they hated the ending and a few other scenes as well. They felt so betrayed by the film, they wanted their money back. There were maybe a dozen or more people having this talk and they were angry.

So, as I came out they asked me, as they were doing to everybody coming out, if I thought the film was a rip-off. I heard a couple other people say it was and they thought they might not have shown the entire film, that some piece of it was cut out at the end. They really thought the Tommy Lee Jones dream story was awful.

I said I thought the film was brilliant, a masterpiece, and truly would probably be seen as a great American film. Wow, did that disgust them. They all did storm off to "find a manager" to request a refund. I said as I was walking behind them, "Why would you get a refund? You paid to see a film and you saw it."

Again, if looks could kill, I would not be here to type this.

Unresolved endings are problematic for some, and I remember thinking the film ended abruptly on my first viewing, but I loved it from the get go. Another problematic aspect the film has, in my opinion, is how the Coens wanted to stay ahead of the viewer- some of the drug deal gone wrong was unexplained, and the new batch of bad guys that show up near the end of the film was not at all explained. Still can’t wait to get my order- I watch this film on a regular basis, for Jones’s scenes, and how you expect every scene that Bardem is in to end in bloodshed- I find that strangely hilarious.

 

[JoeDoakes]

I'm not quite certain how you mean this question. Are you saying you think the film is a dream or a hallucination or a fantasy?

Yes, at least in part. The Javiar Bardem character seems mythically unreal and a lot of the plot developments are not explained or don't make sense at all. The ambiguity of the ending adds to the rest. It's not a linear crime film.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Yes, at least in part. The Javiar Bardem character seems mythically unreal and a lot of the plot developments are not explained or don't make sense at all. The ambiguity of the ending adds to the rest. It's not a linear crime film.

OK, yes, I have seen it interpreted as a dream but, in my opinion, that is not what they are doing.

So, to just directly answer the question, how much of it is real? I would say all of it. What you are seeing happen onscreen all is what really happened to the characters. They are not dreaming the story or having it happen in their imagination.

That said, the story is told in parts in a dreamlike manner and the reason for that is, as you noted, they wanted it to be mythic. That's the form they want the story to take. So, I do understand why people wonder, is it a dream or how are we meant to interpret this?

Yes, Bardem's character, Chigurh, represents evil. Unstoppable, it just keeps coming evil. Mythical level evil. The catch here is, in most movies like this, a crime thriller, where there are characters you like and they are doing battle with the characters you don't like or the evil, there would be some sort of showdown between the good and the evil.

In this story, the good characters, or the characters we like and are rooting for, Llewelyn is a likeable decent man, and Ed Tom Bell (the sheriff) is a good man chasing the evil, don't stand a chance against Chigurh's unstoppable force of evil. Llewelyn is just doing all he can to stay one step ahead of the evil, and Bell is always one step behind. Each man will have his reckoning with this force.

Not a grand showdown, they have to come to terms with what evil is and that it is always there. We know how that ends for Llewelyn and Bell comes to the conclusion that no matter how hard or long he chases, it will always be out there...in the dark.

The reason I love the film so much is because it is a simple story, with a strong message, that is beautifully told. Probably the first time through the movie the thing you are wrapped up in are the amazing vivid characters and the set-up of this decent man finding a big bag of money, making a decision about what to do, and this decision brings an unstoppable force bearing down on him, relentlessly. While Bell gives chase knowing Llewelyn is way over his head and his chances of helping Llewelyn are just 50/50 and grow slimmer as time passes.

So, I knew the reason that the people in the theater when I first saw this did not like it was the big showdown they expected did not come, Bell facing off against Chigurh, and in many stories like this the way that would end is Bell would gun down Chigurh. But the Coens don't care about those rules and McCarthy does not write that way. Instead, the message McCarthy wants to express is there are good men, men carrying the light through the dark, and we all want to be in that light, but the dark...it does not go away. The light just holds it at bay. Each man can choose to take a turn carrying the light or trying to find it, but you will have to pass through the dark on the journey.

And no matter how hard the man carrying the light tries, no matter how fast he moves to bring the light, he will lose people to the dark.

That's really the story and that is why the resolution is not a showdown. That's why it is dreamlike, or like a nightmare, and why it is mythical. It's about all of us having to find our way toward the light and staying safe in the dark.

It's told in the guise of a crime thriller with many things we recognize in a crime thriller but that is just the surface part.

Cormac McCarthy plays a lot with the idea that evil just keeps coming in his stories. That it is always out there and that the victories we have against it tend to be short-term. We have to keep fighting it again and again.

I think someone once told me that their interpretation of the story is that evil triumphs when good men give up. Meaning, they felt that in the story Sheriff Bell gives up, and so Chigurh just gets away. I don't think that is the message though. I think Bell just comes to the realization that he can no longer carry the light, it is not a job for an old man. Old men realize that evil, even if you catch it or defeat it once, or twice, or many times, it will be back and you will have to fight it again.

Young men have not hit that stage, they can still revel in a victory and feel they are winning. Fighting evil, facing off against it over and over takes the optimism of young men.

Being out there in that country, where you have to do battle again and again and continue to believe you are going to win...well...that's no country for old men.

 

[JoeDoakes]

OK, yes, I have seen it interpreted as a dream but, in my opinion, that is not what they are doing.

So, to just directly answer the question, how much of it is real? I would say all of it. What you are seeing happen onscreen all is what really happened to the characters. They are not dreaming the story or having it happen in their imagination.

That said, the story is told in parts in a dreamlike manner and the reason for that is, as you noted, they wanted it to be mythic. That's the form they want the story to take. So, I do understand why people wonder, is it a dream or how are we meant to interpret this?

Yes, Bardem's character, Chigurh, represents evil. Unstoppable, it just keeps coming evil. Mythical level evil. The catch here is, in most movies like this, a crime thriller, where there are characters you like and they are doing battle with the characters you don't like or the evil, there would be some sort of showdown between the good and the evil.

In this story, the good characters, or the characters we like and are rooting for, Llewelyn is a likeable decent man, and Ed Tom Bell (the sheriff) is a good man chasing the evil, don't stand a chance against Chigurh's unstoppable force of evil. Llewelyn is just doing all he can to stay one step ahead of the evil, and Bell is always one step behind. Each man will have his reckoning with this force.

Not a grand showdown, they have to come to terms with what evil is and that it is always there. We know how that ends for Llewelyn and Bell comes to the conclusion that no matter how hard or long he chases, it will always be out there...in the dark.

The reason I love the film so much is because it is a simple story, with a strong message, that is beautifully told. Probably the first time through the movie the thing you are wrapped up in are the amazing vivid characters and the set-up of this decent man finding a big bag of money, making a decision about what to do, and this decision brings an unstoppable force bearing down on him, relentlessly. While Bell gives chase knowing Llewelyn is way over his head and his chances of helping Llewelyn are just 50/50 and grow slimmer as time passes.

So, I knew the reason that the people in the theater when I first saw this did not like it was the big showdown they expected did not come, Bell facing off against Chigurh, and in many stories like this the way that would end is Bell would gun down Chigurh. But the Coens don't care about those rules and McCarthy does not write that way. Instead, the message McCarthy wants to express is there are good men, men carrying the light through the dark, and we all want to be in that light, but the dark...it does not go away. The light just holds it at bay. Each man can choose to take a turn carrying the light or trying to find it, but you will have to pass through the dark on the journey.

And no matter how hard the man carrying the light tries, no matter how fast he moves to bring the light, he will lose people to the dark.

That's really the story and that is why the resolution is not a showdown. That's why it is dreamlike, or like a nightmare, and why it is mythical. It's about all of us having to find our way toward the light and staying safe in the dark.

It's told in the guise of a crime thriller with many things we recognize in a crime thriller but that is just the surface part.

Cormac McCarthy plays a lot with the idea that evil just keeps coming in his stories. That it is always out there and that the victories we have against it tend to be short-term. We have to keep fighting it again and again.

I think someone once told me that their interpretation of the story is that evil triumphs when good men give up. Meaning, they felt that in the story Sheriff Bell gives up, and so Chigurh just gets away. I don't think that is the message though. I think Bell just comes to the realization that he can no longer carry the light, it is not a job for an old man. Old men realize that evil, even if you catch it or defeat it once, or twice, or many times, it will be back and you will have to fight it again.

Young men have not hit that stage, they can still revel in a victory and feel they are winning. Fighting evil, facing off against it over and over takes the optimism of young men.

Being out there in that country, where you have to do battle again and again and continue to believe you are going to win...well...that's no country for old men.

Thank you for a response worthy of an article in Film Comment

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

OK, yes, I have seen it interpreted as a dream but, in my opinion, that is not what they are doing.

So, to just directly answer the question, how much of it is real? I would say all of it. What you are seeing happen onscreen all is what really happened to the characters. They are not dreaming the story or having it happen in their imagination.

That said, the story is told in parts in a dreamlike manner and the reason for that is, as you noted, they wanted it to be mythic. That's the form they want the story to take. So, I do understand why people wonder, is it a dream or how are we meant to interpret this?

Yes, Bardem's character, Chigurh, represents evil. Unstoppable, it just keeps coming evil. Mythical level evil. The catch here is, in most movies like this, a crime thriller, where there are characters you like and they are doing battle with the characters you don't like or the evil, there would be some sort of showdown between the good and the evil.

In this story, the good characters, or the characters we like and are rooting for, Llewelyn is a likeable decent man, and Ed Tom Bell (the sheriff) is a good man chasing the evil, don't stand a chance against Chigurh's unstoppable force of evil. Llewelyn is just doing all he can to stay one step ahead of the evil, and Bell is always one step behind. Each man will have his reckoning with this force.

Not a grand showdown, they have to come to terms with what evil is and that it is always there. We know how that ends for Llewelyn and Bell comes to the conclusion that no matter how hard or long he chases, it will always be out there...in the dark.

The reason I love the film so much is because it is a simple story, with a strong message, that is beautifully told. Probably the first time through the movie the thing you are wrapped up in are the amazing vivid characters and the set-up of this decent man finding a big bag of money, making a decision about what to do, and this decision brings an unstoppable force bearing down on him, relentlessly. While Bell gives chase knowing Llewelyn is way over his head and his chances of helping Llewelyn are just 50/50 and grow slimmer as time passes.

So, I knew the reason that the people in the theater when I first saw this did not like it was the big showdown they expected did not come, Bell facing off against Chigurh, and in many stories like this the way that would end is Bell would gun down Chigurh. But the Coens don't care about those rules and McCarthy does not write that way. Instead, the message McCarthy wants to express is there are good men, men carrying the light through the dark, and we all want to be in that light, but the dark...it does not go away. The light just holds it at bay. Each man can choose to take a turn carrying the light or trying to find it, but you will have to pass through the dark on the journey.

And no matter how hard the man carrying the light tries, no matter how fast he moves to bring the light, he will lose people to the dark.

That's really the story and that is why the resolution is not a showdown. That's why it is dreamlike, or like a nightmare, and why it is mythical. It's about all of us having to find our way toward the light and staying safe in the dark.

It's told in the guise of a crime thriller with many things we recognize in a crime thriller but that is just the surface part.

Cormac McCarthy plays a lot with the idea that evil just keeps coming in his stories. That it is always out there and that the victories we have against it tend to be short-term. We have to keep fighting it again and again.

I think someone once told me that their interpretation of the story is that evil triumphs when good men give up. Meaning, they felt that in the story Sheriff Bell gives up, and so Chigurh just gets away. I don't think that is the message though. I think Bell just comes to the realization that he can no longer carry the light, it is not a job for an old man. Old men realize that evil, even if you catch it or defeat it once, or twice, or many times, it will be back and you will have to fight it again.

Young men have not hit that stage, they can still revel in a victory and feel they are winning. Fighting evil, facing off against it over and over takes the optimism of young men.

Being out there in that country, where you have to do battle again and again and continue to believe you are going to win...well...that's no country for old men.

Thank you for this Winston. And we share the same opinion about this fine film. My favorite film quote comes from this very movie " If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule".

 

[Scott Merryfield]

This title must not have been back ordered much, as my order from Criterion's store just shipped.

 

[Jeffrey D]

I just got an email from Amazon informing me my copy has shipped as well. Can’t wait.