I haven't seen the film, but all this review really tells me, in the end, is "Stephanie Zacharek doesn't care for Cormac McCarthy."

How about letting somebody who's at least neutral about the source material review the movie?

And why should the reviewer be neutral about the source material anyway?

In this case Ms Zacharek's view of Cormac McCarthy's prose (rather funny in an illuminative sort of way) comes right at the end of her review. Her whole angle is focusing on the treatment of the story by the Coen brothers.

I for one has found this review rewell documented and interesting. It's this kind of slightly negative but constructive review that makes you want to see the film anyway.

Bravo for your estimation of McCarthy's prose. I cannot figure out why he is held in such general esteem. Have frequently characterized his writing as imitation Faulkner transplanted to the West. The essential message, repeated ad infinitum, is that the world is brutal but somehow full of grandeur. Bunch of hard-assed men ride. Meet another bunch of hard-assed men. Have a brutal fight that is somehow full of grandeur. Survivors ride on. Repeat till the end of the book.

Particle-board weathered to look like worn wood. Excellent!

Say what you will about Mr. McCarthy's prose, he has written some of the most beautiful passages in American literature. I agree that some of his themes are not that new, but a study of literature everywhere will confirm that thematic sameness is usually the rule, rather than the exception.

Generally it is what you do with the narrative tropes that distinguish one as a great writer, and Mr. McCarthy has approached that greatness more often than not.

As to Ms. Zacharek's negative review, I have been reading her for long enough to know that when she give the kind of negative review as she did here that I will probably enjoy the film and that it will be a good one.

I am constantly surprised that for a magazine as generally good as Salon, that they have such a narrow-minded lightweight for a film reviewer.

Come on now, that's just a cranky way of saying you don't agree with her taste. With some rather rare exceptions, that's what this all comes down to: taste. I, for one, hate the Godfather movies--the issue of honor among criminals is, in my mind, oxymoronic--but I acknowledge that they are terribly well made and acted. Ditto Taxi Driver and Goodfellas: films about scum that are expertly made, fascinating to some degree, but I don't like them, can't enjoy them, and will never view them again. And I hate violence in films. Shooting people in the head is foul and disgusting and I just have no interest in seeing it. Period. That's my taste. Is it "wrong"? Not for me it ain't. Ms. Zacharek may be wrong in her assessment about the film; she may be right. But quit the "I hate this dumb bitch" whining that seems to be THE recurrent theme every week when her reviews come out.

I understand that some people, like the reviewer & hontonoshijin, just don't get McCarthy. It's a subjective thing, art. I object to their criticisms, though, when they seem to be based on a prejudice against one book (Blood Meridian)--- Since McCarthy's early works were set in the South, not the West, and since accusing any of his books written post-'Blood' of being 'Faulkneresque' is simply ridiculous (he's gotten more precise & sparse with language in each book), the only conclusion one can draw is that they just haven't had a broad exposure to the author they're criticizing. & if they think McCarthy's western prose feels phony - pray tell us whom wouldst thou recommendest we look to for authenticity? (I think I'll be waiting a while for that response...)

The reviewer constantly reminds us that the movie is 'about men'. If it is, so what? I suppose you objected to Brokeback Mountain for the same reason? Or maybe you're a Purist who'd never dream of sullying his hands on any work from that 'low' genre of film & literature called 'Western'? That's just some dern fool snobbery, y'all!

& by the way - so what if some of McCarthy's work _was_ like Faulkner's? Based on that logic the Beatles never should've recorded a song since they were only trying to sound like Buddy Holly & Carl Perkins. If you tow that line you're letting pride deprive you of enjoying some great art.

& hontonoshijin - if you don't think the world is brutal, turn on your tv. If you don't think it has grandeur, turn off your tv & take a vacation.

Take your Ritalin, people.

Existentialist to the max, he tosses a coin to determine whether or not he'll spare the life of the owner of a small convenience store.

Existentialist? No, that's comic book. Two-Face, a Batman villain, has been doing this for 50 years.

And if you ever find a suitcase full of cash, the very first thing you do, always, is move the cash to a different container and ditch the suitcase where it'll never be retreived. Burn it if possible. Someone would only carry it around with them when that's what the original owner can recognize if a bad plot device were needed.

Sounds like the cast for "No Country for Old Men" would be great for Ridley Scott's take on "Blood Meridian," McCarthy's better book.

I haven't seen the movie, but I read the book. That bit about the transponder was not given away at the beginning. I hope it was in the movie, or you've just been very bad.

Ok, all reviews are subjective. All reviewers have a hard time getting out of their own way...it's human nature. They've got one perspective to operate from, and that's fine.

The problem I've had for a while with Ms. Zacharek's reviews is that they seem to belie a superficiality that seems inappropriate given the subject matter. For example, how wrapped up is someone in a movie if they're really bugged by a *haircut*? Bugged enough to mention it not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES in the review? Aren't there more important things to be looking at in a film, especially a Coen Bros. one?

I felt like it was a conversation with a teenager about Citizen Kane.

ADD teen: "Is that guy the voice of Unicron? My friend said it is."

Me: "Yes, but that was much later."

ADD teen: "So, what's up with his moustache?"

Me: "He has one. They were the style at the time."

ADD teen: "It's creeping me out."

Me: "It's just a mustache. Dave Grohl has had one. Just watch the movie."

ADD teen: "No, he hasn't, Dave had a goatee. Anyway, I can't...it's too weird. How much food must get caught in there? I'm going to get some Sour Patch Kids."