No Country for Old Men

[Debbi Mack]

Has anyone else seen this yet? It's an excellent movie--I thought it perfectly evoked the feel of the book, the suspenseful scenes were killer, the actors were great--yet I came away with the feeling that reading the novel was a better experience.

I don't always feel that way about movies based on novels, and I can't quite figure out why I feel that way about this one.

Don't take this as a bad review, though--just a puzzled one. I highly recommend it for those who enjoy noir crime fiction.

[terry bowman]

Caught the morning showing yesterday. I think this might be one of those ones where it could go either way. I loved the book, loved the movie (which I was hyped for as soon as I saw the first trailer). I think you feel that the book was better because the Coen Bros were very faithful to it. I heard that they took turns typing while the other read, sentence for sentence, through the entire script.

I always try to read the book before I see the movie. i almost never read a book after seeing the movie (LA Confidential was a notable exception, the movie got me into all of Ellroy). I read The Road before No Country... and I think that it made the read much more enjoyable because I had a primer on his style.

Fabulous book, fabulous movie. Coen Bros best in a long time.

[Debbi Mack]

Interesting. I also read The Road before No Country, and read LA Confidential after seeing the movie. Talk about a book differing from the movie, but both being great.

I don't think the faithfulness to the book in No Country was a bad thing. If anything, it shows McCarthy could make a great screenwriter.

Maybe it's just that seeing a movie is so different from reading a book. Yet I can think of movies I've loved without qualification based on great books--Catch 22 comes to mind.

[Dana King]

I have often read the book before seeing the movie, but only because I read a lot. If I see a movie coming out based on a book (such as NO COUNTRY), I'll hold off on reading the book until after I see movie. They're two completely different stroy-telling media, and I can't expect the pictures I draw in my mind of characters, scenes, accents, etc. to match what's in the movie. I think that accounts for much pf the reason most people think the book is almost always superior to the movie.

Reading the book after the movie can be an eye-opening experience, as it's much easier to see what was changed, whether for better or worse. I did that for MYSTIC RIVER, and GET SHORTY to name two prominent examples.

[Debbi Mack]

I tend to do that, too, if I know there's a movie before I read the book. In the case of "No Country," I had no idea there was a movie in the works when I read it.

I just thought of another great book that made a great movie--"Rum Punch" aka "Jackie Brown."

And I can think of at least one movie that surpassed the book--"M*A*S*H". The film seems dated to me now, but I loved it when it came out. I read the book after seeing the movie and, as I recall, it was pretty lame.

[Naomi Hirahara]

Saw the movie tonight. Amazing. Really thought-provoking and suspenseful. The casting was genius. I'll have to read the book now.