Both films are very similar with the lead character stumbling across a lot of money and being pursued by a relentless hitman.
Joe Don Baker and Javier Bardem both did an excellent job as the bad guy.
Except in one, the lead character deliberately plans and sets out to rob a bank with several partners and in the other, while out hunting, a lone man comes upon the grisly aftermath of a drug deal. The major similarity between the two would be the relentless hitman except I believe there's no comparison Baker and Bardem. Bardem portrayed (brilliantly) one of the most memorable screen villains in film history - does anybody really remember Baker in this film or do you remember Matthau?
"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it." Norman Maclean
I remember IcySpoon. That's why I am here.
Both films are excellent.
They are very similar, the primary difference being Varrick's well written and clever ending vs Old men's head disappearing up its arse.
shareThat is a good comparison, acutally.
shareI wouldn't compare these two movies.
shareSPOILERS FOR CHARLEY VARRICK AND NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
I think the basic plotline of the two movies is indeed similar, with the protagonists matching up thusly:
Walter Matthau/Josh Brolin (whether bank robber or not, this guy discovers mob loot and is hunted for it. However, Varrick wants to give it back, whereas Brolin wants to try to keep it.)
Bardem/Joe Don Baker: Killer hired to get the money back, killing people along the way.
Tommy Lee Jones/William Schallert: Rural sheriff pulled into the case but ineffectual.
The big difference between the two movies is that Charley Varrick is an "entertaining commercial film" with all the right confrontations happening and a "happy ending"(even if the winner is a crook whose gang murdered cops) and No Country for Old Men is an "art film" which refuses to give the audience any commercial satisfaction:
Josh Brolin never has to -- or gets to -- confront and defeat Bardem as Matthau confronts and defeats Baker.(Using brains, not brawn.)
Baker kills a bunch of people but gets killed himself -- Bardem not only gets away, but he probably(as an art film, the mvoie refuses to say for sure) kills Brolin's wife AFTER Brolin is of no concern("No matter," says Bardem, "I told him I'd kill you if he crossed me.")
Tommy Lee Jones never gets to solve the case, confront anybody or really DO anything(neither did William Schallert.)
They are good movies in different ways -- only one of them was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, let alone winning it.
But I sure go for the satisfying confrontations and wrap-up of Charley Varrick over the refusal of No Country for Old Men to deliver satsifying commercial entertainment.
I return to add that another similarity between Charley Varrick and No Country for Old Men is their "Southwestern desert city ambiance."
Charley Varrick takes place mainly in New Mexico and then moves to Reno, Nevada for the climax(though in reality, the ENTIRE MOVIE was filmed in and near Reno to keep production cheap. ) No Country for Old Men is entirely Texas, yes? -- with a side trip to Mexico.
Had one of the stories taken place, say, in New York City, the plot similarities would be less noticeable, perhaps.
You guys comparing this movie to No Country actually made me watch this movie today! :)
I'm not sure I had heard of it until today. Pretty good movie, 8/10. I do see the similarities that were discussed but I'm not sure I would have ever put those two movies together on my own. Definitely better ending here over No Country. But I gave No Country a 10/10.
Thanks for the suggestion, had a good time watching it.