**This post contains spoilers**

So yesterday, I saw No Country for Old Men (2007) by the Coen Brothers and it opens with a Narrative by Tommy Lee Jones, discussing the times when law men chose not to wear their pistols and how it subtly changed over time into the 70s at which point you're also introduced to the two primary opposing forces in this film. I sat through the entire movie fully engrossed in the film, thinking to myself that this movie was entirely not what I expected (in a good way) and my inner voice remarked 'This is unlike any movie I've ever seen before in my life!'

I'm watching excellent performances by Tommy Lee Jones as a sheriff on the brink of retirement (albeit not too far out of character with many of his roles), Josh Brolin as our would be hero and Javier Bardem as the obvious villain (the redefinition of cold and sinister)... and the movie is coming to a head and suddenly it appears that all of the characters are on a simultaneous collision of unified fates! The anticipation was grand!

**SPOILER**

Then the unthinkable happened! The movie absolutely jumped off a cliff! The showdown you're waiting for, never happens. One main character, Brolin, is dead after possibly letting his guard down. You never see it happen... you just see a morgue scene with a distant corpse, which leads you to believe that it could all be a set up and you're waiting for him to come back... and it unravels further from there. Tommy Lee Jones, as the small town Texas sheriff, never catches up to the cold, psychotic villain played by Bardem who kills Kelly Macdonald's character (or not... they left it a little open), the on screen wife of Brolin out of principle and then gets into a car wreck with his arm bone sticking out and essentially walks away from it to go back to obscurity. Then the film switches back to a now retired Jones reflecting on things his father told him in a dream and the screen goes black (Think Sopranos finale) and that's it! I mean what the hell?! No questions were answered! After 2 hours you were left with a movie, while GOOD, was entirely incomplete! What happened? Where did the money go? How did the 'final showdown' play out beyond the bodies lying around? Where did all the Mexican bandits come from in this showdown between two men?

Half the theatre just got up and left at the end and the other half just sat there severely perplexed! The performances by Stephen Root and Woody Harrelson were absolutely wasted because we never really were told their role in the whole situation other than perhaps who was financing the drug running and their desire to get the money back... but even that was somewhat pointless as the on screen time for both characters was short and lacking time to develop.

This movie will win an Oscar. Why? Because the critics have played it up as a film that is 'too intelligent' for the rest of us to fully grasp or understand. Looking at the Rotten Tomatoes reviews of the film you see a distinct parity between the onsite critics and the community. Those who supposedly know movies gave it almost 10% better a rating than those of us who just go watch movies... but the one thing I think many people agree on is that this movie hits a critical juncture, steps to the edge of the cliff and doesn't jump. The movie literally stops. The viewer does not get closure. We find ourselves left hanging out to dry, with more questions than when we started.

I am a fan of the Coen Brothers and appreciate their work. If I had to compare this to another CB film it would be The Big Lebowski (1998) because of the way multiple characters and story lines diverged and reunite, telling multiple sides of the same story... but unlike No Country for Old Men, The Big Lebowski brought some closure to the movie!

The cinematography, the writing and the acting were all you could ever hope for in a movie. This is genuinely a finely crafted film; but I am unable to rate this movie because I feel like I have not seen the ending. I feel compelled to read the novel, No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy, on the off chance that I missed something. Had this film had closure and had some of the side characters been fleshed out, I would have no issues with this being an academy award winner... as it stands now... I think they should call the Coen Brother's to the podium, announce them as winners.... and then neglect to give them the trophy. It's only fair. It is what they did to the viewers. 2 hours and 15 minutes of movie with no reward... sounds about even to me.

If I had to make labels for this movie I would say that it was an allegory of life and death and the unstoppable and unpredictable nature that death takes in the pursuit of our lives... or perhaps in our pursuit of death. Perhaps where Jones wonders why God never entered his life he realizes that death has... and quite possibly he and Macdonald are the only two individuals in the film not preoccupied with chasing death or running away from it. Throughout the film, Jones is chasing Brolin but never chasing Bardem. He's not chasing death, as represented by Bardem but chasing Brolin to stop him and "Death" (Chigurh/Bardem) from finding each other. To go a step further, Macdonald's character chooses to face death head on, opting to die (if she did) on her own terms, looking death in the eye, neither fighting or running but challenging all the same in the sense, causing death to either happen or not happen without the foolish belief that she can control it. By accepting that she can not control her own fate and leave everything up to chance, she forces Chigurh to make his own choice as whether or not to follow through on his intentions, realizing that life and death is not negotiable.

This movie has plagued me since I watched it and the more I think about it the more I hope it makes sense at the end. Yet, I still find myself craving what everyone wants in most every situation. Resolution or closure. Not having those two things are often hard to deal with.

***Update***

So I'm still thinking about this movie... surprise, surprise... and a couple days after I wrote this I think I figured out Woody Harrelson's character.  Woody was the character conscience. 

Woody gave Llewellyn a chance to take a different path, by speaking to his usually innate common sense and better judgement but Lewellyn, being a stubborn man, chose to ignore his conscience and his chance to walk away - perhaps unscathed - and with possibly more than he had a few days.  He could have potentially saved himself and ultimately his wife.  It was the right thing to do and Lewellyn didn't listen because he figured he didn't need help and he didn't like admitting his couldn't do something he set his mind to. Carla Jean said as much.

Then came the interaction with Chigurh, who is absolutely ruthless from the start.  He ambushes Carson Wells (Harrelson) in the stairway, confronts him with a little back and forth dialogue... mostly where Wells is trying to appeal to Chigurh's judgement and perhaps a shred of sanity... leading Wells to point out the obvious 'You're crazy'.  At this point in the film, Chigurh not only ignores his conscience, he suppresses it once and for all with a shotgun blast at close range... ultimately, Chigurh and Lewellyn learn the same lesson.  They are responsible for the decisions they make and can't do everything on their own.  Something Ed Tom Bell (Jones) realizes openly toward the end of the movie. 

Official Movie Site: No Country For Old Men