After watching this movie, I can't blame the sheriff for wanting to retire.

Rating: 3/10 (14 December 2007)

There is a saying: a movie is only as good as its ending, which makes this movie not bad, but certainly not that good. It's as if the creators of this movie had decided that they would try to out-do The Mist for the worst ending of an otherwise interesting movie for the year 2007. Also, this movie brings to mind another good movie, The Last King of Scotland, in that how "Scotland" shows how a murdering tyrannical dictator isn't such a bad guy, "No Country" tries to make the same case for a serial murderer who systematically murders only bad guys. I guess tyrannical dictators and serial killers have their stories too. When trying to dramatize the behavior of seriously mentally deranged persons, such as serial killers, Hollywood sometimes does a good job. Case in point: Taxi Driver, which offers a compelling story about a troubled young man who kills. In Cold Blood is another excellent movie of that genre. This movie does not even come close to those movies in terms of quality or storytelling. Tommy Lee Jones is lost in this movie. He is entirely miscast. The actor who plays the main protagonist, the psychopath who goes around killing, gives a great performance as long as he does not talk, which is not his fault because the dialog is weak. Nevertheles, the movie does have its fascinating features and is watchable but with one caveat: be prepared for is just one weak ending.
One other point: This movie portrays law enforcement has being easily duped and completely ineffective despite the presence of massive evidence that provides an almost inexhaustible supply of solid leads. What's even more ridiculous is the portrayal of the sheriff as being practically the only law enforcement agent involved in this case when in reality such a high-profile case, involving multiple murders of foreign nationals along or near a border, would have a virtual army of federal, state, county and local officials assigned to it. They'd being practically fighting each other over who would have final jurisdictional authority. But these kind of facts do not necessarily make for good fiction, so there's one sheriff - that's it - trying to deal with a serial killer, and this sheriff is planning to retire! Can you blame him? Yeah ... right. Duh.
Here's another take on this movie. Maybe this movie is Hollywood's way of portraying the plight of the seriously mentally ill with violent dispositions. Remember, friends, this is Hollywood that we're talking about, not some mental health organization, and if Hollywood thinks something will sell, it will play it up to the hilt. No subject, no matter how sensitive, is off limits, and it seems that with this movie, Hollywood has decided that "mental illness" is in. Of course, once Hollywood gets a hold of the subject the powers-that-be, using literary license, will transform that subject into something that is almost totally unrecognizable from the original subject. In the case of "mental illness", Hollywood portrays it as something sinister, uncontrollable and a threat to society. Now if this sells, then who's to complain? Then again, it may be appropriate if the movie includes this proviso: "Any depictions of mental illness in this movie may not conform with actual facts."