Clunky Script leaves Many Unanswered Questions

Rating: 4/10 (10 March 2008)

Major spoilers ahead!
I know it may be trendy to have an ambiguous and incomprehensible ending, but in a film like this, it leaves a very unsatisfying taste in one's mouth. There were too many questions, which I will lazily and tritely list..right now:
The killer walks free? Why? What of the money that was the catalyst for the plot? Where did it go? What is the true reason behind Javier Bardem's character's moral ambiguity? Why deny his own free will in deciding to commit the murders? And what is with his decision to allow his victims to choose their fate with a plot device ripped straight out of DC Comics (hint: watch another big movie with Tommy Lee Jones to find out what I'm talking about)? Why was Josh Brolin (the eldest male Goonie) killed in so unceremonious a fashion, without so much as a satisfying showdown with the killer? And, finally, what is with Hollywood's love affair with ultra-violence?
The plot and themes were a little unclear as conveyed through the two main characters, those being The Eldest Male Goonie, now some crusty old cowpoke who decides to take the money and run, and some soulless, murderous hit-man. The movie was revving me up for some "Falling Down"-like showdown between Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem, but the Coens purposefully bummed out the audience with a completely unsatisfying ending, where the bad guy escapes, and there is no real climax. I mean that in the strict literary sense: there is no climax to either the plot of the cat-and-mouse chase between Brolin and Bardem, or the pursuit by Jones of Bardem. The movie just...ends. Critics may call this a masterful twist ending, but many viewers might simply perceive this as poor writing.
I must also protest the extensive gore and guts splattered through this film. It is very gratuitous and unnecessary to show such graphic carnage in order to further the plot or develop the characters. Even Bardem's evil character did not need to be shown strangling, then severing the jugular of a deputy in such graphic detail in order to convey his character's amoral, antisocial nature. What was with the slow death of the drug lord, showing him gurgling up his own blood as Bardem shot him? This is violence for its own sake, without any discussion of its moral implications to complement it. The pain and suffering of the characters killed is never explored or analyzed; it's just a superfluous scene in and of itself. The Coens are not the only ones responsible in Hollywood, but they do the audience no favors by relishing in the use of ultra-violence as an artistic motif. It is a disturbing trend that should be limited in so-called serious movies, as opposed to slasher horror movies where this is to be expected.
The excessive, gratuitous violence and choppy script make this a difficult movie to enjoy, or even analyze. The storyline simply leaves too many unanswered questions for a regular moviegoer. As a result, "No Country for Old Men" is a half-finished, unsatisfying movie without a real climax or conclusion.