For The Viewer Who Desires a Challenge

Rating: 9/10 (14 January 2008)

After viewing the Coen's "No Country For Old Men," I encountered a number of people who professed a dislike of this film. The two reasons given were due to a lack of catharsis at the conclusion and the failure to fully develop certain characters. The lack of catharsis is a complaint that seems to spew from people who have grown to become familiar with the formula that the "bad guy" must lose and the "good guy" must win.
However, the Coen's are not interested in pursuing such a route. They instead give fate a physical manifestation in the character of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a chillingly emotionless killer stalking through the plains of West Texas looking for a briefcase filled with money that has found its way into the lap of Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin). Moss, though a Vietnam vet, is in way over his head when he comes across the money, as Chigurh will stop at nothing to track down the Texas everyman. Lagging behind the both of them is sheriff Ed Tom Bell in a superb performance by Tommy Lee Jones. Jones is well aware of how sadistic Chigurh is, but resides in the twilight of his career, constantly leaving him a couple of steps behind Chigurh and Moss.
That is a very broad overview of a very complex plot, but I wish to address the critics of this masterful film noir. There is really no satisfying a viewer who can not find satisfaction without the absence of a macabre reality whereby your hometown hero may not conquer Goliath. Chigurh is the dictator of fate, and I believe there is a Satanic element in him, as evidenced by his name (the spear-header of the Church of Satan is named Anton Levey). Can an average Joe Texan and an over the hill lawman rise up to defeat Fate and his ethereal qualities? If the viewer desires a challenge, the answer is a resounding no. The viewer is forced to deal with the idea that Chigurh is not your average villain: scary for a while until his ultimate defeat. Fate can only be realistic when fate wins. Can you handle that dose of reality, or are films merely a vehicle for rapturous escapism? As far as character development, I keep hearing "What was the point of Woody Harrelson"? Harrelson is the bounty hunter out to track the money for his employer, played by Stephen Root. People have argued that his character wasn't truly developed. My argument is that he wasn't supposed to be. The Coens have a great talent for introducing ancillary characters; Frannie's old high school pal Mike in "Fargo" comes to mind. I view these characters in a different light than most. I do not see these characters as their own entities; I see them as vehicles to enhance the dimensions of the main characters. The Coens don't ever resort to that corny method of having characters speak aloud to themselves just to reveal their true characters to the audience. Instead, they introduce these side character: We learn more about Chigurh from his conversation with Harrelson than we had learned about him from the whole film up to that point. He is the only character who actually knew Chigurh from the past, so Chigurh is talking to him in a way that is foreign to the rest of the film. Frannie's benevolent nature is amplified in her conversation with Mike in "Fargo." Both these films seem to have characters that do not drive the plot that much, but what they do is drive the other characters. To make complete and fully realized characters, the Coens ingeniously use the services of other unrealized characters.
For the viewer who recognizes fate for what it is in life and is not looking for the rewards of victory, "No Country for Old Men" is one of the top films of 2007.