“No country for old men” belongs to this kind of movie where I don’t know whether it is me not understanding or if there is nothing to be understood. Not that it would really matter as it is a great film to watch with fascinating characters, outstanding actors and beautiful pictures. It is a film you would not necessarily advise someone afraid of seeing blood or disgusted by violence. Despite this I found it quite pittoresque though this hardly seems to be the appropriate expression for a movie about a psychopathic killer who’s victims best chances are that he flips a coin…
Still, I could have watched the movie much longer, hoping for an end deserving the name. But the moment it finished, I just thought: “I don’t get it”. Somehow, I have the impression that this is exactly the point. It doesn’t make sense – violence never does but I can’t get rid of the impression that this is not the directors’ message. But what it is then?
Wondering, la puce
La puce, die Welt and everything else 
Totally agree! Still don’t know if I didn’t get the end cause of the English or my brain! And wondered that the end is made in a way that screams for a sequel… But awesome movie! Uli
I agree with you, when the movie finished there was was a common “eh??” heard in the room.
By the way, Javier Bardem’s performance is superb.
I’m very glad to see that I’m not the only one not understanding. I found Josh Brolin very credible as the kind of guy who just does what he has to do, whether it is hunting, killing, saving his wife, he just does them. Quite fascinating character.
I just read the summary at Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men_%28film%29 I will think about it but so far, it does not help me very much with the interpretation.
Pingback: Angel of Death « La puce, die Welt and everything else